An apology to all

After much consideration on the facts, I hereby admit that I stand corrected on John 4:5 and John 1:1 as well. The posts have been deleted.

Furthermore, I apologize to Defensores Fidei Foundation especially to Atty. Marwil Llasos, Fr. Abe Arganiosa, and Mr. Cenon Bibe for the things I said about them. I was supposed to exchange information instead I ended up trash talking about yourselves. Please forgive my arrogance and sarcasm. So I therefore take back what I said.

I apologize to my colleagues for I went rogue and acted on my own. You don't have to be held accountable for my actions.

I'm sorry, everyone.

The Church Father Hopping of a Lawyer-Apologist

Have you ever encountered an apologetic scenario wherein the ministers of the Iglesia ni Cristo (1914) use a Bible version to prove any of their doctrines and abandon the same Bible version if it contradicts their other doctrines? This tactic is called "Bible Version Hopping".

For instance, the INC uses Lamsa's version of Acts 20:28 to prove that the name of the church is "Church of Christ". They will even prove to you that the Lamsa version, which was translated from Aramaic, is reliable. However, Lamsa translates Hebrews 1:8 as "Thy throne, O God". When I pointed this out to INC members in the internet forum while debating the deity of Christ, they quickly dismiss this verse as mistranslated (just to defend that Christ is only a man). The INC relies on Bible versions that translates Hebrews 1:8 as "God is your throne", such as the Moffat version. Funny isn't it? It shows how a religion can be biased just to uphold their doctrines.

Can this also happen when Roman Catholic quotes the church fathers? Is there such thing as "Church Father Hopping"? Well, I won't keep you in suspense. My latest opponent in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Atty. Marwil Llasos of Defensores Fidei Foundation, stumbles upon a church father named, Tertullian (around 160-220 AD).

In his article at his blog, Immaculate Conception (May 31, 2006), Atty. Llasos quotes Tertullian as a support:

The early Church Fathers clearly saw Mary as the New Eve:

Tertullian

"And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle, if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a Virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight" (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].

http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

Tertullian is also quoted by Atty. Llasos in his article "Types of Mary in the Old Testament" (March 2006):

Tertullian (+220), another Church Father, used the Eve-Mary parallel as a secondary argument in favor of the virginal conception of Jesus Christ and emphasizes the act of faith involved. Building on the insights of Justin, Ireneus and Tertullian, the theme of the Eve-Mary parallel was expanded upon after the Council of Nicaea in the year 325.

http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_archive.html

HOWEVER, when it comes to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Atty. Llasos quotes the church father, Jerome who... well... oh just read it for yourself:

Likewise, a heretic by the name of Helvidius raised an objection against Mary’s perpetual virginity. St. Jerome (347-420 AD) rebuked Helvidius in a treatise on Mary’s perpetual virginity:“I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defending....! must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her Son was born.”

Who can dispute with St. Jerome, the greatest Scripture scholar of all time?

Jerome:

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church.

-Mary Ever Virgin (2006) http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

I wonder if Atty. Llasos is even aware of the church fathers he is quoting. Admittedly, he is good when it comes to quoting historical records. Unfortunately, being biased and selective is another thing. We see Atty. Llasos quotes Tertullian to support some Marian doctrines, but he then quotes Jerome who apparently rejects Tertullian. Will he support Jerome on that specially when Atty. Llasos said: Who can dispute with St. Jerome, the greatest Scripture scholar of all time?

So what's Atty. Llasos have to say to this? "The church fathers are not infallible!" Good, so as the rest of the human beings in the world. "I only quote the good writings of Tertullian!" While you're at it please quote from the good writings of Muslim apologists.

Then again, we would have to see.

POST SCRIPT:

Supporters of Atty. Llasos are already accusing me of abandoning the topic since I posted this article. I am not done with him yet.

His colleague Carlos Palad responded wtih a lapse of about one year on the email exchanges about Sola Scriptura, yet I did not celebrate of this delay. After I posted my response to his belated response, he emailed me of an article about Protestants in Spain, but I never accused him of changing the topic. He still has to respond to my article but I don't mind what he does in between so long as it is non-offensive to both of us.

Please be fair.

Defensores Fidei Foundation stumbles on the Perpetual Virginity Rebuttal

Not too long ago I posted a blog titled Defensores Fidei Foundation (DFF) versus Catholic Answers (CA). In that blog I mentioned a glaring contradiction between camps on the relationship of the people mentioned in Matthew 13:55. According to Atty Llasos of DFF, these are all Christ’s cousins while CA’s Jason Evert says that it is not a Catholic teaching that these were Christ’s cousins.

Atty. Llasos posted his response in the comments section and in his blog last February 14, 2009. Before he responded to the issue of the article, Atty. Llasos wrote his disappointment with me stating that I had betrayed him because I had posted that article without even waiting for his response to my question which I previously sent by email. Before we deal with the real issue, which is about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, let me enumerate some facts concerning my email exchanges with Atty. Llasos which led up to his accusations that I allegedly betrayed him:

A. There were questions which I emailed to Atty. Llasos before I wrote the article:

1. I often quote Matthew 13:55 and other similar verses to prove that Mary had other children. I know about the Roman Catholic defense about the Jews having the same Hebrew terminology for brother and relatives, ach. We know very well that the New Testament was written in Greek and adelphos is the term they use to refer to a brother while anepsios for relatives.

Despite the Greek word used and the context, you still contend that it is not referring to uterine brothers. You argued:

It should be borne in mind that it is part of the culture in Palestine even to this day that people who are related by blood live in a given community. They practice communal living (“kibbutz” system).

The Evangelists and other New Testament writers simply wrote down the common expression of the Jews. They had the Jewish mindset although they wrote in Greek. In other words, the Evangelists were using the common parlance among the Jews at that time. Jesus, James, Joses, Judas and Simon simply called each other “ah.” They knew that Jesus was an only child and assumed every body else knew.

Now, if your argument is based on the kibbutz system, then Matthew left something out in 13:55 and 56. It mentions Christ's parents and proceeds to detail his supposedly cousins. If neighbor’s account of Christ’s family was indeed based on communal living like you theorized, how come the parents of James, Joses, Judas, Simon and the sisters are not mentioned? Did the neighbor who questioned Jesus forget about Cleophas and his wife Mary whom you said are the parents of James and Joses? It's a bit illogical to mention Christ's parents and then proceed immediately to cousins by overlooking the parents of those cousins who are supposed to be in the kibbutz system.

2. Moving on, one of my tendencies to quote Paul for using anepsios in Colossians 4:10 to say that the NT writers in fact made a distinction between siblings and relatives despite of their audience, but you had this argument:

It should be borne in mind that it is only in Colossians 4:10 that the word anepsios is used. Remember that the Epistle to the Colossians was written by the Apostle Paul, a Jew from Tarsus (Acts 21:39 , 22:3) who was in fact a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25 -29). The Apostle Paul wrote to the Colossians (who were certainly not Jews but Gentiles) in their own Greek language.

The Jews, unlike the Greeks, use circumlocution to express their idea or concept of cousin for the simple reason that they have no word for cousin.

As I understood it, you argue that if the NT writers are speaking to Jews they use circumlocution, while not so if speaking to Gentiles. For me, your argument has gone too far to the point of being biased. I don't think you will be consistent when your theory is compared with other verses. If I were to quote Galatians 1:19 which says: But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother (adelphos) of the Lord, how come Paul made use of adelphos instead of anepsios to the Greek-speaking Galatians? Why only to the Colossians did Paul make use of anepsios? Furthermore, why was James called as “the brother of the Lord”? You never mentioned the reason.

How about Luke? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia he is both Greek and Gentile. His books were written to Theophilus, who may be another Greek. If we read Acts 1:14 it appears that he didn't use anepsios like Paul did in Colossians. Since Luke is both Greek and Gentile, don’t you think he would use anepsios more often than the Jewish NT writers?

3. You also made an account of the supposedly cousins of Jesus. About Jude, you mentioned that he was a brother of James and a son of Mary the wife of Cleophas. But how come he wasn't mentioned in Mark 15:40 but only James and Joses? Let's also not forget about Simon. Your sources tell you that he was also a son of Mary the wife Cleophas. Again, how come Mark left him out in 15:40? Can you explain that?

These questions were sent last December 1, 2008. I did promise him that he could take his time to answer those questions which are up to now have not yet been answered.

B. I posted the said article which only points out a contradiction between DFF and CA. Minutes after posting the blog, I emailed him these new questions last February 5, 2009:

If I read it correctly, the author states that it is not the Catholic's position that the brothers mentioned in Matthew 13:55 are cousins of Jesus. However, in your blog you explained that these were his cousins.

I am wondering if the position written in article of Catholic Answers is the official one or recognized by the Vatican. If not, then can it be implied that both of your explanations are private interpretations that your church criticizes against Evangelicals. If they are private interpretations and contrary to one another, how do you resolve this conflict?

I promised again that he could take his time answering that question. However, when I posted the blog before emailing the new questions I had no intention of putting an end to our email exchanges. The article I posted is not sufficient to report the outcome of our email exchanges since the questions have not been answered. The article is only exposing a contradiction, period. It does not give any comments to the earlier set of questions emailed to Atty. Llasos.

I will leave it to the readers to decide. Now, let me respond to his rebuttal.

He begins by stating:

I noticed that RODIMUS was only interested in my conclusion. He did not even bother to contest, much less refute, the premises on which I predicated my conclusion. It seems to me that my friend’s desire is merely to involve me in contradiction.

Guess again, Atty. Llasos. If you would recall the questions I emailed you last December 1, 2008, those questions are not only for asking but also for refuting; and I think you know that. Atty. Llasos proceeded with how the Aramaic terminology for brother works, but that was already addressed to my questions above.

Atty. Llasos asserted that I misread the statement of Mr. Evert, author of the CA article:

RODIMUS made a serious misreading of Mr. Evert’s statement. RODIMUS claims that Mr. Evert “made it clear that in Matthew 13:55, these men were not Christ's cousins; it's a misconception RODIMUS.” RODIMUS’ conclusion is not accurate. He clearly misrepresents Mr. Evert’s view. Mr. Evert did not categorically say, as RODIMUS would have us believe, that Jesus brothers are not His cousins. In fact, all that Mr. Evert is saying is that “we can’t tell if any of the ‘brothers’ were cousins.”

This analysis is myopic because Atty. Llasos response is concentrated on the statement, He made it clear that in Matthew 13:55, these men were not Christ's cousins, which is not the only thing I am trying to convey in the article. If you will read on in the blog article I further wrote:

Oh no! I thought it is not the Catholic's position that these men were cousins.

Also from the question I sent to him by email which was sent AFTER the article was posted:

If I read it correctly, the author states that it is not the Catholic's position that the brothers mentioned in Matthew 13:55 are cousins of Jesus.

Therefore, I understood Mr. Evert’s position.

Atty. Llasos tries to get out of his predicament by saying his and Mr. Evert’s position are offering alternative approaches on defending the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Simply, there is no contradiction between Mr. Evert’s statement and my conclusion. Both are actually correct. So, Mr. Everet is correct in saying that that it is not the official Catholic position that the “brothers” of Jesus are not actually his cousins because as we can see, the official position of the Catholic Church mentioned in the Catechism is that these “brothers” are “close relations of Jesus” and did not use the word “cousins” to refer to them. However, my position is also correct because “cousins” are also “close relations.”

That is what Mr. Evert and I precisely did! We presented alternative arguments. These alternative arguments in no way compromise the thesis that the “brothers” of the Lord were not children of Mary.

Not so fast, Atty. Llasos. Mr. Evert said, we can’t tell if any of the ‘brothers’ were cousins. Why were you able to tell that these were his cousins? That is why I am asking if what you and Mr. Evert has written are PRIVATE INTERPRETATIONS, which we Evangelicals are being criticized of. Moreover, if it is not the official position of your church that the brothers are cousins, then why are you teaching that they are cousins? Of course you will try to escape to a loophole by saying:

Mr. Evert and I are in full agreement that the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are not the children of Mary.

The way I understand it no matter what the explanation is, it is acceptable as long as the bottom line remains the same which is the brothers of Jesus are not Mary’s children.

This reminded me of a funny story about a defense lawyer who is trying to win an acquittal for his client on the charges of murder. The said defense lawyer brought in two witnesses who will testify that his client, the accused, was not in the murder scene which is in Makati. The first witness testified that the accused was in Quezon City. The second witness testified that the accused was in Pasig. Of course the Prosecution questioned the testimonies of the two witnesses due to inconsistency. The defense lawyer reasoned out, “Who cares? The important thing is that my client wasn’t in Makati where the murder was committed.” This is exactly what Atty. Llasos is trying to do.

Atty. Llasos further stated that there are many ways to skin a cat. Unfortunately, his way of skinning the cat is also skinning the other person who is skinning the same cat. By concluding that these brothers were cousins whereas it is not the Catholic position, anyone can say the theories concocted are not only contradictory but are also self-serving.

Now, Atty. Llasos presented historical evidences that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was believed even by the Reformers Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. While it may be true that these Reformers believed Mary’s perpetual virginity, one has to consider their circumstances during their time. These men were reforming a 1,200 year old church from which they came (I say 1,200 year old church because I believe that the Church of Rome was founded only after 300AD and the reformation occurred after 1500AD). The focus of the Reformers was on the Lord Jesus Christ. They made sure that Christ was the one deified and not Mary. The process of changing wasn’t overnight and the task of reforming may have been extended to their successors.

Likewise, before the year 1600AD people believed that all planets revolve around the Earth until Galileo discovered it was not so. The New Catholic Encyclopedia even stated:

In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December, 1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it.

However, the people today know through science that the planets in our solar system revolve around the sun. Some Roman Catholics would respond by saying that the conflict with Galileo’s discovery was more of science and not a dogma or the popes at that time were speaking as private theologians (thus, not official). But they can’t deny that the Roman Catholic Church was involved in denouncing Galileo’s discovery which gives plenty of room to say that it was a doctrinal issue. (I will be writing later on articles about Papal Infallibility bloopers). It took a while for people to adapt to Galileo’s discovery.

Atty. Llasos further attempted to refute my consideration of Matthew 13:55 as comprehensive by saying:

In fact, a parallel verse in Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus as “THE son of Mary.” The article “the” is significant in Greek because it signifies “the one and only.” Jesus, being the Son of Mary, means that He is Mary’s only Son in the same manner that Jesus, being the Son of God, means that he is the only-begotten Son of the Father.

While the article “the” can signify the one and only, it doesn’t always mean that way in other sentences. In John 4:5, Joseph is mentioned to be THE SON of Jacob, are we to conclude that Jacob had no other children? Moreover, Jesus was referred as “a son” in Luke 1:31 and not “your only child”, so why not conclude Mary has other children subsequent to Christ?

Finally, Atty. Llasos is confident that the perpetual virginity of Mary is irrefutable that he challenged me to answer these questions:

1) Where in the Bible does it say that “Mary had other children aside from Jesus?”
2) Where in the Bible does it say that “Mary is the mother of the brothers of Jesus?”

If I understand it correctly, in order for Atty. Llasos to be convinced that Mary had other children, he wants Bible verses that say these people are Mary’s children. He is still not convinced of the Greek word adelphos and the context of Matthew 13:55. He wants it clear that these people were born from Mary. I’m sorry to say that the above questions of Atty. Llasos are born from prejudice.

Let me prove that. The Bible mentions of Lazarus, Martha and Mary Magdalene in Luke 10, John 11-12. We all know that these people have a sibling relationship. The Greek words used are adelphos for Lazarus while adelphi for Martha and Mary Magdalene. The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms the following:

Lazarus - This personage was the brother of Martha and Mary of Bethania
Martha - ... by St. John when he tells us that "Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus"
Mary Magdalene - the sister of Martha and Lazarus

Unless the Catholic Encyclopedia itself was originally written in Aramaic, it’s safe to say that they verify the sibling relationship with the use of the English words brother and sister and not cousins or relatives.

How does this concern Atty. Llasos? The Bible does not mention that the three are children of the same parents. Neither were their parents are mentioned in the Bible. Since the parents are unidentified, would Atty. Llasos say that they are cousins just like what he theorize to the brothers of Christ? Would he even follow the theory of Mr. Evert that it not the Catholic position that the three are cousins? If he ever accepts that the three have a sibling relationship, then why is he being rough on the brothers of Christ by implying that it is not enough that they are called brothers and that we should show they are Mary’s children? Prejudice at its best.

Now Atty. Llasos may say he knows that Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene are siblings because of historical evidence. But that would put Mr. Evert’s position in jeopardy because the Roman Catholic scholars have exerted effort to identify the relationship of the three but failed to do so in the brothers of Christ. Wouldn’t that be ironic? A supposedly 2,000 year old infallible Roman Catholic Church cannot identify the actual relationship of the brothers of Christ in Matthew 13:55 but was able to verify that Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene are siblings despite the lack of biblical information concerning their parents.

Conclusion:

Theories concocted by men often lead to inconsistencies when it tested. Mary had other children after the virgin birth of Christ. Matthew 13:55-56 has stated this to be so. Sadly, Roman Catholics offer different perspectives on the verse which lead to complications. The Bible was not meant to adjust to the desires of men, but men should adjust themselves to the Bible. If we only let the Bible speak for itself, Roman Catholics would renounce the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Author’s note: Atty. Llasos has still to answer the questions I emailed him months ago. Although I have speculations on his delayed response, I shall not put my comments in writing.

James 2:14 to 28 – an Evangelical Achilles?

Evangelicals believe that salvation is attained by faith alone in Jesus Christ. Verses like Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5 are used as evidence. However, the opponents of the Evangelical faith often quote James 2:14 to 28 to refute this belief. They emphasize on verse 24 which says:

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

They conclude that man is not saved by faith alone and works are necessary. How does an Evangelical respond to this?

The reason why many Evangelicals are easily stumped by the text in James 2 is because they have in their mindset and say broad statements like, works are not needed, and salvation is by faith alone. While there is truth to these statements, limiting to these statements becomes difficult when James 2:14 to 28 is quoted by those believing that salvation is attained by works.

So when discussing about the topic of salvation, an Evangelical should use clearer statements about salvation. When Evangelicals say that salvation is by faith alone and not by works, it should mean that salvation cannot be earned by doing good works. It is not like an employee who earns his salary by working eight hours a day in the office. This is supported by Roman 4:5:

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Works cannot attain salvation by works because it is opposed to grace (which means unmerited favor):

And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

The above verse from Romans 11:6 compliments Ephesians 2:8-9 that we are saved by grace through faith and not of works. Some will quote Philippians 2:12 in an attempt to prove that salvation is earned by works. But the verse says “work out” and not “work for”. We cannot work out something that we do not have; we don’t work out our body to get a body, we already have a body and thus we work out by exercising to become healthier.

Evangelicals should also clarify that in James 2:14-28 is not about attaining salvation by faith and works. One approach to effectively drive this point to opposing religions is to present these two verses that appear contradictory:

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. Romans 4:2

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? James 2:21

Was Abraham justified by works or by faith? These verses are not in contradiction. Neither is James saying that salvation is attained by works. The message of Paul in Romans 4 is saying how a sinner is saved, that is by faith and not of works. On the other hand James is attacking an empty faith, or a kind of faith that has no evidence of existence. This is very clear in verses 14 to 17:

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Faith is not simply uttering simple words like “I believe”. James is saying that if you believe in something your actions should compliment what you believe. If you believe that it is going to rain today you should bring an umbrella when you go out, otherwise you are making a fool out of yourself by getting wet when the rain pours. In verse 18 we read:

But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Did James say he will show faith AND works? No, James will show his faith, how? By works. Moreover, pay close attention to the words “you” and “your” in the verse. James is not saying he will show God his faith by works. Rather, James will show his faith by works to his audience, people who cannot see in the heart of another. God can see what is inside a person’s heart. In fact, He already knew the heart of Abraham when he believed:

Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. Romans 4:9-12

God already declared Abraham righteous by his faith even before he was circumcised. Abraham circumcision then becomes the evidence that Abraham has faith. This is the same message with James: real faith results in to works.

Conclusion:

In their desire to refute the Evangelical belief that salvation is attained by faith alone, opposing religions are quickly to take James 2:14-28 out of context. James is not saying here that salvation is attained by faith and works. James is rebuking a dead faith or a faith that does not result in to good works. James is simply saying, if you believe in something, your actions should compliment what you believe.

We shall study the other Bible verses that allegedly challenge the doctrine of salvaion by faith alone in the succeeding blog entries.

Defensores Fidei Foundation versus Catholic Answers

This about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic position is that Mary remained a virgin even after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Eventhough there are verses like Matthew 13:55 to refute this teaching, Roman Catholic argues that these were not Christ's uterine brothers because in the Jewish culture they spoke Hebrew and do not have terminologies for cousins or relatives. Despite the Greek terminologies specified for brothers (adelphos) and relatives (anepsios and suggenes), the Roman Catholics still insist that these were not uterine brothers.

However, I have noted conflicting positions from two Roman Catholic apologists. One is from the USA, Jason Evert, a writer of Catholic Answers. And the other is Atty. Marwil Llasos, a resource person for Mariology of the Defensores Fidei Foundation in the Philippines.

Mr. Evert's position (seen here: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp) on such Greek terminologies:

Here is a common misconception to be on the lookout for: "Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins." That’s not the Catholic position. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the "brothers" were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the "brothers" were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term " adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term "brother" could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.

He made it clear that in Matthew 13:55, these men were not Christ's cousins; it's a misconception. But Atty. Llasos tells differently in his blog (seen here: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/search/label/Perpetual%20Virginity):

Hence, James and Joses are called “brothers” of Jesus because they are His “cousins.”

Being the brother of James, Jude’s mother was also Mary, the wife of Cleophas and not Mary, the mother of Jesus. He, too, is Jesus “brother” because he is his “cousin.”

Thus, Simon is the Lord’s “brother” because he is also His “cousin.”

Oh no! I thought it is not the Catholic's position that these men were cousins. But why is Atty. Llasos of Defensores Fidei Foundation telling us that these were Christ's cousins? Aren't Roman Catholics supposed to be united in these doctrinal matters?

They way I see it, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is impossible to be proven because the New Testament has many verses that proves that Mary had other children after giving birth of Christ. Matthew 13:55 and 56 is very comprehensive about it. The Roman Catholics are desperate that they concoct some spurious theories to obscure the truth without realizing it backfires on them. The glaring contradiction above is just one of the many.

Does John 17:3 deny Jesus is God?

Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

This text is perhaps the most favorite of all those cults who are against the deity of Christ. Especially on verse 3 they would assert that since Christ himself acknowledged the Father as the only true God therefore Jesus cannot be God. The word “only” excludes anyone from being God. The logic therefore is:

Premise: There is only one true God.
Premise: Jesus himself said the Father is the only true God.
Conclusion: Jesus cannot therefore be God.

Although John 17:3 affirms the Father is the only true God, it does not say only the Father is God nor Jesus is not God. The cults have misinterpreted this by concluding Jesus is not God.

If the cult quoting the passage is the Jehovah’s Witnesses, you can dismiss their misinterpretation by asking if Jesus is a false god. To the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ is only a lesser god. However, they will not deny Jesus is false. But for them to quote John 17:3 to refute the deity of Christ is self-defeating; since to them the only the Father is the one true God, they would have to admit that any other god is a false god. Would they admit Christ is a false god? I don’t think so.

However, there are cults who absolutely do not believe that Jesus is God, nor even a god. The Iglesia ni Cristo 1914 (INC) believe Jesus is only a man. They often quote John 17:3 to prove only the Father is the one true God and thus, Christ is not God.

Let’s test the consistency of their interpretation by taking a look at Mark 10:18:

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good – except God alone.

Jesus Christ himself that no one is good except God alone. Do we conclude Jesus is not good either? Would they accept that Jesus is not good just as they concluded that Jesus is not God in John 17:3? Just as Mark 10:18 does not say Jesus Christ is not good, John 17:3 also does not say Jesus Christ is not God. Amen! Therefore, the INC has the wrong interpretation for John 17:3.

John 17:3 is merely affirming the Father is the only true God. It does not say Jesus Christ is not God. Likewise, Mark 10:18 is merely telling only God is good. It does not say Jesus Christ is not good.

Were not done yet

In an internet discussion forum I have presented Mark 10:18 to some INC members to contradict their understanding of John 17:3. All of these INC I have discussed of course have some responses, but none of them are satisfactory. Below are the INC responses which are italicized and underlined I encountered so far (please note these are responses from the internet discussion forums, not necessarily the official answers of the INC administration) and my responses to them:

1. Jesus is good but not as good as the Father. Response: It’s possible the one who is giving this answer is not reading the verse well or maybe has forgotten their comparative adjectives (good-better-best). Mark 10:18 does not say “Yes I am good but God is better”.

2. Jesus is neither good nor evil. Response: So what is he, a gray area? If Christ is not good how come he said he is the Good Shepherd (John 10:14)?

3. The context is about being a good teacher. Jesus is not a good teacher because everything he knows comes from the Father. Response: I challenge every INC member to shout, with all sincerity: Jesus is not a good teacher! The Bible makes it clear that the Son is the exact representation of God’s being (Hebrews 1:3). Thus, if the Father is good, then Jesus is also good.

4. The goodness that God has is not the same goodness that Christ has. Response: I doubt if the INC can tell the difference between the goodness of God and the goodness of Christ. They won’t be able to tell the difference because Christ is the exact representation of God’s being (Hebrews 1:3).

5. All those who are called “good” by the Bible are gods too. Response: The INC member giving this response is only changing the topic. It is not even your argument that because Jesus is good he must therefore be God. But this easily refuted by relating it to an erroneous argument like: all dogs are walking, Pedro is walking, therefore Pedro is a dog. This INC rebuttal has the same error committed. Just because Pedro is walking doesn’t mean he is a dog. So even if other people are good, goodness is not the only characteristic God has.

6. Mark 10:18 refutes your deity of Christ and Trinitarian beliefs because Jesus already declared God alone is good. Response: this one made me laugh as the INC member didn’t see the implication of Mark 10:18 (Jesus is not good) are similar to the conclusion they want their listeners to arrive for John 17:3 (Jesus is not God).

7. The meaning of the word “only” is absolute if referring to a nature, but not so when referring to a characteristic; thus, even if only God is good, anyone can also be good because goodness is a characteristic. Response: I call this too prejudicial. If you say that only Maria is beautiful then it should follow that Jane is not beautiful. Some INC members go to the extent to argue that in a given place only Maria is beautiful but there is another girl in a different place who is beautiful. However, when Christ was speaking in Mark 10:18 he was in a place talking about the Father.

Some INC members will offer you complicated explanation for Mark 10:18. In order to prevent any deviation due to this complicated explanation, simplify your argument by asking, “Is Jesus good?” and require only a yes or no answer. After all, they will immediately give you a “no” answer if you ask them, “Is Jesus God?” In my experience, the INC has difficulty explaining Mark 10:18 because they are one-sided with their interpretation of John 17:3.

Here is another verse that is similarly structured with Mark 10:18 and John 17:3:

Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of the ages. Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. Revelations 15:3-4

Ask any INC member, is Jesus Christ not holy? I doubt they will answer yes.

Conclusion:

John 17:3 does not refute the deity of Christ. This passage is often misinterpreted by those who are against the deity of Christ. Although this verse says that the Father is the only true God, it is not saying Jesus is not God. Jesus is indeed affirming monotheism (the belief that there is only one God). But he is not denying his deity.

Certainty of Scriptures - a response to Defensores Fidei Foundation

A year ago the Chairman of Defensores Fidei Foundation (DFF), a Roman Catholic apologetics ministry, asked me a question which is related to the alleged difficulties of Sola Scriptura. He asked how do I know which books belonged to the Bible when the Bible itself does not have a list. I gave my reply and after almost a year one of the Chairman’s resource people gave a counter reply.

For a brief background, one of the arguments against Sola Scriptura is that Evangelicals or Protestants cannot practice this unless an extra biblical authority, such as an infallible church, identifies the books that belong in the Bible. Appealing to this extrabiblical authority violates Sola Scriptura. The Roman Catholics are confident that they know which books belonged in the Bible because they believe that their church magisterium is infallible and has determined the said books. However, this implies a lot of problems which you will read later on.

The Evangelical position on the other hand states that the church only recognizes the Scripture because of its nature being God-breathed or inspired (theopneustos, 2nd Timothy 3:16). The church has this ability to recognize not because she is infallible, but because she has related and worked with God for a period of time. This relationship enables the church to recognize the actions of God. Without God giving inspiration to the Scripture, the church cannot recognize what are the Scriptures. Therefore, knowing what is Scripture rest on the nature or characteristic of the Scripture as being theopneustos.

My first email response to the DFF Chairman is written in black, the DFF resource person counters by writing in red, and then my recent rebuttal in blue.

********************

Please accept my sincere apologies for not replying to your email immediately. I have been busy with work lately that I am barely moderating our forums and checking my emails. I only read yours yesterday.
As to your question, I have seen it a million times. It is one of the many questions Catholic apologists ask to the advocates of sola scriptura. The Bible does not have a table of contents, so how would we know which NT book is inspired? How could sola scriptura account for the books in the Bible?

Permit me to say something before giving my answer. Unpleasant it may seem, you'll be trapped in a circular reasoning if the question was returned to you. I have no doubt that your position is: Without an infallible church, no one would know for certain what the Scripture is. Deny it or not, this is where you're going. Let me discuss this first.

There is no denying this, for this is doubtless the Catholic position: without an infallible Church, there is no saying what Scripture is. However, since you claim that this is somehow circular, the burden of proof is upon you to show why it is circular. Do you understand what circular means? I will return to this later.

Yes, I know what a circular argument is.

********************

I could note two problems with that position and I suggest that you ponder it for a while:

1. How do you know that your church is indeed the true church? There are so many churches today claiming to be of God's. Many churches claim to be biblical and historical. You can cite your basis, but remember they too have their basis. You want to quote history? The Eastern Orthodox is one of your rivals.

Frankly, this objection does not make sense. So what if there is a rival to the Catholic claim that it is the true Church, on the basis of history? Is the mere fact that a rivalry exists, incontrovertible proof that there is no way to resolve the rivalry? If I will take your line of reasoning, then all “choose the correct answer” questions can never be resolved, for the simple reason that different choices exist. Of course, in such questions, the correct answer is discerned from among the different choices by means of evaluating which choice makes more sense!
If two Churches claim to be the true Church on the basis of history, then let history itself be the criterion, and let historians measure which of these two Churches has the greater evidence and testimony of history on its side. (Hint: the Church Fathers make numerous references to the primacy of Rome.)

First of all, it is ironic that you are not bothered at all of the rivalry of some Christian churches claiming to be the true church on the basis of history. Unless you believe otherwise, historians do not claim infallibility and not all historians are even accurate and honest. How would you react if a historian writes that your church has been corrupt, would you not question that historian? I am not saying that we should ignore history but the point here is rival churches will end up scrutinizing historians and discerning would not be as easy as you thought.

Second, it is even more ironic that you replied that the correct answer can be discerned from among choices. I am wondering about who will do the discerning, is it fallible people? If I read history and chose to embrace your opposing church, can you honestly say that I discerned it correctly? Of course not! Your church has a teaching that only the Magisterium is infallible to interpret the Bible. But are you honestly expecting that fallible people can rely on their fallible judgment that as they read history they will correctly discern that your church is indeed true? Don’t tell me that we need an infallible interpreter of history.

For that matter, your own argument leaves you with no recourse against us. You say that the multitude of churches claiming to be true, makes our claim to be the true Church incapable of being resolved. In that case, what makes you capable of telling us that we are wrong?

It is your position that will leave me incapable of telling which is right and wrong. I don’t believe that the church is infallible and I also don’t believe that the Scripture is the product of the church. I let the Scriptures be Scriptures, and its authenticity is not dependent on the church so I do not need to go through the process of identifying which church is infallible.

********************

You want to quote the Bible? The cults are your rivals.

Are you saying that we can no longer discern who is quoting the Bible the right or wrong way? Just because many people quote the Bible does not mean that there is no way of distinguishing from among them who is right or wrong in quoting Scripture. The devil quoted Scripture and Christ refuted him nevertheless. In the same way, the true Church can refute the cavils of the cults and the objections of the Protestants.

Similar to my rebuttal earlier, what happens that after reading the Bible the person does not choose your church? And are you honestly expecting fallible people to interpret the Scriptures correctly? Are you forgetting that it is your doctrine that only the infallible church has the authority to interpret? You would no doubt ask your opponent on how sure he is on his interpretation of the Scripture.

********************

You want to give a standard for determining which church is true? You have to make the other churches accept your standard.

Naturally. That is the point of apologetics. And it is the very nature of truth that mutually contradictory claims cannot all be true.

Look now how it turns out: I cannot know the Scriptures without an infallible interpreter. I cannot know the infallible interpreter without interpreting history and the Bible. I also cannot know the infallible interpreter until we reach an agreement on what standards we should follow in determining the infallible interpreter. And worst of all, I am not infallible to interpret things because Roman Catholics claim that all interpretations rest on the infallible church which we are tasked to identify. We are running in circles with your reasoning!

********************

Bottomline: you can't simply say you are true and they are not.

Said like a true relativist! Is everything a matter of mere opinion? If you believe that there are standards of right and wrong, then it IS possible to say what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is not, on the basis of the evidence.

Yes, we need evidences. But I am lost if I follow your reasoning as mentioned in my previous paragraph.

********************

2. How did the Jews who were born 50 years before Christ know that Isaiah is inspired? Remember, there was no Catholic church 50 years before Christ.

The Church is the heir of Israel, which had the benefit of the Chair of Moses even before Christ came. The teachers of Israel who sat on this Chair – to whom Christ Himself told us to listen – were one in accepting that Isaiah was a prophet. However, Christ gave the keys to Peter and the power to bind and loose to all the apostles, thus granting to the nascent Church – not to the Temple priesthood that was about to be scattered to the four winds by Roman might, and not to the Synagogue -- the continuation of the teaching office.
In any case, the Church does not accept the inspiration of the OT books simply because the Jews said – and say -- so, but because the Church has confirmed which of the OT books are indeed inspired, and which ones are not. Thus the differences between the current Jewish canon from the Catholic canon.

Therefore, there is no infallible magisterium to tell those Jews, who were born 50 years before Christ, that the book of Isaiah is inspired.

They did, at that time, have a “magisterium” – the Chair of Moses. Today, the Chair of Peter has taken its place. You may not believe it, but the fact that you do not believe it does not prove it to be self-contradictory or wrong.

I do not believe they are infallible for two reasons. One, Christ has been rebuking on matters of doctrine those teachers in the seat of Moses. An example of which is in Matthew 22:23 to 33 (look also in these verses what Christ used as the basis of his answer).

Two, I have not read any official proclamation or teaching from your church that these Old Testament teachers are infallible. You only assumed it. When the question “how did the OT Jews know that the book of Isaiah is inspired” was first asked several years ago, many Roman Catholics had difficulty answering it because they believe only the NT church is infallible. In a debate with the Evangelical apologist James White on Sola Scriptura, Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid gave an answer to the same question by referring to an OT church but never mentioned that this was infallible.

Now, many Roman Catholics like you reply by giving a theory that the OT teachers are infallible – a theory that is not even documented but only assumed.

********************

By the way, the council of Jamnia was not formed 50 years before Christ.

And, pray tell me, who said that? Of course it wasn’t formed before Christ, because it came decades after Christ had ascended to heaven.

Also, don't say that the OT doesn't concern you because you're not Jewish because the OT Books came from God.

We venerate the ancient OT as Scripture, so much so that we have not dared cut seven books and a few chapters from it, unlike a certain group of Christians. Whence comes this ridiculous assertion that we Catholics think that the OT doesn’t concern us? This assertion (and the rest of your assertions!) only make me think that you do not really understand – nor have you tried to understand – what we Catholics are really saying. Unfortunately, we have come to expect this.

I was only making sure that you would not use the above reasoning. I commend you for not doing so.

********************

That being said, basing your beliefs in a supposedly infallible church, to determine the inspiration of the NT, has these problems.

You did not even show where the circularity lies. I must seriously ask you: do you know what a circular argument looks like? Here’s one.

If we Catholics argue to the effect that “the Catholic Church is the true Church because the Bible shows us to be the true Church, and there is a Bible because the Church said so” then you can rightly accuse us of circularity. But we do not argue this way, and indeed your enumeration of our arguments do not even touch this.
We base our belief in the truth of the Catholic Church not primarily upon Scripture – for Scripture itself needs to stand upon the truth of the Church – but upon history. First and foremost, Catholic apologetics makes the point that Jesus Christ indeed existed. Then, it shows that He indeed arose from the dead, on the basis of the empty tomb and the testimony of historians and the weight of auxiliary testimony and reasoning. On the point that Christ resurrected from the dead, we argue for His divinity. On the multitude of historical evidence, we show that this divine Christ who was resurrected did indeed found a Church. Having shown that the Church was founded by Christ, we then show that this Christ and His Church are indeed the ones witnessed to by Scripture, and that this Scripture is the heart of the Tradition of the Church.

Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. Take note that he did not say that to be deep in Scripture is to cease to be Protestant, for to say that Scripture proves the truth of the Catholic Church for us would be simply wrong. Scripture confirms what the Church teaches and witnesses to what the Church says; it is the heart of the Tradition of the Church, but not its source. The source of the Tradition is Christ Himself. In the final analysis, the Resurrected Christ is the greatest proof for the true Church.

I have proven it earlier on that your argument is circular; now let’s prove it again by analyzing the above paragraphs. I have nothing against history. I already answered that historians and the readers of history are both fallible that there is a probability that when one reads history they will not end up concluding that Rome is the true church. Let’s give another approach.

Roman Catholic convert Stephen Ray wrote at the 38th page of his book, Crossing the Tiber, that the New Testament is the product of the church. So this confirms your position that the Bible is true because the church says so.

Now you claim that the truthfulness of the church is based on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ as documented by history. I am wondering what the source of this history is. History may tell you of the birth of Christ, but it does not confirm the virgin birth. History may tell you of his crucifixion and death, but it does not confirm the atonement. History may tell you of an empty tomb, but it does not confirm his resurrection. History may tell you that he founded a church, but it does not confirm her infallibility. If history would ever confirm those beliefs, it would have come either come from the writings of the bishops and church fathers (who are of course members of the church and were taught by the church) or the Bible (which you believe is the product of the church). In short, the source of those things mentioned actually originated from the church herself. That being said, you are left with no argument other than “my church says so”; circular.

********************

And now for your question. I will start by giving an illustration. Let's use the famous softdrink, Coca Cola. The factory will not give you a list of the softdrinks they made since they began operations so that you can verify if the Coke you bought is real. But if you have been drinking Coke for years, you would recognize it's taste. All you have to do is drink.

Softdrinks can be faked easily, and in any case, taste buds are fallible. In the final analysis, it is not enough to have good tastebuds; it is necessary that we define what is Coke and what is not on the basis of a standard recipe, regardless of what amateurish tasters think. Do you think that the manufacturers of Coke simply depend on their taste buds?

Obviously you have not understood the phrase I wrote, if you have been drinking Coke for years. This implies that a person new to Coke will not be able to identify it promptly, it takes time. Likewise, getting to know God takes time; it is called maturity. Do you remember when the Prophet Samuel was a child? He wasn’t able to recognize God because he was just starting.

********************

The Scriptures share a very important characteristic: they all were God-breathed (2nd Timothy 3:16). They were not made by men. They were never declared by men to be inspired. God did. God never threw a table of contents, He left a quality in the Scriptures so that His people (both Jews in the OT and Christians in the NT) can recognize His voice.

If only it were that easy! The fact remains that Christians fought over which books were God-breathed and which ones were not; which books resounded with His voice, and which ones did not. This took place over hundreds of years. In the end, the Church had to step in: hence the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, the Letter of Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, the Festal Letter of St. Athanasius. These are concrete historical facts that you cannot deny. If it was so easy to discern which books had God’s voice, then why were there protracted discussions, why was there need for Councils on both Jewish and Christian sides to discern what books are inspired and what are not?

I cannot deny the same Hippo and Carthage which are not ecumenical councils and are not even initiatives of Rome. I also cannot deny Carthage based their recognition of the OT from the Septuagint and listed 1 and 2 Esdras for which 2 Esdras contained Ezra and Nehemiah while 1 Esdras was extra-canonical which was eventually removed from Trent a thousand years later. I also cannot deny the rejection of the Apocrypha by Jerome, Melito of Sardis, Gregory the Great, Athanasius, Cajetan, etc.

It was only in Trent that your Bible was finalized. You are right; it isn’t that easy if you leave the Scripture to human institutions, in fact it is impossible. For me, the Scriptures has long been inspired and defined even before there was the first a man in Rome who claimed to be pope.

Your argument is but a variant of the “if-I-read-it-I’ll-know-it’s-God’s-word” argument. It is scarcely convincing, for the Mormons use the same for the Book of Mormon and the Muslims use the same when singing the Koran’s praises. Again and again, you fall into subjectivitism.

The “if-I-read-it-I’ll-know-it’s-God’s-word” argument is simply stated but the process of realization is deeper. As I said, it takes time to know God. Likewise, Mormons and Muslim would also take time to know their rule of faith.

********************

In any case, according to your own argument, the early Christians were able to recognize the voice of God. Where these Christians – the Church Fathers – Born Again Christians or Evangelicals? Please answer.

I am anticipating that you would argue the affiliation of these early Christians as to whether they are Roman Catholic (not the single word Catholic), Eastern Orthodox, or Evangelical. This would be off topic.

********************

The early church (leaders and member alike) never needed a table of contents, they looked for the very important characteristic, theopneustos.

Hehehe. Didn’t you just say that the sacred books were “never declared by men to be inspired.” Now, you contradict yourself.

Precisely as you say, the Church decided which books had theopneustos! But they did it according to the hierarchical principle, not according to democratic means: hence the Councils.

Identifying the Scriptures is different from deciding and declaring the Scriptures. Identifying leaves you no choice to decide. If you were to identify Barack Obama, it will not leave you any choice to decide that a certain Caucasian is Barack Obama. And you cannot simply pick a random African American and say he is Barack Obama. The uniqueness and sum characteristics of Barack Obama leaves no room to decide from the choices and thus only subject to a specific identification. Likewise, if a given writing has theopneustos there is no need to decide if it is Scripture or not.

********************

Of course, the early church did her part to teach the generations about the Scriptures and thus, the table of contents.

Ouch. Self-contradiction alert!

No contradiction, but a misrepresentation on your part. Sola scriptura does not deny the church to teach.

********************

But even if there is no table of contents, the characteristic remain.

So why did the early Church bother to come up with a table of contents, if there is no need for it anyway?

Before anything else, I would like to tell you that I believe that the table of contents is not the canon in its entirety. If you are treating the canon as the table of contents itself, then we are not arguing on the same level. If you are asking why did the early Church bother to come up with a canon, then that is not my position because God is the author of the canon.

You can add, remove, or rearrange the books in a list and still call it a table of contents but not so in the real canon. The table of contents is there for teaching/guiding purposes but it is dependent on the canon.

And for that matter, if you recognize that the early Church did indeed come up with the table of contents for Scripture, then why do you – as a Protestant – deny that table of contents, by choosing to follow a version of the Old Testament foreign to the one accepted by the early Church?

You are asking as if the early church has the same table of contents as you have, it is begging the question. You are also asking it as if we are dependent on Rome for our table of contents; again it is begging the question. There are debates going on about the canon. Thus, your question contains an argumentative premise.

********************

In my illustration, even if the Coke factory will not give me certification of authenticity, I can recognize it is Coke if I taste it.

I’d like to see you try.

Or maybe you can tell of your experience. I’m sure you have experienced ordering a glass of Coke but instead you
tasted root beer the moment you drank from the glass. For sure you didn’t go the Coke factory just to confirm what the waiter gave you wasn’t Coke. When the waiter apologized and replaced the root beer with Coke, no doubt it was your taste buds that told what you finally drank was Coke.

********************

The Jews who were born 50 years before Christ has recognized God's voice and knew for certain that the book of Isaiah is of God's.

Because, at that time, the Jews had the privilege of being the bearers of the Word.

I already answered this earlier.

********************

Conclusion:

I would like to repeat what I have written above:

I cannot know the Scriptures without an infallible interpreter. I cannot know the infallible interpreter without interpreting history and the Bible. I also cannot know the infallible interpreter until we reach an agreement on what standards we should follow in determining the infallible interpreter. And worst of all, I am not infallible to interpret things because Roman Catholics claim that all interpretations rest on the infallible church which we are tasked to identify. We are running in circles with your reasoning!

That is exactly what will happen if I follow Rome’s position, I will end up with nothing but a circular argument. I will not deny that God used the church to bring the Scriptures to the world. But the authenticity of the Scriptures does not rest on “my church says so”. God reveals the Scripture to the church so that she could do the purposes God intends for the world. The certainty of the Scriptures rests on the purposes of God.

Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. Psalm 119:89 (NIV)

For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. Romans 15:4 (NIV)