“Yes, it is true that James does say we are justified by works, but he can’t mean justification before God because we must take into account Romans 3:22, etc.”
This is a glimpse into the Key Verse tradition. It is very powerful.
It is an often completely unnoticed tendency to remember the Key Verses that support your views and use those to set up an interpretive grid through which you view the entire Bible. The Key Verse tradition is one utilized by evangelicals very often and with great success (see The Roman’s Road, AWANA, 4 Spiritual Laws, John 3:16 signs, etc).
You think evangelicals memorize a ton of scripture?
Some do. But most, especially cradle evangelicals, have about 5-10 texts repeatedly reinforced throughout their lives. These they hide in their heart. These become their touchstones for their soteriology — their understanding of salvation. It’s somewhat like a child in a liturgical communion learning the Apostle’s Creed.
Now Catholics do this as well. Or at least we try.
But when I see “Verse for the Week” in my local non-denominational, evangelical service bulletin or missionary newsletter, I think, “why this one, and not another?”
It’s the Key Verse tradition.
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
May 5, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Excellent post. I think it is particularly problematic when Protestants have only the scriptures to go by. So it is verse opposed to verse. For Catholics, we dont have verses interpreting verses, but the whole of the early church tradition from the Fathers to the local and ecumenical councils.
May 5, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Yes, that’s precisely what we do. It’s so much fun for me to go through the NT and show folks verses that sound Catholic or Orthodox — all the stuff evangelicals don’t every underline…
May 5, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Great post on Key Verse Tradition. I’ve run into the same thing in many conversations. The verses and their unique interpretation are accepted and other Biblical verses are simply ignored. A theology is assumed and then specific verses are emphasized or ignored.
It seems so clear… any suggestions on practical ways for demonstrating to Evangelicals that this tradition is false?
May 5, 2008 at 4:55 pm
As a disgruntled evangelical with severe catholic and orthodox sympathies, I’d suggest poring through your Bibles — or doing so with a copy of the KJV or NIV — and finding everything *catholic* you can. Sacramental stuff, like Rom 6.1-4. Church stuff, like 1 Tim 3.15 (I think — church as pillar and foundation of truth). Weird stuff, like Acts 5.15 (”they even carried out the sick into the streets and laid them on cots and mats, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them”), or Acts 19.11-12 (”God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them”). I suppose the book to which Chad links would have the full list.
Also, start asking them about “bishops” in Philippians 1.1 and 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1. (Some translations — even the NAB at Phil 1.1! — will have “overseers”. The Greek is episkopos, “over” + “seer” [skopos, like microscope or rifle scope]. The English word “bishop” comes from saying episkopos real fast throughout the history of the development of the English language, losing the beginning and end: episkopos to piskop to bishop.)
Basically, learn to argue Catholicism from the Bible. It’s not actually all that hard. And be patient. You’re sowing seeds. Seeds of doubt that hopefully turn into seeds of Catholic/Orthodox faith.
May 5, 2008 at 4:57 pm
To add a secondary dimension that re-enforces this… I have read that folks who spend years under the same pastor in communities without lectionary cycles are, in the end, going to hear a rotation of sermons that largely go back to and deal with passages and books of the Bible that the particular pastor feels most affinity towards or comfort to.
What he (or she) likes the most, you will hear the most of. I knew a gent in college whose pastor was particularly fond of Revelation (yipes!), do I even need to point out the end-times speculation and fantasies that go along with that?
Something folks who advocate Sola Scriptura never think about much - at least it woudl seem - is that the whole system they go by is predicated on cheap Bibles, accurate translations, adequate literarcy, and linquistic skills and reasoning that is minimally at a mildly educated adult level.
+ if you can’t afford Bibles it does not work - you end up relying (de facto) on a magisterium like interpreter
+ if the translations are not accurate (who is to say?), it does not work
+ if you can’t read it does not work - you end up relying (de facto) on a magisterium like interpreter
+ if you don’t have free time to read the scriptures it does not work - you end up relying (de facto) on a magisterium like interpreter
+ if you don’t have a level of education and reasoning we take for granted with our decent schools and adequate nurtition, it does not work.
Worth looking at for apologetics: Jimmy Akin on “The Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura”
May 5, 2008 at 8:34 pm
And, if you meet a KJV-only sort (I recently had an acquaintance contend that the KJV was the ‘only inspired translation there is’), tell him or her that the original KJV included the ‘apocrypha’. From Wikipedia (yeah, I know, not the best source):
In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Thus, the Authorized Version included the Apocrypha.
May 6, 2008 at 9:00 am
I see this as being a real problem in apologetics, since both sides tend to do this. In my seminary training, I was even asked, “What is the theme verse of Romans?” The “obvious” answer was Rom 1:17. Indeed, the right question to ask next is, “Why?”
Interesting discussion, although I think Simple Sinner paints with a large brush about non-liturgical churches. Oftentimes, I personally see pastors preach through entire books, where you are forced to deal with difficult passages. My pastor here in Edinburgh just finished going through Amos, hardly a bedrock of typical Evangelical dogma.
Peace,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
Daily Bible Reflections
May 6, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Oftentimes, I personally see pastors preach through entire books, where you are forced to deal with difficult passages.
Yes, this is my experience as well in conservative evangelical protestant churches where “expositional preaching” is considered standard. My problems with this are:
1. Many can’t seem to stop bragging about it during their sermons.
2. Many still manage to find one of about 5 possible themes in any passage.
3. Many cheat :) and cross-reference their favorite, Key passages when dealing with difficult passages.