How can "sola scriptura" be possible?

[Matt Black]

My fellow BB member and Anglican, Doubting Thomas, has also commented on Vincent and, IIRC, has said this, and I would thoroughly endorse and echo his words:

So after stating his belief in the (material) sufficiency of Scripture, Vincent argues that the Church's standard interpretive Tradition is necessary because of the various ways in which different people (particularly heretics) have misinterpreted the Scriptures. To make this especially relevant to the situation today, and why the consensus of Tradition is necessary, one can substitute modern-day denominations and see how his argument still holds:

"For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Luther expounds it one way, Calvin another, Zwingli another, Methodists, Baptists, Mennonites, another, Adventists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Quakers, Campbellites, Plymouth Brethren, another, lastly, Jehovah Witnesses another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."

Vincent concludes by laying down the criteria for interpretation:

"Moreover, in the catholic church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
What then will a catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.
But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."

That there are folks who have mutually contradictory interpretations--on what the Scriptures seem to teach on such vital issues as the nature of God and the nature of Christ--should not be surprising. The Apostle Peter warned in his Second Epistle that there were already those who were "twisting Scripture" to "their own destruction". The question is how do we know: (1) who are the ones "rightly dividing the word of truth", and (2) who are the ones "twisting Scripture to their own destruction"? For each group, as I have said on the first page, is convinced that they are practising the former, while those who disagree are potentially practising the latter. Who decides between them, and/or how does one know who is right?

I submit the answer to the "how" question lies in the Apostolic Tradition. This is mentioned by Paul, particularly to the church of the Thessalonians:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions you were taught whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thess 2:15)

Notice that Paul doesn't elevate one mode of receiving the Tradition--his oral word or his written epistle--above the other; the authority is the same. Though we can't be sure that the content is exactly the same in every single detail of the oral and written forms, we can surmise that they testify to the same material Truth and therefore don't contradict one another. From another one of Paul's letters, this time to Timothy, it seems that this oral Tradition at the very least refers to (and consists of) the specific body of teaching and doctrine that was handed down by the Apostles:
"Hold fast the sound pattern of words which you have heard from me." (2 Tim 1:13)
So, there was a "sound pattern" of oral teaching recognizable to Timothy (and presumably to the others taught by the Apostles) which was to be kept and by which the early Christians could recognize truth from error. By this "sound pattern" the early Christians could therefore "rightly divide" the word of truth. On the other hand those who did not hold fast the "sound pattern of words" received orally from the Apostles could be considered "untaught and unstable" (2 Peter 3:16) and were liable to misinterpret the Apostle's writings (and the other Scriptures) and thus to "twist the Scriptures to their own destruction".

What's more is that Paul expects Timothy to be able to transmit orally that which he received from Paul: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2). Notice here that the "things" Timothy received were not exclusive or private but were heard "among many witnesses", and how the faithful men to whom Timothy committed these "things" were to teach others as well (that's four generations of oral transmission). The public reception of the Tradition in the community could thus serve as a "check" or "balance" on those who would deviate from the "sound pattern" while claiming (ie like the Gnostics did) to be handing down some new teaching allegedly received "secretly" from the Apostles.

As for the answer of "who decides?", it is obviously the CHURCH corporately. As Paul wrote to Timothy, the CHURCH is "the pillar and ground of truth". (1 Timothy 3:15). Christ commissioned His Apostles, the collective foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20), by breathing His Spirit, the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13), on them (John 20:22). The Apostles by the Spirit preached the Truth and established local congregations of the Church to whom they delivered the faith once for all (Jude 3) in "sound patterns of words" (2 Tim 1:13). Some of the Apostles by the Spirit also wrote inspired authoritative epistles and narratives to some of these same congregations. The Church in time, led by the Spirit, could finally come to a consensus on the limits of the Scriptural Canon--by determining which works conformed to the Tradition received ("sound pattern"), and those which, though claiming apostolic authorship, did not (ie Gnostic and Ebionite texts)

.

 

[Matt Black]

DT continues:

The Church (collectively), recipient of both the "sound pattern of words" and the Apostolic writings, could thus collectively judge truth from error. In fact, we see the Church doing just that even in those early years shortly after the Apostles left the scene. By the authentic Apostolic writings and the "sound pattern of words" (often later referred to as "the rule of faith"), expressed in hymns, catechesis, and short-summaries, the Church was able to determine what was heretical. So even in the ante-Nicene era (before Constantine allegedly "corrupted" and "counterfeited" the Church in the 4th century), the Church was able, for instance, to fend off false teachings such as claiming Jesus did not really come in the flesh (docetism), diverse teachings that matter was evil and that there were two (or even multiple) ‘gods’ (Gnosticism), that Jesus only became God’s Son at His baptism (adoptionism, principally propounded by Apollinarius and hence referred to by Vincent above) and that the Trinity was really just one god expressed in three ways or ‘modes’ (modalism, put forward by Sabellius – see Vincent above) and authoritatively declare such teachings "heresy" based on the Tradition received from the Apostles. And in the Nicene era, when the orthodox party and the Arians were constantly throwing Scriptural proof texts back and forth at each other, it was on the basis of received Tradition that the Church was able to convict the Arians of "twisting the Scriptures" by teaching falsely concerning Christ. In short, the Church was able to determine which were heretical practices and beliefs because it was able to say, in effect, “Hang on a minute, this isn’t what we’re used to; we’ve never though or done that before.”

 

[Matt Black]

In conclusion, therefore, the Church was able to determine which were heretical practices and beliefs because it was able to say, in effect, “Hang on a minute, this isn’t what we’re used to; we’ve never though or done that before.”

If one can be in any doubt as to the Scriptural basis of this idea of Tradition, and its corollary, Apostolic Succession, then there are ample examples to support it (and forgive me if I here go over some of the Scriptural ground covered above):
Paul ordains presbyters in Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch in Acts 14:23 and bishops at Ephesus in Acts 20:28 to carry on his work in those places; later, Timothy is bishop at Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) having been ordained (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) and Paul gives him instructions on how to select bishops and deacons (1 Tim 3) and also to keep the Tradition of teaching given to him orally by Paul (2 Tim 1:13-14; 3:14) as well as Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-17); similarly, Paul writes to Titus, to whom he has delegated his authority to appoint presbyters in Crete (Titus 1:5-6) and here he gives similar 'selection instruction' as to Timothy, also referring (Titus 1:7-9) to qualifications for a bishop, including "holding fast to the Word of God as he was taught it" in order to pass on sound doctrine to others (Tradition). It is likely that in the Pastoral letters the references to qualifications for 'bishops' are first and foremost to Timothy and Titus personally, in their capacities as bishops of Ephesus and Crete respectively. In any event, here we have the following elements in these passages:-

1. Paul, an Apostle, appoints bishops and presbyters to continue his work in the various congregations he has founded or helped set up.

2. These officers have been grounded in the Scriptures but also taught orally by Paul. They are thus steeped in both Scripture and Tradition.

3. They are charged with teaching others the above and also with pastoral care of the flock

4. They are also charged with ordaining others to similarly carry on that work and are given criteria for selection of those successors.

Therefore, we have Scripture and Tradition plus Apostolic Succession in a nascent form within the pages of the NT.

Now, two objections can and are often put to the above by sola Scriptura adherents. These are both good arguments and therefore deserve ventilation here:-

• “What if the consensus patri ie: the doctrinal and liturgical consensus of the ECFs to which Vincent alludes in his Commonitory above, quite simply got it wrong? After all, these were just men, they were fallible like you or me, and they could have made mistakes – in no way should their opinions and practices be elevated to the same status as Scripture.” First of all, as I have already said, I am neither claiming infallibility for the early Church, nor am I seeking to raise her doctrines and practices to the level of Scripture. The main trouble with this objection, though, is that it makes a mockery of Jesus’ promise to build His Church and the gates of Hades not prevailing in Matt 16:18-19, it makes Him out to be a liar when He promised the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all Truth in John 16:13 and teach them all things in John 14:26, and it negates Paul’s statement in I Tim 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Furthermore, many of the Early Church Fathers whose writings we have were discipled by, and in some cases appointed by, the Apostles: for example, Ignatius (who wrote several letters which we have) was a disciple of John and appointed by him Bishop of Antioch; his writings date from within a decade of the Apostle’s death. Clement of Rome was the third successor to that Bishopric after the Apostle Peter and wrote c.85AD, John was still alive and before the NT was fully completed. As such, they were far, far better-qualified to interpret the portions of the NT penned by those Apostles than we are today.
• “Does not Apostolic Tradition amount to the same as ‘the traditions of men’ which Jesus was so quick to condemn in Mark 7?” That would indeed be a valid objection if the two were one and the same thing; however, one has to be very wary of conflating man-made Jewish traditions and customs with the authority given by Jesus to the Apostles in Matt 18:18.

 

[Pastor Larry]

For what, exactly? It says "every good work", not "every doctrine", nor "every practice".

This is too narrow a view of what is intended by the passage. But even at that, it is certainly a "good work" to believe right doctrine. And notice how the passage makes the connection between doctrine and good works.

Hardly: they are putting forward two diametrically opposed views of God!

In some ways, but not in others. But again, those are relatively minor differences compared to other things in terms of denominational distinctives. And I say that as a Calvinist who believes that Arminians (or non-Calvinists as some of them prefer) are demonstrably wrong and in direct denial of Scripture, and outside the mainstream of historic Baptist doctrine. But in terms of denominational distinctives, there are certainly commonalities that tie us together in some things. But that's really a red herring.

Same question to you as Amy by way of addressing the issue: what's the point? If no-one can agree on the interpretation, the authority (and I accept that Scripture does indeed have authority) is useless. That surely can't be what the Lord had in mind when He promised that the Holy Spirit would teach us all things (John 14:26), can it? There must be some other way. And there is...

First, John 14:26 was not a promise to us but to the Apostles, and was kept. Second, the point is that authority is vested in an unchanging authority, not in changing Tradition or some other source. The point is that no matter when or where we find ourselves in church history, no one is at the mercy of anything other than the authority given by God. So there is a very good reason, and putting authority in something other than Scripture alone is not another good way. It is a bad way.

 

[Matt Black]

This is too narrow a view of what is intended by the passage. But even at that, it is certainly a "good work" to believe right doctrine. And notice how the passage makes the connection between doctrine and good works.

Granted - up to a point. But see also my comments in my above posts - if you have time to wade through them! In particular, one has to put the passge in context and look at the preceding verses: v15, for instance, makes a clear reference to Tradition. So, you see, what you have in reality in the passage is a commendation of Scripture and Tradition, not Scripture alone. It is that combination which equips us for "every good work".

In some ways, but not in others. But again, those are relatively minor differences compared to other things in terms of denominational distinctives. And I say that as a Calvinist who believes that Arminians (or non-Calvinists as some of them prefer) are demonstrably wrong and in direct denial of Scripture, and outside the mainstream of historic Baptist doctrine. But in terms of denominational distinctives, there are certainly commonalities that tie us together in some things. But that's really a red herring.

Hardly. The two views in essence posit contradictory pictures of God Himself, and that's an absolutely fundamental breach

First, John 14:26 was not a promise to us but to the Apostles, and was kept.

And to their successors, and was kept (see above posts again).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sure. Do you believe those councils to be infallible? Do you believe their understanding and scriptural interpretation are the result of knowledge based on by the Apostles?
Still clarifying. So far you sound...like a normal Baptist to me. But I do not run in these crowds traditionally.

The councils generally try to define what the churches already have accepted as tradition handed down by the apostles. They become called or are important when someone starts teaching items that are contrary to the Generally accepted teachings of the churches and support their conclusions by scripture. The thing is scripture doesn't define to the point that the councils do. The councils flush out these things more specifically.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff...



Why on earth would you need "tradition" and "ecumenical councils" to teach you that....when that is taught in the scriptures?



Mike

No. Scripture alludes to them but doesn't spell it out. The councils do that. The scriptures only reveal this. "hear O Isreal the Lord our God is One." So monotheism. Jesus says I and the father are one. So Jesus is the same as God. And the NT shows the working and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It doesn't spell out that Jesus and the Father are of the Same substance. Or that God is three persons not just a demonstration of God in three aspects. This is why there was such a fight in the early church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I must say I'm enjoying reading and participating in all this discussion. Really good post!:thumbs:

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Thanks for the response and question about Icons. Visit any Orthodox Church, Monastery and your senses will be overwhelmed with Icons. Orthodox Christians even have “icon corners” in their homes…it’s an extension of the Church and is where the family gathers and prays.

Our Cathedral is painted from walls to ceiling with Icons depicting the events of the Bible. My kids have learned so much from the Bible just by asking questions about certain Icons…and believe it or not…so have I! St. Georgory the Dialogist spoke of Icons as being Scripture for the illiterate.

Let’s go ahead and just say it…we kiss icons, it’s called “veneration” and is different than “worship” and we’ll get to that later.

Anyway, Icons can be found in Scripture:
1) On the Ark – Ex. 25:18
2) On the Curtains of the Tabernacle – Ex. 26:1
3) On the Veil of the Holy of Holies – Ex. 26:31
4) Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary – 1st Kings 6:23
5) On the Walls – 1st Kings 6:29
6) On the Doors – 1st Kings 6:32
7) On the furnishings – 1st Kings 7:29, 36

So here we have a clear picture of carvings and art work throughout the Temple in the Old Testament.

If even one grants that pictures did exist within 150 years of the Apostles, we do not have evidence of veneration.

You mention “veneration”…good, maybe you are familiar that there’s a difference between veneration and worship.

I mention we kiss Icons, Jews before Christ kissed the Mezuza on their door post, he would kiss his prayer shawl before putting it on, and he would kiss the tallenin, before he would bind them to his forehead and arm. He kisses the Torah before he reads it in the Synagogue. No doubt, Christ did likewise, when He read the Scriptures in the Synagogue. So the early Jews venerated holy objects.

I am curious if based upon your research

I really haven’t “researched” icons…Icons wasn’t a big deal to me when I became Orthodox or even while I was considering Orthodoxy…So I really can’t elaborate much more, other than, as noted above, the Jews venerated and were commanded to decorate the Temple. And I don’t see Christ condemning the Jews for such acts of veneration.

If you’ve read any of the Apostolic Church Fathers, it’s almost like reading an extension of the NT. They addressed certain issues within the Church and just b/c no mention of Icons can only point to that there was no issue.

As you noted, we have evidence of Iconography throughout Christian Catacombs, and also we have evidence of the same in Jewish Catacombs of the same time period.

So in definition of Antiquity, I can say that
A) The Jews before the Christian Church knew what veneration was and practiced it and Jews became the first Christians and the practice continued.
B) Religious art is found in the OT and was obviously carried over into the NT Church (example: the catacombs).

In XC
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

What do you mean by "the deposit of faith" passed on "from one generation to the next?"

For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered to you (1 Cor. 11:23).

Brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or our epistle (2 Thessal. 2:15).

That’s the deposit of faith passed on from generation to generation.

This is where I have a problem with this view. Whatever God wanted passed on to us He orchestrated to be written in His word. Whatever was oral that we needed to know was put into the canon of scripture. Oral teachings that did not get into the canon are not necessary to know and there is no authority for such claimed oral teachings.

Where in Scripture do you read this?

Other teachings, such as the assumption of Mary, were not taught until much later -- the assumption of Mary was "revealed" around 1950. There is nothing in the Bible about this. One has to accept extrabliblical authority to accept this -- that of the Pope's declaration that this assumption was true.

Mary died AFTER the close of the NT, so how can the Bible mention Mary’s assumption?

Furthermore, the Pope had nothing to do with the assumption of Mary. The Pope had everything to do with the “Immaculate Conception of Mary”, which we Orthodox reject.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

A note on Icons. I was reading through Deuteronomy and Moses ask the people to place the laws on their door post, on their hands, and foreheads. They should discuss it in everyday matters. when they eat. They should teach their children. Men are to wear tassles on the four corners of their garments to remind them of what God had said to them. The idea is to live with God at the foremost of your minds. The Jews have Mezusas, and other things (still they have tassles). But the icon, I believe works the same way to remind of what God has told us. To inspire us and to commend us to continue a life style pleasing to God.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

And there’s so much Theology in Iconography. Here’s a similar Icon of the Resurrection I have:

The Resurrection

I like seeing Christ holding on to Adam and Eve by their wrists. I was told that this represents that only Christ can save you and that Christ is saving Adam and Eve by holding on to them and pulling them from the tomb…they or anyone can’t save themselves.

I also have this icon: the Pantocrator dated to the 6th c.

Pantocrator

With your hand cover one side of Christ’s face and then the other side and notice that each side of His face is different. This symbolizes Christ’s Humanity and His Divinity.

In XC
-

 

[Matt Black]

The Incarnation of Jesus Christ also drives a coach and horses through the whole Jewish prohibition on 'graven images', as affirmed by Nicaea II

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Icons are a violation of the Law of God. It's a pretty simple syllogism:

1. The Bible forbids making images of God.
2. Christ is God.
3. Thus, the Bible forbids making images of Christ.

To argue against this you have to separate the two natures somehow, the Divine from the human. But as it already noted on this board from the images posted, this is not the case. The icon protrays an image of the face of "christ" as both divine and human, violating the making of an image of the divine.

I don't know of any Orthodox Christian who says the image separates the Divine nature from the human nature. So, the orthodox are in fact making an image of God.

I found the following very interesting:

Daniel Clendenin relates the following anecdote in Eastern Orthodox Christianity: "The story is told of a Protestant who asked an Orthodox Priest what it was that his church believed. The priest responded that 'it would be better to ask not what we believe but how we worship.'"[23] Fair enough. I'll close with that. Benz describes how the Orthodox believer begins worship:

[He] first goes up to the iconostasis, the wall of paintings which separates the sanctuary from the nave. There he kisses the icons in a definite order: first the Christ icons, then the Mary icons, then the icons of the angels and saints. After this he goes up to ... the icon of the saint for the particular day.... Here, too, he pays his respects by a kiss, bow and crossing himself. Then having expressed his veneration for the icons, he steps back and rejoins the congregation.[24]

[23]Sparks, Jack N. No Graven Image. Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, n.d.
[24]Benz, Ernst. The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its Thought and Life. Trans. Richard and Clara Winston. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1963.

"I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."​

raying: raying:

 

[BRIANH]

A couple of quick points on my lunch break here:
Mary did not die after the close of the NT.
No one mentions Mary's assumpiton, despite all the conversations about her, for at least TWO HUNDRED years and then we find differing traditions.
The bishop of Ephesus, where tradition later says she was assumed, denies any knowledge of what happened to Mary. One of my chapters is devoted to it.
Back to icons, the early church is very opposed to them. A quick scan of the Ante-Nicene fathers and Eusebius confirms this.
Also, i will address the images in the synagogue claims later tonight.
Blessings.

 

[D28guy]

Matt...

"Surely this point demonstrates the unadequacy of SS rather than the other way round as CARM would like? They are admitting that many doctrines are not clearly stated in the Bible yet they are taught by The Church ie: they are impliedly accepting the principle of Tradition."

That is NOT what it is saying. Its adressing the comical demand that some make when they say "Please show us the verse where the phrase "scriptures alone" is used.

It's saying that we dont need to have that specific word "alone" used for the "scriptures alone" claim to be true...any more than we have to have the word "trinity" used in the scriptures..or even the word "triune"..to prove the triune nature of God.

In spite of those specific words..."trinity", "triune", "alone"...not being used...the truth of the triune nature of God, and the scriptures alone as our authority, are clearly proclaimed from the scriptures.

When people make ridiculous demands like that it makes the one using that tactic look small. Desperate. Its a diversionary tactic.



Mike

 

[D28guy]

Agnus Dei,

"Mary died AFTER the close of the NT, so how can the Bible mention Mary’s assumption?"

The scriptures are filled with "prophecy", Agnus. End time events that havent occured yet (although they are getting very close) are described in scripture.


Mike

 

[DHK]

Mike, I only have time to address one of CARM's points, but the one which leaps out at me is this:

Surely this point demonstrates the unadequacy of SS rather than the other way round as CARM would like? They are admitting that many doctrines are not clearly stated in the Bible yet they are taught by The Church ie: they are impliedly accepting the principle of Tradition.

Sola Scriptura admits no such thing. Perhaps this shows your lack of understanding in sola sciptura, and even further your lack of understanding in proper exegetical Bible study which sola scriptura demands.

 

[D28guy]

Agnus,

"You mention “veneration”…good, maybe you are familiar that there’s a difference between veneration and worship."

Of course they tell you that. Do you think they are going to come right out and say "This is when we worship Mary!"

Satan is the master deciever, Agnus. He knows every trick in the book to achieve his objectives.


Mike

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Icons are a violation of the Law of God. It's a pretty simple syllogism:

1. The Bible forbids making images of God.
2. Christ is God.
3. Thus, the Bible forbids making images of Christ.

Then obviously the cherubim in the Temple violate God’s Law, and didn’t God direct His people specifically the construction of the Temple?

I believe the problem is with the translation of graven images in Hebrew to Greek. Looking at the Second Commandment, you shall not make X, you shall not bow to X, you shall not worship X. IF X=”image”, then the Temple itself violates this Commandment. If X = “idol” and not all images, then this verse contradicts neither Icons in the Temple, nor Orthodox Icons.

In regards to “images of God”, Deuteronomy 4:14-19, says not to make a “false” image of God, b/c the Jews had not “seen” God. Yet as Christians, we believe that God became Incarnate I the person of Jesus Christ, thus we may depict that which we have seen with our own eyes (1 John1:1).

In XC
-