Why not try, just for once, interacting with the articles themselves?
For example:
Before looking at the source of this argument and the problems associated with it, it should be made clear that the entire argument being presented here can only be identified as "bogus." It fails scrutiny at every possible level. The leaps in logic and argumentation are vast. Let's just focus upon two of the obvious problems. First, how does the Roman Catholic apologist go about demonstrating that sola scriptura is the source of these divisions, specifically? For example, when we see division in the ranks of Rome, and see strong disagreements on key issues, does it follow that the Roman magisterium is to blame for the differences of viewpoint? If a Christian believes the Scriptures a sufficient rule of faith, how does it follow that an abuse of such a sufficient source is an argument against its sufficiency? Such simply does not follow. The Scriptures can be perfectly suited to their purpose, but men are still sinners. Men are still imperfect. Men are still ignorant. And, most importantly, men still have their traditions. So while these apologists pretend it is a "given" that sola scriptura is to blame for these divisions, that assumption is insufficient to prove the argument.
Second, and related thereto, is the painfully obvious observation that only a small percentage of "Protestant" churches today self-consciously even seek to profess, let alone confess and practice, sola scriptura. In fact, a large number of non-Catholic churches embrace all sorts of concepts that violate sola scriptura, so how can the principle be blamed for the actions of those who do not even believe in it?Obviously, it can't be. In reality, those churches that specifically seek to profess, confess, and apply sola scriptura are significantly more united in their theology than those churches that look to some external, inspired/guided source of either interpretation or revelation.
Notice how inconsistent Orthodox is, how often he uses arguments that would defeat his own professed beliefs about Eastern Orthodoxy. He writes:
"What about the denominations within the denominations?"
Sort of like your disagreements with Eastern Orthodox liberals, like Paul Nadim Tarazi? Or the many other disagreements Eastern Orthodox have with each other, ones we've documented in previous threads in which you've participated?
You write:
"Ok, now take your list, and go to the elders or bishops or deacons or committee or whatever leadership your denomination has decided is the TRUE polity, explain they need to conform with scripture and get it changed. Come back and tell us how far you get. My guess is NOWHERE."
What have you done with your list of disagreements with Tarazi and other Eastern Orthodox? How far have you gotten with that list?
I shouldn't need to remind you, but not all Evangelicals are Anglicans. Protestantism is a movement, not a denomination. A person can agree with Protestant principles or have a historical relationship with the Protestant movement without thereby being responsible for the errors of Anglicans or other groups with a similar Protestant association. As I've explained to you before, and you didn't interact with the point then either, there are movements that Eastern Orthodoxy is associated with as well, such as Eastern Christianity and professing Christianity in general. Should we criticize you for the errors of other groups that are associated with such movements? If a non-Eastern-Orthodox church in the East errs on an issue, should we criticize you for it, since both Eastern Orthodoxy and that other group are part of the larger movement of Eastern Christianity? Eastern Orthodoxy is part of the larger movement of professing Christianity as well, so should we also hold you responsible for the Anglican errors you've criticized? If you're willing to associate with Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and other people you disagree with as part of the larger movement of Christianity, then why criticize Protestants for associating with a smaller number of people they disagree with as part of the Protestant movement? All that you're doing is taking Celsus' objection to Christian diversity and applying it to Protestantism in particular. What's to stop somebody like Celsus from taking your reasoning about Protestantism and applying it to Christianity in general?
ORTHODOX: Hands up who has found a protestant church, other than the most raving liberal one, who does not claim to any more be bound by sola scripture? Didn't think so.
Oh, here! Here! Teacher, call on me!
Seen quite a few around these parts. And I live in the Midwest. Orthodox, you've got to be kidding.
ORTHODOX: Hands up who has found a protestant church, other than the most raving liberal one, who does not claim to any more be bound by sola scripture? Didn't think so.
Puts hand up. I know of several.
Here's an exercise for the sola scripturalists. Find something that your church is not following from the scriptures. You know which ones. You've got those hobby horses in the back of your mind that if only you were in charge, you'd make the church REALLY scriptural by fixing up these bits and pieces.
I don't have to quote the rest of you post, because it continues to turn on the idea that Sola Scriptura means that the Bible ONLY is the rule for faith and practice.
No, it is the only infallible rule for faith and practice, we may include other traditions as long as they are subject to Scripture.
Which is why I can hold up my hand and name you churches where there are ideas and practices that are being held up over and above Scripture. They have made them untouchable and unquestionable and on an equal or, worse, greater than, Scripture.
Please note that the quantity of groups is not the real issue. Whether its a thousand, a hundred,fifty or ten, it is too many. Jesus prayed "that they all may be one...in us, that the world may believe." Paul in Ephesians tells us that "There is one body and one Spirit." There are multiple bodies with Presbyterian in their names, so many that they are spoken of as the split P,s. There are multiple groups with the name Reformed. There are many different kinds of Baptists. The list goes on and on.The Lutherans condemn the Reformed for gross theological error and thus wounding the Gospel, the Reformed respond in kind. The Calvinist and the Arminian attack each other as perverting the Gospel.
There is no authoritative way of resolving the disputes because the final authority is in the end the individual believer who decides for himself what the Scripture means, what the Holy Spirit is showing him from Scripture. This, in the final analysis is what sola scriptura and sola fide means. Since there is no authority beyond scripture in the mind of the individual believer there is no other way to resolve disputes than one side overcoming the other by force of reason or other more physical means. If neither means is successful there can only result in diverse groups certain that they have the truth and the rest have it wrong and thus not true churches in the way that they are. It is sometimes said that the differences are not significant and that they agree on the essentials. This is very often not true because while they may agree in using the same words to say the same thing, they define the words differently and thus are really not in agreement even when they seem to be saying the same thing. None of this is compatible with Christ's will that the Church be one body with one spirit as God is one. Until all God's people are one the world will not believe, the Great Commission will not be fulfilled, and Christ and Paul are made to appear as liars. This is the issue that the Roman apologists are addressing and none of the responses are adequate until there is a single group that can credibly assert that it is the Church Christ founded and that it is in the process of bringing the world into the Kingdom of God in fulfillment of Christ's Great Commission. Today one out of every six people in the world is Roman Catholic. How many are there in your group? Remember there is one body and one spirit with one Lord and one God. Even two groups are one too many.
Please note that the quantity of groups is not the real issue. Whether its a thousand, a hundred,fifty or ten, it is too many.
So, in your view, Mr. Zuck, Rome has a problem, or do you give Rome a free pass?
As the source so often quoted states:
* This source lists 781 "Orthodox" denominations (i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy), predicting 887 for 2025.
* This source lists 242 "Roman Catholic" denominations for 2000, predicting 245 for 2025.
Jesus prayed "that they all may be one...in us, that the world may believe." Paul in Ephesians tells us that "There is one body and one Spirit.
This assumes what it needs to prove, namely that visible ecclesiastical unity in a visible single entity (under Rome) is what Jesus had in mind.
In context, Jesus is talking not about visible unity under one umbrella organization.
That describes a very specific kind of spiritual unity that proceeds from our union with Christ. Christ Himself likens it to the unity between Father and Son. It is spiritual unity. Christ also prayed, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." - not, "with visible, organizational unity."
The passage in Ephesians is written to a specific local church. It is a prooftext for the universal church.
It would also apply to unity in the local church in the face of false teachers. Are you part of the one true Ephesian church?
It also overlooks 1 Corinthians. The same Paul that decried factionalism in chapter 1 said in chapter 11:
"For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you."
So, Paul speaks of division in a negative and a positive light.
The simple fact is that there is really no more unity of agreement among Roman Catholics than there is among Protestants.
There are multiple bodies with Presbyterian in their names, so many that they are spoken of as the split P,s. There are multiple groups with the name Reformed. There are many different kinds of Baptists.
The Reformed churches have always been a diverse group. They are a movement, not a denomination.
None of these would say to the other, "You are not true Christians."
Baptists would say that Presbyterians do not have a proper polity, but we recognize that, on our view, the baptized and converted members of their bodies constitute true churches. Even John L. Dagg recognized their elders as true gospel ministers. The Landmark Baptists are about the only Baptists these days who would deny "true church" to some bodies, including other Baptist bodies, but that's due to their ecclesiology, which, I would add, is remarkably like that of Rome.
The list goes on and on.The Lutherans condemn the Reformed for gross theological error and thus wounding the Gospel, the Reformed respond in kind.
No, the issue isn't over "the gospel" the issue is over sacramentology and, due to this, Christology - but not to the point that the gospel is threatened.
The Calvinist and the Arminian attack each other as perverting the Gospel.
That depends on the Arminian and the time in history.
There is no authoritative way of resolving the disputes because the final authority is in the end the individual believer who decides for himself what the Scripture means, what the Holy Spirit is showing him from Scripture.
No, we have our synods, assemblies,associations and Conventions. We also practice local church discipline.
Also, unless you can provide me a list of authoritative Scriptures that Rome has pronounced as infallibly interpreted, how are you in a better position? Tell us, how has your rule of faith succeeded in quelling Liberation Theology in South America, Sedevacatism, and the followers of Hans Kung?
This, in the final analysis is what sola scriptura and sola fide means.
No Sola Fide means we are justified by faith and saved by grace. Sola Scriptura is not interpretation in a vacuum at all. It merely means the infallible authority is Scripture; others are fallible.
Since there is no authority beyond scripture in the mind of the individual believer there is no other way to resolve disputes than one side overcoming the other by force of reason or other more physical means.
Yes, Roman Catholicism has a marvelous track record from the time of Augustine through the Middle Ages and into the Reformation Age, doesn't it? Queen Mary was very reasonable, wasn't she?
Of course, the problem is a pseudoproblem, for this is only a problem for Romanists like Bill.
If neither means is successful there can only result in diverse groups certain that they have the truth and the rest have it wrong and thus not true churches in the way that they are. It is sometimes said that the differences are not significant and that they agree on the essentials.
This is very general, how about something specific? What are these "significant" differences?
Bill is defining saving faith as dogmatic faith, but where's the supporting argument?
None of this is compatible with Christ's will that the Church be one body with one spirit as God is one. Until all God's people are one the world will not believe, the Great Commission will not be fulfilled, and Christ and Paul are made to appear as liars.
On the contrary, the Great Commission will be fulfilled when the last of the elect is drawn to Christ. It does not depend on visible, ecclesiastical unity.
This is the issue that the Roman apologists are addressing and none of the responses are adequate until there is a single group that can credibly assert that it is the Church Christ founded and that it is in the process of bringing the world into the Kingdom of God in fulfillment of Christ's Great Commission.
This is a vast overstatement, for if true, it would rule out every visible church in the world.
Today one out of every six people in the world is Roman Catholic. How many are there in your group? Remember there is one body and one spirit with one Lord and one God. Even two groups are one too many.
Yes, one of six is Roman Catholic, and how many of those are actually faithful Catholics?
I don't know, Mr. Zuck, for the Bible does not tell us to count the people in that fashion.
Scripture also has a theology of the remnant. You should look it up sometime.
Yes, one of six is Roman Catholic, and how many of those are actually faithful Catholics?
The definition of "faithful Catholic" varies on the Catholic you are talking to.
The hard-core Catholic would say you must believe all the infallible dogmas commanded by the Church (if you can find them all) while the more liberal Catholic would say anyone who has been baptized Catholic.
Not too long ago on my blog I had 2 different answers from 2 different Catholics on this exact question. If they cannot even agree on the definition of a "true Catholic" then how can they even begin to be unified on the hundreds (?) of dogmatic beliefs.
For Bill - recent surveys of Catholics conducted by Catholic organizations have shown than as many as 80% of Catholics do not believe that weekly mass attendance is necessary. Are they all "faithful Catholics"? Another 30% do not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist - faithful Catholics? And 23% of Catholics felt that belief in the bodily ressurection of Christ was not necessary to be "a good Catholic" - are those people of one spirit with your visible organization founded by Christ?
And then there is a recent Barna study which shows how poorly the "faith" of Catholics in America are reflected in their lifestyles, but I'll spare you the details. I would just say that looking to numbers and outward signs/behaviors of being in the body of Christ is not an argument that works well for Catholics.
There are so many issues brought up in your response that it is difficult to make a comprehensive answer to every point in a short post. I will probably have to break it down to several issues and answer each one separately.
The first issue you bring up is the structure of the Church and its seemingly disunited structure. I have not consulted the encyclopedia referenced so I do not know the basis of its analysis and where it is getting its information. While the Eastern Orthodox Church is a communion of autocephalous churches which recognize each other as partners in their unity with Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is a Church of Churches. There are 22 churches with their own liturgy and traditions all unified with each other by their mutual recognition of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as the head of their churches. There are three western rite churches and the rest are eastern rite churches. There are corresponding Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches that share the same liturgy and traditions with them except for the unity of the one with the Pope and the other rejecting that unity. The eastern rite churches have a different code of canon law than that of the western rite. The Papacy is the final court of appeal for all thse churches. A Catholic can receive communion at any of these liturgies because they are all branches of one and the same church. There are also monasteries and other religious institutes which are under the government of the local bishop or directly under the government of the Vatican and operate outside the jurisdiction of the local bishops. Sometimes the local bishop does invite one or the other religious order or society to staff one of the parishes in his diocese. In any case all govern themselves according to their rule approved by the Pope or according to the canon law which has been established for them. Disputes are resolved according to the applicable law and the Pope remains the highest court of appeal. This is how the church remains united in the middle of the many disagreements and disputes between members of the Church.
Jesus said that there were other sheep that he had which were not of his fold at that time but he must also bring them in so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. Paul develops this in Eph.2:11-18. Jesus brings the Gentiles in to the commonwealth of Israel and makes one new man from the two.
In one Spirit we are baptized into one body so that the body has many members not just one. We are washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Holy Spirit.The result is that our polluted fleshly bodies become members of Christ and temples of the Holy Spirit. The Church is thus one body and one spirit. It is an intrinsically visible corporation as Eph.2:11-20 makes clear. The Church is that Body of which Jesus Christ is the Head and all baptized people are the members. There is no other Church than that one Body.
You seem to operate on the assumption that it is Jesus who makes Christians who then make churches, that churches are made by Christians who gather themselves into them for mutual benefit.
I see the truth to be that Jesus rather established his Church to go out and make Christians and it is to carry out this mission until the world is brought into the Church.
You suggested that I need to study the Scriptural theology of the remnant. I would point out that in the Scripture the remnant is the remnant of the Jews who come into the Church. Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in.
In Jeremiah 3:14-19 the Lord says to Israel and Judah. "Return, O backsliding children, for I am married to you. I will take you one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion...At that time Jerusalem shall be called The Throne of the LORD, and all nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem...In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given as an inheritance to your fathers. "But I said: 'How can I put you among the children and give you a pleasant land, a beautiful heritage of the hosts of the nations?' "And I said: 'You shallcall Me, "My Father," and not turn away from Me.'
Notice that God sovereignly regenerates the Jews after all the nations are gathered to the Lord and have the promised land as their heritage so that the remnant of Israel and Judah must be integrated among the nations and the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. This is the goal of the Great Commission and Jesus has promised to be with his church every day until the consummation of this age. This is why he prays that his church will be one so that the world will believe. This must thus be a visible unity that the world can see and so believe.
Unless you can show that your doctrinal system has been preached to the nations without a break since the first century, it cannot stand as the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ through his Church in pursuance of this promise.
I repeat, there must be a single group that can credibly assert that it is the Church Christ established and that it is in the process of bringing the world into the Kingdom of God in fulfillment of Christ's Great Commission.
One out of every six people in the world is Roman Catholic. How large is your group and can they credibly demonstrate that they have continued in existence since the first century teaching and baptizing the nations.
In the Catholic Church, not all are faithful, but all were baptized into the Kingdom and given all they need to be faithful. Jesus is bringing "justice to the nations...a bruised reed he will not break. And a smoking flax hge will not quench."
I will respond to the rest of your comments in the next post.
The first issue you bring up is the structure of the Church and its seemingly disunited structure.
No, I'm bringing up the fact that there is there is as much unity between Catholics as there is among Protestants. Its "unity" is artificial. Upon closer examination it falls apart.
I have not consulted the encyclopedia referenced so I do not know the basis of its analysis and where it is getting its information
This will negate your entire paragraph. If Catholic apologists are quoting this source as an argument against Protestants, then you need to familiarize yourself with it, and if you want to address what White or I have to say about it, then you'll need to do so.
Jesus said that there were other sheep that he had which were not of his fold at that time but he must also bring them in so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. Paul develops this in Eph.2:11-18. Jesus brings the Gentiles in to the commonwealth of Israel and makes one new man from the two.
Does Jesus have in mind a visible institution called the One True Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church? If so, where's the supporting argument?
The Church is that Body of which Jesus Christ is the Head and all baptized people are the members.
A Baptist can make that same argument.
From my perspective Roman Catholics are not validly baptized, so he'll need to demonstrate otherwise.
There is no other Church than that one Body.
Where is the text of Scripture that tells us that Rome is that one true church? Where is the text that shows that this is referring to one visible ecclesiastical community?
You seem to operate on the assumption that it is Jesus who makes Christians who then make churches, that churches are made by Christians who gather themselves into them for mutual benefit.
I see the truth to be that Jesus rather established his Church to go out and make Christians and it is to carry out this mission until the world is brought into the Church.
Where is the supporting argument?
Is not the “Church” a group of Christians? You make a distinction here which can go into all sorts of directions meaning on the word “Church."
I would point out that in the Scripture the remnant is the remnant of the Jews who come into the Church. Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in.
False. Scripture's theology of the remnant deals with Jews being brought into the New Covenant, but it also deals with a minority within the covenant community as a whole. The greater community can be apostate, but there can be those within it that are not. They are the elect within the nation. Such was the case in OT Israel.
This must thus be a visible unity that the world can see and so believe.
Where's the supporting argument? I've not seen any exegetical foundation laid by you.
In Jeremiah 3:14-19 the Lord says to Israel and Judah...
Is this your private interpretation or something that has been infallibly defined for you by Rome? If the former, you're assuming my rule of faith to establish your case, and thereby undermining your rule of faith. If the latter, where can I find it?
Unless you can show that your doctrinal system has been preached to the nations without a break since the first century, it cannot stand as the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ through his Church in pursuance of this promise.
Do you apply this to Rome too? Where is the supporting argument?
To posit an interpretive authority apart in addition to Scripture is sectarianism at its worst. How do we know you have been granted the right in the first place? How can we verify the record of unbroken succession since they are fallible in the first place and subject to induction, that is, they do not claim to belong to divine revelation? and so on
The true rule of faith is not "historical continuity," via a visible ecclesiastical body. The true rule of faith is "that which is true to Scripture."
I'd also point out that the Reformers were, in fact, conscious of this objection and addressed it. Are you familar with their arguments?
And if "historical continuity" is a valid rule, then he'll need to demonstrate that Protestantism is not a valid development per his Communion's beliefs in theological development.
One out of every six people in the world is Roman Catholic. How large is your group and can they credibly demonstrate that they have continued in existence since the first century teaching and baptizing the nations.
Notice that Bill simply repeats himself as if that hasn't been addressed already.
If being part of the one true Church is what saves, then Bill is an ecclesiolater.
Bill needs to make an argument that Scripture shows that Rome is the One True Holy Apostolic Church. For example, where can I find the Marian dogmas, the treasury of merit, and papal infallibility in the subapostolic church?
Mr. Bridges,__Please note that the quantity of groups is not the real issue. Whether its a thousand, a hundred,fifty or ten, it is too many._Jesus prayed ‘that they all may be one...in us, that the world may believe’."
Notice that Zuck is merely *quoting* Jn 17 rather than *exegeting* Jn 17. Where is the supporting argument for his interpretation of Jn 17 and application to the church of Rome?
“Paul in Ephesians tells us that ‘There is one body and one Spirit’."
This reference fatally undercuts his own position, for the polity of the 1C Pauline churches was strikingly different from the polity of modern Roman Catholicism. If Ephesians supplies the standard of comparison, then Ephesians falsifies Catholic polity.
“There is no authoritative way of resolving the disputes because the final authority is in the end the individual believer who decides for himself what the Scripture means, what the Holy Spirit is showing him from Scripture.”
There was also no God-given mechanism to resolve doctrinal disputes in 2nd Temple Judaism. Does this mean the OT rule of faith was a false rule of faith?
“Since there is no authority beyond scripture in the mind of the individual believer there is no other way to resolve disputes than one side overcoming the other by force of reason or other more physical means.”
Once again, Zuck undercuts his own position, for the Catholic church regularly resorted to physical coercion to suppress dissent back when it had the political clout to use force. It was utterly ruthless in that regard.
“Christ and Paul are made to appear as liars.”
Yes, indeed—by Mr. Zuck. For, according to his interpretation, Christ broke his promise in Jn 17. According to his interpretation, Paul’s statement in Ephesians is factually false.
When, on the one hand, Zuck points to divisions within Christendom while, on the other hand, citing his prooftexts, he thereby posits a factual discrepancy between his prooftexts and the real world situation. So he has made Jesus and the apostles out to be liars.
“Today one out of every six people in the world is Roman Catholic.”
i) In Bible history, true believers are in the minority. Jews were in the minority in relation to pagans. Faithful Jews were in the minority in relation to faithless Jews.
ii) How did the Catholic church get to be so big? Through fraud (e.g. the False Decretals) and political machinations (e.g. mass conversion by order of the reigning monarch).
“You suggested that I need to study the Scriptural theology of the remnant. I would point out that in the Scripture the remnant is the remnant of the Jews who come into the Church. Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in.”
Wrong. The remnant motif carries over into the NT. Zuck talks about how big the Catholic church is, as evidence that the church of Rome is the true church. And he also appeals to the shepherd/sheep language and equivalent imagery.
But by so doing he once again torpedoes his own position, for Jesus spoke of the chosen few (Mt 7:14; 20:16; 22:14; 24:22; Lk 13:23).
The separation of the wheat from the tares (Mt 13) also involves a remnant of wheat among a surfeit of tares.
The remnant motif is on further display in the Apocalypse (Rev 2:19; 3:2,4; 11:13; 19:21.
“This must thus be a visible unity that the world can see and so believe.”
How is Catholicism “visibly” united in a way that Evangelicalism is not? All we actually “see” in Catholicism are individual men and women and books and buildings, &c., just as all we actually “see” in Evangelicalism are individual men and women and books and buildings, &c.
Unity in “faith” is not a visible property. You can’t “see” if two or more men share the same faith, for belief is a mental property, not a sensible property.
“Unless you can show that your doctrinal system has been preached to the nations without a break since the first century, it cannot stand as the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ through his Church in pursuance of this promise.”
i) Show us how you actually propose to *exegete* that claim from Mt 28:19.
ii) Not only does your statement have no exegetical rigor, it also has no logical rigor.
There’s actually more than one way to transmit something from A to B. The same runner could carry the torch, in a marathon. Or different runners can hand off the torch, in a relay race.
Continuity does not require identity. It doesn’t have to be the same entity. A series of runners will do just as well as one runner from start to finish.
“One out of every six people in the world is Roman Catholic. How large is your group and can they credibly demonstrate that they have continued in existence since the first century teaching and baptizing the nations.”
If that’s your criterion, then it’s falsified by the Western Schism, in which apostolic succession through Peter was irretrievably broken.
denominational splintering is good not bad. It prevents corruption. If one denomination should lapse into aposatacy or heresy there are others that can come to help, or at least preserve the church. It is harder for the enemy to destroy the church when it is diffused.It imporoves competition, and it allows for a "proof is in the pudding" comparison of what works best. And when it comes to feeding the hungry, healing the sick, comforting widows and orphans and the oppressed, bring all 33,000 denominations on...in 30 years of missionary medical work I never met a medical missionary that I didnt like.
Why not try, just for once, interacting with the articles themselves?
ReplyDeleteFor example:
Before looking at the source of this argument and the problems associated with it, it should be made clear that the entire argument being presented here can only be identified as "bogus." It fails scrutiny at every possible level. The leaps in logic and argumentation are vast. Let's just focus upon two of the obvious problems.
First, how does the Roman Catholic apologist go about demonstrating that sola scriptura is the source of these divisions, specifically? For example, when we see division in the ranks of Rome, and see strong disagreements on key issues, does it follow that the Roman magisterium is to blame for the differences of viewpoint? If a Christian believes the Scriptures a sufficient rule of faith, how does it follow that an abuse of such a sufficient source is an argument against its sufficiency? Such simply does not follow. The Scriptures can be perfectly suited to their purpose, but men are still sinners. Men are still imperfect. Men are still ignorant. And, most importantly, men still have their traditions. So while these apologists pretend it is a "given" that sola scriptura is to blame for these divisions, that assumption is insufficient to prove the argument.
Second, and related thereto, is the painfully obvious observation that only a small percentage of "Protestant" churches today self-consciously even seek to profess, let alone confess and practice, sola scriptura. In fact, a large number of non-Catholic churches embrace all sorts of concepts that violate sola scriptura, so how can the principle be blamed for the actions of those who do not even believe in it?Obviously, it can't be. In reality, those churches that specifically seek to profess, confess, and apply sola scriptura are significantly more united in their theology than those churches that look to some external, inspired/guided source of either interpretation or revelation.
Notice how inconsistent Orthodox is, how often he uses arguments that would defeat his own professed beliefs about Eastern Orthodoxy. He writes:
ReplyDelete"What about the denominations within the denominations?"
Sort of like your disagreements with Eastern Orthodox liberals, like Paul Nadim Tarazi? Or the many other disagreements Eastern Orthodox have with each other, ones we've documented in previous threads in which you've participated?
You write:
"Ok, now take your list, and go to the elders or bishops or deacons or committee or whatever leadership your denomination has decided is the TRUE polity, explain they need to conform with scripture and get it changed. Come back and tell us how far you get. My guess is NOWHERE."
What have you done with your list of disagreements with Tarazi and other Eastern Orthodox? How far have you gotten with that list?
I shouldn't need to remind you, but not all Evangelicals are Anglicans. Protestantism is a movement, not a denomination. A person can agree with Protestant principles or have a historical relationship with the Protestant movement without thereby being responsible for the errors of Anglicans or other groups with a similar Protestant association. As I've explained to you before, and you didn't interact with the point then either, there are movements that Eastern Orthodoxy is associated with as well, such as Eastern Christianity and professing Christianity in general. Should we criticize you for the errors of other groups that are associated with such movements? If a non-Eastern-Orthodox church in the East errs on an issue, should we criticize you for it, since both Eastern Orthodoxy and that other group are part of the larger movement of Eastern Christianity? Eastern Orthodoxy is part of the larger movement of professing Christianity as well, so should we also hold you responsible for the Anglican errors you've criticized? If you're willing to associate with Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and other people you disagree with as part of the larger movement of Christianity, then why criticize Protestants for associating with a smaller number of people they disagree with as part of the Protestant movement? All that you're doing is taking Celsus' objection to Christian diversity and applying it to Protestantism in particular. What's to stop somebody like Celsus from taking your reasoning about Protestantism and applying it to Christianity in general?
ORTHODOX: Hands up who has found a protestant church, other than the most raving liberal one, who does not claim to any more be bound by sola scripture? Didn't think so.
ReplyDeleteOh, here! Here! Teacher, call on me!
Seen quite a few around these parts. And I live in the Midwest. Orthodox, you've got to be kidding.
Every so often this gets trotted out
ReplyDeleteI see it alot more than "every so often" sadly. Even heard it on Fox News (Catholic correspondent) and on a Protestant blog (by the Prot writer).
Will it ever die?
ORTHODOX: Hands up who has found a protestant church, other than the most raving liberal one, who does not claim to any more be bound by sola scripture? Didn't think so.
ReplyDeletePuts hand up. I know of several.
Here's an exercise for the sola scripturalists. Find something that your church is not following from the scriptures. You know which ones. You've got those hobby horses in the back of your mind that if only you were in charge, you'd make the church REALLY scriptural by fixing up these bits and pieces.
I don't have to quote the rest of you post, because it continues to turn on the idea that Sola Scriptura means that the Bible ONLY is the rule for faith and practice.
No, it is the only infallible rule for faith and practice, we may include other traditions as long as they are subject to Scripture.
Which is why I can hold up my hand and name you churches where there are ideas and practices that are being held up over and above Scripture. They have made them untouchable and unquestionable and on an equal or, worse, greater than, Scripture.
Mr. Bridges,
ReplyDeletePlease note that the quantity of groups is not the real issue. Whether its a thousand, a hundred,fifty or ten, it is too many.
Jesus prayed "that they all may be one...in us, that the world may believe." Paul in Ephesians tells us that "There is one body and one Spirit."
There are multiple bodies with Presbyterian in their names, so many that they are spoken of as the split P,s. There are multiple groups with the name Reformed. There are many different kinds of Baptists. The list goes on and on.The Lutherans condemn the Reformed for gross theological error and thus wounding the Gospel, the Reformed respond in kind. The Calvinist and the Arminian attack each other as perverting the Gospel.
There is no authoritative way of resolving the disputes because the final authority is in the end the individual believer who decides for himself what the Scripture means, what the Holy Spirit is showing him from Scripture. This, in the final analysis is what sola scriptura and sola fide means.
Since there is no authority beyond scripture in the mind of the individual believer there is no other way to resolve disputes than one side overcoming the other by force of reason or other more physical means. If neither means is successful there can only result in diverse groups certain that they have the truth and the rest have it wrong and thus not true churches in the way that they are. It is sometimes said that the differences are not significant and that they agree on the essentials. This is very often not true because while they may agree in using the same words to say the same thing, they define the words differently and thus are really not in agreement even when they seem to be saying the same thing.
None of this is compatible with Christ's will that the Church be one body with one spirit as God is one. Until all God's people are one the world will not believe, the Great Commission will not be fulfilled, and Christ and Paul are made to appear as liars.
This is the issue that the Roman apologists are addressing and none of the responses are adequate until there is a single group that can credibly assert that it is the Church Christ founded and that it is in the process of bringing the world into the Kingdom of God in fulfillment of Christ's Great Commission.
Today one out of every six people in the world is Roman Catholic. How many are there in your group? Remember there is one body and one spirit with one Lord and one God. Even two groups are one too many.
Bill Zuck
Bill said:
ReplyDeletePlease note that the quantity of groups is not the real issue. Whether its a thousand, a hundred,fifty or ten, it is too many.
So, in your view, Mr. Zuck, Rome has a problem, or do you give Rome a free pass?
As the source so often quoted states:
* This source lists 781 "Orthodox" denominations (i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy), predicting 887 for 2025.
* This source lists 242 "Roman Catholic" denominations for 2000, predicting 245 for 2025.
Jesus prayed "that they all may be one...in us, that the world may believe." Paul in Ephesians tells us that "There is one body and one Spirit.
This assumes what it needs to prove, namely that visible ecclesiastical unity in a visible single entity (under Rome) is what Jesus had in mind.
In context, Jesus is talking not about visible unity under one umbrella organization.
That describes a very specific kind of spiritual unity that proceeds from our union with Christ. Christ Himself likens it to the unity between Father and Son. It is spiritual unity. Christ also prayed, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." - not, "with visible, organizational unity."
The passage in Ephesians is written to a specific local church. It is a prooftext for the universal church.
It would also apply to unity in the local church in the face of false teachers. Are you part of the one true Ephesian church?
It also overlooks 1 Corinthians. The same Paul that decried factionalism in chapter 1 said in chapter 11:
"For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you."
So, Paul speaks of division in a negative and a positive light.
The simple fact is that there is really no more unity of agreement among Roman Catholics than there is among Protestants.
There are multiple bodies with Presbyterian in their names, so many that they are spoken of as the split P,s. There are multiple groups with the name Reformed. There are many different kinds of Baptists.
The Reformed churches have always been a diverse group. They are a movement, not a denomination.
None of these would say to the other, "You are not true Christians."
Baptists would say that Presbyterians do not have a proper polity, but we recognize that, on our view, the baptized and converted members of their bodies constitute true churches. Even John L. Dagg recognized their elders as true gospel ministers. The Landmark Baptists are about the only Baptists these days who would deny "true church" to some bodies, including other Baptist bodies, but that's due to their ecclesiology, which, I would add, is remarkably like that of Rome.
The list goes on and on.The Lutherans condemn the Reformed for gross theological error and thus wounding the Gospel, the Reformed respond in kind.
No, the issue isn't over "the gospel" the issue is over sacramentology and, due to this, Christology - but not to the point that the gospel is threatened.
The Calvinist and the Arminian attack each other as perverting the Gospel.
That depends on the Arminian and the time in history.
There is no authoritative way of resolving the disputes because the final authority is in the end the individual believer who decides for himself what the Scripture means, what the Holy Spirit is showing him from Scripture.
No, we have our synods, assemblies,associations and Conventions. We also practice local church discipline.
Also, unless you can provide me a list of authoritative Scriptures that Rome has pronounced as infallibly interpreted, how are you in a better position? Tell us, how has your rule of faith succeeded in quelling Liberation Theology in South America, Sedevacatism, and the followers of Hans Kung?
This, in the final analysis is what sola scriptura and sola fide means.
No Sola Fide means we are justified by faith and saved by grace. Sola Scriptura is not interpretation in a vacuum at all. It merely means the infallible authority is Scripture; others are fallible.
Since there is no authority beyond scripture in the mind of the individual believer there is no other way to resolve disputes than one side overcoming the other by force of reason or other more physical means.
Yes, Roman Catholicism has a marvelous track record from the time of Augustine through the Middle Ages and into the Reformation Age, doesn't it? Queen Mary was very reasonable, wasn't she?
Of course, the problem is a pseudoproblem, for this is only a problem for Romanists like Bill.
If neither means is successful there can only result in diverse groups certain that they have the truth and the rest have it wrong and thus not true churches in the way that they are. It is sometimes said that the differences are not significant and that they agree on the essentials.
This is very general, how about something specific? What are these "significant" differences?
Bill is defining saving faith as dogmatic faith, but where's the supporting argument?
None of this is compatible with Christ's will that the Church be one body with one spirit as God is one. Until all God's people are one the world will not believe, the Great Commission will not be fulfilled, and Christ and Paul are made to appear as liars.
On the contrary, the Great Commission will be fulfilled when the last of the elect is drawn to Christ. It does not depend on visible, ecclesiastical unity.
This is the issue that the Roman apologists are addressing and none of the responses are adequate until there is a single group that can credibly assert that it is the Church Christ founded and that it is in the process of bringing the world into the Kingdom of God in fulfillment of Christ's Great Commission.
This is a vast overstatement, for if true, it would rule out every visible church in the world.
Today one out of every six people in the world is Roman Catholic. How many are there in your group? Remember there is one body and one spirit with one Lord and one God. Even two groups are one too many.
Yes, one of six is Roman Catholic, and how many of those are actually faithful Catholics?
I don't know, Mr. Zuck, for the Bible does not tell us to count the people in that fashion.
Scripture also has a theology of the remnant. You should look it up sometime.
Yes, one of six is Roman Catholic, and how many of those are actually faithful Catholics?
ReplyDeleteThe definition of "faithful Catholic" varies on the Catholic you are talking to.
The hard-core Catholic would say you must believe all the infallible dogmas commanded by the Church (if you can find them all) while the more liberal Catholic would say anyone who has been baptized Catholic.
Not too long ago on my blog I had 2 different answers from 2 different Catholics on this exact question. If they cannot even agree on the definition of a "true Catholic" then how can they even begin to be unified on the hundreds (?) of dogmatic beliefs.
For Bill - recent surveys of Catholics conducted by Catholic organizations have shown than as many as 80% of Catholics do not believe that weekly mass attendance is necessary. Are they all "faithful Catholics"? Another 30% do not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist - faithful Catholics? And 23% of Catholics felt that belief in the bodily ressurection of Christ was not necessary to be "a good Catholic" - are those people of one spirit with your visible organization founded by Christ?
And then there is a recent Barna study which shows how poorly the "faith" of Catholics in America are reflected in their lifestyles, but I'll spare you the details. I would just say that looking to numbers and outward signs/behaviors of being in the body of Christ is not an argument that works well for Catholics.
Mr. Bridges,
ReplyDeleteThere are so many issues brought up in your response that it is difficult to make a comprehensive answer to every point in a short post. I will probably have to break it down to several issues and answer each one separately.
The first issue you bring up is the structure of the Church and its seemingly disunited structure. I have not consulted the encyclopedia referenced so I do not know the basis of its analysis and where it is getting its information. While the Eastern Orthodox Church is a communion of autocephalous churches which recognize each other as partners in their unity with Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is a Church of Churches. There are 22 churches with their own liturgy and traditions all unified with each other by their mutual recognition of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as the head of their churches. There are three western rite churches and the rest are eastern rite churches. There are corresponding Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches that share the same liturgy and traditions with them except for the unity of the one with the Pope and the other rejecting that unity. The eastern rite churches have a different code of canon law than that of the western rite. The Papacy is the final court of appeal for all thse churches. A Catholic can receive communion at any of these liturgies because they are all branches of one and the same church. There are also monasteries and other religious institutes which are under the government of the local bishop or directly under the government of the Vatican and operate outside the jurisdiction of the local bishops. Sometimes the local bishop does invite one or the other religious order or society to staff one of the parishes in his diocese. In any case all govern themselves according to their rule approved by the Pope or according to the canon law which has been established for them. Disputes are resolved according to the applicable law and the Pope remains the highest court of appeal. This is how the church remains united in the middle of the many disagreements and disputes between members of the Church.
Jesus said that there were other sheep that he had which were not of his fold at that time but he must also bring them in so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. Paul develops this in Eph.2:11-18. Jesus brings the Gentiles in to the commonwealth of Israel and makes one new man from the two.
In one Spirit we are baptized into one body so that the body has many members not just one. We are washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Holy Spirit.The result is that our polluted fleshly bodies become members of Christ and temples of the Holy Spirit. The Church is thus one body and one spirit. It is an intrinsically visible corporation as Eph.2:11-20 makes clear. The Church is that Body of which Jesus Christ is the Head and all baptized people are the members. There is no other Church than that one Body.
You seem to operate on the assumption that it is Jesus who makes Christians who then make churches, that churches are made by Christians who gather themselves into them for mutual benefit.
I see the truth to be that Jesus rather established his Church to go out and make Christians and it is to carry out this mission until the world is brought into the Church.
You suggested that I need to study the Scriptural theology of the remnant. I would point out that in the Scripture the remnant is the remnant of the Jews who come into the Church. Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in.
In Jeremiah 3:14-19 the Lord says to Israel and Judah. "Return, O backsliding children, for I am married to you. I will take you one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion...At that time Jerusalem shall be called The Throne of the LORD, and all nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem...In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given as an inheritance to your fathers. "But I said: 'How can I put you among the children and give you a pleasant land, a beautiful heritage of the hosts of the nations?' "And I said: 'You shallcall Me, "My Father," and not turn away from Me.'
Notice that God sovereignly regenerates the Jews after all the nations are gathered to the Lord and have the promised land as their heritage so that the remnant of Israel and Judah must be integrated among the nations and the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. This is the goal of the Great Commission and Jesus has promised to be with his church every day until the consummation of this age. This is why he prays that his church will be one so that the world will believe. This must thus be a visible unity that the world can see and so believe.
Unless you can show that your doctrinal system has been preached to the nations without a break since the first century, it cannot stand as the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ through his Church in pursuance of this promise.
I repeat, there must be a single group that can credibly assert that it is the Church Christ established and that it is in the process of bringing the world into the Kingdom of God in fulfillment of Christ's Great Commission.
One out of every six people in the world is Roman Catholic. How large is your group and can they credibly demonstrate that they have continued in existence since the first century teaching and baptizing the nations.
In the Catholic Church, not all are faithful, but all were baptized into the Kingdom and given all they need to be faithful. Jesus is bringing "justice to the nations...a bruised reed he will not break. And a smoking flax hge will not quench."
I will respond to the rest of your comments in the next post.
Bill Zuck
The first issue you bring up is the structure of the Church and its seemingly disunited structure.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm bringing up the fact that there is there is as much unity between Catholics as there is among Protestants. Its "unity" is artificial. Upon closer examination it falls apart.
I have not consulted the encyclopedia referenced so I do not know the basis of its analysis and where it is getting its information
This will negate your entire paragraph. If Catholic apologists are quoting this source as an argument against Protestants, then you need to familiarize yourself with it, and if you want to address what White or I have to say about it, then you'll need to do so.
Jesus said that there were other sheep that he had which were not of his fold at that time but he must also bring them in so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. Paul develops this in Eph.2:11-18. Jesus brings the Gentiles in to the commonwealth of Israel and makes one new man from the two.
Does Jesus have in mind a visible institution called the One True Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church? If so, where's the supporting argument?
The Church is that Body of which Jesus Christ is the Head and all baptized people are the members.
A Baptist can make that same argument.
From my perspective Roman Catholics are not validly baptized, so he'll need to demonstrate otherwise.
There is no other Church than that one Body.
Where is the text of Scripture that tells us that Rome is that one true church? Where is the text that shows that this is referring to one visible ecclesiastical community?
You seem to operate on the assumption that it is Jesus who makes Christians who then make churches, that churches are made by Christians who gather themselves into them for mutual benefit.
I see the truth to be that Jesus rather established his Church to go out and make Christians and it is to carry out this mission until the world is brought into the Church.
Where is the supporting argument?
Is not the “Church” a group of Christians? You make a distinction here which can go into all sorts of directions meaning on the word “Church."
I would point out that in the Scripture the remnant is the remnant of the Jews who come into the Church. Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in.
False. Scripture's theology of the remnant deals with Jews being brought into the New Covenant, but it also deals with a minority within the covenant community as a whole. The greater community can be apostate, but there can be those within it that are not. They are the elect within the nation. Such was the case in OT Israel.
This must thus be a visible unity that the world can see and so believe.
Where's the supporting argument? I've not seen any exegetical foundation laid by you.
In Jeremiah 3:14-19 the Lord says to Israel and Judah...
Is this your private interpretation or something that has been infallibly defined for you by Rome? If the former, you're assuming my rule of faith to establish your case, and thereby undermining your rule of faith. If the latter, where can I find it?
Unless you can show that your doctrinal system has been preached to the nations without a break since the first century, it cannot stand as the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ through his Church in pursuance of this promise.
Do you apply this to Rome too? Where is the supporting argument?
To posit an interpretive authority apart in addition to Scripture is sectarianism at its worst. How do we know you have been granted the right in the first place? How can we verify the record of unbroken succession since they are fallible in the first place and subject to induction, that is, they do not claim to belong to divine revelation? and so on
The true rule of faith is not "historical continuity," via a visible ecclesiastical body. The true rule of faith is "that which is true to Scripture."
I'd also point out that the Reformers were, in fact, conscious of this objection and addressed it. Are you familar with their arguments?
And if "historical continuity" is a valid rule, then he'll need to demonstrate that Protestantism is not a valid development per his Communion's beliefs in theological development.
One out of every six people in the world is Roman Catholic. How large is your group and can they credibly demonstrate that they have continued in existence since the first century teaching and baptizing the nations.
Notice that Bill simply repeats himself as if that hasn't been addressed already.
If being part of the one true Church is what saves, then Bill is an ecclesiolater.
Bill needs to make an argument that Scripture shows that Rome is the One True Holy Apostolic Church. For example, where can I find the Marian dogmas, the treasury of merit, and papal infallibility in the subapostolic church?
Mr. Bridges,__Please note that the quantity of groups is not the real issue. Whether its a thousand, a hundred,fifty or ten, it is too many._Jesus prayed ‘that they all may be one...in us, that the world may believe’."
ReplyDeleteNotice that Zuck is merely *quoting* Jn 17 rather than *exegeting* Jn 17. Where is the supporting argument for his interpretation of Jn 17 and application to the church of Rome?
“Paul in Ephesians tells us that ‘There is one body and one Spirit’."
This reference fatally undercuts his own position, for the polity of the 1C Pauline churches was strikingly different from the polity of modern Roman Catholicism. If Ephesians supplies the standard of comparison, then Ephesians falsifies Catholic polity.
“There is no authoritative way of resolving the disputes because the final authority is in the end the individual believer who decides for himself what the Scripture means, what the Holy Spirit is showing him from Scripture.”
There was also no God-given mechanism to resolve doctrinal disputes in 2nd Temple Judaism. Does this mean the OT rule of faith was a false rule of faith?
“Since there is no authority beyond scripture in the mind of the individual believer there is no other way to resolve disputes than one side overcoming the other by force of reason or other more physical means.”
Once again, Zuck undercuts his own position, for the Catholic church regularly resorted to physical coercion to suppress dissent back when it had the political clout to use force. It was utterly ruthless in that regard.
“Christ and Paul are made to appear as liars.”
Yes, indeed—by Mr. Zuck. For, according to his interpretation, Christ broke his promise in Jn 17. According to his interpretation, Paul’s statement in Ephesians is factually false.
When, on the one hand, Zuck points to divisions within Christendom while, on the other hand, citing his prooftexts, he thereby posits a factual discrepancy between his prooftexts and the real world situation. So he has made Jesus and the apostles out to be liars.
“Today one out of every six people in the world is Roman Catholic.”
i) In Bible history, true believers are in the minority. Jews were in the minority in relation to pagans. Faithful Jews were in the minority in relation to faithless Jews.
ii) How did the Catholic church get to be so big? Through fraud (e.g. the False Decretals) and political machinations (e.g. mass conversion by order of the reigning monarch).
“You suggested that I need to study the Scriptural theology of the remnant. I would point out that in the Scripture the remnant is the remnant of the Jews who come into the Church. Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in.”
ReplyDeleteWrong. The remnant motif carries over into the NT. Zuck talks about how big the Catholic church is, as evidence that the church of Rome is the true church. And he also appeals to the shepherd/sheep language and equivalent imagery.
But by so doing he once again torpedoes his own position, for Jesus spoke of the chosen few (Mt 7:14; 20:16; 22:14; 24:22; Lk 13:23).
The separation of the wheat from the tares (Mt 13) also involves a remnant of wheat among a surfeit of tares.
The remnant motif is on further display in the Apocalypse (Rev 2:19; 3:2,4; 11:13; 19:21.
“This must thus be a visible unity that the world can see and so believe.”
How is Catholicism “visibly” united in a way that Evangelicalism is not? All we actually “see” in Catholicism are individual men and women and books and buildings, &c., just as all we actually “see” in Evangelicalism are individual men and women and books and buildings, &c.
Unity in “faith” is not a visible property. You can’t “see” if two or more men share the same faith, for belief is a mental property, not a sensible property.
“Unless you can show that your doctrinal system has been preached to the nations without a break since the first century, it cannot stand as the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ through his Church in pursuance of this promise.”
i) Show us how you actually propose to *exegete* that claim from Mt 28:19.
ii) Not only does your statement have no exegetical rigor, it also has no logical rigor.
There’s actually more than one way to transmit something from A to B. The same runner could carry the torch, in a marathon. Or different runners can hand off the torch, in a relay race.
Continuity does not require identity. It doesn’t have to be the same entity. A series of runners will do just as well as one runner from start to finish.
“One out of every six people in the world is Roman Catholic. How large is your group and can they credibly demonstrate that they have continued in existence since the first century teaching and baptizing the nations.”
If that’s your criterion, then it’s falsified by the Western Schism, in which apostolic succession through Peter was irretrievably broken.
denominational splintering is good not bad. It prevents corruption. If one denomination should lapse into aposatacy or heresy there are others that can come to help, or at least preserve the church. It is harder for the enemy to destroy the church when it is diffused.It imporoves competition, and it allows for a "proof is in the pudding" comparison of what works best. And when it comes to feeding the hungry, healing the sick, comforting widows and orphans and the oppressed, bring all 33,000 denominations on...in 30 years of missionary medical work I never met a medical missionary that I didnt like.
ReplyDelete