(Mis)Understanding <i>Sola Scriptura</i>
June 20, 2008 Posted by David N
The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, simply put, is the belief that the Bible, the Word of God alone is the final authority in all matters of Christian faith and practice. Where Popes or church councils have seemed to violate the plain meaning of Scripture on these matters, it is Scripture alone that has the power of veto, it does not stand side by side in authority with tradition.
The most common objection I have heard from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers to this doctrine is that it is not itself found in Scripture. Nor is the list (canon) of books that ought to count as Scripture found in Scripture. At first brush this seems rather embarrassing, if not outright contradictory. But I feel this objection has been given far more attention than it deserves, and here I will attempt a brief response.
First, a simple but all too important point must be made: There are many items of true knowledge to be found outside of the Scriptures, and we can know them. My belief that the external world exists (including the Bible I'm holding in my hands) is one such item of knowledge. But this belief, it could be argued, is found at least implicitly within Scripture. Fair enough. Another example would be the deliverances of modern Science, or of History beyond the date of the last New Testament book. The Bible is neither a Science nor a History textbook. But no one would attempt to argue that the doctrine of sola scriptura precludes Christians from engaging in and learning from these disciplines.
Likewise, I see no reason why the list of books determined to be canonical or the doctrine of sola scriptura itself cannot be such items of knowledge, arrived at by sound arguments and the use of God-given reason.
To illustrate the point, one need only study church history. In the earliest days after the Apostles, there were a few books widely accepted as Scripture (such as the letters of Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas). There was no single council convened to answer the question of which books belonged in the canon and which did not. There were several, some with slightly differing opinions than others. There were also prominent individuals who compiled their own lists (such as Athanasius, who was probably the first whose list comprised only and all of the 27 books we now call the New Testament). What is important to note about all of these is that each group or individual offered arguments on behalf of their selections. The church did not arbitrarily pick which books it liked and which it didn't. Good reasons were given for including books like Revelation and excluding Clement and Hermas, and in the end, the best arguments won the day. And very recently, such arguments came in handy once more, as many Christians, especially Catholics, had to rebut the claims of the best selling Da Vinci Code.
If this was sufficient to convince the church at the time, why not now? Why now must infallible church authority be added to the mix in order for us to be confident that we have the right canon? Catholic and Orthodox Christians readily admit that the church never sat down and self-consciously used its belief in its own infallible authority to declare the canon into existence by fiat. So why is infallibility necessary to be confident in the reliability of the canon today? This at least seems to lead us to the conclusion that the list of books belonging in the canon need not be in Scripture itself in order for sola scriptura to be coherent.
But what of the original charge, that sola scriptura itself is not discovered by Scripture alone? Again, this objection simply misses the point. If I have good reason to believe, based on the best evidence (both historical and logical) that the Bible (in its final, canonized form) is the infallible Word of God, and moreover, if I likewise have good reason to believe, based on the best evidence, that no other earthly institution bears the mark of divine infallibility, then sola scriptura follows quite naturally. It is a deliverance of sound argument and reason, and need not be found in Scripture itself (which would be circular anyway).
***
As a side note, it's worth pointing out that whatever can be said in favor of church infallibility can likewise be said in favor of the infallibility of Scripture, and whatever can be said against the doctrine of sola scriptura can likewise be said against the infallibility of the church. Consider, upon what basis does the church claim infallible authority? If the basis is on either tradition or Scripture (which is really a written derivation of tradition anyway), then the argument is circular. But if the basis is upon reason (or even faith…which are by no means opposed), then whatever can be said for church infallibility can be said for sola scriptura.
(I recognize that my Catholic and Orthodox brothers have other concerns with sola scriptura, but in this brief post I meant only to deal with this one common objection).
Related posts:
- By Whose Authority?
- Does The Church Have Authority?
- Understanding the Times
- The case for church membership
- Understanding Dispensationalism by Poythress
- What is "Official" Mormon Doctrine? (Part 2)
Posted in Apologetics, David's Posts, Main Page, Poetry/Scripture/Liturgy/Etc., The Da Vinci Code, Theology
content rss
June 20th, 2008 at 8:19 am
They can be, but the force of the argument against your position is that if sola scriptura is not derived from scripture then it does stem from what you consider to be the highest authority. Thus, you are basing your argument for what is the highest authority on a different authority (a necessary authority to establish your point). What happens is that each view begins to consider their position based on the best reasoning/logic (ecclesial infallibility vs. biblical infallibility) rather than what scripture says.
Briefly stated, I think sola scriptura is sort of like the Trinity. The doctrine may not be stated in one sentence, but it was developed because the saints found reason(s) within scripture to think a certain way (have you read Yeago's article on theological interpretation - I'm going this direction, in a sense). In other words, we don't have a full-blown doctrine of the Trinity in scripture, but those who helped develop it saw scripture thinking a certain way about God because of Jesus and the Holy Spirit and they continued down that road. I think that we can also find patterns in the NT use of the OT that support sola scriptura, and while it's not explicitly stated, that way of thinking is certainly present in the scriptures. I'm not claiming to be putting forth a concrete argument here, but it seems that this may stand the attacks a little better than basing sola scriptura on reason and/or logic (unless I misread you).
June 20th, 2008 at 8:25 am
David
The cannon has nothing to do with sola scriptura. The issue of the cannon has everything to do with authority. You use history to “prove” your point, but neglect to include the fact that history shows that all arguments ceased when Pope Innocent made the final decision as to which books to include. As a proponent of SS, you are still left with the need to explain how one can know whether or not he has the correct interpretation. The fact is that SS falls terribly short in this area (you yourself stated in a comment that we all must accept some authority for much of what we beleive.)
“As a side note, it's worth pointing out that whatever can be said in favor of church infallibility can likewise be said in favor of the infallibility of Scripture, and whatever can be said against the doctrine of sola scriptura can likewise be said against the infallibility of the church.”
This comment demonstrates the illogical nature of sola scriptura. You are willing to accept one (sola scriptura) yet you reject the other (church infallibility). Yet scripture and tradition ( and just plain history for that matter) attest to the fact that the belief you now hold was not what the early church believed. In fact the doctrine of SS didn't even come into being pre-Luther. You have done nothing but demonstrated that in order for one to believe in SS, one must hold the belief prior to looking at any other information. Which item of “true knowledge” to you stand on when deciding to believe in SS? Is it scripture? Can't be because I provided examples of scripture where Paul tells theh Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions whether delivered orally or by letter. Can it be the Fathers? No again…I have provided you examples there as well. It can't be history as scripture as well as the fathers are historical documents (while not merely historical).
You still have the responsibility to explain how 1000's of believers looking at one bible and being led by One Spirit still come up with multiple interpretations. And without leaning on the authority of the church, you have no basis to even claim the scripture is inspired.
It is disappointing to see that after our discussion, you still are distilling facts and using only those that suit your position. Nearly every argument you provide, I have addressed in one way or another. You come to the table with a pretext which means that you are proof texting…something you are “not a fan of.”
June 20th, 2008 at 8:32 am
“Thus, you are basing your argument for what is the highest authority on a different authority.”
This statement ends the discussion. As soon as one uses something other than scripture, then SS is dead.
“The doctrine may not be stated in one sentence, but it was developed because the saints found reason(s) within scripture to think a certain way (have you read Yeago's article on theological interpretation - I'm going this direction, in a sense). In other words, we don't have a full-blown doctrine of the Trinity in scripture, but those who helped develop it saw scripture thinking a certain way about God because of Jesus and the Holy Spirit and they continued down that road.”
You are absolutely correct. You are using the church to help you interpret scripture…which is what I have been arguing all along. If you use the church once, than why not always?
June 20th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
David, I believe you misunderstood my comment. First, my statement that you quoted didn't/doesn't end the discussion. It was merely a critique of the way SS was argued for, but I still believe that SS should be upheld.
Second, I never “used the church” to interpret scripture. My example was the way in which the NT authors used the OT, or the way they treated it authoritatively. Even if I used the church as an example, it still does not imply that the church holds equal or more authority. A relationship is necessary between the church and scripture but we need to recognize that each has proper place when it comes to authority in both belief and practice.
Lastly, and this is going off David's initial post in some ways, SS doesn't mean that scripture is the only authority. There are certainly degrees of authority, but there is only one authority which stands over all of them. I admit that my wording here is problematic - for God is the supreme authority over all - but I hope you know what I'm getting after.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
That is, off David N.'s initial post.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
David C., I don't see how this comment proves SS false. Paul certainly tells us to hold fast to traditions, but I don't see anything stating or even implying that these traditions are of equal or greater value than scripture. What is the tradition's basis? I have an answer in mind, but I'm curious what you think here.
Lastly, just because you believe SS came about late in the game doesn't mean it's false. If this argument stands, then we can throw out a lot of Roman Catholic doctrine too (among other beliefs across the board).
Furthermore, why was the church seen as so authoritative in the early church? They had bishops who knew or were trained by the apostles and therefore kept the tradition(s) of interpretation alive (among other important things). But again, why were these bishops authoritative? I believe this is because their interpretations were handed down from the apostles themselves (or those who knew them), and the apostle's beliefs were based on scripture. Your position does not appear to be able to account for the way the NT uses the OT. Instead, your narrowed in on the way the church uses scripture instead. Shall we call this a pretext?
June 20th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
J
I think I understood you correctly. Here is what I got from your comments: 1) David N. shouldn't appeal to another authority as that shoots down SS as the highest authority and 2) the doctrine of SS, like the Trinity, developed over time.
If one has to appeal to a higher authority than scripture, then that cripples the entire doctrine of SS.
If SS developed, then someone had to formally define it. That person was Luther. There was no council, and no Christian for the first 1500 years beleived in it. So, please explain to me how it developed. I am unclear.
If SS was God's plan all along, then how did the first generation of christians get along before any of the NT books were written? How did Christians get along for the first 4 centuries?
No one has answered me question regarding interpretation (which is where this whole can of worms was opened in the first place). If you and I have opposing views on baptism, who is correct? Who settles the dispute? Scripture alone? I can provide my case and you can provide yours. Who is correct?
David N. stated in the original post that SS means that “the Word of God alone is the final authority in all matters of Christian faith and practice.”
That isn't a correct definition of SS. A Catholic or Orthodox believer would agree that the “Word of God” alone is the final authority. SS says that the “written” word of God is the final authority. The problem with that is scripture isn't a self interpreting document.
Let me close with an example: If we look at the sentence “I never said you stole money.” There are five different ways that this sentence could be interpreted.
I never said you stole money
Perhaps someone else said it.
I never said you stole money
Maybe I wrote it or implied it.
I never said you stole money
Maybe I said that someone else stole it.
I never said you stole money
Maybe you didn't steal it, you lost it. Or just misapropriated it.
I never said you stole money
Maybe you stole something else.
You see, we would have a problem looking at the text alone for the interpretation of a simple sentence. Scripture is a much more complicated text to interpret. So how does one really logically come to the conclusion that SS is viable?
June 20th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
J
Sorry, I didn't see your second comment. Let me take a stab at that.
Paul explicitly states “hold fast to the traditions that you have been taught whether orally or by letter.” That shows the oral teachings of the apostles to hold the same value as the written.
As for the NT authors using the OT, you have to be careful with that one. The Jews didn't even agree on the OT cannon. You had the Pharisees, Saducees, the Esenes (whose writings came to light when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered). Jesus and John the Baptist were believed to be part of the Esenes in the Qumran community. Also, the deuterocanonicals are quoted by NT authors many times (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html). The Catholic Church defined the cannon of the OT as well. Luther chose to remove the deuterocanonicals. He wanted James and Revelation out as well. He claimed that Revelation didn't “reveal anything.”
June 20th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
J
“Furthermore, why was the church seen as so authoritative in the early church? They had bishops who knew or were trained by the apostles and therefore kept the tradition(s) of interpretation alive (among other important things). But again, why were these bishops authoritative? I believe this is because their interpretations were handed down from the apostles themselves (or those who knew them), and the apostle's beliefs were based on scripture.”
If the authority lasted for two generations as you just stated, then why not three or four or 50?
Your last statement, “and the apostle's beliefs were based on scripture” is presumptive.
David N.
“If I have good reason to believe, based on the best evidence (both historical and logical) that the Bible (in its final, canonized form) is the infallible Word of God, and moreover, if I likewise have good reason to believe, based on the best evidence, that no other earthly institution bears the mark of divine infallibility, then sola scriptura follows quite naturally.”
Then what keeps the Book of Mormon or the Koran from being “inspired?”
June 20th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
You did misread me, or I was confusing - one of the two.
I wasn't arguing that SS developed over time like the Trinity. I was stating that the very idea is already implicit in scripture. There is a pattern of thought present throughout the NT that would naturally give rise to SS.
Could not another person validly see it this way: before scripture was written down it was passed on orally. Some people may not have actually had texts to read, and thus the “traditions” were passed down through both a textual and oral nature. All I'm saying is that it's not as easy as you're making out it be.
Your understanding of Paul is certainly Catholic.
Hermeneutics and exegesis are definitely difficult. But, that doesn't require us to have a specified group of people to interpret it for us if that's what you're getting at.
Regarding your other posts, I think we're coming from such different backgrounds (not just traditionally but in terms of accepted scholarship and methods) that I'm going to have to bail on this conversation. It would take a long time to unpack many of these issues and unfortunately I don't have the time and this is probably not the place either. Thanks for your replies and for conversing. Peace
June 20th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
J
I appreciate your candor. It is unfortunate that you don't have time to discuss this. I understand though. I don't think we are as different as you think. I come from a non denominational background, so a few years ago, sola scriptura meant everything to me.
I just began to question where my beliefs came from, started seeking and ended up studying my way into the Catholic Church (as have many other Protestants. Francis Beckwith the former president of the Evangelical Theological Society recently came back to the Church).
I am not sure how our methods and/or accepted scholarship differ. I am just looking for a simple answer to a simple question: How does one know if he has the correct interpretation of scripture if all he has to lean on is scripture alone?
Thanks for your charity in the discussion. Peace to you as well.
June 21st, 2008 at 9:15 am
It looks like this thread may be ending, so I could be jumping in here a little late, it also may be construed as veering off-topic. Oh well.
From my discussions with my Catholic friends, the doctrine of the infallibility of the church relies on a certain determination of the great 'chicken and egg' debate which Catholics and Protestants often have (ie. which came first, the church or the Bible). Catholics (and all high church people) invariably win this debate by pointing out that we had many churches before we had a printed (or settled upon) canon.
I would disagree, and I think this gets to the source of SS. If you look at God's church throughout time, one must necessarily look to the root of Jesse as well as the people grafted on. That is, we must look at God's people in both the OT and NT. What is the source of the people in both cases? God's calling. God called His people out of the wilderness. Christ called His disciples from among the peoples. Christ then did His work and sent out His disciples once more to preach the gospel.
The crux of the whole Bible is the gospel, and there is no doubt but that that is the start of the church. The disciples weren't sent out as infallible interpreters, they were sent out as very very good ministers by the Infallible One Himself. In the end, Scripture is the Word, and it is the only specific revelation by which we may understand God/Christ, the author, redeemer, and sustainer of His bride. That is why SS exists.
Before I get yelled at for typing too long, one last shot.
You have rightly pointed out a need for an infallible interpreter, but is that necessarily any human? No, God is the only truly infallible one, and His Spirit is often called the Great Interpreter. The church's function then (interpretively), is to test the spirits. When someone claims to have written Truth, it must be examined. We have faith that the Spirit works through the church's determinations as well, but there is no inherent infallible power in either the church ex cathedra or the vox populii (both infallible sources of power in the Catholic circles). Humans are and remain fallible and weak, no matter how many of us get together. (what follows is a brief analogy sure to anger Catholics…sorry) In fact, if the people of Israel are any indication, greater numbers often lead to more problems than they solve. In a similar vein, the mutually exclusive nature of many theologies means that only one strand of the church can be right on a given issue. If you take the entire assembly of God across the nations, we can only agree on the basic definitional truths that make us Christian at all (even then, there's some different understandings of the same words). I'm hardly inclined to attribute any special deference to the group that can claim the biggest numbers.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:22 am
DFR, unfortunately this is the tail end of the conversation. However, I appreciate your comment and think you make some very valid points. Thanks for chiming in and to everyone else who participated in this discussion.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:38 am
It is unfortunate that this discussion has to end without anyone answering the original question that was posted in Roger's post: How can one be sure that he has the correct interpretation?
You all say that there must be some “infallible interpreter” and correctly attribute that interpretive power to the Holy Spirit. However, there still remains the problem of 1000's of protestant “churches” who all claim to have the “correct” interpretation. In the end of the day, you all end up relying on your own understanding of what the Spirit is telling you, which leads to a relativistic interpretation of truth (ie. I believe it to be true because the Spirit told me, or it makes sense, or “I have good reason to believe,” or whatever.) In the very end this ends up following the very humanistic philosophy of Immanuel Kant: “God exists because I believe he does.” I am not a philosophy major as David is, so he may correct me, but that is how I understand Kant.
So are you all saying that doctrinal differences don't matter? Is it just a matter of following your best informed conscience? Or is there an absolute truth that God did reveal, not just through scripture, but through the life, death, resurrection and asenscion of His Son, Jesus Christ that was passed down to the apostles who then passed the same teachings down through the ages. If there is an absolute truth, then surely He must have intended for all Christians to have access to this truth. You talk of good reason, but where is the reason in the fact that the “church” as you define it is nothing more than a dismembered body with all the parts working independently of one another. The truth is that there is no unity in the church as you see it. Jesus was very clear about his desire for unity.
I sincerely apologize if I have drawn this out longer than it deserves. I appreciate all of you for your honesty and charity. It would be nice, as David noted earlier, if we could sit down face to face and have this discussion as members of one family searching for unity in the One Body of Christ.
God bless you.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Wow, I ignore this post for less than 2 days and already a discussion has ended! Well, I'm just starting, so I hope David C and DFR aren't done yet!
David C,
“You all say that there must be some “infallible interpreter” and correctly attribute that interpretive power to the Holy Spirit. However, there still remains the problem of 1000's of protestant “churches” who all claim to have the “correct” interpretation. In the end of the day, you all end up relying on your own understanding of what the Spirit is telling you, which leads to a relativistic interpretation of truth”
This accusation seems clearly false. We would only be guilty of relativism if we accepted that every interpretation was true. But we don't.
And here's the thing about the 1000's of Protestant denominations. This simply doesn't bug me, for a few reasons. One, I don't believe that the “one true church” is a visible body in communion with any single bishop. Two, Luther didn't start the first “church split”, that honor goes to the great schism. And unfortunately, the great schism was not due to a rejection of church infallibility or an acceptance of SS, so you can't blame those two issues for all the disunity in Christendom. Three, I've already mentioned in our last discussion that apostolic succession is not about the laying on of hands, because bishops can go apostate, rather it is about right doctrine. Given that, here's a simple question: what do you do when your bishop starts teaching heresy? Does unity prevail over right doctrine? Of course not. But what happens if, over a period of centuries, heterodox teachings slowly make their way into the church, primarily as later generations attempt to explain in more detail the simple beliefs of earlier generations? Again, right doctrine would seem to trump unity. This is, I believe, all the Reformation was.
“So are you all saying that doctrinal differences don't matter?”
I don't see that anyone here has said this. Actually, the very fact that there now exists 1000's of Protestant denominations would seem to show quite the opposite (they cared enough about truth to split over their differences).
We simply do not believe that a single authority exists outside of Scripture that can claim infallibility. Your concern is that every individual can interpret that Bible however he pleases, claiming the Holy Spirit told him so. But isn't this just what the church does? The church has its own interpretation of the Bible, which it claims was informed by the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit. But what if a Protestant asks you to argue for the church's infallibility, as I did in our last discussion? Will you not present the best case you can? And will this case not be a rational demonstration, sound arguments based on good evidence? This is what I was getting at in my final paragraph. In order to demonstrate that the church is an infallible authority, you must appeal to fallible authorities and the use of fallible reason. I assume you don't see a problem with that. So there is nothing inherently absurd or contradictory about the method. And thus there is nothing inherently absurd or contradictory about doing the same to demonstrate that Scripture is an infallible authority.
“You talk of good reason, but where is the reason in the fact that the “church” as you define it is nothing more than a dismembered body with all the parts working independently of one another…”
I have never defined the church in this way. As I said, the true church is invisible in the sense that it is not contained within a single, earthly body. And globally speaking, the “parts” of the church are only working “independently of one another” in the sense that the hand and foot work independently when you walk. Protestants and Catholics are doing different things in different places, but their function is essentially one, namely spreading the gospel of Christ to the ends of the earth.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:51 pm
DFR,
” You have rightly pointed out a need for an infallible interpreter, but is that necessarily any human?”
Obviously I agree with what you've said here, but I think what our high church friends would like to know is what good an infallible interpreter is if every interpretation remains fallible (because the HS works through fallible humans), and there is no obvious way to infallibly arbitrate between the different fallible interpretations that arise? In other words, if you concede the need for an infallible interpreter, doesn't turning around and accepting SS just amount to shooting yourself in the foot?
“The disciples weren't sent out as infallible interpreters, they were sent out as very very good ministers by the Infallible One Himself.”
Could you explain/elaborate on the difference?
“What is the source of the people in both cases? God's calling. ”
How does this relate to the issue of infallibility?
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 am
David
) to get that message across. If we are the Body of Christ, then what really can we agree upon?
I never said that Luther started the first split, I said that SS started with Luther.
Apostolic succession is about laying of hands. But perhaps you have a misunderstanding of what I mean by that. Bishops can teach heresy. However, that doesn't mean that they are teaching on behalf of the church. I stated earlier that when the church defines dogma, that is infallible. Dogma is simply the Church's infallible interpretation of scripture. An apostate bishop cannot define dogma. I would encourage you to show me an official teaching of the Catholic Church that is heresy or even contradicted a prior teaching. The fact is there is none. There may be teachings that you disagree with that you may label as heresy, but you have no authority to do so. The church down the street may think that your church teaches heresy. Again this brings us back to the original question that you have yet to answer: How can one be sure he has the correct interpretation?
You may not have explicitly condoned relativism or defined the chuirch as a dismembered body, but your acceptance of the disunity implicitly condones that former and defines the latter. If you believe that all christian denominations are following the truth as they understand it and you are “fine with that,” then aren't you basically saying that “what's good for you may not be good for me?”
When you take away all the doctrinal differences between the denominations, you basically have “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.” Would it take a 73 book Bible (or 66 depending on where you stand
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I don't really want to get involved in this discussion too much, but I would like to point out af couple of things. You ask, “How can one be sure he has the correct interpretation?” In general, I would say that the important and foundational teachings of the Bible are extremely clear. How we are saved, what is right and wrong, even the main attributes of God etc. are all fairly obvious in my opinion.
You point out that there are many Protestant Churches. I ask you, “so what?” Many of the differences between Protestant churches are relatively minor. Questions like baptism and which creeds we use are small concerns in the grand scheme of things. I'm a Calvinist. I generally don't agree with some things that happen in Lutheran, Baptist, or Methodist churches etc. But I am still willing to recognize them as members of the true Church. Where SS comes in is when one “church” steps in to heresy. It is basically a check that says sinful people cannot mislead the church because when they break with the teachings of the Bible their authority is gone. I would go so far to say that churches that allow and even endorce clearly sinful acts and heresy are no longer part of the true church. Gay marriage comes to mind from what I've seen on the news recently. Issues like this are clearly laid out in the Bible. Just because some pastor or bishop decides that he stands against the Bible doesn't mean we should follow along with it. That is SS in action. The Bible defines what heresy is. I get the feeling that you think Protestants and others throw that term around freely. Let's be clear, many disagreements in the Protestant church have nothing to do with heresy. You may consider it to be a form of relativism but there is nothing wrong with trying to come to a more complete understanding of God. None of us will fully achieve that goal, and I will celebrate the differences because the discussion it creates furthers my understanding. I am currently living in an area where my church denomination is not represented. I will be choosing another protestant church to attend. I probably won't agree with everything they teach but important core beliefs are still there.
I'm not Catholic so I would like your opinion on something. When you argue for the church's infallability, you say that a Bishop teaching heresy is not doing so on behalf of the church. I seem to remember seeing a news clip of the Pope kissing the Koran. I can probably think of more WTF moments if I want to. How do you rationalize things like that. Is the Pope not acting with the authority of the church? It seems like SS would be nice to have in cases like that.
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
AP
I appreciate your response and the argument that you bring. However, I ask you: How exactly are we saved? These are the very things that separate believers throughout Christendom. You say that the core beliefs are spelled out in the Bible, but how one is saved has been disputed since the reformation.
“Questions like baptism and which creeds we use are small concerns in the grand scheme of things.”
Are they? Some would argue that baptism is necessary for salvation. And they would use the bible to make their argument. Then there is the argument of infant or believer's baptism. We are back to the original question of who has the correct interpretation.
I completely agree with you that there is nothing wrong with trying to come to a greater understanding of who God is and how He reveals himself to us. I also agree that we will not achieve it all in our lifetime.
However, the main problem I have is that all the attributes for an infallible interpretive authority (Pope and magisterium) you (by “you” I mean a collective you) give to yourself. You make yourself out to be the measure of all truth, your own pope and magisterium, if you will. You do this when you say ” I will believe x,y and z, but will reject a, b, and c.” You can say this because “the bible says so” or “because I have good reason to believe” or “it just makes sense.” However, the believer sitting right next to you can do just the opposite.
In all the comments I have posted, I have provided arguments for church authority and infalliblity from scripture, patristic sources as well as plain old history. Not one proponent of SS has cited one scripture or church father as an argument in favor of the doctrine of sola scriptura. There has been a bunch of rhetoric and arguments about “rational thinking” but nothing concrete. I am not relying on my own intellect, because it is flawed. I am relying on the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit will guide his church in all truth. I am relying on 1500 years of church fathers who have believed in the authority and infallibility of the church.
I think that many protestants have a block when one brings up authority or infallibility. It is like a red flag goes up when anything seems Catholic. The problem here is that this has ceased being a dialogue and become a debate. The problem with debaters is that they usually have the mindset that says, “Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up.” John Henry Cardinal Newmann said, “to read deeply into history is the cease being protestant.” The facts are facts. History doesn't back the doctrine of SS, nor does scripture. Most non catholics have no idea what the catholic church actually teaches. They have heard that we “worship Mary” or “pray to statues”. Bishop Fulton Sheen said that “not 100 people hate the church, but millions hate what they mistakenly believe to be the Catholic Church.”
I used to be protestant. I was a firm believer in sola fide as well as sola scriptura. I then began wondering what the church in the first century looked like. According to the Didache, one of the earliest christian writings, a first century church service looked an awful lot like the Mass today. As a protestant, you have a truncated view of christianity. The Catholic Church provides you with the fullness of the faith. It really is a beautiful thing.
The Pope kissing the Koran has nothing to do with infallibility. He wasn't defining dogma by kissing the Koran. One could argue that Pope Benedict was applying scripture when he kissed the Koran. He did so by becoming all things to all men that he may win them to Christ. He was simply respecting their traditions. Does President Bush kissing the Pope's ring make him Catholic? In fact Presidents George H. and George W. knelt before the body of Pope John Paul II and prayed. Does that make them heretics?
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:35 am
I'll answer your questions in turn (sorry it gets long):
1) Infallible interpreter working through fallible beings:
Thus is the challenge of life in this fallen world. Through our sin in the garden, we lost the right to have direct communion with God, and for the time being, we can only do so via a mediator. In some ways, the difficulty of this question is something which should make us yearn for the consummation of all things in the new heavens and new earth, when our faith will finally become sight.
To more directly answer the question, what good is the HS (interpreter) if He works through fallible beings, and we have no way of deciding which interpretation is true? Well, I can hardly think that God is useless, but then again, if man is able to infallibly interpret and answer all questions about God, what use is the Spirit? I mean, Christ gave us prevenient grace, we can interpret the Scripture perfectly by ourselves if there's either enough of us or we wear a pointy-enough hat, and the ultimate disposition of our souls rests in the good graces of the pope…not much left for the Holy Spirit to do. Basically, God did all the creating, Christ did some of the saving, and the HS is the waterboy for now-empowered man.
Uncertainty is an unfortunate reality of this world. Fallibility is an unfortunate essence of our creatureliness. The natural discomfort and tension generated by the very question Dave C continually raises is evidence of the longing for the eternal which rests in the hearts of men. It is one of the curses of living in the already/not yet times we inhabit. We must simply do the best we can, and, like the Bereans, continually return to Scripture to test everything that we hear.
2) doesn't the need for an interpreter ruin SS?
Only if you don't understand SS. Since David C keeps asking for biblical references (although, unless they come from an earlier discussion, I haven't seen all of the references that he says he's using)…look at the Bereans. There they have the greatest apostle standing before them proclaiming the gospel, and what do they do? They go, each of them, and test his words against Scripture…and Paul praises them for this.
If you want to find SS in the Bible, look at how the Word is treated in Scripture. Look at the damnation that John holds out in Revelation for adding or subtracting one thing from Scripture. Look at Jesus' incredibly harsh condemnation in Mark of the Pharisees for re-writing the law with their traditions. Look at Paul's emphasis on the gospel when breaking up the dispute over followers of Apollos and those of Paul.
In the end, while we may find some comfort in traditions or the words of men, our only REAL comfort in life and death is that we are not our own, “but belong body and soul to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”…that is, the gospel. That is what SS really is. Man can find his comfort and guidance only in the Word of the God who created him.
3) role of the disciples
This actually gets a little bit into apostolic succession as well. Even though Jesus may have designated Peter as his “rock,” He did not designate Peter as His vicar on earth after He ascended. Even in the early accounts of the Jerusalem council etc., there is no sign that the apostles treated Peter as the first pope. Paul even says that he, not Peter, is the greatest apostle.
Beyond that, the apostles were hardly infallible. Even the Great Commission says nothing about infallibility. (”All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me [Jesus].”) Besides, it's a ways into Acts before Peter even figures out that the gospel is meant for the gentiles as well. The whole point of the Jerusalem council was to settle growing disputes between the apostles. They were hardly infallible, and each of the disciples seems to have had their own emphasis, hence the different foci of the gospel accounts and the letters…a difference so strong that many can see no harmony between Paul and James. Paul and Barnabas even split from each other after two journeys. The account of the apostles is hardly one of infallible demigods, proclaiming perfectly the word of God…rather, it is one of incredibly good ministers following the commdand to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I [Christ] have commanded you.”
4) source of God's people related to infallibility
This was sort of an ancillary point, but it was related to the idea of continuity between the OT/NT. The early church did not conceive of itself as a new Israel but as the true Israel. That's why Paul talks so much about being grafted into the root of Abraham.
The people of the OT did not have infallible interpreters for themselves. Sure, they had priests, high priests, kings, and prophets, all of who at some point spoke the Truth of God to the people…but there was no chain of succession there which always told the people who to go to. The priests were often condemned for their corruption, the kings were hardly God's vicar, and other than Elijah/Elisha, who knew who the next prophet would be? The whole caution that God gave the people when they desired a king is that they would come to look to men for guidance and deliverance rather than their God. Today, are we to look to the church for our salvation and as the font of ultimate Truth…or God?
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 am
see above David C…I think I mentioned some things you're questioning here.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:26 am
DFR
This post is a bi product of a long discussion between David N. and myself. You can find that discussion here.
I am not sure how you answer any of my questions. But I will address your points one at a time:
1. We did lose the right to have direct communion with God, but Jesus came to “make all things new” in the palengenesia (new genesis). This Greek word is used twice in the new testament, once by Jesus (in Matthew)) and once by Paul (in Titus) referring to baptism.
Your understanding of the Catholic doctrine of the church's infallible teaching authority seems limited especially if you will say something like “Basically, God did all the creating, Christ did some of the saving, and the HS is the waterboy for now-empowered man.
“We must simply do the best we can, and, like the Bereans, continually return to Scripture to test everything that we hear.”
How do you know what to consider scripture if you don't trust the Church's authority. No one has yet to provide a good answer to this. We have the cannon because it was given to us by the Church.
2. If you are using Acts 17:11 to prove the doctrine of SS, you are completely ripping a verse out of context. You are proof texting which does nothing but validate my claim that SS doesn't work.
“Look at the damnation that John holds out in Revelation for adding or subtracting one thing from Scripture. ”
You had better be careful with this because a guy named Martin Luther subtracted 7 books from the bible. He tried to get James and Revelation thrown out as well.
You seem to think that the church exists because of scripture, but the church is chronologically prior to scripture. Scripture is not the only source of God's revelation (cf. 2 Thess 2:15, 1 Cor 11:34)
3. The number one thing that Jesus talks about in the synoptics is the “kingdom of God.” He comes to re establish the Davidic kingdom. Look through Matthew with all the descriptions of the kingdom and you will find it obvious that Jesus isn't talking about Heaven. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davidic line, which is obvious when you look at the genealogy in Matt 1. The genealogy contains 3 sets of 14 generations (14 being the numeric value of “David”). Since Hebrew has no comparitive forms (ie. big, bigger, biggest) the repetition of something three times indicates the highest value (eg. Holy, Holy, Holy)…a first century Jew would get this. We may miss it. Jesus is not only the new Adam, the new Moses, but he is the new David. The Davidic kingdom had a prime minister who was given the “keys to the kingdom” (cf. Is 22) and he had the authority of the king when the king was away. The keys to the kingdom were given to Peter.
Israel did have infallible teaching authority these institutions were established by Moses (cf Ex 18:13-26). Jesus refers to this authority in Matt 23:2-3 and elswhere. Notice that Jesus tells the Jews to do as they say but not as they do. Infallibility doesn't mean that all bishops or popes are saints. It means that they will not teach error. This isn't tough to believe as Jesus builds his church on Peter and guarantees that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
(”All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me [Jesus].”)
Again, an attempt at proof text. Jesus also told them that “he who receives you, receives me.” He also gave the apostles the power to bind and to loose.
4. Pretty sure I answered this one above.
The bottom line is that SS isn't tenable for the following reasons:
1. The doctrine of sola scriptura can't be adequately defended using scripture.
2. No new testament scripture existed until decades after Christ established the church.
3. The church functioned without an official Bible until the end of the 4th century.
4. You can't even verify the cannon without the aid of the church's authority.
5. SS requires that the individual must have access to scripture in order to rightly interpret sound doctrine. Fact: Bibles weren't readily available until recently. The printing press wasn't invented until the 1500's (is it a coincidence that this about the time that Luther came up with this doctrine?) and even then books were not affordable to the general public.
6. Most people were illiterate until recently, so the only place they would hear the Word of God read would be church.
7. There are no patristic sources backing SS, but many to back the church's infallible teaching authority.
8. SS gives interpretive authority to the individual's assessment of the leading of the Holy Spirit.
1 Spirit and 1 Bible leads to 1000's of protestant denominations.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:18 am
David C,
You said: “Again this brings us back to the original question that you have yet to answer: How can one be sure he has the correct interpretation? ”
I have answered this question already, but I will do so one more time. I can know the correct interpretation of Scripture in the same way I can know anything else. I accept the limits of my being finite and fallen, and then proceed to use my God-given rational faculties to read the text, understanding the arguments from different positions, and choose the interpretation that seems best. Does this give me 100% certainty that I am correct? No. And that is why I humbly allow for the possibility that those who disagree with me may in fact be right.
Several times you have either hinted at or explicitly said that SS makes every believer his own little pope. Consequently, you claim that this makes each of us the measure of truth and that we have functionally accepted relativism. But this is all quite false. It would only be true if we thought that our own interpretation of Scripture was infallibly correct, but this is precisely what we reject. Only the Word of God is infallible, and all our interpretations will be fallible. The most humble and rational thing I can do is to submit to what I am convinced is the correct interpretation, all the while asking God to enlighten my understanding by His Spirit.
I believe DFR put it quite nicely when he said: “Uncertainty is an unfortunate reality of this world. Fallibility is an unfortunate essence of our creatureliness. The natural discomfort and tension generated by the very question Dave C continually raises is evidence of the longing for the eternal which rests in the hearts of men. It is one of the curses of living in the already/not yet times we inhabit. We must simply do the best we can, and, like the Bereans, continually return to Scripture to test everything that we hear.”
You said: “You may not have explicitly condoned relativism or defined the chuirch as a dismembered body, but your acceptance of the disunity implicitly condones that former and defines the latter.”
Once again, against the charge of relativism, I can only this: to admit that I and my neighbor are both finite and fallen human beings and that it is likely that neither of our interpretations are 100% accurate to the true reality as God knows it, is simply not relativism. I'm not sure what else I can say.
You said: “If you believe that all christian denominations are following the truth as they understand it and you are “fine with that,” then aren't you basically saying that “what's good for you may not be good for me?”
No. You are quite insistent on finding relativism wherever you can. I sincerely hope that you are simply misunderstand me. I never said that I accepted the conclusions of other denominations as being “true for them but not for me.” I think they're wrong, just I think that Catholics and Orthodox are wrong. But let me put a simple question to you: Do you believe that I (or any other Protestants here) am going to Hell because I don't accept the infallibility of church tradition and the authority of the Pope?
June 25th, 2008 at 3:33 am
David C,
You said: “However, the main problem I have is that all the attributes for an infallible interpretive authority (Pope and magisterium) you (by “you” I mean a collective you) give to yourself. You make yourself out to be the measure of all truth, your own pope and magisterium, if you will. You do this when you say ” I will believe x,y and z, but will reject a, b, and c.” You can say this because “the bible says so” or “because I have good reason to believe” or “it just makes sense.” ”
You run into a small problem here. How exactly are we applying the criteria for infallible authority to ourselves? When have we claimed that our interpretation of Scripture is infallible? You see, we don't, and simply saying that “I will believe a and reject x because best reason tells me to” is equivalent to “I will believe a and reject x because I am an infallible interpreter”, doesn't make it so. The difference is actually quite significant.
You said: “Not one proponent of SS has cited one scripture or church father as an argument in favor of the doctrine of sola scriptura.
I think DFR did a great cursory job of showing the centrality of Scripture in the NT church. The Apostles are certainly not depicted as infallible interpreters, and the Bereans are a great example of those who used Scripture and their own reason to see if Paul's Apostolic message was correct. I also think there are plenty of good arguments against interpreting the one or two passages you've mentioned as supporting infallible church authority, some of which DFR has also mentioned. If you're only looking for a single proof-text for SS, then I'm afraid we won't be able to convince you.
You said: “There has been a bunch of rhetoric and arguments about “rational thinking” but nothing concrete.”
It's easy to dismiss an argument by simply calling it rhetoric or saying (vaguely) that it isn't concrete, but we won't get anywhere if you don't actually engage the specific points we're making. You have done so with some of our points, but not all.
“I am not relying on my own intellect, because it is flawed. I am relying on the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit will guide his church in all truth.”
You've run into another problem here, almost an outright contradiction in fact. How do you know that Christ's promise is that the church will be infallible? Is this not the interpretation of the passage that, with your admittedly flawed intellect, you have decided is the right one? Were you not convinced of this by rational argument when you decided to join the Catholic church? Once again, positing an infallible authority doesn't really do anything to solve the problem for you. It simply give you a more comforting certainty about your decision after you (fallibly) made it.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:38 am
David
I have tried to address all objections, however, in this format, it is quite difficult to do so. I would ask you to show me which ones I haven't addressed.
I find one thing lacking in one of your latest responses. On one hand you say that, “I can know I have the correct interpretation just like I can know anything else,” but in the same paragraph you ask that due to our fallen nature and flawed intellect “Does this give me 100% certainty that I am correct? No. And that is why I humbly allow for the possibility that those who disagree with me may in fact be right.”
Two things hit me here:
1. I am asking that you extend me the same consideration that I may in fact be correct. According to your rubric, my stance has just as much of a possibility of being correct as yours…in fact I would argue that I have more of a chance of being correct as I have scripture, patristic sources and history on my side. Using the Bereans hardly proves the doctrine of SS.
2. How can you say that scripture interpretation can be known the same way that one can know anything else? Truth is truth. We can know for sure that a pizza is a pizza. There is no option that it may be something else. I don't need to look at all the arguments and based on my flawed logic come to a conclusion. What you are really saying is that there is in fact no way to be sure. I appreciate your transparency on this issue. That is why I have enjoyed dialoguing with you. You are a seeker of truth. However, you yourself have said that there really is no way of knowing for sure due to our clouded intellect. This seems to be a direct contradiction to the Westminster Confession of Faith. In fact 1:7 states: “yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
This is pretty clear. Even the unlearned can sufficiently understand “those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation” because they “are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture.”
David, let me ask you something, with this corner that you have painted yourself into, how can you know anything for sure?
Do I think you are going to hell? Absolutely not. I think you are seeking the truth. However, scripture is very clear that we will be held accountable for what we know. Willed ignorance is no ignorance at all.
God, in His infinite wisdom, has raised his church as a father raises a family. There is no way that he would leave us, his children orphans…left to find our own way. That is why Jesus left us with a visible church to help nurture us. You seem to cringe at words like “infallibility” and “authority.” I remember being a little boy and seeing my dad as some sort of infallible authority. Now as I grew older, I realized that my dad was anything but infallible, but he was an authority nonetheless. The judge in a courtroom isn't final because he is right, he is right because he is final. We see this logically in our everyday lives…why wouldn't the need for infallible authority be necessary in our spiritual lives?
This doesn't mean that the Church can just make up the truth. It doesn't mean that dogma can be arbitrarily defined. I would encourage you to look into what the Church actually teaches in the way of Apostolic succession, authority and infallibility. The Catholic Church and the Pope actually claim less authority than your average church down the street. Your pastor and elders can change the doctrine of your church in an instant. That can't happen in the Catholic Church…there are too many checks and balances.
Do I think you are a heretic? Absolutely not! I think you are my brother…separated though we may be. Just know this, the Catholic Church is like stained glass windows, they may look nice from the outside, but are absolutely beautiful from the inside. G.K. Chesterton said that once a man stops pulling away from the Church, he can't help but be drawn to it. There are no neutral position on Catholicism.
Let me leave you with this. If SS is true, then I have lost nothing. I already believe in the inerrancy and authority of scritpure. However, what if I am correct? What do you stand to lose?
June 25th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
so i know i am just jumping in here, and that was such a thoughtful response from david c. that i really don't know if i want to interject. but just from reading this blog, there have been a couple things that i have noticed.
you are all very dedicated and i appreciate your dicipline. i only pray that your motives are right. it is hard for me to be involved in dialogues of this sort because i struggle with charity at times. i think i am arguing for the love of truth, but many times i just want to be right. so until i have arrived at some level of holiness i will have to play only a small part in this discussion. (this is a good thing:) the ending paragraph in the prologue of the catechism of the catholic church says “the whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. whether something is proposed for belief, for hope, or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.”
another reason i try not to engage in these discussions is because i found that i spent so much time defending my faith, that i was failing to celebrate it. that being said, i wish to share my joy with you. i praise God that i have not been left alone to decide for myself what the truth is. i thank our Lord Jesus for giving us a church against which the gates of hades will not prevail. i rejoice in the Divine Wisdom that says that truth is not decided on by a majority vote.
let me leave you with this thought. what if there was a way that we could all be united in one mind? what if the exhortations that saint paul gives in nearly every letter he writes were not just in vain, but that we could “stand firm in one spirit with one mind, struggling together for the faith of the gospel.” (phil 1:27)
would God give us this desire for unity in truth and not give us the grace to attain it?
June 25th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
David
I meant to include this in my last comment, but forgot.
Perhaps relativism is too strong of a word for me to use. However, I struggle with the notion that God has revealed truth to us but, according to your estimation, there really is no way for us to know it for sure. I don't mean to accuse you of anything and if my comments have seemed uncharitable, I humbly ask your forgiveness. I think mamamarieb is correct in saying that often times we try to win an argument rather than have a true dialogue.
I have learned a lot from our conversation and I hope you have as well. We may not see things the same way, but I do believe that we are still brothers.
I am sure that there will be ample opportunities for us to dialogue about other topics.
God bless you.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
David C,
You said: “1. I am asking that you extend me the same consideration that I may in fact be correct. According to your rubric, my stance has just as much of a possibility of being correct as yours…in fact I would argue that I have more of a chance of being correct…”
I do extend you that consideration, but I think I might have been unclear. My “rubric” does not say that you and I have an equal possibility of being right. I'm not arguing for that kind of radical uncertainty! To throw out an arbitrary number, I would say that I'm 80% sure that Reformed (Calvinist) Protestantism is correct (as opposed to other forms of Protestantism), and 90% sure that Protestantism in general (as opposed to Catholicism or Orthodoxy) is correct. So you see, while I believe that it is possible that Catholicism is true, I don't think it very probable.
You said: “2. How can you say that scripture interpretation can be known the same way that one can know anything else? Truth is truth. We can know for sure that a pizza is a pizza. There is no option that it may be something else. I don't need to look at all the arguments and based on my flawed logic come to a conclusion.”
Really? Suppose you saw something that you thought was a Pizza, but in reality it turned out to be a cherry pie with pieces of fruit on top that looked like pepperoni from a distance. Things are never so simple as “a pizza is a pizza.” As long as we are finite and fallen, there is always a chance (no matter how small) of error. Now, you might say that if the “pie” was right in front of you, you could easily identify that it was not actually a pizza. It was only the distance and the finitude of your vision that caused you to make the mistake. But then, it is the same with revelation. Some parts of the Bible are so clear and obvious in their meaning that they are like the pie being right in front of you. But other parts of Scripture are not so clear, and those parts require hard work (studying the commentators of the past, genre, historical context, etc.)
You said: “What you are really saying is that there is in fact no way to be sure. I appreciate your transparency on this issue. That is why I have enjoyed dialoguing with you. You are a seeker of truth. However, you yourself have said that there really is no way of knowing for sure due to our clouded intellect. This seems to be a direct contradiction to the Westminster Confession of Faith. In fact 1:7 states: “yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” ”
Hopefully my previous comments have already answered this. By “there is really no way of knowing for sure” I mean only that, as finite human beings, we can't honestly ever say that we have more than 99.9% certainty. But Obviously any person who was 99.9% certain about something would be a fool not to believe it. I'm not Presbyterian, but I assume that that is all the Westminster Confession is asserting.
You said: “However, I struggle with the notion that God has revealed truth to us but, according to your estimation, there really is no way for us to know it for sure.”
I appreciate your transparency as well. I believe this is the heart of the debate. As I said once before, I don't really share this struggle with you, because I am aware of both my finitude and fallenness, and I don't really expect 100% certainty in this life to come from any human agency. But like I said, 99.9% certainty is functionally equivalent to Truth with a capital “t”, so I'm not throwing out the possibility of knowing truth. I simply think that the number of truths we can know with 99.9% certainty is a bit smaller than Rome thinks.
Since this looks like it's going to be the end of the discussion, I thought I should tell you that I'm not dogmatically opposed to Catholicism. I'm open to the possibility that it's correct, I simply don't think the possibility is a very big one. Like I said, if I was to give up SS and accept church infallibility, I find Eastern Orthodoxy far more convincing than Rome. But I am currently reading several early church fathers (primarily Augustine and Maximus Confessor), as well as the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, the Didache, Hermas, etc.). I'm also lightly dabbling in church history. In fact, I'm so interested in this area that I hope to focus on Patristics and early church history when I go to seminary. I mention all of this to show you that I am open to the possibility that the Reformation was one big mistake, it's just that right now I'm 90% sure that it wasn't.
Thank you again for a vigorous dsicussion. I appreciate it when my interlocutors have good, sound arguments for me to consider, and go out of their way to present them in a charitable manner.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
David
Thanks for visiting my blog. I am curious to hear what your opinion is of the Didache as well as Pope Benedicts book…is this your first time reading him?
I am sure that there will be more opportunities for discussion. Keep the posts coming and I will as well.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:22 am
David
One of the blogs that I check regularly has a post of Scott Hahn talking about church authority. I thought you might find it interesting. If you do check it out, let me know what you think. I linked to it through my blog, so if you have any comments, you can post them there. That way I will be sure to get them.