Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Reformers Before the Reformers #1, The Supremacy of Scripture

“As long as it seems to me that the pope or theologians or any school assert a position contradicting the truth of Scripture, my concern for scriptural truth obliges me to give it first place, and after that I am bound to examine the evidence on both sides of the question, since it is unlikely the majority would err. But in every case I owe more respect to canonical Scripture than to human assertions, regardless of who holds them."- Wessel Gansfort (1419-1489) [Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966),99-100].

No Christian ought "to subscribe to any statement of an assembly against his conscience, so long as it seems to him to assert anything contrary to Scripture." Wessel Gansfort (1419-1489) [Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), 64].

"Wessel does not deny ... that apostolic traditions not contained in the canon can be part of the 'rule of faith'- but only if they make explicit what is contained in the Sacred Canon. Wessel is therefore willing to say that sacramental confession falls into this category of apostolic Tradition and is part of the rule of faith, but only 'since indeed it is confirmed by the general statements of John and by the more specific words of James. Therefore[!] I admit that in this rule of faith I ought to depend on the authority of the Church...'"[Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), 64-65].

Addendum
Life and Writings of Wessel Gansfort vol. 1

Life and Writings of Wessel Gansfort vol. 2

Would You Like to be Insulted by Luther?

I was recently sent over this link below (ht: Matthew).

Do you think you've got what it takes to stand being insulted by the great Reformer? Click on the link below and find out!

http://ergofabulous.org/luther/

http://tyler.rasmussen.name.s80883.gridserver.com/luther/







Also of interest, the Shakespearean Insulter.

Tradition Ambiguities Revisited


Over the years I've mentioned the ambiguity surrounding what Roman Catholics mean by "Tradition." I've read others doing the same thing, with most of us mentioning the ambiguity surrounding exactly what Trent meant by holding the gospel truth and instruction are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions. There doesn't appear to be a consensus opinion as to the exact content of Tradition, the precise relationship between scripture and Tradition, and exactly how the vehicle of Tradition functions and becomes known by the church. Rome's official statements do not explicitly define whether Tradition is the second of a two-part revelation (known as partim-partim), or if both forms of revelation contain the entirety of God's revealed truth.

Recently I came across a discussion of this very issue in regard to Trent by Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966) pp.53-54. Lest anyone think those of us who mention this are making this up, I offer the following excerpt from Oberman simply as documentation of the dispute as it was stated in 1966.

The recent concern with the problem of Tradition in the field of medieval studies can be traced back to the publications of a German systematic theologian, Josef Rupert Geiselmann, who suggested that the traditional interpretation of the Tridentine decree on Scripture and Tradition should be reconsidered. Whereas heretofore it had been assumed that the Council had taught that there are two complementary sources of revelation, part of the truth being derived from Scripture and part from extrascriptural Tradition, Geiselmann suggests that closer consideration of the relevant documents proves the Council to have abstained from determining whether or not all truths are contained in Holy Scripture. Notwithstanding this abstention, Geiselmann argues, in the light of the previous history of this issue, one should interpret the conciliar decree to mean that all Catholic truth is contained simultaneously in Holy Scripture and in the Holy Church. Thus interpreted, the Tridentine formulation is much closer to the central doctrine of the Reformation, and leaves the door open for further development, that the whole revelation is contained in Holy Scripture—the so-called "material sufficiency" of Holy Scripture. In the discussion that ensued concerning the validity of Geiselmann's thesis it became increasingly clear that an understanding of the medieval antecedents of the conciliar debates was essential. The result has been an ever-growing number of articles and books on this topic.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Jerome vs. Augustine on 1 Timothy 3:2

Here a little tidbit I came across while reading Thomas of Chobham's rules for priests (c.1216). The comment below is in regard to 1 Timothy 3:2:
When it says "married but once;" this should be, understood to mean that someone who is going to be ordained should neither have been married to a widow nor have been married twice. This impediment to holy orders is not produced by any kind of sin but rather, so to speak, through a defect in the sacrament. For matrimony is a sacrament of the body, that is, a sign of the marriage between Christ and the Church. Thus, just as Christ married only one virgin church, a priest, who is Christ's vicar, should have been the husband of only one woman who was a virgin. The church regards a virgin as any woman who has not been previously married, even though she may have lost her virginity. Thus anyone who marries a widow is not able to be raised to the priesthood. If he married a woman who had already lost her virginity, he can be ordained.
Saints Jerome and Augustine disagreed over this point. Jerome argued that if someone married one woman before he was baptized and then another after his baptism, he should not be considered to be twice married since baptism removed the impediment that had arisen from the first marriage. But Augustine's position prevailed, which argued that baptism removed nothing but sin and its consequences. Marriage, however, was neither a sin nor were its consequences sinful. Thus, the first marriage and its consequences were not removed by baptism.

When some other canonical impediment has occurred due to vice—for instance if someone has been convicted of theft or adultery—that infamy can be removed by baptism. But if someone has committed murder and thus been-disgraced, this disqualification is not removed even after baptism since it is such a horrible thing to shed blood.

Source: John Shinners and William Dohar, Pastors and the Care of Souls in Medieval England (Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1998) 7-8.

If Thomas of Chobham summed up the views of Augustine and Jerome correctly, I think it demonstrates that simply because Augustine and Jerome are considered important church fathers, this doesn't mean that if you sift back into church history, everyone was saying the exact same thing all the time.  It also shows that simply because both of these great men were closer in time to the Apostles this does not necessarily mean they have a better perspective than someone living today does. Third, I think both of them actually don't interpret the verse with any sort exegetical justice. Fourth, when I Googled around to see what some of Rome's infallible interpreter apologists were saying on 1 Tim. 3:2, I ended up with things like this.

Monday, February 27, 2012

March 2012 is the End of the World...Harold Camping's Ideas Lives On


I still check in on some of the Harold Camping-related groups. The picture above is from one of the groups that has been closest to (but just far enough away from) Mr. Camping, eBible fellowship. The main voice from this website is Chris McCann. He was actually a featured speaker on Family Radio previously when the world ended. It appears these Camping followers are a liitle more careful now... notice the question mark in the graphic? They appear to be carrying  the numerology-date-setting torch now. On their website they provide this thirty second video teaser:







Their recent calculations for March 2012 go as follows:

In this study we are going to discuss some things related to the five months of torment that we had thought would take place between May 21 and October 21, 2011. As we do so, we will find that we were correct in our understanding that God intended to judge the world for a period of five months. But we will also learn that we were incorrect regarding one of our assumptions about the dating of the five months period of torment. In this study we will attempt to correct this misunderstanding, and afterwards also see how God’s timeline extends from:
1.May 21, 2011 (the beginning of Judgment Day) until the last day of Judgment Day.
2.Five months of torment from May 21 until a date in October 2011, during the feast of tabernacles.
3.From the end of the five months in October 2011 until the feast of Purim in March, 2012

This other video lays out their position:







If you're curious at all to see how these folks work through all this stuff, they have an active message board: Time and Judgement.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

The Sermon Joel Osteen Would Never Preach... by J.I. Packer


Dear Joel:

 I watch your television broadcast regularly. I like that you give people hope. In fact, sometimes I even feel a bit uplifted after hearing you speak. Life can be so overwhelming at times. There is so much pain and suffering. That you inspire people to keep going on despite hardship challenges me likewise to have that sort of impact on people. For that influence, I'm grateful.  


I came across this section from J.I. Packer's book, Knowing God (pages 93-97). I thought of you as I read it. I read this particular section almost fifteen years ago, and I've never forgotten it. I'd simply like to know how you would square your consistent preached messages of positive thinking and hope with the positive thinking and hope that J.I. Packer  presents. I don't mean that sarcastically at all. I really do think that what's expressed below is a different message of hope than you are expressing weekly.  

`Ecclesiastes' (the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew title, Qoheleth) means simply `the preacher'; and the book is a sermon, with a text ('vanity of vanities ...' 1:2; 12:8), an exposition of its theme (chaps. 1—10), and an application (chaps. 11-12:7). Much of the exposition is autobiographical. Qoheleth identifies himself as `the son of David, king in - Jerusalem' (1:1). Whether this means that Solomon himself was the preacher, or that the preacher put his sermon into Solomon's mouth as a didactic device, as scholars so conservative as Hengstenberg and E. J. Young have argued, need not concern us. The sermon is certainly Solomonic in the sense that it teaches lessons which Solomon had unique opportunities to learn.

`Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.' In what spirit, and for what purpose, does the preacher announce this text? Is it the confession of an embittered cynic, `a selfish and callous old man of the world who found at the end nothing but a dire disillusionment' (W. H. Elliot), now seeking to share with us his sense of the cheapness and nastiness of life? Or is he speaking as an evangelist, trying to bring home to the unbeliever the impossibility of finding happiness `under the sun' apart from God? The answer is neither, though the second suggestion is not so wide of the mark as the first.

The author speaks as a mature teacher giving a young disciple the fruits of his own long experience and reflection (11:9; 12:1,12). He wants to lead this young believer into true wisdom, and to keep him from falling into the `York-signal-box' mistake. Apparently the young man (like many since) was inclined to equate wisdom with wide knowledge, and to suppose that one gains wisdom simply by assiduous bookwork (12:12). Clearly, he took it for granted that wisdom, when he gained it, would tell him the reasons for God's various doings in the ordinary course of providence. What the preacher wants to show him is that the real basis of wisdom is a frank acknowledgment that this world's course is enigmatic, that much of what happens is quite inexplicable to us, and that most occurrences `under the sun' bear no outward sign of a rational, moral God ordering them at all. As the sermon itself shows, the text is intended as a warning against the misconceived quest for understanding: for it states the despairing conclusion to which this quest, if honestly and realistically pursued, must at length lead. We may formulate the message of the sermon as follows:

Look (says the preacher) at the sort of world we live in. Take off your rose-coloured spectacles, rub your eyes, and look at it long and hard. What- do you see? You see life's background set by aimlessly recurring cycles in nature (1:4 ff.). You see its shape fixed by times and circumstances over which we have no control (3: 1 ff.; 9:11 f.). You see death coming to everyone sooner or later, but coming haphazard; its coming bears no relation to good or ill desert (7:15; 8:8). Men die like beasts (3: 19 f.), good men like bad, wise men like fools (2:14, 17; 9:2 f.). You see evil running rampant (3:16; 4:1; 5:8; 8:11; 9:3); rotters get on, good men don't (8:14). Seeing all this, you realise that God's ordering of events is inscrutable; much as you want to make it out, you cannot do so (3:11; 7:13£ ; 8:17 RV; 11:5). The harder you try to understand the divine purpose in the ordinary providential course of events, the more obsessed and oppressed you grow with the apparent aimlessness of everything, and the more you are tempted to conclude that life really is as pointless as it looks.

But once you conclude that there really is no rhyme or reason in things, what `profit' —value, gain, point, purpose — can you find henceforth in any sort of constructive endeavour? (1:3; 2:11, 22; 3:9; 5:16). If life is senseless, then it is valueless; and in that case, what use is it working to create things, to build a business, to make money, even to seek wisdom —for none of this can do you any obvious good (2:15 f., 22 f.; 5:11); it will only make you an object of envy (4:4); you can't take any of it with you (2: 18 ff.; 4:8; 5:15 f.); and what you leave behind will probably be mismanaged after you have gone (2:19). What point is there, then, in sweating and toiling at anything? Must not all man's work be judged `vanity (emptiness, frustration) and a striving after wind' (1:14 RV)?-activity that we cannot justify as being either significant in itself or worth while to us ? It is to this pessimistic conclusion, says the preacher, that optimistic expectations of finding the divine purpose of everything will ultimately lead you (cf. 1:17 f.). And of course he is right. For the world we live in is in fact the sort of place that he has described. The God who rules it hides Himself. Rarely does this world look as if a beneficent Providence were running it. Rarely does it appear that there is a rational power behind it at all. Often and often what is worthless survives, while what is valuable perishes. Be realistic, says the preacher; face these facts; see life as it is. You will have no true wisdom till you do.

Many of us need this admonition. For not only are we caught up with the `York-signal-box' conception, or misconception, of what wisdom is; we feel that, for the honour of God (and also, though we do not say this, for the sake of our own reputation as spiritual Christians), it is necessary for us to claim that we are, so to speak, already in the signal-box, here and now enjoying inside information as to the why and wherefore of God's doings. This comforting pretence becomes part of us: we feel sure that God has enabled us to understand all His ways with us and our circle thus far, and we take it for granted that we shall be able to see at once the reason for anything that may happen to us in the future. And then something very painful and quite inexplicable comes along, and our cheerful illusion of being in God's secret councils is shattered. Our pride is wounded; we feel that God has slighted us; and unless at this point we repent, and humble ourselves very thoroughly for our former presumption, our whole subsequent spiritual life may be blighted.

Among the seven deadly sins of medieval lore was sloth (accidie)—a state of hard-bitten, joyless apathy of spirit. There is a lot of it around today in Christian circles; the symptoms are personal spiritual inertia combined with critical cynicism about the churches and supercilious resentment of other Christians' initiative and enterprise. Behind this morbid and deadening condition often lies the wounded pride of one who thought he knew all about the ways of God in providence and then was made to learn by bitter and bewildering experience that he didn't. This is what happens when we do not heed the message of Ecclesiastes. For the truth is that God in His wisdom, to make and keep us humble and to teach us to walk by faith, has hidden from us almost everything that we should like to know about the providential purposes which He is working out in the churches and in our own lives. `As thou knowest not what is the way of the wind, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child; even so thou knowest not the work of God who doeth all' (11:5 RV).

But what, in that case, is wisdom? The preacher has helped us to see what it is not; does he give us any guidance as to what it is? Indeed he does, in outline at any rate. `Fear God, and keep his commandments' (12:13); trust and obey Him, reverence Him, worship Him, be humble before Him, and never say more than you mean and will stand to when you pray to Him (5: 1-7); do good (3:12); remember that God will some day take account of you (ii :9; 12:14), so eschew, even in secret, things of which you will be ashamed when they come to light at God's assizes (12:14). Live in the present, and enjoy it thoroughly (7:14; 9:7 if; 11:9 f.);present pleasures are God's good gifts. Though Ecclesiastes condemns flippancy (cf. 7:4-6), he clearly has no time for the super-spirituality which is too proud, or `pi', ever to laugh and have fun. Seek grace to work hard at whatever life calls you to do (9:10), and enjoy your work as you do it (2:24; 3:12 f.; 5:18 f£; 8:15). Leave to God its issues; let Him measure its ultimate worth; your part is to use all the good sense and enterprise at your command in exploiting the opportunities that lie before you (11:1-6).

This is the way of wisdom. Clearly, it is just one facet of the life of faith. For what underlies and sustains it? Why, the conviction that the inscrutable God of providence is the wise and gracious God of creation and redemption. We can be sure that the God who made this marvellously complex world-order, and who compassed the great redemption from Egypt, and who later compassed the even greater redemption from sin and Satan, knows what He is doing, and `doeth all things well', even if for the moment He hides His hand. We can trust Him and rejoice in Him, even when we cannot discern His path. Thus the preacher's way of wisdom boils down to what was expressed by Richard Baxter:

Ye saints, who toil below,
Adore your heavenly King,
And onward as ye go
Some joyful anthem sing.
Take what He gives,
And praise Him still Through good and ill Who ever lives.

Friday, February 24, 2012

A Visit to Catholic Answers Forum Part #9

Apr 8, '11, 11:10 am
Regular Member
Join Date: June 23, 2004
Posts: 2,286
Default Re: SPLIT: Catholics claim to be one and same church Christ founded. I utterly reject that claim on biblical and historical grounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 View Post
2 Tim. 3:17 That (in the sense of “in order that”) refers back to the preceding verse (v. 16), indicating the purpose of Scripture for the believer. man of God.
Clearly, you didn't read By What Authority?
Moses - "This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death." (Deut. 33:1)

"Then the people of Judah came to Joshua at Gilgal; and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, 'You know what the LORD said to Moses the man of God in Kadesh-barnea concerning you and me.'" (Josh. 14:6)

The Angel of the Lord - "Then the woman came and told her husband, 'A man of God came to me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; I did not ask him whence he was, and he did not tell me his name...' Then Manoah entreated the LORD, and said, 'O, LORD, I pray thee, let the man of God whom thou didst send come again to us, and teach us what we are to do with the boy that will be born.'" (Jud. 13:6, 8)

Samuel - "The servant answered Saul again, 'Here, I have with me the fourth part of a shekel of silver, and I will give it to the man of God, to tell us our way.'" (1 Sam. 9:8)

Elijah - "And she said to Elijah, 'What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to cause the death of my son!'" (1 Kings 17:18)

Elisha - "And she went up and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door upon him, and went out... When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed." (2 Kings 4:21, 32)

David - "According to the ordinance of David his father, he appointed the divisions of the priests for their service, and the Levites for their offices of praise and ministry before the priests as the duty of each day required, and the gatekeepers in their divisions for the several gates; for so David the man of God had commanded." (2 Chr. 8:14)

St. Timothy - "But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness." (1 Tim. 6:11)

Contrary to the opinion that the "man of God" can be any Christian without distinction, Scripture itself will not allow such an interpretation, insisting that the "man of God" is a figure of authority, either commissioned by God directly through Divine Intervention (such as Moses or the Angel), or appointed by another holder of authority (such as Samuel, David, Elisha, and St. Timothy).
__________________
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

Apr 8, '11, 11:13 am
Regular Member
Join Date: June 23, 2004
Posts: 2,286
Default Re: SPLIT: Catholics claim to be one and same church Christ founded. I utterly reject that claim on biblical and historical grounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 View Post
1 Tim. 6:11–12 The reference to Timothy as a man of God affirms his authority and stands in contrast with the false teachers, who are not men of God. “Man of God” is used often in the OT of a prophet (e.g., Deut. 33:1; 1 Sam. 9:6; Ps. 90:1). The call to fight the good fight of the faith and to take hold of the eternal life involves both fleeing from sin and vigorously pursuing virtue (cf. note on 2 Tim. 2:22).
St. Timothy became a man of God via apostolic succession received from St. Paul: "Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands... guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." (2 Tim. 1:6, 14)

When St. Paul imposed his hands on St. Timothy, he passed on a legitimate apostolic authority, "entrusted" the "truth" to him, and imparted the gift of "the Holy Spirit" for the safekeeping and preservation of the Gospel.
__________________
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!
Apr 8, '11, 11:59 am
Banned
Join Date: January 30, 2010
Posts: 277
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: SPLIT: Catholics claim to be one and same church Christ founded. I utterly reject that claim on biblical and historical grounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erich View Post
Clearly, you didn't read By What Authority?
Moses - "This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death." (Deut. 33:1)

"Then the people of Judah came to Joshua at Gilgal; and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, 'You know what the LORD said to Moses the man of God in Kadesh-barnea concerning you and me.'" (Josh. 14:6)

The Angel of the Lord - "Then the woman came and told her husband, 'A man of God came to me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; I did not ask him whence he was, and he did not tell me his name...' Then Manoah entreated the LORD, and said, 'O, LORD, I pray thee, let the man of God whom thou didst send come again to us, and teach us what we are to do with the boy that will be born.'" (Jud. 13:6, 8)

Samuel - "The servant answered Saul again, 'Here, I have with me the fourth part of a shekel of silver, and I will give it to the man of God, to tell us our way.'" (1 Sam. 9:8)

Elijah - "And she said to Elijah, 'What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to cause the death of my son!'" (1 Kings 17:18)

Elisha - "And she went up and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door upon him, and went out... When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed." (2 Kings 4:21, 32)

David - "According to the ordinance of David his father, he appointed the divisions of the priests for their service, and the Levites for their offices of praise and ministry before the priests as the duty of each day required, and the gatekeepers in their divisions for the several gates; for so David the man of God had commanded." (2 Chr. 8:14)

St. Timothy - "But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness." (1 Tim. 6:11)

Contrary to the opinion that the "man of God" can be any Christian without distinction, Scripture itself will not allow such an interpretation, insisting that the "man of God" is a figure of authority, either commissioned by God directly through Divine Intervention (such as Moses or the Angel), or appointed by another holder of authority (such as Samuel, David, Elisha, and St. Timothy).
Erich,
Is that the "Official" interpretation of that passage or is that your interpretation as a "Private Theologian"?
If "Official", is it "Historic"?
Does it exclude "Laity" as recipients of Paul's exhortation?

Apr 8, '11, 3:40 pm
Regular Member
Join Date: June 23, 2004
Posts: 2,286
Default Re: SPLIT: Catholics claim to be one and same church Christ founded. I utterly reject that claim on biblical and historical grounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 View Post
Is that the "Official" interpretation of that passage or is that your interpretation as a "Private Theologian"?
While I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome, I'm not a bishop, so anything I say is certainly not "Official."

That said, I'm willing to bet that the referenced link would have no problem getting a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur if the writer chose to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 View Post
If "Official", is it "Historic"?
It's certainly "Historic." There are 4 generations of apostolic succession in Scripture: "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2) -- (1) Paul, (2) Timothy, (3) the men that Timothy will entrust the Gospel message to, and (4) the men that they will entrust.

One witness to the structure of the early Church is St. Ignatius of Antioch, whose seven authentic letters are dated no later than A.D. 117 or 118, so he must have known some of the apostles themselves, as Antioch was a center of missionary activity frequented by Paul in Acts 11:26–30 and 13:1–3. Ignatius says, "It is fitting in every way . . . that you be knit together in a unified submission, subject to the bishop and presbytery that you may be completely sanctified" (Letter to Ephesians 2:2). Again he says of the Church, "Jesus Christ . . . is the will of the Father, just as the bishops, who are appointed in every land, are the will of Jesus Christ. So it is proper for you to be in harmony with the will of the bishop" (ibid., 3:2–4:1). He also wrote, "It is clear that one should see the bishop as the Lord himself" (ibid., 6:1). These quotes show first that Ignatius considered the bishops of the Church to be the "will of God" (i.e., their office was appointed by God) and second that obedience to the bishop was considered obedience to God himself. In some sense, the bishop represented God in the same way that the apostles did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 View Post
Does it exclude "Laity" as recipients of Paul's exhortation?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by By What Authority?
Scripture shows that only the Apostles are "entrusted" with the care of the Gospel message:
• St. Paul
"...they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised."(Gal. 2:7)

"...in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." (2 Cor. 5:19)

"...in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." (1 Tim. 1:11)

• St. Timothy
"Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians... we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel." (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:4)

"O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you." (1 Tim. 6:20)

"...guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." (2 Tim. 1:14)

Scripture also testifies that only apostles are given full authority. Compare what is said of St. Paul and St. Timothy (both of whom are explicitly called "apostles") with what is said of St. Titus:

St. Paul - "...nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ." (1 Thess. 2:6)

St. Timothy - "As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine..." (1 Tim. 1:3)

"Command and teach these things." (1 Tim. 4:11)

"Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers." (2 Tim. 2:14)

St. Titus - "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you." (Tit.1:5)

"Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." (Tit. 2:15)

"...our boasting before Titus has proved true. And his heart goes out all the more to you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, and the fear and trembling with which you received him." (2 Cor. 7:14-15)

Scripture also shows that only the Apostles refer to the Gospel message as their own personal possession:
"...when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Rom. 2:16)

"Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ..." (Rom. 16:25)

"Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel." (2 Tim. 2:8)

"Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians... for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction." (1 Thess. 1:1 & 5)

"Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians... God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel..." (2 Thess. 1:1 & 2:13-14)

The Apostles possess the Gospel message precisely because it was (as the above passages demonstrated) "entrusted" to them, i.e., given to them, and not taken by them on their own initiative.
__________________
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

Apr 8, '11, 4:43 pm
Banned
Join Date: January 30, 2010
Posts: 277
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: SPLIT: Catholics claim to be one and same church Christ founded. I utterly reject that claim on biblical and historical grounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erich View Post
While I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome, I'm not a bishop, so anything I say is certainly not "Official."

That said, I'm willing to bet that the referenced link would have no problem getting a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur if the writer chose to do so.



It's certainly "Historic." There are 4 generations of apostolic succession in Scripture: "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2) -- (1) Paul, (2) Timothy, (3) the men that Timothy will entrust the Gospel message to, and (4) the men that they will entrust.

One witness to the structure of the early Church is St. Ignatius of Antioch, whose seven authentic letters are dated no later than A.D. 117 or 118, so he must have known...bishop" (ibid., 3:2–4:1). He also wrote, "It is clear that one should see the bishop as the Lord himself" (ibid., 6:1). These quotes show first that Ignatius considered the bishops of the Church to be the "will of God" (i.e., their office was appointed by God) and second that obedience to the bishop was considered obedience to God himself. In some sense, the bishop represented God in the same way that the apostles did.



Yes.
Erich,
I read Mr. Michael's article.
Maybe you can read a portion of John Chrysostom's sermon in which he exegetes that passage.

Chrysostom (349-407): How comes it that not merely among ourselves, but also among Jews and Greeks, he [i. e. Paul] is the wonder of wonders? Is it not from the power of his epistles? whereby not only to the faithful of today, but from his time to this, yea and up to the end, even the appearing of Christ, he has been and will be profitable, and will continue to be so as long as the human race shall last. For as a wall built of adamant, so his writings fortify all the Churches of the known world, and he as a most noble champion stands in the midst, bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, casting down imaginations, and every high thing which exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and all this he does by those epistles which he has left to us full of wonders and of Divine wisdom. For his writings are not only useful to us, for the overthrow of false doctrine and the confirmation of the true, but they help not a little towards living a good life. . . .
8. Hear also what he says in his charge to his disciple: “Give heed to reading, to exhortation, to teaching,” and he goes on to show the usefulness of this by adding, “For in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee.” And again he says, “The Lord’s servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing;” and he proceeds to say, “But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned, and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them, and that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation,” and again, “Every Scripture is inspired of God, and also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete.” Hear what he adds further in his directions to Titus about the appointment of bishops. “The bishop,” he says, “must be holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to convict the gain-sayers.” But how shall any one who is unskillful as these men pretend, be able to convict the gainsayers and stop their mouths? or what need is there to give attention to reading and to the Holy Scriptures, if such a state of unskillfulness is to be welcome among us? Such arguments are mere makeshifts and pretexts, the marks of idleness and sloth. But some one will say, “it is to the priests that these charges are given:” — certainly, for they are the subjects of our discourse. But that the apostle gives the same charge to the laity, hear what he says in another epistle to other than the priesthood: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom,” and again, “Let your speech be always with grace seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one,” and there is a general charge to all that they “be ready to” render an account of their faith, and to the Thessalonians, he gives the following command: “Build each other up, even as also ye do.” But when he speaks of priests he says, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word, and in teaching.” For this is the perfection of teaching when the teachers both by what they do, and by what they say as well, bring their disciples to that blessed state of life which Christ appointed for them. For example alone is not enough to instruct others. Nor do I say this of myself; it is our Savior’s own word. “For whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great. Now if doing were the same as teaching, the second word here would be superfluous; and it had been enough to have said “whosoever shall do” simply. But now by distinguishing the two, he shows that practice is one thing, and doctrine another, and that each needs the help of the others in order to complete edification. Thou hearest too what the chosen vessel of Christ says to the Ephesian elders: “Wherefore watch ye, remembering that for the space of three years, I ceased not to admonish every one, night and day, with tears.” NPNF1: Vol. IX, The Christian Priesthood, Book 4, §7-8.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Luther: What harm could it do if a man told a good lusty lie in a worthy cause and for the sake of the Christian Churches?

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "On Lying":

Christ taught: “You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof” [John 8:44.]Luther teaches: “What harm could it do if a man told a good lusty lie in a worthy cause and for the sake of the Christian Churches?” (Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 373.)

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Luther taught contrarily to Jesus on lying.

Documentation 
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 373." Lenz refers to German historian  Max Lenz. Lenz edited the correspondence and documents related to Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse. "Briefwechsel" refers to correspondence, so this particular reference appears to be to his work,  Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp mit Bucer. Vol. I. Leipzig. 1880. This volume covers materials from February 1540 to February 1546 from Phillip of Hesse. Here is page 373 which documents material from  the First protocol to the Eisenach Conference, July 15, 1540. The quote therefore is not specifically to one of Luther's writings. It is actually from documentation of what was said at this meeting.

The chances that Luther, Exposing the Myth actually used Lenz as the source for this quote are slim. If this source was used, the quote was mined out of a writing from an out-of-print book from something written in German and then translated into English.  As with other quotes used by this webpage, it was probably taken from Peter Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor, page 41. Wiener probably took the quote from Hartmann Grisar, Martin Luther, His Life and His Work (Maryland: Newman Press, 1930), p. 522 or Grisar's Luther IV page 51. Wiener uses two quotes in the same order and documentation as that presented by Grisar (and also Luther, Exposing the Myth does the same).  So the ultimate source for this quote is in this form is probably Grisar.

The quote exists is other forms: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." Simply Google book search this quote, and a number of hits occur. The quote in this form is actually two different quotes from two different documents. The second half would be found on page 375 of Lenz. In tracking down the quote in this form, see this discussion from Snopes.com, Questionable Quotes, "Martin Luther Quote."

Context
The relevant text in German from page 373 of Lenz reads:


In his book The Life and Letters of Martin Luther,  Preserved Smith provides (at the very least) a brief overview of the details of the historical context surrounding this quote  (The Bigamy of Philip of Hesse 1540, pp. 373-386), as does Martin Brecht, Martin Luther the Preservation of the Church Vol 3 1532-1546 (pp. 205-215). Both of these sources present a good compare and contrast. Smith isn't always sympathetic to Luther, Brecht though typically will be.

The quote itself was the outcome the situation provoked by Landgrave Philip of Hesse. Philip, an important political figure for the early Protestants, went through a series of maneuverings attempting to justify taking a second wife. Smith recounts Philip began this effort as early as 1526, writing Luther for advice. Luther denied him any approval (p. 373).  Fast forward to 1539, Philip "determined Luther or no Luther" to take a second wife. Philip, convincing Bucer, sent him to get approval from Wittenberg.  The Wittenberg theologians noted that God intended monogamy, but conceded to Philip's bigamy, noting it as an exception. They denied it any sort of precedent becoming law, and intended it to be secret pastoral counseling. Brecht calls the advise "extremely risky and in all probability wrong from the very beginning" (p. 207).

Brecht was right, the  bigamy approval became public. This after some denial from Luther and the Wittenberg theologians. Brecht notes that at one point during this fiasco that had the Emperor called Philip to account for his bigamy, Luther would assume responsibility for the Wittenberg counsel (p. 211) as giving Philip private pastoral counseling. This position was maintained by Luther at the First protocol to the Eisenach Conference, July 15, 1540. On the other hand,  Luther maintained the advise was not meant for public policy, but as only the solution to a messy personal problem (See Brecht, p. 212). At these meetings Luther argued the best thing to do was deny the second marriage, for as Brecht points out "Luther foresaw grave consequences for him and the church, and in this he was proved to be correct" (Brecht 3, p. 212).

The quote in question comes from these meetings. Smith translates:
Is it not a good plan to say that the bigamy had been discussed and should not Philip say that he had indeed debated the matter, but had not yet come to a decision? All else must be kept quiet. What is it, if for the good and sake of the Christian Church, one should tell a good, strong lie? .. . And before he, Luther, would reveal the confession which Bucer had made him in the Landgrave's name, or let people talk so about a pious prince whom he always wished to serve, he would rather say that Luther had gone mad, and take the blame on himself.

In the end, Luther was to find out that Philip was not entirely honest about his extra-marital activities and said that had he knew beforehand, he would never have given Philip permission to take a second wife. Even after the entire situation was exposed, more controversy followed as supporters of Philip published treatises defending his polygamy. Luther immediately began writing against this, writing things like,  "Anyone following this fellow and his book and takes more than one wife, and thinks that this is right, the devil will prepare for him a bath in the depths of hell. Amen" (p. 214). This writing was stopped for publication for political reasons (Brecht, pp. 213-214). Brecht concludes that in the end Luther realized giving confessional advise to Philip was one of the worst mistakes he made (p. 214).  Smith concludes a bit differently:
Luther's letters tell the truth but not the whole truth. Regrettable as is his connection with the bigamy, an impartial student can hardly doubt that he acted conscientiously, not out of desire to flatter a great prince, but in order to avoid what he believed to be a greater moral evil. His statement in the Babylonian Captivity that he preferred bigamy to divorce, and his advice to Henry VIII in 1531, both exculpate him in this case. Moreover the careful study of Rockwell has shown that his opinion was shared by the great majority of his contemporaries, Catholic and Protestant alike. It is perhaps harder to justify his advice to get out of the difficulty by a lie. This, however, was certainly an inheritance from the scholastic doctrine of the sacredness of confession. A priest was bound by Church law to deny all that passed in the confessional. Moreover, many of the Church Fathers had allowed a lie to be on occasions the lesser of two evils. Nevertheless, though these considerations palliate Luther's guilt, the incident will always remain, in popular imagination as well as in historic judgment, the greatest blot on his career.
Conclusion
I think it's beyond question that Luther got himself into trouble here. Perhaps one could argue that Philip was an important political person to the well-being of the Protestant territories and this set the stage for Luther's bending of the rules.  There are though probably other instances in Luther's writings in which he would abhor bending the rules or lying, whatever the consequences.

I would side with those who believe Luther got himself into trouble over this, and deserved the consequences.  Here's though where  presuppositions come into play. I don't believe Luther was any sort of infallible pope, nor do I think he was beyond error or sin throughout his career. Since I consider Luther a basically honest person, it's not much a stretch for me to conclude he got himself in trouble here and subsequently learned his lesson. That's at least what the evidence shows.

On the other hand, web pages like Luther, Exposing the Myth presuppose that Luther was basically a dishonest person. This cover-up was simply Luther being Luther. No amount of evidence will persuade people like that otherwise. No, in their minds Luther was a lifelong advocate of polygamy and lying. The ironic thing is that web pages like Luther, Exposing the Myth don't appear to have any problem giving off the false impression that their research was primary and honest, when it really does not look to be so.

Sunday, February 19, 2012

"Saint" Luther and the not-so-"Saint Luther" Depending on the Website

Saint Luther?
The Episcopal Church places Martin Luther on their Liturgical Calender (Feb. 18). Here's a web page noting what those in the Episcopal Church are to pray on that day:
O God, our refuge and our strength, who didst raise up thy servant Martin Luther to reform and renew thy Church in the light of thy word: Defend and purify the Church in our own day and grant that, through faith, we may boldly proclaim the riches of thy grace, which thou hast made known in Jesus Christ our Savior, who, with thee and the Holy Spirit, liveth and reigneth, one God, now and for ever.
Calvin also makes it on the calender, as does Loyola, Newman, and Barth.

Not-So-Saint Luther
Contrarily, here's the flip side, a website entitled, List of Most Evil People of the Last 2000 Years.   Luther makes this list, as does John Calvin and Loyola. Barth and Newman though failed to make the list.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

B.B. Warfield on Augustine and Miracles

This a quick follow up to my previous post Places to Go to get the Truth in a Dispute... Augustine Style. This was a coincedence: I found a section where B.B. Warfield commented on the same section of writing that I quoted previously. Here Warfield recounts the miracles alleged by St. Augustine. This extended excerpt is from Warfield's book, Counterfeit Miracles.

Augustine no doubt will serve our purpose here as well as another. In the twenty-second book 3 of the City of God, he has circumstantially related to us a score or more of miracles which had come under his own observation, and which he represents as only a tithe of those he could relate. A considerable number of these were wrought by the relics of "the most glorious martyr, Stephen." The bones of Stephen had come to light in Jerusalem in 415. Certain portions of them were brought into Africa and everywhere they were taken miracles were wrought. Somewhere about 424 Hippo obtained its fragments and enshrined them in a small chapel opening into the cathedral church, on the archway of which Augustine caused four verses to be cut, exhorting worshippers to ascribe to God all miracles wrought upon Stephen's intercession. Almost seventy miracles wrought at this shrine had been officially recorded in less than two years, while incomparably more, Augustine tells us, had been wrought at the neighboring town of Calama, which had received its relics earlier. "Think, beloved," he cries, in the sermon which he preached on the reception of the relics, "what the Lord must have in store for us in the land of the living, when He bestows so much in the ashes of the dead." Even the dead were raised at these shrines, with great promptness and facility. Here are some of the instances recorded by Augustine with complete confidence.

"Eucharius, a Spanish priest residing at Calama, was for a long time a sufferer from stone. By the relics of the same martyr (Stephen) which the bishop Possidius brought him, he was cured. Afterward the same priest sinking under another disease, was lying dead, and already they were binding his hands. By the succor of the same martyr he was raised to life, the priest's cloak having been brought from the oratory and laid upon the corpse. . . . Audurus is the name of an estate where there is a church that contains a memorial shrine of the martyr Stephen. It happened that, as a little boy was playing in the court, the oxen drawing a wagon went out of the track and crushed him with the wheel, so that immediately he seemed at his last gasp. His mother snatched him up and laid him at the shrine, and not only did he revive but also appeared uninjured. A religious female who lived at Caspalium, a neighboring estate, when she was so ill as to be despaired of, had her dress brought to this shrine, but before it was brought back she was gone. However, her parents wrapped her corpse in the dress, and, her breath returning, she became quite well. At Hippo, a Syrian called Bassus was praying at the relics of the same martyr for his daughter, who was dangerously ill. He too had brought her dress with him to the shrine. But as he prayed, behold, his servants ran from the house to tell him she was dead. His friends, however, intercepted them and forbade them to tell him, lest he should bewail her in public. And when he returned to his house which was already ringing with the lamentations of his family, and had thrown on his daughter's body the dress he was carrying, she was restored to life. There, too, the son of a man, Irenaeus, one of the taxgatherers, took ill and died. And while his body was lying lifeless, and the last rites were being prepared, amidst the weeping and mourning of all, one of the friends who were consoling the father suggested that the body should be anointed with the oil of the same martyr. It was done and he was revived. Likewise, Eleusinus, a man of tribunitian rank among us, laid his infant son, who had died, on the shrine of the martyr, which is in the suburb where he lived, and, after prayer, which he poured out there with many tears, he took up his child alive."

Not all the miracles which Augustine includes in this anthology were wrought, however, by the bones of Stephen. Even before these bones had been discovered, miracles of the most astonishing character had occurred within his own personal knowledge. He tells us, for example, of the restoration of a blind man to sight at Milan—"when I was there," he says—by the remains of the martyrs Protasius and Gervasius, discovered to Ambrose in a dream. And he tells us with great circumstantiality of a miraculous cure of fistula wrought in Carthage—"in my presence and under my own eyes," he says—when he and Alypius had just returned from Italy. A special interest attaches to these early instances, because Augustine, although an eyewitness of them, and although he insists on his having been an eye-witness of them as their attestation, does not seem to have recognized their miraculous character until long afterward. For Augustine's hearty belief in contemporary miracles, illustrated by the teeming list now before us, was of slow growth. It was not until some years after his return to Africa that it became easy to him to acknowledge their occurrence. He arrived in Africa in 388, but still in his treatises, On the True Religion, which was written about 390, and On the Usefullness of Believing, written in 391 or 392, we find him speaking on the hypothesis that miracles no longer happened. "We perceive," he writes in the former of these treatises, "that our ancestors, by that measure of faith by which the ascent is made from termporal things to eternal, obtained visible miracles (for thus only could they do it); and through them it has been brought about that these should no longer be necessary for their descendants. For when the Catholic Church had been diffused and established through the whole world, these miracles were no longer permitted to continue in our time, lest the mind should always seek visible things, and the human race should be chilled by the customariness of the very things whose novelty had inflamed them." Similarly, in the latter treatise, after enumerating the miracles of our Lord, he asks, "Why do not these things take place now?" and answers, "Because they would not move unless they were wonderful, and if they were customary they would not be wonderful." "Even the marvels of nature, great and wonderful as they are," he continues, " have ceased to surprise and so to move; and God has dealt wisely with us, therefore, in sending his miracles once for all to convince the world, depending afterward on the authority of the multitudes thus convinced."

Subsequently at the close of his life, reviewing these passages in his Retractations, he supposes it enough to say that what he meant was not that no miracles were still wrought in his own day, but only that none were wrought which were as great as those our Lord wrought, and that not all the kinds our Lord wrought continued to be wrought. "For," says he, "those that are baptized do not now receive the Spirit on the imposition of hands, so as to speak in the tongues of all the peoples; neither are the sick healed by the shadow of the preachers of Christ falling on them as they pass; and other such things as were then done, are now manifestly ceased." What he said, he insists, is not to be taken as meaning that no miracles at all were to be believed to be performed still in Christ's name. "For I myself, when I wrote that book "—the book On the True Religion—"already knew that a blind man had been given his sight at Milan, by the bodies of the martyrs in that city; and certain other things which were done at that time in numbers sufficient to prevent our knowing them all or our enumerating all we knew." This explanation seems scarcely adequate; but it suggests that the starting-point of Augustine's belief in contemporary miracles is to be sought in Milan—although it appears that some time was required after he had left Milan for the belief to ripen in his mind.

A sufficiently odd passage in one of his letters—written in 404—seems to illustrate at once the Milanese origin of his miracle-faith and the process of its growth to maturity. There had been a scandal in the household; one member of it had accused another of a crime, and Augustine was in doubt which of the two was really at fault. "I fixed upon the following as a means of discovering the truth," he writes. "Both pledged themselves in a solemn compact to go to a holy place, where the awe-inspiring works of God might much more readily make manifest the evil of which either of them was conscious, and compel the guilty to confess, either by judgment or through fear of judgment." God is everywhere, it is true; and able to punish or reward in secret as He will. "But," continues Augustine, "in regard to the answers of prayer which are visible to men, who can search out the reasons for appointing some places rather than others to be the scenes of miraculous interpositions?" The grave of a certain Felix suggested itself to him as a suitable place to send his culprits. True, no supernatural events had ever occurred there. But, he writes, "I myself knew how, at Milan, at the tomb of the saints, where demons are brought in a most marvellous and awful manner to confess their deeds, a thief, who had come thither intending to deceive by perjuring himself, was compelled to own his thefts and restore what he had taken away." "And is not Africa also," he asks, "full of the bodies of holy martyrs?" "Yet we do not know of such things being done here," he confesses. "Even as the gift of healing and the gift of discerning of spirits," he explains, "are not given to all saints, as the Apostle declares; so it is not at all the tombs of the saints that it hath pleased Him who divideth to each severally as He will, to cause such miracles to be wrought." As late as 404, then, there were as yet no miracle-working shrines in Africa. Augustine, however, is busily at work producing them. And twenty years later we see them in full activity.

It was naturally a source of embarrassment to Augustine that the heretics had miracles to appeal to just like his own; and that the heathen had had something very like them from time immemorial. The miracles of the heretics he was inclined to reject out of hand. They never happened, he said. On the other hand, he did not dream of denying the actual occurrence of the heathen miracles. He only strained every nerve to put them in a different class from his own. They stood related to his, he said, as the marvels wrought by Pharaoh's magicians did to Moses' miracles. Meanwhile, there the three sets of miracles stood, side by side, apparently just alike, and to be distinguished only by the doctrines with which they were severally connected. A passage in the thirteenth tractate on John on Donatist miracles (he calls them "miracle-ettes"), is very instructive. This tractate seems to have been delivered subsequently to 416, and therefore represents Augustine's later views. "Let no one tell you fables, then," he cries, "saying, 'Pontius wrought a miracle, and Donatus prayed and God answered him from heaven.' In the first place, either they are deceived or they deceive. In the last place, grant that he removes mountains: 'And have not charity,' says the Apostle, 'I am nothing.' Let us see whether he has charity. I would believe that he had, if he had not divided unity. For against those whom I may call marvelworkers, my God has put me on my guard, saying, 'In the last times there shall arise false prophets doing signs and wonders, to lead into error, if it were possible, even the elect. Lo, I have foretold it to you.' Therefore the Bridegroom has cautioned us, that we ought not to be deceived even by miracles." Similarly the heathen and Christian miracles are pitted against one another, and decision between them sought on grounds lying outside the miracles themselves. "Which, then, can more readily be believed to work miracles? They who wish themselves to be reckoned gods by those on whom they work miracles, or those whose sole object in working any miracles is to induce faith in God, or in Christ also as God? . . . Let us therefore believe those who both speak the truth and work miracles." It is not the empirical fact which counts—there were all too many empirical facts to count—but the truth lying behind the empirical fact.

What now are we to think of these miracles which Augustine and his fellows narrate to us in such superabundance?

We should perhaps note at the outset that the marvellous stories do not seem to have met with universal credence when first published. They seem indeed to have attracted very little attention. Augustine bitterly complains that so little was made of them. Each was known only in the spot where it was wrought, and even then only to a few persons. If some report of it happened to be carried to other places no sufficient authority existed to give it prompt and unwavering acceptance. He records how he himself had sharply rebuked a woman who had been miraculously cured of a cancer for not publishing abroad the blessing she had received. Her physician had laughed at her, she said; and moreover she had not really concealed it. Outraged, however, on finding that not even her closest acquaintances had ever heard of it, he dragged her from her seclusion and gave the utmost publicity to her story. In odd parallelism to the complaint of his somewhat older contemporary, the heathen historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who in wistful regret for the portents which were gone, declared stoutly that they nevertheless still occurred, only "nobody heeds them now," Augustine asserted that innumerable Christian miracles were constantly taking place, only no notice was taken of them.