Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.
The verse could not be more clear. Baptism is a part of salvation. Does this take away from Christ’s perfect sacrifice for sins on the Cross? No, not at all– because baptism has its ultimate *efficacy* in the *context* of Christ’s perfect sacrifice.
The last statment is one made by Christopher Lake in a comment at Called to communionfrom comment 13 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/justification-catholic-church-and-the-judaizers/ :
You’ve made no attempt to explain the large number of Biblical examples of justification apart from baptism that I cited earlier.
First, there are many more things I have “made no attempt” to do. But that doesn’t nullify the truth of what I have said. If I start listing out the things you have “made no attempt” to do, the list could be endless. That’s why such a claim is sophistry; genuine rational dialogue avoids it. Second, your claim trades on an ambiguity in the word ‘apart’, in the phrase “apart from baptism”. If you mean it in the sense of not simultaneous, then undoubtedly we see that in Scripture. But if you mean ‘apart’ in the sense that the sanctifying grace by which persons were brought to living faith in the New Covenant did not come to them through the sacrament of baptism, even if it came to them prior to their being baptized, then there are no such Biblical examples. The Bible nowhere says that the sanctifying grace a person received under the New Covenant did not come to them through the sacrament of baptism..........
[and]
I am following St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus bishop of Antioch, St. Irenaeus bishop of Lyon, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Augustine bishop of Hippo and the many other Church Fathers, who consistently taught that the sanctifying grace by which we are justified comes to us through baptism. This is what is meant in the Creed by “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” This is the faith of the Church, handed down from the Apostles...........................
St. Luke tells us in the passage to which you already referred (Acts 19:4) that St. Paul explicitly distinguishes between John’s baptism for repentance, and Christian baptism under the New Covenant. This is why those believers there (at Ephesus) had not yet received the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is received through the sacraments of the New Covenant, specifically baptism and confirmation. Nothing about Matthew 3:11 requires reading Acts 2:38 as meaning that Christian baptism was equivalent in effect to the baptism of John the Baptist. In fact, in that very passage (Mt 3:11), John the Baptist explicitly distinguishes his own baptism from Christ’s. John the Baptist recognizes that when Christ baptizes (as He does through those whom He chose and authorized to represent Him), He does so with the Holy Spirit and [cleansing] fire; it is a baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Those who are baptized into Christ Jesus come up out of the font with no sin.also at the same location but at comment 11
It is St. John who tells us at the beginning of his gospel (written later in his life, according to tradition) that Jesus said to Nicodemus, “unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) Jesus is the one who “added” baptism, just as He did in Mark 16:16, and just as Peter did on Pentecost: “repent, and let each of you be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) It is baptism that now [in the New Covenant] saves us. (1 Pet 3:21)
and on baptism/justification from comment 49 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/justification-catholic-church-and-the-judaizers/
First, regarding the alleged conflict between baptism and justification by faith advanced by Mr. Engwer, I would simply like to point out that Engwer’s problem is not just with the Catholic Church, but it is also with Martin Luther and the Reformation he initiated. I refer everyone specifically to Luther’s Large Catechism and his discussion of Holy Baptism. Baptism, Luther writes, is not our work but God’s work:
“But if they say, as they are accustomed: Still Baptism is itself a work, and you say works are of no avail for salvation; what then, becomes of faith? Answer: Yes, our works, indeed, avail nothing for salvation; Baptism, however, is not our work, but God’s (for, as was stated, you must put Christ-baptism far away from a bath-keeper’s baptism). God’s works, however, are saving and necessary for salvation, and do not exclude, but demand, faith; for without faith they could not be apprehended. For by suffering the water to be poured upon you, you have not yet received Baptism in such a manner that it benefits you anything; but it becomes beneficial to you if you have yourself baptized with the thought that this is according to God’s command and ordinance, and besides in God’s name, in order that you may receive in the water the promised salvation. Now, this the fist cannot do, nor the body; but the heart must believe it. Thus you see plainly that there is here no work done by us, but a treasure which He gives us, and which faith apprehends; just as the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross is not a work, but a treasure comprehended in the Word, and offered to us and received by faith. Therefore they do us violence by exclaiming against us as though we preach against faith; while we alone insist upon it as being of such necessity that without it nothing can be received nor enjoyed.”
Luther rightly understood that to posit a conflict between justification by faith and the sacramental order of the Church would utterly destroy the gospel. Faith requires an embodied word to which to cling. For this reason Luther saw that the anti-sacramental views of the Swiss “reformers” and enthusiasts were even more dangerous than the Catholic views he was more than willing to attack.
Second, at this point in my life I confess that the relationship between justification, Church, baptism, and union with Christ is so obvious to me that I do not know quite how to respond to exegetical arguments like the ones offered by Mr. Engwer. Why does baptism justify? Because through baptism we are incorporated into the Church. Why does incorporation into the Church justify? Because the Church is the Body of Christ. Why does incorporation into the Body of Christ justify? Because to be united to the Body of Christ is to be united to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and to share in the divine life–and one can’t get any more justified than that! Until one grasps the profound unity of these divine realities, one will never exegete Scripture properly.
Finally, I believe that Catholic apologists make a mistake when they attempt to explicate and defend the Catholic understanding of justification exclusively within Thomistic and Tridentine categories. Not only does this strategy ignore significant Catholic reflection of the past 150 years on justification–reflection that helped to produce the Lutheran/Catholic Agreement on Justification–but it keeps us trapped within the polemical debates of the 16th century. Sometimes it is necessary to step outside those debates in order to acquire a fresh and perhaps deeper perspective.
from comment 55 at the same link:
Concerning St. John 3, allow me to explain why the Catholic Church has always understood Jesus’ words to Nicodemus to refer to the sacrament of baptism.
Firstly, here is the passage in its entirety:
Gospel of St John Chapter Three1Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews;
2this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”3Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”4Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.6″That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.7″Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’8″The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”9Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?”10Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?11″Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.12″If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?13″No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.14″As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;15so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.16″For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.17″For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.18″He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.19″This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.20″For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.21″But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
I’ll start by pointing out that the context of the first four chapters of St. John demonstrate that ‘water and Spirit’ refer to baptism. We know from Jesus’ baptism that the Spirt ascended over Jesus in the water as he was being baptized by John.
St. John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!30″This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’31″I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.”32John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.33″I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’
Here we see that ‘water’ and ‘Spirit’ explicitly refer to baptism. (Also see St. Matthew 3:16-17 which explicitly joins the water of baptism with the Holy Spirt. And also Mark 1:10)
I am not aware of any Reformed exegesis that would deny that John 1, Mark 1:10 and Matthew 3:16-17 are speaking about baptism. John 3 uses the exact same language.
Furthermore, right after discussing being born again in ‘water and Spirit’ with Nicodemus we see that Jesus and the disciples immediately set out baptizing. (John 3:22, John 4:1)
So, John 3 is book-ended by explicit references to baptism.
This is followed by St. Peter the Apostle’s command to be baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and also (Acts 10:47):
Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”
Peter also recognizes water to be associated with the Spirit in the sacrament of baptism.
It must be admitted that scripture, in every other instance where ‘water’ and ‘Spirit’ are discussed, is referring to the sacrament of baptism.
It must also be mentioned that John 3:5 is unique among the church fathers in that the Catholic interpretation of the passage is utterly unanimous in the church fathers. The first extant record of exegesis of this passage is from Justin Martyr AD 150:
Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, “Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” …The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles. (The First Apology 61)
This orthodox interpretation of John 3:5 continued throughout the ages:
Irenaeus AD 190“And Naaman dipped himself…seven times in the Jordan” [2 Kings 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but this served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”Tertullian AD 200..no one can attain salvation without Baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says: “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life.” (On Baptism 12:1)Cyril of Jerusalem AD 350And He says, “Unless a man be born again” — and He adds the words “of water and of the Spirit” — “he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it. (Catechetical Lectures 3:4)Augustine AD 412Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too.If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this….The Sacrament of Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration. Emphasis Added. (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 c. A.D. 412)
This is why the Creed says, “We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins.”
That the church fathers were unanimous on baptismal regeneration and in particular the Catholic interpretation of John 3:5 is not even a matter of debate. JND Kelly, Schaff, Pelikan and others admit this. Zwingli even famously admitted that it was his belief that ‘all’ of the doctors of the church erred on baptism.
There is a lot more to scripture and baptism that the Church draws upon in Her teaching on baptism.
I realize I did not directly interact with your view on John 3:5 here. The reason is that your argument is merely an assertion.
Your argument summarized: Baptism is a work and works of any kind are excluded from justification therefore John 3:5 must not be talking about baptism.
I respond by saying that John 3:5 is clearly referring to baptism and therefore some of the underlying presuppositions behind your understanding of justification are not true."
end of comment 55
and on the same link comment 82:
Baptism, therefore, is not just a symbolic pouring of water that points us away from itself to something else: it is God speaking to us now and God accomplishing what he speaks. And this is the solution to the problem of faith with which you are struggling. Precisely because baptism is divine Word, spoken to us directly and personally in the form of first-person discourse, it summons us to faith, bestows faith, and sustains faith. The fact that it is a word spoken to us in the form of symbolic action involving material elements does not alter its character as divine Word. Baptism is the gospel simultaneously proclaimed and enacted.
from comment 108 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/justification-catholic-church-and-the-judaizers/
The righteousness that is infused into us at baptism was merited for us [by way of satisfaction] through Christ’s sacrifice, and yet is also, by infusion, truly ours. And the increases in righteousness through acts of love flowing from that infused agape are Christ’s because they are the dynamic expression of that infused agape, and are ours, because they are our cooperation in that agape. This is one implication of the ontology of participation.
and from comment 13
There’s a reason we can’t baptize ourselves, even though we do a number of things during the rite of baptism. Someone else has to baptize us, precisely because we can’t incorporate ourselves into Christ and His Body, and forgive our own sins. The baptizing person acts in persona Christi, because it is Christ who baptizes. Stepping into the font is a necessary condition for baptism, but it is not baptism. If you step into the font, and nobody baptizes you, you’re not baptized. Baptism in its essence consists of form and matter: the matter is water, and the form is the application of water to the catechumen while saying the Trinitarian baptismal formula with the intention of doing what the Church does in baptism. That’s why stepping into the font is not just one more “element” of the “ceremony.” It is a necessary precondition (usually), but nothing more. Even an atheist can administer a valid baptism, so long as he/she intends to do what the Church does in baptism. That’s because Christ is the one doing the baptizing. Of course, more than faith is involved in the acts surrounding and leading up to receiving the sacrament of baptism. We have to request baptism, and prepare for it, then make a public profession of faith, including renouncing Satan, and making public baptismal vows. But none of those acts is meritorious, if we are not yet justified.
baptism
“41. The transmission of faith occurs first and foremost in baptism. Some might think that baptism is merely a way of symbolizing the confession of faith, a pedagogical tool for those who require images and signs, while in itself ultimately unnecessary. An observation of Saint Paul about baptism reminds us that this is not the case. Paul states that “we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). In baptism we become a new creation and God’s adopted children. The Apostle goes on to say that Christians have been entrusted to a “standard of teaching" (týpos didachés), which they now obey from the heart (cf. Rom 6:17). "
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20130629_enciclica-lumen-fidei_en.html
First Apology of Justin. Describing the baptismal liturgy at the Church of Rome, St. Justin Martyr (ca. 150 A.D.) remarks:
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. They are then brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated” (LXI).
from comment 202 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/12/rome-geneva-and-the-incarnations-native-soil/
Rev. Brian W. Harrison wrote the following regarding our discussion on justification by faith and the relationship to baptism.
Finally, St. Paul’s teaching regarding justification by faith rather than by works must not be taken in isolation from other Biblical passages which clearly speak of the sacramental aspect of justification. St. Paul certainly does not regard Baptism as one of the human “works of the law” which cannot justify us; rather it is a “work” of God Himself, which completes the process of justification for one who has never previously been baptized. St. Paul teaches that in Baptism we participate in Christ’s death, that this, we receive through this sacrament the grace that Jesus won on the Cross by his death on the Cross; and this enables us to live the new life of his resurrection (Rom 6:3-4). Paul, on one occasion, recalled his own conversion and the role Baptism played in it: Ananias, he recalls, exhorted him shortly after he came to believe in Jesus, saying, “And now why delay? It is time you were baptized and had your sins washed away while invoking his name” (Acts 22:16). St. Peter speaks of “the baptism which saves you now, and which is not the washing off of physical dirt but a pledge made to God from a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pt 3:22. See also Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16).
You should note, specifically, in Romans 6, how Paul refers to the grace of baptism as the instrument by which we receive a participation in the death of Christ and in the new life of His resurrection.
from comment 13 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/baptism-now-saves-you-some-more-prolegomena/#comment-79555
from comment 13 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/baptism-now-saves-you-some-more-prolegomena/#comment-79555
Here are some answers to your questions about the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration:
1) Do you permit extra-sacramental grace? That is, can one receive Christ and all his saving benefits upon hearing the gospel apart from baptism?
These are two different questions. The answer to the first question is yes, if by “permit” you mean “recognize”. The answer to the second question depends upon circumstances. Normally, adult catechumens believe in Christ before or while they are preparing to enter the visible communion of the Church via Baptism. These catechumens are not considered to be “unsaved”; however, Baptism confers saving benefits. In the extraordinary circumstance that such a believer in Jesus, i.e., one who is preparing for Baptism or one who would have been preparing for Baptism had he or she known of its necessity (e.g., the thief on the Cross who believed in Christ), he is considered to be saved by the grace of God through the “baptism of desire” (cf. the article on “Baptism” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, under the sub-heading, “Substitutes for the sacrament”). Some theologians have stated that one saving benefit that is not received by the “baptism of desire” is the sacramental character that is conferred by the sacrament, which, along with the sacrament of Chrismation (Confirmation), renders the baptized person capable of fully participating in divine worship as member of the Body of Christ.
2) Are the regenerating affects of baptism necessarily annexed to the time of administration? The tradition with which I’m most familiar, Reformed Presbyterianism, permits extra-sacramental grace and does not inseparably tie the benefits of baptism to that moment. That is, baptism might “kick-in” later.
The Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments have their effect ex opere operato, that is, from the “work being performed” (i.e., the sacrament being administered). The word “annex” is far too weak, as expressing a secondary and / or extrinsic relationship, to adequately express the relation between the sacraments and their proper effects. However, St Thomas Aquinas, among others, teaches that “insincerity” hinders the effect of Baptism, and that that effect is produced when the insincerity ceases (Summa theologiae, III, 69, 9-10 [link]). So there is a sense in which some of the effects of Baptism “kick-in” after the administration of Baptism, though these effects are still given in Baptism, as being intrinsic to it.
3) Is the final justification at all related to the “initial” justification conferred in baptism? Or, are the two so dichotomized that there is really no relationship?
Yes, all of the sacraments are ordered to our final justification, beginning with Baptism, which lays the foundation for our new life in Christ by making us new creations in Him.
see also
see also
baptism and confirmation
The link below explains the sacraments of Baptism and confirmation
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0285.htmlhttp://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0285.html
and by Peter Kreeft on Baptism and Confirmation and the catechism: http://www.beginningcatholic.com/confirmation.html This is very helpful
from http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/05/the-witness-of-the-lost-christianities/#comment-116050
You assert,
The first three big mistakes of the early church that were later developed into full blown false doctrines:
1. The language of sacrifice for the Eucharist/Lord’s supper.
2. Baptismal regeneration.
3. Exalting one of the presbyter-overseers out from the college of presbyters and making him a mono-episcopate.
…but such assertions ought not come out of nowhere. They ought to be demonstrated to be consistent with early evidence.
Now when it comes to the Early Church encountering new ideas which alter or reverse the teachings they’d learned from the apostles, we observe regular pattern of behavior: A huge uproar of denunciations typically resulted, complete with name-calling. What we might now call “letter writing campaigns” would emerge, in which outraged partisans of one view would argue their cases to anyone they could contact by letter. (I believe it was the heretic Marcion who was called “firstborn of Satan” by Polycarp, wasn’t it?) I suppose St. Paul’s remark about the Judaizers (that he wished they’d “go the whole way and cut the whole thing off”) kind of set the tone.
My point is: When, in the Early Church, a controversy arose, it was not the habit of the early Christians to shrug it off and stay mum about it. They did not, as a rule, react to alterations of the apostles’ doctrines with a genteel smile and a vague hope that the truth would win out. Quite the contrary: Verbal and Written (and sometimes Physical) combat was waged. And this naturally produced documentary evidence of the conflicts. We have copies of some such documents; of others, we have only reports and references from later authors who were aware of them.
So…,
If you believe that Jesus taught the Apostles, and the Apostles taught their successors, that the Eucharist was NOT a Sacrifice, and that later on, some other Christians changed this and began saying that the Eucharist WAS a Sacrifice, it follows from historical precedent that we should expect such a reversal, on such a central matter, to have produced a truly explosive controversy.
So where is it? Where is the documentary evidence that one would expect, showing the proponents of these two ideas clashing, with (in your view) the wrong side eventually winning out?
I don’t think there is any. There should be, but there isn’t.
Likewise, you hold that Jesus taught the Apostles, and the Apostles their successors, that baptism was merely symbolical, not sacramentally regenerative. Now the Biblical evidence can go both ways — personally I think it’s far stronger on the regenerative side — but let’s assume you’re correct for the sake of argument. But then suddenly Christians were teaching baptismal regeneration. In both the East and the West. So, if your view is right, then — for some reason — a change was introduced, quite early, in different geographical locations.
Where is the outraged reaction? Where is the evidence that the orthodox Christians (who, in your view, did NOT believe in baptismal regeneration) encountered this new teaching and began their usual practice of denouncing the heretics and defending what they’d learned from the Apostles?
And, again, where is the outraged reaction about some presbyters asserting a higher degree of authority or ordination than others? If, as you believe, this is a change from what the Apostles themselves taught, then it is a change which happened very early: John the Apostle could not have been in his grave for more than 15 years when Ignatius of Antioch wrote as if it were the accepted and uncontroversial norm. And of course Clement of Rome was sending legates to Corinth to see that his instructions (!) to the church in Corinth (!!) were being followed, even while John the Apostle yet lived.
If the assumptions behind such assertions of episcopal authority or bishop-of-Rome authority were new, we can assume they would be hotly challenged. The (in your view) orthodox Christians would have railed against such new innovations in doctrine.
So, surely, Ignatius of Antioch, in spite of his martyrdom, became a suspicious or derided figure among the early Christians on account of his heretical innovations…right? Surely the Church at Corinth rejected the words of Clement, tossed his letter unceremoniously in the wastepaper basket, and called him out for being a pushy busybody from the distant city of Rome who was interfering unasked in the internal affairs of their church, which was none of his business.
Surely that’s how it went down…isn’t it?
If it isn’t, then we have another case of “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time,” as in the old Conan Doyle story:
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”
If these three items you list — which everyone agrees are taught very early, within the lifetime of the Apostles or of their immediate successors, or their successors’ successors — are indeed reversals of the real Christian doctrine delivered by Jesus to the Apostles, and by the Apostles to those first successors, we would expect a record of the controversy. But the “dog did nothing.”
Instead, it seems the whole Christian world was nodding at these “innovations” as if they were old news. The persons saying them seem not to be arguing them but mentioning them as things the readers (if they are Christians) already know, or ought to.
What’s your solution to this, Ken?
Do you believe that the very persons whom we trust to transmit the books of the New Testament canon to us, cannot be trusted to transmit basic doctrines also?
To me, it seems more likely that the correct interpretation of Scriptures which can be read two ways is the interpretation which is taken by those readers who are closest to the original authors in time and culture and geography…especially when (a.) these readers report that this interpretation is an unbroken tradition coming to them from the preaching of the original authors of the text; and (b.) I am forced, anyway, to rely upon these same readers to even obtain the text itself.
And when I find that there are passages which can be viewed one of two ways, but no early witness seems to support one of those views, or to bother contradicting the other view when it is widely taught? In such cases, it seems to me more probable that the other view was, among those early witnesses, the only known view.
No comments:
Post a Comment