The ‘λόγος of God’: a Hebrew Concept Packed into a Greek Word

Image source: Accordance

There is still a good bit of activity over at Green Baggins on the thread “Conversions to Roman Catholicism”.

In a side discussion, on the topic of whether the New Testament writers were more influenced by Greek, Pagan, or Gnostic concepts, or whether they drew their sources from the Old Testament, I wrote this comment (#194):

CD-Host said #174 –

The word “logos” is in Greek without a corresponding Hebrew word. The fundamental problem of the logos, how an unchanging god can interact with a changing universe, that is act in time, doesn’t exist in Hebrew though. In Hebrew though God exists in time and experiences reality sequentially.

I’m not going to deny that there are concepts in the Hebrew literature that tie in. For example it is possible to make such a case like Yahweh being the material realization of El. But then you are have to have “Old Testament Judaism” as henotheistic not monotheistic and there you have the “son” being Yahweh not Jesus. The angelic “Son of God” / “Son of Man” concept which does have Aramaic ties and might go back to Hebrew could work.

I don’t see how you can argue that the Christian Logos, John’s Logos isn’t a variant of Hellenistism’s Logos. The Logos for Christians is an intermediary who interacts with matter on behalf of the supreme God.

I think Pagan Hellenism -> Hellenistic Judaism (Philo) -> Christianity (Gospel John) is such an obvious derivation. I’m not sure why you would want to bypass it.

We don’t have to relegate this to opinion. I’ve mentioned to you that T.F. Torrance found Philo in 1 Clement’s use of the concept of “grace”. But that same study of the Apostolic Fathers traced Paul’s usage and it had no discernable reliance on Philo, but rather it relied heavily on the OT concepts of hesed and related concepts of God’s lovingkindness.

Just as some background, (and in response to Bryan’s article “The Tradition and the Lexicon”), I cited G.K. Beale to the effect that:

By standards that Beale relates, there may be more than 4,000 “allusions” or “echoes” of the Old Testament found within the New. Given that there are 7956 verses in the New Testament, more than half the New Testament can be seen as bearing at least some form of “echo of” or “allusion to” some Old Testament concept or idea.

Thus, when a New Testament writer talks of “tradition” “handed down” (παρέδοσαν) to him by “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word”, which in Luke 1:2 is a clear reference to the apostles, the “content” of that “tradition” was oozing with Old Testament words and concepts.

Beale traces three different types of phenomena: “direct references”, “probable allusions”, and “possible allusions”.

An “allusion” may simply be defined as a brief expression consciously intended by an author to be dependent on an OT passage. In contrast to a quotation of the OT, which is a direct reference, allusions are indirect references (the OT wording is not reproduced directly as in a quotation).

This is an exercise in determining “where the language of the New Testament came from”. And it is no surprise that Christ’s Apostles were steeped in the culture of the Old Testament.


With that said, looking to John and λόγος, D.A. Carson, for example, in his analysis of John’s prologue (John 1:1-1:18) while allowing that the word exists in Greek culture (i.e. Plato and Philo), but he says (after a lengthy analysis) “there is little evidence for the existence of full-blown Gnosticism before John wrote his gospel”.

Of Philo and other Greek sources he says:

Still others think John has borrowed from Philo, a first-century Jew who was much influenced by Plato and his successors. Philo makes a distinction between the ideal world, which he calls ‘the logos of God’, and the real or phenomenal world wihich is but its copy. In particular, logos for Philo can refer to the ideal man, the primal man, from which all empirical human beings derive. But Philo’s logos has no distinct personality, and does not itself become incarnate. John’s logos doctrine, by contrast, is not tied to such dualism. More generally, logos can refer to inner thought, hence ‘reason’ even ‘science’. That is one reason why some have advocated ‘Reason’ as a translation of logos. Alternatively logos can refer to outward expression, hence ‘speech’ or ‘message’, which is why ‘Word’ is still thought by many to be the most appropriate term, provided it does not narrowly refer to a mere linguistic sign but is understood to mean something like ‘message’ (as in 1 Cor 1:18).

Kostenberger, too, in his commentary notes the various Greek concepts, and points out that “in Stoic thought, logos was Reason, the impersonal principle governing the universe … Yet while John may well have been aware of the Stoic concept of the logos, it is doubtful that it constituted his primary conceptual framework (and he cites an earlier work of his to that effect).

Neither Carson nor Kostenberger (nor Beale) is unaware of the DSS and other sources you cite. Nevertheless, Carson gives what I believe is a superb summary of the source for λόγος in John 1:

However the Greek term is understood, there is a more readily available background than that provided by Philo or the Greek philosophical schools. Considering how frequently John quotes or alludes to the Old Testament, that is the place to begin. (And the chapter on John in “Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” covers nearly 100 pages).

There, ‘the word’ (Hebrew: dabar) of God is connected with God’s powerful activity in creation (cf. Gen 1:3ff; Ps 33:6), revelation (Jer 1:4; Is 9:8; Ezk 33:7; Amos 3:1, 8) and deliverance (Ps 107:20; Is. 55:1). If the Lord (Yahweh) is said to speak to the prophet Isaiah (e.g. Is 7:3), elsewhere we read that ‘the word of the Lord came to Isaiah (Is 38:4; cf. Jer 1:4; Ezk 1:6). It was by ‘the word of the Lord’ that the heavens were made (Ps 33:6); in Gen 1:3, 6, 9, etc., God simply speaks and his powerful word creates. That same word effects deliverance and judgment (Is 55:11; cf Ps 29:3ff).

When some of his people faced illness that brought them to the brink of death God ‘sent forth his word and healed them; he rescued them from the grave’ (Ps 107:20). This personification of the ‘word’ becomes even more colourful in Jewish writing composed after the Old Testament (e.g. Wisdom 18:14, 15). Whether this heritage was mediated to John by th Greek version of the Old Testament that many early Christians used, or even by an Aramaic paraphrase (called a ‘Targum’), the ultimate fountain for this choice of language cannot be in serious doubt.

Carson goes on to cite other post-OT writings, especially related to the concept of logos as wisdom and concludes, “However, the lack of Wisdom terminology in John’s Gospel suggests that the parallels between Wisdom and John’s Logos may stem less from direct dependence than from common dependence on Old Testament uses of ‘word’ and Torah, from which both have borrowed.”

Concluding with his discussion of Greek thought:

In short, God’s “Word” in the Old Testament is his powerful self-expression in creation, revelation, and salvation, and the personification of that ‘Word’ makes it suitable for John to apply it as a title to God’s ultimate self-disclosure, the person of his own Son. But if the expression would prove richest for Jewish readers, it would also resonate in the minds of some readers with entirely pagan backgrounds. In their case, however, they would soon discover that whatever they had understood the term to mean in the past, the author [the Apostle John] was forcing them into fresh thought (see on v. 14: there Carson discusses and unpacks this comment: “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth”.

It is interesting to note that Carson is finding the same phenomenon in John and “λόγος” that Torrance found regarding “grace” in Paul: the word, prevalent in Greek thought, has a totally new meaning [for pagans] that is filled with Old Testament concepts.

One could go into much greater detail with this. Brown and Cullmann both interact extensively with the literature you cite and both place the identity of the λόγος firmly in the Old Testament.

Jason Stellman’s failure as a prosecutor led to the Leithart acquittal

I know there is a lot of disappointment among PCA members over the what essentially is the decision to let a lower-court verdict stand.

Over at the Green Baggins discussion of the Peter Leithart case, Ron DiGiacomo is clearly making the most lucid comments:

To suggest that the SJC should have taken into account any evidence other than the trial itself is to undermine one’s right to a trial. In other words, evidence is never to be considered so incriminating as to allow for an immediate conviction without a trial. Accordingly, it would have been inappropriate for the SJC to arrive at a guilty verdict based upon arguments not formulated by the Presbytery. To have done so would have been for the SJC to try the case without having to undergo rebuttal and cross-examination, a clear violation of Leithart’s rights.

The failure is Jason Stellman’s failure as a prosecutor:

[Peter Leithart] essentially denied on the stand what FV has gone on record affirming. All that is left to do at that point is to pepper the defendant with questions regarding inconsistency in view of previously written (or stated) Roman Catholic tendencies. That did not happen and that was Jason’s job. Consequently, the SJC was left with too many uninterpreted brute particulars that were not fleshed out with formal argumentation. Again, to have drawn their own conclusions based upon arguments that were never formulated would have been to put PL on trial without the right of a defense attorney. We’re Presbyterian not papists.

Leonard de Chirico: A Short Guide Waiting for the Conclave

Lane Keister has published A Guest Post by Leonard de Chirico on the topic of “Who Will Be the Next Pope?”

De Chirico analyzes and dismisses a scenario that I think is highly likely – that “After two non-Italian Popes (the Polish Wojtyła and the German Ratzinger) is it time for an Italian one?” According to de Chirico, there is only one likely Italian candidate at this time.

If this is the case, then the Archbishop of Milan Angelo Scola (72) is the first and perhaps only option. The Italian candidates, however, could pay the price of a possible showdown. Many of the recent scandals (e.g. Vatileaks and the Vatican bank’s financially opaque maneuvers) originated in the Roman curia, which is mainly governed by Italian prelates. Moreover, the Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone (78), himself an Italian, is part of the on-going controversy. So the poor performance of the Italian hierarchy may result in leaving Italians out of the game to wait for the next round.

He looks at a list of other names we’ve seen elsewhere.

The speculation is merely that: speculation. There is a saying in those circles that those men entering the conclave as papabile end up disappointed. Ratzinger, the long time doctrinal watchdog during the papacy of John Paul II, was an obvious exception to this rule. But there aren’t many globally-recognized names at this point, and another likely response is simply that we won’t have any idea who the new man is who emerges as pope.

He also provides a brief “list of Evangelical desires” which seems to hope for a pope who is more cognizant of the need for pluralism and of the Evangelical world generally.

An early commenter asks the question, “And we Reformed types need to care about any of this because why now?”

My response to that was: “if only to understand how a vast enemy and mission field works. If we are more cognizant of the inner workings of Roman Catholicism, we are better able to discuss their religion with them on their own terms, show them its weakness, and introduce the Gospel at appropriate points in the discussion.”

Whomever is named, however, will yet again face the choice of being honest with history and admitting to the fraudulent nature of the nonexistent early papacy, or simply smiling and trying to hide it again from the view of the masses of Roman Catholics who genuinely need to hear the Truth.

A response to “Fr Bryan” on “adding to” the Word of God

I had an interesting exchange on what became the remnants of the comment thread, Response to Jason Stellman Part 1.

A young priest, who hangs out at Called to Communion and goes by the handle” Fr Bryan”, had explained to Paige, one of the moderators, “how I describe it when I teach on such matters”, in response to a comment she made to the effect that the Magisterium “both interpret[s] and add[s] to the biblical text.”

Fr Bryan said [and we are told to listen to our priests when they teach such things]:

Here is how I describe it when I teach on such matters. I will say that revelation (The Word of God) is God’s perfect self communication. It is God speaking to us perfectly. However, perfect speaking is worthless if the listener is hard of hearing, which we are. In order for us to hear the word of God perfectly God needs to repair our hearing, which I’m sure you’ll agree with.

At this point, I’ll simply say that God, having created us, is certainly aware of our limitations, and is more than able, as Calvin said, to accommodate our limitations, without the help of an evil and oppressive “infallible interpreter”. In fact, one might say that “God speaking to us perfectly” is all that needs be said. For the “perfection” of God’s speech is “perfect” for our understanding.

He continues:

However the difference between Catholics and Protestants is not that God has opened the ears of the Church to hear the word of God but how he has done this. As a Catholic, I believe that he has used the system of leadership he himself set up to do this and that this system of leadership involves the Apostles and their successors.

Through this lens, the documents of Vatican II (or any official magisterial teaching) can be seen as the Fruit of the Church pondering the word of God in her heart and hearing the voice of God accurately and responding to the Holy Spirit’s invitation to proclaim the truth of the Gospel to the World in which we live.

Now, you likely reject this, but I hope it at least clarifies the difference between Scripture and Magisterial teaching as Catholics understand it.

I do reject it. Consider the phrase, “the Church pondering the word of God in her heart”. We are talking not about a person with a mind – we are talking about a collective of celibate men, many of whom are evil beyond the comprehension of most common people, and it is these men, in their collective deliberations, for which the phrase “the Church pondering the word of God in her heart” describes.

This is a church that we know ponders other, much more sinister things in its heart. For example, it was Good Pope John, pope of the Vatican II council, who signed the document that perpetuated a 1922 policy of secrecy which extends back through time, going back centuries of hiding and protecting sexual offenders.

Canon Law itself mandates the policy of maintaining secret archives on these cases which led to the kinds of shady dealings that frustrated a Philadelphia Grand Jury, for example.

There is no inclination to just simply be truthful. Jesus had a word for phenomena like this: “You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” He also said, a bad tree cannot bear good fruit

I offered this explanation to Paige:

Paige: it’s important to keep in mind that “Tradition” (capital “T”) is not the same as “tradition” (lower-case “t”)

“Tradition” and Scripture and Magisterium are all, on the surface, placed at the same level. But “Tradition” and Scripture are both “divinely inspired”, and further, “Tradition”, not being “tradition”, is really just some form of Magisterial pronouncement. For example, it’s a tradition that there’s a procession of priest and altar servers going into the Mass. They’ve been doing that from Pagan times (picked up a pagan practice and then continued to do it year after year).

However, it’s “Tradition” that Mary was conceived immaculately, and that she was assumed into Heaven. But it’s not “Tradition” because it was “tradition” (and bad “tradition” to begin with — the origins of both are spurious). These are “Tradition” because of pronouncements made in 1854 and 1950.

So, while the “divine revelation” that you and I would recognize as Scripture has ceased, the body of “divinely-inspired” materials can and does in practice continue to grow as the “system of authority” continues to make pronouncements that are considered “Tradition”.

So when you say “add to”, you are, essentially, correct.

Fr Bryan has not so far commented on this further.

Here we stand.

Turretinfan and James Swan recently tag-teamed the saying that justification is the article upon which the Protestant Reformation stands or falls.

T-Fan, for example, cites the Smalcald Articles (an early Lutheran confessions) to the effect that:

nothing can be yielded or surrendered [nor can anything be granted or permitted contrary to the same], even though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink to ruin. For there is none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved, says Peter, Acts 4:12. And with His stripes we are healed, Is. 53:5. And upon this article all things depend which we teach and practice in opposition to the Pope, the devil, and the [whole] world. Therefore, we must be sure concerning this doctrine, and not doubt; for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and all things gain the victory and suit over us.

Steve recently called attention to the fact that Bryan Cross has crossed over into a foreign land when he decided to bring up the doctrine of justification on a confessional Presbyterian discussion board:

Bryan Cross normally plays it safe by taking refuge in the never-never land of hypotheticals. “Can’t catch me!” However, this time around he slipped up. He's drawn Lane Keister into a debate over justification. Even as a general proposition, whenever the issue turns to exegesis, Pastor Lane can run circles around Bryan. But it gets worse for Bryan. Pastor Lane has become a specialist on the doctrine of justification. This is going to end very badly for Bryan:

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/list-paradigm-versus-agape-paradigm/

One result of this has become evident, and I’ve used something else that Steve said to draw attention to the flip-flopping and dilemma that Bryan and his called-to-confusion crowd have gotten themselves into:

Bryan #9, you have a problem.

I keep asking you, “how do you know what ‘the Church that Christ Founded’ looked like?” And of course, you keep ignoring the question.

The obvious response at that point would be for you to say, “we look at Scripture. The New Testament offers the best source of information about what the earliest Christian church was like”.

When Protestants argue directly from Scripture and the church fathers to rebut the claims of Rome, you say that’s not allowed: it’s “question-begging” because our interpretations of the historical evidence are paradigm-dependent – dependent on “sola Scriptura”.

But if you are going to go that route in response to Protestant critics, to disallow Scriptural and historical evidence, then you have engaged in a double standard now in lodging evidentiary appeals to Scripture regarding Justification. In invoking the Greek of Galatians, you have taken your “interpretive paradigm” off the table, and have now, in effect, begun to argue “sola Scriptura” in favor of your view of justification. Interesting twist.

This is a dilemma that you have created for yourself: Until now, you won’t discuss the [lack of] biblical and historical evidence of the early papacy, but here, now, you have just brought this type of evidence back onto the table.

If you can cite direct evidence in favor of your view of justification, and I don’t have any doubts that the Greek scholars on this site are more than up to the task of addressing you on this issue, then you certainly must also cite your direct evidence for the papacy, as and you have now committed yourself to interact with our direct counterevidence.

Now that they’ve tossed their “Catholic IP” aside, the smokescreen behind which they have typically hidden to avoid inconvenient historical facts, they are rolling in the mud, so to speak, and having to deal with real evidence.

They have taken themselves out from behind the smokescreen, and into an exegetical and historical discussion they are bound to lose.

The Letter of Ignatius to the Church at Rome

I posted these selections from Ignatius’s letter to the Romans at Old Life yesterday, and again in comments at Green Baggins. There, Lane Keister said, “Neither side, therefore, can gain much fodder for their arguments”, but I think there is more to it than that. I think a closer reading of Ignatius, and an understanding of where he was going, what he was doing, and whom he was interacting with, provide some important clues as to why the second century church developed its “early catholic” flavor.

On the other hand, according to the Orthodox writer John Behr, “Ignatius goes far beyond the other writers of his period in exalting the role of the apostles.” It is important to understand this disjunction: “Ignatius repeatedly states that as a bishop he, unlike the apostles, is not in a position to give orders or to lay down the precepts or the teachings (δόγματα), which come from the Lord and the apostles alone (cf. Magnesians 13; Romans 4:3; Ephesians 3:1 etc.)”. According to Oscar Cullmann, this is part of the beginning of the end of the reliance on “oral tradition”, and the understanding of the need to further compile a canon of the New Testament.

According to Michael Kruger, “it is clear that Ignatius knows, and assumes his readers already know, about some collection of Paul’s letters”. He expressly mentions 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and 1 and 2 Timothy. “He also appears to know Romans, Philippians, and Galaians”, which “suggests that his Pauline letter collection might have been quite extensive” (Canon Revisited, pgs 214-215).

As for this letter to the church at Rome, Ignatius is, according to Adrian Fortescue (who gives what he claims to be that “Scriptural and historical argument for the papacy” that Lane had been looking for, and that Bryan Cross never provided), Ignatius’s mention of Rome, “presiding over love” (1:4) is one of the cornerstones of “Roman” primacy.

So while Rome’s “bishop” is not in view at all, the political connections of the church at Rome are repeatedly in view; this (rather than any other reason) is why the church at Rome “presides over love”. It is Rome’s role as “the capital of the empire” that gives them status, and for Ignatius, their ability to spare him from martyrdom, through their political connections, is the “love” in which they are presiding.

These selections are from the Michael Holmes translation:

1.1 For I am afraid of your love, in that it may do me wrong; for it is easy for you to do what you want, but it is difficult for me to reach God, unless you spare me. [There's that "love" that is, through its political connections, going to either save his life, or, if it holds its tongue, and fails to pull its political strings, along with Christ, going to be "bishop" of Antioch in his absence. So the place of love," has a reference to Rome's political connections.]

2.1 For I will never again have an opportunity such as this to reach God, nor can you, if you remain silent, be credited with a greater accomplishment. For if you remain silent and leave me alone, I will be a word of God, but if you love my flesh [and spare my life], then I will again be a mere voice. [There's Roman "love" again.]

2.2 Grant me nothing more than to be poured out as an offering to God while there is still an altar ready, so that in love you may form a chorus and sing to the Father in Jesus Christ, because God has judged the bishop from Syria worthy to be found in the west, having summoned from the east.

3.1-2 You have never envied anyone; you taught others. [Many believe this is a reference to 1 Clement.] And my wish is that those instructions that you issue when teaching disciples will remain in force. Just pray that I will have strength both outwardly and inwardly so that I may not just talk about it but want to do it, so that I may not merely be called a Christian but actually prove to be one. [That is, "teach self-sacrifice," and in doing so, "my death will confirm your "teaching" "in force"?]

3.3 Nothing that is visible is good. [Did Ignatius believe in a “visible church” with a visible hierarchy? It seems not] “For our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is in the Father. The work is not a matter of persuasive rhetoric ; rather, Christianity is greatest when it is hated by the world.”

4.1 I am writing to all the churches and insisting to everyone that I die for God of my own free will–unless you hinder me [through your political connections]. I implore you; do not be unseasonably kind to me. Let me be food for the wild beasts; through whom I can reach God.

4.3 I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am even now still a slave. [It is important to note that here, as in other places, Ignatius does not see any kind of "succession" of apostolic authority. He acknowledges himself -- he has repeatedly said he is a bishop -- to be far, far less, in every way, than Peter and Paul.]

6.1 It is better for me to die for Jesus Christ than to rule over the ends of the earth. [Of course, the Roman government currently rules over the ends of the earth.]

6.2 Bear with me brothers and sisters: do not keep me from living; do not desire my death. Do not give to the world one who wants to belong to God or tempt him with material things.

7.1 The ruler of this age wants to take me captive and corrupt my godly intentions. Therefore none of you who are present must help him. [That is, you at Rome are eminently capable of doing the wrong thing.]

In this letter to the church at Rome, does Ignatius see even a bishop, much less someone who might be “the chief bishop, primate, and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth?

When a bishop is mentioned here, that bishop is Christ (9.1). And the “love” of the Romans involves political connections that could either spare him the martyrdom he so desires, or confirm it.

When a “visible church” is in view, “nothing that is visible is good.” When “teaching” is in view, he fears the Romans will teach wrongly. When “apostles” are in view, there is no succession, but a great gulf between apostle and bishop.

Discussion on the papacy at Green Baggins

Lane Keister has started another discussion on the papacy over at Green Baggins. He says,

I have been recently contemplating the nature of the evidence concerning the claims of Rome, and asking myself this question: what is the linchpin of Romanist claims? Surely, it is the Petrine succession argument for the Popes. Without an ironshod succession from Peter to Benedict XVI, there is no sacramental magisterial authority at all. It does no good at this point to claim that the apostolic succession can be legitimated without the Papal succession, since the Papal succession is what legitimates all the rest of the succession down to the ordination of priests. If the Papal claims are void, then so are the ordinations that come from a false Papacy.

Bryan Cross and Jason Stellman are taking up the Roman cause. Turretinfan is there, as well as Bob S (RPV). For anyone who is interested, I have joined in the discussion at this point. I bring up two points (which I’ve made here in the past). First, that the “lynchpin” argument of the papacy was made by “Pope Leo the Great”, using arguments drawn first from the relationship between Jesus Jesus and Peter (and the rest of the apostles), in conjunction with Roman adoption laws, and second, that the eastern churches never accepted that argument, preferring, instead, to understand Roman “primacy” as a political primacy.

Someone else said this (thank God!)

Over at Green Baggins

I haven’t the desire to tell a Catholic how they define their terms, however they foist themselves to be the only true, holy catholic church, guardians of the faith handed down from the apostles and claim this:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

These are at the very core of the Reformation, doctrines that all of us who hold to Orthodox Reformed Confessions hold dearer than our own lives. Rome has not rescinded Trent, the same (so-called) church that elevates tradition, and the papacy as co-equal with Scripture. This is the same ecclesiastical body that still has the stain of blood from the Crusades and Inquisition, a church who took up the sword in the name of Christ, and her supreme leader still has the arrogance to name himself infallible on questions of doctrine and practice. He can’t even bring himself to deal with the current scandals besetting his church (such as the epedemic of child molestation) in a way that brings any justice or recompense to the offended. So, fine, Rome can define what she means by her own statements, but I am not inclined in the slightest to believe them.

This is the group that has enticed one of our own to leave the true church, one whose ministry many of us greatly valued – so forgive me if I have little patience to bandy about with words about how Rome now qualifies a statement that it has not rescinded to mean something far from what a plain reading of Trent asserts. Trent says “if any man saith…” doctrines which every member of a Reformed church must confess before being permitted membership, they are “anathema”. Yet Rome doubles back and says that it only counts for those who have left her walls – it drips with duplicity to any honest Protestant by either de-fanging Trent, or stating that Rome does not mean what it clearly asserts, because every confessional Protestant “saith” these very things and mean them wholeheartedly. Stellman must answer to God for his part in these choices to be certain. However, so will those who deceived themselves, seek to bring others into a church that has forefited her claim’s to speak truly on God’s behalf

In forefiting his confidence, and confession of the sufficiency of Scripture, Jason has, sadly, placed his confidence in the hands of fallible men to assure him that their reading of Scripture, amongst other sources of authority can carry his soul safely to heaven (with only a few million years of purgatory, mind you). There may be defect with various Protestant readings of Scripture, but this points to the weakness of men, not the veracity or reliability of Scripture. I may have been more inclined to irenic discussion with Catholics on the web, but after recent events, I frankly just don’t have the stomach for it – not when they raid and pilfer our churches with lies exposed long ago. What Rome asserts as infallible seems to me to be nothing less than a lie from the pit of hell itself.