Further Problems with Sola Scriptura.

Sola scriptura is a doctrine of the Reformation that is defined at Wikipedia as - 

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

The Scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, the ecumenical creeds, the councils of the Christian Church, and so on. However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

Some problems with sola scriptura as defined above are presented below –

1)    The doctrine of sola scriptura (SS) is not found within the biblical canon. No verse states the doctrine and not combination of verses can be used to arrive at the doctrine of SS. Hence SS is a doctrine outside the scriptures, which contradicts the doctrinal content of SS which says the doctrine must be found within the scriptures.

2)    Because the doctrine of sola scriptura (SS) is not found, nor derived from the biblical text, SS is then defined according to the person who wants to define it. Hence the doctrine of SS is only a subjective description of what its adherents want it to mean. As SS is only subjective, SS is merely the opinion of some, who hold to the doctrine, without any mandate from revelation.

3)    SS assumes a method or methods required to interpret the text. Such methods are not specified within the text, hence SS is dependent upon methods which must be brought to the text. As such methods vary widely, methods may be used to arrive at contrary conclusions regarding the meaning of the text. Hence SS is in practice unworkable.

4)    SS rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. Yet the bible does not reject any infallible authority outside the bible. Hence SS rejects what the bible does not reject.

5)    SS assumes the rejection of any original infallible authority other than the Bible, yet there is no evidence within the NT that Jesus wanted only a text to be the infallible rule of faith during the apostolic age. Hence SS assumes Jesus wanted SS to be true, even though there is no evidence in the bible that Jesus wanted SS to be true. Hence SS requires its adherents to be agnostic about the divine intent behind SS.

6)    SS rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible, and thereby rejects any oral tradition from the apostles as being from God. Yet the apostolic age assumes the gospel was predominantly preached by the apostles to the people. Such preaching occurred without the NT. Hence if the preaching was not infallible, then the apostles may have been in error when spreading the good news. SS then concludes that during the apostolic age, the apostles may have taught false doctrines which could have led people to hell.

7)    SS is not found in church history prior to the reformation, nor in the bible. Hence SS is an invention of the reformers. Such an invention means the reformers invented their own doctrine apart from revelation. Hence SS is not revealed by God, but only a human invention.

8)    As SS is not in the bible, nor church history, then SS is an invention of the reformation. But SS says the sole infallible rule of faith is the scriptures. Hence the reformers must have had either an 1) infallible or 2) fallible knowledge that SS was true. If 1), then SS excludes such knowledge for that knowledge is only to be found in the reformers themselves apart from revelation. Hence SS infers a source of infallibility outside the confines of the doctrine, making the source of the doctrine inconsistent with the confines of infallibility as stated by SS.

If 2), then SS is a fallible doctrine that assumes the confines of infallibility to a known text. If so, to hold to SS infers nobody except God knows with certainty if the text alone is infallible.

9)    SS assumes the original documents were inspired by God, but does not have anything to say about the numerous versions of the bible translations. As we only have access to translations and not the original inspired texts we cannot know which modern texts are infallible and which are not. Hence SS assumes the infallibility of the original texts, which does not carry over into the modern translations. Hence SS is impractical and of little use with regard to modern biblical translations.

10)  SS assumes a biblical canon which is known to be infallible, yet there is more than one biblical canon in use by Christians and Jews. Hence SS assumes the unresolved problem of the biblical canon. One may argue that SS assumes the reformers had solved the canon problem, however the reformers who rejected the Catholic magisterium and assumed an authority of the individual believer, did not have the authority to resolve the canon. SS assumes a canon, where a canon cannot be found consistently among believers. Hence SS assumes to much that cannot be resolved by those who do not have the authority to determine the limits of the canon.

11)  SS assumes a biblical canon which is known to be infallible, yet there are no criteria specified within the biblical canon to determine the extent of the canon. One may derive some criteria for the canon, but such criteria are always dependent upon the believers understanding of what inspiration means and infers. The lack of objective criteria for the meaning of inspiration and the effects of inspiration infer SS is always a doctrine founded upon the error of subjectivism.

12) SS says church council's and creeds are secondary sources have authority derived from the bible, yet the bible never states the church, or creeds must be derived from the bible, nor have any authority derived from the bible, nor are secondary sources below the bible. SS is then foreign to what the bible teaches regarding the authority of the church and creeds.

13) SS says the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible rue of faith and practice, yet there are many moral problems which have arisen since the formation of the canon that are not included in the bible. For example the modern problems associated with medical procedures, such as IVF, cloning, and surrogacy of children are not discussed in the bible, yet the Christian must make moral decisions about such, and other matters. As there are many moral problems not included in the scriptures, Christian morality cannot ever be restricted to the bible alone as the sole infallible source of doctrine and practice.

14)  SS says the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible rue of faith and practice, yet nowhere in the bible does the text actually define in clear terms everything that must be believed and practiced to be a Christian. Hence the doctrine of SS assumes the Christian scriptures can be defined within the confines of Christianity, when Christianity is neither formally defined in the scriptures, nor in SS. Hence everything that must be believed and practiced to be Christian must be defined by another authority outside the scriptures and SS. Hence the proper definition of Christian requires an adherent of SS to rely upon both the bible as the sole infallible source of doctrine and practice, but also another source to correctly define what these so called infallible doctrines and practices are. Hence SS is an incoherent doctrine.

15) SS assumes access to the bible and the ability to read and comprehend the bible. As access to the bible was not available until after the invention of the printing press and much of the world still remains illiterate, SS is incompatible with human history and the human condition. Hence SS is false.

16) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, yet if this were so, the bible should be itself sufficient and no other means of understanding the bible is required. Yet the bible is taught in seminaries, where students are informed from professors of the denominational traditions which have emerged as interpretations of said text. SS assumes such traditions are subordinated to scripture, yet because those who hold to SS cannot agree on what the text means, then SS implies an agnosticism about the truth value of divine revelation. 

      SS assumes the bible is the infallible source of faith and morals, but in practice concludes that mankind really never knows the meaning of the infallible source of faith and morals. Hence SS is unworkable in practice.

17) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, yet SS is not in the church fathers, nor church councils, nor the bible. Hence SS is a secret doctrine invented by the reformers, like that of the Gnostics in the early church who held to a secret knowledge as the gospel. The doctrine of SS is then a novel doctrine that is fundamentally based upon the false notion of secret knowledge, whereby only the reformers of the 16th C knew the true gospel, based upon the secrets of SS and sola fide (which is another invention). Hence SS is a false doctrine.

18) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, yet the doctrine is really only an attempt to invent a false authority in a collection of books and thereby ignore the well established authority of tradition, scripture and the church's teaching magisterium. The three sources of authority are well sourced in church history from the time of the apostles, but must be ignored and the new, novel doctrine of SS promoted. The doctrine of SS is then at odds with the witness of church history. 

19) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, which places too much weight on the biblical documents and insufficient weight on other sources of revelation. By ignoring tradition and the magisterium, the bible must then account for all matters of faith and morals, in all ages alone. As the bible does not do this, whereas the three sources of revelation in tradition, scripture and the church's teaching magisterium can account for all matters on faith and morals, the bible becomes like a fish out of water. As the fish cannot live without water, so too the bible cannot properly function without the proper support of the authority found in tradition, and the church's teaching magisterium. Hence the over emphasis of biblical authority at the expense of tradition, and the church's teaching magisterium infers SS is false.

20) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, yet the bible in both the old testament and new testament was given to a faith community, which had its own traditions and priests who passed down the meaning of the scriptures to the community. The doctrine of SS attempts to ignore or at least downplay the role of the oral traditions, and priestly teaching on the biblical documents. In doing so SS must act as a doctrine that is at odds with the intent of those documents - to be read within the living tradition of the faith community. Hence SS is false, or at least deeply flawed.

JM

A Problem with Sola Scriptura.

Below, a preliminary discussion is presented, followed by an argument against sola scriptura and answers to some objections concerning the argument. 


Preliminary Discussion

Sola Scriptura is a fundamental doctrine of the Reformation. If Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine, then the Reformation is based upon a false teaching derived from man and should be abandoned.

According to Wikipedia, sola scriptura is the doctrine which states -

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

Sola scriptura is dependent upon several other doctrines such as -

The divine inspiration of scripture - The texts identified as scripture are said to be scripture for those texts have been identified as being authored by God. The divine authorship of the texts is termed inspiration. According to the Westminster Confession of Faith -

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

[9] 2PE 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2TI 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 1JO 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 1 TH 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The Inerrancy of Scripture - Because God is the principle author of the inspired text the text must be without error. For God as the principle author, is the prime cause, which is efficacious according to the manner in which the human author wrote the inspired text. Inerrancy is a larger category than infallibility, which includes all facts that can be known through science such as the historical existence of King David, and the Davidic Kingdom.

Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Protestant Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching";[1] or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".[2]

The infallibility of Scripture - The bible is without error on matters of faith and morals. Infallibility is concerned with faith and morals, such as the existence of God as a Trinity of Persons, Christ as true God, and the doctrines covering Christian morals, such as the ten commandments and the sacraments.

Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice is wholly useful and true. It is the "belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose. Some equate 'inerrancy' and 'infallibility'; others do not."[1]

Biblical Inspiration in relation to the Supernatural Order.

Biblical inspiration infers the doctrine of the Trinity, whereby God is a Trinity of persons as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
For inspiration says the Holy Spirit is the author of the biblical text.
And the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Blessed Trinity.
Therefore the third person, infers the first and second persons of the Trinity.
Therefore biblical inspiration infers God is a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As biblical inspiration infers the doctrine of the Trinity, biblical inspiration also infers the doctrine of the supernatural (SN) order.
The SN order is a manner of existing and acting that is beyond the natural order.
The natural order is the realm in which natural things exist and act in accord with their natures. For example, man exists and acts to perform natural actions such as eating, walking and talking.
The existence and life of God as a Trinity is a way of living that is beyond the natural order, whereby by creature cannot act to naturally know God as a Trinity through a natural act of knowledge alone.
As the content of the SN order cannot be known within the natural order via any act within the natural order alone, the content of the SN can only be known via a SN act of God communicated within the natural order, which is beyond the power of the natural order^*.
For example, man can naturally reason to truths, such as the truths of maths and science. Such reasoning is a natural act which arrives at truths within the nature of man to know through the natural act of reason. But man cannot reason to the existence of the life of the Trinity within God. For the Trinity is not within the natural order and is thereby not based upon 1) any principle of reason or 2) deduced by any argument of reason within the natural order. 

Example using a principle of reason -

The principle of unity, whereby a thing is what it is, and is not another, cannot arrive at the Trinity, even though God is one nature, in accord with the principle of unity. For God as a Trinity is both one in accord with nature and three according to divine person. The Trinity of persons is thereby beyond the principle of unity encountered within the natural order.

Example using reasoned argument -

No reasoned argument can arrive at the conclusion that God is a Trinity, for the Trinity is the sole uncreated content of the SN order, which is from its nature as SN, beyond natural knowledge. Some theologians such as Richard of St Victor have attempted to argue for the existence of the Trinity from reason alone, but have failed. The failure of Richard's arguments is not only from errors contained within his reasoning, but from the false premise that reason alone can arrive at the truth of the Trinitarian God. For reason alone is always based upon natural principles and never SN principles. Such natural principles must always arrive at natural truths proportionate to the natural principles. As the SN truth of the Trinity is beyond natural principles, then any natural principle of reason cannot conclude to a knowledge of the content of the SN order.

^* The supernatural, which is naturally beyond the natural order, means the content of the SN order can only be given to men by God, in a top-down manner and not a bottom-up manner as through reason, as shown above, or by faith, as shown below (objection 2). The supernatural to natural relationship is one of greatest (SN), to lesser (natural), whereby any reality in the SN order must be made known to man, by God, who acts from the SN order to then grant men know something of the SN order. Such a manner of revealing divine truth may be either by 1) God directly inspiring the prophets, or 2) the teaching authority of the church as the institution through which God chooses to establish and act through to convey SN truths. Both 1 and 2 are related to each other and may be discussed later.

Conclusion - The doctrine of Biblical Inspiration infers the supernatural order, whereby neither 1) the content of the SN order can be known by human reason alone, nor 2) the divine authorship of a text can be known by reason alone.

Biblical Inspiration in relation to biblical Inerrancy and Biblical Infallibility.

Biblical Inspiration implies both biblical Inerrancy and Biblical Infallibility. For a text that is authored by God is without error, for God as the principle author can only ever act perfectly and thereby without error to write a text without error. Thereby, because both biblical Inerrancy and Biblical Infallibility assume a text is without error in different respects, the divine authorship of the scriptures infers both biblical Inerrancy and Biblical Infallibility.

Biblical inerrancy is a property of Biblical Inspiration whereby the text has no errors concerning any statements contained within the text. Such errors, if found, could be known by natural reason alone. Hence because natural reason can arrive at the conclusion that a particular text is in error on a matter of science, or historical fact, Biblical inerrancy is then a natural effect of Biblical Inspiration. For example, if the biblical text said King Zemekiah did exist, and historical research found that rather than king Zemekiah, king Zedekiah instead existed, then the error in the text of King Zemekiah is an error naturally known to man.

The errors that can be known to man through the reason of science are errors arrived at through acts within the natural order. Such errors are sufficient to discredit any claim that a text is authored by God, for God cannot author any error, only if the errors are real. Yet contrarily, if no errors were found within a text, one cannot conclude to the SN authorship of the bible. For it is a non sequitur for a series of natural truths contained within any text to have been written by a SN author, such as the Holy Spirit. The non sequitur is evident by noting that any text written by man, such as a maths text, can be without error, but such inerrancy of the text does not infer the author of the maths text is God as the Holy Spirit.

Similarly, biblical infallibility concerning matters of faith and morals does not conclude to the divine authorship of the text. For a text may be adequately defended to demonstrate no error on faith or morals exists in the texts, but a lack of errors in faith and morals does not conclude to the divine authorship of the text. It is a non sequitur to conclude that no errors on faith and morals concludes to the divine authorship of a text, for a text may have been written by men after the fact, and without any help from a divine, SN agent.

Conclusion - Biblical Inspiration does infer biblical inerrancy and biblical infallibility. But inerrancy and infallibility of a text whereby the text lacks any errors, is insufficient to conclude to divine authorship of any text, including the biblical text.


An argument against sola scriptura.

An argument against sola scriptura is presented below using the information given above.

Sola scriptura is the doctrine that states the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.
But sola scriptura includes the doctrine of divine inspiration of the biblical text, which in turn infers the supernatural order and doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility of the biblical texts.
But biblical Inspiration infers 1) the supernatural order, and 2) a supernatural author, whereby neither of which can be known by reason alone.
And inerrancy and infallibility of the biblical text do not infer from reason alone that the biblical text is inspired by God.
So from reason alone, it is not possible to know that the Holy Spirit exists, nor that the Holy Spirit is the author of any text, even if the text is proven to be without error.
Hence, because sola scriptura infers the doctrines of 1) the content supernatural order (Trinity), and 2) the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility of the biblical texts, which cannot be known by reason, then sola scriptura is without reason.
What is without reason is arbitrary and thereby unreasonable.
What is unreasonable, is not to be held as reasonable.
What is not to be held as reasonable is against human nature as rational.
What is against human nature as rational is irrational.
What is irrational is false.
Hence sola scriptura is false.

Objections to the Above Argument Proposed and Answered - 

Objection 1 - Reason may be used in a manner that is not apodictic to show the bible is without error and therefore inspiration of the text is probable, whereby Christians have good reason to believe in the doctrine of biblical inspiration.

Answer 1 - Reason may conclude that a text is without error, but inspiration is not inferred by inerrancy. Hence an inerrant text has no value at all to conclude a text is inspired by God, for inerrancy is merely a natural property of a text, whereas inspiration is a supernatural property of a text. A natural property of a text does not infer any supernatural property of a text.

Objection 2 - Reason may not conclude to the inspiration of a text, but man is not restricted to reason alone and may make an act of faith that a text is inspired. Once faith is used to establish a text is inspired then the doctrine of sola scriptura may then be derived from the text, along with the use of reason.

Answer 2 - Faith cannot establish either that any text is inspired, nor the content of any inspired text, for faith is only a virtue whereby man believes what God has revealed on account of God who is prime truth has revealed those truths. Faith then can only believe what God has revealed and faith then cannot establish that 1) any text is inspired, nor 2) the extent of the content of the inspired text, unless God has revealed 1 and 2. Furthermore, because sola scriptura states the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, then 1 and 2 must be found in the scriptures alone. Hence Christian faith must act along with the doctrine of sola scriptura to determine the inspiration of the biblical text. But because neither the inspiration of the biblical text, nor the extent of the inspired biblical text is ever taught within the biblical text, Christian faith cannot be used to conclude to 1 and 2. Hence there is no means, through either reason, or Christian faith to conclude to the inspiration of the biblical text.

Objection 3 - The biblical text has numerous statements about inspiration, claiming that scripture is God's Word, and thereby has God as the author. Hence the fact that a text is inspired may be deduced. Following this deduction, the extent of the biblical text my then be deduced from the truths contained within those texts.

Answer 3 - Statements such as all scripture is inspired (2 Tim 3:16) do not conclude to the existence of any inspired text. For the definition of scripture does not conclude to the existence of a text that is inspired. Further, a definition of inspiration in 2 Tim 3:16 does not prescribe the means by which an inspired text is identified. Hence any argument that attempts to provide the means to determine the extent of the inspired text must do so apart from the biblical text which provides no method. Hence any method no described within the text is in breach of sola scriptura, which assumes such a method is prescribed within the sacred text.

Objection 4 - If neither reason nor faith can be used to determine if a text is inspired, or the extent of an inspired text, then one may assume the biblical text is inspired.

Answer 4 - To assume the biblical text is inspired means the Christian does not have adequate foundation in reason or faith to establish the doctrines of biblical inspiration nor the doctrine of sola scriptura. Hence to assume a text is inspired does not provide adequate reason to promote Christian faith in doctrines such as the Trinity, redemption, salvation and so on.

Objection 5 - One may refer to history and tradition to conclude to the extent of the inspired text and thereby save the doctrines of sola scriptura and biblical inspiration.

Answer 5 - An appeal to history, such as the use of biblical books in the liturgy, or the canon of scripture pronounced by church councils only means the biblical canon is established from authorities outside the biblical text. Such a method must contradict the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura, which excludes any ultimate authority outside the biblical text to be used above the authority of the biblical text to determine Christian doctrine. As the inspiration of the biblical text is said to be established by authorities apart from and above the bible, the extent of the biblical canon and inspiration of the biblical texts are established in a manner which contradicts sola scriptura.

Objection 6 - The inspiration of the biblical text may be inferred by using the example of the first believers who believed, based upon the authority of the Word spoken to them. Hence examples found within the biblical text may be used as the foundation to establish the canon of scripture and then derive the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Answer 6 - The example of men acting to believe does not infer any text is known to be inspired through any method using reason alone, or faith alone, or a combination of reason and faith. Nor does belief in the early church infer any NT text is inspired. Men converted to Christianity in the apostolic age due to the preaching of the apostles, whereby the apostles persuaded many of the truth of Christs passion and resurrection, along with the miracles performed by the apostles. 

The Christian belief that came about through St Paul and other apostles debating the Jews using the OT texts in relation to the Christ event only means the OT was understood to be inspired at that time by the Jews, for Israel had the authority of the chair of Moses (Matt 23:1-3) and the use of the OT texts within the Mosaic covenant liturgy. For the Jew, inspiration implied the authority of Israel as a kingdom of priests to authoritatively determine the extent of the OT canon. Such an authority is excluded by the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Furthermore, early Christian faith was based upon apostolic oral tradition from the apostles preaching, which did not form the content of the inspired NT text. Preaching and conversion to Christianity does not conclude to any NT text as being inspired. Preaching and conversion on concludes to grace being granted to preach and convert and nothing more.

Final Conclusion - If one holds to the doctrine of sola scriptura one is unable to establish that any text is inspired, nor the biblical text is inspired. Hence, because the Reformation is based upon sola scriptura, the Reformation should be abandoned.

JM

An Argument for the Name of God as the Fitting Name of the 1 Prime Cause, 2 Prime Mover, 3 Prime Perfecter, 4 Prime Orderer, and 5 Necessary Being.

The prime cause is the first being which positively influences another thing.
The prime mover is the first being which positively influences another thing according to motion.
Motion is a species of cause.
What is a species of cause is a cause.
Therefore the prime cause is the prime mover.
Similarly, perfection and order also positively influence another and are thereby species of cause.
Therefore the prime cause is the prime perfecter, which is also the prime orderer.

Also, the prime being is that being which is unreceptive to being.
What is unreceptive to being is being by nature.
Being by nature is the necessary being.
Therefore the prime cause is the necessary being.

What are the same according to being is the same being.
The prime cause is the prime mover, perfecter, orderer, and necessary being, and thereby the same according to being.
Hence the prime cause, mover, perfecter, orderer, and necessary being is the same being.

What is many under diverse aspects, but one in being has a unity of being and diversity under different aspects.
A name of a thing fittingly indicates the nature of a thing as it is one being.
The nature of the one that is prime must be in proportion to the perfections of the prime, which are in turn not proportional to the perfections of a creature.
The perfections of the prime, are perfections without limit, had simply in one being, contrary to that of creatures.
Such perfection of the prime is perfection far beyond the perfection of a creature.
The name of the thing that fittingly indicates -

1) the one-ness of the prime being.
2) the prime cause, mover, perfecter, orderer, and necessary being
3) perfection far beyond that of all creatures.

is that name which can be said of the supreme one which is supreme, and indicates perfection beyond and contrary to the many creatures.
That name of the supreme one is fittingly God.
For the name of God fitting describes the prime unity of being, and fittingly describes the one under the aspects of prime cause, mover, perfecter, orderer, and necessary being, and a perfection perfection beyond that of all creatures.
Hence the name of God fittingly describes the prime cause, mover, perfecter, orderer, and necessary being.

JM

An Argument for the Centrality of the Eucharist in the Gospel

The following is an Argument for the Centrality of the Eucharist in the gospel.

The gospel is promised by the Old Testament prophets to be a -

1) new Exodus (Isaiah 40-55),

2) new Creation (Isaiah 65:17),

3) restoration of Israel (Isaiah 11:11; 43:5, 6; Jer 31:8-10, et al)

4) In-gathering of the Nations (Isaiah 11:9, 43:9 et al) to Zion (Isa 52:7-10)

5) a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34).

6) The kingdom of God (Dan 2:44, Zech 14:9, Hab 2:14)

1) The Eucharistic Gospel within the Exodus Theme

The old Exodus began with a Passover sacrifice and meal (Exodus 12), and continued in the wilderness as a journey with the manna (Exodus 16), to the promised land where Israel covenant life with God was that of a priestly son of God in union with God as his divine spouse (Isa 54:5).
So too the new Exodus begins with a new Passover sacrifice and meal (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19b-20), and a wilderness experience with the new manna (John 6).
As the Eucharist is both the new Passover sacrifice and the new manna in the desert, the Eucharist is essential to the gospel.

2) The Eucharistic Gospel within the Creation Theme

The old creation was Israel's covenant life with God, whereby Israel was the first born son (Ex 4:22), and the new Adam as head of the human race.
The new creation is therefore analogous to the old creation whereby the church as the new Israel of God and the new Adam, within the new covenant.
The old creation as Israels covenant life is centered upon the liturgical sacrifices and liturgical laws of the temple.
Analogously the new creation is then centered upon the liturgical sacrifices and liturgical laws of the new temple as Christ and the Church.
Such liturgical sacrifices Christ and the Church is fittingly enacted in the Eucharistic sacrifice as part of the new creation.

3) The Eucharistic Gospel within the Restoration of Israel Theme

The old Israel consisted as twelve tribes who acted in covenant union with God as a kingdom of priests (Ex 19:6). Israel was effectively destroyed through the two exiles into Assyria and then Babylon, never to return to its glory under king David and Solomon.
The restoration of Israel is promised to occur in the OT prophets along with the gathering of the nations to Zion (Isa 25:9, Ezek 37).
As the restored Israel of God, the Church is the anti-type of Davidic Israel. As such, then the church must have Yahweh as the spouse just as Israel had Yahweh as a spouse (Jer 3:1-14).
But Yahweh had Israel as a spouse through a covenant sacrifice and covenant banquet meal (2 Sam 6), as a divine marriage banquet.
Hence the church as the restored Israel must also have an analogous covenant, divine marriage banquet.
Such as banquet in the Church is the Eucharistic banquet whereby Christ is made present as both the groom of the church and the banquet.

4) The Eucharistic Gospel within the In-gathering of the Nations Theme

The nations are promised to be gathered to a mountain to participate in the Messianic banquet (Isaiah 25:6-9) as an act of salvation for the resurrected peoples.

6 On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines.
7 On this mountain he will destroy
the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
the sheet that covers all nations;
8 he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove his people’s disgrace
from all the earth.
The Lord has spoken.
9 In that day they will say,

“Surely this is our God;
we trusted in him, and he saved us.
This is the Lord, we trusted in him;
let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.”

Baptism is the sacrament of resurrection (Rom 6:1-11), whereby Christians are then brought into the sacramental economy to participate in the Eucharistic banquet in the Messianic age, just as new members of the Mosaic covenant were brought into the Passover meal after circumcision (Ex 12:43-49). The mountain of Isaiah is the new Zion as the church (Isa 25; Dan 2), where God resides as groom and host of the banquet.
The Eucharistic banquet is the banquet sacrament of the Messianic age.

5) The Eucharistic Gospel within the new covenant Theme

The old Mosaic covenant was confected through the sacrifice of an animal and the banquet union of Israel with Yahweh on Mt Sinai (Ex 24:11).
The new covenant is then a fulfillment of the old covenant, which will bring about a far greater sacrifice and far greater banquet between the Church as the new Israel and Christ as the groom of the Church (1 Cor 5:7-8).
The Eucharist is the sacrifice and banquet of the new covenant fulfilling the old Mosaic sacrifice and Mosaic feast on Mt Sinai.

6) The Eucharistic Gospel within the kingdom of God Theme

The old Israel consisted as twelve tribes who acted in covenant union with God as a kingdom of priests (Ex 19:6).
Therefore the church as the fulfillment of the old Israel is also a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9).
As the old kingdom of priests performed sacrifices, then the church as the new kingdom of priests (Mal 1:11) will also performed sacrifices.
The Eucharistic is the anti-type fulfillment of the old Israel as a kingdom of Priests, whereby the Eucharist is a sacrifice confected by the church to fulfill the promises of the prophets for a universal priesthood (Isa 66:19-21) and a sacrifice performed by the gentiles (Mal 1:11).

Conclusion - As the Eucharist is central to the above six themes within the gospel as promised by the prophets, the Eucharist is central to the gospel.

JM

Arguing for the Divine Institution of the Catholic Papacy.

An Argument is proposed below for the Divine Institution of the Catholic Papacy.

The Papacy is defined in the Catechism as the Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church.

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

Argument proposed -

The Old Testament documents the covenant life of Israel in the covenants made between God and Moses (Ex 19-34), then God and King David (2 Sam 7).

The covenants were promised within the prophets to be superceded by a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34) made along with the divine action of a new Exodus (Isaiah 40-55) and the in-gathering of the nations to a restored Israel (Isaiah 11:11; 43:5, 6; Jer 31:8-10, et al).

The Church is the restored Israel of God, the Church will manifest the perfections of the Davidic kingdom, for the NT fulfills the OT.

As the Davidic kingdom was a kingdom of priests (Ex 19:6), with a prime minister with the power of the keys to bind and loose (Isaiah 22:21-22) over the Davidic kingdom, then the Church is the fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom.

Jesus is the Messiah (Matt. 8:29; 14:33; 26:63-64; 27:43; Mark 1:1; 3:11; Luke 1:35; 4:41; 22:70 et al) who causes the new Exodus, new covenant and the restoration of Israel.

As Jesus acts to fulfill the Davidic kingdom, He does so by causing the church to be a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9), with a chief minister who is granted the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:16-19).

As the Davidic kingdom had successors of priests and kings, then so too the church also has succession from the apostles, who were both priests and kings (as testified by the witness of history).

As Peter was alone given the keys of the kingdom to bind and loose (Matt 16:16-19), then St Peter as head of the apostles must also have had successors, who also have the power to bind and loose (evidence is also attained to the witness of church history concerning the successors to St Peter).

Therefore from the nature of the gospel promised in the OT whereby the church is the fulfillment of Davidic Israel, and the witness of church history, the church has the Papacy instituted by Christ to fulfill the office of chief minister of the restored Israel of God.

Therefore the Papacy is an institution from God.

JM

A modified version of Arguments Against Agnosticism

1)

Practical atheism means mans life is indifferent to the existence of god as the ultimate end of man's moral action.

Agnosticism concludes that god may or may not exist and there is not enough evidence to know either way concerning god’s existence.Agnosticism is therefore indifferent to the existence of god.Agnosticism is therefore indifferent to God as the ultimate end of man's moral actions.Agnosticism is therefore practical atheism.But atheism is false (as shown in the post discussing problems with atheism).But agnosticism is a form of atheism as practical atheism.Therefore agnosticism is false.

2)

Agnosticism concludes that the existence of god cannot be known.
But the human intellect is ordered to know the nature of bodies and therefore being.
God is a being.
Therefore man can know that god exists through analogy from the created order to the uncreated order through the knowledge of being.
Therefore agnosticism contradicts the nature of mans ability to know natures and being.
What contradicts man's knowledge is false.
Therefore agnosticism is false.

3)
Agnosticism concludes that the existence of god may or may not be known.
If the existence of god may be known, then man can know a being that is not a body, but is a spirit.
A spirit is more unlike a body than like a body.
As man knows natures through bodies, then man knows a spirit by analogy from a body.
As god is a spirit, then god is known through analogy from a body.
As analogy is commonly used by man as a valid form of knowledge, and God can be known by analogy, then agnosticism is false.

4)
Agnosticism concludes that it is not possible to know that god exists.
Yet man knows of the existence of god as the first cause, mover, perfector, necessary being and orderer.
Therefore man does know of the existence of god under the character of first cause, mover, perfector, necessary being and orderer.
Therefore agnosticism is false.

5)
Agnosticism concludes that it is not possible to know the nature of god.
Yet natural theology concludes that the nature of god is divine, whereby He is the subsistent being, which exists simply, containing all perfections either formally in the divine nature, or virtually, according to power.
As the divine nature is known through reason and by analogy from creatures, then agnosticism is false.

6)
Agnosticism concludes that the nature of the supernatural cannot be known in God.
Yet the existence of the supernatural is demonstrated from reason as follows.
Every being is common to other beings in so far as it has actions in common to other beings
Every being is distinct from other beings in so far as it has something proper to it alone and not to other beings.
The supreme being has perfections that are both common to all other creatures, yet the supreme being is unlike all other beings which are not supreme.
As the supreme being is unlike all other beings, the supreme being must have a perfection that is unlike all other beings.
As all other beings are natural, then the supreme being has natural perfections in common with other creatures and perfections that are proper to it alone and thereby unlike creatures.
A perfection in the supreme being that is unlike natural creatures is not natural, but supernatural.
But agnosticism concludes that we cannot know that the supreme being, nor the supernatural order exists.
Yet deductive reasoning demonstrates the supreme being, nor the supernatural order exists.
Therefore agnosticism concerning supreme being, and the supernatural order is false.

7)
Agnosticism concludes that the nature of the supernatural cannot be known.
Agnosticism then concludes that neither reason, nor faith has access to the supernatural in God, nor any evidence in creation for the supernatural in the supreme being (called God).
Yet God is supernatural (as shown above) and has chosen to intervene in history through supernatural actions such as prophecy, healing and other miracles (as part of Christian revelation).
As these miracles are true (such as Christ's resurrection), then the action of God in history is also true.
Those miracles have been accompanied with a divine teaching that has informed man through public revelation concerning the nature of the supernatural life in God.
This supernatural life in God is the life of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
As God has told man of the nature of the supernatural life which is then known by men through faith, then agnosticism is false.

JM