Category Archives: Opinion

Sola Scriptura and the Church

Posted on by
Reply
The Branch Theory of the Church

The Branch Theory of the Church

In his blog post entitled Questions about Sola Scriptura, Robin Phillips raises some very good questions about the relationship between Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) and the Church. If the primary or only source of spiritual authority is the Bible, how do we determine which Church Body or tradition properly interprets the Bible? Which set of doctrines are authoritative in the life of the Church? Of the individual Christian (if there is any such thing as a Christian apart from the Church?)

If Scripture is your primary authority, it becomes difficult to determine exactly which secondary authority may be used to interpret the Sacred Scriptures. Indeed, Protestantism — following the lead of Martin Luther — asserts the primacy of reason and the individual conscience as a means of interpreting Scripture. It must therefore be acknowledged that any number of people have approached the scriptures prayerfully, with great care, and in all sincerity, and have devised all manner of doctrinal systems from the pages of Sacred Scripture. Which dogmatic system is correct, and how do we know? There are many different contradictory positions within Protestantism, and differences on doctrine seem invariably to give rise to new denominations.

If you are a Protestant, you will likely point to your church or denomination as the true and visible church because it best understands the Bible. If you are Lutheran, you will point the the Lutheran Confessions as your guide to the understanding of Scriptures, and claim your Church as the true and visible Church, (although which branch of Lutheran, and on what basis do you decide?) If you belong to some other Church communion (Rome, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc.), you will point to the traditions of the fathers as a guide to understanding the Scriptures; the question then becomes which tradition, and which set of church fathers?

The problem is that if the Scriptures are self-authenticating, which is to say they attest to their own inspiration apart from the Church, then it becomes extremely difficult to determine which is the true and visible Church. The answer, according to some, is to differentiate between the visible and the invisible church. The invisible church, comprised of all the saints of God past, present, and future, is the true church; the visible church is the local manifestation of the invisible church — indeed, is a branch of the one, true Church. Thus, the branch theory of the Church, first postulated by the Church of England.

The problem with the branch theory is that it separates church and doctrine, in that a church may be doctrinally in error, and even heretical, and yet be a branch of the one, true church. Sola Scriptura and the Branch Theory provides no objective way to determine truth from error, making the choice of visible church a subjective affair. Moreover, it is almost impossible to draw any objective criteria by which a particular group claiming the name of Christian may be understood as apart from the invisible church. Indeed, that is the point, in that the saints are known to God alone. Thus, does it even matter which visible Church we belong to as long as we are part of the invisible Church?

As Robin Phillips points out, there is an element of circular reasoning at work here. We say the Scriptures are inspired by God, but so do other religions. How do we know our Scriptures are inspired, apart from some testimony external to the Scriptures themselves? And if we accept an external source that attests to the inspiration of Scripture, how then may we hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (especially as interpreted by the modern Fundamentalists and Evangelicals as Solo Scriptura, also known as Nuda Scriptura, the naked Scriptures?)

It is possible to accept a subsidiary authority attesting to a superior authority. Indeed, this is the general position of Lutherans, who accept the Lutheran Confessions and the testimony of the Church Fathers as secondary and tertiary authorities. Yet this does not resolve the question of which doctrinal system, derived from Scripture Alone, is correct.

The idea of Scripture Alone creates more problems than it solves. The sole reason for the assertion of the Scripture Alone was to separate Scripture from the Church of Rome. If that is the rationale, then the foundation for Scripture Alone is weak indeed.

The Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari

Posted on by
Reply
King Agar receiving the Mandilion from Thaddeus

King Agar receiving the Mandilion from Thaddeus
Encaustic painting.
Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai
Date: after 944 A.D.

The Anaphora, or Elevation, is the part of the Divine Liturgy where the gifts of bread and wine are offered to God the Father and are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, Following the Anaphora is the Epiklesis, the prayer for the Holy Spirit to come down and change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

The Anaphora and Epiklesis are essential parts of the earliest liturgies. Although the words used vary, the basic form has changed little from the time of the Apostles. One of the most ancient examples of the Anaphora is found in the Nestorian liturgy of the Chaldean Church. Although there are other antiquarian Anaphoras in existence, this Anaphora is unique in that it alone is in liturgical use today. It is thought that its current form comes from 3rd century Edessa, a town in upper Mesapotamia, an area which today is the nation of Turkey.

The Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari is interesting both because of its antiquity, and because of its association with the seventy disciples of Christ. One of the seventy was named Thaddeus, and was sent by Thomas the Apostle to Edessa. Addai is the Syriac name of Thaddeus, and Mari was a convert and associate of Addai. Together, Mar Addai and Mar Mari were apostles to Syria and Persia. It is said that Thaddeus/Addai brought with him to Edessa the Holy Mandylion, a cloth imprinted with the image of Jesus.

The structure of the Anaphora should be familiar to anyone who has participated in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It has three basic parts: the Sanctus, the Intercessions, and the Epiklesis. It is unique in that it does not contain the words of institution, something that is a fixture in later liturgies, and featured most prominently in the Western Rite. It is also interesting in that the Epiklesis is not so much an invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts, but rather within the community.

 THE ANAPHORA OF THE APOSTLES ADDAI AND MARI

—      The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God the Father and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us all, now and at all times and for ever and ever.

—      Amen.

—      Let your hearts be on high.

—      To thee, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Israel, the glorious King.

—      The offering is being offered to God the Lord of all.

—      It is meet and right.

 

Worthy of praise from very mouth

and thanksgiving from every tongue

is the adorable and glorious

Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

who created the world in his grace

5      and its inhabitants in his loving-kindness,

and redeemed the sons of men in his mercy,

and dealt very graciously with mortals.

Thy majesty, o my Lord, a thousand thousand heavenly beings

and myriad myriads of Angels adore

10     and the hosts of spiritual beings, the ministers of fire and of spirit,

glorifying thy Name

with the Cherubim and the holy Seraphim, ceaselessly

crying out and glorifying

and calling to one another and saying:

15     Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty:

the heavens and the earth are full of his glory.

Hosanna in the highest! Hosanna to the Son of David!

Blessed is he who has come and comes in the Name of the Lord.

Hosanna in the highest!

20    And with these heavenly hosts we give thee thanks, o my Lord,

we also thy unworthy, frail, and miserable servants,

because thou hast dealt very graciously with us in a way which cannot be repaid,

in that thou didst assume our humanity

that thou mightest restore us to life by thy divinity,

25    and didst exalt our low estate,

and raise up our fallen state,

and resurrect our mortality,

and forgive our sins,

and acquit our sinfulness,

30    and enlighten our understanding,

and, our Lord and God, overcome our adversaries,

and give victory to the unworthiness of our frail nature

in the overflowing mercies of thy grace.

And for all thy benefits and graces towards us

35     we offer thee glory and honour and thanksgiving and adoration

now and at all times and for ever and ever. R/ Amen.

Do thou, o my Lord, in thy manifold and ineffable mercies

make a good and gracious remembrance

for all the upright and just fathers

40    who were pleasing before thee,

in the commemoration of the body and blood of thy Christ,

which we offer to thee upon the pure and holy altar,

as thou hast taught us,

and make with us thy tranquillity and thy peace

45    all the days of the age,

that all the inhabitants of the world may know thee,

that thou alone art God the true Father,

and thou didst send our Lord Jesus Christ thy Son and thy Beloved,

and he, our Lord and our God,

50    taught us in his lifegiving Gospel

all the purity and holiness of the prophets and apostles

and martyrs and confessors

and bishops and priests and deacons,

and of all the children of the holy catholic Church,

55    those who have been signed with the sign of holy Baptism.

And we also, o my Lord, thy unworthy, frail, and miserable servants,

who are gathered and stand before thee,

and have received by tradition the example which is from thee,

rejoicing and glorifying

60    and exalting and commemorating

and celebrating this great and awesome mystery

of the passion and death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And let thy Holy Spirit come, o my Lord,

and rest upon this offering of thy servants,

65    and bless it and sanctify it

that it may be to us, o my Lord,

for the pardon of sins and for the forgiveness of shortcomings,

and for the great hope of the resurrection from the dead,

and for new life in the kingdom of heaven

70    with all who have been pleasing before thee.

And for all thy wonderful dispensation which is towards us

we give thee thanks and glorify thee without ceasing

in thy Church redeemed by the precious blood of thy Christ,

with open mouths and unveiled faces

75    offering glory and honour and thanksgiving and adoration

to thy living and holy and life-giving Name,

now and at all times and for ever and ever.

Amen.

 

English translation: A. GELSTON, The Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1992, 48-55

 

Is the Bible the Word of God? (Updated)

Posted on by
Reply
The Gospel of John

The Word of God, or the Revelation of the Word of God?

Protestants and others sometimes refer to the bible as the “Word of God.” As a boy, I became used to using that term to refer to the text of the Sacred Scriptures. But the Holy Bible I take from my shelf, hold in my hands, and read — in what sense is the book itself the Word of God?

Archimandrite Daniel Byantoro says that for Islam, the Quran is the Word of God made text. The Quran, the Word made text of Islam, existed from eternity with God, but is separate from God. For Christians, by way of contrast, Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. Our Bible says the Word made flesh was from eternity with God, and was God. Within the triune Godhead are three persons in eternal and interpersonal communion — which communion the Word made flesh (the incarnate Son of God) shares with us. (Byantoro 2008) As evidence of the Christian view, John’s gospel is quite clear: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (Joh 1:1, 14).

The Old Testament has a strange relationship with the concept of the Word. In many cases the Word is most readily understood as a reference to the Mosaic law, the law of the Deuteronomic Covenant — being the covenant made with the Hebrew nation before they entered the land of promise. But as we know, for Christians the Old Testament is always interpreted in light of the Christ event, as Christ Himself taught Cleopas and the unnamed disciple[i] on the Emmaus Road:

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27). (d’Hyères 2006)

One of the best ways of understanding the use of the term “Word” in the Old Testament is to examine Ps 119, the psalm whose purpose is to (according to Matthew Henry) “magnify the Divine law, and make it honourable.” Of the ten ways of speaking about the “Divine revelation”, Henry notes that “Word” represents “the declaration of His mind.” (Henry 2014) John Calvin notes the connection between Ps 119’s use of the term “Word”, and the New Testament’s use of the term “Logos” when he writes: “The term here rendered word means the Λόγος, or Word of God, in its most divine sense; the announcement of God’s revealed will; his command; his oracle; at times, the special communication to the prophets.” Interestingly, Calvin says the ten terms for the divine revelation used in Ps 119 are basically synonymous; thus, whenever we read the terms law, testimonies, precepts, statutes, commandments, judgments, saying, and way, we can think of them as the Word, the Logos of God. This makes the meaning of “Word” quite important. (Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms – Volume Fourth n.d.)

Matthew Henry and John Calvin seem to view the Word in the Old Testament as different than the Word as expressed in John’s Gospel — as part of the Old Covenant rather than the new. And yet Jesus made it clear that we are to view the Old Testament in its Christological context. I contend this is the easiest and most logical way to view Ps 119, as a reference to Christ as the Logos, the divine self-revelation of God and the express image of the Father (Heb 1:3).

I remember one verse from this Psalm being drummed into us children, and which we were told was a reference to the Bible, the Word of God. “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee” (Ps 119:11). This was used as a means to motivate us towards memorizing Scripture, which is certainly commendable. However, this verse discloses something else — that the Word of God was to be hidden in our heart, our spiritual consciousness, and not our intellect. We may consider this verse through its New Testament counterpart: “A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things” (Mat 12:35). So what is this “good treasure of the heart?” Interestingly, the commentaries of John Calvin skip over this verse, for reasons that are unclear. (Calvin, Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke – Volume 2 1999) However, the commentary by Blessed Theophylact makes no mention of the “good treasure of the heart” being the text of the Sacred Scriptures. Instead, as Blessed Theophylact notes in his comments on the parable of the hidden treasure (Mat 13:44), the treasure is “the preaching and knowledge of Christ.” (Blessed Theolphylact 1992)

There are examples in Ps 119 where the Word quickens or strengthens, where it is a source of mercy, of kindness, or of comfort — all of which is more suggestive of God Himself, rather than a text. But the most telling when the psalmist says the Word is eternal. “For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven” (Ps119:89). If the Word described here is a text, then we have arrived at a very Islamic interpretation of the Word made text, rather than the Word made flesh.

There are some places in the New Testament where it could be interpreted that the phrase “Word of God” refers to the inspired text. However, it is clear from the context, and from the other places where the phrase is used, that “Word of God” includes the content contained within the text, but is not the text itself.

This can be illustrated most clearly in the book of Hebrews. We read in chapter 11, the so-called “roll call of faith”: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” [emphasis added] (Heb 11:3). The Word of God in this passage is clearly a reference to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, for as the apostle John wrote: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (Joh 1:3).

Given that Hebrews uses the phrase “Word of God” to refer to the Christ, the Son of God, what do we make of the following passage, also from Hebrews, one which is often interpreted as referring to the Bible?

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do [emphasis added] (Heb 4:12-13).

If you stop with verse 12, then considering the “Word of God” to be scripture is reasonable. Once you move on to verse 13, which continues the thought, it is clear the author is not talking about a book, but a person — indeed, the person before whom all creatures are made manifest, and before whom all things are naked and open. The author goes on to say this person is He “with whom we have to do.” Thus, this entire passage is obviously a reference to Jesus Christ, revealed by the Holy Spirit. This revelation is made through the pages of Sacred Scripture, yet it is clear that it is the person of Jesus Christ who is the “Word of God”, not the actual peculiar combination of marks on paper — both in the Old and New Testaments.

Bibliography

Blessed Theolphylact. The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew. Translated by Christopher Stade. House Springs: Chrysostom Press, 1992.

Byantoro, Daniel. “Christ the Word Become Flesh.” Christ the Eternal Kalimat. Ancient Faith Radio, August 30, 2008.

Calvin, John. Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke – Volume 2. Translated by William Pringle. Vol. 2. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1999.

—. Commentary on the Book of Psalms – Volume Fourth. Translated by James Anderson. Vol. 4. 5 vols. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.

d’Hyères, Sylvie Chabert. “WHO WAS CLEOPHAS’ COMPANION?” Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis: The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. January 2006. http://codexbezae.perso.sfr.fr/comm/jacob_en.html (accessed January 22, 2014).

Henry, Matthew. “Psalm 119 – Matthew Henry’s Commentary – Bible Commentary.” Christ Notes: Bible Search & Bible Commentary. 2014. http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=19&c=119 (accessed January 22, 2014).

[i] Tradition holds that this unnamed disciple was none other than Luke himself. Perhaps the best evidence of this, apart from the tradition, is that Luke is a careful historian, yet names only Cleopas as one of the two disciples. This could be considered a historian’s way of writing himself out of the story.

Russell’s Teapot

Posted on by
1
Russell's Teapot Fish

Russell’s Teapot Fish

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

Bertrand Russell

Borrowing from Randal Rouser’s blog, the argument seems to be comparing belief in God with belief in a cosmic teapot orbiting the Sun. Russell is implying that theists believe if a thing (the existence of God) cannot be disproven, that thing ought to be believed. But that is a gross mischaracterization of what theists believe. Besides, the comparison of a teapot (a material object manufactured by humans) and the ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, ever-existing and eternally unchanging God is laughable.

Still, Russell’s Teapot has inspired some interesting t-shirts.

The Church of the Celestial Teapot Invites You to try and prove us wrong.

The Church of the Celestial Teapot Invites You to Try and Prove Us Wrong

 

On the Impossibility of an Inerrant Extant Text

Posted on by
1
Chart of Biblical Manuscripts

Manuscript Chart

Our existing (extant) biblical texts have quite a number of problems. Today, a literary work can be produced and reproduced almost without error, which fact colors our understanding of the ancient world. Part of our problem is that books as we know them today did not exist. Instead, of a book, think of a scroll — a single, long piece of paper rolled around a central spindle. Not only was the paper expensive, but the reproduction of the book was a long, laborious process. Moreover, in the scribal culture that existed prior to the Hellenistic era, literary texts as we know them today did not exist. But let us focus on the production of scrolls in the Hellenistic era, primarily using the arguments of Bart Ehrman, the popular author and James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina.

[Books] could not be produced en mass (no printing presses). And since they had to be copied by hand, one at a time, slowly and painstakingly, most books were not mass produced. Those few that were produced in multiple copies were not all alike, for the scribes who copied texts inevitably made alterations in those texts—changing the words they copied either by accident (via a slip of the pen or other carelessness) or by design (when the scribe intentionally altered the words he copied). Anyone reading a book in antiquity could never be completely sure that he or she was reading what the author had written. The words could have been altered. In fact, they probably had been, if only just a little. (Ehrman 2005, 46)

The production of books in the ancient world was much different. Today, I write and edit a book on a computer. The book then goes through an editorial process, whereby a third party goes over the book to find flaws in its content and presentation. Eventually the book is typeset, printed, and the galley’s edited by the author to ensure the book is what the author intended. Finally the book is mass-produced and made available for sale. Authorship in the ancient world was much different.

In the ancient world, since books were not mass produced and there were no publishing companies or bookstores, things were different. Usually an author would write a book, and possibly have a group of friends read it or listen to it being read aloud. This would provide a chance for editing some of the book’s contents. Then when the author was finished with the book, he or she would have copies made for a few friends and acquaintances. This, then, was the act of publication, when the book was no longer solely in the author’s control but in the hands of others. If these others wanted extra copies …they would have to arrange to have copies made, say, by a local scribe who made copies for a living, or by a literate slave who copied texts as part of his household duties. (Ehrman 2005, 46)

In the ancient world, once a book was published, it was outside the author’s control. Anything could happen to the text, and often did.

[C]opies produced this way could end up being quite different from the originals. Testimony comes to us from ancient writers themselves. …In a famous essay on the problem of anger, the Roman philosopher Seneca points out that there is a difference between anger directed as what has caused us harm and anger at what can to nothing to hurt us. To illustrate the latter category he mentions “certain inanimate things, such as the manuscript which we often hurl from us because it is written in too small a script or tear up because it is full of mistakes.” …A humorous example comes to us from the epigrams of the witty Roman poet Martial, who, in one poem, lets his reader know

“If any poems in those sheets, reader, seem to you either too obscure or not quite good Latin, not mine is the mistake: the copyist spoiled them in his haste to complete for you his tale of verses. But if you think that not he, but I am at fault, then I will believe that you have no intelligence. “Yet, see, those are bad.” As if I denied what is plain! They are bad, but you don’t make better.”  (Ehrman 2005, 46-47)

As Bart Ehrman writes: “Copying texts allowed for the possibilities of manual error; and the problem was widely recognized throughout antiquity. (Ehrman 2005, 47) Thus, prior to the development of the professional copyists used by the Masoretes, the reproduction of the biblical texts was fraught with problems, leading to different families of texts containing different errors. Thus, the modern argument that inerrancy applies only to the autographs, to the original texts created by the original author. To this argument, we will let the following statement of Dr. Marvin R. Vincent serve as a the final word on this subject.

Nothing can be more puerile or more desperate than the effort to vindicate the divine inspiration of Scripture by the assertion of the verbal inerrancy of the autographs, and to erect that assertion into a test of orthodoxy. For:

1. There is no possible means of verifying the assertion, since the autographs have utterly disappeared.

2. It assumes a mechanical dictation of the ipsissima verba [the very words] to the writers, which is contradicted by the whole character and structure of the Bible.

3. It is of no practical value, since it furnishes no means of deciding between various readings or discrepant statements.

4. It is founded upon a pure assumption as to the character of inspiration – namely, that inspiration involves verbal inerrancy, which is the very thing to be proved, and which could only be proved only by producing inerrant autographs. [In other words, the definition is a tautology.]

5. If a written, inspired revelation is necessary for mankind, and if such a revelation, in order to be inspired, must be verbally inerrant, the necessity has not been met. There is no verbally inerrant, and therefore no inspired, revelation in writing. The autographs have vanished, and no divine guidance or interposition has prevented mistakes in transcription or in printing. The text of Scripture, in the best form in which critical scholarship can exhibit it, presents numerous errors and discrepancies. (Vincent 1899, 3)

Bibliography

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005.

Vincent, Marvin R. A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Edited by Shailer Matthews. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1899.

 

 

The Prayers of the Saints

Posted on by
Reply
Angel offering the Prayers of the Saints

The Prayers of the Saints

And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand. (Rev 8:3-4)

Lutherans say: “Why should we ask the prayers of the saints for ourselves? We pray to God Himself.” But they contradict themselves, for why do they ask a pastor to pray for them? They might as well pray without a pastor if everyone has an equal access to God and we have no need of any sanctified suppliants. What blindness! They say that by praying to the saints we worship idols. This is untrue. We do not pray to any saint as we pray to God, we only ask his prayers for ourselves. Is there a shadow of idolatry in this? In the same manner as we ask God’s living ministers and suppliants to pray to Him for us, so likewise we ask the heavenly suppliants, who, from their love to God, have great boldness before Him; besides this, very many of them, even when they lived here on earth, were already suppliants and intercessors before God for the world; there, in heaven, this activity of theirs is only continued, has attained greater dimensions, and is especially powerful, because it is no longer hindered by the heavy and inert flesh. All the saints, though they have finished their earthly course, yet live: “For He is not a God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto Him.”

Sergieff, Archpriest John Iliytch; St John of Kronstadt (2010-05-26). My Life in Christ, or Moments of Spiritual Serenity and Contemplation, of Reverent Feeling, of Earnest Self-Amendment, and of Peace in God (Kindle Locations 7658-7666). . Kindle Edition.

Is the Bible the Word of God?

Posted on by
Reply
The Gospel of John

The Word of God?

Why is our Bible sometimes referred to as the “Word of God?” As a Protestant, I became used to using that term to refer to the text of the Sacred Scriptures. But the Bible I take from my shelf, hold in my hands, and read — in what sense is the text itself the Word of God?

Archimandrite Daniel Byantoro says that for Islam, the Quran is the Word of God as a book, while for Christians, Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. The Word made text of Islam existed from eternity with God, but is separate from God. By contrast, Christianity says the Word made flesh was from eternity with God, and was God. Within the Godhead are three persons in eternal and interpersonal communion, which communion the Word made flesh shares with us. (Byantoro 2008, (podcast)) As evidence of the Christian view, John’s gospel is quite clear: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (Joh 1:1, 14).

While there are some places in the New Testament where it could be interpreted that the phrase “Word of God” refers to the inspired text, it is clear from the context, and from the other places where the phrase is used, that “Word of God” includes the content contained within the text, but not the text itself.

This can be illustrated most clearly in the book of Hebrews. We read in chapter 11, the “roll call of faith”: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb 11:3). It is clear that in this passage, Word of God is a reference to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, for as the apostle John wrote: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (Joh 1:3).

Given that Hebrews uses the phrase “Word of God” to refer to the Christ, the Son of God, what do we make of the following passage, also from Hebrews, one which is often interpreted as referring to the Bible:

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.  Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do (Heb 4:12-13).

If you stop with verse 12, then considering the “Word of God”  to be scripture is reasonable. Once you move on to verse 13, which continues the thought, it is clear the author is not talking about a book, but a person, before whom all creatures are made manifest, and before whom all things are naked and open. Indeed, the author goes on to say this person is he “with whom we have to do.” Thus, this passage is obviously a reference to Jesus Christ, revealed by the Holy Spirit. This revelation could be through the pages of Sacred Scripture, yet it is clear that it is the person of Jesus Christ who is the “Word of God”, not the actual peculiar combination of marks on paper.

Bibliography

Byantoro, Daniel. “Christ the Word Become Flesh.” Christ the Eternal Kalimat. Ancient Faith Radio, August 30, 2008.

 

 

John Calvin, the Church, and the Canon

Posted on by
Reply
John Calvin

John Calvin

John Calvin, in his argument against the role of the Church in the canonical process, does discuss the role of the Holy Spirit. However, he seems to indicate that the Holy Spirit works in the individual, but not in and through the Church.

A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed—viz. that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men. With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, who can assure us that the Scriptures proceeded from God; who guarantee that they have come down safe and unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list, did not the Church regulate all these things with certainty? On the determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted into the canon. (Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion 2005, 74-75)

Calvin then argues that since the apostles and prophets existed prior to the Church, that the inspiration of the Scriptures is intrinsic apart from the Church.

These ravings are admirably refuted by a single expression of an apostle. Paul testifies that the Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” (Eph. 2:20). If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter began to exist. Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though the Church derives her first beginning from thence, it still remains doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles and prophets, until her Judgment is interposed. For if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have existed. Nothings therefore can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. (Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion 2005, 75)

John Calvin is correct that the inspiration of the Scriptures precedes its recognition by the Church. But if the Church’s determination of the canon is invalid, what does John Calvin offer in its place? Why, the Holy Spirit who enlightens the individual believer’s heart.

Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own Judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human Judgment, feel perfectly assured—as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it—that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our Judgment, but we subject our intellect and Judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate.

Such, then, is a conviction which asks not for reasons; such, a knowledge which accords with the highest reason, namely knowledge in which the mind rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons; such in fine, the conviction which revelation from heaven alone can produce. I say nothing more than every believer experiences in himself, though my words fall far short of the reality. I do not dwell on this subject at present, because we will return to it again: only let us now understand that the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals on our hearts. (Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion 2005, 78-79)

It is curious that John Calvin reason’s his way to a dismissal of human reason, but instead posits some ephemeral, mystical revelation of inspiration to the individual believer. Of course, John Calvin then modifies this by reference to the “children of the renovated Church” made up of the “elect only”, who “shall be taught of the Lord” (Isaiah 54:13). So Calvin’s argument isn’t so much against the Church bearing witness to the canon of Scripture, but to the Roman Catholic Church bearing said witness.

In essence, John Calvin’s predisposition against the Roman Catholic Church colors his view of canonicity. We can break down his argument like this: 1) The Holy Spirit works within His true church. 2) The Roman Catholics do not constitute a true Church. 3) Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not work within the Roman Catholic Church. Calvin makes another argument: 1) The Holy Spirit works upon the hearts of the elect. 2) The Roman Catholic Church contains none of the elect. 3) Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not work within the Roman Catholic Church. And finally, with regard to the canon of Scripture: 1) The Holy Spirit works to reveal the canon of Scripture to His Church. 2) The Roman Catholic Church is not a true Church. 3) Therefore, the Roman Catholic canon of Scripture was not revealed by the Holy Spirit.[1]

Bibliography

Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2005.

 

 

 

[1] I may not have constructed these syllogisms correctly, but you get the point.

This Natural, Right, and Pious Veneration of the Holy Icons

Posted on by
Reply
St. John of Krondstadt

St. John of Krondstadt

“Do we not ourselves prove in our daily life the requirement of our nature, its longing to have representations of the persons whom we love, when we express the desire to have their portraits and have our own portraits done, hang them up on the walls, or place them in albums, in order to look at them often, and to enjoy contemplating the respected and beloved faces? And this natural, right, and pious veneration of the holy icons many Lutherans and Anglicans regard as something unnatural, repugnant to God, as idolatry and heresy; they have not icons either in their houses or even in their temples, and consider it a sin to have and worship them. Through this they lose much in faith and piety, for by breaking the visible connection with the saints they likewise destroy the invisible one, whilst in reality, as the Church is heavenly and earthly, it forms one body. They have broken in the same way their connection with the departed, because they do not pray for them and do not offer sacrifices for their souls, sacrifices which are well-pleasing to the merciful God; and thus prove their unbelief in the power of the prayers of the Church for the departed. What kind of a Church is this that has unwisely and audaciously broken her ties with the heavenly, triumphant Church? has interrupted communion by means of prayers with the departed, and broken off communion with the Church that professes the faith in Christ in its primitive purity? Is it a living and holy body of the Church? Can a single trunk of the body, without head, without hands and feet, without eyes and ears, be called a living, organised body? And yet such a community proclaims its faith as the purified, true faith, and eschews the rites of our holy, spotless religion. Is that religion purified that has rejected the Sacrament of Orders and the other sacraments, excepting Baptism and Holy Communion, which last, however, is not valid; has rejected the veneration of the saints, of their relics, icons, fasting, monasticism, and prayers for the departed? Is this the faith of the Gospel? Is it the Church of Christ and the Apostolic Church? No; it is a self-made Church, constituted by the will of men, under the influence of human passions and pleasing human passions; it is ” the truth in unrighteousness “; it is the perverted Gospel of Christ; it is the perversion or turning away of Christ’s people ” unto another Gospel,” of which the Apostle said: “But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” It is not a Church, but a soul-destroying dissection of the body of Christ.”

Sergieff, Archpriest John Iliytch; St John of Kronstadt (2010-05-26). My Life in Christ, or Moments of Spiritual Serenity and Contemplation, of Reverent Feeling, of Earnest Self-Amendment, and of Peace in God (Kindle Locations 6863-6881). Kindle Edition.

“On what grounds of principle do the denominations around us vindicate their right to exist? To some of the sects this question would come like a thunderbolt. They have never raised it. They never knew that such a question could be raised. In the Sectarian Declaration of Independence, among the certain inalienable rights are sectarian life, sectarian liberty, and sectarian pursuit of happiness. They may deny a man’s right to wear a coat or a hat not fashioned after the sacred pattern shown them in the mount of their private hallucination, but as to a man’s right to join himself to any sect he thinks good, or to make another sect if the existing sects do not suit him, of that they never doubted. In the Popery of Sect, “Stat pro ratione voluntas” — their best reason is, they wish it so.

Yet this question is a great question. It is the question. The denomination which has not raised it is a self-convicted sect. The denomination which cannot return such an answer to it as at least shows sincere conviction that it has such reasons, should be shunned by all Christians who would not have the guilt of other men’s sins.”

Krauth, Charles Porterfield. “The Relations of the Lutheran Church to the Denominations around us.” In First Free Lutheran Diet in America, Philadelphia, December 27-28, 1877: The Essays, Debates and Proceedings, by Henry Eyster Jacobs, 27-69. Philadelphia: J. Frederick Smith, Publisher, 1877.

 

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi

Posted on by
Reply

Lex Orandi, Lex CredendiThe Latin phrase “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi” is generally translated as the law of prayer is the law of belief.  The reverse is also true; the law of belief is the law of prayer. But what does it mean?

The “Law of Prayer” is a reference to the prayers the worshipping church. So one way of looking at it is that the way we worship reflects the way we believe, and the way we believe is reflected in our worship. This seems reasonable and straightforward. But how does this work in practice?

A great many Protestant communities create their own hymnals. Other Protestant bodies share hymnals across denominational lines. The reason for the variety of Protestant hymnals is they reflect differences in doctrine. Hymnals from a Presbyterian tradition will have a different collection of hymns than a hymnal from the Reformed, which would be different from the Wesleyan or Lutheran hymnal.

Within the Lutheran community in America, there are quite a few different denominations, each with different hymnals reflecting their differing approach to Scripture and differing understanding of the Lutheran Confessions. The hymnals contain different selections of hymns and different liturgies — both of which reflect differences in belief. Even when different hymnals contain the same hymns, there may be differences in translation, or the hymns may be rewritten to reflect changes in both doctrine or societal norms, such as gender-neutral language.

We still have not exhausted the complexity of our discussion. Whereas the older hymnals tended to have just a few different musical settings of the same liturgies, the newer hymnals not only contain different musical settings, but actual variations between the liturgies.  And within liturgical variation are different propers (the changeable parts of the liturgy), and occasionally there may even be differences in the ordinaries (the parts of the service that are supposed to stay the same from week to week). The liturgical variations within the service are presented in multiple columns. Thus, even within the same Protestant denomination there can be wide variation in the conduct of the service from one church to another — and between churches that use the same liturgical settings.

I contend that the beliefs of a church body are reflected in their choice of hymnal. If this is true, then the change of hymnals that tend to take place each generation, in that it changes the worship of the church, reflects an actual change in doctrine.[1]  And when a hymnal contains not merely different liturgical settings, but actual liturgical variations, this reflects the doctrinal disagreements that exist within that church body.

Another way to view this change is to look at the differences between the older and the newer catechetical (or religious instructional) material. Whereas hymnals tend to change each generation, catechetical material seems to change less often. Within the Lutheran Church, catechesis is generally represented by Luther’s Small Catechism, which doesn’t change. However, the explanation of the Small Catechism is usually appended in the same volume. These explanations are quite different between the different Lutheran bodies, and even between versions published by the same Lutheran body.

The most recent Small Catechism with Explanation for the LCMS was published in 2005. The previous version was first published in 1943. There are distinct differences in the Explanations between the two versions (explanations which are presented in question and answer form). In some cases, the differences reflect societal changes. In the 2005 edition the first question asked is “What is a Christian?” This question was not included in the 1943 version, which indicates a considerable societal change in the intervening 60 years.  There are also differences in the questions asked and the answers given. These are subtle, yet significant differences, differences that are debated by pastors of the LCMS.[2]

Lest you think this is a tirade against Protestants, the Roman Catholics have their own issues. It is clear that there is a distinct difference in Roman Catholic worship before and after Vatican II. This is not only because the Vatican allowed the mass to be celebrated in languages other than Latin, but because the actual liturgy changed. There are changes in the prayers of the church in the Latin rite versus the post-Vatican II vernacular rite. This can be demonstrated by the furor that developed when Pope Benedict XVI relaxed the rules governing when and where the Latin rite can be held, primarily because the old Latin rite contained a prayer calling for the conversion of the Jews, a prayer than had not been carried forward into the post-Vatican II rite.

While the Roman Catholics will never formally admit the church has changed (and why would we expect them to), it is clear that it has changed over time  — if for no other reason than the change in the attitude towards the Eastern Orthodox. Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox Orthodox Church will often say that it hasn’t changed since the days of the apostles. Yet this isn’t precisely true, either.

It is clear that the Eastern Orthodox liturgy has changed over the years. This can be demonstrated by perusing Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume VII, containing The Liturgy of St. James; The Liturgy of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist Mark; and The Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles. Not only are these clearly different from The Liturgy of St. Basil and The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom used today, but they show evidence of interpolations over time. So the question is why did the Liturgy change; and can it be said that these changes reflect actual doctrinal changes?

The simple answer is yes, the liturgies changed because the doctrine of the church changed. Or rather, as the doctrine of the church was set forth by the ecumenical councils, these definitions were incorporated into the liturgy of the Church. So whereas the early church allowed for a greater variety of expressions of Christianity, the later church found it necessary, in response to heresy, to define the faith more precisely. Thus, while the church in Asia Minor had a certain millenialist quality, this doctrinal option was closed off when the Second Ecumenical Council added the following phrase to the Creed: “whose kingdom shall have no end.”[3]

It is clear that different areas of the Roman Empire developed different liturgies, which appear to be based on common prototypes. This is evidenced in part by the similarities between the different church orders passed down to us as the Didache (~50 A.D.), the Didascalia Apostolorum (~230 A.D.), the Apostolic Traditions (of Hippolytus, ~215 A.D.), and the Apostolic Constitutions (~375 A.D.).  In addition, the different liturgical families contain much the same basic structure and content.[4] The similarity within the liturgical families is even more pronounced. The Liturgy of St. James is roughly comparable to the Liturgy of St. Basil and the Liturgy of St. James;[5] the differences primarily being that some of the more flowery language of the Liturgy of St. James has been condensed and simplified in the later liturgies.

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I can follow the Liturgy of St. James, and recognize nearly all of it. But I can also say that when I first read it, I noticed some commonality between it and what Lutheran’s sometimes call the “Common Service”, or what may be more generally known as the Western Rite. This demonstrates that the Eastern and Western Rites are derived from a common source. One difference I note is the absence of the Epiclesis in the Western Rite, which is the Eucharistic prayer which calls for the Holy Spirit to change the bread and the wine into the body and blood of Christ.[6]

It is not always clear why the epiclesis is missing from the Protestant version of the Western Rite.  However, we may infer this from the movement of the epiclesis in the Roman Catholic rite to a place prior to the so-called words of institution, which in the western sacramental Churches, is the point at which the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. In the Eastern Church, the definition of when this occurs is left open, but is definitely said to have occurred once the epiclesis has uttered.

What does this all matter, anyway? To the average churchgoer, not much. But in the early church, and among today’s flea-picking theologians, it matters a great deal. The simply movement of the epiclesis within the liturgy represents a profound theological change. In the East there is an appreciation of mystery, and a sense that not everything requires or is even subject to intellectual analysis. In the West, the question of when exactly the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ is not only a matter for intellectual analysis, but the answer to that question actually changes the liturgy.

Lex Orandi, Les Credendi. The way we worship reflects the way we believe. Thus the difference between the so-called contemporary service, what the U.S. Military would call a general Protestant service, and a liturgical service represent fundamental differences in doctrine. Likewise the differences between the Western Rite and the Eastern Rite are reflective of differences in doctrine.

I said all this as preparatory to asking this question: Does the use of the Western Rite in Eastern Orthodox Churches reflect an actual difference in theology?


[1] For example, the latest hymnal of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) contains remarkably few hymns written by Luther himself. What this means I leave to others to determine.

[2] A Lutheran pastor once mentioned that an analysis of the theological differences between the various versions of the Small Catechism’s explanations would make a good subject for a Ph.D. dissertation, which is why I choose not to delve into the subject here.

[3] The editor’s comments in ANF-7 describe this phrase being added to the creed to combat the errors of one Marcellus of Ancyra. Among other things, the Marcellians appeared to hold to the impermanence of the Kingdom of the Son, something they shared in common with the chiliasts, those who held to an earthly temporal Kingdom prior to the permanence of the heavenly Kingdom.

[4] See ANF-7, pp. 793-794

[5] See ANF-7, p. 791

[6] The Epiclesis, from the Liturgy of St. James:

Then, bowing his neck, [the priest] says:—

The sovereign and quickening Spirit, that sits upon the throne with Thee, our God and Father, and with Thy only-begotten Son, reigning with Thee; the consubstantial and co-eternal; that spoke in the law and in the prophets, and in Thy New Testament; that descended in the form of a dove on our Lord Jesus Christ at the river Jordan, and abode on Him; that descended on Thy apostles in the form of tongues of fire in the upper room of the holy and glorious Zion on the day of Pentecost: this Thine all-holy Spirit, send down, O Lord, upon us, and upon these offered holy gifts;

And rising up, he says aloud:—

That coming, by His holy and good and glorious appearing, He may sanctify this bread, and make it the holy body of Thy Christ.

The People.

Amen.

The Priest.

And this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ.

The People.

Amen.