From the 2002 Ligonier National Conference with Sinclair Ferguson, John MacArthur, Robert Godfrey, Ken Jones, Erwin Lutzer, and R.C. Sproul. Moderated by Paul Sailhamer.
)
)
Showing posts with label Biblical Authority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biblical Authority. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Friday, October 4, 2013
Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Michael Kruger: "Top 10 Books on the Bible"
Top 10 Books on the Bible
2013
Top 10 Books on the Bible's Authority
2013
Top 10 Books on the Bible's Authority
One of the most enjoyable aspects of speaking to different groups on the reliability of the New Testament is the Q and A time. It is an exciting (and risky) affair because you never know what you are going to get. Then again, sometimes you do know what you are going to get. Over the years, one question has been asked more than all others combined: "What are the best books to read on the authority of the Bible?"
Due to the popularity of that question, I have compiled an annotated list of the 10 best books on this topic. It goes without saying that such a list is highly selective (and debatable). So many good books deserve to be included. But my list is guided by these main criteria: (a) books that focus on the theological side of biblical authority and not as much on the historical evidences for the Bible's history (though some overlap is inevitable); (b) books that are "modern," meaning they have been written sometime between the Reformation and the present (otherwise, many patristic works would make the list); and (c) books that are rigorously orthodox (Karl Barth's Dogmatics is not on the list despite the fact that it has been influential on the modern church's view of Scripture).
With these criteria in mind, let's take a look at the top 10:
10. D. A. Carson and John Woodbridge, eds., Scripture and Truth (Baker, 1983); idem, Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon (Zondervan, 1986).
Even though this first entry technically includes two books, I am regarding them together since the same authors edited both of them. I appreciate that these books gather together some of the best evangelical scholars who cover a wide variety of contemporary issues related to biblical authority.
There are essays from theological, philosophical, historical, hermeneutical, and exegetical perspectives. Although some of the essays need to be updated (some are 30 years old), they constitute an indispensable treasure trove of material on the authority of the Bible.
9. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena (vol. 1): Part IV: Revelation (Baker Academic, 2003).
I don't prefer to use systematic theologies in this list, but Bavinck's work is too important to pass up. Bavinck originally published his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek from 1895 to 1901, and we are blessed to have it translated into English. It provides the quintessential introduction to a Reformed view of Revelation and Scripture, and one can hear echoes of Bavinck for generations to come in major scholars such as Geerhardus Vos, Cornelius Van Til, Herman Ridderbos, and Louis Berkhof. If you find these Dutch theologians difficult to understand then go back and read the one on whose shoulders they are standing: Bavinck.
8. E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth (Banner of Truth, 1963).
Young was a vigorous defender of the authority of Scripture, and this book embodies the ethos of his scholarship. It focuses primarily on the extent of inspiration (against those who try to limit it), and the doctrine of inerrancy (against those who suggest the Bible makes mistakes). This book lays out the foundational truths about the authority of the Bible in a clear and compelling manner. Young even covers a number of alleged contradictions and offers helpful solutions. All pastors should read this book.
7. Ned Stonehouse and Paul Woolley, eds., The Infallible Word: A Symposium by the Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary (P&R, 1946).
This fine collection of essays by the faculty of Westminster is too frequently overlooked. With articles from Murray, Young, Stonehouse, and Van Til, and a foreword from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, it is difficult to know how it has been forgotten. The most important article is the first, by John Murray, where he lays out the self-attesting nature of Scripture and the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit that helps God's people identify Scripture. In a world where most defend the authority of Scripture purely on the basis of historical evidence, Murray brings a refreshing and welcome perspective. Our doctrine of Scripture needs to include serious reflection on the issue of Scripture's self-authentication, and this volume is the place to start.
6. J.I. Packer, 'Fundamentalism' and the Word of God (Eerdmans, 1958).
This little book is one of my all-time favorites. It is small, but it packs a punch. The book is written in the context of the early 20th-century controversies over "fundamentalism" and whether we can (or should) still embrace traditional beliefs about the authority of the Bible. Carefully, patiently, and methodically, Packer walks through all the key issues related to these debates and impressively defends the traditional view. This is a great book to give to a fellow Christian struggling with these issues.
5. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Soli Deo Gloria, 2000).
Don't let the date of this book fool you. Whitaker lived from 1547 to 1595, during the height of the Protestant Reformation, and dedicated the book to William Cecil, chancellor of Cambridge University. This book is a masterful defense of the Protestant view of the Bible. Whitaker spends considerable time defending the self-authenticating nature of Scripture and contrasts it effectively with the Roman Catholic approach. This book is also overlooked in many discussions and deserves a much wider reading. Thanks to Soli Deo Gloria publishers, we don't have to try to read it in Latin.
4. John Owen, The Divine Original: Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures, vol. 16 of Owen's Collected Works (Banner of Truth, 1988).
Moving forward one century from Whitaker, Owen provides one of the finest articulations of the Reformed doctrine of Scripture from the Puritan era. He too focuses on the self-authenticating nature of Scripture and the role of the Holy Spirit, contrasting it with alternative models, particular Roman Catholic. This is vintage Owen: thorough, meticulous, verbose, and utterly profound. Be warned: this is no light beach reading. It is a heavy slog to get through anything Owen writes. But the reward is worth it.
3. Meredith Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (1971).
Kline is one of the most original Christian thinkers in the last century, and this book is no exception. He approaches the issue of biblical authority from a distinctive angle, namely the covenantal structure of the Old Testament. Kline argues that the idea of an authoritative text derives directly from God's covenant-making activities. You can't understand the authority of the Bible if you don't understand the nature of the covenant. This is a no-frills book (I still have my original copy from when I had Kline as a professor; pea-green cover and all), but it is truly ground-breaking.
2. John Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God (P and R, 2010).
If you are looking for a comprehensive, profound, and utterly biblical treatment of the authority of Scripture from a Reformed perspective, then this is the book. This is the fourth installment in Frame's series, A Theology of Lordship, but is really the most foundational volume (although The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God is right up there). There is hardly an issue Frame doesn't cover, or a question he doesn't answer. And his answers are so clear and balanced that it makes you wonder why you ever had that question in the first place. No one is better than Frame at making complex ideas simple (some scholars seem to have the opposite gift). This book is a treasure trove of wisdom that every pastor needs to have on the shelf ready at hand.
1. B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, with intro by Van Til (P&R, 1948).
Classics are classics for a reason. Warfield's work still stands out today as one of the most cogent, insightful, and helpful works on the authority of Scripture. It aptly represents the ethos of Old Princeton and is the gold standard for a distinctively Reformed view of the Bible's inspiration. Warfield's insights are so applicable to modern-day issues that it is easy to forget the content is more than 100 years old. In addition, Van Til's introduction (68 pages long) is immensely helpful. It provides a presuppositional context for Warfield's work, and reminds the reader that Van Til and Warfield had more in common than some people assume (though there are still differences).
Due to the popularity of that question, I have compiled an annotated list of the 10 best books on this topic. It goes without saying that such a list is highly selective (and debatable). So many good books deserve to be included. But my list is guided by these main criteria: (a) books that focus on the theological side of biblical authority and not as much on the historical evidences for the Bible's history (though some overlap is inevitable); (b) books that are "modern," meaning they have been written sometime between the Reformation and the present (otherwise, many patristic works would make the list); and (c) books that are rigorously orthodox (Karl Barth's Dogmatics is not on the list despite the fact that it has been influential on the modern church's view of Scripture).
With these criteria in mind, let's take a look at the top 10:
10. D. A. Carson and John Woodbridge, eds., Scripture and Truth (Baker, 1983); idem, Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon (Zondervan, 1986).
Even though this first entry technically includes two books, I am regarding them together since the same authors edited both of them. I appreciate that these books gather together some of the best evangelical scholars who cover a wide variety of contemporary issues related to biblical authority.
There are essays from theological, philosophical, historical, hermeneutical, and exegetical perspectives. Although some of the essays need to be updated (some are 30 years old), they constitute an indispensable treasure trove of material on the authority of the Bible.
9. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena (vol. 1): Part IV: Revelation (Baker Academic, 2003).
I don't prefer to use systematic theologies in this list, but Bavinck's work is too important to pass up. Bavinck originally published his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek from 1895 to 1901, and we are blessed to have it translated into English. It provides the quintessential introduction to a Reformed view of Revelation and Scripture, and one can hear echoes of Bavinck for generations to come in major scholars such as Geerhardus Vos, Cornelius Van Til, Herman Ridderbos, and Louis Berkhof. If you find these Dutch theologians difficult to understand then go back and read the one on whose shoulders they are standing: Bavinck.
8. E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth (Banner of Truth, 1963).
Young was a vigorous defender of the authority of Scripture, and this book embodies the ethos of his scholarship. It focuses primarily on the extent of inspiration (against those who try to limit it), and the doctrine of inerrancy (against those who suggest the Bible makes mistakes). This book lays out the foundational truths about the authority of the Bible in a clear and compelling manner. Young even covers a number of alleged contradictions and offers helpful solutions. All pastors should read this book.
7. Ned Stonehouse and Paul Woolley, eds., The Infallible Word: A Symposium by the Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary (P&R, 1946).
This fine collection of essays by the faculty of Westminster is too frequently overlooked. With articles from Murray, Young, Stonehouse, and Van Til, and a foreword from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, it is difficult to know how it has been forgotten. The most important article is the first, by John Murray, where he lays out the self-attesting nature of Scripture and the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit that helps God's people identify Scripture. In a world where most defend the authority of Scripture purely on the basis of historical evidence, Murray brings a refreshing and welcome perspective. Our doctrine of Scripture needs to include serious reflection on the issue of Scripture's self-authentication, and this volume is the place to start.
6. J.I. Packer, 'Fundamentalism' and the Word of God (Eerdmans, 1958).
This little book is one of my all-time favorites. It is small, but it packs a punch. The book is written in the context of the early 20th-century controversies over "fundamentalism" and whether we can (or should) still embrace traditional beliefs about the authority of the Bible. Carefully, patiently, and methodically, Packer walks through all the key issues related to these debates and impressively defends the traditional view. This is a great book to give to a fellow Christian struggling with these issues.
5. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Soli Deo Gloria, 2000).
Don't let the date of this book fool you. Whitaker lived from 1547 to 1595, during the height of the Protestant Reformation, and dedicated the book to William Cecil, chancellor of Cambridge University. This book is a masterful defense of the Protestant view of the Bible. Whitaker spends considerable time defending the self-authenticating nature of Scripture and contrasts it effectively with the Roman Catholic approach. This book is also overlooked in many discussions and deserves a much wider reading. Thanks to Soli Deo Gloria publishers, we don't have to try to read it in Latin.
4. John Owen, The Divine Original: Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures, vol. 16 of Owen's Collected Works (Banner of Truth, 1988).
Moving forward one century from Whitaker, Owen provides one of the finest articulations of the Reformed doctrine of Scripture from the Puritan era. He too focuses on the self-authenticating nature of Scripture and the role of the Holy Spirit, contrasting it with alternative models, particular Roman Catholic. This is vintage Owen: thorough, meticulous, verbose, and utterly profound. Be warned: this is no light beach reading. It is a heavy slog to get through anything Owen writes. But the reward is worth it.
3. Meredith Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (1971).
Kline is one of the most original Christian thinkers in the last century, and this book is no exception. He approaches the issue of biblical authority from a distinctive angle, namely the covenantal structure of the Old Testament. Kline argues that the idea of an authoritative text derives directly from God's covenant-making activities. You can't understand the authority of the Bible if you don't understand the nature of the covenant. This is a no-frills book (I still have my original copy from when I had Kline as a professor; pea-green cover and all), but it is truly ground-breaking.
2. John Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God (P and R, 2010).
If you are looking for a comprehensive, profound, and utterly biblical treatment of the authority of Scripture from a Reformed perspective, then this is the book. This is the fourth installment in Frame's series, A Theology of Lordship, but is really the most foundational volume (although The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God is right up there). There is hardly an issue Frame doesn't cover, or a question he doesn't answer. And his answers are so clear and balanced that it makes you wonder why you ever had that question in the first place. No one is better than Frame at making complex ideas simple (some scholars seem to have the opposite gift). This book is a treasure trove of wisdom that every pastor needs to have on the shelf ready at hand.
1. B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, with intro by Van Til (P&R, 1948).
Classics are classics for a reason. Warfield's work still stands out today as one of the most cogent, insightful, and helpful works on the authority of Scripture. It aptly represents the ethos of Old Princeton and is the gold standard for a distinctively Reformed view of the Bible's inspiration. Warfield's insights are so applicable to modern-day issues that it is easy to forget the content is more than 100 years old. In addition, Van Til's introduction (68 pages long) is immensely helpful. It provides a presuppositional context for Warfield's work, and reminds the reader that Van Til and Warfield had more in common than some people assume (though there are still differences).
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Church Fathers, 27 NT Books, & 36,000 NT Quotations from Irenaeus to Eusebius
H/t to Andy Underhile.
"Not only did the early Fathers cite all twenty-seven books of the New Testament, they also quoted virtually all the verses in all of these twenty-seven books. Five Fathers alone from Irenaeus to Eusebius possess almost 36,000 quotations from the New Testament. Sir David Dalrymple claimed to have found among the quotations of the second and third centuries 'the entire New Testament, except eleven verses.' We know of no other book from the ancient world which exists today en toto by way pf thousands of individual and selected quotations of it. It is an amazing fact that the New Testament could be reconstructed simply from quotations made within two hundred years of its composition."
Chapter 3, From God To Us, Norman Geisler and William Nix
"Not only did the early Fathers cite all twenty-seven books of the New Testament, they also quoted virtually all the verses in all of these twenty-seven books. Five Fathers alone from Irenaeus to Eusebius possess almost 36,000 quotations from the New Testament. Sir David Dalrymple claimed to have found among the quotations of the second and third centuries 'the entire New Testament, except eleven verses.' We know of no other book from the ancient world which exists today en toto by way pf thousands of individual and selected quotations of it. It is an amazing fact that the New Testament could be reconstructed simply from quotations made within two hundred years of its composition."
Chapter 3, From God To Us, Norman Geisler and William Nix
Episcopal Priest on "Why You Can Trust Your Bible"
Why You Can Trust Your Bible
Justin Holcomb|12:01 AM CT
Justin Holcomb|12:01 AM CT
Why You Can Trust Your Bible
Critics who doubt the reliability and trustworthiness of the biblical accounts of Jesus' life have issued a make-or-break challenge to the church. They ask us: "How can we be sure the Bible can be trusted as accurate?"
It's common to see the argument that the Scriptures we have today aren't the same as what was written by the apostles in the first century. Such arguments attempt to portray the Bible as unreliable and therefore irrelevant. As we will see, however, these challenges do not stand up to scrutiny.
The Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were probably written during the second half of the first century. We don't actually have any of the original documents (called autographs) in our possession today. Instead, we have copies, often handwritten by scribes to preserve and circulate the words of the apostles so they could be passed around and used in worship services. The fact the original manuscripts were copied shows how important these writings were to local congregations. However, in the process of copying the manuscripts, scribes often made small changes, some of them unintentional and others intentional.
For example, early copies of the Greek New Testament were composed in an ancient style in which words were written in all capital letters with no spaces, punctuation, or paragraph divisions. A classic illustration of this style is the phrase "GODISNOWHERE." A copyist would have to decide whether the phrase meant "God is now here" or "God is nowhere." Context would determine the meaning of the phrase, so it's not surprising a scribe could occasionally get things wrong. Furthermore, scribes sometimes misspelled words, wrote the same word twice when it should have been written once, or skipped over sections of text because the same words occurred later down the page. These are all examples of unintentional changes.
Other times, however, scribes changed the texts they were copying on purpose. This happened for a variety of reasons. They might make grammatical improvements or liturgical changes (such as adding a doxology), or they might eliminate apparent discrepancies, harmonize passages, or make doctrinal changes. However, even Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar who argues against the reliability of the Bible, recognizes, "Most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another."
Because of the large number of variations in New Testament manuscripts, some argue the words of the New Testament are unreliable. But in fact, the vast number of New Testament manuscripts actually enables us to figure out what the originals said with a great deal of certainty. As Mark Roberts puts it, "Having many manuscripts actually increases the likelihood of our getting back to the original text." Scholars can compare the various manuscripts containing the same passages of Scripture and determine, on the basis of internal and external evidence, which of the manuscripts most likely get the original wording right.
The earliest manuscripts of the works of first-century historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius are dated from the 9th to 11th centuries—more than 800 years after the originals were written. In terms of the number of surviving manuscripts, there are 200 for Suetonius, 133 for Josephus, and 75 for Herodotus.
When we compare these ancient texts to the New Testament, the difference astonishes. For instance, the earliest New Testament manuscript is from around AD 125, while significant portions of the Gospels are represented in manuscripts from the late 2nd to early 3rd century. Whereas the best ancient historical works have 500 to 800 years between the actual date the work was written and the date of the earliest surviving manuscript, there is less than a 100-year gap between the writing of the Gospels and the manuscripts we possess. This difference cannot be overstated.
In addition, the sheer number of Gospel manuscripts we've found is staggering in comparison to other ancient works. As Mark Roberts notes, "The number of Gospel manuscripts in existence is about 20 times larger than the average number of extant manuscripts of comparable writings." This figure doesn't even represent the hundreds of thousands of quotes from the Gospels in the writings of the early church fathers. With nearly 2,000 manuscripts of the Gospels in hand, it becomes clear that to doubt the reliability of the Gospels is to doubt the reliability of nearly every ancient text ever found.
Because of who God is, and because of what God has done to preserve his Word, we have confidence the events described in Scripture are accurate and historical. This is important because Christianity, unique among world religions, depends on historical events: particularly Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. As J. Gresham Machen writes, "Christianity is based upon an account of something that happened, and the Christian worker is primarily a witness." Scripture tell us this account, revealing Christianity's climax—its central, historical, and verifiable event: God's gracious act of bringing salvation through the cross of Jesus Christ.
It's common to see the argument that the Scriptures we have today aren't the same as what was written by the apostles in the first century. Such arguments attempt to portray the Bible as unreliable and therefore irrelevant. As we will see, however, these challenges do not stand up to scrutiny.
What About Textual Variants?
The Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were probably written during the second half of the first century. We don't actually have any of the original documents (called autographs) in our possession today. Instead, we have copies, often handwritten by scribes to preserve and circulate the words of the apostles so they could be passed around and used in worship services. The fact the original manuscripts were copied shows how important these writings were to local congregations. However, in the process of copying the manuscripts, scribes often made small changes, some of them unintentional and others intentional.
For example, early copies of the Greek New Testament were composed in an ancient style in which words were written in all capital letters with no spaces, punctuation, or paragraph divisions. A classic illustration of this style is the phrase "GODISNOWHERE." A copyist would have to decide whether the phrase meant "God is now here" or "God is nowhere." Context would determine the meaning of the phrase, so it's not surprising a scribe could occasionally get things wrong. Furthermore, scribes sometimes misspelled words, wrote the same word twice when it should have been written once, or skipped over sections of text because the same words occurred later down the page. These are all examples of unintentional changes.
Other times, however, scribes changed the texts they were copying on purpose. This happened for a variety of reasons. They might make grammatical improvements or liturgical changes (such as adding a doxology), or they might eliminate apparent discrepancies, harmonize passages, or make doctrinal changes. However, even Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar who argues against the reliability of the Bible, recognizes, "Most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another."
Because of the large number of variations in New Testament manuscripts, some argue the words of the New Testament are unreliable. But in fact, the vast number of New Testament manuscripts actually enables us to figure out what the originals said with a great deal of certainty. As Mark Roberts puts it, "Having many manuscripts actually increases the likelihood of our getting back to the original text." Scholars can compare the various manuscripts containing the same passages of Scripture and determine, on the basis of internal and external evidence, which of the manuscripts most likely get the original wording right.
How Does the New Testament Compare to Other Ancient Documents?
The earliest manuscripts of the works of first-century historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius are dated from the 9th to 11th centuries—more than 800 years after the originals were written. In terms of the number of surviving manuscripts, there are 200 for Suetonius, 133 for Josephus, and 75 for Herodotus.
When we compare these ancient texts to the New Testament, the difference astonishes. For instance, the earliest New Testament manuscript is from around AD 125, while significant portions of the Gospels are represented in manuscripts from the late 2nd to early 3rd century. Whereas the best ancient historical works have 500 to 800 years between the actual date the work was written and the date of the earliest surviving manuscript, there is less than a 100-year gap between the writing of the Gospels and the manuscripts we possess. This difference cannot be overstated.
In addition, the sheer number of Gospel manuscripts we've found is staggering in comparison to other ancient works. As Mark Roberts notes, "The number of Gospel manuscripts in existence is about 20 times larger than the average number of extant manuscripts of comparable writings." This figure doesn't even represent the hundreds of thousands of quotes from the Gospels in the writings of the early church fathers. With nearly 2,000 manuscripts of the Gospels in hand, it becomes clear that to doubt the reliability of the Gospels is to doubt the reliability of nearly every ancient text ever found.
Scripture Is Trustworthy and Reliable
Because of who God is, and because of what God has done to preserve his Word, we have confidence the events described in Scripture are accurate and historical. This is important because Christianity, unique among world religions, depends on historical events: particularly Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. As J. Gresham Machen writes, "Christianity is based upon an account of something that happened, and the Christian worker is primarily a witness." Scripture tell us this account, revealing Christianity's climax—its central, historical, and verifiable event: God's gracious act of bringing salvation through the cross of Jesus Christ.
Categories: Bible and Theology
Sunday, August 5, 2012
English Reformer, Hugh Latimer: Authority of Bible (Oh Not, Not That)
H/T to Steve Macias.
Hugh Latimer 15th Century Bishop and Martyr (burned at the stake for the English Reformation):
"There is no king, emperor, magistrate, and ruler, of what state soever they be, but are bound to obey this God, and to give credence unto his holy word, in directing their steps ordinately according to the same word. Yea, truly, they are not only bound to obey God's book, but also the minister of the same, "for the word's sake," so far as he speaketh "sitting in Moses' chair": that is, if his doctrine be taken out of Moses' law. For in this world God hath two swords, the one is a temporal sword, the other a spiritual. The temporal sword resteth in the hands of kings, magistrates, and rulers, under him; whereunto all subjects, as well the clergy as the laity, be subject, and punishable for any offence contrary to the same book."
From Hugh Latimer, Sermons, Parker Society edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1844), p. 85.
The quotation is taken from a sermon preached before Edward VI on March 8, 1549.
"There is no king, emperor, magistrate, and ruler, of what state soever they be, but are bound to obey this God, and to give credence unto his holy word, in directing their steps ordinately according to the same word. Yea, truly, they are not only bound to obey God's book, but also the minister of the same, "for the word's sake," so far as he speaketh "sitting in Moses' chair": that is, if his doctrine be taken out of Moses' law. For in this world God hath two swords, the one is a temporal sword, the other a spiritual. The temporal sword resteth in the hands of kings, magistrates, and rulers, under him; whereunto all subjects, as well the clergy as the laity, be subject, and punishable for any offence contrary to the same book."
From Hugh Latimer, Sermons, Parker Society edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1844), p. 85.
The quotation is taken from a sermon preached before Edward VI on March 8, 1549.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Dr. Ashley Null: Thomas Cranmer and the Lively Word
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=15788
"Thomas Cranmer and the Lively Word"
By The Rev'd Dr. Ashley Null
April 3, 2012
The Protestant Reformers viewed themselves as Catholic Christians living out the ancient faith according to its most authoritative document, the Bible. Secondly, that the Protestant reformers understood true conversion inspired by God working through Scripture to be both an initial moment of the re-orientation of personal identity and an on-going commitment to a changed way of life. The third key insight we need to bear in mind is that Cranmer's biblical hermeneutic was neither the Sola Scriptura of nineteenth-century American Protestantism nor the Patristic consensus of the Caroline and Oxford Movement Divines.
Let's now turn to this last point. Without a doubt, Scripture was the ultimate authority for matters of faith and doctrine for the Edwardian church. Unlike latter Anglican claims, now thoroughly debunked by Jean-Louis Quantin's vociferous The Church of England and Christian Antiquity, the sixteenth-century English Divines did not read Scripture through a Patristic consensus. Yet, Anglicanism's Sola Scriptura did not read the Bible apart from the Fathers.
In a distinction of great importance overlooked by both Low Church and High Church advocates, Cranmer did not look to a Patristic consensus of interpretation to guide his understanding of the Bible. He did, however, very much look to a Patristic consensus for the hermeneutical principles by which he read the Bible as the ultimate Christian authority. Although Cranmer did not always agree with the Fathers' reading of Scripture (after all, they didn't always agree with themselves), it was the Fathers who taught Cranmer how to read Scripture.
In fact, that is the true origin of Hooker's now infamous three-legged stool. For the Anglican triad of Scripture, tradition and reason did not originate with Hooker. Why should it have? Hooker did not claim to be presenting an original construal of theology. He claimed to be defending the accepted principles of the Protestant religion as established in England. The first recorded reference that I can find to this fundamental tenet of Anglican hermeneutics is July 1539:
[T]he Archbishop collecting both his arguments, authorities of Scriptures, and Doctors together, caused his Secretary to write a fair book thereof for the king, after this order. First the Scriptures were alleged, then the Doctors, thirdly followed the arguments deducted from those authorities.
From the Fathers, Cranmer learned that teaching on salvation must be supported by clear scriptural evidence. In his 1532 edition of Basil writings in Greek, Cranmer made a marginal comment: "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation." He quotes Chrysostom to the same effect in his 1547 'Homily on Salvation' and, of course, the statement made its way into the Articles of Religion, the confession of faith that was meant to supplement the ancient creeds in giving instruction to Anglicans in how to read their bibles.
Yet, how should one interpret Scripture to establish saving doctrine? By insisting on Scripture as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture, of course. That's why the sixteenth-century Anglican triad began with Scripture. Following both Erasmus and Melanchthon, Cranmer looked to the common-place method of Augustine. According to this hermeneutical approach, one collects all the scriptural passages on a common theme together in one place (hence the name "common-places"). That way more difficult passages can be in read in the light of the clearer passages, thus allowing a broader scriptural context to illuminate their meaning. Cranmer quotes Augustine specifically on this way of reading the Bible in his 'Homily on Salvation' as well.
Yet, even after employing the common-place method, an individual interpretater could still get it wrong. Hence, the Fathers still needed to be read as guide to ensure the right construal of Scripture. Cranmer was clear that the Fathers' authority rested on the quality of their biblical exegesis, not on an inspiration equivalent to the apostles. Therefore, patristic testimony was variable.
Yet, sixteenth-century commentators were no more privileged in their exegetical endeavors either. Consequently, even though in Cranmer's view there was no authoritative Patristic consensus beyond what Scripture could clearly support, no sixteenth-century biblical interpretation was valid unless one could show that it was not unique, that there was Patristic precedence that others had come to the same conclusion based on Scripture. On this basis, he condemned Luther's and Melanchthon's lame Scriptural defense of Philip of Hesse's bigamy as a pastoral remedy in keeping with the Gospel. For Cranmer the fact that such a marriage was literally unprecedented in the whole history of the Christian church rendered such an exegesis patently fraudulent. Cranmer would go to great lengths to consult patristic precedent on the matter of the Eucharist in both the 1530s and 1540s, although to opposite conclusions.
Now let's think about what we have said. Anglican biblical commentators are first to compare biblical passages to one another and then their theological conclusions from such activity to the conclusions of earlier generations. That's a lot of comparing. And by the very nature of making a comparison, reason is involved in the process. Hence, as Hooker himself said, the third part of the Anglican triad is not autonomous reason in some post-Enlightenment sense, but rather "theological reasoning," derived from comparing sacred texts to each other and their interpretation by other faithful commentators. Reason was originally part of Anglican theological authority because grace-filled reason was an integral tool in the patristic hermeneutical process.
So we can already see that Anglicanism's commitment to and implementation of Sola Scriptura is in fact based on patristic hermeneutical principles. Yet, there is more. As Article 34 of the Thirty-Nine Articles makes clear, Anglicanism, unlike the Scottish and Continental Reformed traditions, only demands a clear scriptural warrant in matters of faith and doctrine. As far as matters in church life like liturgy and governance, each national church in each generation is free to order their life together to promote the Gospel as they think best, provided that their decisions do not contradict biblical teaching. This distinction is also based on patristic practice. From the Fathers, Cranmer learned that the purpose of Scripture was personal and societal transformation through redirecting the human heart to truly love God and neighbor. In another comment on Basil's writings perhaps as early as 1532, Cranmer says that when it is imperative for a person to understand himself, he must devote himself to Scripture. In his private theological notebooks around 1538, Cranmer wrote:
All Scripture is divinely inspired, etc. This text Saint John Chrysostom, Theophilactus, Thomas, with many other authors, both old and new, do expound plainly as the words be that whatsoever truth is necessary to be taught for our salvation, or the contrary to be reproved, whatsoever is necessary for us to do, and what to forbear and not to do, all is completely contained in the Scripture, so that a man thereby may be perfectly instructed unto all manner of goodness.
For Cranmer, Scripture told how life was to be lived, not how the church or society as institutions were to be organized. Yet Scripture went beyond mere instruction. It was also God's very own divine instrument to bring about that change within us. As Cranmer wrote once again in the "Homily on Scripture": The words of Holy Scripture be called words of everlasting life: for they be God's instrument, ordained for the same purpose. They have power to convert through God's promise, and they be effectual through God's assistance; and, being received in a faithful heart, they have ever a heavenly spiritual working in them.
For those who would "ruminate and, as it were, chew the cud" of Scripture, God worked through the regular repetition of biblical truths to engraft in them not only saving faith but also a steadfastness in the pursuit of personal holiness that would gradually transform their character to mirror what they were reading: And there is nothing that so much establisheth our faith and trust in God, that so much conserveth innocency and pureness of the heart, and also of outward godly life and conversation, as continual reading and meditation of God's Word. For that thing which by perpetual use of reading of Holy Scripture and diligent searching of the same is deeply printed and engraven in the heart at length turneth almost into nature.
In short, the spiritual effect of God's supernatural agency through Scripture was the on-going reorientation of a believer's heart: This Word whosoever is diligent to read and in his heart to print that he readeth, the great affection to the transitory things of this world shall be diminished in him, and the great desire of heavenly things that be therein promised of God shall increase in him.
Hence, "the hearing and keeping of [Scripture] maketh us blessed, sanctifieth us and maketh us holy." Little wonder, then, the "Homily on Scripture" urged that "[t]hese books . . . ought to be much in our hands, in our eyes, in our ears, in our mouths, but most of all, in our hearts." Here's Cranmer understanding of the Lively Word of God. Let me now close this first talk with one more important patristic biblical hermeneutical principle that has profoundly shaped Anglicanism. The context in which the Bible was to be read.
From the Fathers Cranmer did not learn a hermeneutic of suspicion which characterizes so much of the approach of modern biblical criticism (note the very name.). Rather, Scripture was to be read devotionally. As Cranmer noted again in his copy of Basil's works, 'prayer follows from reading.' Naturally, Cranmer thought such should be the case for individual study. However, he recognized the best place for a devotional reading of Scripture was in the midst of the community gathered together for corporate worship. Taking to heart a principle he learned from Basil's Hexameron, Cranmer decided to make sacred assemblies the place where the average person could learn his Bible. Surely it is not without significance that Cranmer noted in the margin that it was Basil's practice to give daily bible teaching for common laborers in both morning and evening assemblies. The lecture in its entirety may be heard online at: http://www.tsm.edu/media_resources/ancient_wisdom_anglican_futures_2011_audio
-----------
The Rev'd Dr. Ashley Null is Canon Theologian of Western Kansas
From Ashley Null's lectures, "Thomas Cranmer and the Lively Word," given at the 2011 Ancient Wisdom/Anglican Futures Conference. This article was first posted in The Anglican Way March Issue, Volume 35. No.1 and is republished here with permission. www.pbsusa.org
"Thomas Cranmer and the Lively Word"
By The Rev'd Dr. Ashley Null
April 3, 2012
Let's now turn to this last point. Without a doubt, Scripture was the ultimate authority for matters of faith and doctrine for the Edwardian church. Unlike latter Anglican claims, now thoroughly debunked by Jean-Louis Quantin's vociferous The Church of England and Christian Antiquity, the sixteenth-century English Divines did not read Scripture through a Patristic consensus. Yet, Anglicanism's Sola Scriptura did not read the Bible apart from the Fathers.
In a distinction of great importance overlooked by both Low Church and High Church advocates, Cranmer did not look to a Patristic consensus of interpretation to guide his understanding of the Bible. He did, however, very much look to a Patristic consensus for the hermeneutical principles by which he read the Bible as the ultimate Christian authority. Although Cranmer did not always agree with the Fathers' reading of Scripture (after all, they didn't always agree with themselves), it was the Fathers who taught Cranmer how to read Scripture.
In fact, that is the true origin of Hooker's now infamous three-legged stool. For the Anglican triad of Scripture, tradition and reason did not originate with Hooker. Why should it have? Hooker did not claim to be presenting an original construal of theology. He claimed to be defending the accepted principles of the Protestant religion as established in England. The first recorded reference that I can find to this fundamental tenet of Anglican hermeneutics is July 1539:
[T]he Archbishop collecting both his arguments, authorities of Scriptures, and Doctors together, caused his Secretary to write a fair book thereof for the king, after this order. First the Scriptures were alleged, then the Doctors, thirdly followed the arguments deducted from those authorities.
From the Fathers, Cranmer learned that teaching on salvation must be supported by clear scriptural evidence. In his 1532 edition of Basil writings in Greek, Cranmer made a marginal comment: "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation." He quotes Chrysostom to the same effect in his 1547 'Homily on Salvation' and, of course, the statement made its way into the Articles of Religion, the confession of faith that was meant to supplement the ancient creeds in giving instruction to Anglicans in how to read their bibles.
Yet, how should one interpret Scripture to establish saving doctrine? By insisting on Scripture as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture, of course. That's why the sixteenth-century Anglican triad began with Scripture. Following both Erasmus and Melanchthon, Cranmer looked to the common-place method of Augustine. According to this hermeneutical approach, one collects all the scriptural passages on a common theme together in one place (hence the name "common-places"). That way more difficult passages can be in read in the light of the clearer passages, thus allowing a broader scriptural context to illuminate their meaning. Cranmer quotes Augustine specifically on this way of reading the Bible in his 'Homily on Salvation' as well.
Yet, sixteenth-century commentators were no more privileged in their exegetical endeavors either. Consequently, even though in Cranmer's view there was no authoritative Patristic consensus beyond what Scripture could clearly support, no sixteenth-century biblical interpretation was valid unless one could show that it was not unique, that there was Patristic precedence that others had come to the same conclusion based on Scripture. On this basis, he condemned Luther's and Melanchthon's lame Scriptural defense of Philip of Hesse's bigamy as a pastoral remedy in keeping with the Gospel. For Cranmer the fact that such a marriage was literally unprecedented in the whole history of the Christian church rendered such an exegesis patently fraudulent. Cranmer would go to great lengths to consult patristic precedent on the matter of the Eucharist in both the 1530s and 1540s, although to opposite conclusions.
Now let's think about what we have said. Anglican biblical commentators are first to compare biblical passages to one another and then their theological conclusions from such activity to the conclusions of earlier generations. That's a lot of comparing. And by the very nature of making a comparison, reason is involved in the process. Hence, as Hooker himself said, the third part of the Anglican triad is not autonomous reason in some post-Enlightenment sense, but rather "theological reasoning," derived from comparing sacred texts to each other and their interpretation by other faithful commentators. Reason was originally part of Anglican theological authority because grace-filled reason was an integral tool in the patristic hermeneutical process.
So we can already see that Anglicanism's commitment to and implementation of Sola Scriptura is in fact based on patristic hermeneutical principles. Yet, there is more. As Article 34 of the Thirty-Nine Articles makes clear, Anglicanism, unlike the Scottish and Continental Reformed traditions, only demands a clear scriptural warrant in matters of faith and doctrine. As far as matters in church life like liturgy and governance, each national church in each generation is free to order their life together to promote the Gospel as they think best, provided that their decisions do not contradict biblical teaching. This distinction is also based on patristic practice. From the Fathers, Cranmer learned that the purpose of Scripture was personal and societal transformation through redirecting the human heart to truly love God and neighbor. In another comment on Basil's writings perhaps as early as 1532, Cranmer says that when it is imperative for a person to understand himself, he must devote himself to Scripture. In his private theological notebooks around 1538, Cranmer wrote:
All Scripture is divinely inspired, etc. This text Saint John Chrysostom, Theophilactus, Thomas, with many other authors, both old and new, do expound plainly as the words be that whatsoever truth is necessary to be taught for our salvation, or the contrary to be reproved, whatsoever is necessary for us to do, and what to forbear and not to do, all is completely contained in the Scripture, so that a man thereby may be perfectly instructed unto all manner of goodness.
For Cranmer, Scripture told how life was to be lived, not how the church or society as institutions were to be organized. Yet Scripture went beyond mere instruction. It was also God's very own divine instrument to bring about that change within us. As Cranmer wrote once again in the "Homily on Scripture": The words of Holy Scripture be called words of everlasting life: for they be God's instrument, ordained for the same purpose. They have power to convert through God's promise, and they be effectual through God's assistance; and, being received in a faithful heart, they have ever a heavenly spiritual working in them.
For those who would "ruminate and, as it were, chew the cud" of Scripture, God worked through the regular repetition of biblical truths to engraft in them not only saving faith but also a steadfastness in the pursuit of personal holiness that would gradually transform their character to mirror what they were reading: And there is nothing that so much establisheth our faith and trust in God, that so much conserveth innocency and pureness of the heart, and also of outward godly life and conversation, as continual reading and meditation of God's Word. For that thing which by perpetual use of reading of Holy Scripture and diligent searching of the same is deeply printed and engraven in the heart at length turneth almost into nature.
In short, the spiritual effect of God's supernatural agency through Scripture was the on-going reorientation of a believer's heart: This Word whosoever is diligent to read and in his heart to print that he readeth, the great affection to the transitory things of this world shall be diminished in him, and the great desire of heavenly things that be therein promised of God shall increase in him.
Hence, "the hearing and keeping of [Scripture] maketh us blessed, sanctifieth us and maketh us holy." Little wonder, then, the "Homily on Scripture" urged that "[t]hese books . . . ought to be much in our hands, in our eyes, in our ears, in our mouths, but most of all, in our hearts." Here's Cranmer understanding of the Lively Word of God. Let me now close this first talk with one more important patristic biblical hermeneutical principle that has profoundly shaped Anglicanism. The context in which the Bible was to be read.
From the Fathers Cranmer did not learn a hermeneutic of suspicion which characterizes so much of the approach of modern biblical criticism (note the very name.). Rather, Scripture was to be read devotionally. As Cranmer noted again in his copy of Basil's works, 'prayer follows from reading.' Naturally, Cranmer thought such should be the case for individual study. However, he recognized the best place for a devotional reading of Scripture was in the midst of the community gathered together for corporate worship. Taking to heart a principle he learned from Basil's Hexameron, Cranmer decided to make sacred assemblies the place where the average person could learn his Bible. Surely it is not without significance that Cranmer noted in the margin that it was Basil's practice to give daily bible teaching for common laborers in both morning and evening assemblies. The lecture in its entirety may be heard online at: http://www.tsm.edu/media_resources/ancient_wisdom_anglican_futures_2011_audio
-----------
The Rev'd Dr. Ashley Null is Canon Theologian of Western Kansas
From Ashley Null's lectures, "Thomas Cranmer and the Lively Word," given at the 2011 Ancient Wisdom/Anglican Futures Conference. This article was first posted in The Anglican Way March Issue, Volume 35. No.1 and is republished here with permission. www.pbsusa.org
Monday, March 26, 2012
Al Moher Interviews Jimmy Carter on the Bible
http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/03/26/the-bible-meets-the-modern-age-a-conversation-with-former-president-jimmy-carter-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AlbertMohlersBlog+%28Albert+Mohler%27s+Blog%29
The Bible Meets the Modern Age: A Conversation with Former President Jimmy Carter
Monday, March 26, 2012
Today's Thinking in Public program features my interview with former President Jimmy Carter. The conversation was remarkable, and I was honored to have this interview with the 39th President of the United States. The focus of the interview was on the Bible, a book that has framed President Carter’s life from his earliest memories. Even now, he remains the world’s most famous Sunday School teacher.
What makes this conversation so important, however, is the candor of our discussion. President Carter speaks warmly of his love for the Bible, but he also reveals a view of the Bible’s inspiration and authority that rejects inerrancy and opens the door for what he describes as a “selective” application of the Scriptures when it comes to many issues.
President Carter speaks of his boyhood in Georgia, his experience as President of the United States, and his energetic post-presidency.
In my comments, I try to put the conversation into the context of Protestant theology in the twentieth century and the social transformations that marked America during those years. I appreciate President Carter’s gracious candor and the spirit of intellectual engagement that he demonstrated. I believe it was an important interview, and one worth your careful listening.
You can listen to The Bible Meets the Modern World: A Conversation with Former President Jimmy Carter, here. Remember to subscribe to Thinking in Public through this website, or through iTunes.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Vintage Thomas Cranmer: "In the scriptures be the fat pastures of the soul"
H/T to Creedal Christian at: http://creedalchristian.blogspot.com/2012/03/thomas-cranmer-in-scriptures-be-fat.html. This is vintage Cranmer.
Thomas Cranmer: "In the scriptures be the fat pastures of the soul"
Wherefore,
in few words to comprehend the largeness and utility of the scripture, how it
containeth fruitful instruction and erudition for every man; if any things be
necessary to be learned, of the holy scripture we may learn it. If falsehood
shall be reproved, thereof we may gather wherewithal. If any thing be to be
corrected and amended, if there need any exhortation or consolation, of the
scripture we may well learn.
In the scriptures be the fat pastures of the soul; therein is no venomous meat, no unwholesome thing; they be the very dainty and pure feeding. He that is ignorant, shall find there what he should learn. He that is a perverse sinner, shall there find his damnation to make him to tremble for fear. He that laboureth to serve God, shall find there his glory, and the promissions of eternal life, exhorting him more diligently to labour.
Here may all manner of persons, men, women young, old, learned, unlearned, rich, poor, priests, laymen, lords, ladies, officers, tenants, and mean men, virgins, wives, widows, lawyers, merchants, artificers, husbandmen, and all manner of persons, of what estate or condition soever they be, may in this book learn all things what they ought to believe, what they ought to do, and what they should not do, as well concerning Almighty God, as also concerning themselves and all other.
Briefly, to the reading of the scripture none can be enemy, but that either be so sick that they love not to hear of any medicine, or else that be so ignorant that they know not scripture to be the most healthful medicine.
In the scriptures be the fat pastures of the soul; therein is no venomous meat, no unwholesome thing; they be the very dainty and pure feeding. He that is ignorant, shall find there what he should learn. He that is a perverse sinner, shall there find his damnation to make him to tremble for fear. He that laboureth to serve God, shall find there his glory, and the promissions of eternal life, exhorting him more diligently to labour.
Here may all manner of persons, men, women young, old, learned, unlearned, rich, poor, priests, laymen, lords, ladies, officers, tenants, and mean men, virgins, wives, widows, lawyers, merchants, artificers, husbandmen, and all manner of persons, of what estate or condition soever they be, may in this book learn all things what they ought to believe, what they ought to do, and what they should not do, as well concerning Almighty God, as also concerning themselves and all other.
Briefly, to the reading of the scripture none can be enemy, but that either be so sick that they love not to hear of any medicine, or else that be so ignorant that they know not scripture to be the most healthful medicine.
Judicial Hardening & Blindness Imposed: Episcopal Leadership
"As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for
former sins, doth blind and harden, from them he not only withholdeth his grace
whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought
upon in their hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had,
and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption makes occasions of sin;
and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world,
and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves,
even under those means which God useth for the softening of others."
Here's VOL's article.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=15736
By Ladson F. Mills
Special to Virtueonlinewww.virtueonline.org
March 23, 2012
The Episcopal Church has become the personification for what my friends in AA call the definition of insanity; repeating the same behavior over and over again and expecting a different result. In a denomination which has become accustomed to bad news the news grows progressively worse. The Washington Cathedral is a potential casualty following a year that has marked the closings of at least three diocesan cathedrals. Trinity Church Wall Street, arguably the wealthiest single parish in the world, finds itself on the receiving end of unflattering articles concerning finances and its relationship with the rector. Its enormous wealth and prestige has failed to protect it from the collective angst now permeating the Episcopal Church.
In 2000 Jan Nunley, then communications officer for the Diocese of Rhode Island wrote an article admitting the 1990's Decade of Evangelism was more like a Decade of Factionalism. What began with a whimper had ended with a sigh. A further effort by the church to establish a goal of significant growth by 2020 can only be viewed as having been received with a collective yawn. One cannot thrive when the challenge is how does one survive.
Following the 2003 General Convention the Diocese of East Tennessee where I was then serving experienced the institutional insanity which has become our denomination's trademark. Following the vote to confirm Gene Robinson my bishop wrote back to the diocese that although he voted against this confirmation he would stand, applaud and welcome Robinson into the House of Bishops.
The position of our deputies to the convention seemed even more confusing. After being quoted in the local newspaper expressing concern as to the adverse effect their vote to confirm Robinson might have on the diocese, I was immediately challenged by diocesan newspaper editor Sharon Rassmussen. She argued since not all our deputies were in agreement the vote was not unanimous as I had stated. While I could not confirm the accuracy of her statement I could in fact note the deputies from East Tennessee voted to give their consent to approve Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Technical hairsplitting aside this was a source of concern for many members of my parish as well as others throughout the diocese
I found myself experiencing a curious situation. The bishop was creating an impression that although he had voted against Robinson he might actually be supporting him. The diocesan deputation was now trying to create a plausible deniability that while voting to confirm Robinson's election as a bishop they may not truly be in support of him. This may be the poster child for disingenuousness, but it is masterful example of smokescreen and political astuteness. It created enough illusion to keep the conservatives quiet and hopeful they were not being completely disenfranchised.
This philosophy appears to be driving the current debate on the new same sex liturgies in dioceses such as Georgia. The debate is frame worked around theological subtleties such as differences between blessing a relationship and the blessing of a marriage. This is a smokescreen. Conservatives will embrace hope their concerns are being honored while revisionists know it's simply a matter of time. It is hard to fathom anyone doubting that when same sex blessings are approved same sex marriage will soon follow. This type of obfuscation may make for good politics. The question is does it make for good Gospel? "
The Executive Council of the Episcopal Church during its recent meeting received sobering statistics in regard to our continuing decline. Among the most alarming were a 33% national decrease in church school attendance and a 2.5 to 1 ratio of parish closings to openings. We are closing churches and losing our future. Our bishops during their recent meeting at Camp Allen, Texas seem reassured things are better since they found their time together less contentious than usual. One can hardly contain ones relief at such joyous news. Like the AA definition of insanity we are determined to continue the same behavior expecting a different result.
If as the old saying goes there is no lesson in the second kick of a mule our collective heads must be ringing as we approach the 2012 General Convention. We are once again deluding ourselves with the belief that same sex unions and inclusiveness (whatever that is supposed to mean) will somehow turn this disaster around sobering statistics notwithstanding. While House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson and our Presiding Bishop continue their power struggle one must wonder will there be anyone left to inherit this legacy of our collective insanity.
An increasingly number of bishops, priest and laity across the theological spectrum see this tragic situation for what it is and will admit so privately. I am impressed by their astuteness. Although Bonnie Anderson does easily attract clergy support many have come to view her as the only senior Episcopal Church Leader in a position that affords her the independence necessary to thwart the power grab by the Presiding Bishop and her chancellor. Their use and some would suggest misuse of the canons is designed to force submission through regulation, isolation and control. This has resulted in Anderson receiving an ever increasing number of reluctant and silent supporters among the clergy.
Others, however, note that as bad as the House of Bishops may be they are as a body more conservative and predictable than the House of Deputies. Theology may not be the bishop's strong suit but they do understand the power of the check book. One priest observed that in this climate even his well known revisionist bishop has begun speaking to the need for Christian witness and mission.
So where do we go from here? Do we embrace the legal fictions that make good politics but poor Gospel? Do we wait to see how the turf war between Katherine and Bonnie turns out? Or do we continue on our current path and pray for the continued gift of insanity. It won't produce any different results but at least we can find solace in the fact that it is one thing we continually do well.
Ladson F. Mills III is a retired priest living in South Carolina with over thirty years parish experience. He currently serves as Scholar in Residence at Church of Our Saviour Johns Island.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Justin Taylor: Do Historical Matters Matter to the Faith
Justin Taylor offers this book recommendation. It
looks good. The subject of inerrancy, Biblical authority, sola scriptura,
inspiration and the "International Council on Biblical Inerrancy"
have been subjects of recent musings. Little appears in the popular media
outlets on the subject. In addition to the book below, we strongly recommend
reading the English Reformer, William Whittaker, and his volume, entitled,
"Disputations on Holy Scriptures." The latter volume is available
electronically by a books.google.com search. Here's Justin's post on "Do
Historical Matters Matter to the Faith."
Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?
Crossway has just published a major new collection of essays from an international team of top-flight scholars on the historicity of Scripture and why it matters to faith: Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture, edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary.
You can read the table of contents and the commendations below:
Foreword by John Woodbridge
Preface
Part 1: Biblical, Systematic, and Historical Theology:
1. Thomas H. McCall, “Religious Epistemology, Theological Interpretation of Scripture, and Critical Biblical Scholarship: A Theologian’s Reflections”
2. Graham A. Cole, “The Peril of a ‘Historyless’ Systematic Theology”
3. Mark D. Thompson, “The Divine Investment in Truth: Toward a Theological Account of Biblical Inerrancy”
4. James K. Hoffmeier, “‘These Things Happened’: Why a Historical Exodus Is Essential for Theology”
5. Michael A. G. Haykin ,”Fundamentum et Columnam Fidei Nostrae“: Irenaeus on the Perfect and Saving Nature of the Scriptures”
Part 2: Old Testament and Issues of History, Authenticity, and Authority
6. Richard E. Averbeck, “Pentateuchal Criticism and the Priestly Torah”
7. Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Old Testament Source Criticism: Some Methodological Miscues”
8. Robert D. Bergen, “Word Distribution as an Indicator Authorial Intention: A Study of Gen. 1:1-2:3″
9. John W. Hilber, “The Culture of Prophecy and Writing in the Ancient Near East”
10. Richard L. Schultz , “Isaiah, Isaiahs, and Current Scholarship”
11. Alan Millard, “Daniel in Babylon: An Accurate Record?”
12. Willem A. VanGemeren & Jason Stanghalle, “A Critical-Realistic Reading of Psalms Titles: Authenticity, Inspiration and Evangelicals”
13. Jens Bruun Kofoed, “The Old Testament as Cultural Memory”
Part 3: New Testament and Issues of History, Authenticity, and Authority
14. Robert W. Yarborugh, “God’s Word in Human Words: Form-Critical Reflections”
15. Craig L. Blomberg, “A Constructive Traditional Response to New Testament Criticism”
16. Darrell L. Bock, “Precision and Accuracy: Making Distinctions in the Cultural Context that Give Us Pause in Pitting Gospels Against Other”
17. Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Paul, Timothy, and Titus: The Assumption of a Pseudonymous Author and of Pseudonymous Recipients in the Light of Literary, Theological, and Historical Evidence”
18. Thomas W. Davis, “Saint Paul on Cyprus: The Transformation of an Apostle”
Part 4: The Old Testament and Archaeology
19. John M. Monson, “Enter Joshua: The Mother of Current Biblical Debates”
20. Richard S. Hess, “Yahweh’s ‘Wife’ and Belief in One God in the Old Testament”
21. Michael G. Hasel, “New Excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa and the Early History of Judah”
22. Steven M. Ortiz, “The Archaeology of David and Solomon: Method or Madness?”
Here are a few of the endorsements:
“Standing athwart the tide of strident voices currently demanding that we abandon confidence in the truthfulness and reliability of the Bible, the chapters in this volume constitute a defense of historic Christian confessionalism on the nature of Scripture. Mercifully, however, they are not mere regurgitations of past positions. Rather, they are informed, competent, and sometimes creative contributions that urgently deserve the widest circulation. In months and years to come, I shall repeatedly refer students and pastors to this collection.”
—D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
—D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
“Few Christian convictions are of as pervasive importance as the absolute perfection of Scripture—and few convictions fall under more perennial criticism. Hence the need for this volume, which seeks to defend the evangelical doctrine of biblical inerrancy against scholars who argue that in accommodating his truth to human understanding, God has made his Word susceptible to error. Here James Hoffmeier, Dennis Magary, and a broad range of learned colleagues take seriously the self-witness of Scripture and respond to some of the latest, hardest objections to inerrancy by providing clear, comprehensive, persuasive, and charitable answers. Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? is an invaluable resource for any student of Scripture who doubts the doctrine of inerrancy or has serious questions about the historical reliability of the Bible.”
—Philip Graham Ryken, President, Wheaton College
—Philip Graham Ryken, President, Wheaton College
“Whether in a university open forum or in the church, I am consistently asked about the trustworthiness and authority of Scripture. I am therefore delighted that the authors have engaged the critics’ challenge as well as the Bible afresh and met the arguments head-on with insightful scholarship and the historicity of Scripture. I commend this unique and timely volume and believe it will be an important work for decades to come.”
—Ravi Zacharias, Founder and President, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries; author, Jesus Among Other Gods
—Ravi Zacharias, Founder and President, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries; author, Jesus Among Other Gods
“To scholars unconvinced of the classical Christian doctrine of Holy Scripture, Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? offers a challenge both substantive in its argumentation and respectful in its tone. To scholars convinced of this doctrine, this volume models how to advance the argument on a multidisciplinary, evidentialist basis. We owe the editors and authors a debt of gratitude.”
—Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Lead Pastor, Immanuel Church, Nashville, Tennessee
—Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Lead Pastor, Immanuel Church, Nashville, Tennessee
“This is a book that has been sorely needed. The Bible has long been under attack from those outside evangelical faith, and now more recently from those supposedly inside. Here in one volume the questions are addressed in a comprehensive way, including theological, historical-critical, and archaeological issues. Written with an irenic tone—and yet confronting the questions directly—this book will surely take a prominent place on the shelves of all those who love the Bible and look for solid answers to give to its detractors. The editors are to be commended for bringing the book to fruition and for their breadth of vision in organizing it.”
—John Oswalt , Distinguished Professor of Old Testament, Asbury Theological Seminary
—John Oswalt , Distinguished Professor of Old Testament, Asbury Theological Seminary
“James Hoffmeier and Dennis Magary have assembled a first-rate team of evangelical writers to join them in exploring the historical issues related to the interpretation of Holy Scripture and the formation of Christian theology. Each chapter makes a significant contribution to this comprehensive and focused volume—which both affirms and defends the complete truthfulness and full authority of the Bible while fully engaging the questions and challenges raised by modern and postmodern approaches to biblical interpretation. Informative and winsome, this impressive work will be immensely helpful for a generation of students, pastors, and scholars alike.”
—David S. Dockery, President, Union University
—David S. Dockery, President, Union University
“Here is a collection of first-rate essays written by an international team of scholars, each affirming what must be called the historic Christian view of Holy Scripture—that the Bible, God’s Word written, is trustworthy and totally true in all that it affirms. Rather than simply rehearsing platitudes of the past, this volume advances the argument in the light of current debate and recent challenges. A magisterial undertaking to be reckoned with.”
—Timothy George, Founding Dean, Beeson Divinity School; General Editor, Reformation Commentary on Scripture
—Timothy George, Founding Dean, Beeson Divinity School; General Editor, Reformation Commentary on Scripture
“In recent decades evangelicals have felt increasing pressure to abandon their high views of Scripture—a pressure that comes not only from scholars outside their circles, but also from some inside. This volume represents a welcome response to both, but especially to the latter. The contributors represent evangelical scholarship at its best as they address critical challenges with clarity and conviction, even while keeping their tone civil and charitable. This book will serve as a handy reference tool for students, pastors, and scholars who need a fair and responsible treatment of the evidence and clear declaration of their conclusions.”
—Daniel I. Block, Gunther H. Knoedler Professor of Old Testament, Wheaton College; author, The Gospel according to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy
—Daniel I. Block, Gunther H. Knoedler Professor of Old Testament, Wheaton College; author, The Gospel according to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy
“To the credit of its editors and authors, this book is not so much a reaction to the recent statements of Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks on biblical inerrancy, which called it forth, but an apologetic response to their works. To that effect, it is not a monument to the doctrine, but rather an advancement of its method and intent.”
—C. Hassell Bullock, Pastor, Warren Park Presbyterian Church, Cicero, Illinois; Franklin S. Dyrness Professor of Biblical Studies Emeritus, Wheaton College
—C. Hassell Bullock, Pastor, Warren Park Presbyterian Church, Cicero, Illinois; Franklin S. Dyrness Professor of Biblical Studies Emeritus, Wheaton College
“This is a timely work, both in the sense that it addresses an emerging issue—a loss of confidence in the historicity of the Bible—and in the sense that its authors are conversant in the current state of the debate. The topics discussed include all the essentials: the foundational theological issues, the major source-critical and historical-critical questions, and matters arising from archaeology. This book will be a valuable resource for both scholars and students.”
—Duane A. Garrett, Professor of Old Testament, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; author, A Modern Grammar for Biblical Hebrew and Amos: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text
—Duane A. Garrett, Professor of Old Testament, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; author, A Modern Grammar for Biblical Hebrew and Amos: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text
“This is a brilliant response to evangelical skeptics such as Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks, and, in a broader sense, also to mainstream skeptics such as Philip Davies, Keith Whitelam, or Robert Coote. The list of contributors is a stellar lineup of first-rate scholars in their disciplines who defend the traditional, orthodox view of Scripture as historically reliable in sophisticated and convincing ways. Even those who might remain unconvinced of the book’s main argument will have to rethink their positions. I highly recommend this work.”
—David M. Howard Jr., Professor of Old Testament, Bethel University, St. Paul, Minnesota
—David M. Howard Jr., Professor of Old Testament, Bethel University, St. Paul, Minnesota
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Francis Turretin: "Scriptural and Patristic Testimony to the Holy Spirit's Illumination and Scripture's Self-Authenticating Power
"The Thoughts of Francis Turretin," at: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/ always posts sensible and thoughtful things. On this specific post, we have a short, but useful sample of texts re: the Self-Authenticating power of Scripture by the Holy Spirit's illumination. Martin Chemnitz's Vol. 1 of the "Council of Trent," however, affords many more. We recommend this blog to all our readers.
---------------------------------------
In the comment box of a previous post, Pastor David King provided the following Scriptural and patristic testimony to the Holy Spirit's inward illumination of believers and Scripture's self-authenticating character, to which I've made some minor edits:
The canon of Scripture is an artifact of revelation rather than an object of revelation. By "artifact" I mean something that is a feature not normally present but visible as a result of an external agent or action.
While the Romanist treats the canon as an object of revelation, it is the result (hence an "artifact") of revelation. In other words, the canonical list of the books of Holy Scripture are the result of God's revelatory work, and not the object of what God has revealed.
A Christian's recognition of these books is result of God's working in him to will and to believe.
I believe 1) Scripture's own witness of its inspiration, and 2) that God confirms that by the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit. I drawn a distinction (as the Reformers did before me) between the Spirit's revelatory work and his illuminating work.
In his work, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14, Augustine made this point.
Augustine (354-430) in response to Manichaeus:
Citation: Augustine, Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam vocant Fundamenti, Liber Unus, Caput XIV, PL 42:183; translation in NPNF1: Vol. IV, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14.
We acknowledge with Augustine that the Church is most often the initial and outward means by which men are called to faith in Christ, but God brings us to the place (as Augustine put it) "to know what we believe by the inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself."
Scripture itself furnishes us with clear illustration of this in the fourth chapter of John’s gospel. After having dealings with Christ, the woman of Samaria returns to her city, and there bears witness to Christ.
John 4:39-42
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me all that I ever did.”
So when the Samaritans had come to Him, they urged Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. And many more believed because of His own word.
Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”
The point this passage illustrates is this - that though it was the woman’s witness which initially induced belief in Christ, nonetheless, the confirmation of their faith came to rest in the testimony of Christ’s own word. While the woman’s witness was true and sufficiently credible to move the inhabitants of the city, it does not follow that she became the infallible bulwark of their subsequent faith. The inhabitants of the city came to rest not in her word, but Christ’s own word.
Likewise, though the Church (or the witness of an individual Christian) is often the initial and outward means by which men are called to faith in Christ, it does not follow that this renders the church or the individual Christian with the attribute of infallibility.
God's own word is a spiritual reality which is sufficient to create faith in itself. No church or human being is able to accomplish that supernatural work.
The Apostle John wrote, “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son” (1 Jn. 5:9).
Needing no support, the witness of God stands by itself. God’s own testimony is decisive and inexpugnable. If Holy Scripture is in reality the God-breathed word, then it must be self-authenticating, and in need of no human sanction. It is nothing less than a compromise of the integrity of God’s own witness to presuppose Scripture to be anything other than the living oracles of the Creator and Redeemer of mankind. To hold in suspension, as it were, the question of God’s speaking in Scripture until some external, authoritative criterion outside of God himself is applied as the deliberative, decisive court of appeal is a de facto assault on the truth that “the witness of God is greater.”
Chrysostom (349-407): Besides, what benefit would there be in a homily when prayer has not been joined to it? Prayer stands in the first place; then comes the word of instruction. And that is what the apostles said: "Let us devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the word." Paul does this when he prays at the beginning of his epistles so that, like the light of a lamp, the light of prayer may prepare the way for the word. If you accustom yourselves to pray fervently, you will not need instruction from your fellow servants because God himself, with no intermediary, enlightens you mind.
Citation: John Chrysostom, FC, Vol. 72, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, Homily 3.35, (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1984), pp. 111.
We have strong precedent in the some works of the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) that indicate there was also in their time a recognition of the fact that God's word is self-authenticating. Some examples of this precedent are shown below.
Nemesius of Emesa (around the end of the 4th century):
Salvian the Presbyter (5th century):
Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403):
Epiphanius (310/320-403):
Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):
Lactantius (260-330):
These ECFs, to name a few, are examples in the ancient church who (like us) believed Scripture to be self-authenticating.
---------------------------------------
In the comment box of a previous post, Pastor David King provided the following Scriptural and patristic testimony to the Holy Spirit's inward illumination of believers and Scripture's self-authenticating character, to which I've made some minor edits:
The canon of Scripture is an artifact of revelation rather than an object of revelation. By "artifact" I mean something that is a feature not normally present but visible as a result of an external agent or action.
While the Romanist treats the canon as an object of revelation, it is the result (hence an "artifact") of revelation. In other words, the canonical list of the books of Holy Scripture are the result of God's revelatory work, and not the object of what God has revealed.
A Christian's recognition of these books is result of God's working in him to will and to believe.
I believe 1) Scripture's own witness of its inspiration, and 2) that God confirms that by the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit. I drawn a distinction (as the Reformers did before me) between the Spirit's revelatory work and his illuminating work.
In his work, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14, Augustine made this point.
Augustine (354-430) in response to Manichaeus:
You can find nothing better than to praise your own faith and ridicule mine. So, after having in my turn praised my belief and ridiculed yours, what result do you think we shall arrive at as regards our judgment and our conduct, but to part company with those who promise the knowledge of indubitable things, and then demand from us faith in doubtful things? while we shall follow those who invite us to begin with believing what we cannot yet fully perceive, that, strengthened by this very faith, we may come into a position to know what we believe by the inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself.Latin text:Nihil aliud elegisti, nisi laudare quod credis, et irridere quod credo. Cum igitur etiam ego vicissim laudavero quod credo, et quod credis irrisero; quid putas nobis esse judicandum, quidve faciendum, nisi ut eos relinquamus, qui nos invitant certa cognoscere, et postea imperant ut incerta credamus; et eos sequamur, qui nos invitant prius credere, quod nondum valemus intueri, ut ipsa fide valentiores facti, quod credimus intelligere mereamur, non jam hominibus, sed ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram illuminante atque firmante?
Citation: Augustine, Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam vocant Fundamenti, Liber Unus, Caput XIV, PL 42:183; translation in NPNF1: Vol. IV, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14.
We acknowledge with Augustine that the Church is most often the initial and outward means by which men are called to faith in Christ, but God brings us to the place (as Augustine put it) "to know what we believe by the inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself."
Scripture itself furnishes us with clear illustration of this in the fourth chapter of John’s gospel. After having dealings with Christ, the woman of Samaria returns to her city, and there bears witness to Christ.
John 4:39-42
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me all that I ever did.”
So when the Samaritans had come to Him, they urged Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. And many more believed because of His own word.
Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”
The point this passage illustrates is this - that though it was the woman’s witness which initially induced belief in Christ, nonetheless, the confirmation of their faith came to rest in the testimony of Christ’s own word. While the woman’s witness was true and sufficiently credible to move the inhabitants of the city, it does not follow that she became the infallible bulwark of their subsequent faith. The inhabitants of the city came to rest not in her word, but Christ’s own word.
Likewise, though the Church (or the witness of an individual Christian) is often the initial and outward means by which men are called to faith in Christ, it does not follow that this renders the church or the individual Christian with the attribute of infallibility.
God's own word is a spiritual reality which is sufficient to create faith in itself. No church or human being is able to accomplish that supernatural work.
The Apostle John wrote, “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son” (1 Jn. 5:9).
Needing no support, the witness of God stands by itself. God’s own testimony is decisive and inexpugnable. If Holy Scripture is in reality the God-breathed word, then it must be self-authenticating, and in need of no human sanction. It is nothing less than a compromise of the integrity of God’s own witness to presuppose Scripture to be anything other than the living oracles of the Creator and Redeemer of mankind. To hold in suspension, as it were, the question of God’s speaking in Scripture until some external, authoritative criterion outside of God himself is applied as the deliberative, decisive court of appeal is a de facto assault on the truth that “the witness of God is greater.”
Chrysostom (349-407): Besides, what benefit would there be in a homily when prayer has not been joined to it? Prayer stands in the first place; then comes the word of instruction. And that is what the apostles said: "Let us devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the word." Paul does this when he prays at the beginning of his epistles so that, like the light of a lamp, the light of prayer may prepare the way for the word. If you accustom yourselves to pray fervently, you will not need instruction from your fellow servants because God himself, with no intermediary, enlightens you mind.
Citation: John Chrysostom, FC, Vol. 72, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, Homily 3.35, (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1984), pp. 111.
We have strong precedent in the some works of the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) that indicate there was also in their time a recognition of the fact that God's word is self-authenticating. Some examples of this precedent are shown below.
Nemesius of Emesa (around the end of the 4th century):
But for us the sufficient demonstration of the soul’s immortality is the teaching of Holy Scripture, which is self-authenticating because inspired of God.Greek text:
ἡμῖν δὲ ἀρκεῖ, πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἀθανασίας αὐτῆς, ἡ τῶν θεῖων λογῖων διδασκαλία, τὸ πιστὸν ἀθ’ ἐαυτῆς ἔχουσα, διὰ τὸ θεόπνευστος εἶναι•Citation: Nemesius of Emesa, De Natura Hominis, Caput II.18, Migne PG 40:589; translation in William Telfer, ed., The Library of Christian Classics, Vol. IV, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa: On the Nature of Man, Chapter 2 Of the Soul (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955), p. 292. (It is believed that Nemesius of Emesa wrote this work sometime between A.D. 392-400.)
Salvian the Presbyter (5th century):
I need not prove by arguments what God Himself proves by His own words. When we read that God says He perpetually sees the entire earth, we prove thereby that He does see it because He Himself says He sees it. When we read that He rules all things He has created, we prove thereby that He rules, since He testifies that He rules. When we read that He ordains all things by His immediate judgment, it becomes evident by this very fact, since He confirms that He passes judgment. All other statements, said by men, require proofs and witnesses. God’s word is His own witness, because whatever uncorrupted Truth says must be the undefiled testimony to truth.Latin text:
Neque enim necesse est ut argumentis a me probetur quod hoc ipso quia a Deo dicitur comprobatur. Itaque cum legimus dictum a Deo quia aspiciat jugiter omnem terram, hoc ipso probamus quod aspicit quia aspicere se dicit; cum legimus quod regat cuncta quae fecit, hoc ipso approbamus quod regit, quia se regere testatur; cum legimus quod praesenti judicio universa dispenset, hoc ipso est evidens quod judicat quia se judicare confirmat. Alia enim omnia, id est, humana dicta, argumentis ac testibus egent. Dei autem sermo ipse sibi testis est, quia necesse est quidquid incorrupta veritas loquitur, incorruptum sit testimonium veritatis.Citation: Salvian the Presbyter, Sancti Salviani Massiliensis Presbyteri De Gubernatione Dei, Liber Tertius, I, PL 53:1567; translation in FC, Vol. 3, The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter, The Governance of God, Book 3.1 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947), pp. 68-69.
Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403):
But the truth is always steadfast and needs no assistance. It is self-authenticating, and always established in the sight of the true God.Greek text:
τῆς ἀληθείας ἀεὶ ἑδραίας οὔσης καὶ μὴ χρείαν ἐχούσης βοηθείας, ἀλλὰ αὐτοσυστάτου οὔσης καὶ παρὰ θεῷ τῷ ὄντως ὄντι ἀεὶ συνιστωμένης.Citation: Epiphanius of Salamis, Adversus Haereses, Liber I, Tom. III, XLIV, §1, PG 41:821; translation by Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Sects 1-46) 44. Against Apelleans, 1,3 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 340.
Epiphanius (310/320-403):
The truth is self-authenticating and cannot be overthrown even if wickedness shamelessly opposes the precept of truth.Greek text:
αὐτοσυστάτης οὔσης τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ μὴ δυναμένης καθαιρεῖσθαι, κἄν τε ἀντιπράττοι ἡ ἀνομία ἀναισχυντίᾳ φερομένη τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας θεσμῷ,Citation: Epiphanius of Salamis, Adversus Haereses, Liber II, Tom. II, LXVI, §10, PG 42:44; translated by Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide), 66. Against Manichaeans, 10,4 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 230.
Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):
It will naturally fall after these, after a cursory view of theology, to discuss the opinions handed down respecting prophecy; so that, having demonstrated that the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority, we shall be able to go over them consecutively, and to show thence to all the heresies one God and Omnipotent Lord to be truly preached by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel.Greek text:
Οἷς ἑπόμενον ἂν εἴη μετὰ τὴν ἐπιδρομὴν τῆς θεολογίας τὰ περὶ προφητείας παραδεδομένα διαλαβεῖν, ὡς καὶ τὰς γραφὰς αἷς πεπιστεύκαμεν κυρίας οὔσας ἐξ αὐθεντείας παντοκρατορικῆς ἐπιδείξαντας προϊέναι διʼ αὐτῶν εἱρμῷ δύνασθαι, καὶ ἁπάσαις ἐντεῦθεν ταῖς αἱρέσεσιν ἕνα δεικνύναι Θεὸν, καὶ Κύριον παντοκράτορα τὸν διὰ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τοῦ μακαρίου εὐαγγελίου γνησίως κεκηρυγμένον.Citation: Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Liber IV, Caput 1, PG 8:1216; translation in ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata, Book IV, Chapter 1.
Lactantius (260-330):
For it was not befitting that, when God was speaking to man, He should confirm His words by arguments, as though He would not otherwise be regarded with confidence: but, as it was right, He spoke as the mighty Judge of all things, to whom it belongs not to argue, but to pronounce sentence.Latin text:
Nес enim decebat ut cum deus ad hominem loqueretur, argumentis adsereret suas voces, tamquam aliter fides ei non haberetur, sed ut oportuit locutus est tamquam rerum omnium maximus iudex, cuius est non argumentari, sed pronuntiare.Citation: Lactantius, L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti Opera omnia, Volume 19 (in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Samuel Brandt Editor)(F. Tempsky, 1890), p. 197, lines 4-8; translation in ANF: Vol. VII, The Divine Institutes, Book III, Chapter I. See also FC, Vol. 49, The Divine Institutes, Book III, Chapter 1 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 1963), pp. 165-166. Alternative translation:
... when God was addressing man, addition of arguments to his words, as if he would not otherwise be believed, was not appropriate; he spoke as the supreme judge of all creation ought to speak, his business being not discussion but declaration.Citation: Lactantius: Divine institutes, Volume 40 of Translated Texts for Historians, Bowen et al. ed. (Liverpool University Press, 2003), p. 169 at 11
These ECFs, to name a few, are examples in the ancient church who (like us) believed Scripture to be self-authenticating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)