Carlton The Way
Second among the alarming errors in The Way[1] is the fact that there will always be those who
insist that sola scriptura means solo scriptura.[2]
Sola Scriptura
Such a stance is born out of ignorance and obscuritanism. Those who are willing to expend the effort
will invariably discover that sola scriptura never has meant solo scriptura,
and never will. In the meanwhile, until
such a day of bliss arrives, the anti-sola scriptura and the solo scriptura
parties will continue to argue the same old threadbare sixteenth century
arguments without any change in result.
For the Reformers themselves, sola scriptura has always meant a combination
of scripture and tradition, history and the Bible. Luther argues repeatedly from history. Calvin prevailed against his adversaries
because of his superior command of Patristics.
Three of Zwingli’s disciples developed their views on baptism directly
from the “Didache”. In our modern world,
seminaries consistently require extensive studies in Historical Theology or
Church History. My mentors and teachers
in such endeavors insisted on a preference for reading original Fathers rather
than textbooks. In such an environment
it is ludicrous to suppose that sola scriptura somehow means the rejection of
tradition.
We might debate whether such a combination of scripture with tradition is a
fifty-fifty mix, a homogenous whole, or a balance where scripture is the final
decisive voice that cannot be contradicted.
In actual practice the combination of scripture with tradition differs
from reader to reader. Differences among
Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant scholars overlap considerably: so that, on
average, they may even be indistinguishable.
We are not now discussing what various groups theorize about scripture or
tradition: but rather, how they employ scripture and tradition in
practice. It is this preference for
praxis over theory, which we wish to emphasize.
At this point of actual practice, I’m equally moved by good Catholic,
Orthodox, and Protestant sermons. The
debate about the preferences in the combination of scripture with tradition is
unprofitable, precisely because of this similarity of practice.
My own meager explorations into this debate have uncovered the same
identical confirmation from Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike. Scripture and tradition are both
essential. Tradition can never be used
to contradict scripture. Since we all
seem to agree on these two essential points, what is the merit of continuing
the debate? It is as if one should say,
“I endorse scripture and tradition;” while another insists, “That is entirely
wrong, I trust tradition as the setting for Scripture;” and a third declares,
“Both of you are wrong, Scripture is the diamond in the context of
tradition.” Personally, this argument
seems moot.
We may pursue the idea that “the Devil is in the details.” When push comes to shove, when we have to get
down to the nitty-gritty of the problem, Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants
alike, all face the same issues. We have
the same difficulties with philology; the same confusions over text criticism;
and we work from identical resources.
Discussions of these issues cross all denominational boundaries, without
exception.
Since I am neither a philologist, nor a text critic, my studies are limited
to the same commonly available English, Greek, Hebrew, and Latin printed
documents that anyone else can find: either in print, or on the internet. This is equally true of Patristics where I am
as dependent upon scholars like Philip Schaff[3], the
Calvinist, and Sebastian Brock[4], the
Oxford Scholar, as I am dependent on similar authorities for my Greek, Hebrew,
and Latin Bibles. (The English, I can
dig out for myself.) No substantial dispute
can possibly exist over these details: they have no denominational dividing
lines.
We salute Fr. Georges Florovsky’s statement,
“… the ‘unwritten
tradition,’ in rites and symbols, does not actually add anything to the content
of the Scriptural faith: it only puts this faith in focus.”[5]
This is a statement with which we heartily agree: yet, it openly
contradicts many of the points raised in The Way. This quote does not contradict the bare
facts, insofar as these are accurate.
What it contradicts is that this faith is somehow different than sola
scriptura: the idea that what other conservative Christians embrace is somehow
widely and wildly different. Florovsky’s
statement is an excellent summary statement favoring sola scriptura. Moreover, he discusses the rule of faith, a
favorite of Luther’s. Luther stoutly
embraced the importance of foundational creedal understanding; as well as
fidelity to the author’s purpose, and theme, among other things: the sorts of
things usually included under the heading of tradition. In such a context the liturgy is the initial
layer of tradition. About liturgy, Luther
would claim that “our worship is the same” as the Orthodox.[6] To a considerable extent The Way
distorts the meaning of tradition as Florovsky uses the term.
Church More Important than Bible
“[Jesus
when He ascended to the Father] “He left His Body and sent His Spirit”
(Archimandrite Vasileios).”[7]
This is
obviously true. However, it fails to
acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is given to all. It also fails to recognize the disastrous
results of Florence, or the grim reality of Revelation 20:7.[8] If Revelation 20:7
explains our predicament, then everyone is subject to deception. In such a case, if Revelation 20:7 is upon
us, 2 Thessalonians 2:8[9] may be our only safe remedy. We do not know that God does not intend to
use any and all of us in the sincere, unaltered proclamation of His Word. We may very well be the instruments of the
breath of His mouth. If The Church is
crippled by Florence, not by the Reformation, which is merely a knee-jerk
reaction to Florence, then God’s Word may be all that is left for anchorage,
and the Baptist solution is no worse than any other.[10] In any case the
statement that “He left His Body and sent His Spirit” applies to The Church in aggregate,
and cannot be twisted to exclusive application for any particular group.
Actually, Moses and the Prophets wrote the Bible,
the Apostles merely added to it. The
transfer of Apostolic authority and witness to the whole of The Church is a
grave contortion of the facts.[12] This is another deceptive half-truth. God wrote the Bible in conversations between Himself
and Prophets or Apostles, which conversations the same Apostles and Prophets
faithfully recorded.
In the first century that Bible was already
completed, or nearly completed for roughly one hundred years. This Bible is and was, during the first
century, in Greek rather than in Hebrew, the Old Testament of significance,
commonly called the Septuagint (LXX).
Reports of an authoritative MT are a Jewish fable. The only portions that could possibly be
missing from the LXX in 100 BC are portions of the Deuterocanon written after
100 BC. By 4 BC, the LXX is complete and
contains all 39 Canonical books, as well as all of the Deuterocanon. The expunging of the Deuterocanon from the MT
is an act of the Jews, in the flesh, carried out after 70 AD. The Church had nothing to do with the writing
of this LXX document; yet, it is perfectly fundamental, and even mandatory for
the formation of The New Testament Church, which was not born until 33 AD. Not only is The Church a non-contributor to
this LXX Bible, but Jesus Himself is its perfect author, fulfillment, and
interpreter, without any contribution from The Church. Jesus is the One who receives and makes
Canonical, the entire Old Testament in Greek without the aid of humans, other
than as an Apostolic witnesses of the truth.
It is this Apostolic witness which constructs The Church and records the
New Testament, and not The Church herself.
It is false and naïve to claim that, “… the Church wrote the Bible
….” The fact is that both are a
continuation of something older, and they were maintained side by side as
family, and family picture album. There
can be no question that the first Bible of The Church was exclusively the Greek
Old Testament.
Since this is also true, it cannot
be less true for Catholics, or Orthodox, or Protestants. Where the comfort of God is present for the
unwanted of this world, it is present in all the fullness of the Holy Ghost. It is simply wrong for anyone or any organization
to claim exclusive fullness. The Spirit
(like the wind) moves wherever He wishes (John 3:8; 1 Corinthians 12:11, 18,
24-27). Clearly, The Church is an act of
God and not of man. The Holy Ghost is
not servant to the dictates and whims of mankind. Where the Holy Ghost choses to be; there is
the fullness of the authority and leadership of God; there is the fullness of
the interpretation, proclamation, and understanding of Scripture; there is the
fullness of the assent of the Fathers; there is the fullness of The Church,
which will never be left as an orphan.
This must be applied equally to all Catholics, Orthodox, and
Protestants. If The Church is more
important than the Bible, and it is, then this importance attaches to all
Christians, not just a select few.
Tradition
This is simply misleading.[15] The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches also
oppose such authority, wherever it conflicts with Scripture (RC Catechism 83
and 86[16]). The authors of the great ecumenical councils
of The Church repeatedly urge the use of exact Scripture language wherever
possible. Canon law preserves two
things: principles from Scripture which cannot ever change, and local or temporal
applications which do change with the passage of time or changes in location.[17]
For example: Canon 3 requires
celibacy for all clergy of any rank.[18] This is consistent with St. John Chrysostom’s
views on the subject.
The Scripture expresses a somewhat different
view: for even some Apostles were evidently married. On the other hand, all are encouraged to
separate from their wives for the purpose of prayer.[19] Scripture also points out that marriage
interferes with Christian service.[20]
In the balance we may understand
that the pressures of clerical office in the fourth century required a
principle of celibacy to be applied, even though this may not have been an
eternal law. Similarly, celibacy among
some, but not all Catholic clergy, may be an expedient remedy intended to
correct evils within the Catholic Church, without making Canon 3 into a
universal law. As a matter of fact, both
Deacons and lesser clergy may be married in Catholic and Orthodox churches;
even married individuals may enter the priesthood in Orthodox churches. Yet, Jesus himself notes that there is no
marriage in heaven.
We conclude that, in the greater
scheme of things, prayer and worship are the eternal realities, while marriage
is quite temporary.
The idea of the “binding authority
to tradition” does not exist at all: it certainly does not exist in
practice. This does not mean that when
church councils meet, even at the lowest local level, and vote, that they do
not expect their leadership to be followed.
They certainly do expect to be followed as servants, not as dictators.
Canon of Scripture
This begs the question. The Church did have a fully defined LXX Old
Testament, including the Deuterocanon, made Canonical by Christ Himself in His
life and use. This Canon was never
called into question because every Christian understood its validity. The Church also had Apostolic
leadership. Only in modern times has the
Apostolic authority and source of the New Testament books ever been really
called into question. The comments
concerning Luther are a straw man, since Luther commented on nearly every New
Testament book, and German Bibles contain the same twenty-seven New Testament books
that are received elsewhere. Two letters
of Paul to the Corinthians may have been lost: understandable in the light of
early persecution. The textual evidence
shows that this New Testament was complete before the end of the first
century. There was little need to hold a
vote for ratification.
“The Old Testament canon during
this time was more a process than an achievement.” This may have been in doubt and dispute in
1965, but ensuing studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the work of
Beckwith have put such false conclusions to rest. By the birth of Jesus, the Christ of God, the
Septuagint is a well-established canonical document.[22]
Canonicity is not a matter of the
acceptance of Divine writings by men.
Men have no such authority.
Canonicity is a matter of the acceptance of human records of the
Divine-human conversation by God. Only
God has that authority.
Bible Study
As far as the Israelites were
concerned, private Bible study was the expected norm. Scripture was published by elders,[24]
engraved on public monuments,[25]
designated for regular reading,[26]
and necessary for contemplation.[27] The whole of Psalms can be seen as an ode to
scripture.[28]
The Way leaps to an
unwarranted and absurd conclusion. First
of all, private Bible study was precluded by the cost of books prior to the
invention of the printing press.
Secondly, few people learned to read and write. One may as well argue that it is sinful for
people, who are not professional scribes, or too poor to buy books, to learn to
read. This is the theology of “ignorance
is bliss.” By this line of reasoning it
would be impossible to develop an educated priesthood, such as that required by
Canon 2;[29] the
early exegetical schools at Alexandria and Antioch must have been wallowing in
sin. In spite of this errant claim the
people of Berea searched the Scriptures: evidently, after the worship service
had ended.[30] The Bereans firmly put this theory of the blessings
of an ignorant Church to death.
While it is true that the principal
dissemination of Scripture was through public worship, as St. Justin (100-165) testifies, these words
apply primarily to the reading of the Old Testament in Greek, not nearly as much
as to New Testament reading. What this
does prove is that the modern churches are mostly apostate in their obedience:
for the Old Testament is rarely read nowadays.
It also proves that the writing of this book is heretical insofar as it
is the private study of an unordained individual. Indeed, the scripture offers its own response
to this line of reasoning.[31]
Interpretation
“…
they come from the universal source of Protestant dogma: the individual
interpretation of Scripture.”[32]
This line
of reasoning would have us believe that the interpretation of Scripture is a
willy-nilly exercise in personal opinion, a decidedly straw representation of
interpretation. No one can interpret
Scripture without the help of the Holy Ghost: in which endeavor we have the aid
of philologists, lexicographers, grammarians, and the like before the work of
interpretation is ever begun. Numerous
resources inform us of the opinions of the Fathers, for example: Philip Schaff, the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene
Fathers (36 large encyclopedic
volumes); the Christian Classics Ethereal Library; the Loeb Classical Library;
New Advent; and more recently the Ancient Christian Commentary on
Scripture from Intervarsity Press.
Suffice it to say that western scholars are better informed in
Patristics than many eastern scholars.
In some cases western scholars are the only known subject matter
experts: for example Sebastian Brock on the Syrian fathers.
“The second proposition for a
doctrine of sola [meaning solo] Scriptura is that the Scriptures are
self-interpreting.”[33]
Is this not the very same thing
that St. Justin has just claimed, when he writes:
“And on the day which is
called the Sun’s Day there is an assembly of all who live in the towns or the
country; and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are
read, as much as time permits. When the
reader has finished the president gives a discourse, admonishing us and
exhorting us to imitate these excellent examples (I Apology 67).”
The “discourse” is specifically
stated to include admonition and exhortation directed at imitating the
examples; examples which are evidently clearly understood without
interpretation: for nothing whatsoever is mentioned about interpretation. Evidently, St. Justin does believe in the
self-interpretation of Scripture.
Moreover, when interpretation is
mentioned in connection with the second temple the meaning of interpretation is
clearly one of translation: for the hearers did not understand the readings in
the earlier 587 BC dialect, so that they had to be reread in the 517 BC Aramaic
dialect for the understanding of the people.
When one examines modern
interpretation, one sees that it is mostly concerned with making the Greek of
the first century understandable in modern English. Interpretation is not a random assortment of
opinions. The Scripture is used for
pulpit reading, and it is intended to be clearly understood as read with very
little explanation or interpretation.
The emphasis of biblical preaching can and should be about application
and exhortation.
The Ethiopian Eunuch is a special
case, for he would have had no context for understanding Isaiah, nor do we: the
explanation given is none other than part of the Apostolic witness which we
know as the New Testament.
When problem passages are
encountered every reasonable interpreter resorts to Patristic evidence for
assistance. It is the assumption that
only certain groups have access to and use the Patristic witness, which is “patently
absurd”. The examples used are
unfortunate for few dispute the Nicene testimony: so these are examples of
agreement in interpretation, not differences.
The problem in the controversy at
Nicea is not that there is any real doubt that Jesus is God; the problem rests
in the difficulty of finding a suitable word for discussion of the unknowable
nature of God: this is still a problem, for the idea under discussion is
profound, and ordinary words do not suffice.
This simply fails to prove that Scripture is not self-interpreting,
since some nine hundred texts attest to the divinity of Christ. With what words shall we express this?
The self-interpretation aspect of
sola Scriptura is not a denial of the historical process, but an affirmation of
that historical process. It is solo
Scriptura that denies the historical process.
The self-interpreting nature of Scripture does not mean that its
treasures are yielded up without considerable toil: the faithful disciple is
compelled to meditate day and night on both Scripture and its historical setting.
“Indeed, the witness of the
Scripture is ultimately “self-evident,” but only for the “faithful,” for those
who have achieved a certain “spiritual” maturity, — and this is only possible within the Church.”[34]
Systems
As often as this book harps on this
errant issue, the fact remains that it is not the Bible which is at fault, it
is not the Bible which has failed us.
When any such “system of doctrine” is fairly appraised it fails of
fidelity to Scripture. It is not the
Bible which is at fault, it is the “system of doctrine” which is to blame. Resolution can only be found when all such
“systems of doctrine” are found to be imperfect; when brothers and sisters in
Christ agree to set aside their pre-conceived notions of Scripture and attempt
one more time to sit at the feet of Jesus and listen afresh to what He has to
say. There are few seminaries in the
land that do not include historical theology as part of the required
curriculum. The better among these many
curricula urge students to set aside text books and read original
documents. Required college courses in
western civilization provide wide exposure to such readings. Seminaries require much more. Giants in the field of Church History, like Jaroslav Pelikan[36]
do not develop out of the paucity of Patristic studies in the west. Once again, solo Scriptura means the Bible by
itself. Sola Scriptura means that the
Bible is the central and focal gem stone of the entire history of the universe.
Life
“Christianity is
essentially a life to be lived, not a set of doctrines or moral precepts.”[37]
While there is much to be said in favor of this sentence, the writer
contradicts himself when he writes. “…
both views [of sola Scriptura] are opposed to assigning binding authority to
tradition.” The “binding authority [of]
tradition” is precisely that: namely, “a set of doctrines [and] moral precepts,” which are sometimes known as
dogma. The sentence might better have
said, Christianity is essentially a life to be lived, which cannot be accomplished
without conformity to a set of doctrines, moral precepts, or dogmas. At the very least such a set of dogmas should
include statements about God, the Bible, Sacraments, and Prayer. Moreover dogmatic statements should be open
to confronting the strongholds of false concepts present in every
generation. The Nicene Creed is such a
set of dogmas; dogmas not positioned in a list of doctrinal statements, but
rather in prayer: thus ensuring their impact in lives “to be lived.” Such dogmas cannot be established in
contradiction to, or apart from, Scripture: for this very reason it is
imperative that dogmatic statements be minimal.
It is of no merit whatsoever to make unwarranted dogmatic statements.
Proof Texts
“... all references to the Scriptures in the New Testament,
with one possible exception [2 Peter 3:16], refer to the Old Testament.”[38]
We agree with this observation with one modification. All references to the Scriptures in
the New Testament, with rare exception, refer to the Greek Old Testament, the
LXX.
Distortion of God’s Word
We cannot agree that either Moses
or John would find it necessary to include trivial notes about scribal
error. What both Moses and John warn
against is putting words into, or deleting words from God’s mouth. Neither Moses nor John can be limited in
their imprecation to deliberate twisting of copying only: the imprecation must
apply to Scripture twisting of any kind; and if specifically to Revelation;
obviously, hence in principle to all that God has said. God said what He said, and He meant it. Nevertheless, this says nothing about the
value or lack of value of traditions in general, nor about the inerrancy of
present day printed versions or even of ancient manuscripts. The correct application of both imprecations
is applied to the Scripture in Jesus’ hands, which He alone is qualified to
open in Revelation 5.
LXX and Deuterocanon
Time has proved that this choice of
the Reformers (1517-1648) is
among the gravest errors of all time.
Given the historic milieu of that age, their error was
understandable. Hus was dead (1415), the
Hussites had been at war (1419-1434), Bohemian wars followed (1468-1478), the
Papacy had moved to Avignon (1309-1377), three (anti-) Popes were in office at
the same time (1378-1417, see Western Schism), and the Conciliar movement had
been crushed finally at Florence (1431-1449).
Moreover, the plague was not completely spent; life was short and cheap,
and many were dying because of Christian wars.
Muslim conquests had pushed Byzantine culture into central Europe
(623–1050) sparking fresh scholarship in the west. Minor Crusades were still in progress
(1096-1456). The Renaissance was the outcome in southern Europe
(14th-17th centuries). Confronted with
such a mass of new information for the first time, and all this cultural
turmoil, it is perfectly understandable that many learning errors were made. The west has yet to completely absorb all
that there is to learn from Byzantine culture and theology. On the other hand, the Byzantines had every
opportunity to lend a helping hand: possibly their bitterness and fear over
Florence prevented them from taking action.
The reforming barbarians were left to their own devices. The reformation was a knee-jerk reaction to
the whole fiasco.
Novices
While it is true that first time Bible readers develop a wide variety of
ideas about what the Scripture means and says, a few thoughts come to
mind. Such bizarre and wild ideas may be
found everywhere: among Catholics and Orthodox, as well as Protestants. It is also true that such bizarre and wild
ideas often prevail among one’s friends and followers: because this one person is
often the only one reading the Bible at all within such a circle of friends and
followers, the rest have only ignorance to pool. In a few cases such bizarre and wild ideas
have even attracted large followings of pooled ignorance, so that whole cults
or denominations develop around the paucity of Bible reading. In reality, none of us knows the Bible as
well as we think we do.
The cure is more Bible reading, not less: for the Bible is
self-interpreting. With each passing
year, my understanding of Scripture joins more and more in consensus with the
ancient Fathers, and less and less with most modern interpreters.
There are several reasons for this.
One, the Bible says what it says: I just need to read it more carefully
and prayerfully. Two, I realize that the
Bible must make sense in its first century setting as it must also make sense
to me: so I am constantly driven by the question, what did this mean to the
first century Christian and how can I stand with that first century Christian
in faith. Call this magisterium or
tradition or whatever you like. In any
case: more Bible reading brings me into closer agreement and understanding of
the great ancient theologians every year, so that I find myself standing beside
them and praying with them more and more.
My ideas as a novitiate have faded into a comic cloud of forgottenness,
where they belong. The
self-interpretation power of Scripture draws me into closer agreement with
ancient tradition, the more I prayerfully read the Bible. In some ways, this pulls me farther away from
Calvin, Luther, and the like: for the Scripture was not written in the context,
fears, and turmoil of Medieval, Reformation, or Renaissance Europe. The meaning of Scripture is, therefore, both
broader and deeper, more universal in scope.
Ignorance of scripture, especially the Old Testament, has reached epidemic
proportions in our world today.
Moreover, some pastors, preachers, priests, and even bishops seem to be
advocating this as a good thing. How
tragic.
[1]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), 221 pages
[2]
“Sola
Scriptura….” The author reveals that for
him, sola scriptura means solo scriptura.
What Sola Scriptura actually means is that Scripture cannot be
interpreted outside of the context of history, and tradition. Where conflicts seem to arise, the priority
must always be given to Scripture: for God never contradicts Himself. While both Catholic and Orthodox statements
use other words, the meaning is fundamentally the same. It is the misunderstanding concerning solo
scriptura that causes most of the difficulty.
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury,
MA: 1997), page 87
[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Schaff
[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Brock
[5]
This was quoted from “The Function of Tradition in the Ancient Church,”
originally published in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review
(IX, 2, 1963); and reprinted in Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern
Orthodox View (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Co., 1972), pages 73-92,
page 88f specifically. http://www.bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/rr/lode/florovsky1.pdf
Carlton, Clark, The Way,
(Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 151, note 10
[6]
Today, Lutheran worship is still clearly a subset of Chrysostom’s liturgy.
[7]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 81
[8]
“When the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed
out of his prison….”
[9]
“Then that wicked one shall be revealed, whom the Lord shall
consume and destroy with the breath of his mouth, and with the brightness of
his coming.”
[10]
The Way is critical of Baptists in general and Southern Baptists
in particular. It does not detail the
faults of other denominations, which broader evaluation would be required for
accurate analysis and balance or perspective.
Baptists become too easy a target with this approach.
[11]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 82
[12]
This simply fails to square with tradition itself, with the historic record of
the book of Acts. It overstates and oversimplifies
a profound problem.
[13]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 82
[14]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 90
[15]
http://www.3saints.com/canons.html
[16]
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
[17]
http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/afanasiev-canons.html
[18]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.iv.html
[19]
Exodus 19:15; 1 Corinthians 7:1, 5; Revelation 14:4
[20]
1 Corinthians 7:7, 9 (marriage is the exception, not the rule), 32-35
[21]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 92
[22]
Grant, Robert M., The Formation of the New Testament, (Harper and
Row, NY, 1965), page 8. A process which
appears to be mostly completed by 200 BC, possibly complete by 130 BC according
to Beckwith, Roger T., Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church,
(Wipf and Stock, Eugene, OR: a 2008 republication of SPCK in 1985), pages 21f.,
141 Carlton, Clark, The Way,
(Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 99
[23]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 95
[24]
Numbers 11:16-17, 24-29
[25]
Deuteronomy 27:1-8
[26]
Deuteronomy 6:1-9; Nehemiah 9:3
[27]
Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:2
[28]
Especially, Psalms 19, and 119
[29]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.iii.html
[30]
Acts 17:11
[31]
Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24
[32]
Indeed, because of freedom of speech, any scholar may wander onto wildly remote
opinions: yet such will always be subject to the cross-examination of their
peers. The claim that all such
interpreters fail to adhere to sound principles of interpretation, and are
ill-advised in Patristics, is without foundation. The claim for Orthodox “fullness” in
interpretation can only be made as it is built on the backs of supporting
western scholars. How then, can it be
viewed as “full”? Carlton, Clark, The
Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 74
[33]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 99ff
[34]
http://www.bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/rr/lode/florovsky1.pdf page 92
[35]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 119
[36]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaroslav_Pelikan
[37]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), pages 89,
note 2 and 119, especially note 62
[38]
This quote attributed to Metzger could not be substantiated via Kindle
search. Since the reference is merely
“Metzger, p. 273” we may have the wrong book, edition, or page. Metzger, Bruce M., “The Canon of the New
Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance” (Oxford University Press,
Oxford: 1997) 336 pages, page 273. We
agree, this is fundamental to discovering the truth. Carlton, Clark, The Way,
(Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 122, note 1 (see 98, note 22)
[39]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 131
[40]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 133,
note 16
[41]
If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost,
share, or use any of them as you wish.
No rights are reserved. They are
designed and intended for your free participation. They were freely received, and are freely
given. No other permission is required
for their use.
