Affirmative Answer to Question 1

Nick’s first question was a puzzling question. Rather than cross-examining me on positions I had advocated, he asked me to defend the teachings of Hodge, Boettner, MacArthur, Calvin, Luther, Luther again, and Grudem, not all of which are particularly systematic (while those who are have extensive defenses of their own on this subject).

Nick asserted that these gentlemen claim that Jesus "endure[d] not only a physical death, but a spiritual one as well." That's not quite right. They do say he experienced more than bare death, but specifically the wrath of God. Of course, that expression must be understood within their framework of thought. For them, suffering the punishments due to sinners is suffering God’s wrath: it does not mean that God the Father is displeased with the Son’s sacrifice (on the contrary – it pleases him). But, instead, it means that God’s judgment is on the Son.

Nick asks "Where does Scripture teach Jesus underwent a suffering more painful and serious than physical death?" This itself is trivially answered, since the actual experience of death isn’t something to which we attach any pain. It is the cutting off of soul from body. In Christ's case, however, the way this happened was crucifixion, an enormously painful means to that end.

What was more painful and serious than the physical pain of the crucifixion? It is apples and oranges, but Christ was humiliated in every way: he was condemned and betrayed by the leaders of his people to the gentiles. He was mocked by the gentiles. He was mocked by the thieves on the cross. He was not rescued from death by God. He was abandoned by his disciples. What more could have been done to him that was not done?

But Nick provided further provisos on his question: "Please quote and comment upon at least three distinct passages of Scripture which [sic] state Jesus endured a pain worse than physical death, specifically "the wrath of God" as described above."
I assume Nick's reference to "as described above" is not to anything I had written in this debate, but to other writers with whom it appears Nick would prefer to spar. The first verse in support of their claims is the verse Luther quoted, where Jesus cries out "My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken me?"

Nick's request for three distinct passages is a bit odd. I guess it would be nice if this facet of the doctrine of the atonement were brought out by numerous verses, but what if it were just that one that Luther quoted? Isn't the Scriptures saying something one time enough of a reason to believe?

Nevertheless, there are others that convey the same concept, more or less directly. For example, there are verses where salvation through Christ is contrasted with the wrath of God:

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

This is a general verse contrasting eternal life obtained through faith in the Son with the wrath of God that otherwise abides on us. Either the wrath of God is against the Son or against us.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

This verse makes it clear that the blood of Christ (that is to say, his death) is significant in our justification. That is to say, either the blood of the Son is spilled for us, or God will require our blood.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

This is yet another verse that provides the options of either Christ suffering death or us suffering the wrath of God.

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

This is still a further verse in the same vein. (See also Romans 2:2-11)

We can see the same thing another way by looking at Lamentations 3. That chapter begins:

Lamentations 3:1 I am the man that hath seen affliction by the rod of his wrath.

Now, whether we view this as simply referring to the prophet Jeremiah, or whether we view it as a prophecy of Jesus the Messiah, what is interesting is how “wrath” is manifested in that chapter. It is manifested by various physical trials, pains, and humiliations. This demonstrates that the wrath of God can be manifested against someone without the person spending an eternity in hell. And, of course, none of the theologians Nick identified think that Jesus had to spend an eternity in hell.

We could, of course, give other examples. Perhaps it suffices to add to this Psalm 88. Psalm 88 is about Christ, as Augustine recognized: “The Passion of our Lord is here prophesied.” (Exposition on Psalm 88 – And the Roman Catholic “Haydock’s Bible Commentary” agrees: “A prayer of one under grievous affliction: it agrees to Christ in his passion, and allude [sic] to his death and burial.”) When it came to verse 7, this was hard for Augustine to swallow, and he was concerned that there was a mistranslation in the copies available to him. But we have better access to (and better understanding of) the Hebrew originals and know that is says:

Psalm 88:7 Thy wrath lieth hard upon me, and thou hast afflicted me with all thy waves. Selah.

Though Augustine thinks that this just expresses the beliefs of those who crucified Christ, we recognize that on the interpretation of this verse, even the great Augustine was mistaken. That’s the nice thing about Scriptures being our rule of faith, we can read them without requiring that our view of them be precisely as the fathers, among whom (of course) there was disagreement. For example, Theodoret does not appear to recognize this Psalm as Messianic.

-TurretinFan

Question 1 from Negative

QUESTION 1 FROM NEGATIVE

What Scripture teaches about Christ's sufferings directly impacts the validity of Penal Substitution, because if Christ didn't receive the proper type and degree of punishment which the elect deserved then the doctrine is unworkable and thus false. The following quotes from various respected Reformed sources describe the sufferings Jesus deserved and underwent:

The penalty of the divine law is said to be eternal death. Therefore if Christ suffered the penalty of the law He must have suffered death eternal; or, as others say, He must have endured the same kind of sufferings as those who are cast off from God and die eternally are called upon to suffer. (Hodge, Charles. “Systematic Theology.” Vol. 2, Part 3, Ch 6, Sec 3)

We should remember that Christ's suffering in His human nature, as He hung on the cross those six hours, was not primarily physical, but mental and spiritual. When He cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," He was literally suffering the pangs of hell. For that is essentially what hell is, separation from God, separation from everything that is good and desirable. Such suffering is beyond our comprehension. But since He suffered as a divine-human person, His suffering was a just equivalent for all that His people would have suffered in an eternity in hell. (Boettner, Loraine. “The Reformed Faith.” Chapter 3.)

To [Jesus] was imputed the guilt of their sins, and He was suffering the punishment for those sins on their behalf. And the very essence of that punishment was the outpouring of God's wrath against sinners. In some mysterious way during those awful hours on the cross, the Father poured out the full measure of His wrath against sin, and the recipient of that wrath was God's own beloved Son.
In this lies the true meaning of the cross. … The physical pains of crucifixion - dreadful as they were - were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him. (MacArthur, John. “The Murder of Jesus.” Page 219-220.)

Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God's anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death. ... ... Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. ... But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man. (Calvin, John. “Institutes of the Christian Religion.” Book 3:Chapter 16:Section 10)

Luther: ‘Christ himself suffered the dread and horror of a distressed conscience that tasted eternal wrath;’ ‘it was not a game, or a joke, or play-acting when he said, “Thou hast forsaken me”; for then he felt himself really forsaken in all things even as a sinner is forsaken” (Werke, 5. 602, 605) (Packer, J.I. “The Logic of Penal Substitution.” footnote 44)

So then, gaze at the heavenly picture of Christ, who descended into hell for your sake and was forsaken by God as one eternally damned when he spoke the words on the cross, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!” - “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” In that picture your hell is defeated and your uncertain election is made sure. (Luther, Martin. “Treatise on Preparing to Die.”)

The physical pain of the crucifixion and the [psychological] pain of taking on himself the absolute evil of our sins were aggravated by the fact that Jesus faced this pain alone. … Yet more difficult than these three previous aspects of Jesus' pain was the pain of bearing the wrath of God upon himself. As Jesus bore the guilt of our sins alone, God the Father, the mighty Creator, the Lord of the universe, poured out on Jesus the fury of his wrath: Jesus became the object of the intense hatred of sin and vengeance against sin that God had patiently stored up since the beginning of the world.(Grudem, Wayne. “Bible Doctrine.” Page 253-254)

Given this, Penal Substitution demands Jesus endure not only a physical death, but a spiritual one as well. My request to you is: Where does Scripture teach Jesus underwent a suffering more painful and serious than physical death? Please quote and comment upon at least three distinct passages of Scripture which state Jesus endured a pain worse than physical death, specifically “the wrath of God” as described above.

Answer to Affirmative Question 1

Response from Negative to Question 1

The First Question begins by asking why I don't accept the various proofs put forward by you for penal substitution. I feel it necessary to quote part of the first question:

When I [Turretin Fan] present something that would support penal substitution you claim it’s not talking about God’s wrath being appeased, but something else. I see no consistent standard being applied from your side, so that I could see how to persuade you to accept that the atonement sacrifice (Christ) does turn away God’s wrath through suffering the punishment (death).

There is a critical distinction that must be made clear here which I feel you have not made. Penal Substitution is a specific understanding of the Atonement, but it is not the only understanding. Concepts such as making atonement and turning away wrath are not limited to the Penal Substitution perspective. The problem is that when proofs are put forward by you, you assume Penal Substitution is what is being discussed. My objection is simply that you are assuming Penal Substitution is what a given text says, but that is not enough to be considered proof. If I can take the same text and interpret it in a valid manner other than Penal Substitution, then it fails as a proof text for you. Certain elements must be present for a proof text to fit a Penal Substitution frame work. For example, one of the most critical elements we should see in a proof text is a description of God's wrath being directed onto Jesus rather than the elect. What ends up happening in most of the cases you present is that the proof text is so vague or lacking key elements of Penal Substitution (or even contradicting it) that I am well within my rights to object (and I have explained why for almost every case). The burden of proof is on the side taking the affirmative, in this case yourself, and if reasonable evidence cannot be produced (and I don't believe it has) then you fail to prove your case.

About the Passover, the plain fact is God's wrath was not on Israel but Egypt (Exodus 11). Thus, the only way an Israelite family would be harmed is if they disobeyed God's instructions. A similar example arises with Sodom and Gomorrah, where God's wrath is against the cites but not Lot and his family. Yet Lot and his family can and will be swept away in the process if they don't obey God (Gen 19:15).

The main question I am asked is how do I define and understand “God's wrath”:

So my question to you is to explain your definition of wrath, such that while Scripture seems to explain wrath as being expressed (among other things) by people dying (as seen in the examples the follow), somehow Jesus’ death (and the deaths of the animals sacrificed under the Old Testament administration) cannot be an expression of him bearing the penalty that God’s wrath against sin incurs. Note, this is not a question about whether or not such a view of the atonement would impact other issues of theology, or about anything except the definition of wrath within the context of this debate, from your perspective.

God's wrath, His demand for satisfaction or punishment, is what arises in response to sin. The punishments which result from this wrath – if it is not appeased- come in two forms. The first type are temporal punishments, such as sickness, disasters, misfortunes, and (most especially) physical death. The second and more serious type of punishments are the eternal punishments, which involve God's spiritual presence withdrawn from a soul, and this alienation becomes permanent and reaches its most extreme degree when a soul is cast into Hell.

Now, while Scripture does sometimes speak of God inflicting the punishment of death, the fact is not all death is described in reference to God's wrath against an individual. The most obvious example of death not resulting in relation to God's wrath is in case of murder of the righteous (martyrdom), which occurred as far back as Abel (Mat 23:35). Job is another example of one who underwent the most extreme misfortunes, but this is not described in relation to God's anger burning against Job's sinfulness, but rather more of a testing of Job's faithfulness. Given this, it is wrong for you to assume when death occurs it is due God's wrath, be it in the case of Levitical sacrifices or Jesus Himself. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate God's wrath was on the sacrificial animal and especially Christ Himself. I have not only not seen any good evidence for such a claim, I see the Biblical evidence pointing in the opposite direction (eg Mat 17:5; Acts 3:13-15).

I am not sure why you quote those three passages in conclusion of your question, because while they all describe God's wrath, I never denied such a thing existed. What I have consistently denied is the notion God's wrath must have been on Jesus and the sacrificial animals because they were killed.

Question 1 from Affirmative

In your opening statement, you described the penal substitution position as: “God's Wrath (due to sin) must be legally satisfied (i.e. sin cannot go unpunished) in order for sinful man to be forgiven and justified.”

Then, in your rebuttal, you repeatedly denied that various things were expressions of God’s wrath, e.g.:

“First, Turtullian says nothing specific in terms the atonement, much less anything of Jesus undergoing the Father's wrath in place of the elect.”

Your labels seem to be just ad hoc. When I present something that would support penal substitution you claim it’s not talking about God’s wrath being appeased, but something else. I see no consistent standard being applied from your side, so that I could see how to persuade you to accept that the atonement sacrifice (Christ) does turn away God’s wrath through suffering the punishment (death).

The “positive” examples where you seemed to acknowledge wrath being implicated was regarding the Passover event, and in three places where you were asserting your own point regarding how wrath was stayed.

Regarding the Passover, your comments were inconsistent: “At the time of the Passover, God's wrath was not even on the Jews, but rather on the Egyptians:” and a bit later, “The Israelites were only actually subject to that wrath in a indirect/secondary sense, that is if they had they disobeyed the Passover requirements.” These seem to be a bit contradictory in themselves, since you first say that God’s wrath wasn’t on the Jews and then admit that it was/would be if they “disobeyed the Passover requirements.”

The other three times you seemed to positively identify wrath were these:

“The Israelites in large numbers turned to idolatry and God wrath was against them (v.3), not just the people in the tent. God sent a plague killing thousands, but because of Phinehas' zeal God's wrath against the whole Israelites was appeased and the plague stopped (i.e. not all the guilty were killed).”
“In the case of Moses making atonement in Deut 9, my opponent objects that the word “atonement” doesn't appear, only the turning away of wrath. This, to me, is weak, especially considering how much turning away God's wrath plays into atonement. In Num 25:10-13, turning away wrath is clearly equivalent to atonement.”
“In the case of Moses and Num 16:42-49, atonement and turning away wrath – by good works - is clearly stated. My opponent says this was simply God showing mercy, with no satisfaction, but that is contradicted by the plain reading of the text (eg “atonement”).”

So my question to you is to explain your definition of wrath, such that while Scripture seems to explain wrath as being expressed (among other things) by people dying (as seen in the examples the follow), somehow Jesus’ death (and the deaths of the animals sacrificed under the Old Testament administration) cannot be an expression of him bearing the penalty that God’s wrath against sin incurs. Note, this is not a question about whether or not such a view of the atonement would impact other issues of theology, or about anything except the definition of wrath within the context of this debate, from your perspective.

The Scriptural examples are these:

Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

Deuteronomy 1:34-36
34 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying, 35 Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers, 36 Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children, because he hath wholly followed the LORD.

Romans 1:18-32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

-TurretinFan

Answer 1 from Affirmative

MB asked: “My question is, why do you reject the ancient Jewish position of Scripture and Tradition as one living source of Divine Revelation, when I have presented two scholars who attest to it?

My reason for rejecting MB’s scholars is Scripture, as will be explained below.

MB also asked: “I have now provided an additional example presented from Sacred Scripture itself with Jesus Himself clearly referring to an oral Tradition of the Jews. Please explain.”

As best understood, this is supposed to be part of one question, since the rules limit the number of questions for MB to ask. Thus, the explanation is interlaced within the detailed response below. Furthermore, it should be noted that there is an important shift in MB’s claim between saying that Jesus referred to an oral tradition and claiming that oral traditions were infallible. That Jews had oral traditions is undisputed and even if MB’s scholars disagree, one would think that MB would admit that the Jewish traditions were fallible.

For the more detailed reply:

A) As Cyril of Alexandria (5^th Century) wrote regarding Isaiah 9:14-16: There were some among the Jews, in fact, who interpreted the Law given through the all-wise Moses, but acted corruptly by unjustly applying to the laws of Moses unwritten traditions, human requirements, and teachings. They led the mass of Jews astray, and caused them to rear their neck proudly against Christ; so since they followed the views of the priests, who acted in the role of a head, he called then the tail, since, as I said, the tail follows the head when we think in terms of a single body. When he refers to them as prophets, however, we shall not take them to be holy and true prophets, since he went on to say that they teach iniquity.”

B) Jesus was able to “make use of an Oral tradition,” but in Scripture He did so only in a critical way (for example he bashes the Jews’ oral tradition in Matthew 15:2-6, Mark 7:3-13, and Luke 6:1-5).

C) Jesus’ comment in Matthew 23:1-3 about the “seat of Moses” and “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you,” does not support MB’s contention that the “ancient Jewish position” was that “Scripture and Tradition [are] one living source of Divine Revelation.” This can be seen as follows:

i) Jesus’ disciples recognized that Jesus did no mean that the Sanhedrin’s authority was on a par with the Word of God, for when that body of authority contradicted the word of God the disciples violated the teaching that body:

Acts 5:27-29

27And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

29Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

ii) The concept of the “chair of Moses” is simply a metonym, like the “seat of the scorner” or the “path of the righteous.” There is no good reason to suppose that the reference to the “seat of Moses” is a reference to anything other than to the role of leadership over Israel.

iii) As noted above, no one doubts that the Jews had oral teachings. 1 Corinthians 10:4 (cited by MB) doesn’t prove that, but it is a moot point.

iv) MB seems to fall into the trap of conflating oral (or simply extra-scriptural) tradition with respect to history with oral tradition of the kind needed for his counter-plan.

D) MB states, “I presented evidence from two Jewish scholars in my opening statement, who readily admit that the Jewish faith was not a faith of Scripture alone, yet you never even made an attempt to refute them in your rebuttal.” Jesus himself condemned Jewish scholars who made Scriptures of none effect through their tradition. I don’t have a better answer than His.

E) MB repeats the two modern Jewish sources from his opening essay. I certainly agree that like Catholicism, Judaism cannot justify itself from Scripture alone, and consequently must deny Sola Scriptura. I also agree that consequently the claims of modern Judaism are very similar to the claims of Rome: and just as false in Jesus’ day when he condemned the Jews, as in our day, when we condemn Roman traditions.

F) MB argues that according to his Jewish sources, the ancient Jewish Oral Tradition held the same weight as the written.

i) Yes – they said so, but MB claimed that the Oral Traditions were fallible. MB contradicted his own evidence. MB was right in saying that they were fallible, for Jesus condemned them. I have a standard to determine whether MB or the Jews are right, the infallible standard of Scripture.

ii) But now it seems to be the case that MB wants to adopt the position of his Jewish sources. MB states, “This means that they are Divine Revelation from God Himself.” If that is so, why does MB not obey them? In particular, on the issue of the canon, why does MB reject their testimony? Furthermore, why does MB accept Jesus’ claim to be divine, since Jesus contradicted the oral traditions of the Jews?

G) As Chrysostom (4^th to 5^th centuries) declared against Judaizing Christians, “Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, ours are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit. I am not speaking of the Scriptures. Heaven forbid! It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ.

-TurretinFan

Objection 1: The rule of faith must result in unity of doctrine, but Sola Scriptura does not result in unity of doctrine, therefore Scripture alone is not the rule of faith.

To which we answer,

1) The rule of faith should be judged in itself apart from its result. In itself, the Scriptures are the very Word of God by virtue of being inspired, and consequently are a reliable rule of faith.

2) Although it is written, "by their fruits ye shall know them," this is written in reference to men.

Scripture is the alone rule of faith.

Objection 1: The rule of faith must result in unity of doctrine, but Sola Scriptura does not result in unity of doctrine, therefore Scripture alone is not the rule of faith.

To which we answer,

1) The rule of faith should be judged in itself apart from its result. In itself, the Scriptures are the very Word of God by virtue of being inspired, and consequently are a reliable rule of faith.

2) Although it is written, "by their fruits ye shall know them," this is written in reference to men.

Scripture is the alone rule of faith.

Objection 1: The rule of faith must result in unity of doctrine, but Sola Scriptura does not result in unity of doctrine, therefore Scripture alone is not the rule of faith.

To which we answer,

1) The rule of faith should be judged in itself apart from its result. In itself, the Scriptures are the very Word of God by virtue of being inspired, and consequently are a reliable rule of faith.

2) Although it is written, "by their fruits ye shall know them," this is written in reference

Question 1 from Negative

Question 1 The Oral Tradition of the Jews and the Old Covenant

by Matthew Bellisario

In my opening statement I demonstrated how the Jews did not hold the Scriptures to be their only authority in regards to Divine Revelation. You responded by one small paragraph questioning their infallible character. How then do you regard Jesus Christ Himself who makes use of an Oral tradition in regards to the Old Covenant when referring to an oral teaching of the Rabbis, which is found no place in the Old Testament Sacred Scriptures? Jesus Himself in Matthew 23: 1-3: refers to an Oral Tradition and teaching to be followed by His own command, yet the Old Testament Scriptures make no reference to this. Jesus is quoted in the Gospel of Matthew, "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all the things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.’ " There are other New Testament Scripture passages as well that prove an oral teaching of the Jews. For example 1 Cor 10:4 which is found only in Jewish Oral Tradition.

The chair of Moses was the oral teaching authority of the Jews. Yet Sacred Scripture is silent on this. How do you explain away this clear contradiction to Scripture alone in reference to the Jewish Oral tradition? I presented evidence from two Jewish scholars in my opening statement, who readily admit that the Jewish faith was not a faith of Scripture alone, yet you never even made an attempt to refute them in your rebuttal.

In case you need refreshing these were my sources that I provided this in my opening essay.

“In reading many sources on Judaism one point is crystal clear. They did not hold to a Scripture alone position regarding God's Divine Revelation to them. In regards to the Torah, they believed that there was the written Torah and the Oral Torah (Torah she-be-al peh) that coincided with it. They believed that this oral tradition held the same weight and antiquity that the written text did. (1995 Ariel)”

“It is understood by the Jewish people that every written law must be accompanied by an oral one to preserve proper interpretation of the written. (2006 Steinsaltz)”

You replied with, “No good reason has been given for this distinct source of revelation. MB provides an analogy to the Rabbinical traditions, but acknowledges that the Rabbis were not inspired, but were fallible men. Thus, the Rabbinical traditions fail MB. If fallible traditions were ok for the Jews, the analogy would suggest that they would also be ok for the nations. “

Yet my two Jewish scholars say that the Oral Tradition held the same weight as the written. This means that they are Divine Revelation from God Himself. My question is, why do you reject the ancient Jewish position of Scripture and Tradition as one living source of Divine Revelation, when I have presented two scholars who attest to it? I have now provided an additional example presented from Sacred Scripture itself with Jesus Himself clearly referring to an oral Tradition of the Jews. Please explain.

Sources

Ariel, David S. What Do Jews Believe. New York: Schocken Books, 1995.

Steinsaltz, Adin. The Essential Talmud. New York: Basic Books, 2006.

Negative Answer to Question 1

by Matthew Bellisario

The Catholic Church also would agree that the Church is made up of “believers” and the quotes above that you listed use the term in that relative context. It is however not the “only” definition that the Church Fathers use to refer to the Church. It is a fallacy of selective emphasis here that you have picked these quotes only to arrive at yours, or the WMCs definition of the Church. If we read other quotes from the same Church Fathers we see a clear hierarchal structure to it which you fail to accept.

Irenaeus clearly gives us a vision of the apostolic succession of the apostles through the bishops which you reject, which constitutes the real meaning of what the Church is,

“1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.“

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes.
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)

Irenaeus also gives us a clear understanding of the structure of the Church being more than just believers when he calls those to refer back to the tradition of the most ancient churches, which once again you reject,

“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 4)

We can also the see that St Cyprian of Carthage had an image of the primacy of the apostle St. Peter when he refers to the chair of unity that the Church is built on which is also in line with what I have presented with the full meaning of what the Church is, one once again which you reject,

“On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"
(The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)”

We can also see that the chair of Peter was recognized in the early Church by St. Ephraim as well,

"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures." St. Ephraim of Syria ("Homily 4," c. 351 A.D.)

The answer to your question, “Why now do you feel justified in defining “the Church” in the self-serving way you define it, contrary (at least) to the WCF and the early churchmen quoted and cited above?” Whose way is self serving? I read the Fathers in their complete context, unlike the method you are using which you are narrowly defining a definition of the Church which is incomplete. It is obviously not contrary to any of the above since I have just shown that they understood the Church to be much more than yours, or the WMCs definition of it.

Question 1 from Affirmative

Question 1 – Church = Believers

In the section of your rebuttal titled, “A False Conclusion, an Attack on the Church,” you cite various Scriptures and the writings of Irenaeus. You apply those passages as if they were directed to your church (i.e. the church of Rome), and not as though they were directed to the church, defined as all believers (see WCF XXV:I “I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all”).

Philip Schaff, in History of the Apostolic Church, states: “The wide view of the church as the total of believers, the whole kingdom of Christ on earth, is the original one; the narrower sense of the term, in which it denotes a particular local congregation, as the church of Corinth or of Rome, is the derived.” (Schaff, 1859 ed. p. 500)

Furthermore, we see that this is the same definition Irenaeus (who you quoted) used: “For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIV, 1.

Likewise, Clement of Alexandria states: “Thus believing alone, and regeneration, is perfection in life; for God is never weak. For as His will is work, and this is named the world; so also His counsel is the salvation of men, and this has been called the church. He knows, therefore, whom He has called, and whom He has saved; and at one and the same time He called and saved them. “For ye are,” says the apostle, “taught of God.”” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book I, Chapter VI

Tertullian likewise, in De Pœnit. 10 states, “Where one or two are, is the church, and the church is Christ,” and in another place states “For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him.” Tertullian, Scorpiace, Chapter X.

So also confesses Origen: “But that we may win over to the reception of our views those who are willing to accept the inferences which flow from our doctrines, and to be benefited thereby, we say that the holy Scriptures declare the body of Christ, animated by the Son of God, to be the whole Church of God, and the members of this body—considered as a whole—to consist of those who are believers; since, as a soul vivifies and moves the body, which of itself has not the natural power of motion like a living being, so the Word, arousing and moving the whole body, the Church, to befitting action, awakens, moreover, each individual member belonging to the Church, so that they do nothing apart from the Word.” Origen, Against Celsus, Book VI, Chapter xlviii.

And Lactantius says the same thing: “But the prophets spoke of Him who was then born after that David had slept with his fathers. Besides, the reign of Solomon was not everlasting; for he reigned forty years. In the next place, Solomon was never called the son of God, but the son of David; and the house which he built was not firmly established, as the Church, which is the true temple of God, which does not consist of walls, but of the heart and faith of the men who believe on Him, and are called faithful.” Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book IV, Chapter xiii.

Jerome similar writes: “The Church does not depend upon walls, but upon the truth of its doctrines. The Church is there, where the true faith is. But about fifteen or twenty years ago, heretics possessed all the walls of the Churches here. For, twenty years ago, heretics possessed all these Churches. But the true Church was there, where the true faith was,” Breviarium in Psalmos, Psalmus CXXXIII, PL 26:1223, and again writes that “The true Church, the true temple of Christ, is no other than the human soul. The Church of Christ is nothing other than the souls of those who believe in Christ.” FC, Vol. 48, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 1, On the Psalms, Homily 18.

Cyprian also writes: “Whence, moreover, nothing can separate the Church—that is, the people established in the Church, faithfully and firmly persevering in that which they have believed—from Christ, in such a way as to prevent their undivided love from always abiding and adhering.” Cyprian, Epistle LXII, to Cæcilius

Victorinus likewise testifies: “6. “And He made us a kingdom and priests unto God and His Father.” That is to say, a Church of all believers; as also the Apostle Peter says: “A holy nation, a royal priesthood.”” Commentary on Revelation, Chapter 1, vs. 6 Victorinus.

Finally, Ambrose cautions: “So the faith of the Church must be sought first and foremost; if Christ is to dwell therein, it is undoubtedly to be chosen. But lest an unbelieving people or heretical teacher disfigure its habitation, it is enjoined that the fellowship of heretics be avoided and the synagogue shunned. … Thus, any Church which rejects faith and does not possess the foundations of Apostolic preaching is to be abandoned, lest it be able to bespatter some stain of unbelief.” Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, Book VI, §68.

If space would permit we would add to these 2 Clement 14.

These definitions are not consistent with your claims that the church is essentially defined by communion with the pope. Why now do you feel justified in defining “the Church” in the self-serving way you define it, contrary (at least) to the WCF and the early churchmen quoted and cited above?

First Answer from Affirmative

TurretinFan asks,

"Is God's love for those humans whom he loves conditional on their behavior, or is God's love for them unconditional on their behavior?"


Answer:

'Love' as it pertains to salvific effectuation is not conditioned upon behavior (in terms of good works) itself, but upon a relationship with Christ (good works being an outworking). God loves all sinners in that He has no pleasure in their deaths and desires their repentance (Ezekiel 33:11), but savingly loves those who receive and abide in Christ.

Continued faith and perseverance are not only qualities of Christian life, but conditions to eternal life. All the promises of God for salvation, preservation, spiritual life, and forgiveness of sin hinge upon remaining in His Son: we remain saved because we persevere in Christ, not vice-versa, for the promises are only for those who by faith and patience inherit them (Hebrews 6:12). Not surprising, since God's promises of blessing carry conditions of faithfulness throughout scripture. To the profane Eli He says,

"'I promised that your house and your father's house would minister before Me forever.' But now the Lord declares: 'Far be it from Me! Those who honor Me I will honor, but those who despise Me will be disdained." (1 Samuel 2:30b)

Even for one who has been known by God (and is thus born of Him), if he turns away, Christ will profit him nothing (Galatians 4:7-9, 5:2), for those who deny Christ will be disowned (2 Timothy 2:12). Such does not constitute God contradicting or denying Himself, since He Himself is the one who has justly declared the condition of perseverance, and remains steadfast to that declaration whether we remain faithful or not.

God desires that none of His apostatize, He also desires that we abstain from fornication (1 Thessalonians 4:3), but does not choose to imperatively halt either from occurring, but strictly warns us against them. Such warnings are of great import, since nowhere does God promise to unalterably cause us to persevere, but rather gives us all that's requisite to endure (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Unlike the old covenant that the nation of Israel forfeited, the new covenant of God's law being written on our hearts will not be broken with His chosen people -He will bring the body to completion until the day of Christ. But God's faithfulness to His covenant does not preclude individuals that have obtained its blessings and later despise Him from being cut off: even when the old covenant was in force, those who forsook it were severed from the covenant body, those unfaithful to it forfeited its promises (Exodus 6:4, Numbers 14:30). This is not unfaithfulness on God's part, but man's. Likewise, we under the new covenant are warned not to be highminded about our position, but reverently fear and endure lest we incur like punishment (Romans 11:20-22).

So the love of God is in Christ, the Mediator of the new covenant and Seed to whom the promises were made, in which we share if we abide in Him, and in doing so, keep ourselves in the love of God.

First Question from Negative

I (TurretinFan) ask JCT:

Is God's love for those humans whom he loves conditional on their behavior, or is God's love for them unconditional on their behavior?

First Answer from the Negative

JCT had asked:

How exactly would something like damnation being the consequence to violating a ‘pastoral warning’ “have use in the form of preventing the warned person from ever doing” what is warned against?

I answer:

To understand how this would work, I suggest making use of an analogy. We are sheep, God is the Shepherd. Suppose that we, the flock of sheep, are feeding at pasture that has, on one side, a sheer 200 foot cliff. Falling off the cliff is "something like damnation" for a sheep.

If the shepherd wanted to keep the sheep from falling off the cliff (i.e. preventing the warned person from ever doing what is warned about), one of the ways he could do so is by warning the sheep of the danger that would befall them if they walked over the cliff. This would spur a rational sheep not to try to walk over the cliff (i.e. not to violate the pastoral warning).

On the other hand, of course, it does not mean that if it looks to the shepherd like a sheep is going to try to ignore his warnings, that he is just going to let the sheep do this thing that would be bad. No, the warning is just one of the ways that the sheep are kept from falling.

This is, of course, an analogy: but it is founded on a Biblical analogy. The Good Shepherd not only warns, exhorts, and uses his rod and staff on the sheep, the Good Shepherd even goes so far as to die for the sheep.

If there is someone who is going to fall off the cliff, it is not going to be the sheep, but the good shepherd. He'll do everything in his power to save the sheep whom he loves. That's true, remarkable, self-sacrificing love.

I think it's fair to say that a genuinely loving Shepherd uses every possible tool to save the sheep he loves: from warnings of the consequences of apostasy, to discipline (in the form of various temporal chastisements), and to promises of reward as well. Thanks be to God that he does, for if he did not, we'd be as helpless as sheep without a shepherd.

-TurretinFan

First Question from the Affirmative

J.C. Thibodaux asks:

How exactly would something like damnation being the consequence to violating a ‘pastoral warning’ “have use in the form of preventing the warned person from ever doing” what is warned against?

TurretinFan Answer to Question #1

PhatCatholic, you asked for proof that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech for the fact that the “unclean” spirit are evil. My understanding was that this was a generally understood fact, based on typology from the Old Testament ceremonial “cleanness” and “uncleanness.” Nevertheless, since you asked for demonstration, allow me to demonstrate.

We can see that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech from the facts:

1. That demons are interchangeably referred to as “evil spirits” and “unclean spirits.” For examples of “evil spirits,” see Luke 7:21, Luke 8:2, and Acts 19:12-13;
2. That sin is “spiritual uncleanness” in the historic Christian view, as evidenced even by such late medieval scholastics as Aquinas (Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 80, Article 5, Objection 3);
3. That the ancients seem to concur in this matter with Aquinas
a) Origen seems to equate, “wicked and unclean spirits” (De Principiis, Book I, Chapter V, Paragraph 2),
b) Likewise, in Homily XLIII on Matthew 12:38-39, Chrysostom refers to the same spirits as “unclean” and “evil,” see especially, section 4; and
c) Similarly, we have the testimony of Cyprian: “But if any one is moved by this, that some of those who are baptized in sickness are still tempted by unclean spirits, let him know that the obstinate wickedness of the devil prevails even up to the saving water, but that in baptism it loses all the poison of his wickedness.” (Cyprian, Epistle LXXV, Paragraph 15); or
4. That common sense tell us so – after all, cleanness’ literal sense is physical, but spirits are not physical. Therefore, we understand that “unclean” as applied to spiritual things has a figurative (not literal) sense.

Obviously one could go further and provide an exegesis as to the typological relationship between sin and uncleanness, focusing on, for example, Leviticus 14:19 and Hebrews 9:13 (see, for example, Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary entry for Hebrews 9:13), but - of course - the 500 word limit for this response would not permit a full exegesis of those and the many related texts.

-Turretinfan

Question #1 for Turretinfan

In your opening statement, you wrote the following:

PC makes the argument that if water cleanses, and demons are sometimes called “unclean spirits,” therefore it should be that water “can be put to good use against something as unclean as a demon.” There are a couple of problems with that, but the most obvious is that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech for the fact that they are evil.

My question to you is this:

What proof do you have that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech for the fact that they are evil?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Phatcatholic Answer to Question #1

PhatCatholic wrote: "Ultimately, to reject the effectiveness of holy water against demonic forces is not just to ignore the biblical witness, but to also essentially discredit 2,000 years of Christian witness and experience."

But, as PC admitted, there is no Scriptural example of "holy water" being effective against demonic forces, nor is there any other Christian testimony I could locate to the efficacy of "holy water" among the church fathers before the eighth century (leaving aside the “Apostolic Constitutions”). Have I missed something or is the experience and witness really not 2,000 years old?

I'd like to be able to give you more evidence from the Fathers but information on the internet is limited and the books I need won't be available to me until after the deadline for this answer. My local library at home is sorely inadequate when it comes to researching this question, but a few books are on the way.

At first I was trying to work with what little is available to me, which is why it has taken me so long to respond. But, I finally had to just accept the fact that more information on the use of holy water in the early Church will have to wait. Perhaps I can give you more information in response to a subsequent question, or in my rebuttal post.

That said, the witness of the Apostolic Constitutions shows that the practice is at least 1600 years old, and that's certainly nothing to scoff at. Also, note that, in the Catholic Church, the period of antiquity ends with St. John Damascene (d. 749 AD) in the East and with St. Gregory the Great (d AD 604) or St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636 AD) in the West. So, my citation of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England (which he wrote in 731 AD) falls within that timeframe as well. However, my point with the statement you quoted was not to record, down to the very year, exactly how long holy water has been in use. I was simply trying to show that such use is an ancient practice and that to dismiss it is to ignore the experience and witness of hundreds (thousands?) of individuals who have seen with their own eyes the power that holy water has had over demonic forces. Is that really something you are prepared to do?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

First C-X Question to PhatCatholic

PhatCatholic wrote: "Ultimately, to reject the effectiveness of holy water against demonic forces is not just to ignore the biblical witness, but to also essentially discredit 2,000 years of Christian witness and experience."

But, as PC admitted, there is no Scriptural example of "holy water" being effective against demonic forces, nor is there any other Christian testimony I could locate to the efficacy of "holy water" among the church fathers before the eighth century (leaving aside the “Apostolic Constitutions”). Have I missed something or is the experience and witness really not 2,000 years old?

-Turretinfan

Tradition Holds the Church Together

Tradition is self correcting in the sense that it can clarify what might seem otherwise ambiguous. Since what is thought ambiguous or in dispute can be different in every age, tradition is able to respond to the particular questions of the age. Furthermore, tradition can over time address questions as to how the Christian tradition applies to new situations.

Tradition would be identified in particular with the following things:

1. Scripture.
2. The Liturgy, services and rites of the Church.
3. The Councils of the Church.
4. The lives of the saints and the teachings of the Fathers..
5. The icons, music, chants, architecture and teachings surrounding them.

If you want to know what Tradition says about a thing, you look to what the Church has consistently said about these things from these sources.

Of course, scripture is particularly well suited to answering certain kinds of questions that for example church architecture can't. But even architecture symbolizes certain truths that the church holds.

As Irenaeus said in the 2nd century:

"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case, ] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against Heresies III, Ch IV.1).

"But, again, when we refer them [heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth....It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Wherefore they must be opposed at all points." -- Against Heresies III Ch II.

Irenaeus criticized those who would not submit to scripture, following their own traditions, but he also criticized those not following the Tradition of the church. And he advocating opposing the heretics on the basis of both, scripture and tradition.

Francis, in responding to my previous question, quoted Irenaeus commenting on the heretics who say that scripture can't be understood apart from tradition. However he ignores the context. Irenaeus' second statement (above) which is that the heretics also ignore the church's tradition. The heretics are so "slippery as serpents to escape at all points". They'll reject scripture in favour of their own tradition whenever it suits them. But they'll also reject Church tradition in favour of their own tradition. Obviously the point is, they have rejected everything sound, both scripture and tradition.

So how did Irenaeus decide what was the tradition of heretics compared to tradition of the church?

"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about." - Against Heresies III Ch III.

In other words, we should look to those churches whose leaders have succession is from the apostles as those whose traditions we should look to.

Irenaeus gives an example of the tradition of the apostles being faithfully handed down by Polycarp, and handed down through the churches:

"But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" -- Against Heresies III Ch III.

Unlike what Francis has just claimed, Polycarp, (70-155AD) passed down everything he learned directly from the apostles, and these things were in turn passed down in the churches. In other words, here we have the extra-scriptural source of teaching being passed down in parallel to the scriptures. The question is not whether scriptures had a certain pride of place in the church, the question is over sola scriptura. The early church used Scripture and other Tradition as their authority for rejecting heretics.

The aim of tradition is to discern what the Church believes and has always believed. Sometimes it is not clear what the church always believed, and it is clearer in a later age than an earlier one. For example, while we can find traces of trinitarian thought in the earliest church, it is much clearer after the council of Nicea that the Church's believe is trinitarian than before.

If we want a more detailed idea of how to discern tradition, we can look to the advice of St Vincent of Lerins, writing from the early 400s. In his "A Commonitory" he relates the answer to Francis' question that he "always, and in almost every instance, received" to these questions. I will give only an excerpt of a portion of the explanation...

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

III: What is to be done if one or more dissent from the rest
What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation." -- St Vincent of Lerins, "A Commonitory".

It's important to understand the Orthodox mindset. We see the people of God in a similar way to Israel. God didn't just drop the Law on them, and then leave them for a few thousand years to sort out the issues. There was a continuing work of God among the people to provide them with the clarity to discern truth from error. This is most clearly seen in the need to discern what prophets to listen to and which to ignore. In the same way, the Church has a continuing charism to hold to the truth and reject error. Without acknowledging this charism, there is no way to understand how the Church sorted out the many conflicting views in the early church as to what should be regarded as scripture.

Tradition Self-Correcting?

Orthodox wrote: "Tradition is Alive and Self-correcting," which suggests that Tradition makes mistakes and then corrects those mistakes. Perhaps Orthodox meant that Tradition corrects mistakes that various people make.

I've phrased my question in the alternative, to avoid wasting a question on a semantic issue.

A) How can the former be true, if we are to "seek no farther" once something has been identified as tradition? Isn't the only way that Tradition can self-correct is by seeking farther (i.e. for the Holy Spirit's guidance or whatever the correction mechanism may be)?

Or, alternatively,

B) If the latter is true: how can we distinguish between truth and error using Tradition? To reword that latter alternative question for clarity, how does a person know whether his view is a mistake condemned by Tradition, a matter not addressed by Tradition, or a matter approved by Tradition? Is it simply by asking one's priest/arch-priest/bishop?

-Turretinfan

You Cannot Use What You Do Not Have

After a brief introduction portion, “Orthodox” asked: “Having acknowledged that the earliest church never practiced sola scriptura...”

“Orthodox” seems to have gotten a little ahead of himself here. Although oral tradition was used in the earliest church (out of necessity), Scripture still held the highest place.

Jesus himself explains that:

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

And recall Luke’s commendation of the Bereans:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Even though there were apostles and prophets to provide revelation directly from God, the first place was given to the written word. The fact that oral tradition existed and was used does not mean that tradition had the same doctrinal authority as Scripture, note that it meant or was used the way the Greek, Russian, etc. etc. Orthodox Churches use it.

There’s a rather obvious reason why oral tradition could not have the same authority as Scripture. Scripture is a written, unchanging record of inspiration: its writing was accompanied by miracles and signs from God that testified as to its authenticity.

Furthermore, “tradition” did not have the sense assigned to it by “Orthodox,” namely “an organic set of beliefs held by the body” (see section of entitled “The Early Church wasn’t instructed to abandon tradition”) and “consensus” (see section entitled “Consensus [vs.] Individualism …”) Instead, it took the form of Jesus’ words (before they were written into the gospels) and the Apostles’ and prophets’ words. These were not obtained by consensus, nor were they dynamic/organic. Likewise, there is no reason to suppose that "tradition" even as used by Chrysostom had the meaning of "tradition" used by "Orthodox," but perhaps that could be delved into more deeply elsewhere.

“Orthodox” continued: “(a) who gave the order for the church to change from tradition to sola scriptura?”

As can be deduced from the comments above, no switch was necessary. Scripture always held the highest place. Furthermore, one simply cannot use what one does not have. The apostles and prophets of the time of inscripturation died off. The eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life themselves passed on.

Furthermore, alleged oral tradition was lost. For example, Papias apparently wrote down alleged oral traditions, but his writings have been lost, and the little that other historians saw fit to reproduce amounts to matters of no doctrinal moment (such as the martyrdom of some of the apostles, or the name of the man who penned the gospel of Mark). Additionally, some of the matters ascribed to Papias are of questionable authenticity, as also are some of the matters ascribed to Clement of Rome. In short, no one bothered to transcribe virtually any of this “oral tradition” into writing, and now that all the eyewitnesses are dead, we have lost access. There is no Christian Hadith.

“Orthodox” continued: “(b) where did they get the authority to do so?”

Obviously, this part of the question depends from the faulty premise in (a). Scriptures carry the authority of the Holy Spirit who inspired them. With the apostles and other prophets gone, there was no one who had similar authority. God did not appear to the early church fathers (or other early churchmen) in visions bringing new further doctrinal revelations.

“Orthodox” continued: “(c) Why do the Apostolic Fathers never mention the Big Cutover?”

This question again depends on faulty premises. The question asks for an explanation of silence. That explanation is multi-faceted.

There’s no need to tell people not to use something they don’t have. Perhaps we don’t see discussion of the switch from “oral tradition” to Sola Scriptura because it was blindingly obvious that all the eyewitnesses, prophets, and apostles had perished.

Furthermore, we see evidence of the fathers relying on Scripture for doctrinal authority (for the sort of issues identified in the WCF) from the earliest writings (whether real or pseudonymous). But to what age must one go to find any record of churchmen relying on “oral tradition” for doctrine?

Finally, we see the practical supremacy of Scripture evidenced in Irenaeus’ interaction with early heretics. Irenaeus writes: “When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition.” Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” Book III, Chapter 2, paragraph 1. How remarkably similar to the heretics’ argument is the argument against Sola Scriptura? Doesn’t it look like the opening argument, which states: “Tradition and scripture alone are two approaches that seek clarity in one truth. But in reality, sola scripture has led to either just a different set of authoritative traditions, or else a continuing and uncontrollable expansion of individual interpretations. Lacking a mechanism for removing wrong interpretations from the pool, confusion is ever expanding.”

After all, that is the question: are Scriptures correct, of authority, and sufficiently unambiguous that their truth can be extracted by those who are ignorant of “tradition.” On this matter, “Orthodox’s” position is similar to the last of the fallback positions of the heretics. The idea that Scriptures are ambiguous and that truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition is central to the argument of “Orthodox.”

“Orthodox” continued: “(d) where can we find evidence the order was given?”

See above, no order was needed, but if an “order” was given, it was not recorded, or is recorded in the terms provided at the conclusion of the Apocalypse (which we need not decide here). In any event, the early church fathers did not rely on “oral tradition” to an measurable degree in establishing their doctrines: but constantly relied on Scripture for that purpose.

“Orthodox” continued: “(e) why did the early church never end up cutting over to the new regime?”

This question assumes facts that have not been established. As noted above, we don’t see the first generations of writers appealing to oral tradition on doctrinal matters: we consistently see them appealing to scripture.

“Orthodox” continued: “(f) Whose fault was it the early church "forgot" to change to sola scriptura?”

This question is similar to the last question, in that it assumes without evidence that the early church did not practice sola scriptura. Of course, men err – and any failure to do what is right could be attributed to human error. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to indicate that the early church elevated oral tradition to the level of Scripture, and abundant evidence that the early church constantly relied on Scripture for doctrinal teaching.

“Orthodox” continued: “(g) What year should the cutover have happened, and how would it have proceeded if it hadn't failed?”

This question is similar to the last two questions, assuming facts that have not been established. There’s no need to address this further, as the answers to (e) and (f) should suffice.

To God be the glory,

-Turretinfan

The failed "Big Cutover" of the early church

Francis, you acknowledged in your opening statement that oral tradition was necessary and taught by the apostles before scripture was "completed and circulated". Especially given that some books of the NT are not written by apostles, it's not clear to me how anyone would know when scripture is completed. And since I presume part of the criteria for knowing scripture is complete is at least death of the apostles, and since sola scriptura is apparently not in effect when the apostles are alive, we presumably have a situation where sola scriptura can't be an apostolic teaching, since it doesn't work when the apostles are alive. Having acknowledged that the earliest church never practiced sola scriptura... (a) who gave the order for the church to change from tradition to sola scriptura? (b) where did they get the authority to do so? (c) Why do the Apostolic Fathers never mention the Big Cutover? (d) where can we find evidence the order was given? (e) why did the early church never end up cutting over to the new regime? (f) Whose fault was it the early church "forgot" to change to sola scriptura? (g) What year should the cutover have happened, and how would it have proceeded if it hadn't failed?