I have video editing software!!!

So I was messing with the software that came with my webcam the other night and I came across a simple video editing software that I REALLY want to make good use of. Here's a clip of my video reading from Augustine's work regarding signs and the things signified. Note the intro and be sure to pay attention to the song at the end ;)



I think that's hilarious! I still haven't utilized the video as much as I have wanted to but I am really thinking right now of doing some sort of video series on Sola Scriptura some time soon to post on GodTube and YouTube. Nothing too fancy, but certainly something worth watching, or at least listening too, and to have as an apologetic tool. Have any ideas about anything you guys would like to see, feel free to share them as well. God bless

Moses

Did Jesus and the Apostles believe in Sola Scriptura?

In my recent debate with Ben Rosado, on his cross examination rebuttal statement I was told that if I could provide him with evidence that Jesus and the apostles believed in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, then he would consider reversing his beliefs that he currently holds to.

Well is there such evidence? What kind of evidence are we looking for here? Historically speaking, Jesus and the apostle’s could not have believed in the doctrine as stated in the 16th century. Why not? Because the doctrine presupposes the completed canon of Scripture! Jesus and the apostles could not have required any to believe in the stated doctrine of Sola Scriptura during their times because that would have rendered their own words lower than Scripture. Obviously that could not be possible since Jesus’ words are the very words of God and the Apostle’s spoke and wrote some things under the infallible guidance and authority of the Holy Spirit. Requiring evidence that Jesus and the apostles believed in “Sola Scriptura” would require one to presuppose that the New Testament is really not Scripture at all.
Also, it disregards the special period in redemptive history in which God spoke to His people in various ways revealing His redemption that was hidden from the ages past. There was a time when God revealed things to certain people such as the prophets and the apostles. Such was the foundational (cf. Eph. 2:20) period for the Church. God no longer speaks to His people the way that he used to (cf. Heb. 1:1-3, note aorist tense) but has rather spoken and given His fullest revelation in the person and work of Jesus Christ whom the apostles expound in their letters and in the Gospels. Thus, during this special period, the Church did not need the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as they had Christ, they had enough of his words and witnesses to them to know what Christ said. The Church also had the apostles, men gifted by God to reveal and expound the person and work of Christ. With such men in the Church, and God still giving revelation through them, there is no need for “Sola Scriptura” since the canon was still open.
But once the apostles died and generations of people were coming in which the people would not have eyewitnesses to Jesus or have heard the apostles’ teachings about Jesus Christ. Whereas Jesus’ words and the revelation through the apostles could authoratively settle doctrinal matters, there would come a time when these would not be with the Church. I have argued that Peter and Paul both foresaw this happening and each of these men commended their readers to the Scriptures – both the Old Testament and those apostolic letters and writings already being accepted as Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:19-21, 3:16).
But all this is not to say that part of the doctrine is contained within the word of Jesus and the apostles. Remember that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a statement about the nature, authority and sufficiency of Scripture. While it wouldn’t necessarily be inappropriate to say that the OT did not contain the necessary material to come to a saving understanding of Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15), it is also certainly true that the NT reveals what is “hidden” as it were in the OT. I believe it was Augustine who is credited for saying something to the effect of “what is hidden in the OT is made clear in the NT; and what is in the NT was already contained in the OT.” The words of Christ expound and reveal to us “the heart” of the OT as it were. Jesus’ came to fulfill the OT .
So are the Scriptures sufficient for Jesus? Not in the sense that we understand Sola Scriptura with a completed canon and the cessation of revelation. But there is evidence that Jesus certainly gave supreme authority to the Scriptures above anything outside of Scripture, especially “traditions” that had even been elevated to the same level of “law” (cf. Mark 7). Jesus dismissed these “traditions” harshly. Jesus used the authority of the Scriptures as the very authority of God Himself (cf. Luke 4:1-13, John 10:34-36; Matt. 22:29-33).
The authority of Scripture in the ministry of Jesus hardly needs to be exhaustively proven from Scripture as it is evident from even a cursory reading of the Gospels that Jesus quoted from the Scriptures extensively especially in support of those teachings that seemed contrary to those of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Also, his view of the nature of Scripture as the word of God is evident from a passage like Matthew 22:29-33 in which Jesus says, “have you not read what God said…” Also, from the apostles, we read quotations from OT characters like David introduced as “the Holy Spirit says…” (Heb. 3:7) or as the Father “saying” (cf. Heb. 1:5-13). Clearly, they viewed the nature of the Scriptures as “God-breathed” and counted them as the very words of God Himself. As such, the Scriptures, by nature carried the very authority of God Himself for these were His very words through the mouths of holy men (cf. Acts. 4:24-26).
Now, this is not to say that Jesus or the apostles functioned under the belief in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. However, we can see that when it comes to the nature and, especially, the authority of Scripture the Protestant movement was more on par with their view of Scripture than Roman Catholicism is. Jesus and the apostles are the examples for appealing to Scripture to settle and prove doctrinal matters. Jesus never appealed to “tradition” that was not supported by Scripture. In fact, he condemned it as hiding the kingdom of God and a tool for keeping people out.
So again, Jesus and the apostles could not have believed in the doctrine as stated because all Scripture had yet to be given. But the groundwork for it is certainly there. In Jesus and the apostles we clearly see their beliefs in the nature and authority of Scripture and being the very word of God and carrying absolute and infallible authority above all others (cf. “the Scripture are the sole infallible authority”). We see them appealing to Scripture to support their own Gospel (cf. Acts 17:11). And finally, as demonstrated in my responses, the apostles left it to the Church, as it were, to commit themselves to the Scriptures alone as their “lamp in a dark place”, as what would be “profitable” for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. For the Church would not always experience ongoing revelation from her Lord. She would be guided by “ordinary means” through the Holy Spirit of God.

Recent Cross Examination with Ben Rosado

Well, if you haven’t been keeping up with them, I have finally been able to have a formal debate with a Roman Catholic gentleman by the name of Ben Rosado who I met on YouTube of all places. He is a very sincere fellow and a super nice guy from what I can tell.

Overall there were some good exchange and seeking of understanding on each others part. I was really pleased with the questions that Ben asked for clarification on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura because many have the idea that the doctrine means “separation from all other authorities and responsibility when interpreting the Scriptures.” In other words, it is taken that the doctrine worked out practically means that Protestant can interpret the Bible any way they please. This is hardly the case, nor is it really a direct implication from the doctrine as stated historically. Quite honestly, it is a caricature that seems to come from the Council of Trent and many other caricatures of Roman Catholic apologist.

I can honestly say, I understand Rome’s attempt to want say that Scripture should be interpreted correctly for the people of God. But just like the Jews want to put a “hedge” around the law with their “traditions” and ended up actually putting people and themselves further from God, so involving the “traditions” of – what I believe were good men – to act as the supplemental revelation to Scripture that alone, may correctly interpret Scripture. I won’t say that these men are “rolling over in their graves” because they are in the eternal bliss of heaven. I honestly don’t think these men ever intended their own words to be taken as revelation especially when you see what a high view of Scripture they had.

I only wish I could have quoted the Fathers more about their view of Scripture and then one could easily see what caused Luther or Calvin to hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Luther, especially being an Augustinian monk was immersed in Augustine’s work and surely would have come across statements like the ones I quoted in my second rebuttal. Reading Calvin’s institutes one is bound to run into a quote or two from Augustine or some other Father. I’m not saying the Father’s were perfect, but a fair reading of their works certainly doesn’t – as some “Protestant” assume – give basis for many Roman Catholic dogmas as Roman Catholics believe. At best, the Fathers were inconsistent, but certainly not Roman Catholic as Trent defined Roman Catholicism.

That being said, I was really disappointed that Ben was not familiar with how Rome dogmatically referred to “tradition” in the Council of Trent and even Vatican I as the “unanimous consent of the Fathers”. I’m not sure if it is obvious, or if I had mentioned it in the intro, but Ben is “Charismatic Catholic”. Now, I knew this going into the debate and I figured Ben’s knowledge of Dogmatic material might not be on par with what I have studied from the official teaching documents of Rome. But therein lies the key, I think.

As I pointed out in my Cross Examination rebuttal statement, there is a significant difference with how he defines “tradition” and how “tradition” has been dogmatically defined as. Also, there is the “partim-partim” view of revelation that is that “tradition” is revelation just like Scripture is and functions along side Scripture. Also, according to the Catechism as well as Trent and Vatican I, “sacred tradition” functions as the interpretive tool, the hermeneutical key as it were, to arriving at the correct interpretation of the Scripture. Mr. Rosado, rather, asserted that “tradition” is the “true interpretation of Scripture”, thus “tradition” as a product of Scripture rather than a tool for interpreting Scripture.

Now, I don’t want to say this means that I’m not debating a Roman Catholic. While I might not be debating one who is familiar with all the official and dogmatic teachings or documents of Rome, nevertheless, he considers himself Roman Catholic and, in a sense, he probably understands the “popular” teachings of Roman Catholicism rather than its academic representation. So there is still some validity in discussing with Him.

I didn’t really want to push the “Charismatic Catholic” issue in the Cross Exam, but maybe I should have. At one point he mentioned the “thousands of denominations of Protestantism” over against a unified Roman Catholic Church. Obviously I don’t see the validity in the argument as the statistics in how they come up with the “denomination count” is not what one expects. Eric Svendsen’s work, “Upon this Slippery Rock” has revealed that a “denomination” is not necessarily a significant gap in beliefs, but can be a different locale or name for a Church in the same denomination! For instance, - if I remember correct – a 1st Baptist Church could be counted as one denomination while a 2nd Baptist Church was also counted as a denomination! But are these really significant differences, especially regarding salvation? Both Church could be members of the Southern Baptist Convention or some other Evangelical organization, but they are counted as separate denominations. Each Protestant denomination, however, is unified in believing in Sola Fide and even Sola Scriptura.

Svendsen takes the time to show that distinctions within Rome are actually more in number and more significant than the supposed differences within Protestantism.

Needless to say, being a “charismatic Catholic” means that at some points, there is some departure with what is considered “mainline” Roman Catholicism. Let’s face it, the charismatic movement is something that has overtaken some denominations and not as an officially sanctioned side of it. Methodism in general – though having some history in Pentecostal phenomena and history – does not officially sanction the movement. Baptist, Presbyterians, etc…don’t officially sanction it but consider it “their own daughter who came home with a tattoo” (I heard something like that about the Methodist movement within Anglicanism by a Church history professor of mine, LOL). Thus, the fact that Ben is in a “sect of Catholicism” that has some significant differences from the dogmatic statements is not to be taken lightly, especially if there is the “30,000 denomination” argument.

Well, this is my first official posting on YouTube!!! Woo Hoo!!! Hopefully, it won't be my last. By the way, I have been having a VERY interesting conversation with a fellow over the Roman Catholic MAss, which is what prompted me to by a webcam and make this video, as well as the Canon of Scripture. That can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoevWDKGxOE

Hopefully, I will be having a debate on Sola Scriptura and other Roman CAtholic topics with the gentleman on the video on the above page. Nonetheless, enjoy this little reading that I give from Augustine and the ensuing commentary. God bless.

Prayer for Christ's Resurrection Power

The following is a prayer that we recited at our Church on Resurrection Sunday. I don't know who the author is, but I'm tempted to say that it came from "The Valley of Vision", a collection of Puritan prayers. I hope it blesses you as it did me.



O LORD,
I marvel that thou shouldst become incarnate,
Be crucified, dead, and buried.
The sepulcher calls forth my adoring wonder,
For it is empty and thou art risen;
The four-fold gospel attests it,
The living witnesses prove it,
My heart’s experience knows it.
Give me to die with thee that I may rise to new life,
For I wish to be as dead and buried
To sin, to selfishness, to the world;
That I might not hear the voice of the charmer,
And might be delivered from his lusts.
O Lord, there is much ill about me – crucify it,
Much flesh within me – mortify it.
Purge me from selfishness, the fear of man, the love of approbation,
The shame of being thought old-fashioned,
The desire to be cultivated or modern.
Let me reckon my old life dead because of crucifixion,
And never feed it as a living thing.
Grant me to stand with my dying Saviour,
To be content to be rejected,
To be willing to take up unpopular truths,
And to hold fast despised teachings until death.
Help me to be resolute and Christ-contained.
Never let me wander from the path of obedience to thy will.
Strengthen me for the battles ahead.
Give me courage for all the trials, and grace for all the joys.
Help me to be a holy, happy person,
Free from every wrong desire,
From everything contrary to thy mind.
Grant me more and more of the resurrection life:
May it rule me,
May I walk in its power, and be strengthened through its influence

Amen. A thousand times, Amen.