Link to previous one.
For all discussions unrelated to current blog topics or any paper on my blog. To locate this forum at any time, go to my sidebar to the icon seen above: near the top, between the audio collections icon (man with headphones) and "Tax-Deductible Donations".
Enjoy, and please be cordial and charitable at all times: especially with our non-Catholic friends. This is a free speech blog. I only delete comments (very rarely) in cases of outright vulgarity or sustained insults with non-substantive content.
Enjoy, and please be cordial and charitable at all times: especially with our non-Catholic friends. This is a free speech blog. I only delete comments (very rarely) in cases of outright vulgarity or sustained insults with non-substantive content.
.jpg)
.gif)
.jpg)
26 comments:
Adomnan,
Regarding the proverb "Do not go beyond what is written" you wrote,
There is no point in disputing this further, Grubb. I see it as an obscure proverb or literary reference that has nothing to do with the Scriptures.
Is that how this works? You have your interpretation, so there's no more discussion? ☺ I've said in the past (and changed my mind when convinced) that I have no interest in believing a lie; I trust you feel the same. The KJV actually sheds a little light on this passage, "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another" You're correct that part of what Paul is addressing here is pride. He's showing that he & Apollos aren't about their own glory nor should their "students" be. Even though part of this proverb is admonishing followers not to elevate Paul or Apollos beyond where they should be, it's also indicating that neither of them (nor any of us) is above scripture, because THAT is what is/was written. You can say it's "just an obscure proverb", but it's also in scripture, and it's there for a reason.
Grubb: ... Oh wait, I've had that thinking cap on the whole time. ☺
Adomnan: I can see that now, but maybe you'll grant it wasn't obvious before.
Yes, I understand things don't always come across as well thought out on paper (despite our best efforts) as they do in one's head.
For example, Paul only speaks of works/works of the Law in connection with justification. Ephesians uses the Pauline term "works" in connection with salvation, something not at all characteristic of Paul's style.
This is a good reason to think he's using the term as "works" not "works of the Law". His audience is non-Jews, so he doesn't need to teach them that it's not "works of the law" that save you; he needs to teach them (like most people believe) that our works don't save us. Ask the average American why they're going to heaven (RC and Reformed church attendee alike), and you'll get this answer, "Because I'm a good person." But that's exactly what Paul (or the author) is arguing against here. He turns right around and acknowledges we need to do good works (v 10), but he makes it clear that they're not what saves us.
I hasten to add that, even if you were to give the term the broader -- illegimate, I think -- sense that you do ("working your way to heaven"), this wouldn't support the Reformed position. The passage discusses salvation, not justification. And the Reformed have always maintained that "works," as they understand them, have nothing to do with justification. They have never maintained that works are not a part of the larger process of redemption called "salvation."
I think you may have your terminology wrong here. Justification and salvation are the same thing; I think you meant "sanctification" instead of "salvation". But I would say this passage is referring to justification (aka salvation) and agree that works have nothing to do with justification.
.
Grubb,
Please explain to me what you think Galatians 3:17 means.
I think this passage is a major stepping stone to getting everyone on the same page.
Hi, Grubb.
Grubb: Regarding the proverb "Do not go beyond what is written" you wrote,
There is no point in disputing this further, Grubb. I see it as an obscure proverb or literary reference that has nothing to do with the Scriptures.
Is that how this works? You have your interpretation, so there's no more discussion? ☺
Adomnan: To me, the passage is obscure. Given that, what's the point of my discussing it further with you? I can't tell you what it means. I am certain, however, that it is not a reference to the scriptures.
Lately you have been trying to establish major Protestant doctrines like sola scriptura and sola fide on ambiguous biblical snippets. This is one example, and "not of works, lest any man should boast" from Eph is another. But this is a pointless endeavor because, even if your peculiarly Protestant interpretations of these half-verses were plausible, they would hardly be conclusive -- and thus they can establish nothing. My alternative interpretations would be at least as plausible as yours.
And that's the fundamental reason why I don't see much point in parsing these obscurities endlessly. We're not going to get any closer to the truth by debating the overly terse and the ambiguous.
Nevertheless, I've got a few minutes and so I'll give it another whirl.
Grubb: The KJV actually sheds a little light on this passage, "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."
Adomnan: Actually, for the purposes of our discussion the KJV confuses the issue. It's clear from the Greek -- I'll explain that if you want -- that the phrase "Not beyond the things that are written" is a quotation. The KJV obscures that.
Now, Paul is not quoting himself and he's not quoting the scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament). Nevertheless, it's a quotation. It follows that it is some non-scriptural saying with which the Corinthians Jews were familiar but that is not known to us. Since Paul speaks of the scriptures nowhere else in this passage and the context doesn't call for such a general reference to the scriptures, there is no reason to think that the "things that are written" (what things?, written where?) refer to the scriptures.
If anything, the phrase would more likely mean "ye might learn in us not to think of men 'above what is due to them,' that no one of you be puffed up, etc." After all, "what is due," especially in ancient societies with their tables of the law -- the Romans and Greeks had them, too, not just the Jews -- would be "the things that are written down" somewhere, just as even now we say that things are aSCRIBED or preSCRIBED or proSCRIBED without making reference to any specific written document.
So, if I had to guess, I'd guess the saying was referring to some such general idea of "what is due."
Grubb: Even though part of this proverb is admonishing followers not to elevate Paul or Apollos beyond where they should be, it's also indicating that neither of them (nor any of us) is above scripture, because THAT is what is/was written.
Adomnan: The first part of your sentence here is unobjectionable. However, the second part is your imposing a meaning on a figure of speech of uncertain import. It's more likely that Paul is simply saying, "Don't arrogate to yourself anything beyond what is prescribed as your due" without reference to any particular text.
In fact, it would make no sense in an inspired letter for the writer to say that he is an example of someone who does not go beyond the (Old Testament) scriptures, even as he is doing exactly that! Paul's letter to the Corinthians certainly goes beyond what is written in the OT.
In this context, by the way, "beyond" is a better translation of the Greek preposition than "above."
Grubb: You can say it's "just an obscure proverb", but it's also in scripture, and it's there for a reason.
Adomnan: Everything that is written anywhere, not just in Scripture, is written for a reason.
But it is a non-sequitur to pass from this truism to the assumption that we can always know what that reason is. No one, I hope, doubts that there can be genuine obscurities in Scripture. So what? No great truth of scripture would be wrapped in an obscurity in some half-verse.
Grubb: This is a good reason to think he's using the term as "works" not "works of the Law". His audience is non-Jews, so he doesn't need to teach them that it's not "works of the law" that save you;
Adomnan: One problem with this analysis is that the author of Eph is speaking of the Jews in this very passage, and so he is in the midst of discussing the Jews, how they differ from Gentiles (by their "works" among other things), and how the division between Jews and Gentiles is overcome in Christ.
The second problem is that neither Paul nor anyone else in the New Testament ever evinces any concern about "works" other than "works of the Law." To allege that this concern crops up fleetingly in a half-verse of Eph, while the author of Eph otherwise ignores it, is illusory.
Frankly, I could give an interpretation consistent with Catholic teaching of "not of works, lest any man should boast" in which "works" would have a broader meaning than "works of the Law." I could argue that the "salvation" referred to in the verse is baptism (which it certainly is), and that no "works" done prior to baptism can save (thus, salvation is "not from works" but from baptism).
However, I don't put forward this interpretation because I am interested in the truth of the matter, not just scoring debating points, and I am certain that the author of Eph is using Pauline language accurately so that the "works" in Eph are "works of the Law" that only Jews do, and this is made quite clear because "boasting" in Paul's authentic letters is always associated with Jews, and Jews only. The author of Eph would simply not speak of unconverted gentiles as "boasting of works." That would be utterly un-Pauline. In Paul's parlance, only Jews boast of their being righteous because they do the works of the Law.
Grubb: Ask the average American why they're going to heaven (RC and Reformed church attendee alike), and you'll get this answer, "Because I'm a good person."
Adomnan: And Paul would say they'd given the right answer. "Glory and honor and peace will come to everyone who does good -- Jews first, but Greeks as well. There is no favoritism with God." (Rom 2:10-11)
Grubb: But that's exactly what Paul (or the author) is arguing against here.
Adomnan: No, he's not. He's merely saying that works about which Jews "boast" (i.e., works of the Law) were not the cause of salvation. People aren't saved by being circumcised, but by having faith and so accepting baptism. It's the same message as in Romans and Galatians, whoever the author of Ephesians was.
Grubb: He turns right around and acknowledges we need to do good works (v 10), but he makes it clear that they're not what saves us.
Adomnan: Once again, Grubb, the useless works of which people boast in verse 9 are not the "good works" of verse 10. If there is a contrast here, it is between works of which people boast (works of the Law) and good works. If the author of Eph meant "works" in verse 9 to be "good works," he would have written "not of good works, lest any man should boast." Paul never confuses "works of the Law" -- the kind of works of which Jews "boast" according to Romans and 2 Cor 11 -- with "good works"; and the author of Eph, who is following Paul, doesn't either.
Grubb: Justification and salvation are the same thing; I think you meant "sanctification" instead of "salvation". But I would say this passage is referring to justification (aka salvation) and agree that works have nothing to do with justification.
Adomnan: I disagree. "Salvation," among the Reformed, includes justification, sanctification and glorification. It is not limited to justification.
Show where Paul -- and the author of Eph gets his basic terminology from Paul -- reduces salvation to justification only. It would be a very odd theology that claimed that being made holy (sanctification) was not an aspect of salvation.
And as for your assertion that "works (meaning 'good works') have nothing to do with justification," both Paul and James disagree with you:
Paul: "It is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the the doers of the Law will be JUSTIFIED." (Rom 2:13)
(This doing refers to the moral precepts of the Law, not to the "works of the Law," which are observances peculiar to Jews such as circumcision.)
James: "You see that it is by works that a man is JUSTIFIED, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)
Regarding "do not go beyond what is written," I recently wrote an apologetics article on that:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/05/protestants-going-beyond-what-is.html
Good discussion, Nick.
It's interesting that Calvin agrees with with me that "Not beyond what is written" is both ambiguous and "of little moment." Yet, Grubb finds the phrase clear and of great moment. What new information since Calvin's time cleared up the ambiguity for Grubb?
Your analysis shows that, even if the phrase did refer to Holy Scripture, it would not imply sola scriptura.
However, I still think the likelihood is that it doesn't refer to Holy Scripture at all. Although his exegesis in this case is not bad, Calvin neglects the fact that the phrase is a quotation. This is evident from the Greek because the whole phrase is substantivized by a definite article. In Greek, it says literally "Learn from our example the (saying) 'Not beyond what is written'." The definite article has the effect of putting the phrase in quotes.
Paul is not quoting himself and he's not quoting the Holy Scriptures (the Old Testament), but he is quoting something. Quite possibly it is an idiomatic Greek saying not otherwise known to us, and not a specifically Jewish one. Even if it were a saying limited to the Jewish community, there's not enough information to conclude that it refers to the Holy Scriptures.
In this passage, Paul is criticizing certain Corinthians for not giving proper respect to Apollos and himself and for overvaluing their own contribution to the Christian community. Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for him to say something like "Learn by our example to give everyone his just due." And that is what I surmise the phrase "Not beyond what is written" to mean; namely, not beyond what is prescribed to each as his due.
This interpretation is strengthened by one of the definitions given for "grapho" (write) in Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, which can be found on line:
"7. prescribe, ordain, 'πότμος ἔγραψε' Pi.N.6.7."
"Potmos egrapse" means "Fate has ordained/prescribed."
Therefore, my best guess as to the meaning of the phrase in question would be "Not beyond what has been prescribed (as each one's due)."
This interpretation involves no reference to the Holy Scripture at all. And it's as good as any other interpretation out there, maybe better.
Grubb: This is a good reason to think he's using the term as "works" not "works of the Law". His audience is non-Jews, so he doesn't need to teach them that it's not "works of the law" that save you.
Adomnan: Grubb, you know, I was thinking about this remark you made, and it occurred to me how utterly unbiblical it was. In Romans, where Paul talks at length about works/works of the Law, the epistle is addressed primarily to Gentile converts in Rome. But, even more forcibly, Paul's epistle to the Galatians is addressed exclusively to Galatian Gentiles, and yet Paul spends the whole letter telling these Gentiles that they cannot be justified by performing works of the Jewish Law.
So, it is entirely appropriate and Pauline for the author of Ephesians to remind Gentiles (in passing) that they are not "saved" by works of the Jewish law, the same message that Paul conveyed to Gentiles in Romans and Galatisns. He would be alluding to a major concern of Paul's: to keep Gentiles from thinking that adherence to the Jewish Law and its "works," of which Jews boast, would be to their spiritual benefit.
So, your assertion that he "doesn't need to teach (non-Jews) that it's not 'works of the Law' that save you" would come as quite a surprise to Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, who hammered home that very message!
Of course, the non-Pauline element in the passage is that the author of Ephesians uses "save" where Paul would use "justify." But that's not an issue for you, because you consider the two words to be synonyms with no implication for the meaning of "works."
BIG FIND: You guys might want to have a look at this: http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/06/greek-expert-daniel-wallace-on-romans.html
This has serious implications for justification by faith alone.
For those interested, a new article is up called Faith Alone Obliterated
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/faith-alone-obliterated.html
What I don't understand just reading the Bible as an average Christan you can see very easy that justification is a process not a one time event that never happens again. Just read the **whole** life of Abraham not just Gen 15:6.
We know from scripture with out a shadow of a doubt that Abraham had great faith way before Gen 15:6. Just read all of Heb 11 and read about all of hall of fame of faith there. Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. This is talking about Gen 12 years before Gen 15:6. I must say when Luther and Calvin was making up this man made teaching they made a big blunder that an average Bible student can see.
That's true, most Protestants don't look at Abraham's life as a whole, especially pre-Gen15. It's simply because they're not conditioned to do so because they start with the assumption he was justified by faith alone.
Hey Nick have you been listing to Matt Slick interview Robert Sungenis? Matt Slick so poorly understands Catholic theology Robert has to go into teaching mode which makes Matt upset. As you know Catholic theology is not a sound bite faith. I think when Matt attempt to read Catholic teaching and theology he tries to make the meaning what he wants it to be so he can reject it. I don't think he does it on purpose but I think he so closed mined on the Catholic faith its hard for him to see it.
Agreed! Slick is very poorly informed on Catholicism, as most Protestant apologists are, and Sungenis really took him to task. Slick even admitted Sungenis won the second debate when Slick was speaking in his live stream of online viewers after the radio show went off the air. The good news is that hopefully this shake up will cause Slick to reconsider it all, and even open the door for conversion!!
I thought Robert one the first debate also. If the context of James 2 was dead faith, does that mean when Abraham offered his son Isaac upon the altar that Abraham had a dead faith? Dead Faith + works= real faith? Is that what Matt is trying to say Nick? I mean by Gen 22 Abraham had a great faith so I don't think Abraham had a dead faith in Gen 22.
James 2:22
You see that faith was active along with his works, and by works faith was made complete.
Abraham had a friend of God faith in Gen 22 not dead faith.
James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.
Did not Protestant scholar Alistair McGrath did a big study of the history of justification and he said that Catholic Church was faithful to the teaching of St.Augustine and the reformers departed from it? McGrath said the Protestant understanding of justification was genuine theological novum if I remember right.
I'd say Sungenis won the first debate as well, since equally important subjects were discussed and Matt was unprepared and couldn't answer it all.
As for James 2, the Protestant understanding (which Matt was claiming) was that there are two very different 'brands' of faith, a 'true faith' and a 'fake faith'. The 'faith faith' is self-delusion, thinking one has faith when they really do not and were never actually saved.
Those whom God wants to save are given a 'true faith', which secures salvation for them, and this faith proves itself true by automatically generating good works after justification (something the Bible never says).
So in Abraham's situation, Protestants would say Abraham was saved in Gen 15:6 when he believed, but he proved his faith genuine when it produced good works in his life such as at Gen 22.
The correct understanding of James 2 (which Catholics teach) is precisely how James describes it: As a body without a soul is dead, so is faith without works. There is no 'fake' body and 'true' body analogy here, nor would it make sense. Rather, faith becomes living or dead based on whether or not works accompany it.
You are correct about McGrath's findings and claims, the Protestants (including himself) get around these historical facts by claiming that it doesn't matter what history teaches and how long, but what the Bible says. So they don't care if it's a 'theological novelty' as far as history goes.
Thanks Nick and God bless!
Hello there,
I was wonderinf if anyone on this blog could direct me to an online (or offline if there are none) critique of the Qu'ran. However knowing the nature of the net, I need a site that is objective and fair in its treatment. For instance I know that if I typed "Bible errors" or "Bible contradictions" on Google, I would get hundreds of sites using bad exegesis and one-sided misreadings to prove all sorts of tripe against the Bible. So if I'm going to look for contradictions or erros in the Qu'ran, it must be withy good exegetical technique.
Thanks,
Phil
Hi Phil,
I recommend the following two sites (especially the second; I know a guy there, named Sam Shamoun):
The Muslim-Christian Debate Website
http://debate.org.uk/
Answering Islam
http://answering-islam.org/
Thank you very much, I appreciate your help.
By the way I found this after typing your name in on Google, I know that there must be dozens of men named Dave Armstrong, but it's still rather funny:http://www.livevideo.com/video/1134D0E327AD4D2FAE92370DF7C8010A/i-want-to-have-sex-with-dave-armstrong.aspx
Hello,
Could Dave or anyone else on this blog help me find reliable data and articles on the sex abuse scandal and Pope Bendedict's relation to it? The only reason why I ask this is because most articles that defend the Pope (aside from those that try character assassination) do not properly cite the evidence that they claim exonerates him, instead merely saying that "there is no proof for his involvement into covering up abuse". I am sure that this statement is true, but am unable to prove it.
I would prefer that the evidence not come from a Catholic or Catholic affiliated source. I do not doubt the reliability of Catholic sources, however they do not work because anti-Catholic polemicists will often try and discredit them by saying that they have been specially commisioned as misinformation.
Hi Phil,
You came to the right place. I made a large compilation of materials: mostly from Catholic or at least politically conservative sources:
Wisconsin, Irish, German, and Other Catholic Sexual Abuse Scandals and Pope Benedict XVI: Collection of Factual, Non-Agenda-Driven Articles
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/03/wisconsin-irish-german-and-other.html
I have several more articles on my Inquisition, Crusades, and "Catholic Scandals" Index Page
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/inquisition-crusades-catholic-scandals.html
But the one above was the most recent, taking in all the nonsense of recent months, of the lies and charges thrown at the Church and the Holy Father.
Oh, I read your post wrong: I thought you wanted Catholic sources. There are still a few papers I list that are non-Catholic, such as some English newspaper articles, and can provide what you seek. Those are much harder to find.
Oh no I don't mind Catholic Newspapers or websites, I just meant reports and surveys carried out by Catholics or by Catholic initiative. A good polemicist can always discredit these as misinformation.
"Arise and walk"!
Post a Comment