As to the priesthood of believers, how would placing the Altar/table to the side support the priesthood of believers? Most Anglicans don’t believe the priest is exactly the same office as understood by Rome. So the priest leads the people in their priestly duties to offer sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving upon the Altar properly positioned in the center of view.

just some thoughts,

RESPONSE:
My mistake—I see that 17 does reference scripture a great deal more than 7. However, in context of what is being discussed (the 10 points of Doctrine), Cyril is addressing the heretical notion that the Holy Spirit was not One in Being with the Father and the Son and to guard against such heresy by verifying through the Scriptures on that point. To generalize that single statement to his entire instruction is to disregard all the other things this Doctor of the Church communicates. One very important point to note is in the introduction of that Catechetical Lecture 4 and should (since it is in context of the entire writing) be considered generally is:

“A most precious possession therefore is the knowledge of doctrines: also there is need of a wakeful soul, since there are many that make spoil through philosophy and vain deceit. The Greeks on the one hand draw men away by their smooth tongue, for honey droppeth from a harlot’s lips: whereas they of the Circumcision deceive those who come to them by means of the Divine Scriptures, which they miserably misinterpret though studying them from childhood to all age, and growing old in ignorance. But the children of heretics, by their good words and smooth tongue, deceive the hearts of the innocent, disguising with the name of Christ as it were with honey the poisoned arrows of their impious doctrines: concerning all of whom together the Lord saith, Take heed lest any man mislead you. This is the reason for the teaching of the Creed and for expositions upon it.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:2 (A.D. 350).
This is clearly an indictment of those who would take scripture out of context and interpret on their own without the guidance of an authoritative teaching body.”

***From NN:
“The faith is said to have been built up out of the Scriptures—the Scriptures are the foundation of the faith—not a mere fortification.”

RESPONSE:
The Church and the Scriptures are dependent upon one another. The Scriptures express the written faith and many traditions (though not all as I demonstrated in a prior post), the Church is the authority that interprets and teaches.

***From NN:
“I have to wonder if you did actually check these references. Athanasius states plainly, “For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth…” He goes on to speak about communicating the faith as learned from his teachers but this is a clear declaration of the sufficiency of Scripture. ”

RESPONSE:
Aside from the fact that you referenced 1.3, not 1.1.3, and hence the confusion concerning what you specifically referred to ( I guess I’m not alone in reference errors ) ….That next line that you do NOT quote, but rather summarize is very important. That line says, “—while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,—“
That line asserts that one must have TEACHERS with the authority to interpret the scriptures. That is the point I have been making this whole time. YES, the scriptures are sufficient in that they tell you that you need authoritative teachers found in the Church—apparently Athanasius agrees.

You said:

The only thing in 4.7 that references scripture is, “7. ….remember thou what is written in the Gospels, that none knows the Son but the Father, neither knows any the Father save the Son.” In what way are you interpreting this to say that Scriptures are sufficient? You tell me to do the “leg work,” but I question whether you even read you own sources.

The reference was actually 4.17 not 4.7 and I will quote it for you here:

17. Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

You said:

5.12 is about the creed—not about scriptures. And in the first line it specifically says, “12. But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures.” If anything, that reference says that the Church is sufficient because it has the been fortified by the Scriptures.

The faith is said to have been built up out of the Scriptures—the Scriptures are the foundation of the faith—not a mere fortification. This is evident as we continue in the paragraph when Cyril says: “For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith.”

You said:

And Athanasius is talking about the LOGOS—Word of God—AKA: JESUS! Did YOU read your own rebuttal sources? One has to wonder…maybe you thought I wouldn’t read them? This is very confusing. You offer nothing of support for considering Scriptures alone sufficient and yet claim you do.

I have to wonder if you did actually check these references. Athanasius states plainly, “For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth…” He goes on to speak about communicating the faith as learned from his teachers but this is a clear declaration of the sufficiency of Scripture.

In speaking about the Son/Word revealing the Father he says, “But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say.” Athanasius is making a claim to the perspicuity and authority of the Scriptures in the matter he just spoke of. He goes on to say, “ For an argument when confirmed by higher authority is irresistibly proved. From the first then the divine Word firmly taught the Jewish people about the abolition of idols…” and then quotes the Scriptures from Exodus! He presents Scripture as the higher authority! I’d also note that the section heading to this passage reads: “45. Conclusion . Doctrine of Scripture on the subject of Part I” so I’m not sure how you missed or misconstrued that.

And I have no interest in responding to your arguments against Sola Scriptura as I realize that this post was not about that topic per se.

What is needed instead is a supra-human source of infallibility, that is, from Christ Himself. Our Lord built a church, he didn’t write a bible, and He gave that church his authority to teach the faith. Since our God is not the god of confusion or lies, it makes no sense that he would let his people wallow in error for 1500 years until the reformation. No, the Church speaks for Christ, and if one wants to “stand on the shoulders of giants”, then one has no further to look than the then those ordained and sent forth by the Church, possessing valid succession from the Apostles themselves (in particular the ECFs)

***From DW:
Felicity, I think you’re missing a couple of points here. You repeatedly mentioned that scripture is not our sole authority. An earlier commentor suggested that you did not fully understand sola scriptura; this seems to be evident in your association of sola scriptura with ’sole authority.’ That’s NOT what Protestants believe; scripture is our final authority.

RESPONSE:
With all due respect, I believe that I do understand the distinction this attempts to make, but I simply disagree that “sole” and “final” are in fact much of a distinction at all. In both cases, if it’s not explicitly clarified in the texts of the codified scriptures to some nebulous degree decided upon by whatever individual is reading it, it ain’t relevant (depending on the individual interpretation of the scriptures). This problem of divergent interpretations then again reverts back to the question of authority and who has the authority to discern what the scriptures in fact reveal. “Sola Scriptura” gives that final authority to the scriptures—it’s a huge logical circle where no answer is final. So, it would be convenient to say that I ‘just don’t get the distinction”—if the distinction can’t be made clear, what distinction is there? …Perhaps if someone could explain what the difference is between “sole” authority and “final” authority in actual practice rather than merely in rhetorical claims of distinction.

***From DW:
And again, I would say that all of the evidence you provided only confirms that scripture is our final authority: the early church recognized the scriptures as their final authority.

RESPONSE:
I do not agree that the early church recognized scripture as the “final” authority—I believe there is ample evidence that they considered it co-equal and efficacious for instruction. You are aware that there is Sacred Tradition referred to in the NT not mentioned in the OT Scriptures, are you not? Some examples:
~~Matt. 2:23 “He shall be called a Nazarene” (That’s not in the OT—but Matthew records it as spoken prophesy. Unless you don’t accept the inerrancy of the Bible—Matthew is referring to Sacred Oral Tradition.)
~~Matthew 23:2 “the chair of Moses” (Jesus himself refers to this Sacred Oral Tradition of Church Authority! Jesus condemns the acts of the Pharisees, but also charges believers to follow their authority handed on by their position within the hierarchy. The Chair of Moses is nowhere in the OT, and yet the Son of God Himself advises believers to respect the authority of the Church!) –There are more…

The fact that scripture itself demonstrates reference to Sacred Tradition that is NOT IN SCRIPTURE is indicative that Scripture cannot be the FINAL authority, but a co-equal authority with some OTHER authority accessible to the believer.

***From DW:
And you are quite right that Protestants lopped off traditions that they did not see jiving with scripture. I’m not sure what’s wrong with that.

RESPONSE:
In my opinion, what’s wrong with that is that Protestants, although gifted with the light of Christ, are not bathed in the fullness of His light because they shade themselves from a portion of His revealed Glory because they rely on man-made doctrine such as Sola Scriptura rather than the bask in the breadth and depth of the revelation.

Start with the “touchstones” we all want to use as our static resting place, and we see that it was not as “static” as we would like, especially when you factor in our distance from the events:

You start with documents written 2000 years ago, which are complicated even when written, conflicting on their surface, written by people who may not have agreed with each other on all points (regardless of inspiration) so that their emphases are different.

Then you add in some organically developing traditions that we have only vague glimpses of for the first hundred years, during which the Church had a wide variety of “flavors”.

So, we start with foundations that are up for human interpretation to begin with.

Then we start adding layers of exegesis and tradition, and here is where the math comes in. This process will NECESSARILY involve building one doctrinal statement upon the presupposition of an existing doctrinal position which is based on an interpretation of either Scripture or early tradition. If that interpretation happens to be wrong, then all the doctrine that gets derived from that is wrong, and it begins an exponential growth in the wrong direction. I think this is the organic process that happened with the Catholic Church, since you had a linear authority which could build one doctrine upon another to create a house of cards of byzantine complexity. Until Luther, there was not enough real ability to say “HEY, wait a second, that can’t be right!”

The only solution I can see to this is to allow for a dynamic process of check and balances, with enough free theological thinking that the “truth will out”. Now, that does not mean that the truth will be recognized or accepted by all or even most, and I think that the best we can hope for is that this process can keep us from getting too far down a wrong path.

As an individual Christian, I would LOVE to have a human authority structure to turn to let me know what is correct. But I just don’t see that happening in a way that I can trust to be correct. The whole concept of apostolic authority for me is thrown out the window because there is no way at this point to be sure who really has such historic authority.

You said:
“The trouble is that the average Christian is asked to choose between imperfect interpretation that can easily be corrected and an imperfect tradition that cannot.”

Good point. I think the problem is that we often define opposing traditions by the “worst-of” illustrations. We got plenty of those to go around. But I think that so long as the “best-of” is made accessible, such as scholars like yourself, we find that the community does regulate its interpretations more than people think.

I agree, while we have our share of difficulties, I don’t think we can responsibly give our beliefs completely over to an outsourcing venue simply because of these difficulties. We are held accountable to the rich traditions of those who have gone before us, but these traditions must be continually tested, amended, and, if need be, jettisoned by a sound hermeneutic of the Scripture which is self-regulating to some degree.

Felicity, I think you’re missing a couple of points here. You repeatedly mentioned that scripture is not our sole authority. An earlier commentor suggested that you did not fully understand sola scriptura; this seems to be evident in your association of sola scriptura with ’sole authority.’ That’s NOT what Protestants believe; scripture is our final authority. So, when you say that it’s not the scripture that causes you a problem, it’s the “sola” part, perhaps you’re fighting against a straw man. And again, I would say that all of the evidence you provided only confirms that scripture is our final authority: the early church recognized the scriptures as their final authority. And you are quite right that Protestants lopped off traditions that they did not see jiving with scripture. I’m not sure what’s wrong with that.

In reality, there are many parallels between ecclesiastical tradition (some of which has been elevated to Sacred Tradition) and what the Jews in Second Temple Judaism did with scripture. They often elevated oral tradition above scripture as the authoritative interpretation of scripture; they linked their tradition back to authoritative rabbis; and they inevitably appealed to the living tradition and the magisterium (though they didn’t use this word!) to guide their lives. Jesus condemned this without mincing words.

So, the question is: How much of ecclesiastical tradition can really be shown to go back to the apostles? Such oral tradition often has many gaps in it, is often contradictory, and often has elements that are flat-out unbiblical. Should we bow to all of this without thinking? Protestants would give a decided NO to this question.

My problem with Protestantism is that we have inadvertently elevated reason above revelation. But the best of the Protestant tradition is that which demonstrates that certain ecclesiastical traditions are not in line with scripture. To be sure, Protestants end up having a lot more non-authoritative interpretations than Catholics do, but the best of Protestantism weeds that out. The trouble is that the average Christian is asked to choose between imperfect interpretation that can easily be corrected and an imperfect tradition that cannot. I can sympathize with Catholics very much and I recognize the problem of authority for Protestantism. But I still think that evangelical Protestantism has preserved the best of authentic Christianity.

RESPONSE:
***Cf. Matt 15.1-6;*** This is referring to the “Korban Rule”—the “tradition” made-up by the Pharisees so that they could “give” their money to the Temple and appear to be penniless should family be in need of their assistance even though in reality, they had full access to their funds. Traditions of men are not the same thing as Sacred Tradition—it the difference between “customs” and the teachings directly from Christ and his Apostles. The Jews had traditions (customs) and Traditions which were part of the Law and the revelation of God in his covenantal relationship with his people. The same is true today in both Catholic and Protestant churches. There are customs, and then there is the Tradition handed on over the centuries from the Apostles. The difference lies in that the Protestant communities lop off those Sacred Traditions that they do not see clearly stated in the scriptures.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JOHN 5:37 Moreover, the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf. But you have never heard his voice nor seen his form,
38 and you do not have his word remaining in you, because you do not believe in the one whom he has sent.
39 You search 14 the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.
40 But you do not want to come to me to have life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The scripture are a testimony—but they are not the sole authoritative voice—per the scriptures themselves.

***Acts 17.11;*** Those fair-minded Jews were verifying the claims of the Christians against the prophesies in the Scripture to determine if the claims had merit. Of course this should be done—and it should be done today–but I doubt any of those Jews were looking for the Scriptures of old to say “Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah!” The scriptures are such that they testify to the truth, but they are not alone in that testimony.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2Tim.3:15 and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 3 4 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The scriptures are “useful” for giving “wisdom for salvation”—but they are by no means the sole authority. They clearly demonstrate throughout both the old and new testaments that the Church is the bulwark of the Sacred Deposit of Faith and holds this authority of the Faith of the Apostles in accord with scripture. When Catholics argue against Sola Scriptura—we are not against Scripture—it’s the “Sola” part that we take issue with.

***From DW:
“Early patristic writers recognized that their authority was not that of the apostles, and that the apostles’ writings were the standard by which truth and tradition must be measured. “

RESPONSE:
I think, perhaps, you misunderstand what “authority” is claimed. Apostolic authority is not changeable—it is of the Apostles—but it is handed on in succession and the authority of the apostle is given to succeeding generations as long as those succeeding generations are in accord with the teaching of the Apostles. One who has received Apostolic Authority cannot “make-up” new revelation—he must “hold fast” to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles and serve the Church in accord with those teachings. Ignatius’ self-deprecating language reminds those who are in his position that their authority lies only in that they are servants to the Church and to their mission. I suppose this may fall under the other issue that Catholics and Protestants get in a tussle over, and that is the issue concerning the assurance one has of his salvation, but without going too far a-field, I will suggest that all humility and reverence for what was handed on to the Apostles themselves and then passed to succeeding generations of Church leaders is not at all a fault and does not point to a lack of authority—rather, it is more evidence that such teaching is in accord with the teaching of Jesus.

Thank you for addressing this issue!

The “10,000″ (which was really 8200) is still consider a high estimate because it was based on jurisdiction:

“In reality, Barrett indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist denominations comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant figure. Yet the lion’s share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them (in Barrett’s calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there are ten Independent Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them are identical in belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its autonomy in jurisdiction.”

“However Barrett has defined “denomination,” it is clear that he does not think of these as major distinctions; for that is something he reserves for another category. In addition to the seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above), Barrett breaks down each of these traditions into smaller units that might have significant differences (what he calls “major ecclesiastical traditions,” and what we might normally call a true denomination)… In other words, the true count of real denominations within Protestantism is twenty-one, whereas the true count of real denominations within Roman Catholic is sixteen.”

Also note that if you are to run with the high denomination number of 8200 Protestant denoms then you have about 2900 Catholics denoms.

I have to say, I find this all very bizarre. Why would you want to stick to an erroneous statement that Catholic apologist use to smear Protestants?

As for the first criticism, would you say that the Nicene Creed should be jettisoned? I have repeatedly argued that theological liberalism finds its roots largely within Protestantism, an indication that something is wrong with Protestantism. And of the three branches of Christendom, only the Catholic and Orthodox consistently embrace the Nicene Creed. This, too, tells me that something is wrong with Protestantism (assuming that the Nicene Creed is pretty darn good and is focused on what matters most). At the same time, Protestantism arose because of the lack of checks and balances within Catholicism, because Catholicism had become terribly corrupt in large part because it elevated tradition above scripture. Luther recognized that above the authority of popes and councils, traditions of men, and comments by church fathers stood the Word of God. His courage and his insights along this line give me hope that more Reformations can come and that all of us—Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox—can return to the Bible as our final authority, yet with much greater respect for the most revered and consistent traditions.

As for biblical and patristic arguments that sola scriptura is true, I would point out the following:
1. There are numerous texts that speak of scripture as having greater authority than any person or tradition that follows. Jesus, in fact, condemned ‘the traditions of men’ even though they had a long history and a huge following.

2. The later books of the New Testament call their readers to remain faithful to the tradition that had already been handed down to them—that is, the teaching of the apostles as found in the scriptures—rather than be deceived by false teachers. Cf. Matt 15.1-6; Acts 17.11; Acts 18.28; 2 Tim 3.16; 2 Peter.

3. Early patristic writers recognized that their authority was not that of the apostles, and that the apostles’ writings were the standard by which truth and tradition must be measured. Cf. Ignatius, Eph 11.1; Rom 4.3; Mag 13.1; Tral 3.3; Polycarp, Phil 3.2. It is to be noted that most of these citations are from Ignatius, a man who admittedly moved the church toward monarchical episcopacy early on and had (in my view) way too high a view of the bishop and presbytery. Yet even Ignatius recognized that the traditions—if they were to be considered legitimate and authoritative traditions—must conform to the teachings of the apostles. I would argue that insofar as the traditions are in line with scripture, they are acceptable. But the Bible must be judge over tradition.

4. The many hours I have logged examining ancient New Testament manuscripts also gives eloquent though subtle testimony to sola scriptura. Consistently, New Testament books that have patristic commentary with them mark out the difference for readers. But they do so in a way that elevates the authority of the New Testament. Most manuscripts show this in one of two ways: either the commentary is interwoven with the biblical text but the ink is rarer or more expensive for the scriptures than it is for the commentary (frequently even gold letters are used for scripture); or the commentary is wrapped around the biblical text, giving pride of place to the scriptures. Some years ago I pointed this out to a prominent Orthodox man, and he went home to read his Bible for the first time! It was an illuminating experience. Or, as one of my professors was fond of saying, “It’s amazing how much light the Bible sheds on the commentaries!”

As I said, I think it’s quite impossible for there to be an ideal church today. We should all admit that none of our traditions has it all right. For me, the least unsatisfactory branch is evangelical Protestantism (in particular because of its doctrine of salvation), but I’m still learning many things from my Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters.

Joanie D.

I think it would be great if we all viewed ourselves and each other as Christians first, and Baptist, or Catholic or EO, or Assembly of God second.

***From NN:
Felicity,
Your invective against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura leads me to believe that you aren’t all that familiar with what the doctrine actually purports. But in reference to your comment: ***

RESPONSE:
I apologize if my comment came across as “invective”—that certainly wasn’t intentional. I am familiar with the varied and sundry positions on what “sola scriptura” actually means—I believe part of the problem with the “doctrine” is exactly what Wallace describes—no authority that has apostolic credentials is in place to set an objective standard.

***From NN:
What I can provide you with is the very sense of what Sola Scriptura purports (namely the sufficiency and authority of Scripture) from the words of Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius.
I’ll provide the references and if you are genuinely interested you can do the leg work.
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechitical Lectures, 4.17 [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm] ***

RESPONSE:
The only thing in 4.7 that references scripture is, “7. ….remember thou what is written in the Gospels, that none knows the Son but the Father, neither knows any the Father save the Son.” In what way are you interpreting this to say that Scriptures are sufficient? You tell me to do the “leg work,” but I question whether you even read you own sources.

***From NN:
and 5.12 [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm] ***

RESPONSE:
5.12 is about the creed—not about scriptures. And in the first line it specifically says, “12. But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures.” If anything, that reference says that the Church is sufficient because it has the been fortified by the Scriptures.

***From NN:Athanasius. Against the Heathen, Part 1.3; Part 3.45.2-3 [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm] ***

RESPONSE:
And Athanasius is talking about the LOGOS—Word of God—AKA: JESUS! Did YOU read your own rebuttal sources? One has to wonder…maybe you thought I wouldn’t read them? This is very confusing. You offer nothing of support for considering Scriptures alone sufficient and yet claim you do.

You know, the scripture is perfectly sufficient in one thing—letting believers know that they need more than the scriptures alone. One merely has to look in the Bible to find evidence that the Scriptures alone are NOT sufficient *except* in that the scriptures clearly indicate one needs the Church and Sacred Tradition.
1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:15 , 2 John 12, 3 John 13, 1 Cor. 11:2, Matthew 18:17-18…many many more.

Hence—If the Bible clearly and repeatedly demonstrates a magisterial hierarchy, and that the followers of Christ are to hold fast to the teachings conveyed both in writing and given orally—AND the Bible demonstrates that the traditions were expounded upon when those in the teaching authority could meet with the Christians face to face, I believe I am justified in saying that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine that is anti-Biblical. It is not offering invective, it is offering the truth. You do not have to rely on early Church Fathers to determine Sola Scriptura is false—the Bible tells you so.

Is it true that Protestants are less unified than Roman Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox?

What do we mean by unified?

Could someone explain what we are talking about?

Although, to be fair, for some time their was a sense of transdenominational unity that existed under the designation “Evangelical.” But now this designation finds its home from Billy Graham to Joel Olsteen to Dan Wallace to Benny Hinn. And the only thing you have in common with them is the hair . . . and smile . . . oh, and underware (except Billy boy).

With this wonderful news, can a single, unified church be far behind?

As for the corrigendum, FWIW, I had mine removed as a child.

I can’t believe a Protestant is perpetuating the “30,000 denomination” myth.

Please read: http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm