Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi LA,

Thanks for your post and your kind words.

The question of what is an ‘essential’ is also key, as you note.

Over the years I have seen a lot of people claim that all Protestants are in agreement ‘on the essentials’, and as such, that they have some sort of ‘unity’ (small ‘u’ of course). When I see that I normally ask them for a list of these ‘essentials’. The veteran Protestant apologists will NEVER give you a list, even though they had just told you that, essentially, there was a list. Once in a while, a newbi will offer up a list, which by the way is always EXTREMELY SHORT. So then I ask them for what the ‘accepted understanding’ is for each of these issues. The result is normally something that very few Christians would agree with.

The point is that within Protestantism, the list of so called ‘essentials’ goes all over the map as does everything else with the beliefs of the Reformation communities. And yet, we hear from some of them all about the ‘clarity’ of the Scriptures. Well – if the Scriptures are so amazingly clear on its doctrinal teachings, then how in the world to all of (those other) Protestants manage to get it all so wrong?

Heiko Oberman, a Reformed Scholar makes the following rather surprising assessment about Sola Scriptura and the supposed clarity of Scripture.

“For us in the twentieth century, his answer cannot be convincing, because application of the Reformation principal of sola scriptura, the Scriptures alone, has not brought the certainty he anticipated. It has in fact been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretation that seem to render absurd any dependence on the clarity of the Scriptures.” Oberman, “Luther, Man Between God and the Devil”, pg. 220

The answer of course is that Sola Scriptura is not a teaching of Christ or of the Apostles, and it is also something that the Fathers would have recognized as heresy. Without a organized and visible Church to authoritatively teach and correct, there will be more and more denominaliztion and more and more secularization.

If the Scriptures are actually NOT ‘clear’, which they obviously are not, then that places a tremendous burden on any idea that Sola Scriptura could lead to doctrinal purity. Plus, when you throw in all of the various and conflicting human mechanisms by which to interpret Scripture, the result is doctrinal chaos.

Protestantism has absolutely no way out of its problems with doctrinal dissention and confusion. It cannot settle its internal doctrinal differences because each ecclesiastical community is so vested in its own authority. All of these various ‘authorities’ are supposedly ‘Biblical’ and are also supposedly the best at interpreting Scripture. But then, along comes another Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli or another dozen John Smiths, and then we have another addition to the now more than 40,000 separate doctrinally independent groups.

What you almost never see is a Protestant explanation which assigns responsibility for all this doctrinal chaos on anything BUT Sola Scriptura.

I wonder what a complete outsider (to Christianity) would think about the massive doctrinal confusion that has developed within Protestantism in the short 500 years it has been in existence.

God Bless You LA, Topper

Greetings, Topper.

In regards to the perception of the division…in my attempts to evangelize Muslims, the division within protestant Christendom is one of the major obstacles I faced.

Islam sees them with all these thousands of denominations, plus they have a different bible than us, and in their minds it is proof positive that Christianity is false and full of conjecture Quran 4:157

It was really something I had no solid explanation for. Islam has slight divisions, but NOTHING like protestant Christianity.

I do sympathize with the protestant denominations because what they are attempting to do with bible-alone theology is pretty much a impossible feat. You mentioned all the various human mechanisms that play their part and this is really key in understanding why so many fractures have occurred. We all have a different filter in which we interpret things and that is based on our own background, education level, life’s perception, etc, etc. Plus we are prideful beings with delicate sensibilities so w/o proper hierarchy, chaos is inevitable.

Blessings.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13750351]
The question of what is an ‘essential’ is also key, as you note.

Over the years I have seen a lot of people claim that all Protestants are in agreement ‘on the essentials’, and as such, that they have some sort of ‘unity’ (small ‘u’ of course). When I see that I normally ask them for a list of these ‘essentials’. The veteran Protestant apologists will NEVER give you a list, even though they had just told you that, essentially, there was a list. Once in a while, a newbi will offer up a list, which by the way is always EXTREMELY SHORT. So then I ask them for what the ‘accepted understanding’ is for each of these issues. The result is normally something that very few Christians would agree with.

Which protestants?

The point is that within Protestantism, the list of so called ‘essentials’ goes all over the map as does everything else with the beliefs of the Reformation communities. And yet, we hear from some of them all about the ‘clarity’ of the Scriptures. Well – if the Scriptures are so amazingly clear on its doctrinal teachings, then how in the world to all of (those other) Protestants manage to get it all so wrong?

Which protestants?

In other words, Topper, instead of vague attacks, why not be specific? You continue to speak of protestants as if it is one group (when you know they never were). Then, you criticize them for not being one group. You set up this strawman, easily knocked down.

Heiko Oberman, a Reformed Scholar makes the following rather surprising assessment about Sola Scriptura and the supposed clarity of Scripture.

“For us in the twentieth century, his answer cannot be convincing, because application of the Reformation principal of sola scriptura, the Scriptures alone, has not brought the certainty he anticipated. It has in fact been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretation that seem to render absurd any dependence on the clarity of the Scriptures.”Oberman, “Luther, Man Between God and the Devil”, pg. 220

There is no doubt about this.

The answer of course is that Sola Scriptura is not a teaching of Christ or of the Apostles, and it is also something that the Fathers would have recognized as heresy. Without a organized and visible Church to authoritatively teach and correct, there will be more and more denominaliztion and more and more secularization.

If failure to bring about unity is the measuring stick for whether or not a hermeneutical practice is apostolic, then Scripture and Tradition, along with the Magisterium is also not a teaching of Christ or of the Apostles. It is this method that has overseen all of the divisions within the Church, and much of it after the 7th Ecumenical Council.

If the Scriptures are actually NOT ‘clear’, which they obviously are not, then that places a tremendous burden on any idea that Sola Scriptura could lead to doctrinal purity. Plus, when you throw in all of the various and conflicting human mechanisms by which to interpret Scripture, the result is doctrinal chaos.

Apparently, it places the same burden on Scripture +Tradition+Magisterium. There was doctrinal chaos before the Reformation.

Protestantism has absolutely no way out of its problems with doctrinal dissention and confusion.

Again, speaking about “protestantism”, whatever that may be, as if it is one unit that is confused.

It cannot settle its internal doctrinal differences because each ecclesiastical community is so vested in its own authority.

A thousand years, Topper, thousand years, and we are told its political. It isn’t political. Its doctrinal. And the difference between Rome and the EO is the same as the differences between Lutherans and Reformed: doctrine.

All of these various ‘authorities’ are supposedly ‘Biblical’ and are also supposedly the best at interpreting Scripture. But then, along comes another Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli or another dozen John Smiths, and then we have another addition to the now more than 40,000 separate doctrinally independent groups.

The OO is best. No, the EO is best. No, Rome is best. No, the OC’s are best. No, the PNCC is best. All claim they are right through scripture and Tradition.

What you almost never see is a Protestant explanation which assigns responsibility for all this doctrinal chaos on anything BUT Sola Scriptura.

You’re right, because it isn’t the fault of the principle. It’s the fault of human sin, the same fault that plagues Rome and the EO, and all the others.

I wonder what a complete outsider (to Christianity) would think about the massive doctrinal confusion that has developed within Protestantism in the short 500 years it has been in existence.

A thousand years, Topper, a thousand years. The massive doctrinal confusion starts with Rome, and the EO (some might say the OO). But it didn’t start in Wittenburg, and it didn’t start in Geneva. And Oberman is correct, sola Scriptura failed to stop it.

Jon

 

[benhur]

Once in a while, a newbi will offer up a list (essential doctrines), which by the way is always EXTREMELY SHORT.

Hi T,

Short, extremely short, like the Apostles /Nicene Creed ?

But yes, the race is on for the best, and newest, and most relevant and encompassing creed that can still be claimed to be an “Apostles Creed”.

Blessings

 

[ericc]

That’s not true. Allow me to quote from what I thought you read, because it directly contradicts your argument:

And as for there being other keys, you have no grounds found in Tradition for that statement. The Fathers and Saints quoted in the above link clearly state that those same keys given to Peter were also given to the apostles, at least. There never has been a mention of “generic keys” and “Petrine keys” as though they are different. Such notions are novelties and innovations.

In that case, you need to provide evidence that either Jesus gave identical keys to others or the Church said so. Individual Fathers are not the Church.

THE key-bearer is Peter as all these quotes say:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch (363)

For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven. (Cyril, Catechetical Lectures A.D. 350).

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, also the foremost of the Apostles and the key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, healed Aeneas the paralytic in the name of Christ. (Cyril, Catech. xviii. n. 27)

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)
(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (434):
A disciple of St. John Chrysostom

Peter, the coryphaeus of the disciples, and the one set over (or chief of) the Apostles. Art not thou he that didst say, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God'? Thou Bar-Jonas (son of the dove) hast thou seen so many miracles, and art thou still but Simon (a hearer)? He appointed thee the key-bearer of Heaven, and has though not yet layed aside thy fisherman's clothing? (Proclus, Or. viii In Dom. Transfig. t. ix. Galland)

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826)

Writing to Pope Leo III:
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred

Eulogius of Alexandria (581)
Born in Syria, he became the abbot of the Mother of God monastery at Antioch. In 579, he was made Patriarch of Alexandria; and became an associate of St. Gregory the Great while visiting Constantinople. Much of their subsequent correspondence is still extant.

Neither to John, nor to any other of the disciples, did our Savior say, 'I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,' but only to Peter. (Eulogius, Lib. ii. Cont. Novatian. ap. Photium, Biblioth, cod. 280)

From all these quotes, I can confidently say that Peter was the ONLY one entrusted with the keys of heaven.

Did the Fathers that you touted claimed they had the same set of keys as Peter? Yes or no? They mentioned keys, but which set? You are assuming they have the same set as Peter aren’t you? But they never claimed that. You can’t get away from the notion that the Steward has the power to shut, none shall open, or those he open, none shall shut. Did the Fathers say that they have the power to shut what Peter has opened and open what Peter has shut? No one would dare to claim that.

And I see you remained silent on the faith. The faith of the time of the Fathers that you quoted, is that of the Catholic Faith. Obviously, if they have the same faith, the keys to heaven are the same. That’s why I say they are generic. They are the same global key as Peter’s. Do the heretics have the same faith? Do they have the keys? Do those that preached another Gospel has the same faith? Would they have the keys? No, no, no, no.

 

[ericc]

Hi ericc,

Ok it is not circular because your church says so.

It was never circular. The teachings of Jesus were preached by men that he appointed, he instituted the Church with the appointed Shepard. All these were all taught orally initially. Later some of these were committed to written form and eventually the Bible was formed/compiled by the Church. If you doubt the Bible you shouldn’t use it. But since you do, please do respect the Divine Institution that put it together. The Church says so because Christ said so. It is not a Church invention. But if you think those words in the Bible are invented by the Church, then just point out those and you can edit those out and create your own version of your Bible. Which some did partially. But did they ever stopped to ponder how they managed to infallibly determine their own set?

The Ethiopian and Philip both held to normative Writ. That does not exclude the church/teacher/preacher etc.

This verse is to illustrate that to understand Scriptures, a guide is needed. It wasn’t to exclude the guide but to put personal interpretation in its proper place.

Someone mentioned "sour grapes’’ in a post about P’s. Maybe it is the other way around, sour grapes because we go to other teachers/preachers/ churches on some things.

Of course you can go to anyone to understand something. We are sorrowful because those that you go to may not be apostolic, ignore Sacred Traditions, ignore the rich history of Fathers and Saints that have gone before us and do not teach with fullness of truth. Some even discard Scriptures to preach their own version of the gospel. Jealous? Hardly.

Why not, everybody else does, even the CC.

Because the book can not tell the reader what it meant. Everyone can read it, I grant you that. It is a useful and convenient collection of God’s love story to mankind.

Ok , so just do not let them speak with authority, for that is centralized, like unionized (for many churches, ordination).

How do you stop other Protestants from speaking with authority? You can’t because you have no authority to do so. If you have something against the priesthood, complain to God. He instituted it. We followed it.

Why not ask how can folks be so far apart on the same evidences, the same Lord ?

Because they want the interpretation to fit their needs and not follow what the veterans understood? You know, flow with the times, be up-to-date and suitable for current lifestyles and so on. Something that is right for meeeee. It may be true for you but not for me? We hear that from time to time. But we are traditional people, we don’t follow trends. God’s words are good for all times.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

You know, Stars, the rise of how Lutheranism uses scripture as the final norm came about, at least in part, as a result of the failure of the use of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, along with the Magisterium, to maintain unity of agreement on the doctrines of the Church.

Even with this in mind, Topper presents us with this scenario:

I disagree. You say that, at least in part, how Lutheranism uses Scripture as the final norm, is a result of the failure of the use of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

First of all, that is not exactly very specific, meaning that you have not documented this so called ‘failure’ of the use of Scripture and Tradition. My guess is that when you supply some details, it isn’t going to look as clear cut as what you seem to believe. Could you please provide the actual details about this supposed ‘failure’?

Secondly, as you know I have studied the early Reformation quite extensively. That being said, I have not run across any kind of consensus, or even individual opinions of Lutherans which would support the idea that Lutheran use of Scripture in the early Reformation period was at all a result of the ‘failure of the Church in using Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.’ That is, unless you are referring to the doctrines of the Church which the Reformation intended to change.

As we have read over the last few years, that early Reformation as VERY MUCH a doctrinal revolt against the Church. This is not to say that they didn’t justify their actions at least in part on the basis of the Schism 500 years earlier, but in fact, I don’t remember that from the writings of Reformation Scholars. If you know of some specific evidence that supports your contention on the matter, could you please post it?

BTW, if you want to chide the Church for its inability to maintain doctrinal unity, then you of course are going to have to criticize the Apostles of Christ for exactly the same thing. After all, there were heresies and schisms that were in existence even before the death of the last Apostle. In a similar manner, you are going to have to judge Lutheranism for the “failure of the use of Sacred Scripture…….to maintain unity of agreement on the doctrines”. (your phrase)

The difference I think lies in the actual statistics. In the now 1000 year old Schism, we have the RCC with still 51% or so of Christianity. Then we have the Orthodox at roughly 20% who have been divided up into about 17 different doctrinally independent Churches. That means that we have 71% of Christianity divided up into only 18 different Churches.

Conversely, Protestantism makes up only about 29% which are held in about 25,000 different denominations (from the Catholic Answers Tract “The Great Heresies”, which was granted the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR).

So, if numerical Unity can be considered a measure of ‘success’ or even as the Fathers tell us, a measure of heresy, then we should look at the following numbers:

Assuming 2,000,000,000 Christians worldwide:

The RCC has 51% or slightly over 1,000,000,000 united in ONE Church.

The Orthodox have 20% or 400,000,000 divided up into 17 doctrinally independent Churches = 23,000,000 per Church

Protestantism has 29% of the total at 580,000,000, divided up 25,000 times or roughly 23,000/ecclesiastical community.

So if we look at the raw statistics, do the non-Sola Scriptura Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches look like something that could have been ‘designed’ by Christ to achieve doctrinal unity, or would it be the Sola Scriptura communities?

I think it’s pretty clear Jon.

The differences that we have with the Calvinists regarding the real presence are stark and clear. He is right, however, our differences do not conform with Christ’s call for unity, and this has been the case for almost 500 years.
OTOH, the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Rome has lasted for almost a thousand years, and that has been with both sides claiming Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

I guess the answer to Topper’s question is, we don’t know. You’ve been at it for twice as long. Perhaps you can show us how to adjudicate differences.

As a matter of fact, the Orthodox and Roman Catholics are doctrinally MUCH closer than either is to any of the Sola Scriptura communities. In my opinion, the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox actually will achieve unity on issues of doctrine at some point, In addition, it seems to me that we are much closer on issues of faith and morals than the differences which exist within just the Lutheran communities. So, putting the shoe on the other foot, now after 500 years, are you headed towards greater unity with your Lutheran brothers or is there continuing fracturing?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=T

opper17;13752198]

I disagree. You say that, at least in part, how Lutheranism uses Scripture as the final norm, is a result of the failure of the use of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

First of all, that is not exactly very specific, meaning that you have not documented this so called ‘failure’ of the use of Scripture and Tradition. My guess is that when you supply some details, it isn’t going to look as clear cut as what you seem to believe. Could you please provide the actual details about this supposed ‘failure’?

It is at least as specific as the claim some make that divisions between the various western non-Catholic communions is caused by sola scriptura. The clarity is evident in a thousand years of division, and that this division is doctrinal. AFAIK, Catholics and Orthodox rely on Scripture and Tradition in this regard. Now, unless you have evidence that the division happened without regard to Scripture and Tradition, outside of it, it seems clear that Scripture and Tradition failed to maintain unity. Specifically, the central disagreement, for a thousand years now, is the role of the pope, what his primacy should be, as determined by scripture and Tradition.

Secondly, as you know I have studied the early Reformation quite extensively. That being said, I have not run across any kind of consensus, or even individual opinions of Lutherans which would support the idea that Lutheran use of Scripture in the early Reformation period was at all a result of the ‘failure of the Church in using Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.’

So, in your extensive study of the Reformation era, you’ve never come across:

“Since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason–I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other–my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen.”

Luther here gives words to the issue that the Lutheran Reformers faced. Now, we can disagree regarding whether or not they were right. We might even be able to agree that they were right on some things, and wrong on others. But the basic reason why the hermeneutical principle of maintaining scripture as the final norm is here.

OTOH, if you wish to maintain that the divisions of the One Holy Church are because of human sin, and not because of hermeneutics, per se, then we can agree.

BTW, if you want to chide the Church for its inability to maintain doctrinal unity, then you of course are going to have to criticize the Apostles of Christ for exactly the same thing. After all, there were heresies and schisms that were in existence even before the death of the last Apostle. In a similar manner, you are going to have to judge Lutheranism for the “failure of the use of Sacred Scripture…….to maintain unity of agreement on the doctrines”. (your phrase)

If you’re saying that I should recognize that, even in Apostolic times, there were disagreements, that’s obvious. And I’m not chiding anyone. I’m recognizing a fact. I won’t hold the CC to a standard higher than our own: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. "

The difference I think lies in the actual statistics. In the now 1000 year old Schism, we have the RCC with still 51% or so of Christianity. Then we have the Orthodox at roughly 20% who have been divided up into about 17 different doctrinally independent Churches. That means that we have 71% of Christianity divided up into only 18 different Churches.
Conversely, Protestantism makes up only about 29% which are held in about 25,000 different denominations (from the Catholic Answers Tract “The Great Heresies”, which was granted the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR).

So, if numerical Unity can be considered a measure of ‘success’ or even as the Fathers tell us, a measure of heresy, then we should look at the following numbers:

Assuming 2,000,000,000 Christians worldwide:

The RCC has 51% or slightly over 1,000,000,000 united in ONE Church.

The Orthodox have 20% or 400,000,000 divided up into 17 doctrinally independent Churches = 23,000,000 per Church

Protestantism has 29% of the total at 580,000,000, divided up 25,000 times or roughly 23,000/ecclesiastical community.

So if we look at the raw statistics, do the non-Sola Scriptura Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches look like something that could have been ‘designed’ by Christ to achieve doctrinal unity, or would it be the Sola Scriptura communities?

I think it’s pretty clear Jon.

Somewhere in a discussion of the primacy of the pope here on CAF, I mentioned that all the other patriarchates disagreed with the pope. I was reminded that the majority of the bishops, at one point, stood with Arius. Doctrinal truth does not necessarily depend on majorities.
But if you want to argue that division is okay so long as you are in the majority, be my guest.

continued

 

[JonNC]

As a matter of fact, the Orthodox and Roman Catholics are doctrinally MUCH closer than either is to any of the Sola Scriptura communities. In my opinion, the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox actually will achieve unity on issues of doctrine at some point,

I pray that it happens as soon, but close works in horseshoes, not doctrine. If they are that close, then schism should be easily reconciled. A thousand years, Topper. A thousand years.
And again, if you think division is okay as long as you are MUCH closer than we are, be my guest. Personally, I don’t see it as a contest, but we’ve been through that before, too.

In addition, it seems to me that we are much closer on issues of faith and morals than the differences which exist within just the Lutheran communities. So, putting the shoe on the other foot, now after 500 years, are you headed towards greater unity with your Lutheran brothers or is there continuing fracturing?

We’ve been over this before, as well. Lutheran synods are generally part of two groups: the LWF, and the ILC. But just remember, to the extend that there are western non-catholic communions of any number, it is a division of the western Church, of which, as you pointed out, the Catholic Church is the largest.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

His blessing also with you.

Jon

 

[benhur]

]In that case, you need to provide evidence that either Jesus gave identical keys to others or the Church said so. Individual Fathers are not the Church.

Hey ,that is what we say when things don’t go our way.

 

[benhur]

It was never circular. The teachings of Jesus were preached by men that he appointed, he instituted the Church with the appointed Shepard. All these were all taught orally initially. Later some of these were committed to written form and eventually the Bible was formed/compiled by the Church. If you doubt the Bible you shouldn’t use it. But since you do, please do respect the Divine Institution that put it together. The Church says so because Christ said so. It is not a Church invention. But if you think those words in the Bible are invented by the Church, then just point out those and you can edit those out and create your own version of your Bible. Which some did partially. But did they ever stopped to ponder how they managed to infallibly determine their own set?

Hi ericc,

As you say, Jesus appointed the apostles directly, who then gave us the writings. Jesus did not appoint succeeding presbyters/bishops directly , but men as moved by the Holy Ghost. And you know how that can go. Quite conditional, relative to Jesus 's direct appointments/writings. I mean P’s are moved by the Holy Ghost yet come away with 30,000 views, and I suppose there has been much variance on CC’appointments also.

So again.the apostles oral and written inspirations are inerrant, and more trustworthy than say a bishop a thousand years later. Of course if the bishop merely reiterates the same as the original we are OK. And how do we know that? We have no sound recordings of the original oral, but we surely have inerrant Writ, and possible inspired patristic writings.

Again, directly from Jesus or not?

As far as giving due honor to whom due, as in the church for receiving, and spreading, and preserving Writ, I do. But when because she received it, assumes equality to it, no.

We both receive Christ and are not equal to Him. Mary received incarnate Christ and is not equal to Him.

Worthiness of authoritative equality is conditional. The apostles for sure we know are our foundation as per Revelations. A done and judged deal . As to what has been laid upon them must equally be inerrant but is an ongoing process of “judging”. A process that allows for some wood and chaff to be burned away as the chief cornerstone sees fit, sometimes immediately, and sometimes not as a temporary, lingering fallibility. I would imagine some of that gets burned away also on that great day. He is the faithful Shepherd, and is ever striving with us to the end.

This verse (Philip and the eunich) is to illustrate that to understand Scriptures, a guide is needed. It wasn’t to exclude the guide but to put personal interpretation in its proper place.

“For God so chose that by the foolishness of *preaching * that men should be saved” .

There is a big difference in “understanding” and “seeing” the kingdom, before and after regeneration. We are to understand in truth and Spirit. One needs to be born again to understand. The eunich was not born again, had no relationship with the writ breathing Holy Spirit to see on his own. The only relationship to that point was one of conviction, from the outside, to the old man dead in sin. A preacher is needed. SS does not do away with teaching babes in Christ either , but allows for the dignity of Christ in the new believer to personally come to understand also.

Of course you can go to anyone to understand something. We are sorrowful because those that you go to *may not be *apostolic, ignore Sacred Traditions, ignore the rich history of Fathers and Saints that have gone before us and do not teach with fullness of truth.

Thank you for the "may not be’’. Sounds like the conditionality I also propose to all churches, teachers etc. being ‘spot on’.

Because the book can not tell the reader what it meant. Everyone can read it, I grant you that. It is a useful and convenient collection of God’s love story to mankind.

Here is your circular part. The church must formally tell you what it all means. Like the bible is only a textbook to be studied by "lawyers’’ (clerics) but not lay people. I guess we are not all disciples, and to be proficient and gifted in rightly dividing the Word.

All I know is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Sacred Scripture, your “convenient collection”, is sufficient . Why? Because that sufficiency rests totally on the Holy Spirit. He God breathed it, He inspired the readers to see it as such, and inspired the readers to rightly divide it. He even inspires us to see the inspiration in a teacher. This sufficiency is both infallible(His part) and yet conditional , on our part depending on our depth of walk, etc… and His pure graces.
.

If you have something against the priesthood, complain to God. He instituted it. We followed it.

Yes, we all follow someone, have spiritual fathers (padres).

Because they want the interpretation to fit their needs and not follow what the veterans understood? You know, flow with the times, be up-to-date and suitable for current lifestyles and so on. Something that is right for meeeee. It may be true for you but not for me? We hear that from time to time. But we are traditional people, we don’t follow trends. God’s words are good for all times.

But are you traditions good for all times? How do you know that your scared tradition did not begin also with ear tickling, expediency, going with the flow etc. For sure it is now “tradition”.

Not picking on you church, but as you point out , it is a problem in P churches. I only suggest it has always been the challenge since the beginning of the church.

Blessings

 

[Topper17]

Hi LA,

Thanks for your response.

Greetings, Topper.

In regards to the perception of the division…in my attempts to evangelize Muslims, the division within protestant Christendom is one of the major obstacles I faced.

OK, count me impressed! Evangelization to Muslims has got to be the biggest challenge possible.

How could it not be. I think that ‘our’ division portrays Christianity overall in a very poor light and detracts the credibility of ALL Christians.

Islam sees them with all these thousands of denominations, plus they have a different bible than us, and in their minds it is proof positive that Christianity is false and full of conjecture Quran 4:157

It was really something I had no solid explanation for. Islam has slight divisions, but NOTHING like protestant Christianity.

Interestingly, my favorite Protestant Scholar, Alister McGrath addresses the subject of the divisions within Islam and compares it to modern Protestantism:

“As is well known, the Muslim world is divided into a number of factions, the largest of which are the Sunni and the Shia. It is often suggested that Protestantism has certain affinities with the Shia. However, the truth is more complex. Islam, as a whole, precisely because it is a logocentric, text-based religion, bears many similarities to certain forms of Protestantism.

The parallel is not exact. Some forms of Protestantism – such as Lutheranism, or certain forms of Anglicanism – are focused primarily upon the person of Jesus Christ and give weight to the Bible insofar as it gives access to him. Although the Bible is regarded as fundamental, such Protestants place Christ where Islam places the Qu’ran. Yet other forms of Protestantism – particularly within fundamentalism and various forms of evangelicalism – see the Bible as standing at the center of all things. These groups share Islam’s suspicion of imagery of the devine, preferring to focus on the preaching and proclamation of the word. For such Protestants, the differences between Christianity and Islam lie in the question of which text they regard as authoritative: the Qu’ran or the Bible?

Like many forms of Protestantism, Islam focuses on a central text – the Qu’ran. And as with Protestantism, the question of who has the right to interpret the Qu’ran, and hence to define the nature of Islam, has become of critical importance……………

**Like Protestantism, Islam will face increasing fragmentation as it enters into new cultural contexts in which the restraints of the past convention are no longer decisive….The same patterns can be seen within Protestantism. ** The settled consensus of an older generation is overthrown by a rising generation who bring new interpretations to the same texts……Patterns of biblical interpretation have changed – and with those changes in biblical interpretation have emerged radical new forms of Protestantism.” Alister McGrath, “Christainity’s Dangerous Idea”, pg. 474-5

I do sympathize with the protestant denominations because what they are attempting to do with bible-alone theology is pretty much a impossible feat. You mentioned all the various human mechanisms that play their part and this is really key in understanding why so many fractures have occurred. We all have a different filter in which we interpret things and that is based on our own background, education level, life’s perception, etc, etc. Plus we are prideful beings with delicate sensibilities so w/o proper hierarchy, chaos is inevitable.

I don’t think that the original Reformers intended to divide and subdivide and subdivide etc. Christianity. However, they should have listened to the warnings that that was exactly what was going to happen. Constant fracturing is the ONLY thing that is certain when you employ ANY of the various conflicting versions of Sola Scriptura.

God Bless You LA, Topper

 

[Topper17]

…

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Yes , sometimes I think folks/church do not care so much about what you think, practice, espouse, as long as you do not rock the boat, and keep on being a card carrying member otherwise.

Unforutnately I agree 100%. The Doctrines of Christianity are becoming less and less important and, also unfortunately, I think this is carrying over to the Catholic Church too.

The early Reformers considered Doctrine to be EXTREMELY important, and in fact, many of them were willing to die over it. Now as you say, a lot of people seem not to care all that much.

That is a crying shame.

I see it as the inevitable result of Sola Scriptura, and unfortunately, that lack of concern about Doctrine has infected our culture and that culture has then influenced the Church.

“Religion never exerted greater influence in Europe than in the period of 1560 to 1660, but religion proved a source of division and strife rather than of unity and was therefore discredited. Progressive exclusion from culture was the price Christianity had to pay for its disunity, as Christianity came to be viewed as the cause of civil strife rather than as the spiritual basis of society.” Professor James Hitchcock, in the forward to “The Dividing of Christendom”, by Harvard Professor Christopher Dawson, pg. 16

Given the uncertainty that Sola Scriptura has caused, how could religion become anything other than less important?

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi LA,

Thanks for your response.

Greetings, Topper.

In regards to the perception of the division…in my attempts to evangelize Muslims, the division within protestant Christendom is one of the major obstacles I faced.

OK, count me impressed! Evangelization to Muslims has got to be the biggest challenge possible.

How could it not be. I think that ‘our’ division portrays Christianity overall in a very poor light and detracts the credibility of ALL Christians.

Islam sees them with all these thousands of denominations, plus they have a different bible than us, and in their minds it is proof positive that Christianity is false and full of conjecture Quran 4:157

It was really something I had no solid explanation for. Islam has slight divisions, but NOTHING like protestant Christianity.

Interestingly, my favorite Protestant Scholar, Alister McGrath addresses the subject of the divisions within Islam and compares it to modern Protestantism:

“As is well known, the Muslim world is divided into a number of factions, the largest of which are the Sunni and the Shia. It is often suggested that Protestantism has certain affinities with the Shia. However, the truth is more complex. Islam, as a whole, precisely because it is a logocentric, text-based religion, bears many similarities to certain forms of Protestantism.

The parallel is not exact. Some forms of Protestantism – such as Lutheranism, or certain forms of Anglicanism – are focused primarily upon the person of Jesus Christ and give weight to the Bible insofar as it gives access to him. Although the Bible is regarded as fundamental, such Protestants place Christ where Islam places the Qu’ran. Yet other forms of Protestantism – particularly within fundamentalism and various forms of evangelicalism – see the Bible as standing at the center of all things. These groups share Islam’s suspicion of imagery of the devine, preferring to focus on the preaching and proclamation of the word. For such Protestants, the differences between Christianity and Islam lie in the question of which text they regard as authoritative: the Qu’ran or the Bible?

Like many forms of Protestantism, Islam focuses on a central text – the Qu’ran. And as with Protestantism, the question of who has the right to interpret the Qu’ran, and hence to define the nature of Islam, has become of critical importance……………

Like Protestantism, Islam will face increasing fragmentation as it enters into new cultural contexts in which the restraints of the past convention are no longer decisive….The same patterns can be seen within Protestantism. The settled consensus of an older generation is overthrown by a rising generation who bring new interpretations to the same texts……Patterns of biblical interpretation have changed – and with those changes in biblical interpretation have emerged radical new forms of Protestantism.” Alister McGrath, “Christainity’s Dangerous Idea”, pg. 474-5

I do sympathize with the protestant denominations because what they are attempting to do with bible-alone theology is pretty much a impossible feat. You mentioned all the various human mechanisms that play their part and this is really key in understanding why so many fractures have occurred. We all have a different filter in which we interpret things and that is based on our own background, education level, life’s perception, etc, etc. Plus we are prideful beings with delicate sensibilities so w/o proper hierarchy, chaos is inevitable.

I don’t think that the original Reformers intended to divide and subdivide and subdivide etc. Christianity. However, they should have listened to the warnings that that was **exactly **what was going to happen. Constant fracturing is the ONLY thing that is certain when you employ ANY of the various conflicting versions of Sola Scriptura.

God Bless You LA, Topper

 

[Rohzek]

In that case, you need to provide evidence that either Jesus gave identical keys to others or the Church said so. Individual Fathers are not the Church.

And then you proceed to quote individual Fathers with single lines from various letters and writings out of context. Wow, how great. At least I provided my quotations with full context, which is actually much easier to do with exegesis. This is why my quotations are from exegesis, and not letters. If you’re going to quote letters, then quote full excerpts instead of single sentences. No historian would take these methods of one-liners seriously.

THE key-bearer is Peter as all these quotes say:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch (363)

For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven. (Cyril, Catechetical Lectures A.D. 350).

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, also the foremost of the Apostles and the key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, healed Aeneas the paralytic in the name of Christ. (Cyril, Catech. xviii. n. 27)

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)
(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (434):
A disciple of St. John Chrysostom

Peter, the coryphaeus of the disciples, and the one set over (or chief of) the Apostles. Art not thou he that didst say, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God'? Thou Bar-Jonas (son of the dove) hast thou seen so many miracles, and art thou still but Simon (a hearer)? He appointed thee the key-bearer of Heaven, and has though not yet layed aside thy fisherman's clothing? (Proclus, Or. viii In Dom. Transfig. t. ix. Galland)

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826)

Writing to Pope Leo III:
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred

Eulogius of Alexandria (581)
Born in Syria, he became the abbot of the Mother of God monastery at Antioch. In 579, he was made Patriarch of Alexandria; and became an associate of St. Gregory the Great while visiting Constantinople. Much of their subsequent correspondence is still extant.

Neither to John, nor to any other of the disciples, did our Savior say, 'I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,' but only to Peter. (Eulogius, Lib. ii. Cont. Novatian. ap. Photium, Biblioth, cod. 280)

From all these quotes, I can confidently say that Peter was the ONLY one entrusted with the keys of heaven.

Yeah, only Peter was given the keys at the time. But then those keys were later given to the apostles too, as the quotes I provided made clear similarly as Eulogius. None of these quotes contradict the Orthodox understanding.

Orthodox Understanding of Peter as the Rock and the Keys From Latin Writers

Did the Fathers that you touted claimed they had the same set of keys as Peter? Yes or no? They mentioned keys, but which set? You are assuming they have the same set as Peter aren’t you? But they never claimed that. You can’t get away from the notion that the Steward has the power to shut, none shall open, or those he open, none shall shut. Did the Fathers say that they have the power to shut what Peter has opened and open what Peter has shut? No one would dare to claim that.

I’m sorry, but I’ll tell you again, there are no multiple keys discussed at all in medieval history. You’re making this up as you go along. I read four languages on this subject and hold a Masters in Medieval History, and am in a PhD program. Find me a Church Father that says “Peter was given these keys and the apostles were given different keys.” You won’t find it because it doesn’t exist.

You assume that the keys must be different because otherwise anarchy reigns. Well Orthodox hold this exact same position as Hilary. And guess what? We seem to be doing pretty fine. So if a Lutheran or Protestant such as benhur wants to make these similar claims about the keys that us Orthodox make, yeah I’m going to back him on this that it doesn’t invite anarchy and it is based in Tradition.

And I see you remained silent on the faith. The faith of the time of the Fathers that you quoted, is that of the Catholic Faith. Obviously, if they have the same faith, the keys to heaven are the same. That’s why I say they are generic. They are the same global key as Peter’s. Do the heretics have the same faith? Do they have the keys? Do those that preached another Gospel has the same faith? Would they have the keys? No, no, no, no.

You mean the Orthodox faith right? Or was it the faith that the Lutherans regained? Wait a minute…this is some serious tautologies going on here. Could it be that benhur is right about this whole circular logic thing?

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

Unforutnately I agree 100%. The Doctrines of Christianity are becoming less and less important and, also unfortunately, I think this is carrying over to the Catholic Church too.

The early Reformers considered Doctrine to be EXTREMELY important, and in fact, many of them were willing to die over it. Now as you say, a lot of people seem not to care all that much.

That is a crying shame.

I see it as the inevitable result of Sola Scriptura, and unfortunately, that lack of concern about Doctrine has infected our culture and that culture has then influenced the Church.

“Religion never exerted greater influence in Europe than in the period of 1560 to 1660, but religion proved a source of division and strife rather than of unity and was therefore discredited. Progressive exclusion from culture was the price Christianity had to pay for its disunity, as Christianity came to be viewed as the cause of civil strife rather than as the spiritual basis of society.” Professor James Hitchcock, in the forward to “The Dividing of Christendom”, by Harvard Professor Christopher Dawson, pg. 16

Given the uncertainty that Sola Scriptura has caused, how could religion become anything other than less important?

God Bless You ben, Topper

Hi Topper , Y

You had me going till you blamed it all on SS. Good switcheroo also, for I was not speaking of P’s but more C’s sometimes, and in particular your post saying disagreements are allowed, just not singing a different tune (don’t teach it, don’t leave).

As far as Mr. Harvard , not sure who he is. America and its founding was certainly concerned with spirituality.

To blame SS is only head shaking for me, as you stick to your guns. Does nothing in lifting up your magisterium for me, much less call for unity.

It downplays two things.The first is what sin does to the individual and church, even lukewarmness. The second is an ever vigilant enemy seeking for the disestablishment of religion, all religion, your magisterium and my SS in both 1 and 2.

Blessings.

PS- In my opinion to Mr.Harvard, the church was most powerful and influential (growing) when culture/society/government exerted negative influences (persecution) on the church, than when the church to exerted positive influences on culture/ society/government. So what really is progressive ?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi LA,

Thanks for your response.

OK, count me impressed! Evangelization to Muslims has got to be the biggest challenge possible.

How could it not be. I think that ‘our’ division portrays Christianity overall in a very poor light and detracts the credibility of ALL Christians.

Interestingly, my favorite Protestant Scholar, Alister McGrath addresses the subject of the divisions within Islam and compares it to modern Protestantism:

“As is well known, the Muslim world is divided into a number of factions, the largest of which are the Sunni and the Shia. It is often suggested that Protestantism has certain affinities with the Shia. However, the truth is more complex. Islam, as a whole, precisely because it is a logocentric, text-based religion, bears many similarities to certain forms of Protestantism.

The parallel is not exact. Some forms of Protestantism – such as Lutheranism, or certain forms of Anglicanism – are focused primarily upon the person of Jesus Christ and give weight to the Bible insofar as it gives access to him. Although the Bible is regarded as fundamental, such Protestants place Christ where Islam places the Qu’ran. Yet other forms of Protestantism – particularly within fundamentalism and various forms of evangelicalism – see the Bible as standing at the center of all things. These groups share Islam’s suspicion of imagery of the devine, preferring to focus on the preaching and proclamation of the word. For such Protestants, the differences between Christianity and Islam lie in the question of which text they regard as authoritative: the Qu’ran or the Bible?

Like many forms of Protestantism, Islam focuses on a central text – the Qu’ran. And as with Protestantism, the question of who has the right to interpret the Qu’ran, and hence to define the nature of Islam, has become of critical importance……………

Like Protestantism, Islam will face increasing fragmentation as it enters into new cultural contexts in which the restraints of the past convention are no longer decisive….The same patterns can be seen within Protestantism. The settled consensus of an older generation is overthrown by a rising generation who bring new interpretations to the same texts……Patterns of biblical interpretation have changed – and with those changes in biblical interpretation have emerged radical new forms of Protestantism.” Alister McGrath, “Christainity’s Dangerous Idea”, pg. 474-5

I don’t think that the original Reformers intended to divide and subdivide and subdivide etc. Christianity. However, they should have listened to the warnings that that was **exactly **what was going to happen. Constant fracturing is the ONLY thing that is certain when you employ ANY of the various conflicting versions of Sola Scriptura.

God Bless You LA, Topper

Hey Topper!

Evangelizing Muslims is pretty much impossible thanks to the anti-Christ indoctrination found within their holy writ. As I’m sure you probably know, many of them are so dedicated that they memorize the entire book. Christians, OTOH, well I’d say if you quizzed all of them right now, not even half could name all 10 commandments.

The scholar is correct in that Islam really lacks any official hierarchy or Magisterium. So far the only sects besides Sunni/Shi’ite that I have seen are the “Quran-only” Muslims. They are Americanized and mostly resemble protestant Christianity. Not sure of your experience with Islam; but if you think Protestant SS lacks the proper foundation, reading the Quran and making any sense of it w/o Hadith is pretty much impossible since it lacks context or chronology. So I really have no idea how these folks function at all.

There are also a few sects that Sunni’s would consider totally heretical like the NOI, Bahai and Ahmadiyya(extremely peaceful, wonderful people here) But overall I’m shocked they do not have the major division issues we have with protestant Christendom. I think they will, eventually, like the scholar implies, just not yet.

God bless ya!

 

[ericc]

And then you proceed to quote individual Fathers with single lines from various letters and writings out of context. Wow, how great. At least I provided my quotations with full context, which is actually much easier to do with exegesis. This is why my quotations are from exegesis, and not letters. If you’re going to quote letters, then quote full excerpts instead of single sentences. No historian would take these methods of one-liners seriously.

Yeah, only Peter was given the keys at the time. But then those keys were later given to the apostles too, as the quotes I provided made clear similarly as Eulogius. None of these quotes contradict the Orthodox understanding.

That is precisely the point I made earlier when I said proof texting doesn’t really carry much weight. Whether it is one-liners or a whole essay, one can create the impression that is the whole truth. But is it? My one-liners may be in bits and pieces, but they illustrate the point that keys were given to Peter. If these one-liners are true and they do exist, who are you to say not to take them seriously? (Actually these were not one-liners, I didn’t provide the rest because I just want to demonstrate the point of preferential filtering.) Out of context? So Peter didn’t get his keys? And all these Saints and Fathers thought he actually had them all these while? What a bummer.

You are mistaken. The other apostles were later given the power to bind and loose. They were not given the Keys.

The Fathers that you quoted, where did they get their keys? On whose divine command?

Orthodox Understanding of Peter as the Rock and the Keys From Latin Writers

I’m sorry, but I’ll tell you again, there are no multiple keys discussed at all in medieval history. You’re making this up as you go along. I read four languages on this subject and hold a Masters in Medieval History, and am in a PhD program. Find me a Church Father that says “Peter was given these keys and the apostles were given different keys.” You won’t find it because it doesn’t exist.

I am impressed by your academic qualifications. So you are right and I am wrong? All I am saying is I know where Peter’s keys come from. I don’t know who gave those Fathers you quoted the keys. You just need to show that either Christ gave them the keys or Peter gave them the keys subsequently. Otherwise, suddenly, someone claim they have the keys and I have no idea where those keys come from. Until I know those keys are Peter’s , you can’t fault me for querying you the source… I am an accountant by training, (among other things). I audit claims. When someone claim to have Peter’s keys, I am very keen to know how they got them.

You assume that the keys must be different because otherwise anarchy reigns.

. I assume the keys are different because you haven’t shown that these are Peter’s. If Peter shut, can your keys open? And if Peter closes, can your keys open? If not, they are different keys, correct? Peter has never relinquished his keys. If someone else has his keys, I’d want to know whether how he got them.

Well Orthodox hold this exact same position as Hilary. And guess what? We seem to be doing pretty fine. So if a Lutheran or Protestant such as benhur wants to make these similar claims about the keys that us Orthodox make, yeah I’m going to back him on this that it doesn’t invite anarchy and it is based in Tradition.

You are welcome to back anyone you wish if that makes you happy.

You mean the Orthodox faith right? Or was it the faith that the Lutherans regained? Wait a minute…this is some serious tautologies going on here. Could it be that benhur is right about this whole circular logic thing?

I guess you might want to collaborate with him . That’s fine. You knew there was ONLY the Catholic faith then and I am not even a proper student of history. You know, bits and pieces, here and there. So if you repeat that many many times, perhaps that may help you change history.

Have fun in your PhD program. What would be your thesis subject if I may ask?

 

[ericc]

Hey ,that is what we say when things don’t go our way.

Not really. That is historical evidence. Individual Fathers are not the Church. Their opinions may differ from the Church sometimes on certain topics, but they don’t jump ship. Collectively, they are awesome!

 

[ericc]

Hi ericc,

As you say, Jesus appointed the apostles directly, who then gave us the writings. Jesus did not appoint succeeding presbyters/bishops directly , but men as moved by the Holy Ghost. And you know how that can go. Quite conditional, relative to Jesus 's direct appointments/writings. I mean P’s are moved by the Holy Ghost yet come away with 30,000 views, and I suppose there has been much variance on CC’appointments also.

So again.the apostles oral and written inspirations are inerrant, and more trustworthy than say a bishop a thousand years later. Of course if the bishop merely reiterates the same as the original we are OK. And how do we know that? We have no sound recordings of the original oral, but we surely have inerrant Writ, and possible inspired patristic writings.

I agree with mostly what you have written. Since we have no oral recordings, we can rely on what early Christians said what they believed. Just on the Eucharist , this is what early Christians believed, actual Christ himself. Thousands of years later, this is being denied. Mary EV casted in stone in the Church Councils another example being ignored. Some claim our veneration of Mary was recently invented. But if you go through historical writings, you know it has been that way since the beginning of Church history. The Church is conservative and I’m not sure why you allude that we are not being traditional. There is no novel invention in doctrine. We wouldn’t dare. But I admit in terms of church governance/discipline, there have been changes, some good and some may be not so good.

Again, directly from Jesus or not?

As far as giving due honor to whom due, as in the church for receiving, and spreading, and preserving Writ, I do. But when because she received it, assumes equality to it, no.

We both receive Christ and are not equal to Him. Mary received incarnate Christ and is not equal to Him.

Worthiness of authoritative equality is conditional. The apostles for sure we know are our foundation as per Revelations. A done and judged deal . As to what has been laid upon them must equally be inerrant but is an ongoing process of “judging”. A process that allows for some wood and chaff to be burned away as the chief cornerstone sees fit, sometimes immediately, and sometimes not as a temporary, lingering fallibility. I would imagine some of that gets burned away also on that great day. He is the faithful Shepherd, and is ever striving with us to the end.

You are presupposing that those who received it later can interpret it better than the giver/guide/teacher. And worse edit parts out of it. That is disrespectful I’d think. I failed to see how in terms of logic one can obtained better answers that the source. But the result is the same: different interpretations, each claiming to be correct. Worse, calling the giver/guide idolator.

“For God so chose that by the foolishness of *preaching * that men should be saved” .

There is a big difference in “understanding” and “seeing” the kingdom, before and after regeneration. We are to understand in truth and Spirit. One needs to be born again to understand. The eunich was not born again, had no relationship with the writ breathing Holy Spirit to see on his own. The only relationship to that point was one of conviction, from the outside, to the old man dead in sin. A preacher is needed. SS does not do away with teaching babes in Christ either , but allows for the dignity of Christ in the new believer to personally come to understand also.

The eunuch was born again when he got baptized. A proper guide is needed he acknowledged.