Affirmative Answer to Question 3

I had pointed out that Deuteronomy 9:16-21 does not make reference to an atonement. Now, Nick has taken the position that “it turns out that the term ‘atonement’ is applied to this event,” citing Exodus 32:30.

The answer here is that Moses overestimated himself. Let’s examine the entire relevant passage:

Exodus 32:30-35

30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin. 31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.

33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. 34 Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them. 35 And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.

Moses apparently offered himself as a victim to atone for the sins of the people, but whether that was what Moses was trying to offer or not, God rejected his offer and plagued the people because they made the calf.

Christ’s offer to substitute himself for the sins of his people is not refused by the Father. That’s one way in which Christ is much better than Moses.

Hebrews 3:3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

That would seem to answer Nick’s question, but again, Nick’s question also contains some faulty premises that need to be corrected.

Nick states: “Surely Christ’s ‘unjust sufferings’ were of infinitely more value than what Moses could provide.” There are a few things that should be noted:

(1) Yes, Christ’s sufferings were of more value than anything Moses could provide, because Christ did not deserve to suffer, but Moses did deserve to suffer, and because Christ was both God and man in two distinct natures and one person.

(2) Moses, to the extent that he saved the people in Deuteronomy 9, did not save them from hell: he saved them from immediate destruction. Thus, the nature of the salvation provided is quite different.

(3) Nick’s comment, though, seems to view the sufferings of Christ as the primary source of value, whereas it is by Christ’s death (sometimes called his “blood”) that we are saved.

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

One can also this principle in the discussion, for example, of Tertullian (a discussion I almost included in responses to others of these questions):

Tertullian - Against Praxeas (Chapter 30)

You have Him exclaiming in the midst of His passion: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" Either, then, the Son suffered, being "forsaken" by the Father, and the Father consequently suffered nothing, inasmuch as He forsook the Son; or else, if it was the Father who suffered, then to what God was it that He addressed His cry? But this was the voice of flesh and soul, that is to say, of man— not of the Word and Spirit, that is to say, not of God; and it was uttered so as to prove the impassibility of God, who "forsook" His Son, so far as He handed over His human substance to the suffering of death. This verity the apostle also perceived, when he writes to this effect: "If the Father spared not His own Son." This did Isaiah before him likewise perceive, when he declared: "And the Lord has delivered Him up for our offences." In this manner He "forsook" Him, in not sparing Him; "forsook" Him, in delivering Him up. In all other respects the Father did not forsake the Son, for it was into His Father's hands that the Son commended His spirit. Indeed, after so commending it, He instantly died; and as the Spirit remained with the flesh, the flesh cannot undergo the full extent of death, i.e., in corruption and decay. For the Son, therefore, to die, amounted to His being forsaken by the Father. The Son, then, both dies and rises again, according to the Scriptures. It is the Son, too, who ascends to the heights of heaven, and also descends to the inner parts of the earth. "He sits at the Father's right hand" — not the Father at His own.

As you can see, Tertullian rightly focuses on the “suffering of death” (i.e. dying). There is some interesting ways in which Tertullian also addresses the issue of Jesus being “forsaken” (see Answer to Question 4) and of the Trinitarian and Hypostatic relationships (see Answer to Question 5).

Thus, likewise Augustine – On the Creed:

"Patience of Job, end of the Lord." The patience of Job we know, and the end of the Lord we know. What end of the Lord? "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?" They are the words of the Lord hanging on the cross. He did as it were leave Him for present felicity, not leave Him for eternal immortality. In this is "the end of the Lord." The Jews hold Him, the Jews insult, the Jews bind Him, crown Him with thorns, dishonor Him with spitting, scourge Him, overwhelm Him with revilings, hang Him upon the tree, pierce Him with a spear, last of all bury Him.

So then, this humiliation up to and including Christ’s death was necessary for our atonement, though not for just any atonement.

-TurretinFan

Question 3 from Negative

QUESTION 3 FROM NEGATIVE

During your Rebuttal Essay, you made the following comment:

Nick cited Deuteronomy 9:16-21 as another alleged example of a commercial satisfaction, and calls his act an atonement. The Scriptures, however, do not use that description, although they do speak of Moses turning away God’s wrath. How did he do so? He did so by making intercession for them, and begging for mercy.

While it is true Deuteronomy 9 did not use the term “atonement,” it turns out that the term “atonement” is in fact applied to this event:

Exodus 32: 30 The next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."

This chapter is dealing with the golden calf-idol, and these words come immediately after Moses finds out. He explicitly says he will “make atonement for your sin,” so what Moses did in Deuteronomy 9 (describing the same event) was in fact what you denied. My question to you is: Can you explain why Christ would have to atone by means of Penal Substitution when Moses didn't have to? Surely Christ's “unjust sufferings” (1 Pt 2:18ff, esp v20b) were of infinitely more value than what Moses could provide.

Answer to Affirmative Question 3

Response from Negative to Question 3

For the Third Question I am asked why the “cup” Christ mentions to the Apostles cannot be both the “Cup of God's Wrath” as well as the Cup of the Lord's Supper. Here are the reasons why I reject this argument:

1) The cup mentioned before the garden and in the garden are figurative, only the cup of the Lord's Supper is literal.

2) The question proposed would sound something similar to this: Can you [literally] drink of the Cup [of the Lord's Supper] which I am going to [figuratively] drink [by death]? You're introducing two meanings for 'cup' and 'drink' in the same sentence. That's equivocation.

3) In Jesus' challenge He mentions both “cup” and “baptism” which are coming up for him (Lk 12:50) and asks if the Apostles can undergo both. These are obviously both figurative and refer the same thing, suffering, otherwise Jesus would be mixing figurative (baptism) and literal (cup). It would be most unwarranted at that point to say this cup is the Lord's Supper.

4) When Jesus asks if the Apostles can drink of the cup He will drink, His question is a challenge to them. It is not much of a challenge if this amounts to sharing the Cup of His Blood at the Supper.

5) Your proposal amounts to the following equation: Cup in Garden = Cup of Lord's Supper = Cup of God's Wrath. There are obvious absurdities that arise from this, for example Jesus and the Apostles drank the Cup of the Lord's Supper. Or are you suggesting a stretched interpretation such as Jesus exhausting the Wrath making the Cup of the Supper 'safe to drink'?

6) You stated “God’s wrath is often expressed in killing those against whom his wrath burns,” yet nowhere do we see God's wrath upon Christ nor do we see God positively engaged with Jesus' death (i.e. a judicial declaration and execution which is what Penal Substitution demands, as opposed to withholding divine protection, Mt 26:53), which is always described as murder (eg Acts 3:13-15; 7:52; 10:39-40).

Question 3 from Affirmative

In your rebuttal essay, you wrote:

“Lastly, my opponent mentions Matthew 26:39 and says it references the cup of God’s wrath, but unfortunately he both ignores and misunderstands (e.g. he claims I treated all cups as one) my own comments on the verse.”

In your constructive essay, you had written: “Jesus asks the Father if the “cup” can be taken from Him (Mat 26:39). Some say this was the “cup of God's Wrath” which Christ must drink. However, earlier on in Mat 20:22-23 and Mark 10:38-39 Jesus asks if the Apostles can drink from this “cup,” and they say yes, and Christ says they will. This is impossible if the cup of God's wrath is in view and the purpose is Penal Substitution. Thus those texts can only mean enduring physical persecutions.”

Here are the Biblical texts that are most immediately relevant:

Matthew 20:22-23 states:
22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. 23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Mark 10:38-39 states:
38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? 39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

Matthew 26:39 and 42 state:
Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Matthew 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

Mark 14:36 states:
Mark 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Luke 22:42 states:
Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

John 18:11 states:
John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Let us assume, for the sake of the question, that my rebuttal both misunderstood and did not give proper attention to the argument in your constructive essay. Especially in view of John 18:11, the cup that Jesus is referencing would fairly clearly seem to be his death. After all, Jesus in the institution of the Lord’s Supper included a “cup” that he described this way:

1 Corinthians 11:25-28
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

(which quotes from Luke’s gospel)

Matthew 26:27-28
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:23-24
23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Notice how the description of the “cup” is one of his “blood” and that this is his “shed” blood. Most specifically, it is a cup that shows his “death.” So, then it would seem that it would be consistent for the disciples to drink of the Lord’s cup through communing in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, whereas Christ himself personally drank of this cup by dying. Furthermore, the cup in question is the cup of his death. Why cannot this be the cup of God’s wrath, where that wrath is expressed by the death of the one who bears the wrath, especially when throughout Scripture God’s wrath is often expressed in killing those against whom his wrath burns?

-TurretinFan

Answer 3 from Affirmative

Question 3 Where is your church and its confession in the world before the 16th century?

Answer: My church is not defined by walls. Instead, my church is defined by faith in the Christ of the Scriptures (as the ECFs taught as already pointed out to you in my first question). As Jesus said:

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The confession is simply a summary of Scriptural teachings. It does not replace or substitute the Scriptures.

MB claimed, “Your beliefs and opinions regarding Sacred Scripture are found in no church in existence before the … 16th century.” That assertion is not true. Even if it were true, however, it is irrelevant to this debate. That’s not a standard that MB’s counter-plan can stand up to. Trent’s position on Scripture – or better yet Vatican II’s position on Scripture – may find partial support in some early conciliar documents – but nothing that was written with the object of reflecting the views of an entire church.

MB then identified the statements from my opening post on the canon, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the perspicuity of Scripture. MB acknowledged that, “There are more teachings that I can list, but I will use these for my question.” Picking and choosing teachings is an interesting way to evaluate the matter. Nevertheless, these are what he picked.

MB continued, “In fact whether the church be Syrian, Maronite, Syro-Malankara, Coptic, Ethiopic, Byzantine, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar or Armenian, they all reject your 66 book Canon and they all reject Sola Scriptura.”

It’s interesting that MB tries to use them as a guide. They cannot agree among themselves on the canon or on whether the pope’s ex cathedra statements are part of the rule of faith. They may all wish to add to the Bible in one way or another (as also others do), but their testimony is at odds, one with another. Even within Romanism, there are some who argue that the number of the books in the canon has not been definitively fixed by Trent, there are divisions on material sufficiency, and there seem to be disagreements over perspicuity.

MB acknowledged that, “Everyone of these different churches claim and can historically trace their existence back to the apostles themselves.” So can, in the same sense, every church (including the many Reformed churches). The Jews (whether Pharisee, Sadducee, or modern Kabbalist) historically trace themselves back to Moses. But unless MB wants to say that the apostles were divided over papal infallibility and the canon of Scripture, the ability to trace one’s genealogy is simply a Jewish genetic fallacy.

MB claimed, “They all attest to Sacred Scripture within Sacred Tradition.” They themselves cannot agree what the bounds of either Scripture or Tradition are. This actually undermines the counter-plan. One cannot use this genetic fallacy that because these churches can somehow trace themselves back to ancient times, consequently they are right – because they disagree with one another on the very issues that MB tries to make important. Likewise, the exact relationship between Scripture and Tradition is not defined outside of Romanism by the equivalent of Trent and Vatican II. And, of course, before the 16^th century there was not even an equivalent to Trent in Romanism. Thus, the implication that because there was no pre-Tridentine Reformation council that produced a document like the Westminster Confession of Faith, is not an argument that can be made consistently by MB.

MB claimed, “All of these Rites exist within the Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox, and hail from all over the world, established by different apostles, yet they all hold to the Catholic teaching of Sacred Tradition.” In fact, however, it’s hard enough for members only of Romanism (whether of the Latin or other rite) to agree on what the teaching of “Sacred Tradition” is. It is the height of naiveté to suppose that all of the listed churches hold to “the Catholic teaching” of the matter.

MB asserted, “If your claim of Sola Scriptura is true, we should see these claims made somewhere among the ancient churches as well.” MB anachronistically calls these modern churches ancient, and ignores the fact that in ancient times these churches did not resort to anything but Scripture as a rule of faith. We have shown that from the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

MB asked, “My question is, where is your Westminster confession equivalent, proving Sola Scriptura among any ancient church group before the 16th century, and where is the your [sic] equivalent Liturgy of the Eucharist proving these beliefs in practice.”

That, again, is two questions (and the third of this round). The answer to the former would include, for example, the Waldensian Confession of 1120. The answer to the latter question may be answered by the simple liturgy of the Waldensians as well. Certainly there have been some questions raised about the historicity of these Waldensian documents, but even those who claim that the Waldensian materials are fake, admit that the Waldensians existed as a group before the 16^th century. Ultimately, the problem with the question can be seen from MB’s own caveat:

MB insisted, “Please do not quote Church Fathers individually, since all of the Church Fathers belonged to one of the above groups and all celebrated one of their ancient Liturgies.” It is interesting how quick MB is to try to silence the testimony of the Fathers, and to make unsupported assertions regarding their beliefs/worship. There is no reason for MB to ask that they not be quoted “individually,” except that MB already knows what their testimony would be. For example, MB surely knows that Cardinal Cajetan (writing before Trent’s decree) admitted that Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as being canonical scriptures in the strict sense. Furthermore, their individual testimonies demonstrate that the churches who claim to trace their lineage back to the apostles do not follow the teachings of the apostles.

-TurretinFan

Question 3 from Negative

Question 3 Where is your church and its confession in the world before the 16th century?

by Matthew Bellisario

There is a glaring reality staring you in the face which you fail to acknowledge. Your beliefs and opinions regarding Sacred Scripture are found in no church in existence before the the 16th century. Let me be more specific. You made these claims among others in your opening statement,

“We have sixty-six books of Scripture.

We reject as authoritative the Apocrypha – those additional books and parts that are not inspired, but which have sometimes been called Deuterocanonical. They are of historical interest – and they are of grammatical interest, since they are ancient books written in Greek. Nevertheless, since they are not inspired, they do not have any more authority than any other human writings.

The Bible is a complete document. It is sufficient. It contains everything that we need to know for faith and life in general, in order to glorify God and in order to be saved. Nevertheless, the illumination of the Holy Spirit – who persuades us of the truth of inspiration of Scripture – is necessary for anyone to obtain a saving knowledge of God, even from Scripture. It is complete – but it is not exhaustive.

Not all of the teachings of Scripture are equally clear, but the things necessary to be known for salvation are clearly taught, so that even uneducated people can understand them.”


There are more teachings that I can list, but I will use these for my question. There is no church in existence before the 16th century that ever made these false claims. In fact whether the church be Syrian, Maronite, Syro-Malankara, Coptic, Ethiopic, Byzantine, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar or Armenian, they all reject your 66 book Canon and they all reject Sola Scriptura. Everyone of these different churches claim and can historically trace their existence back to the apostles themselves. They all attest to Sacred Scripture within Sacred Tradition. All of these Rites exist within the Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox, and hail from all over the world, established by different apostles, yet they all hold to the Catholic teaching of Sacred Tradition.

We have all of these ancient churches which attest to Sacred Tradition in their Liturgies, as well as in their church writings and councils. If your claim of Sola Scriptura is true, we should see these claims made somewhere among the ancient churches as well. My question is, where is your Westminster confession equivalent, proving Sola Scriptura among any ancient church group before the 16th century, and where is the your equivalent Liturgy of the Eucharist proving these beliefs in practice. Please do not quote Church Fathers individually, since all of the Church Fathers belonged to one of the above groups and all celebrated one of their ancient Liturgies. Show us where there is a whole church group professing your Westminster faith in some documented form in some ancient church before the 16th century.

Negative Answer to Question 3

by Matthew Bellisario

There are several early writings that refer to the interpretive aspect of Sacred Tradition such as Tertullion writing around the year 200 as well as Origin and St. Athanasius for starters.

Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics (200 A.D.):"Wherever it shall be clear that the truth of the Christian discipline and faith are present, there also will be found the truth of the Scriptures and of their explanation, and of all the Christian traditions."

But what is more important is we see the early Fathers and writers of the Church appealing to Tradition in their interpretation of Sacred Scripture all of the time in their writings. For instance how does Origin arrive at his interpretation of Baptism in his writings? He does it by appealing to the Tradition of the Church. Of course if he does so it must mean he is doing so under a pretext that it is infallible in its meaning.

Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Does Origin here have to expound any further on how he is coming up with his interpretation? He does it through the Church as so many Church Fathers do. For instance St. Athanasius in the 4th century constantly admonishes the Arians by their misinterpretation of Sacred Scripture. He appeals to the Tradition of the Church as being an infallible teacher. Although many times he uses the Sacred Scriptures in a "sufficient" context, it is quite clear that he does so under the pretext that it is done within the interpretive construct of the Church, and not solely his own interpretation. If he admonishes the Arians and their heresy it must done in understanding that the Church's interpretation is the infallible one in Tradition handed down, since the Arian interpretation is obviously heretical.

St. Athanasius says,

“However here too they (Arians) introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise 'one,' or 'like,' as the Church preaches, but as they themselves would have it" Orat 3,10”

He clearly demonstrates that indeed those who refer to the Sacred Scriptures alone without what has been handed down is in error,

"But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power" Festal Letter 2

We must once again read these writings in their proper and full context when dealing with these subjects. These are very early sources as St Athansaius wrote these in the 4th century, and clearly refers to an interpretive aspect of the Sacred Scriptures in Sacred Tradition when he emphasizes, “who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down.” We must not look to the Fathers or writings of the early Church as specific proof-texts explicitly spelled out for each doctrine proclaimed by the Church. We can however see many times plainly how the Church Fathers or other early writers derive at their interpretations of Sacred Scripture. For as Adrian Fortescue (2008) rightly spoke, “We must not forget that the Fathers did not write their letters or preach their sermons with a view to supplying evidences of the faith of their time for future controversialists.” Therefore I urge you to read the Fathers in their full context and not use the fallacy of selective emphasis once again to substantiate your errors. It is quite clear that we have here a very early example of a Saint appealing to the Tradition of the Church to arrive at a correct and infallible understanding of the Sacred Scriptures when refuting the heretical Arian position demonstrated here. He does not appeal to Sacred Scripture outside of this understanding.

Fortescue, Adrian. The Greek Fathers. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2008. (Original Publication 1908 London, Catholic Truth Society)

Question 3 from Affirmative

Question 3 – The Hand-Me-Down Tradition Fallacy

As we saw in Question 2, the position of pope Pius XII is that (as I had observed regarding Catholicism) there are three tradition categories, i.e. “together with the sources [Scripture and Hand-Me-Down Tradition (HMDT)] … a living Teaching Authority [Interpretative Authority Tradition (IAT)].” In the section of your rebuttal entitled “The Fallacy of ‘Hand Me Down Tradition’ Argument” it is unclear whether you simply disagree with P12, are unaware of the differences between those two sources and the teaching authority, or possibly just were misunderstood by myself. I had previously pointed out that, at best, all of the quotations you had provided related to asserted HMDT-category traditions, none related to IAT-category traditions – and even now it does not appear that your newest quotation from Origen falls in a different category.

Furthermore, when we turn to noted early Christian writers we tend to see a theme among them of not attributing infallibility to ought but Scripture:

Augustine wrote: “God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible.” Psalm 89, See In Psalmum LXXXVIII Enarratio, Sermo I, PL 37:1122.

Theophilus of Alexandria wrote: “It would be the instigation of a demonical spirit to follow the conceits of the human mind, and to think anything divine, beyond what has the authority of the Scriptures.” (Epistle 96)

Jerome wrote: “Some may say: ‘You are forcing the Scripture, that is not what it means.’ Let Holy Writ be its own interpreter …” On the Psalms, Homily 6.

Ambrose wrote: “Follow the Scriptures, so that ye cannot err.” Commentary on Luke, Book II, §12.

Augustine wrote: "Neither weigh we the writings of all men, be they never so worthy and catholic, as we weigh the canonical Scriptures; but that saving the reverence that is due unto them, we may mislike and refuse somewhat in their writings, if we find that they have thought otherwise, than the truth may bear. Such am I in the writings of others, and such would I wish others to be in mine." Epistle to Fortunatus, No. 111

And again Augustine wrote: “Take away from amongst us any of our own books; let the book of God come amongst us: hear what Christ saith: hearken what the truth speaketh.” Sermon on Psalm 57.

And finally Augustine wrote: “Especially as in writings of such authors I feel myself free to use my own judgment (owing unhesitating assent to nothing but the canonical Scriptures), whilst in fact there is not a passage which he has quoted from the works of this anonymous author that disturbs me.” On Nature and Grace, Chapter 71.
In view of such evidence, and leaving aside the undocumentable (no serious papist apologists claim to be able to identify specific sayings of Jesus or the Apostles that were passed down) category of HMDT, what is the earliest you can document the church fathers teaching that there exists an infallible teaching authority, to somehow document this category of IAT? The qualification that it be an infallible teaching authority is an important part of this question, because there is no doubt that the eldership serves as a living teaching authority (as WCF XXV:III states: “Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.”). So, to be clear, what is being requested is the earliest clear testimony you can produce for infallible IAT (not infallible Scriptures, or even infallible HMDT) – clear testimony that is at least as clear as that of Augustine, Theophilus, Ambrose, and Jerome.

Third Answer from Affirmative

TurretinFan asks,
Given your comment, "God can do whatever He pleases within the range of His holy nature, nobody prevents Him," is it pleasing and within the range of Christ's holy nature to save to the uttermost those whom he wishes to save by making intercession for them?


Answer:

Most definitely. Just as the priests in the Old Testament made intercession for the people, so Christ eternally makes intercession for His, and is our Advocate with the Father if we sin, and the Mediator of the better covenant God has made with us. Unlike the Levitical priests which were imperfect and subject to death, Christ lives forever and is perfect, and so can save to the utmost, in contrast with the animal sacrifices by the Levite priests that could not. He being the sole way to God, our salvation wholly relies upon His mediation between ourselves and the Father. The question as far as the conditionality of salvation is concerned is not whether Christ makes intercession for us, but whether He'll do so for one who departs from Him. He indicates that He won't, as He states,

"But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 10:33, similar statement made in 2 Timothy 2:12)

Some may argue that Christ's intercession will imperatively keep all genuine believers from apostatizing, but such an idea is not found in scripture. Indeed the fact that His confession of us before the Father is conditioned upon our confession of Him indicates conditionality. Others point to Christ's prayer in John 17,

...keep through Your name those whom You have given Me... (John 17:11b)

The conditional nature of salvation comes to light when one considers that God keeps us through faith (1 Peter 1:5), which we are exhorted to hold fast to, and told that not all have done so,

Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck... (1 Timothy 1:19)

It must be noted that Paul does not distinguish the latter as some superficial, ineffectual form of faith; nor would the exhortation to hold to faith be coherent if no one with true faith could ever forfeit it. The theme of continuance in the faith of Christ as being necessary to our being forgiven runs throughout the New Testament, many wicked acts such as unforgiveness being incompatible with saving faith:

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matthew 6:14-15)

This sentiment is also reflected in the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18. When scriptural warnings (including the three in question) indicate consequences of damnation for believers who unrepentantly commit certain sins, taking them as serious and violable is not salvation "by works" as was erroneously insinuated in the opening statements --such actions necessarily reflect a heart no longer in union with Christ.

So Christ saving those He wishes to the uttermost by making intercession for them is perfectly in line with conditional security, since the only ones He will confess before the Father are those who hold fast to their confession of Him.

Third Question from Negative

I (TurretinFan) ask:

Given your comment, "God can do whatever He pleases within the range of His holy nature, nobody prevents Him," is it pleasing and within the range of Christ's holy nature to save to the uttermost those whom he wishes to save by making intercession for them?

Third Answer from the Negative

JCT had asked: "If God unequivocally promises that the consequences of His warnings against apostasy given to the saints will never come to pass, then why should anyone pay any heed or caution to avoid them?"

I answer:

First: Because our paying heed and our giving caution to avoid them, is a means God has ordained to the end of our perseverance. In other words, as already explained, the cautions help us to steer clear of the danger.

Second: Because failure to heed these warnings may give rise to God taking further measures. In other words, if we do not heed these warnings, God may chastise us as sons (with a rod of correction) or as sheep (with a rod and staff), which will not be pleasant for us. Ben Franklin sagely said that experience is a dear [expensive] school, but a fool will learn in no other.

Proverbs 10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.

Proverbs 26:3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back.

Third: Because God commands obedience to his warnings. It is a thoroughly sufficient reason to simply answer that God commands us to heed the warnings. That is a perfectly good reason to do something. Even when Abraham did not understand the reason why God wanted him to sacrifice his son Isaac, he obeyed, and that became a demonstration and witness of faith.

Fourth: Because we love God. Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." This is connected with the previous item. Nevertheless, this is an answer to one's naughty side that says, "Yes, it's bad: but it's not like God's going to punish me eternally, right?" Love should and will constrain us from acting that way. If we love God, we will keep his commandments.

1 John 3:9-11
9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

1 John 5:1-3
1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

-TurretinFan

Third Question from the Affirmative

J.C. Thibodaux asks:

If God unequivocally promises that the consequences of His warnings against apostasy given to the saints will never come to pass, then why should anyone pay any heed or caution to avoid them?

TurretinFan Answer to Question #3

PhatCatholic,

You asked what proof I have that the passage you cited does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions, and may be a later medieval addition.

The proof is

1. The testimony of historian James Donaldson, who provides the following footnote for the chapter from which you quoted (it’s a short chapter, only a single paragraph):

This chapter is not found in the Coptic and Syriac. One V. [Vienna] ms. has the following note: “Matthew (probably a mistake for Matthias) taught the doctrines of Christ in Judea, and was one of the seventy disciples. After the ascension of Christ he was numbered with the twelve apostles, instead of Judas, who was the betrayer. He lies in Jerusalem.”

The absence of the chapter from the Coptic and Syriac was the “several versions” to which I was referring.

2. One reasonable inference from its absence from multiple versions is that the chapter was not in the original, but was added later.

3. This hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that the Oxford manuscript of the Apostolic constitutions begins what we label Chapter XXX with “I the same, Simon the Canaanite …” whereas Simon is the ascribed author of the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth manuscripts, which points to chapter twenty-nine being a later insertion.

4. The number of manuscripts and versions is quite small, which makes the absence from a pair of documents, and evident (or at least arguably evident) insertion in a third more significant. I should point out that I am unaware of the precise total number of manuscripts in existence. The New Advent Catholic encyclopedia claims that there are four manuscripts now in existence, but this seems to be lower than the number of manuscripts available to Donaldson in the 19th century, or possibly merely excludes the other versions as manuscripts. The oldest copy of the text (again, according to the New Advent encyclopedia) is a 12th century manuscript.

From this various testimony, I am inclined to suspect that Chapter XXIX, the one paragraph chapter to which your citation was made, was a latter (i.e. medieval) insertion, and not an original fourth or fifth century writing.

-Turretinfan

Question #3 for Turretinfan

I'm sorry for the delay in posting your third question. In your opening statement, you wrote the following:

Furthermore, the passage cited by PC does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions, and consequently may be a later medieval addition thereto.

My question to you is this:

What proof do you have that the passage I cited....

1. does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions; and
2. may be a later medieval addition?

The second part of your statement, in particular, seems to be mere conjecture on your part.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Phatcatholic Answer to Question #3

In your opening statement, you wrote: "Bede “the Venerable” (672-735) reports in his Ecclesiastical History of England that a bishop cured a sick woman with holy water (see here), and that devils were cast out by it (see here)."

I would respectfully submit to you that in the latter case, the devils were cast out by the use of soil, not water, according to your source, and that the water involved in conferring special powers to the soil was not consecrated water, but water that had touched a relic.

Do you concur?

Well, before we begin, here is the passage from Bede's Ecclesiastical History where he reports that demons were cast out by holy water:

"Then they poured out the water in which they had washed the bones, in a corner of the cemetery. From that time, the very earth which received that holy water, had the power of saving grace in casting out devils from the bodies of persons possessed" (see here).

Now, to respond to your first point, it is true that those possessed by evil spirits were freed when said persons came in contact with the earth where the water was poured out. BUT, it was because of the holy water that the soil had that effect. Were it not for the water the soil would have done nothing. So, it appears to me that the water is the primary agent for the casting out of the evil spirits, not the soil.

As for your second point, how the water is made holy does seem to be as important as the fact that, at the end of the day, water is being used to expel demons. This shows that the use of water to achieve that purpose is far from superstitious ("superstition" of course being the attribution of magical effect to an object or practice that actually has no such effect).

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Third C-X Question to PhatCatholic

Thanks. That greatly helps.

In your opening statement, you wrote: "Bede “the Venerable” (672-735) reports in his Ecclesiastical History of England that a bishop cured a sick woman with holy water (see here), and that devils were cast out by it (see here)."

I would respectfully submit to you that in the latter case, the devils were cast out by the use of soil, not water, according to your source, and that the water involved in conferring special powers to the soil was not consecrated water, but water that had touched a relic.

Do you concur?

-Turretinfan

To be Orthodox is to be Consistent

I had asked Francis to tell me how he knows that certain traditions are true, those traditions being the canonicity of Esther, 1 Clement and the Johannine Epistles. In response, Francis has asked me how I know if a tradition taught in Rome is true.

Rather than immediately give a serious answer, I think it would be instructive to first give a facetious answer. What if I were to respond to this question with the kind of facile answer that Francis just gave me? Here's what it would look like:

The Pope is not infallible because, (a) that teaching is not God-breathed. (b) the teaching that he is fallible IS God breathed. (c) The Holy Spirit persuades of these things. (d) Most people are convinced of these things without any historical investigation.

Of course, such an answer would be a completely question begging exercise. It would be assuming what one has been asked to prove. The answer is true enough, as far as it goes, but it adds nothing to the debate. We may as well all settle back comfortably into our own worlds, convinced in our own minds about what the Holy Spirit is saying. In fact, with the accusation of sola-ecclesia leveled at me, I would have to counter that Francis is sola-self. Francis told Francis what the scripture is and what the scripture means, so he is sola-self.

Of course, the troubling part is that since we know everyone has a different idea of what the Spirit is saying, how do we know that our opinion of what he is saying is the correct one? Francis ignored the question of how to know the non-Chalcedoneon canon wasn't the correct Spirit-inspired one. I could just as well have asked him about the Orthodox or Roman Catholic canons. In point of fact, " most people are persuaded by the Spirit of the authenticity of" the deuterocanonical books without recourse to history as well, but this seems to have escaped Francis' attention.

You see, here is the trouble. Francis has a tradition. It's called the canon of scripture. He can't substantiate his tradition over and against anybody else's corresponding tradition because he has no developed theory of tradition. And now ironically, he has asked me to substantiate my tradition against Rome's. As Christians, we can't have a defensible epistemology without a theory concerning tradition. Whether Francis likes my theory of tradition, or doesn't like it, at least I have it as a structure that supports why I believe what I believe. I don't fall back to the Mormon burning in the bosom argument, which is essentially what Francis has just presented us with.

So how do we evaluate if a tradition, in this case the infallibility of the Pope, is authentic tradition? Well, the answer was already given in what we might call the Vincentian Canon. That is, what St Vincent of Lerins testified was the universal teaching in the church in his time in the early 400s. That is, universality, antiquity, and consent. The teaching of universality clearly fails because at the time of the schism, the larger part of Christendom, being the Byzantine part, rejected even the lessor papal claims of that time. It fails antiquity because we cannot find the early church teaching it. It fails consent, because it does not gain acceptance from any majority of the ancient fathers.


In addition to which, the teaching about the infallibility of the Pope was not even made by the Church, but rather by a schismatic group which calls itself the Roman Catholic Church. How do I know they are schismatic? Because their representatives. Cardinal Humbert of Mourmoutiers and Cardinal Frederick of Lorraine (later to be made Pope Stephen IX), based their breaking of communion in 1054 on a list of complaints so absurd that no Catholic apologist would dare to defend it. As British historian Stephen Runciman described it, "Few important documents have been so full of demonstratable errors.".

In addition, in his negotiation with Constantinople in 1054, Pope Leo IX used huge quotations from the Donation of Constantine as the authority for his claims, the first time that these false documents had ever been used in a substantive way.

And as anyone who has any knowledge of history would know, Rome's confusion about these false documents spiraled out of control from this point on, Pope Adrian IV (1154-1159) bestowed Ireland on England's King Henry II, recognizing that it was his to dispose of as he saw fit, based on the Donation of Constantine. Bulgaria, Portugal and England were made Papal feifs on its authority.

Not even all the Catholic churches accept the teachings of Vatican I, since the Eastern Orthodox Churches did not participate. Even Catholic archbishops in communion with the pope deny that Vatican I was a valid ecumenical council.

I could spend time talking about the heretical popes. About the ecumenical councils that condemned popes as heretics. How the church never consulted popes before recognizing ecumenical councils, etc etc, but I think many of the readers here would already be somewhat familiar with this material.

In short, the teaching of the infallibility of the Pope isn't a catholic tradition. And given what I have just outlined as criteria, I think even protestants would recognize this.

Now despite whatever objections might be leveled at this response, the fact is that it is infinitely more substantive than the response Francis gave. I recognized the authority of tradition, I made a judgment about the historical catholic tradition, and I followed it. I didn't just say "the Holy Spirit agrees with me, ergo I win".

Also, I recognized that the church continues to exist on earth in a capacity that can answer these questions. Therefore I am not drawn into speculation about a dozen points of view on this issue and a dozen on the next issue. I've got two choices only, Rome is the true church or Orthodoxy is. So I believe that someone, somewhere can answer these questions. Contrast to Francis who cannot say that anybody anywhere has such an authority. He didn't even bother to point to the icon-venerating saint-praying Athanasius as the first witness to the complete NT canon. All he could say was some Christians someplace agreed with him, as if that proves anything in his world view.

I think Francis has already shown that he has nothing in the way of facts or a theology that can tell him the canon. But what he will want to do is cast doubt on Eastern Orthodox traditions, to try and show that they are as lacking in substance as Rome's are. He can't actually argue with the universality canon, because clearly the Church did universally accept the doctrines that Francis would complain about, such as concerning icons. But he will try and argue against the antiquity part.

Firstly, you can't use the Vincentian canon against itself. The Vincentian canon assumes that there is a catholic church. To argue from antiquity that the catholic church ceased to exist in the form that the Vincentian canon assumes is nonsense.

Secondly, what we know of the most ancient times is limited. Vincent commented in the early 400s that by his time, nobody could be deceived about what was universally taught. But peering back into 1st century is not so easy. Our view is limited. But let's attempt it. Is it reasonable to expect that the Church could have held the traditions over this early three centuries, popping out in the 5th century still holding to them? We can't know everything the early church was doing, but we can look at what evidence has made its way to the present day. It seems reasonable to start with the oldest known non-scriptural document: the "Didache", or "Teachings". This document was lost for centuries and only recently came to light again. Most scholars date it to the 1st century.

Ch 7, Didache: "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."

This is exactly the way the Orthodox Church does it. It does it by immersion three times in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit. It often prefers to do so in a river for adults, although in the case of infants this has somewhat fallen by the wayside. The catechumen is required to fast prior to the baptism. Occasionally, albeit rarely, a baptism will be authorised by pouring three times if there is a compelling reason. In 2000 years of tradition, that's pretty close.

Ch 8, Didache: "But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day (Wednesday) and the Preparation (Friday)."

The Orthodox Church has always had a practice of what we call fasting, which is in fact abstinence from meat. Our aim is to practice this fast on Wednesday and Friday and is an everyday part of being Orthodox. As we can see, it is a practice that dates from apostolic times.

Ch 9, Didache: "But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

Sounds straightforward enough, but how many protestant churches now let unbaptised children to partake of the communion bread? It's quite common to see protestant churches who have no particular teachings on this matter.

Ch 14, Didache But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.

Orthodoxy draws a fairly close link between having first confessed before one partakes of the Eucharist, especially given the strong warning of 1Cor. 11:27.

In short, the teachings of this 1st century document contain a number of extra-scriptural practices which are quite familiar to the modern day Eastern Orthodox Christian.

What about other practices like Orthodox chrismation, whereby a newly baptised convert is annointed with oil for the receipt of the Holy Spirit?

Tertullian writing around 205AD says "After having come out of the laver, we are anointed thoroughly with a blessed unction according to the ancient rule . . . The unction runs bodily over us, but profits spiritually . . . . Next to this, the hand is laid upon us through the blessing, calling upon and inviting the Holy Spirit".

This is exactly what the Orthodox do today. Special blessed unction is annointed to the new Christian, and Tertuallian in 205AD called this practice an "ancient rule".

Cyril of Jerusalem writes that the oil is "symbolically applied to thy forehead, and thy other organs of sense" and that the "ears, nostrils, and breast were each to be anointed." Again, this is exactly what is still done today.

Three things ought to be obvious from the above. Firstly, that the ancient church was not sola scriptura, but in fact followed practices, "ancient rules" that they understood to be apostolic yet extra-scriptural. The "Big Cutover" to sola scriptura never happened because it was never taught. And when they date from the 1st century, who is to say they aren't apostolic practices?

Secondly, that there is an enormous amount of the Orthodox Church's practice that was familiar to the Church of the 1st and 2nd centuries, but which the modern protestant is completely ignorant of.

Thirdly, that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the Church can maintain extra-scriptural apostolic traditions for 2000 years. It's been clearly demonstrated that the Church can pass on faithfully unwritten traditions.

The only remaining question is what we do when the historical record is somewhat silent on a particular issue in the very earliest period with its limited testiimony. Do we take the way of doubt? Leaving us with no bible, no canon, no scriptures, and merely and endless set of questions about what scripture is and what scripture means, and whose canon is the true one anyway? Or do we take the way of faith that assumes the true church with the true teachings has not vanished from the earth, and that by identifying this church we can find firm answers to the questions that continually plague the various sects of protestantism, and provide an epistemology more substantive than Francis' facile answers?

To be Orthodox is to be consistent. To be Orthodox is to be in the Church of the Fathers, never deviating from what was once delivered to the saints and passed on by the saints.

Your "Tradition" Means Your Church

"Orthodox," I'm not sure that the answers you provided to the last question are fully accurate. I say that because I think that you take "It is tradition, seek no farther," to mean "I'll believe it if my church tells me to believe it" whether or not the doctrine is truly "traditional" in the sense of having ancient origins, and frankly whether or not he apostles and early Christians held to that doctrine.

To illustrate the problem, I've presented a statement that is supposedly "traditional" in the sense of having ancient origins. Furthermore, the statement is a statement that an enormous number of people claim to believe to be true, and you will note that they believe it to be quite important as they have attached an “anathema” to anyone who would “have the temerity to reject this definition":

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Applying the maxim, “It is a tradition, seek no farther,” please affirm or deny the doctrine in bold, or – to phrase it as a question – please tell us, how the maxim ("It is a tradition, seek no farther") can help an ordinary person decide whether this alleged “tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith” should be affirmed or denied, bearing in mind your claims that “tradition is consensus,” and that “‘Tradition says it’ has retained unity”?

The Spirit Shows Us the Canon

Question Posed

“Orthodox”’s question in detail seems to be rather different than the question in the title of the post. The title asks to see the list (the canon), but the detail asks to justify the list, and the conclusion asks whether we “do what the Orthodox Church advocates.” Despite spending over a page alleging various facts (many untrue, and not believed by "Orthodox" himself) introducing the books, “Orthodox” suggests that if an “essay” is needed to justify the canonicity (or not) of the three books, then that is evidence of an allegedly unworkable approach.

Relevance of Question as a Basis of Comparison

Interestingly, “Orthodox” makes no claim that his “tradition” justified the canonicity (or not) of the three books in a tiny amount of written space, despite the fact that “Orthodox” selected what he apparently considers “difficult examples.” Picking “difficult examples” is more likely to result in a long essay than a short paragraph of explanation. Furthermore, according to the most recent comments provided by “Orthodox” discerning “tradition” requires “sifting,” which apparently can take very long amounts of time – even lifetimes. We’ll come back to this issue shortly, perhaps in the next question.

Also, “Orthodox” recently claimed that we “piggy-back[]” on Orthodox tradition with respect to the canon. If so – if, in effect we have “piggy-backed” – then the canon is poor discriminator between the two approaches. In other words, picking a point of identity between our positions would be a terrible way to make a decision as to what is more workable.

Very Short Answer

The short answer is that we accept Esther and the Epistles of John because they are θεοπνευστος (“given by inspiration”), and we reject 1^st Clement because it is not. The Bible is the collection of θεοπνευστος writings that have been providentially preserved. That’s the very short, non-essay answer.

Slightly Longer Answer

The discerning reader might recognize that while the very short answer is accurate and precise, it raises a new question: how do we know that something is θεοπνευστος? The answer to that question is that Inspiration is self-attesting and self-consistent. Esther and John’s epistles testify to their divine character, whereas 1 Clement does not. This is still a short, non-essay answer.

Yet More Explanation

The persistently critical reader might recognize that there is no “this is Scripture,” verse in any of the four books identified in these examples, and might imagine that the absence of such a verse negates the claim. Such a reader, however, would be advised that the testimony can be quite explicit (as it is in the prophets) or rather implicit (with Esther being usually considered the most implicit). One of the examples of implicit testimony is the self-consistency mentioned above. Hopefully, though this is a third paragraph, the reader will not yet view this as an essay-length explanation.

And Some Additional Explanation

Nevertheless, an outsider might argue that the testimony is unclear or inconclusive. Harkening back to “Orthodox”’s concluding question, the outsider might ask what facts prove this to be true? The answer is that we are not empiricists. While there are many facts that attest to the θεοπνευστος status of Esther and the Johanine epistles, and while there are many facts that attest to the lack of θεοπνευστος of 1 Clement, nevertheless the ultimate subjective epistemological basis is the persuasion of the Holy Spirit. The facts, such as widespread acceptance among Christians and survival to the present time, are certainly some of the means that the Holy Spirit uses to persuade, but it is faith that is the evidence of θεοπνευστος.

It is important to note that the Bible did not fall out of the sky bound in leather. Originally, each book of Scripture would typically have been its own scroll. Thus, there is nothing inherently wrong in publications of just the New Testament, just the Pentateuch, or just the Psalter. The collection of the Scriptures into a Bible is a matter of convenience. Thus, even if some skeptic or infidel could cast doubt on the θεοπνευστος of one of the books, the others would be unscathed.

The question called for facts. The facts are first the content of the book itself, and second the content of the other Scriptures. Nevertheless, there are other facts that are helpful. With respect to Esther, the fact that it was treated as Scripture by the Jews is a fact in its favor, and likewise the fact that the epistles of John were treated as Scripture by Christians is a fact in its favor. With respect to the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, there appear to have been few Christians who ever considered it Scripture, and those (such as Clement of Alexandria – not the same Clement) seem to have been quite overinclusive in their identification. Furthermore, a compelling fact against 1 Clement is that in God’s providence it was not widely copied and distributed among Christians, or preserved from the fires of persecution.

But the question is not really fair: we are ready to give an answer for the authenticity of Scripture, but the length of the answer may very well correspond to the complexity of the question. To answer the various scurrilous charges (and charges not believed by the person raising them) mentioned might indeed take a lengthy essay.

What it is important to recognize, however, is that there is a real substantive difference between these factual investigations, which may be the means by which the Holy Spirit inwardly persuades of His work, and a procedure in which we accept a document as Scripture on the binding authority of men. In other words, there is a difference between being persuaded by the testimony of Christian men who have gone before us, and being bound by the decisions of Christian men in previous generations.

And frankly, most people are persuaded by the Spirit of the authenticity of Esther and John’s epistles without any recourse to such detailed factual and historical investigations. So, we can see that the distraction of alleged negative facts from a source untrusted by “Orthodox” himself, is really an attempt to stir up trouble where there is none. There are answers to those stirred-up troubles, and we are ready to give an answer (indeed, for example, the folks over at Triablogue have answered some of those factual questions, as have many other Christians over the last 500 years). But the way we subjectively know the objective truth of the canon is by the persuasion of the Spirit.

Why then do we believe that Esther, for example, is Scripture? Not because of the authority of the church, but because of the persuasion of the Spirit. That’s not the same nor a “piggy-backed” answer to the one that “Orthodox” would have to give, and its not what the "Orthodox Church" advocates. Conversely, “Orthodox” may try to piggy-back on our claim. Perhaps the course of the debate will demonstrate whether he makes such an attempt.

Show us the Canon

Francis, you stated that what scripture is, is "a relatively stable concept", and it is clear what it is because "its writing was accompanied by miracles and signs from God that testified as to its authenticity."

From my point of view, you are glossing over an enormous number of problems that were really only sorted out in the life of the Orthodox Church. The only way you can know what the bible is, is by doing the exact same thing we advocate doing for any teaching, which is to look to the people of God. And to look to the people of God, naturally implies that there is a visible people of God, who you have identified as the people of God, to the exclusion of other claimants. Without that, you will be pitting one claim against another.

I think the only way to highlight this inconsistency is to ask you to give a brief outline of the basis you have for some specific books being or not being scripture. By choosing some difficult examples I hope to highlight the inconsistency in your approach. Obviously we don't want a long essay, but just the brief facts on how you know they are scripture. In fact, if you require a long essay to present a decent case, it would argue against how workable your rule of faith is. I suggest it's not going to be enough to trot out a few historical facts ("my historical facts trump someone else's facts"), rather you need something more substantive in your epistemology.

The books I select are: Esther, 1 Clement and 1/2/3 John. By way of introduction, I offer some brief facts on each:

Esther

The book never once mentions God. According the the Anchor bible dictionary, "For as late as the 4th century A.D. some Jews were still denying the book canonical status, as were a number of Eastern Church Fathers as late as the 9th century ". "the book was not used by the Jewish Dead Sea community at Qumran", "there is not a shred of evidence that the book of Esther was canonized by the Academy of Jabneh (i.e., Council of Jamnia)", "Josephus (AgAp 1.38–41) said that the Jewish canon contained 22 books; but, unfortunately, he did not enumerate them.", "when the rabbis of the 2nd century C.E. justified Purim as a day of eating and rejoicing, they cited as their authority Megillat Taanit (dating to the 1st century C.E.), not the book of Esther (8:15–17);", "The book, for instance, was denied canonical status by Melito of Sardis (fl. ca. 167), Athanasius (295–373), Gregory of Nazianzus (329–390) in Cappadocia, Theodore of Mopsuestia (350?–428) in Cilicia, and others.",, "More serious against the book’s historicity is the fact that some of the statistics in Esther are incorrect: Persian satrapies numbered 20, not 127 (1:1); if Mordecai had been part of Nebuchadnezzar’s deportation of 597 B.C.E. (so 2:6), then he and, especially, Esther would have been far too old to have accomplished everything attributed to them in the days of Xerxes (486–465 B.C.E.), i.e., some hundred years after the deportation. According to Herodotus, Amestris was queen between the 7th and 12th years of Xerxes (compare Esth 2:16 and 3:7 with Herodotus 3.84) and Persian queens had to come from one of the seven noble Persian families, a custom which would have automatically ruled out an insignificant Jewish woman."

In short, Esther contains all the problems that Protestants like to assign to the deutero canon. It was not accepted by the Jews, at least until well after when they could be considered the people of God. It was a disputed book in the early church, being a little more favoured in West than East. It has historical and factual difficulties.

1 Clement

Like Luke, tradition says that he was one of Paul's fellow workers. Phil. 4:3 "Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life." Like Luke, other Church Fathers attest to this (e.g. Origen Jo. 6.36, Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3.4.9) Irenaeus, (Haer. 3.3.3)).

Like Luke, it is found in early codexes of the scriptures (e.g. Codex Alexandrinus). Like Luke, the Fathers attest that it was read in the Churches. Anchor: "Eusebius attests that the letter was read in the worship services of many churches, in the days of old and in his own time (Hist. Eccl. 3.16). Indeed, the letter seems to have been one of the best known writings in the early church."

"Polycarp makes full, if tacit, use of the work (Lightfoot 1890:1.149–52). Irenaeus praises the letter and summarizes its first chapters (Haer. 3.3.3). The epistle is frequently utilized by Clement of Alexandria, who knew the work when he wrote his Paedagogus (1.91.2), and filled the Stromata with explicit quotations (Grant 1965:5–6)."

Anchor dates the book to 95 AD which is the same date it gives to Revelation. Anchor suggests a date of 80-85 for Luke which would also be after Paul died. The book seems to have been in the canon for many in the early church, and seems to still be part of the Ethiopian Church's bible.

1/2/3 John

These books were never used in the Syrian churches, right down to this day. They are never referenced by many Church Fathers, including John Chrysostom, who out of his something like 10,000 scriptural quotes, never ventures beyond the Syrian canon (which also excludes Revelation, James, 2 Peter and others).

According to Anchor dictionary: "The similarities between the Fourth Gospel and 1 John are the most impressive. But the differences are so significant as to weigh against the tradition that equates the fourth evangelist with the author of 1 John."

"Nonetheless, given all of these considerations, it is the wiser choice to conclude that the evidence for common authorship [with 1 John] is not convincing. ", "1 John teaches a soteriology which goes beyond the tradition rooted in the Fourth Gospel.", "a serious contradiction arises within the treatment of sin in the first of the writings."

The epistles of John have all the problems Protestants would assign to the deutero canon, or to something like 1 Clement, or worse. Lack of evidence of authorship. Perceived contradictions. Lack of unanimity in acceptance. Differences in style. Lack of certain affiliation with the apostle.

Do you do what the Orthodox Church advocates, and accept these books by faith because of the testimony of God's people in the tradition of his Church? Why do you take the Orthodox New Testament and eschew the non-Chalcedoneon New Testament?