To answer your two questions:

1) The Church existed before the New Testament as a worshipping community of people who through their history and textual traditions worshipped the God of their fathers. They had a constitutive history (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as patriarchs, the exodus, Moses and the Law, and finally the Davidic monarchy and the prophets) and rituals (Passover, Jubilee, temple sacrifice, and temple worship) that formed a covenantal union between God and them. Their textual tradition (“Moses and the Prophets”) formed the coventantal documents from which they often strayed, and to which subsequent prophets called them back, built on, and referred.

2) Men were saved before the New Testament in the way men are saved after the New Testament, namely, by relying through faith on the righteousness of God, believing his promises, and entering the covenant God makes between us and Himself. Another way to put it is, in the Old Testament age God’s people were saved on credit by looking forward to what Messiah would accomplish–even though they did not know exactly what that would entail–and in the New Testament age we are saved by looking back on what Messiah did accomplish. But the means of salvation are the same: faith.

I would normally supply passages from the text and context of the Scriptures to show that I didn’t just pull this opinion out of my head, and refer to other more eminent men than myself who taught me this understanding, but maybe you’d prefer I not.

I understand your point about interpretive grids that we all have while reading. One grid you may not have had in mind is the first grid that we all are born with: the grid of unbelief, which prevents just any reader of the Bible from understanding what is written. Throughout the New Testament it is witnessed that Christ had to “open the eyes” of the disciples and others to understand what was written. You mention Arius and his hermeneutical brilliance. You could also mention the Pharisee and Sadducci sects of earlier times. Both studied their respective Scriptural texts and both got them wrong. But you misunderstand my point and position if you think I’m defending mere “plain reading.” The Word of God is indeed a spoken word before a written one, but one necessary condition to apprehending it rightly is the Spirit of God acting upon the hearer. In fact, the first condition for right apprehension is the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the presence of which cannot be proven by scientific or historical method. This first condition is God’s free gift. And we cannot say that the guidance of the Spirit of God is bound to any particular person, place, or institution, as that would be limiting God’s freedom. I would also suggest that not every heretical crisis of the Church can follow the model of Nicea, which cautions us from making the Arian controversy normative. There are other grids we all have, such as our experience, “chronological snobbery” (or historical location), and parochiality. Yet I don’t think these grids are as important in the sense most apropos to my post as the grid of unbelief: these “secondary” grids can be overcome by education, diologue within the catholic Chuch, and historical inquiry.

I would also say that the Scriptures are not meant to be privately studied by individuals as an end but to be proclaimed by word of mouth to the covenantal community. It is by sound, not by sight, that Gospel is communicated: faith comes by hearing. In God’s mysterious way, the ear and not the eye is the chosen means for divine revelation. This is one reason Jesus never wrote anything down–he says over and again that he must say every word the Father gave him. But to the apostles it was given to write and record all those things necessary for our salvation, which include the words of Christ, the Word of God.

It is to that written record our conversation must revolve around. Because, after all, the Apostles are dead. They don’t speak to us. Who does? Why, you know the answer to that. And what do our bishops speak? Well, we can tell when our bishops speak a language foreign to what has been believed always and everywhere, when they speak a language of parochial or chronological snobbery (modern day liberalism, for example), if we ourselves know the language of the Tradition, that sound pattern of words and doctrines that come from Holy Writ. But bishops and priests seeking to speak truth–in their minds–are not merely speaking their own words, but the words of a faith once spoken to them, that can be compared to the witness of faith in the whole counsel of God in Holy Writ. How do we know that the true faith once delivered has not been lost? We have our covenantal documents, Holy Writ, which was constitutive of our faith.

But, again, the end is not private understanding and individual interpretation, but comparing our belief with the witness of the Apostles. The Scriptures of Old and New Testament (our covenantal documents) are for public proclamation because as they are spoken aloud, the words again become flesh in a present way: the same “sound pattern of words” and the very words of Christ are vocalized and literally reverberate in public sound once again. And sound is the medium of community. Thus in community are the Scriptures meant to be read aloud. And the hearers of the Word–or, those who “have ears to hear”–can know the truth because it is a revocalization of what they once heard, what once saved them. As Christ himself said, “My sheep know my voice.” This is itself the Tradition.

Your admonition to Mark to reply with more proof texts is…unhelpful. Anyone can take quotes from scripture out of context to prove almost anything. Arius, for instance, was one of the best scripture scholars in the world of his day, and had numerous quotes from scripture (OT and NT) to prove his heresies. What stopped him and the spread of his heresies was not counter-bible-quotes – it was that the Fathers at the Council of Nicea stood up and said “No, this is not the Tradition which has been handed to us”. The problem with the Gnostics wasn’t the “orality” of their tradition (all written tradition in the ancient world began as an oral tradition) – it was the secrecy of it, and that it ran counter to the Teaching of the Apostles (A teaching which was crystallized in Scripture).

I don’t think that throwing verses back and forth at each other is going to get us far at all – the scriptures are not a scientific, discursive, philosophical or academic text. Using them as such is abusive and does violence to scripture, which we must read and receive in the spirit of humility only.

Also, I think what frustrates Mark and me (and the lawyers who have been commenting) is that you stubbornly refuse to see that all texts are read through some sort of “interpretive matrix”, if you will. Even the simplest of texts, even with a supposed “plain reading”, is still read through some sort of lens. It’s simply a part of the process of reading. Perhaps studying enough badly written legislation and the Constitution helps one know this – I’m not sure. Yet ignoring this and throwing verses around doesn’t negate the existence of the “matrix”.

Which leads to the next question – which matrix is the right one?

Furthermore, you never answered my initial question: “How did the Church exist before the New Testament existed?”.

You also said “This Word, proclaimed by mouth and word, creates believers and is Christ’s power present for salvation.” So I assume you would say that Scripture is all that is necessary to guide man to salvation. So I ask, in a corollary to my last question “How then were men even saved before the NT was written?”

Now, we’ve mentioned the Fathers – I hope that you will read the following link, which is a famous section from that Church Father who happens to be a favorite of Anglicans – St. Vincent of Lerins. (of the “Vincentian Canon”, which also happens to be in this selection) http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/vincent.aspx

Also, I’d add that quoting the “Articles of Religion” is especially pointless. I refuse to submit to the legislation of a foreign parliament in almost all matters, but especially religious ones. Even as an Anglican that was my view. Maybe I’m just too much of a Colonial or something (and I won’t even mention the Erastian character of the Articles of Religion, which lend them even less authority, at least in my mind). Yet even these Articles, “simple” as they are, are fully capable of any number of interpretations, as shown quite well by the Tractarians. Tract 90, for instance: http://anglicanhistory.org/tracts/tract90/ Even the Book of Common Prayer itself is subject to interpretations, as evidenced by the long co-existence of groups with the Anglican Communion who hold completely different ideas about what the Prayer Book means with what it says.

And finally, I’ll just throw out the truly Orthodox explanation of scripture, and why it is not self-sufficient:

“We cannot assert that Scripture is self-sufficient; and this is not because it is incomplete, or inexact, or has any defects, but because Scripture in its very essence does not lay claim to self-sufficiency… . If we declare Scripture to be self-sufficient, we only expose it to subjective, arbitrary interpretation, thus cutting it away from its sacred source. Scripture is given to us in tradition. It is the vital, crystallising centre. The Church, as the Body of Christ, stands mystically first and is fuller than Scripture. This does not limit Scripture, or cast shadows on it. But truth is revealed to us not only historically. Christ appeared and still appears before us not only in the Scriptures; He unchangeably and unceasingly reveals Himself in the Church, in His own Body. In the times of the early Christians the Gospels were not yet written and could not be the sole source of knowledge. The Church acted according to the spirit of the Gospel, and, what is more, the Gospel came to life in the Church, in the Holy Eucharist. In the Christ of the Holy Eucharist Christians learned to know the Christ of the Gospels, and so His image became vivid to them.” Fr. George Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, pp. 48-49

You write, But the tradition rests on Scripture, and so Scripture can always be summoned to test an interpretive tradition (which it may pass, and as such I would have more trust in that tradition as true, rightly guided, etc., and a worthy secondary standard).

Don’t you see the circularity in this? How can an interpretive tradition rest on that which it interprets? That’s like saying your theory of constitutional interpretation is right because the constitution implies so. If you can’t see this, I fear we are at an impasse. (And before you get all bent out of shape, there is nothing wrong with analogizing to the constitution. It’s an analogy, I’m not equating the two things. Such usage says nothing about the value of either document).

To cut through all the clutter and tangential issues we’ve both raised, the question I want to ask is this: What are the Scriptures without the Church?

First off, I apologize for irking you. Secondly, by way of clarification, when I use caps it’s not because I’m “shouting” at you or being emotional–I’m drawing attention to the particular words and would rather use italics but don’t know how to in the comments format. I dislike internet discussions that take on a line-by-line format, though I understand the need for that format at points, because it tends to disintegrate the conversation; so I’m going to do my best to incorporate my responses to your line-by-lines into an integrated whole.

My challenge to you was regarding your analogy of the church and Scriptures to America and the Constitution, that it is a false analogy that betrays a low view of Scripture, and that particularly your statement “the scriptures lead to (or contain) the Word” is not orthodox. My intention in quoting the passages of Jesus and the pharisees (Matt 15, et. al.) was actually less a point about the relationship of human tradition to God’s Word than about highlighting the fact that Christ identifies the Old Testament passages as God’s Word written (not “containing” or merely “leading to” God’s Word).

To answer your question about difficulties of interpreting Scripture that is not plain: it is the office of presbyter-bishops to rule and teach their congregations the Scriptures, and so ordained ministers of God’s Word must seek to faithfully explicate the Bible in light of doctrinal orthodoxy, by the secondary standards which they confessed at ordination, and by right reason. (Even within those strictures, that doesn’t guarantee their fidelity to the Gospel Tradition: exhibit A, your honor, the Episcopal Church of the United States.) There are many hermeneutical principles by which they go about this–one being the analogy of Scripture, that the Bible must be interpreted with coherence, with unclear passages interpreted by clearer passages–but as I am not an ordained presbyter-bishop or anything else, I won’t say more. One could call this process an interpretive work within a tradition, but it is a tradition seeking to rest itself on Scripture, which is fine. But the tradition rests on Scripture, and so Scripture can always be summoned to test an interpretive tradition (which it may pass, and as such I would have more trust in that tradition as true, rightly guided, etc., and a worthy secondary standard).

Your point about my missing the necessary condition/ sufficient condition distinction from the verse I quoted is well taken. However, to explain, I was reading from all of 2 Timothy 3 (as you can see from the surrounding verses I used) and the verses immediately prior to the one I quoted were still in my thinking: “But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (3:14-15). So, it seems that Paul is affirming that the Word of God in the Old Testament has the power to make us “wise for salvation,” which is to say they are sufficient to make us “wise for salvation.” This also agrees with Christ’s own affirmation to the disciples on the road to Emmaus: “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory? And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:25-27). In other passages Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for not interpreting rightly “Moses and the Prophets” because by reading them, they ought to have known of Messiah’s coming. Now, Christ is the new Word (Hebrews 1:1) who fulfills all the Old Testament, so in this way Old Testament believers had faith in a future completion of the promises they had inherited, and as the Word incarnate is God’s final and most complete revelation of Himself, which makes the witness of the apostles and their New Testament all the more clarifying of the Old Testament. I’m not saying you disagree with this, I’m just clarifying what I meant by saying “the Scriptures are sufficient for us”–I wasn’t saying that it’s “me, Jesus, and the Bible.”
Incidentally, Christ’s incarnation and own words DOES tell us one way in which we interpret the Bible: the prophesies and promises of the Old Testament foretell Jesus, that He is their fulfillment, and thus by “reading backward” our eyes are uncovered as to the meaning and purposes of many passages that were mysterious to many pre-Adventen Jews.

You say the following: “Once again, you’re reading your own emotions into things. Tom or I could use the exact same scripture to refute you. “Preach the word!” Whose version or interpretation of the word? “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine.” Who decides what is sound doctrine? The scriptures? If so, who elicits the doctrine from the scriptures? Who says the doctrine is properly drawn from the scriptures? Who do you think Paul is afraid the people will listen to? Apostles interpreting the scriptures? Or that they will turn to novices rendering their own, unorthodox interpretations?”

What “emotions” have I read into 2 Tim. 4:2-4? Anger? Fear? Aggression? (the Dark Side are they… ;) I did not identify any person or group or denomination or historical confession or church tradition AS those who turn away from sound doctrine. You simply filled in that content in your mind–which is to say you read into my statement. All I said was that THOSE WHO DO turn away from sound doctrine “heap up teachers” for themselves, and that anyone who wishes to make any authority equal to God’s Word written need to meditate on that verse. Who do I think Paul is afraid people will listen to? I think Paul was afraid that people would turn away from the “pattern of sound words” that he entrusted to Timothy (2 Tim 1:13), which he received from God (1 Tim 1:10) and the means by which they would do so will be by “heaping up teachers” for themselves that teach more than and contrary to the message God entrusted Paul, which he passed to Timothy in word and letter. For example, the Gnostics frequently asserted that they had received from the Apostles an oral tradition that revealed higher truths than the ones given to the successors of the apostles, and so were claiming a line of teachers in an oral tradition that rivaled the written tradition handed down. So, only a little later in church history, there is a clash between oral tradition and written tradition and which is the true “pattern of sound doctrine.” Suffice it to say, written tradition (the New Testament letters) is identified as the faithful message of Apostolic Tradition. We have the faithful pattern of sound doctrine, says the church against the Gnostics, and it’s here in these epistles and letters from the apostles–the Gospel given by word of mouth is also given here in writing. On the several points you raise here, I plan to address in another post hopefully soon, on the exact nature of the “Tradition” we ought to be talking about.

So, this warning against “heaping up teachers” is NOT being juxtaposed with the teachings of the Church: they are being juxtaposed with the *divine message* given to Paul who is entrusting it to Timothy. It’s against the Gospel. The Church is a steward of the divine message, but it is the divine message that false teachers–inside and outside the Church–that is the target. So, Paul is describing the means and the characteristics of deniers of sound doctrine: with the “itching ears” Paul is using this phrase referring to many of the false teachers he names in his two letters to Timothy, describing them variously at times as “always learning but never coming to the truth,” who say the general resurrection has already occurred, always babbling, and having a form of godliness but denying its power, etc. In the context it’s clear he is identifying people who want more than the message Paul is giving to Timothy (as the Gnostics did) or who want a different message.

Finally, your last statements about my alleged ad hominems. Did you actually read from the three passages from which I quoted (Matt 15, Mark 7, and John 10) before you responded to them? I’ll let you answer that. Because it appeared to me you did not by asking, “Is he referring to the OT? That’d be a hard statement to make, seeing as there wasn’t an official canon at the time.” Why is that a hard statement to make? Because clearly Jesus is referring to the Old Testament, as the Pharisees had questioned him about passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy, both of which were part of the accepted Jewish scriptures (“Moses and the Prophets”). To call you out on having not read them is not ad hominem; it’s saying you need to know what they are talking about in order to discuss what they are talking about (since your question was, “is he referring to the OT?”)! The Pentateuch was as much “canon” for the Jews as later the Gospels for Christians, if not more so in the ways they treated it. The Pentateuch was constitutive of the Jewish community of believers in Yahweh. It’s not an analogy that falls short at all. Christ was contrasting their added traditions and interpretations with the meaning of the words themselves, exposing how they nullify the Word of God with their tradition. Besides, even for the sake of argument, had the Pentateuch NOT been “canon” as you say, what of it? The passages under discussion still derive from there, so Christ was referring to the Old Testament.

My specific reference to Augustine was in response to your vague reference to Augustine: when I was operating under the belief that you seemed to deny that Scriptures are perspicuous on numerous points, your Augustine reference seemed to be a support of that position, and so I responded with a more direct Augustine reference to refute that support. Since you say that I am mistaken about your belief that Scriptures are plain on numerous points, I’ll accept that (though as I said, you didn’t articulate a nuanced position, only saying Scripture is not plain on many points. But Scripture is also plain on many points, so what then?) If we confess that Scriptures are plain on numerous points–the basics of faith, that there is a God, we are sinners in need of repentance, He has revealed himself through Jesus on whom we must trust, and that there are eternal consequences for this life–then the only proper way to approach that is to, as I urged you to do, “tolle lege.” Plain things must be encountered directly to be known. So, read! You have been entirely critical (that is, simply criticizing my logic) but have not been engaging with any Scriptural text as I have. I would encourage you to do so.

So, these last few points mostly derived from troubles I had with your post. I’m aware of the main thrust of my original post and the criticisms that came after. But I wanted to press you on what I thought were some weaknesses in your understanding of Scripture.

I would still challenge you on your idea of an analogy between America and the Constitution and the Word of God and the Kingdom of God, as I think it is neo-orthodox rather than orthodox for reasons I’ve explained above and before.

My challenge to you stands, however, and you haven’t answered it. Scriptures are the Word of God written and as such have authority. Their composition by human agents does not obscure God’s divine voice. Again, consider Hebrews on this point, for example Hebrews 2:10-18.

What challenge? I never argued that God’s voice is not in scripture. My point is and has simply been that you’re begging the question. Who is to say what scripture means when it is not plain? Heck, who is to say what is plain? You haven’t answered this. You just keep shouting about something else and telling me I haven’t proven that wrong, when it was never at issue in the first place.

Notice how the author ascribes to the Son of God the authorship of Old Testament passages.

Actually, he doesn’t. Saying something is the word of X is not the same as saying X is the author. That being said, I think we both agree that scripture is the inspired word of God as given through the prophets. In some senses, you can say that God is the author. In others, you can’t. Be careful with your logic, though.

Moreover, you seem to deny that at no point is Holy Writ perspicuous.

Where on earth could you get that? I wrote, “They are frequently not straight forward. There is often no plain meaning easily discerned by a facial reading.” That is very obviously not an absolutist statement.

You apparently don’t know that we confess that proposition as Anglicans.

You should avoid sentences like this; it’s ad hominem and has no value in logic.

So, we confess that there are plain words in Scripture, but also less plain.

No one ever denied that.

In addition, haven’t you read where Paul declares that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16)? Notice that Paul says that Holy Writ has the power to make the man of God COMPLETE, and equipped for EVERY good work. That means that Scriptures are sufficient for us.

Again, you’re making leaps in logic. This does not say what you think it says. That scripture is profitable for doctrine, etc., that the man of God may be complete does not mean that it alone is enough. That is akin to saying that “Wheaties are profitable for health, that the man of sport may be perfect” means Wheaties are the only thing you need to eat to be healthy.

Now, we do confess that the scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation. That is uncontested. But that being said, that is not what your quotation says. And it does not mean you should try to get by on scriptures alone. And it most certainly does not tell you how to read or interpret scripture. In fact, “contains all things necessary” begs the question.

And for all of you who wish to either detract from the sufficiency of Scripture, wishing to add authorities equal in weight to God’s Word, I urge you to meditate on this frightening verse: “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. . . For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, THEY WILL HEAP UP FOR THEMSELVES TEACHERS; and THEY WILL TURN AWAY FROM THE TRUTH, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Tim 4:2-4).

Once again, you’re reading your own emotions into things. Tom or I could use the exact same scripture to refute you. “Preach the word!” Whose version or interpretation of the word? “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine.” Who decides what is sound doctrine? The scriptures? If so, who elicits the doctrine from the scriptures? Who says the doctrine is properly drawn from the scriptures? Who do you think Paul is afraid the people will listen to? Apostles interpreting the scriptures? Or that they will turn to novices rendering their own, unorthodox interpretations?

St. Paul declares that there will be people with “itching ears” people who want to hear more than the Gospel preached, itching for more, more, more than the divine word, the divine word plus human words. He specifically says how these people will act.

Where are you getting “more than the divine word” from? It reads to me like he’s wary of unsound doctrine. (Maybe I should consult the Church fathers).

They will add human voices to the Divine Voice, implicitly suggesting that the Word of God is insufficient, that it needs heaps of teachers to tell you more than what is written.

Isn’t any form of exegesis or interpretation “tell[ing] you more than what is written”?

They will “heap up teachers” for themselves. . . and by that way turn away from the truth. What is the truth? I’ll appeal to Jesus Christ: “Your word is truth” (John 17:17, said in the context of Christ’s high priestly prayer). That is the mark of people turning away from the truth, the word of God: They heap up teachers for themselves. Sobering?

It should be sobering to you. Because those teachers Paul is afraid they will heap up are being juxtaposed to the teachings of the CHURCH. You, Joe Sixpack in your Wednesday night bible study at Starbucks, you are the one with itching ears, preaching according to your desires and heaping up teachers.

Lastly, Mark, you clearly did not read any of the Scriptures I referred to. You ask, “is he referring to the Gospel? Of course not! Is he referring to the OT? That’d be a hard statement to make, seeing as there wasn’t an official canon at the time. That you miss this, ironically, only reinforces our point regarding individual interpretation.” Will you not just read for yourself? (As for St. Augustine, in his Confessions, he reports that as he met his crisis of belief in a garden he overheard some children behind a wall chanting “tolle, lege” meaning “take, read” which is what I urge you to do.)

I don’t understand your point here, as this passage has no argument in it. But thank you for the condescension.

But, I will quote Matthew’s Gospel here below (15:1). CLEARLY Christ and his interlocutors are discussing the Old Testament, specifically the Ten Commandments of Exodus and the Torah of Deuteronomy. If there is anything ironic, it’s that in emphasizing the corporate teaching of Scripture, you don’t seem to study Scripture very seriously.

Again with the ad hominem. And I apparently study it as closely as you read my remarks. Of course there were Jewish scriptures to which Christ refers. But my point was that your analogy falls short, because they were not canonized like the modern Bible. You’re stretching Christ’s words to say something that, from the context, they were clearly not trying to say. More simply: you’re reading too much into scripture, trying to find support for your view.

That’s my line-by-line response. Overall, you’re missing the point if you think we’re arguing over the importance of scripture or whether they are inspired by God. Or if you think I think every verse is opaque.

The disagreement here is less about the place of scripture, and really about who has authority to interpret the scriptures. Sola scriptura denies the necessity of the institutional church for the faithful interpretation of scripture. Seeing as apostolic succession derives from the very men who wrote down these scriptures, this seems a foolish mistake to me.

Tom, I was referring to the Word of God enscripturated. As to the eternal Divine Word (Logos), the son of God, I would simply say that the Word was in the beginning and was with God and was God.

Yes, I wasn’t using “sacramental” in the strict sense of pertaining to the sacraments of baptism or Eucharist, but in sensu lato as pertaining to a means of grace. My challenge to you stands, however, and you haven’t answered it. Scriptures are the Word of God written and as such have authority. Their composition by human agents does not obscure God’s divine voice. Again, consider Hebrews on this point, for example Hebrews 2:10-18. Notice how the author ascribes to the Son of God the authorship of Old Testament passages. Moreover, the power of the Old Testament is that it makes Christ known, and makes readers of Holy Scriptures wise unto salvation (see 2 Timothy 3:15 and Paul’s commendation of Timothy).

Moreover, you seem to deny that at no point is Holy Writ perspicuous. You certainly have’nt made any nuanced position on this. I for one have never affirmed that Scripture is equally perspicuous at all points–that is blindingly obvious–and no Protestant confession to my knowledge says that Scripture is equally clear on all points. Unclear passages must be interpreted in light of clearer passages. But Scripture is indeed perspicuous on many points. You apparently don’t know that we confess that proposition as Anglicans. Read for example, the words of Article 28: “…Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, *cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture,* overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.” Also, read Article 20: “…and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” So, we confess that there are plain words in Scripture, but also less plain.

In addition, haven’t you read where Paul declares that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16)? Notice that Paul says that Holy Writ has the power to make the man of God COMPLETE, and equipped for EVERY good work. That means that Scriptures are sufficient for us.

And for all of you who wish to either detract from the sufficiency of Scripture, wishing to add authorities equal in weight to God’s Word, I urge you to meditate on this frightening verse: “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. . . For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, THEY WILL HEAP UP FOR THEMSELVES TEACHERS; and THEY WILL TURN AWAY FROM THE TRUTH, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Tim 4:2-4). St. Paul declares that there will be people with “itching ears” people who want to hear more than the Gospel preached, itching for more, more, more than the divine word, the divine word plus human words. He specifically says how these people will act. They will add human voices to the Divine Voice, implicitly suggesting that the Word of God is insufficient, that it needs heaps of teachers to tell you more than what is written. They will “heap up teachers” for themselves. . . and by that way turn away from the truth. What is the truth? I’ll appeal to Jesus Christ: “Your word is truth” (John 17:17, said in the context of Christ’s high priestly prayer). That is the mark of people turning away from the truth, the word of God: They heap up teachers for themselves. Sobering?

Lastly, Mark, you clearly did not read any of the Scriptures I referred to. You ask, “is he referring to the Gospel? Of course not! Is he referring to the OT? That’d be a hard statement to make, seeing as there wasn’t an official canon at the time. That you miss this, ironically, only reinforces our point regarding individual interpretation.” Will you not just read for yourself? (As for St. Augustine, in his Confessions, he reports that as he met his crisis of belief in a garden he overheard some children behind a wall chanting “tolle, lege” meaning “take, read” which is what I urge you to do.) But, I will quote Matthew’s Gospel here below (15:1). CLEARLY Christ and his interlocutors are discussing the Old Testament, specifically the Ten Commandments of Exodus and the Torah of Deuteronomy. If there is anything ironic, it’s that in emphasizing the corporate teaching of Scripture, you don’t seem to study Scripture very seriously.

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8”‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’†”

Nathan, would you explain this? Would you say that the Logos (the Word of God) is created?

It betrays an insufficiently high and insufficiently sacramental view of Holy Writ.

Um, what? Where in anything are the scriptures described to as a sacrament? I don’t think you’re using “sacramental” properly.

This is not the case with the kingdom of God. The same Word that created the world ex nihilo, and spoke to the patriarchs, and through the prophets, and became Incarnate and dwelt among us, is the same Word proclaimed by the mouth of the apostles after the ascension, and enscripturated (just as the prophets enscripturated the Word delivered to them) and proclaimed throughout the world. This Word, proclaimed by mouth and word, creates believers and is Christ’s power present for salvation.

You’re still just begging the question Mr. Roach raises: who is to say what the scriptures mean? They are frequently not straight forward. There is often no plain meaning easily discerned by a facial reading. Augustine recognized this in his Confessions and wrote of multiple layers and depths of the scriptures. Again, see Mr. Roach’s comments. They apply equally to scripture as they do constitutions and laws.

Regarding your quotations of Christ, let me ask you: is he referring to the Gospel? Of course not! Is he referring to the OT? That’d be a hard statement to make, seeing as there wasn’t an official canon at the time. That you miss this, ironically, only reinforces our point regarding individual interpretation.