Hermeneutics and the Authority of Scripture

Sep 9th, 2009 | By Matt Yonke | Category: Featured Articles

It is my pleasure to be able to write on a subject where we as Catholics share so much common ground with our Reformed brothers, and even with most Evangelicals. In fact, it is no small thing that we agree upon foundational truths contra mundum in a time when even many Christians deny them.

This article intends to show that, though Protestants agree with the Catholic Church on the basic truths about Scripture and its authority, the Reformed view of Scripture errs in three respects: in its assumption about the canon of Scripture, in its view of the authority of Scripture, and in its view of the role of Sacred Scripture in the life of the Church. These errors are harmful to the faith, and the truth proclaimed by the Catholic Church about its Sacred books is the perfect corrective. I will begin this examination of the authority of Sacred Scripture with our points of agreement.

Contents:

I. Points of Agreement
II. Errors of the Reformed View
III. Correctives Provided by the Catholic View

I. Points of Agreement

The Catechism of the Catholic Church declares that God is the author of Scripture, that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error¹, that Scripture cannot be rightly interpreted without the aid of the Holy Spirit, that the Old and New Testaments are both the word of God, both binding on men for all time, that the Old and New Testaments are one unity of revelation, and that, consequently, one cannot be rightly understood without the other.

To quote from the Catechism:

In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: “Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men.”²

In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God.” In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.³

I know our Reformed brothers will approve of each and every one of these points, as the
Westminster Confession of Faith states the following:

Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now cease. ⁴

Here we stand as Reformed Christians and Catholics together claiming Sacred Scripture to be the word of God given for the salvation of the world. Together we deny that Sacred Scripture is merely a collection of historical books or the wise words of human authors.

We agree further that the Word of God recorded in Sacred Scripture has a special place in the life of the Church: as its guide, as its greatest earthly treasure, and as its greatest source of wisdom and guidance. This has been the case in the Catholic Church from her inception down to the present, as a few quotations from the Fathers and councils of the Catholic Church suffice to show:

These books are the fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them: in these alone the school of piety preaches the Gospel; let no man add to or take away from them. (St. Athanasius, Festal Letters, 39.)

[H]e will find there in much greater abundance things that are to be found nowhere else, but can be learnt only in the wonderful sublimity and wonderful simplicity of the Scriptures. (St. Augustine, De Doctr. Christ., 2,42,63.)

‘As a trusty door, Scripture shuts out heretics, securing us from error…’ (St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, Joann. 58.)

Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: “For the word of God is living and active” and “it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified.” (Dei Verbum, 21, quoting Hebrews 4:12, Acts 20:32, and citing 1 Thessolonians 2:13.)

When we examine the very earliest days of the Church, through the time of the Fathers, even through the divisions of the Reformation, down to the Second Vatican Council, we see that Catholics and Reformed Christians have significant common ground in our understanding of Sacred Scripture.

Before advancing to our points of disagreement, let us pause for a moment and thank the consubstantial Trinity for preserving in us all a love and reverence for Sacred Scripture, which will surely be integral to the reunion for which we all pray.

II. Errors of the Reformed View

But advance we must, for there remain divisions between us on the nature and number of the books of Sacred Scripture, as well as the nature of its authority. Protestants view the books of Sacred Scripture as the complete revelation of God and sole arbiter of all theological disputes whereas the Catholic Church has always taught that Sacred Scripture is a part of the Deposit of faith, along with Sacred Tradition and the living Magisterium of the Church. These are some of the most fundamental issues that have divided us for centuries and will continue to do so until we can come to a common understanding.

I intend to address three of the errors in the Reformed doctrine of Sacred Scripture, and then proceed to consider how the Catholic doctrine of Scripture provides a corrective for these errors and a proper understanding of the authority of the Scriptures. The first Reformed error I will address is the deficiency of its standards for determining which books are a part of the canon of Sacred Scripture. Among the different Protestant communities there are numerous views of the way in which the canon of Sacred Scripture was established, and space does not allow for all of them to be addressed.⁵ I will therefore address the Reformed views which seem to be the most widely held.

How Do We Know?
The first problem is one of epistemology. For all the many attempts to prove otherwise, two of which I examine below, Protestants simply have no way to verify a canon apart from a subjective internal witness. R.C. Sproul claims that we have a “fallible collection of infallible books,”⁶ but on what basis can he know that each of these books is infallible? It has never been the view of the Church that the books of Sacred Scripture are anything less than an infallible and trustworthy standard.

Sproul argues that Scripture claims infallibility for itself, but that there are other fallible authorities in the world, such as the Church, that are nonetheless authoritative in spite of their fallibility. According to Sproul, on the basis of the Church as an institution founded by God acting with His authority, we can trust that the Scriptures were rightly identified by the Church.

But the claim that we have a fallible collection of infallible books does not solve the problem of how we know which books are inspired and which are not; in fact it creates more problems. His argument points to the Scriptures as evidence supporting the claim that the Scriptures are infallible. But the evidence supporting the claim that the Scriptures are infallible is unavailable unless we already know which books belong to the canon. Even beyond that problem, there is an additional question: if we can trust God to guide the Church to establish a canon of infallible books, why can we not trust her when she explains to us what these books mean? The Protestant answer is, of course, to compare the later teachings of the Church to the teachings of Scripture. But this brings us right back to square zero. If the Church can err, for example, in proclaiming that icons ought to be venerated, she can err just as easily in compiling a canon, and it would be ad hoc to allow ecclesial infallibility in establishing the canon but deny infallibility in every other ecclesial activity.

The fallibility of the canon, of course, presents its own problems. The fallible list could be excluding divinely inspired books that commend us to offer prayers for the dead, that could lead (and have led) many into the grievous error of not praying for the souls of the faithful departed or a host of other doctrines. Furthermore, there would be no way for the Protestant Christian to know if that was the case.

Those taking Sproul’s argument will often cite the “self-authenticating” nature of the books of Sacred Scripture. John Calvin is one of the defenders of this view. In his Institutes, Calvin writes:

Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though the Church derives her first beginning from [the foundation of the writings of the Apostles and prophets], it still remains doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the Apostles and prophets, until her judgement is interposed. For if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the Apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have existed.⁷

First of all, Calvin states that “that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church.” But the fact that people in the Church can distinguish true and false (nonapostolic) doctrine, does not entail that there was no doubt about “what writings are to be attributed to the Apostles,” nor that the interposition of the Church’s judgment was unnecessary. Certainly the Apostles’ doctrine was clearly known by the early Church, but that alone did not make it perfectly clear to later generations receiving Christian teaching amidst any number of false teachers which books contained the actual Apostolic teaching or even which had an actual connection to Christ and the Apostles.

But St. Paul seems to indicate there is more than meets the eye in this foundation of the Apostles and prophets when he calls the Church, not the Scriptures, the very pillar and ground of truth.⁸ The Church certainly contains the teachings of the Apostles, but the Church is not only the teachings of the Apostles. The Church’s foundation also contains the living magisterium and deposit of faith we see working already in the time of the Apostles in Acts 15. Without this foundation, we could not know the teachings of the Apostles and Prophets. We see after St. Paul’s death the importance of the divinely ordained authority of the Magisterium when multiple written works bearing the names of the Apostles and containing diverse and sometimes contradictory messages would appear. St. Paul was, at Our Lord’s command, setting up the Church as the judge and protector of doctrinal orthodoxy. Further, as I will explore below, this is not a function a book is even capable of performing, as a book cannot explain its own meaning when questions about that meaning arise.

It is interesting to note that St. Paul says that the Church is founded on “the Apostles and Prophets,”⁹ but Calvin renders it “the teachings of the Apostles and Prophets.” He does not allow the passage say what St. Paul actually says: the men themselves and the authority given to them by God are the foundation of the Church. This divinely appointed authority is what gives weight to their teaching and gives authority to their interpretation, and is thus more foundational to the Church than the teaching itself. This is why St. Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to hold to both the written and unwritten traditions of the Apostles¹⁰. Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find the common Protestant assumption that all the essential information concerning Christ and the Apostles’ teaching would be codified in written form.

It should be noted, however, that although the authority of the Church’s Magisterium is foundational and binding, the Church still holds the Scripture in the highest place of honor and authority. The Magisterium is the servant of the Scripture, and, as the Catechism says, “with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully.”¹¹

Next Calvin offers his understanding of the Catholic Church’s view of her own position in relation to the Scriptures which, as we will see, is directly contrary to the Church’s stated self-understanding:

Nothing therefore can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted but, acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bounds shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent.¹²

This section sets up a straw man of the Catholic position. The Catholic Church did not teach in Calvin’s time, nor has she ever taught, that her stamp of approval on a book makes it God’s Word. It is almost as if Calvin believed that the Church thought, by declaring a text to belong to the Word of God, that she makes it into the the Word of God, or that she could turn around tomorrow and declare that St. Matthew’s gospel is no longer the Word of God. The Council of Trent refers to the books the council had “received,” and Dei Verbum¹³ uses precisely the same language of receiving. To imply that the Church ever taught that her fiat makes the word of God authentic is misleading and incorrect. The Church’s position has always been one of recognizing the authenticity of the great treasure that has been handed down to her.

When the Church tells her members what books are Scripture, she operates in exactly the same way she does in all other matters of faith and morals. Tobit is inspired not because the Church says so; the Church says so because Tobit is inspired. Abortion is wrong not because the Church says so; the Church says so because abortion is wrong. We can trust her authority on these matters far more than we can trust our own intuition or reason.

Now Calvin gets to the meat of the argument, that is, that the Scriptures are so self-evidently what they are that it is plain to anyone with a conscience which books are in and which are out:

As to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church? it is just the same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their colour, sweet and bitter of their taste.¹⁴

The claim that the Scriptures identify themselves is a falsifiable proposition but it is being treated as unfalsifiable by those who hold it. In his preface to the book of Revelation, Martin Luther wrote, “I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.” How could a person argue with Luther about what he could or could not “detect” in the text? If Calvin claims his sixty-six books identify themselves, we should be able to conduct blind “divinely-inspired-test” experiments to confirm his hypothesis. It also raises the question of why there were such disputes in the early Church about what was and was not Scripture. If it is as easy as telling black from white, then there should have been no disagreement in the early Church about the identity of canonical books. But there was manifestly such debate, and for no small period of time.

To look back centuries later and claim that the canon is self-evidently what it is denies history and falls prey to the very same mentality according to which the King James Bible fell out of Heaven whole and complete. Many of our brothers in some of the anti-intellectual forms of fundamentalism give no thought at all to the historical origin of Scripture. They have their Bible, the Spirit testifies unto their spirit that it is the Word of God, and that’s good enough for them. This claim that the identity of the canon is self-evident is in this respect exactly like the claim of the fundamentalist who ignores the historical development of the canon.

The Protestant is in agreement with the Catholic Church in the belief that the books of the canon of Scripture are the very words of God, but the Catholic has a better reason for believing so. The proposed ground of the Protestant’s epistemic certainty of the infallibility of the canon lies precisely in the books he is seeking to prove are infallible; and that certainty is primarily based on a handful of citations from St. Paul’s epistles. By contrast, the Catholic’s certainty rests in a hierarchy established by Jesus Himself that claims a call from God the Father, promises from Jesus, and the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Church in establishing and preserving true doctrine. Assuming the truth of our shared premise that God exists in a Trinity of divine Persons, the Catholic Church’s claim has a sound Trinitarian bedrock, while the Protestant claim of self-authentication trusts neither the Trinity nor the Church, but rather relies on the intellectual prowess of a handful of 16th century intellectuals, the Reformers, and their ability to discern true Scripture from false. In the worst case scenario, the Protestant claim relies on every man doing what is right in his own eyes, depending on which books the Holy Spirit testifies to his spirit are the Word of God.

In light of this, it hardly seems surprising that when the Westminster Confession of Faith lists its canon, it does so completely without commentary or substantive proof texts. This is a striking difference from the form of the rest of the Confession which goes into such incredible detail in defending from Scripture and other sources the things it claims. Not so with the canon. The Protestant canon is apparently to be accepted on its own self-evidence. But it is not in keeping with the doctrine of sola scriptura to take a doctrine as essential as this on the basis of a supposed self-authentication that is not taught in Sacred Scripture.

So we see that one problem with the Reformed view of Scripture is its inability to account for the determination of the canon of Scripture, and thus for the authority of Scripture. For if we cannot determine with certainty which books are and are not God-breathed, we have no means for discerning which teachings are true and binding on Christians and which are not.

An Unbiblical View of the Authority of Scripture

A second problem with the Reformed view is that it attributes to Sacred Scripture a functional capacity that Sacred Scripture does not claim for itself. The Protestant view attempts to ascribe to Sacred Scripture the role of final court of appeal in matters of faith and morals, citing the theory that clear passages will elucidate those that are unclear. But such notions are simply not found in Sacred Scripture.

The Westminster Confession makes this claim:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.¹⁵

But in attempting to substantiate the claim, it only produces the following proof texts:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.¹⁶

These verses are wonderful and true, but they claim that all Scripture is useful for doctrine, reproof, etc.; not that only Scripture is useful for these purposes, or that Scripture can accomplish them in a vacuum, that is, apart from the divinely appointed teaching and interpretive authority of the Church. Scripture interpreted correctly is good for all the things St. Paul mentions. Scripture interpreted incorrectly leads to heresy, division, and the destruction of souls. What this passage fails to prove is that Sacred Scripture by itself is able to do all the things St. Paul mentions.

In interpreting these verses, we must also consider the state of the New Testament canon. Since most of the New Testament was unwritten at the time St. Paul was writing, he could only have been referring here to the Old Testament. So the Scriptures that will equip the man of God for every good work cannot be the Scriptures St. Paul is writing as he writes this, much less the ones that will be written after. And even if the written books will equip, this passage does not tell us whether or not they do so in the context of the Church’s interpretive authority. Thus, these verses do not show that Sacred Scripture is sufficient to lead the Church on its own without an interpretive authority.

The confession’s next citation is from II Thessalonians:

That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.¹⁷

This verse does not show the sufficiency of Sacred Scripture as a supreme rule, especially since Sacred Scripture is not mentioned in it. St. Paul argues that the Thessalonians ought not to be shaken from the message delivered to them. This in no way implies that this message is fully contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon.

So we see that the WCF’s citations do not back up its claims, but we might still wonder whether Church history would help the Protestant position. After all, the quotations at the beginning of this article made it clear that the Church Fathers had a very lofty view of Sacred Scripture. But it must be noted that the same Church Fathers whom we saw above speaking in such elevated prose about the virtues and supremacy of Sacred Scripture believed doctrines not taught explicitly or by good and necessary consequence in Sacred Scripture.

Take as an example the following quotations from each of the Fathers mentioned above, on the Catholic Church’s teachings on Mary, Jesus’ mother:

The self-same who was born of the Virgin is, in truth, King and the Lord God. And on His account, she who gave Him birth is properly and truly proclaimed Queen, Lady and Mother of God. . . . And standing now as Queen at the right hand of her Son the King of all, she is celebrated in Sacred Writ as clad around with the gilded clothing of incorruption and immortality, and surrounded with variety. . . . Let us say then again and again as we look up to Our King, Our Lord and God, and to Our Queen, Our Lady and Mother of God: The Queen stood at thy right hand, in gilded clothing, surrounded with variety. (St. Athanasius, Epist. ad Marcellin. in Interpret. Psalm, sec. 1.)

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. (St. Augustine, Nature and Grace, 36:42.)

It is truly right to bless you, O Theotokos, ever blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, without defilement you gave birth to God the Word. True Theotokos we magnify you. (St. John Chrysostom, Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.)

We see here the same men who above reveled in the glory of Sacred Scripture espousing doctrines found in Sacred Scripture only in type or shadow. These doctrines certainly are not presented in Scripture in any sense that would satisfy the Westminster Divines.

So whatever these Fathers meant in speaking of the primacy of Scripture, it did not rule out believing doctrines not found explicitly in Scripture. These and all the other Fathers of the Church who held Scripture in incredibly high esteem also believed in the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist and its sacrificial character, the succession of Christ’s authority in the Church through the episcopacy, the ministerial priesthood, and the Catholic understanding of the communion of the Saints, to name a few examples. St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures¹⁸ are an excellent resource for seeing all of these doctrines taught as common knowledge in the early Church.

In the Fathers we find that Scripture was used in the context of what the Church already knew to be true, that is, the deposit of faith handed down both in Sacred Scripture and the unwritten traditions of the Apostles cited above by St. Paul. Even though these doctrines concerning Our Lady are found explicitly only in Sacred Tradition, the Fathers quoted above clearly valued them just as highly as those doctrines explicitly taught in Sacred Scripture. Scripture took ultimate pride of place in the early Church, to be sure, but it did not take that place in a vacuum.

Since this was the understanding of the place of Sacred Scripture in the Church from the earliest times, the burden of proof rests on the Westminster Confession and its defenders to prove from Scripture that their view is correct. The small smattering of proof texts offered fails to meet that burden because these texts do not display the Westminster Confession’s actual position from the Scriptures, and that position is clearly not the standard held by the early Church or any stage of the Church prior to the Reformation.

What Can A Book Do?

Finally, the Reformed view also ascribes to Sacred Scripture a capacity that, on a purely practical level, a book simply cannot bear.

A book provides words that must be interpreted to be understood. A person speaking to us in person, like the Apostles speaking to the early Churches, can explain the meaning of his speech. A book cannot elucidate problem passages for us. Given the fallibility of human understanding and the diversity of perspectives regarding interpretation, especially over the span of 2,000 years of Church history, it is simply not possible that a book by its very nature could be the supreme rule of faith and doctrine. At least it cannot do this if we expect there to be a consistent understanding of this book that would work itself out into consistent faith and practice. A human, or set of humans, must make the final decision about the meaning of written texts.

The Protestant response, of course, is an appeal to perspicuity. The doctrine of the perspicuity of the Scriptures refers to the claim that the Scriptures are able, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to make the truths essential to salvation known to any reader. The WCF states:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.¹⁹

The citation given to support this claim is from the Psalmist:

The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.²⁰

Certainly the Law of the Lord brings understanding to the simple, but the Confession’s interpretation mistakenly identifies “the Law of the Lord” with the modern Protestant canon of Scripture. This verse in no way entails that the simple can “obtain a sufficient understanding” of the Scriptures without any aid or guidance.

But even if there were a case to be made from the Scriptures for the perspicuity of the Scriptures, reality tells a different story. Learned Scripture scholars and even the revered figures of various modern Reformed communities cannot agree on what “the gospel” is, much less on the meaning of the Sacraments or any number of other topics of great doctrinal importance. The Federal Vision controversy is a striking testament to this discord. This, of course, is why we see such disparate faiths and practices among our Protestant brothers, even among our Reformed brothers who hold to a common set of confessions. The Reformed have 21 denominations in Switzerland, 14 in the UK and 44 in the US, all divided because of some irreconcilable doctrinal difference.

This is also the source of continual splitting that the history of the Reformed denominations has borne out. When each individual, or even each presbytery or each denomination decides where the boundaries of orthodoxy are on the basis of its own understanding of Sacred Scripture, even with the guide of the Reformed confessions, division at least every fifty years or so is practically a design feature.²¹

Unless there is an arbiter of these interpretive disagreements, there will necessarily be division and disagreement about basic tenets of the Christian faith. This division is contrary to Christ’s prayer in John 17 and unacceptable for the witness of the Church to the outside world.

From these historical facts, we see that a book simply does not have the capacity in and of itself to function in the way the Westminster Confession claims it must function. A book cannot resolve an interpretive dispute about itself, decide who is right in a doctrinal controversy, or address any areas that it does not address. If Scripture were intended to do this, as Protestants claim, we would not see the history of division and infighting that we see. Indeed, the entirety of the Protestant experiment hinges on the truth of the idea that the Scriptures were intended to function as described by the Westminster Confession. The Scripture’s inability to perform the ecclesial function expected of it by the Confession is one of the more common factors provoking Protestants to consider the claims of the Catholic Church, and eventually leave their communities to seek full communion with the body that Christ founded to give us the true interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

III. Correctives Provided by the Catholic View

God be praised, the view of Scripture handed down from Christ to the Apostles and through the unbroken succession of Bishops in union with the Pope answers and corrects each of these errors in the Protestant position. In this section we will examine how each of the errors in the Reformed view is corrected by the teaching of the Catholic Church about Sacred Scripture.

The Epistemology Problem

The Catholic Church’s teaching on Scripture avoids the epistemological problems laid out above concerning the origin and authority of Scripture. An important key to understanding authority in the Church, and thus the Scripture, is the Council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15. This first Ecumenical Council gives us a model of the way the Apostles understood authority in the Church.

The Council was convened to answer the following question: do Gentiles have to be circumcised to become Christians? The Scriptures extant at the time did not answer the question, otherwise there would have been no need for the Council. What did the Apostles do? They called a council consisting of themselves and the presbyters they had ordained.

At this Council the Apostles and their successors debated this question, using what the Jewish Scriptures taught and what Christ had taught them in His earthly ministry. They issued a decree that was binding on all Christians. It is important to note that this was not merely a council of the Apostles, but also of the presbyters they had ordained, who took full part in the Council. As we see in Acts 15:4-6:

When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them. But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.” The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.

The assumption of the continuity of authority between the Apostles and their successors is apparent at this council. The presbyters ordained by the Apostles were present and it was these very same men, and those ordained by them that ruled over the further ecumenical councils of the Church. It is precisely the pattern of the Council of Jerusalem–of bishops gathering and proclaiming their decisions to be binding with the authority of the Holy Spirit–that the Church has followed throughout her history, from Jerusalem to Vatican II.

The same authority by which the Apostles and the presbyters whom they ordained declared that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised is the authority by which Trent declared the canon of Scripture. The pattern of the councils of the Church, clearly visible from the earliest councils, made clear that the Bishops at those councils perceived themselves to be citing the same episcopal and apostolic authority and calling on the same Holy Spirit for the same kind of binding decree.

The extent of the authority of the council is the same as well, that is to say, it was binding on every Christian. If we can reject Trent’s authority on the canon, we can reject the findings of Jerusalem, Nicea, Chalcedon, and any other finding of any Church council we please. Otherwise we need a principled reason to accept some and reject others. Again, an arbiter of some sort over the entire process is clearly needed, which is exactly how conciliar and papal authority have functioned in the Church for two thousand years. There is no other Scriptural pattern on which to base Church polity and the resolution of doctrinal disputes.

The example of the Bereans, a passage oft cited by Protestants to warrant holding the written text as the supreme interpretive authority, fails to produce that kind of pattern for two reasons. First, the Bereans were individual people exercising their consciences, no different from someone outside the Church checking the Church’s message against itself before believing. In no sense are the Bereans an example of Church polity or how the Church handles in-house disputes. The Bereans were a group of individual Jews deciding whether or not they would join the early Christians. Second, the appeal to the Bereans as a pattern falls flat for the Protestant because the Bereans checked the Apostles’ teachings against the Old Testament. Those who accepted the testimony of the Apostles held the Apostles’ teaching as a new source of revelatory truth, as all other Christians did. The example of the Bereans does nothing if not prove the superiority of oral testimony. Further, the example of the Bereans proves too much for the Protestant. Acts tells us that some of the Bereans believed the Apostles, which implies that some did not. So the example of the Bereans makes clear that individuals searching the Scriptures and determining for themselves which sources of revelation and authority to accept leaves the door wide open to error and self-deception.

Since the Catholic Church has from its inception followed this pattern of accepting the authority of the Apostles and their successors to lead her into all truth, no such epistemological quandary as we find in Protestantism is produced by Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine is not restricted to a “fallible collections of infallible books,” nor is there any need for temporary and unbiblical ad hoc infallibility to be attributed to the Church in determining the canon, nor any need for question-begging self-authentication. All that is needed is what Christ left for us, the sound foundation of the Church passed down from Christ to the Apostles to their successors.

The Problem of the Nature of Books

The Catholic Church’s doctrine also solves the problem of trying to use a book for a purpose a book cannot serve. The authority of Christ, given to His Apostles to call upon the Holy Spirit to lead them into truth (John 16:13) was given to the Bishops who succeeded them. (II Timothy 1:6) As we see in 2 Tim 1:6, St. Paul refers to the gift of the Spirit given to Timothy by him. Through the succession of bishops, this same authority guides how we understand the Scriptures today, and guides it perfectly. The Catholic Church does not rely on Sacred Scripture alone to make herself clear, anymore than the Apostles relied on the Hebrew Scriptures alone to make clear the full content of the gospel. They relied on the oral teachings they had received from Christ and on the power and authority of the Holy Spirit working in their midst to make the truth clear. The Catholic Church has followed this pattern for all of its history and, furthermore, no conception of perspicuity such as that proposed by Reformed theology can be found anywhere in Church history prior to the Reformation.

With confidence in the protection from error in the Church’s infallible teachings on issues of faith and morals given to the Church by the Holy Spirit through Christ’s promise (John 16:13), we can value and venerate Sacred Scripture. At the same time we are not forced to require that it interpret itself for us. Likewise, we do not have to force the Scriptures to produce a clear passage to interpret every difficult passage. This is a particularly baffling requirement of the Westminster Confession, because it leaves us once more with no arbiter to decide which passage is difficult and which corresponding clear passage explains it.

The Catholic position provides a remedy for division and disagreement, as the sure word of the Church is the dividing line between orthodoxy and heresy. Each person need not look for a burning in his bosom to distinguish truth from error. Rather, by looking at the Scriptures through the interpretive lens of the teaching of the Church, he will be led into the truth and unity Christ promised that the Spirit would bring.

The Problem of the Nature of Scripture As A Book

The Catholic understanding allows the Scriptures to exist in the role and with the authority that the Scriptures accord themselves. In the Catholic understanding, the Scriptures are the Church’s great treasure and to be highly valued, but not as a mere rule book or exhaustive source of truth. Again, going back to Acts 15, the Apostles themselves did not believe this. They cited the Scriptures in their deliberations at the Council of Jerusalem, but while they took counsel from the Scriptures, their decision was ultimately guided by the Holy Spirit. They did not come to their decision because the answer was “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence [could] be deduced from Scripture.”²² Rather, they debated, prayed, and asked for guidance from the Holy Spirit. This guidance they received as promised and their decision was binding on all the faithful.

Over the course of the history of the Church there arose a plethora of pressing questions that the Scriptures do not address directly. With respect to such questions, the authority Christ gave to His Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, protects the Scriptures from being twisted to address a controversy they do not directly or indirectly address.

Hermeneutics

Having addressed our differences regarding the determination of the canon and authority and role of Sacred Scripture, I will also address our differences in the area of hermeneutics.

As with the authority issue, we have significant points of agreement on the principles we ought to employ in interpreting Sacred Scripture. We agree that Scripture cannot be rightly interpreted without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Its depths cannot be mined if we treat it merely as a historical text. We agree that cultural context, authorial intent, literary mode, and other similar factors must be taken into account, unlike certain anti-intellectual segments of ‘just-me-and-my-Bible’ Christianity. We also agree, to a certain extent, that Scripture must be read in light of those who came before us and interpreted Scripture before us. But in Dei Verbum, Pope Paul VI makes clear the pivotal role played by Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church:

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).²³

But I believe the real point of disagreement is how we understand the Church’s authority in regard to how we read the Scriptures. The Catholic Church understands the Scripture’s primary place to be in the Church and interpreted by the Church, informed by her deepened understanding of Scripture throughout her history. Reformed Christians claim that they take the Church’s historical understanding of Scripture as an important factor in their reading of Sacred Scripture. Their respect for the early councils provides a basis for unity on certain fundamentals, especially on Trinitarian theology and Christology.

But if Protestants truly discerned the visible body of Christ, the Church, they would accept the later councils as well. As we have seen, the later councils were acting with the very same authority the Apostles and their brother presbyters and bishops acted with at the Council of Jerusalem, and those actions are the actions of the body of Christ. To love them is to embrace them and to seek to understand them, not to criticize them and act as their judge. Furthermore, to act as their judge is simply to draw a bullseye around the arrow one has already shot in the wall. If the councils agree with the Reformed understanding of Scripture, then they are accepted, but if not, they are deemed not to hold any authority whatsoever.

As Catholics, we accept these councils, and all subsequent Ecumenical Councils, as authoritative fundamentally because they are the words of our Holy Mother the Church to us. Our Reformed brethren generally accept the first four councils and some teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, but they accept them only because they have found them “biblical” according to their own interpretation of Scripture.

To be sure, all the dogmas of Mother Church are Biblical in the fullest sense of the word–there is no contradiction between any of the Councils and any teaching of Sacred Scripture. But we believe them not because we deem them Biblical according to our own interpretation of Scripture, but rather because we believe Jesus, whose Mystical Body the Church is. We believe the words of the Church because the words of the Mystical Body cannot come from anywhere but Christ the Head.

I am glad our Reformed brethren recognize the value and authority of the Fathers and the Church’s tradition in approaching Scripture; it gives us a significant basis for discussion and dialogue as we seek for unity. But for Reformed Christians, the words of Councils and Popes are not the reliable and trustworthy words of their Mother the Church and of Our Lord. Rather, they are a potentially helpful grab-bag whose contents must be treated with skepticism until one has determined whether or not they are in agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

This issue of hermeneutics is perhaps the most important epistemological obstacle between Protestants and Catholics, and the way to unity is blocked until we can find our way over it. If there is not one true Church to settle disputes and be the authoritative arbiter between heresy and orthodoxy, there can be nothing but the division and in-fighting that have plagued the last five hundred years of Christianity and which are not what our Lord and His Apostles intended when they implored Christians to unity. May we all come to love and humbly accept the words of Christ in the words of His Holy Church that we might all be one–not selectively, but completely.

Providentissimus Deus, sec. 20-21 [↩]
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 101. [↩]
Id., 104. [↩]
Westminster Confession of Faith, I.1. [↩]
A future article on Called to Communion will address “the Canon Question” in greater depth. [↩]
R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, 22-23. [↩]
Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.7. [↩]
I Timothy 3:14-15. [↩]
Ephesians 2:20. [↩]
2 Thess. 2:15 [↩]
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 86. [↩]
Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.7. [↩]
Dei Verbum, 8. [↩]
Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.7. [↩]
Westminster Confession of Faith, I.4. [↩]
II Timothy 3:15-17. [↩]
II Thessalonians 2:2. [↩]
Available here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3101.htm. [↩]
Westminster Confession of Faith, I.7. [↩]
Psalm 119:130. [↩]
A very helpful timeline charting the divisions within Presbyterianism can be found here: http://www.pragmatism.org/american/presbyterian_churches.jpg. [↩]
Westminster Confession of Faith, I.4. [↩]
Dei Verbum, Ch. 2 [↩]

Tags: Scripture, The Canon

393 comments
Leave a comment »

wilkins September 10th, 2009 1:05 am :
Thanks, Matt, for this helpful article.

Hermeneutics is, as you say, a top obstacle between Protestants and Catholics. Many Protestants might describe it as a top obstacle between faith and unbelief—at least in my case, Catholicism simply wasn’t a possibility, was entirely unthinkable. When I figured out that various Protestant approaches to Scripture and interpretation could never stand up to the very meaty theories of textuality in college and university (circulating even in popular culture), I assumed it was merely a matter of time before I went fully agnostic.

Thank God that’s not the only option, right?

‘God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office’ was, I think, the first book God used to show me that, in fact, the Catholic Church was unthinkable for me precisely because I was so ignorant of what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

I’m still ignorant but learning. I think it’s totally necessary to point out to our brothers and sisters that the Protestant approach is ‘textually naive’—asks a book to do what a book can’t do; on the other hand, tho, the ‘living word’ of the apostolic witness might also be ‘textually naive’. I mean, I don’t think we can present ‘a divinely appointed teaching authority’ as the alternative to Protestantism’s limitless semiosis (or ‘unprincipled’ limited semiosis). I’m not saying I think you’re doing that; I’m half-admitting that I catch myself doing that. I drive me crazy more than half the time.

Or put it this way: Protestantism has yet to explain how in the world something like a ‘sola scriptura’ can be reconciled with what we know about how language works and what interpretation is. In my study and self-examination leading up to Confirmation last year, it became perfectly clear to me that the Protestant approach to the Scripture (as if it were THE independent source, sufficient in itself as Text to teach us what we need to know) is a clean break with 1500 years of Christian Faith and practice. Not a branch. Not a recovery of something lost. Instead, a clean break. Now Catholic, I love and trust the Holy Spirit who guides the Church, and so I have also come to love the Church in a way I never imagined possible. Still… I have no idea (or little idea) how to articulate the gritty specifics of a Catholic theory of textuality. I suspect this is a bad thing.

I’m hoping all this makes some kind of sense because I’m asking for help, mostly. On hermeneutics, I’d like to invite you (and anyone else) to share specific book recommendations. Is there something like a Catholic alternative to a study like Thiselton’s ‘New Horizons in Hermeneutics’?

Pax Christi,
w
Steven Nelson September 10th, 2009 12:08 pm :
Bravo, Matt on an outstanding article. This is a very important topic to ecumenical debate as its accordance with or adherence to by our Reformed and Protestant brethren can cover an ocean of doctrinal differences. Praise be to our God and Master Who by knowing our nature, has infused within the magisterium a constant Helper to protect us – the bride of His Son… so through full apostolic succession the gates of hades shall not prevail against Her.
And it should also be addressed that the very existence of the scriptures as we know them today, are only in place by magisterial conciliarism. Even still, the councils of the Church humbly bow to Sacred Scripture opposite of claiming to take precedence as the tradition that compiled it.
Good stuff!
Remy September 10th, 2009 12:58 pm :
Calvin: “They mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? Who can assure us that Scripture has come down whole and intact even to our very day? Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribe a sure rule for all these matters? What reverence is due Scripture and what books ought to be reckoned with its canon depend, they say, upon the determination of the church.”

Then: “If we desire to provide in the best way for our consciences –that they may not be perpetually beset by the instability of doubt or vacillation, and that they may not also boggle at the smallest quibbles –we ought to seek our conviction in a higher place than human reasons, judgments, or conjectures, that is, in the secret testimony of the Spirit.”

It is not what a book can do. It is the Spirit that bears witness.

The sort of skeptical approach to knowledge that you present here eats itself and is not resolved by any ex cathedra edicts. Perhaps the Magisterium salves some Romanist anxieties and doubts, for which we can be thankful for, but the witness of God is greater. It seems you’re looking for a non-falsifiable proposition, but this is not our goal. As St. Anselm said:
“I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this I believe–that unless I believe, I should not understand.”

We all believe the Bible is the word of God because the Holy Spirit attests to it. If you want to argue that your secondary reasonings for believing so are better than the protestant’s secondary reasons then bless your heart.
Richard September 10th, 2009 1:32 pm :
Good post, good points!
Matt September 10th, 2009 2:21 pm :
At the outset, the Catholic answer sounds good and tidy, but I think we can see a ‘religious fiction’ occurs in the minds of many on this area.

The Catholic criticism of Scriptures primary authority (over the “magisterial authority”) breaks down into swampy confusion upon further examination. The common criticism is that it is chaos to have everyone “reading and interpreting the Bible on their own.” But when we look at the task of the Catholic individual or even group, we find a greater chaos looming over the entire attempt to understand truth.

Consider, Catholics don’t just have a Bible of 66 books to interpret; they have so much more to condense into meaningful understanding: The have numerous Councils, innumerable papel encyclicals, and ordinary and extraordinary teachings and utterances.
They must navigate both the spirit, propositions and differences between the Council of Orange and the Council of Trent (good luck); the Vatican I and Vatican II (is harmony present there?). The have a tug-of-war between ‘aggiornamento’ (“updating”) and insistence on ‘ressourcement’ (“tradition”) .

They also have a Bible with deuterocanonical additions (6 or 7 more books plus additions to others). And the Bible is read during the Mass, though it is not referred to with definitive authority.

They are also encouraged to read Scripture in some areas (Dei Verbum, etc), but why? Isn’t that just creating more confusion? To keep the voice of “the church” intact, would it not be better to counsel the flock to ignore Scripture and listen to “the church”. Isn’t that more simplifying?

However, as I have shown, the voice of “the church” is lost in a miasma of complexity and confusion. Just what is “the church” saying?! Lord have mercy on any well-intentioned soul who really tries to interpret all the data.

Oh, I forgot to mention the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There you will find 2,865 other statements and articles to “interpret” and apply. One must add those to the Catholic Bible, the Councils, the encyclicals and ordinary writings. Sounds like you have a little homework yourself, as you individually seek to distill what is being said, when to apply it and to whom.

I think I will go to the Church that teaches us to seek God, read His word (The Scripture), while submitting to the living Word, Jesus, through His Spirit. It sounds simple (and in some ways is), but that is an event and process with which I can live.

Here is a tradition worth preserving:

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11

Glad God is sovereign and in command of it all.
Matt
Tim A. Troutman September 10th, 2009 2:34 pm :
Matt –

as I have shown, the voice of “the church” is lost in a miasma of complexity and confusion.

You’ve stated that yes. But you’re a long way from having demonstrated it. It does not follow that the more information one has available, the more confused he will be. Otherwise, we should trust Marcion over the Reformers since his bible contained much fewer books. I think Tolstoy only believed in the gospels. Why isn’t he the one to follow according to your argument?

The DC books were not additions to the Bible, they had been in the bible since the time of the apostles. The Reformers removed 7 books from the Bible and Trent later re-affirmed them (they had already been affirmed by the Church at Rome, and Carthage).

So if by removing 7 books, the message of Christianity became clearer, why not remove 7 more to make it even more clear?
Tim A. Troutman September 10th, 2009 2:38 pm :
Remy – you haven’t interacted with Matt Y’s arguments. Your reply is reducible to “your arguments are bad, they might help you sleep at night, but they’re bad.” If you want us to believe you, show where the arguments are flawed.

Also, “bless your heart” is condescending. Please be careful with your tone here.
Steven Nelson September 10th, 2009 3:23 pm :
@Matt- (not Yonke)

For further evidence that the DC books were in the Bible since the time of the Apostles, as Tim touched on, note that even in St. Paul’s epistles he both directly and indirectly references this “second” canon.
For example:
“For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
1 Corinthians 2:16

For what man can learn the counsel of God? Or who can discern what the Lord wills?
Wisdom 9:13

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
1 Corinthians 15:29

For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45: But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
2 Maccabees 12:44-45

These are only several of many DC references in the NT. I invite you to explore further these references, and the conciliar traditions that compiled and defined the Biblical Canon: Council of Rome, Ephesus, Carthage, and even how the Reformers and Luther measured Sacred Scripture. For instance, Luther wanted the epistles of St. James, St. Jude, St. Peter, and the Apocalypse removed from NT canon.

In the Peace of God’s Messiah,
Steven
Steven Nelson September 10th, 2009 3:40 pm :
I apologize, ignore Ephesus in the above post… got a little ahead of myself ;)
Remy September 10th, 2009 4:27 pm :
Tim,

I didn’t explicitly draw out the interaction with Matt’s post, but I can do so now. Calvin does not claim that the “sixty-six books identify themselves” as Matt states, but that if we want conviction we look to the testimony of the Spirit. My point was that we both believe the Bible is the word of God because the Spirit attests to it.

Matt and I are friends so I really would bless his heart if he wants to argue over the back-up plan to a Spirit-attested Bible. I’m not concerned about the secondary reasons. I merely wanted to correct this one thing.
Matt September 10th, 2009 5:06 pm :
Steven, I believe the quote you cite is actually from Isaiah 40:13

http://bible.cc/isaiah/40-13.htm

Just wanted to give that point some biblical refinement. Also, Paul quotes pagan authors in Acts, but I would not refer to those sources with authority.

Appreciate the response. I will stay with the 66 books though. Thank you.

Matt
Tom Brown September 10th, 2009 7:25 pm :
Dear Remy,

Thank you for sharing the prescient quotations from John Calvin, and for your comments. I hope to touch on your points here.

First, do you distinguish Calvin’s position, on surety of canon and doctrine of the Scriptures, from the ‘bosom burning’ of the Mormon religion that some of us have discussed on this site before? [I don't mean for the Mormon comparison to be offensively provocative.] Calvin had a skilled rhetoric as a lawyer, but when I reflect on his words, I see his test of canonicity and doctrine of Scripture as bosom burning (e.g., “we ought to seek our conviction in a higher place than human reasons, judgments, or conjectures, that is, in the secret testimony of the Spirit”).

Then you made this comment: “It is not what a book can do. It is the Spirit that bears witness.” You later said, “We all believe the Bible is the word of God because the Holy Spirit attests to it. If you want to argue that your secondary reasonings for believing so are better than the protestant’s secondary reasons then bless your heart.” Taking these two together, I see the former point as a point of complete agreement. The question for neither of us is ‘what can the Bible do in leading us?’ Instead, an issue that divides is this: to WHOM or to what does the Spirit bear witness?

In light of that, I disagree that the Catholic has a “sort of skeptical approach to knowledge.” The Catholic finds certainty from the Spirit working through the [visible, Catholic, Apostolic] Church; the Reformed finds certainty from the Spirit working either in each Christian’s heart, or perhaps in some collection of Christians’ hearts. We can each admit to certainty in the Scriptures. I think that, instead of the Catholic having a skeptical approach to knowledge, rather it is those Reformed who adhere to the “fallible collection of infallible books” view of canonicity that have to entertain skepticism regarding knowledge.

Peace in Christ,
Tom
Matt Yonke September 10th, 2009 9:05 pm :
Remy,

Thanks for stopping by. Don’t worry, your blessings on my heart were understood in context of our longstanding back-and-forth on these topics.

I guess, Remy, the question comes down to what the Spirit is attesting to whom. Because He’s clearly testifying one thing to you and the other Protestants, another to us Catholics, still another some groups of Orthodox and a very special American version for the Mormons.

The only way we have of discerning which is correct is your “attesting of the Spirit” vs. mine, unless Jesus left us some objective way of discerning where His Church really is. Fortunately he did in the succession of authority He left with the Apostles accompanied by His promises that the Spirit would safeguard His Church.

Outside of those, it’s every man for himself, no matter in what language you couch it.
Devin Rose September 10th, 2009 10:18 pm :
Matt,

Thank you for this excellent encapsulation of the key points of similarity and difference between Protestants and Catholics on this matter.

I was quite surprised when I first read Calvin’s arguments for how we can know the canon: I expected something far more profound and defensible, but in truth, self-authentication is the best that a Protestant can do and must do to avoid the incoherency of accepting some parts of sacred Tradition and rejecting other parts.

I hope that more Protestants will come and interact with you on this post, as you have presented the best challenges to Protestantism’s beliefs on the canon and authority of the Scriptures.
John Kincaid September 10th, 2009 10:22 pm :
Just a more general question in light the admonition to be “good Bereans”: would the Bereans have been good if they searched the Scriptures and in their exegesis disagreed with Paul?
John Kincaid September 10th, 2009 10:25 pm :
Sorry for the spelling errors, I am quite tired after a long day, and it is always good to be humbled by submitting something without checking the spelling first, so let me try that again-a quick question: would the Bereans have been good if they searched the Scriptures and in their exegesis disagreed with Paul?
Steven Nelson September 11th, 2009 3:49 am :
@Matt-
Well don’t be so dismissive now… There are many instances where books in the Old Testament cross over and say, simply, the same things. With a Protestant measure of the Scripture I can see how in this case, St. Paul’s quote can only be referencing Isaiah. However, as a Catholic, I see that St. Paul is also referencing Wisdom. I do apologize for having isolated Wisdom apart from Isaiah. I was wrong in doing so and thanks holding me accountable. However, do keep in mind that the goal of this site, as I understand it, is to promote unity …and rhetorical dismissal is quite the opposite.

To differentiate between authoritative references and unauthoritative references made by St. Paul, lets consider his background as both a Jew and a Greek. When St. Paul quotes Old Testament scripture in his epistles, he is practicing the ancient Jewish tradition of Aggadah (applying scripture to personal and doctrinal circumstances). When he quotes pagans in Acts, however, he is doing something very different, and very Greek. In these cases, St. Paul is practicing a common rhetorical style where one expounds on the objectives of his opponent in order to expose heresy or to establish mutuality, so as to possibly win them over on common ground…Call to mind St. Paul at the Areopagus, when he references the “unknown god” to draw the polytheistic Greeks towards monotheism. So, there are obvious contextual differences where St. Paul is quoting something in order to apply its already established authority (i.e. Wisdom/Isaiah) and where he is quoting something in order to ultimately persuade against it.

Also, as a Greek and as a Pharisee in the first century, Paul would have accepted the canon of the day, which was the Greek Septuagint. The Palestinian Sages later rejected the additional books in the Septuagint (while in a state of covenantal infidelity after having rejected Christ) because of how “un-jewish” they were. When, in reality, it was because of how they seemed to overtly support that “illegitimate man from Nazareth” (to use the Talmud’s verbiage). As stated above and as far as Catholicism, rather the Church, is concerned, the extra 7 books have been a part of canon since the Apostolic Era… up until a narcissistic monk and a schismatic lawyer got itchy ears.

In the Peace of God’s Messiah,
Steven
Matt September 11th, 2009 1:28 pm :
Steven,
The truth is, we are all “dismissive” of that with what we disagree.

History books tell of of the Septuagint, but also the various “targums” that floated around. We really have only partial and incomplete lists from the first few centuries that acknowledge books of the canon. It wasn’t really until the 1500s and 1600s that such matters where solidly addressed by both Rome and Evangelicals. I am on the Reformation side because I wanted a more ancient and eternal tradition, avoiding “novelties” that accrued over the centuries. Nothing like a Reformation guided by a sovereign Lord, working through His broken and imperfect people. But the history books tell us more detail on that. I will go with the Proto-canonical books, again going with an older and more established tradition.

As for your reference to Luther and Calvin; I see them both rather as a “sledge hammer” and “chisel” to break out the Church from the traditions it had become encrusted in. The work of our sovereign Lord continues. And He has tools He uses every generation as He completes the work that He began.

Dismiss the tools of the Lord too often, and you may dismiss the builder and Craftsman Himself, not to mention His workmanship (Ephesians 2:10).

Here is another great passage from our glorious and more ancient tradition:

“Every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.” Hebrews 3:4

To be sure, in our Sovereign God we will find unity in the Lord Jesus.

Take care,
Matt
Tim A. Troutman September 11th, 2009 1:42 pm :
Matt,

It wasn’t really until the 1500s and 1600s that such matters where solidly addressed by both Rome and Evangelicals.

This is demonstrably false. The council of Rome in 382 AD canonized all 73 books of the bible as did the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Both of these councils were ratified by the pope and so the Catholic Church has long had a set canon which included the DC books. Trent only reaffirmed the long standing tradition. You should retract your statement.
wilkins September 11th, 2009 1:51 pm :
Matt,

as a student and fellow Christian, i’d very much like to know which ‘history books’ you’re referring to. (no subtext here, no insinuations or anything, just genuine curiosity)

best,
w
Matt September 11th, 2009 2:26 pm :
W

Fair question, but I made a general reference to general history books, plain and simple.

Not directly related, but I personally like P. Schaff, A. McGrath., et al. I often gravitate to books on historical theology and the like, but again, my above reference above was more rhetorical and general.

Regards,
Matt
Devin Rose September 11th, 2009 2:29 pm :
Matt,

Following up on Tim’s comment, you wrote: But the history books tell us more detail on that. I will go with the Proto-canonical books, again going with an older and more established tradition.

Then you need to jettison the book of Revelation as well, for it was very contested in the Church for centuries. St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s New Testament canon around 350 AD did not include it but only the other 26 NT books. Luther’s preface to Revelation in his Bibles from 1522 to 1527 said:

…it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly — indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important — and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

–from the Bible-Researcher site

This doesn’t even include the other 6 disputed books of the NT that Luther was dubious about (the “Antilegomena”). Why not also remove those books, since they were not “proto-canonical” by Luther’s reasoning and discernment?
Matt September 11th, 2009 2:30 pm :
W

Fair question, but I made a general reference to general history books, plain and simple.

Not directly related, but I personally like P. Schaff, A. McGrath, et al. I often gravitate to books on historical theology and the like, but again, my above reference above was more rhetorical and general. I have spent time with confessions and Counciliar documents on the Catholic side. Ratzinger has actually some interesting tidbits if you are interested in reading through his writings to find a them.

No scholar here, yet I don’t pretend to be. Scholars are found in schools writing with much more refinement and nuance than I would attempt.

Regards,
Matt
Steven Nelson September 11th, 2009 2:35 pm :
@Matt-
Some very true statements here and I enjoyed your illustration regarding Ephesians 2:10. Still, nothing resonates more with this verse and Hebrews 3:4 than the conciliar tradition of the Apostolic Church, in this case, Rome. And, whether you believe it or not, the historical councils that established the canon happened, and they happened in the 4th century… well before Trent and the reformation. Also, the work of God is only “encrusted” in its mystery and conveyance. Not the errors of tradition as if our Enemy would be allowed any victory over Christ’s Mystical Body (Matthew 16:17-19, Acts 15:22-35, 1 Timothy 3:15).
You say:

“The work of our sovereign Lord continues. And He has tools He uses every generation as He completes the work that He began.”

Not to patronize, but this is far from orthodoxy and can be heretical. Our Lord’s work has already been completed.
To quote the Catechism:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word – and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty. (CCC, I, Ch 2, Art I, III)

this is what I mean when I say Luther and Calvin had itchy ears (2 Timothy 4:2-4) and further in the CCC:

“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. (CCC, I, Ch 2, Art I, III)

His work has been completed. In His sovereignty, He has given us the promises of His Eternal Word that we would never become encrusted or defeated but rather be able to “grasp its full significance” safely by the power of the Holy Spirit. I invite you to read an article on this site: “Ecclesial Deism” as it addresses this topic quite well.
wilkins September 11th, 2009 2:38 pm :
Hey Matt,

thanks, man. i know the one, will look up the other (schaff). ‘rhetorical’ or gestural citation is cool—i didn’t want to sound like the ‘citation police’ (lol!)… it’s just that the characterization of the ‘history’ you provided seems to contradict everything i’ve read. hence, my interest in knowing.

anyway, thanks.

w
Matt September 11th, 2009 2:42 pm :
Devin,
See, this is the thing, in case you have not yet observed it or recognized it:

Catholics start in historical tradition somewhere in the last 2000 years. As such, their approach and apologetic is filled with historical data and discussion ad insanity. However, tradition is their presupposition.

We on the Reformed side begin in Scripture. That is our presupposition (one can identify one’s presuppositons if he is honest and upfront in temperament).

Anyways, you will notice how my comments in my initial post will go ignored. However, that is fine, because I won’t get entangled in your comments and questions, getting lost in ancient debates and obscure historical references. The “Catholic Spirit” is always tugging to get you to go into the “jungle” of confusion in that manner. Suddenly they posit a Pope and Magisterium/tradition that will “show you the way.”

Well, I ain’t going there. That’s the thing, to be direct.

Oh, if you like, interact with my original post. Please interact with every statement, element, paragraph.

No? Why not?

Here it is again, in its entire form:
————————————————————————————————————————————————–
At the outset, the Catholic answer sounds good and tidy, but I think we can see a ‘religious fiction’ occurs in the minds of many on this area.

The Catholic criticism of Scriptures primary authority (over the “magisterial authority”) breaks down into swampy confusion upon further examination. The common criticism is that it is chaos to have everyone “reading and interpreting the Bible on their own.” But when we look at the task of the Catholic individual or even group, we find a greater chaos looming over the entire attempt to understand truth.

Consider, Catholics don’t just have a Bible of 66 books to interpret; they have so much more to condense into meaningful understanding: The have numerous Councils, innumerable papel encyclicals, and ordinary and extraordinary teachings and utterances.
They must navigate both the spirit, propositions and differences between the Council of Orange and the Council of Trent (good luck); the Vatican I and Vatican II (is harmony present there?). The have a tug-of-war between ‘aggiornamento’ (“updating”) and insistence on ‘ressourcement’ (“tradition”) .

They also have a Bible with deuterocanonical additions (6 or 7 more books plus additions to others). And the Bible is read during the Mass, though it is not referred to with definitive authority.

They are also encouraged to read Scripture in some areas (Dei Verbum, etc), but why? Isn’t that just creating more confusion? To keep the voice of “the church” intact, would it not be better to counsel the flock to ignore Scripture and listen to “the church”. Isn’t that more simplifying?

However, as I have shown, the voice of “the church” is lost in a miasma of complexity and confusion. Just what is “the church” saying?! Lord have mercy on any well-intentioned soul who really tries to interpret all the data.

Oh, I forgot to mention the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There you will find 2,865 other statements and articles to “interpret” and apply. One must add those to the Catholic Bible, the Councils, the encyclicals and ordinary writings. Sounds like you have a little homework yourself, as you individually seek to distill what is being said, when to apply it and to whom.

I think I will go to the Church that teaches us to seek God, read His word (The Scripture), while submitting to the living Word, Jesus, through His Spirit. It sounds simple (and in some ways is), but that is an event and process with which I can live.

Here is a tradition worth preserving:

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11

Glad God is sovereign and in command of it all.
Matt
Steven Nelson September 11th, 2009 2:44 pm :
Also, I do not presume that you believe the CCC when I quote it… just displaying its sound reasoning.

The Peace Christ be with you always,
Steven
Steven Nelson September 11th, 2009 2:56 pm :
forgive me:
*the Peace OF Christ* be with you always…. maybe I should clean my glasses.
wilkins September 11th, 2009 3:01 pm :
hey Matt,

about your first post: i’d say that the ‘common criticism’ you refer to is a pretty solid (and unresolved) issue, isn’t it? i’m not speaking as a Catholic apologist or anything, just as one guy to another.

think of the ‘criticism’ as a question, something like—”How can a verse of the Bible have a definite and stable meaning if the only interpretive rule is private judgment?” i mean, do you agree or disagree that such a question needs to be asked and answered?

the way you deal with the ‘criticism’ is to say that Catholicism is even so much more chaotic than Protestantism… but even if i agreed with that assessment, i’d have to admit that such a response to the criticism doesn’t answer the criticism. in fact, the response almost seems to allow the criticism, which is really fascinating to me. have i misunderstood?

best,
w
Tim A. Troutman September 11th, 2009 3:19 pm :
Matt – your original comments did not go unanswered. I answered it in #6. And you haven’t retracted your statement about the canon in #18 which I showed to be erroneous in #19.

Finally, you are assuming a presuppositional approach to knowledge which Catholics generally reject. Our presupposition is not tradition; our starting point is knowledge which is reliably gained through the senses. We cannot know what to presuppose without first having learned things. We can’t even start with a trust in God without knowing by reason that God is trustworthy.
Devin Rose September 11th, 2009 3:28 pm :
Matt,

I interacted with direct statements you made in one of your comments. Namely I will go with the Proto-canonical books, again going with an older and more established tradition. As for your reference to Luther and Calvin; I see them both rather as a “sledge hammer” and “chisel” to break out the Church from the traditions it had become encrusted in. The work of our sovereign Lord continues. And He has tools He uses every generation as He completes the work that He began.

I responded to your statements with questions about the “sledgehammer” Luther’s views of books he didn’t consider in the “proto-canon” and listed a few other historical pieces of evidence with regard to the canon, directly responding to your claim of “going with an older and more established tradition.”

You seemed to think I was dodging your first comment. I wasn’t. I didn’t respond to your first comment because it is a shotgun-style attack on the Catholic Church, trying to throw enough mud at her and hoping some sticks. I have answered challenges such as yours before on my own blog. If you like, click on my name, go to my blog, and search for “Swan” to read my response to a Protestant apologist’s challenge on one point which mirrors your own.

Here is a response from my blog directly to your statement about having to “interpret” the Catechism:

“Contrast the ambiguity of the Bible on baptism’s relationship with salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit with the supposed obscurity of the Catechism on baptism. It says that when a person is baptized he:

* Receives the Holy Spirit
* Is incorporated into Christ’s Church
* Has his original sin washed clean and any actual sins forgiven as well

None of this is unclear because each of these is formulated catechism-style to be very clear. Everyone can and does understand what the Church teaches. Now, one can choose to agree or disagree with these statements, and liberal or heterdox Catholics do just that: they disagree and thus dissent from what the Church teaches.

As a Protestant, there was no question for me as to what exactly the Catholic Church taught. I went and bought the Catechism and read it all clearly! I totally disagreed with most of it of course, but I wasn’t confused about “which Catholic interpretation” was what the Church taught, as if there were multiple ones due to the lack of clarity of the Catechism.”

I have now responded to two claims you have made, one in your first comment and then one in a subsequent comment. I am not obligated to refute all of your claims; I am sure you would just make more. To have dialogue, there must be give and take and mutual respect between persons. I pray you will show me respect by responding to my rebuttals and answering my questions, as I have respected you by responding to some of yours.
wilkins September 11th, 2009 3:34 pm :
Matt,

i almost forgot to ask about the ‘tidbits’ in the Holy Father’s work you mention #23.

‘tidbits’ like what, for example? are these things you’ve read yourself or ‘tidbits’ that you’ve read other people citing in their work? any of them specifically relevant to Matt Yonke’s article?

cheers,
w
Matt September 11th, 2009 9:07 pm :
W,
This will be my last response on this “probing” or “looking for the opening” thing, okay?

I have been reading theology for a good 16 or so years, so the answer is “all the above”. I have read some of Ratzinger, this, that and the other. I would have to go to the library in Jessup to get the exact names of his work, and I am not going to do that. Anyway, the references were and are as general and specific as you need.

My turn:
What do you read? How often do you read the Scripture and for how long the same? Have you read Calvin, or only read him through others? Have you only read quotes and summations about him? How often do you read Paul’s letters? Do you Romans chapters 3 and 4? Do you receive that promises of Ephesian chapter 1 for yourself, or do you see that as a provisional promise merely to the Ephesians in the first century?

Salud,
Matt
Matt September 11th, 2009 10:41 pm :
W,
Sorry, I didn’t read your first response. Missed it or something.

Anyways, I am just showing something of the complexity of things, under the veneer of “oneness” and “singleness”, etc.

Strange to find so many Protestants who read Scripture and “interpret it” on there own have so much general agreement. You may pick of some Protestant stuff for a few years and read it. You will see more come together with time.

Matt
Matt Yonke September 11th, 2009 10:48 pm :
First of all, thanks for all the kind words from those who liked the article. Always nice to hear!

To Matt, from the comment above,

Thanks for your comments on the article. I’m a bit intrigued by some of the questions in your recent comment.

First, I’ll answer them, just to be fair. I read lots of stuff. History, theology, literature, humor, the neurological narratives of Dr. Oliver Sacks (which I highly recommend), Sacred Scripture and probably too many blogs and other websites. I’d say I probably read something from Sacred Scripture every day. It varies greatly in length. Some days it’s a marathon, some days it’s a 50 yard dash. Every day Sacred Scripture is heavily present in my prayers, though. I’ve read the Institutes and delved heavily into Calvin’s commentaries in college. They were kind of my go-to commentary for a number of years. I’ve also read various and sundry of Calvin’s other works, ditto for most of the prominent reformers. I used to read Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” once a year on principle.

St. Paul’s letters make frequent appearances in my reading, especially in my listening since they pop up nearly every week in the Byzantine Lectionary. I read Romans 3-4 when there’s a reason to, I can’t say as I read them every day just to stay sharp or anything. And finally, I believe the promises of God in the first chapter of St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians apply exactly the way God meant them to for all time.

Now, the first thing that intrigued me about your questions was the implicit assumption that reading Scripture more often (and perhaps reading St. Paul’s Epistles [and perhaps even particular portions of St. Paul's Epistles]) makes one a better Christian or more competent in discussing spiritual things, or just give you more street cred. Forgive me if that assumption is erroneous, but it seems like it’s there to me.

How often do you figure the average Christian read their Bibles for the first, say, 1700 years of Church history? How often do you figure St. Peter read St. Paul’s Epistles, especially the third and fourth chapters of Romans? Did St. Augustine read Calvin?

Now, obviously, those questions are all asked with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, but it gets to one of the main points of my article, and that is that the Scriptures have had a very different role in the life of the Catholic Church (and the life of all the Church prior to the invention of the printing press, which is most of Christian history) than they have in the reformed view. Further, the reformed see their view of the role of Scripture in the life of the believer as absolutely essential, which is what I believe your questions were trying to prove.

So you have to ask yourself, if your view of Scripture’s role in the life of the Church excludes the vast majority of Christians who have ever breathed from having a serious spiritual life, what does that say about your view of Scripture?

In the Peace of Christ,

Matt
Matt September 11th, 2009 10:50 pm :
Tim,
Sorry, I missed your post as well. Fair enough, I need to read a little more on the the stated council, though I believe it to be erroneous. :-)

I am not a Thomist, so I do recognize your epistomology and theories of knowledge. Therefore our words really will go past one another. Certainly you have to be “born again” before you understand things from Above.

Matt
Devin Rose September 12th, 2009 8:36 am :
Matt,

You have made several comments toward others but haven’t responded to my posts. Perhaps you plan to, but you have not said so. I plan to respond to one of your last statements to lend evidence to my earlier refutations of one of your arguments, and if you still do not choose to engage me in dialogue, that’s fine; I will not respond to you further, since it will be apparent that you don’t want to discuss these things I have challenged you on.

You wrote: Certainly you have to be “born again” before you understand things from Above.

How is one “born again?”

In comment #31, I alluded to a conversation I had with a Protestant friend where we mutually examined every verse of the New Testament regarding baptism. The first part of John 3 came up.

How did he interpret the verses on being born again/from above by water and the Spirit? “It’s symbolic,” he said. He didn’t know exactly what it meant, but he was sure it did not mean baptism in any way.

I responded that I interpreted it as meaning baptism, and incidentally, that’s what the early Christians believed (you can check out Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Chrysostom for examples.) Also, that is what the Church has always taught.

He disagreed, and we moved on to the next verse. Which of us has the correct interpretation of John 3?

Contrast that with the Catechism, which as I already mentioned makes very clear what happens at baptism.

Additionally, in your first comment, you listed several different things like Councils and the Catechism and Encyclicals and claimed that one had to interpret all of these and that it was a jungle. It sounds reasonable–there is so much stuff there in the past 2,000 years of Church history and some of it is complex, how can we know what it means–but that is the whole point of the Catechism: It summarizes clearly the teachings of the Church.

Now, if one was desirous, he could go back and read the Councils’ decisions. Read about Arius’ condemnation at Nicaea–it is not unclear what happened, nor is the first part of the Nicene Creed formulated at that Council unclear–and continue doing that for other Councils and encyclicals. You can go back and read the Church Fathers and then the saints from 500 AD – 1500 AD (and beyond). You don’t have to, but if you do, you will see the same Catholic beliefs we have today on every page of their letters.

However, as I have shown, the voice of “the church” is lost in a miasma of complexity and confusion. Just what is “the church” saying?! Lord have mercy on any well-intentioned soul who really tries to interpret all the data.

So your statement here is demonstrated to be false, or at best, a gross exaggeration. Go buy a Catechism and read it like I did as a Protestant, and you will know what the Church teaches.

Oh, if you like, interact with my original post. Please interact with every statement, element, paragraph.
No? Why not?

I believe now I have responded to the bulk of your arguments.

May Christ be with you,
Devin
St. Joseph’s Vanguard And Our Lady’s Train » Blog Archive » Time to Jettison the Book of Revelation September 12th, 2009 10:35 am :
[...] sites over the past several months, and yesterday on Called to Communion, a Protestant interlocutor said this about the Reformation and the Protestant canon of Scripture: History books tell of of the [...]
wilkins September 12th, 2009 11:20 am :
hey Matt,

in #33 you asked me seven completely random questions in a row, after an opening line that feels a little, well, condescending. i read #33 and feel like i have your finger in my eye.

i just want to reiterate that the few questions i’ve asked you have been entirely genuine and specifically related to assertions you’ve made. the general sweeping claims you keep making, then refuse to clarify except with additional general, sweeping claims—like the new one in #34, that somehow Protestants enjoy ‘so much general agreement’ that Catholics lack—aren’t really helpful for a conversation with former, life-long Protestants.

i keep getting the sense that you might not realize that pretty much everyone here has been a very active, born-again, sincere Protestant most of their lives. i’m in my late 30s and have been Catholic for one whole year, which means i’ve been attending Protestant churches (in at least 5 denominations), reading Protestant books, for over 3 decades. granted, i’m not that bright a guy, so that may be 3 decades wasted on me, but i just want to make sure you understand that Protestantism isn’t a big mystery for me.

so yes, like you, like everybody else here, i’ve always read the Bible: Why should that have changed after my conversion to Catholicism? As Matt Yonke’s article points out, “the Word of God recorded in Sacred Scripture has a special place in the life of the [Catholic] Church: as its guide, as its greatest earthly treasure, and as its greatest source of wisdom and guidance.”

about Ephesians: Can you clarify the nature of the promise you’re referring to? i’m not sure i get the gist of your question, and I want to answer honestly, so help me better understand what precisely you’re asking.

there’s some irony in your choice of Ephesians: as Matt Yonke’s article says, “Protestants simply have no way to verify a canon apart from a subjective internal witness,” and Ephesians is a great example of this problem. the prolegomena (in vol III) to Alford’s Greek Testament points out that Wilhelm de Wette and Ferdinand Baur rejected Paul’s authorship of Ephesians, with Baur going so far as to reject Ephesians on account of its Gnosticism and Montanism. i wonder… do you believe Ephesians really should be in the Bible?

Pax Christi,
w
Matt September 12th, 2009 12:46 pm :
W,
Thank you for the time you take to write. And I am sorry for doing my ‘hit-and-run’ apologetic approach. Maybe I am just trying to have a little peevish fun. My fault there. I will behave.

The truth is, regardless of Catholic perspectives, the churches I have gone to generally agree on the canon and even the greater teachings (I was raised Lutheran, have gone to very conservative Presbyterian churches, not go to a biblically conservative ‘non-denominational’ community church).

Now, I believe as we grow in the Lord’s grace, not “leaning on our own understanding”, etc, He shows us the Word and unity and truth and Scripture. I won’t get lost in ancient arguments in order to participate in the present grace and reality of the Lord. I won’t do it any more than I will try to figure out my great, great, great grandfather in order to accept my father’s last name. Does that make sense? I will receive what has come down to me from the church. Concerning interpretation of Scripture, we are led by grace to see the teachings in unity. I *do not* answer for every denomination any more than you answer for every American being that you are in America (or another country if you life there). Hope that is helpful and makes sense.

With that said, while the Catholic captivation with history is really interesting and maybe impressive to some, look not for “see how historical we are”. I look for “see how much of the written Word” we can see and understand. This is life, nutrition and oxygen.

Now, I do believe there are Christians in the Catholic church. But I believe that because the Word is somehow present, illuminating and saving, even in spite of what I am convinced is not biblical (read: not from the Lord’s revelation). I see the sunlight getting through the canopy of the trees, if you will – not *coming from the tree*.

You will find you get away from the general tone and spirit of Scripture the more you are Catholic. You will become preoccupied with historical teachings, but never really the ‘meat’ of Scriptural proclamation – yes, especially in the letters.

With that said, I have been in some many of these discussions, that I don’t “take the bait” of excessive historical references. Let’s get to the meat of Scripture.

Take care,
Matt
Matt September 12th, 2009 12:53 pm :
Devin,
Sorry, I may not have seen your post.
How is one born again? That is a work of God. He does it (See Ephesians 2, John 1:13, 3:3, etc.) It is something God does, then we repond to Him.

You are correct, I won’t respond to your points. I will encourage you to read the Scriptures, prayfully for a long, long period of time. “Seek, and you will find.”

Don’t worry about your “personal interpretation.” Let us ask the Author for His interpretation. Then it is a matter of submission. To this end may we all labor.

Thank you all for your time.

2 Timothy 3:16
Matt
Steven Nelson September 12th, 2009 2:37 pm :
@Matt-
Just out of curiosity, and not to condescend, how do you interpret Matthew 16:18-19? I don’t want to get into Petrine primacy here (yet), just use it for context (for the sake of time and other topics that are more crucial to the present one). I want you to particularly confront what “keys” meant to first century Jewish disciples and their Davidic implications; if you see any or otherwise. Secondly, consider the act of “binding” and “loosing”. What did this mean to first century Jews? If you see this passage as having to be interpreted another way, please indulge.*

I would also like to respond to one of your earlier statements in #5, revisited in #26:

And the Bible is read during the Mass, though it is not referred to with definitive authority.

Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass? This sounds awfully inexperienced and opposite to reality. The Liturgy proceeds from scripture and is completely reverent to its definitive authority. In fact, after every reading of Sacred Scripture the Lector proclaims, “the Word of the Lord” And responsively, the congregation says, “thanks be to God!” And, when the Gospel of our Lord is read, it is dealt with an even greater amount of reverence. But I will leave that as a surprise, hoping that you will one day experience it if you have not yet.

Furthermore, and most importantly, the homiletic portion of the Mass submits entirely to the scripture readings. The Presider/Deacon cannot stray from the portions read, and must deliver his teaching accordingly.
In doing so, parishioners are liturgically safeguarded from sermons that may bastardize the text for the sake of a presupposed topical sermon (proof texting, etc.). There is a pleasant reversal, at least in my own experience, throughout the protestant realms – mainly the non-denominational one(s)…. I am not saying that this is always done in their services, I am just saying that it is less likely to happen in a Catholic Mass or Divine Liturgy. It is where a preacher thinks of a topical piece to teach on and then scrambles for biblical proof. Not to compartmentalize, but I have been in services as a Protestant and have heard sermons with dozens of scripture references. IMHO, this is what creates an in-definitive approach to Sacred Scripture and a “miasma of complexity”.
Richard September 12th, 2009 3:25 pm :
Tim: In #19 you said:

The council of Rome in 382 AD canonized all 73 books of the bible as did the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Both of these councils were ratified by the pope and so the Catholic Church has long had a set canon which included the DC books. Trent only reaffirmed the long standing tradition.

In The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible no mention is made of of a Council of Rome (382 C.E.) and they note that “At the beginning of the fifth century, councils adopted his position in drawing up the Old Testament canon. Although these councils were regional, the unanimity expressed in their lists represents Church usage in the West….Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties.” What the PBC seem to have said is that until Trent there was no canon strictly speaking, what authority does a regional council have? If the Council of Rome did formalise a canon why then is not more made of this in both this document and the CCC? I am not doubting what you say, I just find it odd.
Devin Rose September 12th, 2009 7:55 pm :
Hi Matt,

Thank you for your response, even if to tell me that you don’t plan to respond to my arguments. You are not obligated to do so. I appreciate your advice to read the Bible for a long time prayerfully. I will endeavor to do that.

I want to make an observation for you to consider about delving into history. You wrote both of the following things:

We really have only partial and incomplete lists from the first few centuries that acknowledge books of the canon. It wasn’t really until the 1500s and 1600s that such matters where solidly addressed by both Rome and Evangelicals. I am on the Reformation side because I wanted a more ancient and eternal tradition, avoiding “novelties” that accrued over the centuries. Nothing like a Reformation guided by a sovereign Lord, working through His broken and imperfect people. But the history books tell us more detail on that. I will go with the Proto-canonical books, again going with an older and more established tradition.

and then:

I won’t get lost in ancient arguments in order to participate in the present grace and reality of the Lord. I won’t do it any more than I will try to figure out my great, great, great grandfather in order to accept my father’s last name. Does that make sense? I will receive what has come down to me from the church.

You have made decisions about what to believe and affirmed your beliefs from reading history books of ancient and 500 year-old events and learning about old things. You speak about the Reformation, the ancient canonical lists of books, the Reformers, the “church”, the “Proto-canonicals”, and claim that the Catholic Church throughout history added “novelties.” Fair enough.

But then when your beliefs are challenged with their own internal consistency against history, Luther, the Reformation, the ancient canonical lists, etc., you refuse to respond because you say that “you won’t get lost in ancient arguments.” But you already have looked into the ancient arguments and history and make claims based off of them. So you are using a double-standard: You can appeal to ancient history and Reformation history to make claims but when I do to challenge them, you hit the eject button and fly away.

Finally, you say you simply receive what has come down to you from “the church.” But with a thousand “churches” and Ecclesial Communities claiming to be “the Church” or teach “God’s truth,” this statement is begging the question. Which “church,” exactly, is the one that Christ founded? Which “church” teaches the fullness of the truth? And deciding which church is that Church involves delving into ancient and medieval history and arguments.

That’s all I wanted to offer for your consideration. I will continue reading my Bible and praying, and I trust that you will to, and that the Lord of Truth will lead us both to the fullness of the truth.
Matt September 13th, 2009 11:04 am :
Steve,
You may have a point on the Mass speaking about the various readings. I have been to maybe a 50 or 60 masses over the years. Have good friends that are Roman Catholic, etc.

Will write more later if time permits, not on things ecclesiastical, but more on proclamation Gospel itself. More in the locus of Scripture than history since apostolic times.

Enjoy the Lord’s day. Dominus vobiscum.

Matt
K. Doran September 13th, 2009 11:52 am :
Dear Matt,

As someone who spends his career analyzing data, I found your comment above confusing. You said: “consider, Catholics don’t just have a Bible of 66 books to interpret; they have so much more to condense into meaningful understanding: The have numerous Councils, innumerable papel (sic) encyclicals, and ordinary and extraordinary teachings and utterances.”

In my academic work, more data is almost universally a good thing. When you have a small data set, you can easily create simple and shitty theories that fit the data just as well as the truth — if not better! It’s when you have a larger data set that incorrect theories are most easily refuted in comparison with the truth. The truth is usually more complicated — or at least more subtle — then shitty but simple falsehoods. We need data to be able to see that, and, generally speaking, the more data the better.

Of course, when our data is not simply a static data set, but a resource which responds to our needs as they arise, then this is even more useful. The Catholic Magisterium can and has responded to heresies by spreading the truth; but, even better: it has responded to the inevitable over-reaction _against_ said heresies as well.

For example, the arians denied Christ’s full divinity. As part of the over-reaction against this, other heretics denied that Christ had a specifically human nature at all. The Catholic magisterium handled both heresies admirably, by responding to the original heresy and then responding to the over-reaction against it. In this way, the Catholic Magisterium has successfully made use of its ability to offer living witness throughout its history, showing the superiority of such a witness compared to the witness of static words.

Sincerely,

K. Doran
Matt September 13th, 2009 7:06 pm :
The sun is down, the Sabbath is over.

Document question (the “it is written” question):

Okay, what does the Roman Catholic church use as its primary document? Obviously not the Bible.

However, I am wondering about Vatican II documents or the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Can anyone give me a magisterially authoritative answer on which document has more weight?

“Do not go beyond what is written…” – The Scriptures

Matt
Tim A. Troutman September 13th, 2009 9:19 pm :
Matt, Writing: “Do not go beyond what is written…” goes beyond what is written.
Tim A. Troutman September 13th, 2009 9:31 pm :
Richard -

Sorry for the delay in response. I thought I had already replied. I haven’t read that document but I also find it a bit odd that they didn’t mention those two important councils. But it’s not altogether unfathomable because it seems, by the introduction, that the purpose of that document was to show the importance of reading the NT along with the OT even in modern times, and discussion on the formation of the canon doesn’t seem to add much to that discussion.

The local councils didn’t carry the certainty of authority that an ecumenical council would of course, so that accounts for the mention of Trent and Florence removing all doubts, but important dogmatic findings in ecumenical councils often find themselves preceded by local councils. The fact that these councils were ratified by the pope gives them more authority than a standard local council would have. But the main point is not that the Church had dogmatically accepted a canon by that time which included the 73 books, but that the DC books were not simply added to a 66 book canon at Trent. They were always there by general acceptance (and had even officially been accepted by Rome although not in the fullest exercise of the Church’s authority… i.e. an ecumenical council).

Why didn’t the question of the canon come up at Nicaea or any of the other ecumenical councils? Because no one was teaching sola scriptura, they didn’t have a printing press, and it simply wasn’t as important to the pre-16th century world to have a neat and dogmatically defined canon as it is now. I think this lack of importance is even more pronounced in the East. Hope this is helpful. Thanks for bringing that up.
Devin Rose September 13th, 2009 9:47 pm :
Hi Matt,

Okay, what does the Roman Catholic church use as its primary document? Obviously not the Bible.

If there is any “document” that the Catholic Church uses as its “primary” one, it is the Bible. The Bible is read during the liturgy of the Word at every Mass, and the Mass is celebrated every single day in parishes all over the world.

However, I am wondering about Vatican II documents or the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Can anyone give me a magisterially authoritative answer on which document has more weight?

Matt, this question doesn’t make sense because, for example, writings from Vatican II appear in the Catechism! It is like asking: Which has more weight, the 1st Ecumenical Council or the Nicene Creed? Well, since the 1st Ecumenical Council was at Nicaea in 325 AD and in that Council the bishops formulated the first part of the Nicene Creed, both of them have great weight and it is nonsensical to pit them against one another.

The Catechism is a handy book that contains the Catholic Church’s teachings, which includes teachings from sacred Tradition and the sacred Scriptures as expounded over the past 2,000 year by the twenty-one Ecumenical Councils, the writings of the saints and Doctors of the Church, etc.

Hope this helps.
Matt September 13th, 2009 10:20 pm :
Devin,
Thank you for your response. I really was thinking about that question, though, since I have been on this site that last few days. I like your response, however: “The Bible”.

We do have more in common than we sometimes realize.

Hm.

Matt
Matt September 14th, 2009 12:02 pm :
Devin,
Speaking of the primary document, the Bible, let me ask you a question.

If you met a man or women near their end, and they didn’t know Jesus (maybe they are in a hospital or very old or with terminal sickness) what Bible verse(s) would you give them to share the Good News with them? How would you prepare them, going by the Scripture? How would you try to save them (only God can do that, but you know what I mean).

Matt
Devin Rose September 14th, 2009 1:31 pm :
Hi Matt,

I would take them down the “Roman Road” of course! :) (A little bit of my Evangelical Protestant background there.)

Seriously, I would focus on the core Gospel message agreed on by Protestants and Catholics, and that would include those key verses from Romans as well as John 3:16 (if I had only one verse I could share, it would be this one). I would also share John 14:6 and speak of God’s grace and love for them, as well as their need for repentance (which the Roman Road verses talk about well).

I think that this is an area–the sharing of the core Gospel message–that our Protestants brothers and sisters often do much better than Catholics: The explicit sharing of the Gospel via Biblical passages.

What do you think of my answer?
Devin Rose September 14th, 2009 1:36 pm :
Addendum:

I re-read your comment and should also add that, after they responded by God’s grace to the sharing of the Gospel, if they then wanted to know “what to do next,” I would have to ask them more questions to know things like: 1) Have they already been baptized? 2) Are they Catholic or Protestant?

If they are Catholic and say, have already been baptized, then making a good Confession would be their next step into a return to full communion with the Church.

If they haven’t been baptized ever, I would share with them the need for that and the Catholic Church’s teaching on the grace God gives them through it.
Matt September 14th, 2009 2:25 pm :
Devin, brother…now I can recognized you in there :-)

I actually really like and even love the verses you share, and I believe that would actually be ‘salvific’ if someone was not already saved…! I will write later if time permits and I have more to say. Of course I am on the ‘protesting’ – ahem – evangelical side with a washed and hopefully more sanctified understanding of Reformed thought (more sanctified than those who are angry and bitter about the good news among the Reformed…ironically).

Good words, friend. You really are praying and reading your Bible. :-) I am encouraged to continue doing so as well.

Here’s a big one from the Word:
“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!” Psalm 133

Matt
Ariel September 14th, 2009 6:51 pm :
Interesting article.

You said: “The Catholic Church’s teaching on Scripture avoids the epistemological problems laid out above concerning the origin and authority of Scripture.”

To be honest, I find that the Catholic Church’s response to this epistemological “problem” simply moves the question back one step, which becomes: “How does an individual know with infallible certainty, that the Roman Catholic Church is an infallible interpreter”?

To become aware of this ‘truth’, you must engage in private interpretation of the historical sources that would lead one to believe that the Catholic Church is infallible.

I don’t see how this is any better than an individual having fallible certainty of the canon of the fallible Church being infallible?
Matt September 14th, 2009 8:06 pm :
Ariel, you actually articulate the point and question I have (you say in more succinctly and effectively). But yes…what Ariel said.

…in addition :-) and to refine: One could point to the collective voice of the magisterium or individual popes, and still have to “interpret” what they claim. We never can shake that sort of existential individual task of hearing, analyzing, considering, JUDGING (!!), and all, that must be done to believe anything.

Matt
Matt September 14th, 2009 9:29 pm :
Back to brother Devin,
Yes, the entire baptism thing. I think we on the evangelical side often play down baptism. We DO apprehend (the book of Acts, etc.) that regeneration/born-again-ness occurs before the water often enough. However, there is a beautiful picture of the water washing and the Spirit descending “like a dove” on our Lord. I think of Peter in Acts saying to be baptised, wash your sins away and receive the gift of the Third Member. Such grace.
Yet, there is something ‘sacramental’ about the water that Lutherans and Catholics have that is really distilling and grace filled. Something tangible which to touch and experience. A physical remembrance of the water in the Lord Jesus, from the inauguration of his earthly ministry until the piercing at the cross, the “washing of regeneration”, etc. I can understand something of the Catholic
viewpoint in this manner.

Matt
K. Doran September 15th, 2009 9:56 am :
Dear Ariel,

You said: ““How does an individual know with infallible certainty, that the Roman Catholic Church is an infallible interpreter”? To become aware of this ‘truth’, you must engage in private interpretation of the historical sources that would lead one to believe that the Catholic Church is infallible. I don’t see how this is any better than an individual having fallible certainty of the canon of the fallible Church being infallible?”

To begin with, there is one thing that Protestants and Catholics share here: we both do not reach certainty without an act of Faith. The Catholic Church does not provide a magic wand that allows you to avoid having to put faith in things in order to certainly believe them and base your life on them. But there is a big difference: the _thing_ that we put our faith in is different,very different, and this difference has consequences.

The Catholic puts his faith in the Church, believing that Christ’s promises to that Church ensure that what that Church claims to proclaim infallibly she really does proclaim infallibly. This allows the Catholic to believe the full Catholic canon, which includes the Protestant canon as a subset.

But in order for the Protestant to have certainty regarding the canon, the Protestant must put his faith in the decisions of the early Protestant reformers as they hashed out their respective histories of the early Church. Once we see this difference, the other differences become more clear:

(1) I find it easier to make an act of faith in a Church that claims to be infallible than to make an act of faith in a group of men who did not claim any infallibility. In other words, the Church at least asks me to have Faith with a capital “F” in its teachings. The Protestant reformers did not ask us to have Faith with a capital “F” in their teachings. They simply asked us to believe that they had done the best human job possible; if God, by some miracle, did prevent them from erring, then so much the better — but they weren’t going to claim that.

(2) Educated Protestants have periodically doubted and rejected the canon that has been offered to them from antiquity. This happened in the original Reformation, in which the highly-educated Martin Luther wanted to reject the epistle of James, for obvious reasons. Ultimately, most Protestants were unified on rejecting one particular set books from the Catholic canon that had been read as scripture in our liturgies for over a thousand years. But as the Reformation has progressed, later spiritual descendants have also revised the canon. Most recently, there were strong attempts to claim high authority for gnostic writings. Now, when this sort of thing happens in the Catholic Church, we have a principled way of labeling these people dissenters: they are denying the infallibility of the Church that Christ founded! But when this happens in protestant circles, there is no principled way to label the culprits dissenters. The culprits are just doing the same thing to their own protestant traditions that Martin Luther did to the Catholic Tradition when he called the epistle of James “an epistle of straw.”

So we both make acts of Faith. But you need to make an act of Faith that God ensured the protestant canon (developed visibly through the historical analysis of a group of Catholic dissenters during a highly politicized era) happened to be the true canon — even when everything else that groups of Christians do is not worthy of faith with a capital “F.” But we make an act of Faith in a Church that claims to have infallibly spoken in several areas, including the Canon, and thus we continue to read the same scriptures in our liturgies that we did one thousand years ago — and when a Catholic tries to dissent from this, we have a principled way of labeling them a dissenter.

Sincerely,

K. Doran
Steven Nelson September 15th, 2009 12:00 pm :
K. Doran said it very well. I want to add some scripture here, not to complicate things but to support K’s response on the matter at hand..

Matthew 16:18-19
Acts 15
1 Timothy 3:15

In St. Matthew’s Gospel:
Particularly, confront what “keys” meant to first century Jewish disciples and their Davidic implications; if you see any or otherwise. Secondly, consider the act of “binding” and “loosing”. What did this mean to first century Jews?

In Acts:
Here we see Christ’s words in Matthew acted out for the first time…

In St. Paul’s first letter to Timothy:
Consider the illustrations for the Church used by St. Paul in his epistle….pillar, foundation (some interpretations: bulwark)….For these to be truly fulfilled, so that the Church may house truth, some level of protection has to be available to the Church (don’t overlook that pillar, foundation, and bulwark all have protective implications). In the Catholic Church, it is infallibility…which is a gift given in certain contexts and not a constant. The Pope enjoys it fully yet conditionally (as an arbiter and ratifier at councils and when he speaks ex-cathedra; which has only been done 2 times in the Church’s history!).

If you see these passages as having to be interpreted another way, please indulge.*
wilkins September 15th, 2009 1:14 pm :
hey Ariel,

your question’s a fair one: the ‘Wilson vs. Hitchens’ article (and Episode 4 podcast) has some relevant elaboration, along with the articles entitled ‘Calvin on Self-Authentication’ and ‘Ecclesial Deism’.

the way your question’s worded reduces the historical Catholic position and the Reformation protest to one irreducible, unattractive, and essentially Protestant position, namely, ‘all anybody has is private interpretation’, which isn’t true.

let’s agree for the sake of discussion that the historical Christian claim (as evidenced in the Church Fathers) can be summarized as follows:

It’s the Apostolic Witness guided by the Holy Spirit that provides the ‘authentic’ measure or rule and not the Text/Scripture (as if it were some disembodied, independent, self-elucidating thing).

the content, significance, and implication of that position is just altogether radically different from the Protest which tries, first, to oppose the Text to any so-called ‘authentic Apostolic Witness’ and then claims that it’s the Text that makes an ‘authentic witness’ possible.

what’s changed in the Protest?

for one, there’s no longer any principle of unity. if the only thing anyone has is private interpretation, then there’s really no principled distinction between Marcion’s protest (c. AD 140) and Luther’s (c. AD 1520), certainly no principled difference between Marcion’s canon and Luther’s. heck, why not make your own canon? what would have been the essential difference between, say, the Ethiopian eunuch’s own interpretation of Isaiah and Philip’s interpretation in Acts 8?

there’s no longer any foundation for the Text, except of course the Text itself, which doesn’t tell us which books should be included or what, precisely, any of the included books must mean. in the Catholic tradition, the foundation for the Text is the authentic, Spirit-filled, Apostolic Witness, “the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth,” as Paul says, the thing constituted by Christ as the Twelve-person ‘authentic’ witness with Peter himself providing the principle of unity for the Twelve who are, as a body, unified around the one Lord Jesus Christ.

the Catholic perspective makes it possible to speak of a ‘deposit of Faith’ or ‘base memory of the Church’ (the latter phrase is from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s book entitled, like this website, Called to Communion) against which various protests can be measured, whether they’re launched in the second century, the sixteenth, or the nineteenth. Catholic ecclesiology—by any standard profound and sublime—is not nothing; by converting to Catholicism, i haven’t lost private interpretation and wasn’t hoping to. i embraced, instead, the living Apostolic Witness, the normative Christian and sacred tradition, that makes a private faith comprehensible as ‘orthodox’ and ‘authentic’ in the first place.

best,
w
Matt September 15th, 2009 10:25 pm :
I am at least glad that Roman catholic people do get some exposure to Scripture. This is a generation that is growing up with the mass in English and the Bible read during the mass in a language accessible. Who would disparage that? I look forward to seeing where this will go in the decades to come. Vatican II was helpful in “throwing open the window” as Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) proclaimed, referring to his ‘inspirations’. The production of Dei Verbum may help our catholic friends begin to embrace the greatest apprehension of biblical truth since the apostolic age.

So…I encourage you all to read your Bibles prayerfully. We will have greater recognition of what you all are doing there, as you go back further into the greater traditions. Majesties are found in Scripture – Magisterial authority. For such is the power of the Revelation. Just open the Scriptures and read, as indeed, more and more catholics are doing.

Catholics would not have even had a discussion under an article entitled “Hermeneutics and the Authority of Scripture” a hundred years ago. Few would have predicted such a development in Roman Catholicism. However, the governance of all things is under our Sovereign Lord. His sovereign and weighty hand always has its way. Let us pray that we are all “found” in the Scriptures at the day’s end. This day, is the new beginning.

Matt
Tim A. Troutman September 16th, 2009 10:02 am :
Matt, you said:

Catholics would not have even had a discussion under an article entitled “Hermeneutics and the Authority of Scripture” a hundred years ago.

Which 19th century Catholic works have you read that led you to believe that Catholics wouldn’t/couldn’t have had this type of discussion back then?
Matt September 16th, 2009 11:54 am :
Tim,

Can’t even remember to be honest. But I trust you will find a greater catholic interest in the Bible during the current time.
Tim A. Troutman September 16th, 2009 12:44 pm :
Matt,

We often trust in assumptions that have little or no basis in reality. If you read some Catholic material from that time period, or really any time period, you’ll find that the Catholic theologians have always commanded an impressive knowledge of the Scriptures. As for the laity, even with all the information so readily available today, Catholics and Protestants alike remain largely ignorant of the Scriptures.
wilkins September 16th, 2009 1:20 pm :
hey Matt,

one of the things i love about this website is the invitation its authors extend to everyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, to get informed and participate in dialogue. getting informed means having the courage to step outside of loose, unsupported generalizations that are often uncharitable—sometimes even implicitly mean—and actually research the topics being discussed.

you might have blind faith in a general ‘idea’ that Catholicism somehow only just discovered Scripture (which you have not been able to define) in the last hundred years, but blind faith in general-and-unsupportable ‘ideas’ aren’t very useful for friendly dialogue that’s intended to move people forward in their faith journey.

you told me in #40, for example, “You will find you get away from the general tone and spirit of Scripture the more you are Catholic. You will become preoccupied with historical teachings, but never really the ‘meat’ of Scriptural proclamation.” aside from a hurtful and spectacularly arrogant verve, those sentences don’t offer much.

i feel like you’re on the margin, tossing ugly assertions at us, and i just want to extend a sincere invitation to you to actually come in and truly participate in the discussion; sincerely (and prayerfully) evaluate the many unsupported assertions you’ve made and been challenged to evidence. is there anything i can do to help make that happen, bro?

in #62 you seem to offer some high praise for Dei Verbum: can you explain what you meant by saying that Dei Verbum might help Catholics “begin to embrace the greatest apprehension of biblical truth since the apostolic age”? that sounds like a very big compliment to Dei Verbum, but i wasn’t sure, so i thought i’d invite you to clarify.

Pax Christi,
w
Matt September 16th, 2009 10:54 pm :
W,
What is your name? I don’t do well with initials. Are you hiding from something? Seriously. It is weird not to see people at least state their first real name online.

Dei Verbum – in my layman opinion – is a good document. I haven’t read it in awhile, but I need to go back and review. I remember impressions of things I have read. As far as “documented” things to support what I say, well…I don’t have that kind of time on my hands. Not currently anyway.

Also, are more here converts to Roman Catholicism from former Reformed or Evangelical Churches?
I am merely wondering about the make-up in the discussion room. Former Lutherans? Presbyterians? Calvinists? Baptists? Just curious about everyone’s journey.

Um…to others (Tim). I have read enough to speak with a strong sense of convictions on these matters. Vatican I and Vatican II, etc. You would have to agree that a particularly greater emphasis has come to the catholic church over the centuries. I don’t know what you have read, how long you have been reading, your history and particular choices in your reading. Please feel free to give an overview of your reading the last 10 years or so (however long you feel like sharing).

I am more of a conversationalist, so I usually just see where the conversation goes, hence my manner. I don’t mean to be “hurtful” or engage in “arrogant verve”, etc. Sorry about the manner in which that comes through the internet. Maybe I also have a few issues to consider myself, in my ‘internet tone’ etc.

Matt
Matt September 17th, 2009 8:24 pm :
W,
Sorry, I just saw that your name is Wilkens. Didn’t see that.

Pax of the Lord,
Matt
Matt September 18th, 2009 8:48 am :
Folks on this thread,
I have gone back and looked over some of my statements/posts since some of the admonishments that have been given. I am very serious when I say I deserve the admonishments (given from W, etc.)
I apologize to the list for my way of loose (arrogant also) manner of speaking on the Internet. I think if we were discussing things in person, my tone would be seen to be more gracious (it seems worse in print :-(. However, I have thrown things out without a lot of historical support. I do that because, like so many, my sense of things is from years of reading. I am not trying to be a scholar nor lawyer, so you won’t find me giving a great lot of details in line with what I am saying. However, to hold me to some textual support from various sources is fair. I will purpose to do better. If I stay active on this list, I will try to remember or find the sources/books that I am quoting (usually paraphrasing from).

Perhaps I spent too much time in the OPC (96-98), so when I get around the apologist end of any community, it brings out my edgy side. Not that I read G. Bahsen a lot, but I was around the culture.

Fair enough, gentlemen?

Matt
Tim A. Troutman September 18th, 2009 9:20 am :
Matt, thanks and we’re glad to have you here. I think it’s always easy to come across the wrong way in comboxes and forums. We all have to be careful how we word things, not just you. You’re definitely right, in person, it is much easier to come across how you mean to come across. So, I look forward to interacting with you more in the future.

It seems clear to me that you have a heart for God and desire to seek the truth in humility. That can only lead to good things. I strive for the same; it’s that darn humility part that’s hard. :)
wilkins September 18th, 2009 10:22 am :
hey Matt, the posting guidelines (available at the ‘About’ link at top of page) ask us to pray for one another as we discuss. that’s about the coolest thing ever. very effective in my case.

yes, as to #69, you’re being very fair and very kind too. my first interaction here was (unintentionally) uncharitable, so call me out if i seem to get out of line. i appreciate you interacting with me, man.

(and btw, about #67/68, i often drop my name for simple “w” because i get called “williamson”, “williams”, “wilson”, “wilkson”, “wilkinson”, and so on. Ack.)

Pax Christi,
w
Jonathan Deane September 18th, 2009 10:34 am :
Matt,
To answer your question about affiliation, I was in the OPC from 2000-2006 and the PCA from 2006-2008. The first 5 years in the OPC were in the congregation which was formerly pastored by Greg Bahnsen prior to his passing, so to say that I am/was connected with those folks is an understatement.

Blessings,
Jonathan
Matt September 18th, 2009 2:19 pm :
Gentlemen, Thank you for your grace in my repentance. Seriously.

Tim, I hear all your words and need to. Looking a little more at this site, I see you came over from the PCA. I currently go to a community church (Bethany, here in Laurel, Maryaland), however, my beloved wife and I have been visiting some PCAs in the area. Will see where God leads us. I have some reservations (I am really evangelical while liking Calvin’s Institutes and some commentaries. However…). Maybe I can encourage them all to remember Augustine. :-) You know, take the edge off some of their rigid Westminster applications to the faith. Anyway, good to meet you here. Look forward to possible discussions.

W, I went to the “About” link and read. Great charter. I should have gone there first. :-O
You know, I have been recently reading Benedict J. Groeschel book again, entitled “Augustine”. He reminds me of charity and knowledge going together (Augustine was apparently big on that truth). I think that really is the only Christian epistemology that is heaven sent. And yes, we ‘must’ remember to pray for all with whom we speak, especially on religious/theological matters. Good word.

Jonathan, wow! You were close to it all. Good to see you here. The OPC church I went to had some theonomic Rushdoony folk around. So there was sometimes speech about Bahnsen and North, etc. I actually had Rushdoony’s first two installments of his “Institutes” for awhile (interesting, but I didn’t stay with them).

Blessings to you all. I am busy with life like many of us, but will stay around a bit and discuss if it seems profitable and I am not neglecting things on the home front. :-) However, I think my time here will be largely limited to commenting off of the comments of others (or major topical post). I say “commenting” as opposed to writing a small article. I will try to quote where I read what if it seems necessary.

I recently read a wikipedia quote on John Paul II. He said, “the future does not begin tomorrow; it begins today”.

I do like the late John Paul II. I read some of George Weigel’s bio on him, Witness to Hope.

Blessings and grace to all,
Matt
rfwhite September 18th, 2009 5:30 pm :
Essential for understanding a contemporary expression of the Protestant position on NT canonics is Herman Ridderbos’s book, Redemptive History and The New Testament Scriptures (2nd rev. ed.; trans. H. De Jongste and rev. R. B. Gaffin, Jr.; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1988).
Tim A. Troutman September 18th, 2009 5:42 pm :
Rfwhite, we’ve been saying basically the same thing about the canon and the potential for certainty regarding it and no one has offered a substantial challenge to our arguments. This article is a good example. There are no standing challenges to what Matt Yonke has argued for here. If you have an objection, please raise it rather than pointing to a book. If the book has good points for the Protestant position, you should be able to summarize them. If your arguments are sound, then we may go read the book. But if you can’t make a strong argument for your case, then we don’t have any reason to read it.
Matt September 18th, 2009 5:42 pm :
Jonathan, wait a second.

Do you live and Maryland, and did you and your wife go to a PCA Church in Burtonsville, “Covenant”. I recently talked to the pastor there. He said he knew someone on this list (we were talking about theological intersections and I mentioned this list). I think he gave your name. His name is Jeremy Tuinstra. Is that a connection or acquaintance somehow?

Don’t mean to freak you out if so. It just dawned on me when I saw your name.

Matt (in Laurel, Maryland)
Matt September 18th, 2009 8:41 pm :
This is a comment. Don’t know if it is a challenge as much as an observation of reality.

Concerning Presbyterianism and even a local non-denominational church, there is, I submit,
a de facto “magisterial” interpretation of Scripture found within the local church, elders and tradition itself. To be sure, this language is not used and may never be. However, we have our ‘traditions’ in our teachings. Now, are those traditions as that of the Catholic church? No, of course not. Protestant “tradition” has a great need to see all things in the Scripture. Now, this is not merely an event, this is also a process, a process that can take years, decades and – yes – even centuries. Will “Protestantism” ever have a unified voice? Well, that is like asking will Americans ever sing the same song? Perhaps the analogy breaks down, but the point is there is great diversity.

Yet, I submit, that among all true believers there is also a unity recognized, experienced and made known. Where? Through the Lord, written in the Scripture and testified to among the faithful. The church is “an event” to be sure, to borrow an observation from Ratzinger (when he was referring to the Prostestant church). I think that was from his book “Introduction to Christianity.” I’ve read portions of a few of his works.

Just my musings, folks.
Matt
rfwhite September 18th, 2009 11:54 pm :
Tim A. Troutman: I apologize for provoking you. I was not aware that comments on this site had to be framed directly as either objections to the lead post or arguments for it. I honestly thought it would be clear what my intention was. Allow me to recast my remark.

I take it from my interaction with Bryan Cross, Andrew Presslar, and other lead commentators here that you are both serious and passionate about the topics on which you comment. For that reason, when I noticed that there was no reference to the Ridderbos book in the essay or in the endnotes (sorry if I missed it), it struck me that perhaps Matt Yonke is unaware of the work. If so, I offer a generic, garden-variety bibliographic note for him and any others who wish to be sure to read the works considered essential by Protestants for understanding the contemporary expression of their view of NT canonics. If you, Matt, and others have read it, please don’t take offense for my bringing it up. If you haven’t read it, my “modest proposal”: tolle lege. It’s a standard text in Reformed seminaries on the discussion of canon, engaging the points Matt brings up in that heading. Meanwhile, I will continue to appreciate the bibliographic references I am picking up here from you guys.
Matt September 19th, 2009 2:10 am :
rfwhite,
I appreciate the reference. That is a book or at least author I have heard about in different circles. After your reference to Ridderbos (I’ve been hearing his name around for years), I went and looked up the book on amazon.com, etc. Looks like a great reference.

Have you read it? If so, does it sound like it brings something to the discussion of hermeneutics not only for the layman like myself, but for our Catholic friends to consider concerning Protestant tradition and interpretation of Scripture? I actually think our Catholic friends have good questions and challenges for us, helping us to articulate or views more clearly.

Matt
rfwhite September 19th, 2009 9:17 am :
Matt: Yes, I have read Ridderbos and used it in my own research, writing, and lecture preparation. The intended audience of the Ridderbos book is academy/specialist, not church/generalist. Overall, however, major portions of it do not require specialized knowledge and are accessible to a wide readership; it is a short, compact book. I agree with you that the questions and challenges being discussed here are vital to all sides.
Matt September 19th, 2009 10:57 am :
Rfwhite,
Very good, I may have to add that book to my list. Are you a seminary professor? Or are you moving towards that?

Peace to you,
Matt
rfwhite September 19th, 2009 12:43 pm :
Matt: I was a seminary prof and am now the president and a professor at a new institution associated with Ligonier.
Devin Rose September 19th, 2009 1:57 pm :
rfwhite,

Thanks for the book recommendation–I will consider buying it because I would like to see what it says.

Following up on Tim’s response, I also would like to see someone respond to the original article’s points and rebut some or all of them. Even taking something from that book on Protestant NT canonics and using it as an argument or answer would be great. If I or the collaborators behind Called to Communion had found a rock-solid answer for how we could accept the canon of Scripture, given the historical reality of its “distillation,” we might still be Protestant.
rfwhite September 19th, 2009 5:22 pm :
Devin Rose: Don’t forget borrowing instead of or before buying. Libraries can save us readers money … sometimes. If I have something to add beyond bibliography, I’ll pass it on.
Matt September 19th, 2009 11:15 pm :
Devin,
If you had looked to the Protestant “sensus fidelium” you would have had it made, and would never have had to leave. :-)

I am making a light comment, I know. But I actually think that really is the case. I do think that Catholic language gives us clues on how to view ourselves (like the way I employed “sensus fidelium”, etc.). I don’t think we Protestants are yet sophisticated enough to have a concise articulation of our position that unites all facets of Protestantism on this matter. Not definitively (though some may disagree with me). However, we will always say that the canon has been recognized by the singular Church (elect, called, faithful, etc.). Such is our tradition and teachings.
Matt September 19th, 2009 11:19 pm :
rfwhite,
That is neat. I respect R.C. Sproul’s approach to the faith. Saw him once in the D.C. area about 12 year ago.

Matt
Matt September 21st, 2009 1:48 am :
Well, this was a good thread but I don’t think the ball was moved down the field in terms of “unity”.
I think we all have our recognized canon still. On the Protestant side, we have the 66 books, reflecting the proto-canonical list. On the Catholic side they have the 66, with the deutero-canonical additions to the OT. Catholics say they are right, pointing ultimately to their magisterial authority. We Protestants say we are right, pointing to the Scriptures themselves, the witness of the Spirit, and our own tradition and magisterial authorities on the local level.

Any unity would have to be of a general spirit at this point. There is also the “contra mundum” unity that is mentioned in the topic article. I do recognize Christians in the Catholic church via their confessions of many things I see in the Scripture. Catholics would recognized Christians outside of “The Church” because of better spirit of Vatican II (“separated brethren”, and general references to other ecclesial communities, etc.).

So…no Reformation or counter-Reformation today. We all continue to read our Bibles (yes, all of us – even me :-), we keep one another in prayer (as well stated in the charter of this list). We go from there.

Christians,
God bless our week,
Matt
wilkins September 21st, 2009 6:55 am :
hey Matt,

Matt Yonke says,

“evidence supporting the claim that the Scriptures are infallible is unavailable unless we already know which books belong to the canon.”

how do you know the 66 books you have do, in fact, belong in the canon?

you wrote “Protestants say we are right, pointing to the Scriptures themselves, the witness of the Spirit…”

doesn’t Matt Yonke’s article argue that the Scriptures themselves are not sufficient to make a case for a canon? an internal witness (of the Spirit) seems incoherent in practice, with Marcion arguing against canonical books in the second century, Luther in the 16th century, and Ferdinand Baur in the nineteenth.

how do you refute Matt Yonke’s argument on this point?

best,
w
Tim A. Troutman September 21st, 2009 8:49 am :
Matt, the reason we’re not moving towards unity is because you’re not responding to the arguments. You’re saying “I’m going to believe what I’ve been taught. To hell with facts and reason.” You’ve been shown to be wrong on your thesis that the Catholic Church added 7 books to an accepted 66 book canon in 6, 19, and recapped in 30. In fact, in 36 you said:

Fair enough, I need to read a little more on the the stated council, though I believe it to be erroneous. :-)

But instead of reading a little more, you just keep on making false assertions. I.e. “On the Catholic side they have the 66, with the deutero-canonical additions to the OT” Are you surprised that we’re not moving towards unity? Unity happens when two parties arrive at the truth, not when two parties compromise. That is not real unity.
Matt September 21st, 2009 10:30 am :
Tim,
I don’t assign facts and reason to “gehenna” by any means. However, if you are looking for a scholarly answer to your point, I have to tell you directly, I am no scholar (I don’t have the time to be). However, I do admit that I have not read sufficiently on the stated council. I actually appreciate you telling me about it, because I truly never heard about it (or don’t recall if I have, I should say). However, I don’t feel that reading about one council is going to persuade me that the Roman canon is the legitimate canon any more than I recognize 3 and 4 Maccabees among the Orthodox. As all orthodox Protestants, I receive and recognize the 66 books. Do I say “to the fire with facts and reason”? Not at all. The facts and reason I interact with (other than the grace of God shown in and through Scripture) are the facts and reason of my tradition or heritage. This would involve the authors and writers of the magisterial Reformation (Calvin, Luther and others in the heritage). I am convinced that during the Reformation the greater Christian church put off the Roman Yoke and went forth in the grace of God. Are you looking for a thesis or one book or one Internet posting to convince you about this? I can’t give you that, so I apologize. Have you read the book that rfwhite recommended? Maybe begin there. I hope that as time goes on I will have a more sufficient answer for you. In the mean time, we can be united in the Scriptures. Let’s be honest, we have more in common than we don’t in our respective canons. In fact, you recognized all 66 books of the Protestant canon as being legitimate. So, why don’t Catholics and Protestants begin there. I mean, isn’t that enough?

Matt
Matt September 21st, 2009 10:34 am :
W,
Didn’t mean to ingore your question but I think the response was covered in my response to Tim.

I know that the Catholic position is to try to de-legitimize all things Protestant. However, do you really think you will be able to do that?!

That is my rhetorical question of the day.

Matt
Tim A. Troutman September 21st, 2009 11:00 am :
Matt,

I’m not looking for a scholarly reply. In fact, you don’t even have to reply to my argument. I’d just ask you to quit taking shots at my Church when you’ve been shown to be wrong or at least shown that we have a good reason for believing what we do to which charge you have not been able to offer a reply.

I will not read Dr. White’s recommended book because Dr. White himself has not demonstrated that he can make an argument for his case. I wrote a post on my personal blog called “Apologetics and Propaganda” which explains why I won’t read his book. There is, in fact, no argument that suffices to prove the Protestant case for their canon. Protestants can reply “read this book” or as Dr. Clark does when asked a question he can’t answer, “take my class,” but that isn’t an argument.

If either you or Dr. White have a principled reason to believe in a 66 book canon, then what is it? Otherwise, he shouldn’t recommend books when they haven’t even helped him present his own case.
Tim A. Troutman September 21st, 2009 11:02 am :
I know that the Catholic position is to try to de-legitimize all things Protestant.

You do not know this because as it stands, this statement is false. The Catholic Church affirms all the truth within Protestantism, we only reject the errors. We do indeed reject all things uniquely Protestant because to be unique to Protestantism is to be, by definition, a novelty.
wilkins September 21st, 2009 11:22 am :
hey Matt,

#91, no worries—i assumed your response to Tim was meant to cover my question as well. Tim’s response in #93 is spot on (thank you very much, Tim).

if you (ie, Matt) “know that the Catholic position is to try to de-legitimize all things Protestant,” then you must necessarily “know” this from a Protestant source and not from a Catholic source.

in other words, you don’t really know (despite all the reading you say you’ve done in key Catholic sources) what the Catholic position is.

best,
w
Jeremy Tate September 21st, 2009 11:23 am :
Matt,

What does it mean to be an “orthodox Protestant”? Who gets to define what is and is not “orthodox”?
roma victor September 21st, 2009 12:29 pm :
But the main point is not that the Church had dogmatically accepted a canon by that time which included the 73 books, but that the DC books were not simply added to a 66 book canon at Trent. They were always there by general acceptance (and had even officially been accepted by Rome although not in the fullest exercise of the Church’s authority… i.e. an ecumenical council).

Why didn’t the question of the canon come up at Nicaea or any of the other ecumenical councils? Because no one was teaching sola scriptura, they didn’t have a printing press, and it simply wasn’t as important to the pre-16th century world to have a neat and dogmatically defined canon as it is now.

Is anybody here aware of the fact that the 73 books of the Old Testament were consistently accepted as part of the Old Testament Canon at the Council of Rome 382, Council of Hippo 393 and Council of Carthage 397?

They didn’t find it necessary to officially declare those 73 books of the Old Testament as well as the 27 books that were likewise accepted as part of the New Testament Canon then in ecumenical council because these already had become universally accepted; therefore, to do so would’ve been moot.

Again, if y’all truly believe that your Protestant Old Testament is the right canon, I challenge you, for example, look in Hebrews 11, there is a place where it talks about how some of the heroes of the Faith have refused to be released and have been killed and martyred in order to obtain a better Resurrection.

Now, you could read the Protestant Old Testament from front to back and you’ll never find that. But, where you will find it is in the Book of 2nd Macabbees, where there is a group of martyrs who are being tortured for adhering to the Jewish Faith and rather than be released, they stick to their Faith and are martyred so that they can have a better resurrection; and that’s what’s being referred to in the Book of Hebrews.

Now, the Church Fathers, similarly, accepted the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and that’s what shaped the Christian Canon of the Old Testament until the time of the Reformation. What happened then was Martin Luther looked around and didn’t like a lot of what he saw in the Catholic Church and there were certain doctrines in particular that he didn’t like.

One of them was the Doctrine on Purgatory and he started talking about why he didn’t like the Doctrine on Purgatory and people were rather quick to point out that Purgatory is clearly alluded to in the book of 2nd Macabbees; and Luther’s response to that was that 2nd Macabbees must not be Scripture – because he thought that this doctrine was incompatible with the sufficiency of what Christ did for us. It’s not, but that’s what he thought.

So, he basically adopted the Pharisee canon over the Traditional Christian one and that’s how the split developed between the Protestant and Catholic Canons of the Old Testament, where Catholics continue to accept those very books the early church had ever since.
Matt September 21st, 2009 12:55 pm :
The influx of numerous questions. Tim, glad to hear some of your statements. I am glad that the Catholic Church affirms all things in Protestantism. We don’t however, affirm all things in Catholicism.

W, I have done a fair amount of reading (don’t know if I ever stated how much?). Actually, it seems that the tone of Vatican II is different than that of Vatican I. Would any other people here agree with that? I sense in Vat I they were really trying to exalt the “Catholic Church” only position. In Vatican II it seems that better senses prevailed (“The Church subsists in the Catholic Church”). Just sounds healthier to my ears.

Jeremy, who gets to define what Protestant orthodoxy is? The Rev. Billy Graham, of course. :-)
Actually, I think it is defined in the collective apprehension of biblical truth by many Christians and denominations far and wide, as long as what they are saying is recognized as being authoritatively found in Scripture. Local practice will differ, among denominations, churches, individual Christians, but God has a way of keeping us all in the Body and going forward. Think “sensus fidelium” in a Protestant manner. That helps things to open up.

W, have you read the statements of Vat I and Vat II? Worthy of reading, if you have not yet, sir. I personally like the Council of Orange (529), but that is another matter. I do believe it is a legitimate Roman Catholic Council, from what I understand, though it was not considered “Ecumenical”, like the council of Rome was not “Ecumenical.”

Roma Victor. I encourage you to read primary sources of Luther and Calvin, if you have not already. Bondage of the Will by Luther is good. Also his commentaries on Galatians (he wrote like three of them) are also helpful. Calvin’s Institutes are very good to sit with for a long while. If you merely go to them to “pick them apart”, you will miss the entire Reformation. Try not to do that. :-)

Gentleman, I have to go. I think you all have more time available than I do!

Matt
wilkins September 21st, 2009 1:09 pm :
hey Matt,

Tim’s comment does not say Catholicism affirms all things in Protestantism.

i wasn’t asking you to describe your feelings about differences in tone between councils.

i have no idea what a term like ‘orthodoxy’ could mean, given that you have no principled reason for choosing your own canon over Marcion’s.

“God has a way of keeping us all in the body” is an appeal to ‘invisible church’ which is refuted in the article entitled ecclesial deism.

Best,
w
Jeremy Tate September 21st, 2009 1:42 pm :
Matt,

Thanks for your response (I liked the Billy Graham joke) to my question about what exactly “Orthodox Protestantism” is, you wrote; “Actually, I think it is defined in the collective apprehension of biblical truth by many Christians and denominations far and wide.”

Interesting point. However, the 30,000+ Protestant denominations are only united by one doctrine; that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong. There is wide disagree concerning where Rome is wrong, but we all agree on this. There is not a single doctrine other than this which unites us as Protestants (I am one by the way). Sure, some doctrines are more commonly professed than others, but we don’t even have anybody to say which doctrines are negotiable and which ones are not. Teachings which were universally taught by Protestants 100 years ago, (such as the sinfulness of birth control contraceptive, or all male clergy, cessation of gifts of the Holy Spirit), are almost universally taught as acceptable today. So…should we measure Protestant Orthodoxy by contemporary standards or historic standards?

Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Matt September 21st, 2009 2:23 pm :
Jeremy,
Did not know that you were Protestant. May I asked which tradition or denomination. To lay my cards on the table, I go to Bethany Community Church in Laurel, Maryland. We are looking at some PCA churches, however.

Matt
Tim A. Troutman September 21st, 2009 2:35 pm :
Matt,

Tim, glad to hear some of your statements. I am glad that the Catholic Church affirms all things in Protestantism.

Wilkins is right I didn’t say that. Deliberately misrepresenting what I said might be thought of in some parts of the world as a lie. There’s a commandment about bearing false witness. If it was an honest mistake, then you should be more careful with what you say. Neither dishonesty nor sloppiness are conducive to approaching unity in which you appeared to be mildly interested earlier.
Jeremy Tate September 21st, 2009 2:40 pm :
Hey Matt,

I also live in Maryland and I recently resigned from a PCA staff position because I believe God is calling me home to the Catholic Church. For the past several weeks we have been attending St. Andrew’s by the Bay parish in Arnold, Md. I know it sounds insane I know, but I’ve been in seminary for three years now (I have a few more credits at RTS in D.C.) and I’ve come to the painful (and totally unexpected) conclusion that the Catholic Church is exactly what it claims to be; the one true Church established by Christ. My wife and I plan to enter the Church this fall.
I think if you do a thorough investigation you will find this conclusion inescapable. For me, I accidently discovered that the Bible does not teach sola scriptura. (I was quite content in the PCA and was not looking to leave. I still love the PCA Church we just left!) I don’t know what prompted me to research this specific doctrine, but I found it to be utterly void of scriptural support. It still took me several months to really consider Catholicism. It occurred to me about a year ago, however, in a rather sobering way, that everywhere I disagreed with Rome must be an error in my own theology, rather than Rome’s. I beg you to think about this. There are only two possibilities; either the Catholic Church is wrong in the areas you believe it is wrong…or…you are wrong in the areas you believe the Catholic Church is wrong. I can promise you that if you begin to study doctrine by doctrine everything you disagree with, you will quickly become astounded with the Church.
I have strained and lost many friends through this whole ordeal, but I really cannot tell you how excited I am to become Catholic. You don’t live too far away, we should grab coffee or something.

Peace in Christ, Jeremy Tate
roma victor September 21st, 2009 3:32 pm :
I also live in Maryland and I recently resigned from a PCA staff position because I believe God is calling me home to the Catholic Church. For the past several weeks we have been attending St. Andrew’s by the Bay parish in Arnold, Md. I know it sounds insane I know, but I’ve been in seminary for three years now (I have a few more credits at RTS in D.C.) and I’ve come to the painful (and totally unexpected) conclusion that the Catholic Church is exactly what it claims to be; the one true Church established by Christ. My wife and I plan to enter the Church this fall.

Priase God! Another lost sheep has returned to the fold!
Matt September 21st, 2009 6:02 pm :
Jeremy,
Would be willing to have coffee. I will try to get you to reconsider. I think if you are still at a place of deliberation, we should meet. If you are not…well.

Sounds like you are on the “Roman Road.” I have been around Catholic dogma for a number of years, so I am not really looking to “seek Catholicism”. My faith has been strengthened in the entire matter.

Send me your email or phone number, if you still want to discuss.

Beware of additions to the faith.
Matt
Matt September 21st, 2009 6:06 pm :
P.S.

Thank you, Jeremy for being honest. For a minute I was confused and your posts seemed to go in different directions. Subtle, but present. Anyway, it is better to be open about all things.

Matt
roma victor September 21st, 2009 6:18 pm :
Beware of additions to the faith.

Apparently, subtractions are clearly permissible and laudable even.
Jeremy Tate September 21st, 2009 9:01 pm :
Matt,

Thanks for your response. I believe that much less true theological inquiry happens than most of assume. Rather than actually thinking, most people learn at an early age that Catholicism is wrong (or that Protestantism is wrong). Knowledge is then filtered to support that commitment. But, that’s all it is, a commitment. I would love to get together, but I am curious to know whether you are defending a side or seeking truth? I plan to become Catholic in a few months, but until then I am open to being proven that I am wrong. I have already sat down with nearly a dozen PCA Pastors or RTS faculty members. I don’t think I am hearing anything new. I am all ears though, where does the Bible teach sola scriptura? ( which is the basis for Protestantism’s right to exist.)
Let’s keep the conversation going. Email me. Jtate4 @ gmail . com
Peace in Christ, Jeremy Tate
Tom Riello September 21st, 2009 9:16 pm :
Matt,

The Church affirms whatever is true in Protestantism because that truth is also found in the Catholic Church. In fact, whatever is true within Protestantism is ONLY true because it is affirmed and taught by the Catholic Church. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood Tim.
Matt September 21st, 2009 10:05 pm :
Tom,
Thank you for the “benefit of the doubt”. However, I don’t adhere to the assumption that Protestantism is contingent on the Roman Catholic Church, though of course they are historically related.

Jeremy, I don’t know if what I could say would help then, if you have met with pastors and professors. I do appreciate your willingness to keep the dialogue open.

However, we could continue this offline if you think it might help you to make your decision. Sounds like you already have, though?

Matt
Tom Riello September 21st, 2009 10:22 pm :
Matt,

Of course you don’t because if you did you would be in full communion with the one Church of Christ that He intended and established.

That being said, a question I have (and Jeremy forgive me for speaking for you) does it at least give pause that someone on staff, making a living, almost nearing the end of their studies, would take that and put it to the side, not for personal gain, not for riches, but because there is a recognition of the truth, even when one does not want to accept that truth at first, or is really wanting or at least open to be convinced otherwise.
Matt September 21st, 2009 11:39 pm :
I guess I could say it gives pause because literally there are pauses when thinking or responding (?).
I really think that the Roman Catholic Church is currently bigger than his faith. I bet if he weathered the course though, he would pull through. That is my honest answer. Faith grows. It takes time.

Matt
Tom Riello September 21st, 2009 11:59 pm :
Matt,

You answered my question in a way that does not surprise.

Indeed there is a sense that the Church is bigger than all our faith, as St. Augustine once remarked, that he would not believe the Gospel were it not for the Church and as is prayed in the Liturgy, “look not upon our sins, but on the faith of your Church.” Something I once heard concerning the Church (I cannot remember who said it) is apt, “The Catholic Church has made an honest man out of me.” Why? Because the historical witness for our faith is the Church, the Church ever ancient, ever new, who was there long ago to witness the empty tomb, and to speak, “He is risen, He is risen indeed!” If I am to believe the Gospel I must trust the Church. The question is, which Church was there to witness the emty tomb?
Matt September 22nd, 2009 12:10 am :
Tom,
Can’t keep going around in circles with you :-)
However, let’s continue to look to the Risen One. There we will find the Church.
Tom Riello September 22nd, 2009 12:21 am :
Matt,

What circles? You have not really interacted with any thoughts.
Matt September 22nd, 2009 9:45 am :
Tom, I have not heard you get into Scripture nor the Gospel proclamation. Those are the “thoughts” in which I am looking to fellowship. You have not pointed to the Lord nor the Good News, but rather they Catholic Church. What is your Good News?

Matt
Matt September 22nd, 2009 9:48 am :
Jeremy,
I am currently experiencing technical difficulties with my Yahoo email. They are changing the format and I can’t even find the “compose” function to write you an email. Hold on, please :-)

Matt
Tim A. Troutman September 22nd, 2009 10:04 am :
Matt,

You have not pointed to the Lord nor the Good News, but rather they Catholic Church. What is your Good News?

This is abstract and entirely unhelpful. The Catholic Church is not opposed to the gospel; in fact, the Catholic Church has delivered it faithfully to the entire world. That’s good news in my book.

Do you want us to point to the gospel? To the Lord? To the Scriptures? Here’s a couple verses for you: Matthew 16:18-19
Tom Riello September 22nd, 2009 10:20 am :
Matt,

Your charge is so silly that it is laughable. The fact is I asked you if Jeremy’s story gave you pause to consider why someone would give up the security of employment, his studies, etc… to enter into the Church. You gave a disrespectful response to my question.

If that is how you approach conversation, then there is not much I can do about it.
wilkins September 22nd, 2009 10:30 am :
and Matt,

may i just very humbly point to 1 Timothy 3:15 (again)—which is very good news indeed.

and this, from Cardinal Schonborn (see his exceptional book entitled, Loving the Church):

“But whatever the Church is in her innermost essence, she receives entirely from Christ. We can approach the mystery of the Church only through the door of Christmas. But the converse is also true: we can find our way to the crib, to the ‘tent of God among men’, only with our fellow travellers in the community of faith: As Saint Cyprian says, ‘no one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother’.”

Praised be Jesus Christ!
Matt September 22nd, 2009 10:49 am :
Tom,
You can do very much. Pray for all those on this list to love the truth of the Lord Jesus. Remember the “charter” in the “About” section at the top of this page.

Matt

P.S. Hope that response is not laughable.
Tim A. Troutman September 22nd, 2009 11:05 am :
Matt,

I agree with your suggestion to pray for us all to love truth. That is the only way for us to mutually pursue the kind of unity that Christ intends for us to have as believers.

Love of the truth is a scary idea because to truly love the truth, one must pursue it at all costs. That means entertaining the possibility that we might be wrong about things we have believed. That is, in fact, what led us all to the Catholic Church. If we didn’t love truth, we would have remained comfortable where we were. Like Jeremy said, he had to examine what he believed and see if it was true or not.

When one examines his faith honestly as a Protestant, he will find that indeed much of what he believes is true. But a full examination can only lead to understanding that not everything Protestantism teaches can possibly be true.

It was a Spirit inspired search for the truth that led me to the Catholic Church. It is leading Jeremy Tate there now, it led Tom Riello there, the rest of the CTC members, and thousands of others. I hope you and Jeremy get a chance to meet. Right now, you probably think he’s confused, but if you meet, I think you will find out that he has his head on straight.
roma victor September 22nd, 2009 12:21 pm :
Your charge is so silly that it is laughable. The fact is I asked you if Jeremy’s story gave you pause to consider why someone would give up the security of employment, his studies, etc… to enter into the Church.

Tom Riello has pointed out something that most Protestants and Catholics take for granted.

Whereas Catholics-turned-Protestant folks I’ve known who later became Protestant ministers did so not only because Protestantism tended to allow many of those things that the Catholic Church itself forbids (such as contraception and abortion), earning such high-end pay that they’ve become affluent to the extent of living out luxurious lifestyles; Protestant ministers I’ve known who converted to Catholicism even at the expense of what was actually a thriving ministry, having benefitted financially to such remarkable affluence as well due to such, all too soon surrendered these things for the Glory of God just to become Catholic, even if it meant giving these things up (and all manner of manna) merely to become a neighborhood Wallmart greeter!

Truly, the latter have come to accept the genuine Call of the Gospels from the Church Christ Himself established!

These, we should pray for continuously since when they convert to become wretched papists; it is they who are painfully condemned, to the point of becoming outcasts even to their own families.
Matt September 22nd, 2009 12:38 pm :
W,
You quote a good a popular verse (popular in some quarter :-)
You see, I actually think that the Christian church is visible and the many facets of it speak the gospel to communities far and wide, through Scripture, Christmas, song, praise, Bible study, fellowship, communion and so much more in Christ. I believe that the head of the church…is Jesus, not Peter.

“For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” Ephesians 5:23

Peter was well intentioned, but not without flaws. How much more his successors? With that said, let us find “unity” in our Lord Jesus. There we will find the church. Someone told you you have to have a pope to see the visible church. Why ever did you receive that? Anyway, greater unity is found in the One who unites – our Sovereign Lord and His Word.

Matt
Tim A. Troutman September 22nd, 2009 12:55 pm :
I believe that the head of the church…is Jesus, not Peter.

This is a false dilemma. We do not believe Peter is the head of the Church to the exclusion of Christ being the Head of the Church. But if Christ says that He will build His Church on Peter, we are obliged to believe it.

Peter was well intentioned, but not without flaws. How much more his successors?

Who said anything about him or his successors being flawless? This is a straw-man fallacy. You should study what the Catholic Church actually teaches instead of relying on hearsay or whatever false source you have.

With that said, let us find “unity” in our Lord Jesus. There we will find the church.

We do look to our Lord to find the Church. He said He would build it on Peter and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. That’s why we believe the Petrine ministry is of the essence of the Church.

Someone told you you have to have a pope to see the visible church. Why ever did you receive that?

Read the article on the “visible church” and the follow up on why Protestants have no visible Church. If you disagree, then bring the comments up there, not here.

Anyway, greater unity is found in the One who unites – our Sovereign Lord and His Word.

Protestants, JWs, Mormons all believe in Jesus. But there is less unity, even within denominational categories like Presbyterian or Baptist than in the Catholic Church. There’s even less unity in the hierarchically organized Anglican community. The “Mere Christianity” unity that you’re advocating actually gives less unity.

Matt, I say this as a challenge to you: you do not understand the Catholic faith or what she teaches. It takes humility to admit this and to learn. I suggest spending some time at Catholic Answers, you’ll find that they have all of your objections already answered.

I think we need to bring this conversation back on topic or bring it to a close if you catch my drift.
Tom Riello September 22nd, 2009 12:57 pm :
Matt,

Catechism of the Catholic Church #669 states, “As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body.” Many people seem to think that the Church teaches otherwise but it is the teaching of the Church that Jesus is the Head. Peter and his successor rule as Christ’s vicar, on behalf of, not in place of.
roma victor September 22nd, 2009 12:57 pm :
Peter was well intentioned, but not without flaws. How much more his successors?

Yeah, look at those filthy bishops which comprised the great ecumenical councils and came up with such novelties as the Trinity. Why’d we need that invented or those bishops or even those councils in the first place?

Someone told you you have to have a pope to see the visible church.

“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).
Matt September 22nd, 2009 1:25 pm :
Tom,
I like your response more than the other ones. However, I maintain that we must keep Christ as the head at all times. When you move to “vicar” status, what is that? Can you show me a vicar in the Scriptures? I mean, I know the common passages that endorse “Petrine dominance”, but I am looking to promote Christ as the head of the Church. Not the pope.

“And He [Christ] is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” Colossians 1:18

I look for the Church that has the good foundation.

Matt
Tim A. Troutman September 22nd, 2009 1:36 pm :
Matt and everyone else. I’m cutting this conversation off. The purpose of this combox is to discuss the article Matt Yonke wrote. Further non-related comments will be deleted. Matt (not Yonke) you’ve been given a place to have your objections answered.
wilkins September 22nd, 2009 1:41 pm :
hey Matt,

suppose i’m going to buy a Honda, and my friend tells me that i shouldn’t buy a Honda because i should buy a car that’s fuel efficient. i scratch my head. i tell my friend that Honda is fuel efficient and show him the data. he replies that actually, he’s not an engineer, but Honda has the worst resale of any comparable car. i shake my head and reply that the resale on Honda rocks, and i pull out a list of comps to prove it. he replies that Honda routinely warns customers that their cars explode if bumped from behind—in fact, he tells me that i have a moral responsibility to consider my family’s safety and buy a car with a decent safety rating…

wouldn’t you find it very difficult to take my friend seriously?

wouldn’t you turn to me and say, “wilkins, this friend of yours doesn’t know anything—not even the most basic stuff—about Honda”?

well… likewise… if you don’t know what the Catholic Church teaches about something, just ask. or better yet, please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is available free online from the USCCB and the Vatican. please read the articles here on Called to Communion or read some of the “suggested reading” under the Library link at the top of the page. i’m about to read the Louis Bouyer book, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism—why don’t you read it with me?

best,
s
Matt September 22nd, 2009 10:18 pm :
W,
Thank you for your kind offer. I won’t be reading that (I have so much else to read). However, if you read it I would be glad to hear your summary about such a work. As far as the Catechism, have one, and have read a good amount of it (Still in the Evangelical Communion, however :-). In fact, I like entry 2007. I think it is my favorite in the entire book. :-) (Hope you are on the Augustinian side of things at least :-D

Later on guys, this thread/coversation is being shut down. Maybe I will bother you on another one (until we get off topic, or I get censored for quoting Scripture too much :-O

Matt
Tim Troutman September 22nd, 2009 10:36 pm :
Matt,

You’re always welcome here at Called to Communion. You aren’t getting “censored” for quoting too much scripture… In fact, you’re not getting censored at all. I’ve asked you (and everyone) to get the conversation back on topic or drop it. And this thread is wide open so long as the comment is on topic.

This is something the contributors of CTC have decided recently that we need tighter moderation to keep the threads on topic. Its not just you being singled out, several people (including myself) were involved in the conversation. If I’m censoring you, I’m censoring myself.
Matt September 23rd, 2009 12:00 am :
Fair enough. And a fair enough request to stay on topic. However, I think these forums tend to lead to broader conversations. Just saying.

Dr. White, if you are reading, can you give the concise answer for which our friend on CTC are looking? If so, they would all return to the fold and be happy with elders and presbyters as their provisional apostolic heads.

(Just having a little fun on that last sentence)
Matt
rfwhite September 25th, 2009 3:20 pm :
Matt Yonke: thank you for your well-organized thoughts in the lead post. In the “How Do We Know?” section, you raise important considerations about epistemology. At least two thoughts came to mind.

What first came to mind as I read your comments on the Protestant view was the Westminster Confession of Faith, chap.1, par. 5. In that Protestant statement, appeal is made 1) to the testimony of the Church (which is said to move and induce people to a reverent and high esteem of Holy Scripture), to 2) certain qualities of Holy Scripture (which are said abundantly to evidence that it is the Word of God), and to 3) the inward work of the Spirit (which is said to effect the full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority of Holy Scripture). For the sake of clarification, do you affirm or deny the inward work of the Spirit in effecting full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority of Holy Scripture?

Second, you later say, “The Church’s position has always been one of recognizing the authenticity of the great treasure that has been handed down to her.” Your choice of the word “recognizing” to describe the Church’s position was interesting to me for it is a term common among Reformed folks for describing the Church’s role in canon history. The term is helpful, it seems to me, because it arguably agrees with the NT concerns for the preservation of the apostolic-prophetic witness in and by the Church (e.g., 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 2:14). For instance, in that frame of reference, we can say that, broadly considered, developments in the Church concerning the canon during the 2nd through 4th centuries reflect the NT interest in preservation. The complement to the NT concern for preservation, in other words, is the Church’s post-NT recognition of the canon. Furthermore, we can say that the process of recognition—because it answers to the NT intention—reflects the intention of Christ. No one less than the exalted Christ Himself, through the Spirit of truth, is the architect of that process. What do you think?
Matt Yonke September 25th, 2009 9:51 pm :
rfwhite,

Thanks for your kind words on the post and for your questions.

As to the first, I think I’d say that the testimony of the Holy Spirit has to do more with our acceptance of the fact of the Christian faith as a whole than with our identification of particular books as Spirit inspired. It certainly had to do with the identification of the canon in the process of Church history, but that has more to do with the Spirit’s interaction with the leaders of the Church. Just like at the Council of Jerusalem that I refer to in the article, I believe that as the leaders of the Church, in their God-given episcopal office, determined which books could and could not be read in the Liturgy, which was the test of acceptance before the idea of a canon even arose, they were guided by the Holy Spirit, and surely there was some internal witnessing of the Spirit going on there. But my basis for accepting the canon as a Catholic Christian is because the Church has determined it and the Spirit testifies to my spirit that the Church speaks with the voice of Christ.

As to your second question, yes and amen! The work of the Church is always the work of preserving and coming to a greater knowledge of the Deposit of Faith. As to our differences as Catholics and Protestants, on issues where Protestants see Catholics as innovating rather than preserving, I would perhaps bring to mind the parable of the talents. The servants who did not make the most of what they were given, here understood as plumbing the depths of the Deposit of Faith, were chastised for their lack of initiative. To look at another parable, it might be like everyone crowding around a mustard seed and insisting that we not do anything to expand upon it rather than planting it and letting it grow, with the Spirit’s guidance, into the great creature it was meant to be.

Not sure if that’s the road you were going down with your comments on preserving, but that’s my two cents. Thanks again for your interaction. I look forward to your further thoughts.
rfwhite September 26th, 2009 11:02 am :
Matt Y:

Thanks for the interaction. Would you agree that in the church’s conflict with the 2nd C. heretics and thereafter, the issue was not the idea of canon, but the contents and limits of the canon? Here is what I have in mind.

In the end, two factors appear to have influenced the church’s recognition or rejection of what Eusebius called “the disputed books.” First, the growing ecumenical contact of the church exposed the local and provincial character of many of the objections to particular books. Second, the larger core of “received books” had an overriding influence on the debate: above all, no book was recognized whose content was seen to contradict the witness of the larger, undisputed collection.

In this light, would you agree that we must avoid confusing the existence of the canon with its recognition–that we must avoid confusing what is constitutive (God’s action) with what is reflexive (the church’s action)? In other words, can we agree that in recognizing the canon, the activity of the church—statements of church fathers, decrees of councils, and so forth concerning the contents of the NT—was not creating the canon?
rfwhite September 26th, 2009 5:37 pm :
Matt Y.:

We agree that in Eph 2.20 (cf. Matt 16.18; Rev 21.14) the apostles and prophets are foundational rocks of the church, Christ being the foundational cornerstone (Mt 21.42; 1 Cor 3.11). You say also that “[t]his divinely appointed authority [as foundational rocks] is what gives weight to their teaching and gives authority to their interpretation, and is thus more foundational to the Church than the teaching itself.” Question: Would you agree that the promise to Peter (representing the apostolate) in Matt 16.18 is not made to him in the abstract but in view of his confession based on receipt of special revelation (Matt 16.16-17)? The rock-foundation of the church is, then, confessing Peter, confessing apostles, confessing prophets, correct? In other words, confession (aka witness in the covenantal-legally binding sense in Acts) and foundational rock status belong together, correct?

Also, as you point out in your appeal to 2 Thess 2.15, the apostolic-prophetic foundational confession was not limited to the written word: it extended to the spoken word. Thereafter, in his later New Testament correspondence, Paul instructs Timothy to guard the “paratheke”-deposit (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14 [12?]; cf. 2:2). Here “paratheke” is similar in meaning to “paradosis”-tradition and has the same authoritative ring: Timothy is to preserve and maintain the authoritative deposit of truth. We would agree, then, that during the Biblical era, God’s people lived in an “open canon” situation by a “Scripture plus” principle of authority, and, in keeping with that principle, God employed various media to speak his extrascriptural words to them. It seems reasonable, then, to ask this question: does the church after the Biblical era still live by the “Scripture plus” principle of authority that the church during the Biblical era lived by? In other words, does the church still live in an “open canon” situation? If she does, what is the basis of such a claim?
Matt Yonke September 26th, 2009 9:59 pm :
rfwhite,

(It is Dr. White, isn’t it? I’d just as soon address you as a person rather than an internet handle :))

In other words, can we agree that in recognizing the canon, the activity of the church—statements of church fathers, decrees of councils, and so forth concerning the contents of the NT—was not creating the canon?

Certainly we could agree that the Church was not “creating” the canon. I believe that the whole idea of canon was a bit foreign to the very early Church. As I noted above, the question was really what books were appropriate to be read in the Liturgy, not which books belonged in a larger book of inspired literature. So, yes, the Church was recognizing what was God-breathed, not creating a list of books that were, after her recognition, to be considered Scripture.

It seems reasonable, then, to ask this question: does the church after the Biblical era still live by the “Scripture plus” principle of authority that the church during the Biblical era lived by? In other words, does the church still live in an “open canon” situation? If she does, what is the basis of such a claim?

It seems to me that the burden of proof lies on the Protestant to prove that we are not in a “Scripture plus,” as you put it, situation. If Sacred Scripture tells us that oral tradition is binding, why would we assume that it’s not still binding? As I noted in the article, the very Fathers of the Church who wrote such appropriate high praise for Sacred Scripture also believed doctrines that cannot be found explicitly or by good and necessary consequence in the pages of Scripture. It seems that the oral traditions of the Apostles were seen as binding from the time of the Apostles down to the present by the vast majority of Christians. I guess I don’t see why I have to prove what history seems to bear out quite clearly.
rfwhite September 26th, 2009 10:28 pm :
Matt Yonke:

Address me by whatever handle is memorable! I don’t mind.

If we agree that the church was recognizing and not creating a canon, then, in my view, you’ve just conceded Calvin’s point. Perhaps I understand neither you nor Calvin.

You say, “It seems to me that the burden of proof lies on the Protestant to prove that we are not in a “Scripture plus,” as you put it, situation.” We almost have agreement here. I would put it this way: the burden lies anyone who argues for a closed canon. To be sure this dovetails with your next point.

You ask, “If Sacred Scripture tells us that oral tradition is binding, why would we assume that it’s not still binding?” Spoken like a good charismatic! I’m teasing. No, seriously, I would not assume that it would not be binding. I would assume it is binding, provided the sources of oral tradition are still operating. The proviso, as you’ll appreciate, is the point in question: are those sources of oral tradition still operating, and how do we know if it is so?
Matt Yonke September 26th, 2009 11:40 pm :
Dr. White it is, then!

You say that agreeing that we are recognizing, not creating the canon concedes Calvin’s point, but it’s far from the case. Calvin claims that the Reformers are recognizing the canon because it’s as plain as black and white or the nose on my face, but still disagreements remain. Whether those disagreements are those between Catholics and Protestants over the deuterocanonicals or over the status of Revelation and other books in the early Church, it’s never been a black and white issue. It’s an issue that has been hotly disputed and decided by the authority of the Church which has its roots in Christ.

I’ll take it again back to the council of Jerusalem. Were the Apostles and their successors at that council recognizing or creating the truth that the Gentiles are not bound by the Mosaic law? Obviously they were recognizing it, but it was far from as plain as black and white. It required a council and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the context of the Episcopal authority of the Apostles and their successors.

So it is with the canon. It cannot be left to Calvin and his compatriots and successors, laymen all, alone to decide upon a new canon. The only Scriptural pattern we have for such how such decisions can be made is by a council of those who hold the authority given to the Apostles by Christ and passed on by them.

In your second point you ask if the sources of oral tradition are still operating, but that sidesteps the point. We as Catholics are not operating on the assumption that the sources of oral tradition are still operating. We just believe that the oral tradition delivered by the sources of oral tradition is still binding. It is up to the Protestant, who claims that all of the important oral tradition was written down, contrary to the historical record, to prove that that tradition is not still binding.

Again, I really appreciate your interaction and especially its irenic tone. I look forward to your response!
rfwhite September 27th, 2009 12:41 am :
Matt Yonke:

On the point conceded to Calvin in saying that the church does not create but only recognizes the canon, I had in mind only the intial quotation from Calvin, wherein he opines, in sum, that the canon’s existence precedes the Church’s recognition. You are quite right: the argument about the canon’s self-authentication is another thing.

As to whether sources of oral tradition still operate, we may partly be talking past each other. By “sources” I meant to refer to those charisms through which (whom) God conveys binding teaching to His church, among which charisms I presume you would number the teaching office. You, understandably, jumped ahead in your answer to my question and related what I said about oral tradition to your later comments on the doctrines of the fathers. That is relevant to the overall topic, but it was not the point I was exploring with my question. I was intending to ask you to explain for my better understanding how you relate oral tradition to canon.
Matt September 27th, 2009 2:26 pm :
Dr. White, as I try to follow your line of reasoning (as much as I can as I visit this site), I am trying to see the question you are posing. Are you asking how we can see the Catholic claim on oral tradition in Scripture, and in a manner where we all can make an individual judgment on it? Are you looking for the Catholic apologist to produce strong and revelatory passages (as opposed to oblique and “packed” passages) in Scripture to show there is a substantial body of doctrine and practice handed down orally that for some strange reason was not included in the written and authoritative Scriptures for the Church? On a side note, I think that is a great question, if that is the question you are asking. I just don’t know if that is the question, however.

Hope I am not adding to the confusion.
Matt
Andrew Preslar September 27th, 2009 3:54 pm :
Pertaining to the question of creating or recognizing the canon:

I am wondering if, and in what sense, it is accurate to refer to the set of writings that are God-breathed, but not (yet) recognized by the Church as such, as “the canon.”

(1) We all agree that the writings that are God-breathed exist independently of being recognized as such; i.e., recognition does not confer, but presupposes, the property of inspiration.

(2) And we can probably agree that so long as writings that are God-breathed exist, there is, independently of ecclesial recognition, this logical set: “All of the writings that are God-breathed.”

However, (1) and (2) do not entail the following:

(3) The canon of sacred scripture exists prior to ecclesial recognition of the set of those writings that are, in fact, God-breathed.

That is, (3) is not entailed by (1) and (2) unless the set of all God-breathed writings is the same category as the canon of all God-breathed writings.

But these categories are not identical, even if the writings included in the set and in the canon are identical. The set of all God-breathed writings is a logical category. The canon of sacred scripture is an epistemological category.

As an epistemological category, the definition of “the canon” includes the Church’s recognition of God-breathed writings. In this sense, “the canon’s existence” does not, by definition, precede “the Church’s recognition.”
Andrew Preslar September 27th, 2009 5:19 pm :
Just a heads up to anyone who might have read #142: I have modified this comment in an effort to make my point more clearly. Thanks.
rfwhite September 28th, 2009 6:38 pm :
42-43 Andrew P.: There may well be some slippage in the usage of the term If we restrict the term “canon” to the church’s action of recognition/preservation, I agree with you. If the term “canon” refers to God’s action of giving revelation, which I would argue, that which is canon precedes the church’s existence as a blueprint precedes a housebuilding project. Here, as you’ll infer, I’m drawing on the identification of “canon” as an architectural term describing God’s architectural directives for the holy task of constructing His covenant house (cf. Moses, David, Solomon, Ezekiel). In that sense, that which is canon (canonical) has a constitutive function relative to the church.
Joe September 29th, 2009 1:44 pm :
“Learned Scripture scholars and even the revered figures of various modern Reformed communities cannot agree on what “the gospel” is”

I appreciate most of your points, but can’t agree here. On the essentials Evangelical and Reformed camps display a unity despite differences. Is any Reformed dispute any more significant than those in Catholic circles like von Balthasar or JPII who suggest universalism, for example? Whether or not Whitefield agreed with Wesley on election, they both could in fact agree on what the gospel is. And whether Wright agrees with Piper, they both, I’d argue, are in more *clear* agreement with what most people recognize as the gospel than what is expressed in very hard-to-understand terms in Ratzinger’s Intro to Christianity.
Bryan Cross September 29th, 2009 3:18 pm :
Joe,

The Catholic gospel is summarized in the Nicene Creed, and told in more detail in each of the first four books of the New Testament; this is why those four books are called “the Gospels.” As an example of “learned [Protestant] Scripture scholars” disagreeing about the gospel, see here.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Teri September 29th, 2009 5:56 pm :
Interupting briefly before going to prayers at the parish –

Matt Y and Tim, the podcast was excellent!
I have a link on my blog leading directly to it. I have alot of staunchly Reformed that frequent my blog and use the material as SS instruction on what’s wrong with “our” belief :-)

However, you all give me such hope, being strongly Reformed yourselves at one time, and still allowing the Holy Spirit to break down the wall of pride that says I am right and infallible in my thinking.

Praying for you guys and many blessings on the work you do,
Teri
Teri September 29th, 2009 5:59 pm :
P.S. for Dr. White,

I still think you are kind and charitable in your dialogue even in disagreeing. We will get alone famously unless you felt the need to call me “that wh*re of Babylon”. I spent way too much time being called wrongly, I might add, “defiled” in the Reformed tradition.

May the peace of Christ be with your spirit,
I will be praying for you all at prayers this evening,
Teri
Teri September 29th, 2009 6:03 pm :
ALONG…not alone………..so sorry…typo
Tim A. Troutman September 29th, 2009 6:10 pm :
Teri, thank you for the kind words and for the link. Say a prayer for the Philippines if you think of it.
Andrew Preslar September 29th, 2009 7:59 pm :
rfwhite (#144):

If the term “canon” refers to God’s action of giving revelation….

I think that the applicable term in this case is “inspiration” (or, more generally, “self-disclosure”).

Here, as you’ll infer, I’m drawing on the identification of “canon” as an architectural term describing God’s architectural directives for the holy task of constructing His covenant house (cf. Moses, David, Solomon, Ezekiel).

God certainly gave explicit “canons” concerning the construction of the Tabernacle / Temple. It seems to me that your usage is tending towards an identification of canon and revelation. This would render one term or the other superfluous. It would also mean that we should find a word other than “canonization” to refer to the Church’s activity of definitively recognizing which writings, among all writings, are God-breathed.
rfwhite September 29th, 2009 9:27 pm :
Andrew P.: The use to which I put the term “canon” in my comment has its currency within discussions of the theology of canon. The use of the term to which you refer has its currency especially within discussion of the history of the canon and is admittedly more common. Both have their place, as long as definitions are understood. The semantic overlap, as you’ll appreciate, is that that which is canon (canonical) is that word according to which God the Spirit builds His house, be it tabernacle, temple, or church.
rfwhite September 29th, 2009 9:44 pm :
148 Teri: As far as I understand it, harlotries and whoredoms are a biblical portrait of sins. Hence, if anyone is liable to that epithet, all of us are.
rfwhite September 29th, 2009 10:07 pm :
140 Matt Yonke: The question I was intending is somewhat difficult to formulate, in part because I don’t share your vocabulary, I fear. Let me try this: as I recall it, we would commonly cite 2 Thess 2:15 as indicating that in the Biblical era, traditions were passed on “whether by word of mouth or by letter.” Oral tradition and written tradition was in view as authoritative for the church. We agree that this is during the Biblical era. What is the rationale for the giving of tradition, oral or written? Does oral tradition continue in the post-Biblical era? Does written tradition continue in the post-Biblical era? How does tradition, oral and written, relate the canon? Is the canon closed? If so, what is the rationale for its closure?
Matt Yonke September 29th, 2009 11:19 pm :
Dr. White,

Thanks for the clarification. That helps a lot.

We would see the entire deposit of faith as being made up of what Christ taught the Apostles and what they passed on to the first generation of Christians. Christ and His Apostles were the only sources of special revelation in the New Covenant. So, with the death of the last Apostle, the possibility of either written or oral special revelation that would be binding on all Christians was closed. So in that sense, the canon is closed because no one is left alive on earth qualified to write a canonical book.

This is not the same thing as saying that the Church cannot interpret the deposit of faith definitively in a way that is binding on all Christians. History tells the clear tale that the bishops who were appointed by the Apostles followed the pattern of the Council of Jerusalem and, presumably by the testimony of the Apostles, held their subsequent councils to be binding in the same way as Jerusalem.

I always find the idea of the personhood of the Holy Spirit to be a good test case for matters like this. Given the diversity of tolerated opinions before the question was decided, it seems the Apostles did not teach this particular idea in such a clear way that it was beyond dispute. So it took a subsequent council to define it in such a way that believing in the personhood of the Holy Spirit is a necessary part of being a Christian in any substantive sense of the word.

So, is the doctrine of the personhood of the Holy Spirit an addition to the deposit of faith? We would say, no, it is an explanation of the deposit of faith, infallibly decreed by the Catholic Church and therefore binding on all men. The problem for the protestant position comes when you but heads with a Oneness Pentacostal. You say his position is absurd, he says yours is absurd, but when it comes down to it, you’re just two guys with Bibles and opinions backed to varying degrees by historical followings.

What neither of you have inherent to your traditions is a final arbiter to decide questions like this and, as my article attempted to prove, the Scripture itself cannot function as that arbiter because a book cannot answer questions about itself.

I hope that hits a little closer to where your line of questioning was going. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on the question!
Stephen October 4th, 2009 12:05 pm :
This was a really great article, Matt. I’m no scholar, so my praise doesn’t have much academic weight, but I have never heard the argument from the Council of Jerusalem put in the way that you did. It never occurred to me that presbyters were there with the Apostles to discuss the matters.

I’d like to ask a little bit more about the Catholic Church’s solution to the canon problem that was discussed in this article and briefly touched upon in responses 56,59,60, and 134. Forgive me, I know I’ve asked about this before and that answers have already been given, but I don’t think that the problem has been solved.

Ariel put the problem well when she asked, “How does an individual know with infallible certainty, that the Roman Catholic Church is an infallible interpreter”? in response 56. Several responses were given, but the fundamental challenge is still there. Sure, there are differences between the Protestants fallible choice of the canon and the Catholics fallible choice, as was pointed out in 59 and 60, but the point remains that both choices were fallible.

The problem is, most Catholics (I think I’m guilty of this myself) present the canon argument as a silver bullet against Protestantism because Protestants have no certainty that they have the right canon. But this is not a strong argument, because we ourselves cannot have absolute infallible certainty that our own choice of the Catholic Church was correct. Thus, to say that the Protestant view is incorrect because they cannot be certain about the canon, but that our situation is better because we can, ignores the fact that our own certainty in the canon is based on our trust in the Church that we fallibly chose to trust.

In other words, the “you can’t be sure!” argument is not quite the silver bullet many think it is. I believe that much better arguments come in pointing out the inconsistency of the Protestant acceptance of the canon, as Matt Yonke did when he said, “if we can trust God to guide the Church to establish a canon of infallible books, why can we not trust her when she explains to us what these books mean?”

We can point out that they are accepting a tradition, found outside of Scripture, as BINDING on all Christians, while still claiming to follow Scripture alone. Perhaps we can point out that trust in the New Testament require trust in the early Church, which leads to the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church.

I think framing the arguments in these terms may be more effective with Protestants who find that the epistemological certainty argument merely pushes the question back a step. But I may be misunderstanding the argument, so I’d really like to hear more on the Catholic solution to the canon issue.
Mark Tucker October 12th, 2009 3:35 pm :
“All Churches are equal, but the Catholic church (known as The Church) is more equal”

A short and simple laymen’s translation of your article:

I. Why the Protestant Church is wrong

1. Protestants (reformed in particular) claim Sola Scriptura (the belief that only the Bible holds final authority on stuff about God), while in reality it is their TRANSLATION of the Bible that holds final authority. Because a book alone cannot have authority. It is after all, simply a book.

2. Since the Bible itself establishes a system of human church authority (ie Paul and Acts 15), and because humans are necessary for understanding scripture at all, then we can presume that an ecclesial body is at least on the same level of authority as scripture.

3. Since protestants (reformed in particular) teach and believe that the Bible alone holds final authority on doctrinal issues and since that is clearly not the case (as you attempted to prove demonstrating our divisiveness and the need for human translation) then the protestants are wrong and therefore clearly NOT the best church.

II. Why the Catholic church (The Church) is right.

1. Because the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 set precedents of the necessity of church councils in establishing church doctrine (and because the Catholic church is The Church) then the Catholic Church holds final authority alongside scripture in establishing doctrine. Because, after all, they have church councils too.

2. Since scripture (simply a book) alone cannot alone determine true doctrine and since the Catholic church alone carries equal authority on scriptural interpretation then therefore it goes to show that the Catholic church is the one true church (The Church)…according to what The Church says…about itself. This is evidenced by The Church via Apostolic Succession (which is what The Church teaches about itself from scripture).

To simplify even more, the gist of the article boils down to one thing:
The Catholic church (The Church) is more RIGHT in determining doctrine NOT because of scripture alone, but simply because they are the Catholic Church, the one true church.

Now if THAT is not ‘shooting an arrow into a wall and then drawing a target around it,’ then I am Robin Hood!
I appreciate your generosity to us Protestants in our shared desire to uphold scripture to a high standard and our recognition of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is good to know that, doctrinally, we share these things in common.
I tried read your article with an open mind, because I have friends that are catholic and because I am a PCA pastor who, like you all have been drenched in reformed teachings of scripture. And I wanted to be open to the possibility that there would be some legitimacy to brothers and sisters who ‘convert,’ if I can use that word, to Catholicism. However, I found this article wholly unconvincing. There are so many statements and presuppositions within this that I found it frustrating. You do make some good points and I now have some things to chew on as I return to conversations with my catholic friends. But, really in the end your article boils down to the following statement: We are the one true church because we believe and declare ourselves to be the one true church.
Now you may say, “well, you protestants all say the same thing as well, and yet look how many variations of you there are.” To which I would agree with you, in part. Sadly, as you know, we protestants can be just as self-righteous and self-promoting as anyone else. And this is annoying to say the least. But please resist the temptation for a moment to justify your position by holding up a mirror to us.
There is one key difference and it happens to be something that you did put your finger on, but misrepresent. Sola Scriptura. As you say, we Reformed proclaim Sola Scriptura, but then when determining it, what do we do? We translate. So, as you say, it is not truly Sola Scriptura, but rather our Sola Interpretatio (or something like that). It is our interpretation of scripture that we baptize as Sola Scriptura, according to you. This may seem true, but it not true, nor is it what we believe (though it may, at times, be what we practice. But hey, if you are going to go in the direction of comparing our practice to our proclamation then watch out. We may have to hold that same mirror up to you as well). Rather, what we believe, and you should know this!, is that our translations even though we like them a lot are subject to error! There it is. Our authority is manifest only in as much as our translations are accurate to scripture as God had it written. Therefore, we see the church; councils, magistrates, denominations, popes, bishops, pastors, R.C. Sproul, even Piper, as fallible in their translation of scripture and not holding final authority on doctrine. Until the Lord establishes something else, scripture alone has final authority on doctrine, and a book can and does have authority especially when it is the very words of God. The church (little “c”) must place itself and its translations UNDER that authority and be subject to changing its position, dependant upon A. the guidance of the Holy Spirit and B. the ability to understand it. We do not place ourselves BESIDE scripture in authority, as you do. Which is odd anyway, because where do you yourself go to justify The Church’s relationship to scripture? Scripture. I mean, come on.

Genuinely, thank you for your article. It is at least for me a start in understanding the differences between the church and The Church. I personally would love to see more walls broken down between us in the interest of genuine fellowship and mutual expression of our love for Jesus.
Tim A. Troutman October 12th, 2009 3:49 pm :
Mr. Tucker,

We f0llow the Catholic Church because the Second Person of the Trinity established her as a binding authority on all Christian faithful while He walked among us. That is not painting the bulls-eye around the arrow.
Tim A. Troutman October 12th, 2009 3:51 pm :
Also, you said:

Which is odd anyway, because where do you yourself go to justify The Church’s relationship to scripture? Scripture. I mean, come on.

If you genuinely want to see more walls broken down between us, that is not the sort of tone that will get us there.
Mark Tucker October 12th, 2009 4:15 pm :
“We f0llow the Catholic Church because the Second Person of the Trinity established her as a binding authority on all Christian faithful while He walked among us. That is not painting the bulls-eye around the arrow.”
But Tim, with all due respect, who determined that Jesus established the The Catholic Church as the binding authority? The Catholic Church. That’s it. It is saying that wherever we are on doctrine is true simply because it happens to be where we are. For example: A doctrine – Jesus has set up the Catholic Church as the one true church (not to be confused with the small “c” catholic church) to establish true doctrine. It’s circular reasoning and it means that where ever you are is right because that is what you believe.

As far as my comment below (“I mean, come on”). I was expressing my incredulity and something that seems to me incredulous. Perhaps it is was a bit too harsh. I didn’t think so, but in the interest of erring on the side of friendliness, I apologize.
wilkins October 12th, 2009 4:30 pm :
hey Mark,

i don’t think your ‘simple translation’ accurately captures Yonke’s argument, but aside from that, i’m most impressed with this:

“There is one key difference… that you… misrepresent. Sola Scriptura… what we believe… is that our translations… are subject to error! There it is… we see [everyone/everything] as fallible in their translation of scripture and not holding final authority on doctrine.”

do you think it would be unfair if someone characterized what you’ve expressed as profoundly depressing and deeply skeptical?

i’m asking sincerely because i’m completely confused: you believe on the one hand that Scripture doesn’t interpret itself—that every interpretation is equally fallible—while believing on the other hand that Scripture alone is the final authority on doctrine?

does that amount to saying that Scripture has all the right answers but we have no way of knowing whether we’re reading it right?

help me understand.
Tim A. Troutman October 12th, 2009 4:31 pm :
Mr. Tucker,

Actually, I changed my mind about posting that second comment about 3 seconds too late. I have a ‘shoot from the hip’ impulse and a slow wit; these two don’t mix. :) I understand where you’re coming from and I often have the same sort of inclination. I see things that I can’t consider anything but absurd in others’ beliefs (and yes, there was a time in my PCA days when I would have said the same thing of the Catholic beliefs which I considered on par with Mormons – and I wouldn’t have been as nice as you were). Anyway- no harm done – I should have kept my mouth shut.

You said:

But Tim, with all due respect, who determined that Jesus established the The Catholic Church as the binding authority? The Catholic Church. That’s it.

This is true only if our appeal to the Catholic Church is based solely on the modern voice of the Catholic Church. But it’s not. We don’t say the Catholic Church is the catholic Church because she says she is; that would be circular. We say she is the Catholic Church because there is sufficient external evidence to prove it. The argument needed to disprove this is not philosophical (i.e. to show that we have circular reasoning) but historical. You would need to show that the Church that Christ founded either A) was not visible and authoritative in the way we believe it is or B) is something different than what we now call the Catholic Church.

If you want a thorough refutation of the argument you are making, it can be found here by Dr. Mike Liccione in Part 1 and Part 2 of “Bad Arguments Against the Magisterium.”
Teri October 12th, 2009 4:37 pm :
Dear Mark,
I know your dialogue is with Tim and he is extremely knowledgeable about the PCA/Reformed as well as Catholic doctrines.

My only question for you is the same one I asked my brother in law who is a elder in a splinter group of the PCA – -RPCUS.
“Have you read the early source documents from the early church? Not through the lens of Calvin or even Luther, but for yourself without their critique?”

John Calvin considered the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch to be completely spurious. I understand that most of these letters have been held up as authentic within the larger Christian community in the last ??? years. Although the Catholic Church never doubted it.

My question to anyone is, “Can you truly read St.Ignatius of Antioch, a martyr for the gospel and not believe that there was only one church before all of the epistles and gospels had been gathered into one place? Can you read his writing and not believe that there is and was and still is only one true church that was existing and worshipping before the Canon was put into place?
How could a divided Church have conquered the Roman Empire without ever using a sword against their enemies? Our Lord told them and us that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
His words never change, nor His truth because He is Truth.

May the peace of Christ be with you,
Teri
Mark Tucker October 12th, 2009 5:11 pm :
Thanks Tim,

I didn’t feel that your apology was as necessary as mine. Thanks though. But, I am glad that, post pca, becoming catholic has brought out your softer side (OKAY OKAY! That was a joke!).

I will check out those articles. But just so I understand, you say that you believe that the CC is what she is (final authority of true doctrine, I presume) because of EXTERNAL evidence? In other words, external of the CC, or do you mean external of scripture. What do you mean by that? External evidence.

I agree that the argument to disprove this is not philosophical (even this article utilizes philosophy to discredit protestantism, ie epistemology), but historical. But I would add that it is more so, theological. And I agree that I would need to prove that the church that Jesus founded was not visible and authoritative and that it is not the catholic church. However, this article is designed to address the unspoken comment, “the burden of proof is upon you.” In other words, the article starts with a presupposition that the Catholic Church today is still The Church that Jesus founded.

Now, I am sure you would the respond that the Catholic Church IS the visible and authoritative church that Jesus established. Of course, as would most any denomination about themselves. And of course, I would argue that it would be very difficult for a modern Catholic to show convincingly that the CC as it is today is the closest thing the world has to the church that Jesus established in scripture (though, going back to the article, doesn’t seem like it would matter that much since scripture, though sacred, doesn’t have final authority anyway in the CC. If I understand the article correctly.). Which goes to my other point which is that it would seem that it matters little what the Bible says that Jesus said about the church. But I am sure you would disagree because practically speaking on this issue at least, for both of us, the Bible does have final authority. It just seems like, at least we admit it.

Besides, I CAN prove historically that the Catholic Church alone is not the visible and authoritative church that Jesus established. ME! And every other Jesus loving non-Catholic pastor (or layperson too) in history. And that IS drawing a bull’s eye around an arrow in the wall. I admit it. To me the fact that there are legit elders in the church that are not catholic is in part proof that the catholic church is NOT the sole visible and authoritative church. That’s just a start.

In Him,
Mark
PS I just draw my bull’s eye a bit wider (which means a lot coming from a PCA guy).
Mark Tucker October 12th, 2009 5:46 pm :
Dear Teri,

Thanks for your encouragement. I have read early church writers, I think not through the eyes of Calvin and Luther (if that is possible for a Protestant at all), but namely because they are MY early church fathers. I believe that we share the same church fathers. And I believe that they give us much knowledge and insight into understanding scripture and guidance for the church today. Infallible, though, no. I even believe that Calvin and Luther and Hus were fallible in their teachings, writings and leadership. And there are many writings (catholic and protestant) that I believe to be extremely authentic, but not the least bit authoritative. But even if it were true that that there was one church ( I assume you mean “visible church”) before the canon I don’t see how that gets us anywhere in determining WHICH church holds final authority today on doctrine. If indeed one church were to hold that position anyway. For example, did you know that there were all kinds of varieties of churches in the early Church? Charismatics even! For all we know, the Charismatics may be the closest thing we have today to the church that Jesus established. Imagine that! It wouldn’t surprise me at all.

In regards to your statement about “a house divided against itself” Jesus was referring to the relationships of Satan and his demons. So I am not sure how is relates exactly. But the way the church conquered Rome was clearly not because of its unity, it was deeply fractuous, but rather through the love of Christ to one man, Constantine. Although it is arguable that A. he was not a Christian after all and B. that this was a decisive blow against Jesus’s church rather than for it. Much to be debated there I know. Perhaps you would be willing to read some of Calvin and Luther’s stuff as well Or perhaps you already have.

“His words never change, nor His truth because He is Truth.”Amen

and may the peace of Christ be with you as well,
Mark
Tom Riello October 12th, 2009 6:17 pm :
Mark,

“I have read early church writers, I think not through the eyes of Calvin and Luther (if that is possible for a Protestant at all), but namely because they are MY early church fathers. I believe that we share the same church fathers. And I believe that they give us much knowledge and insight into understanding scripture and guidance for the church today.”

In what way are the early church Fathers formative for you and the PCA in your knowledge, insight, understanding, and guidance of Holy Scripture for the church today?
Teri October 12th, 2009 6:32 pm :
Dear Mark,

I am very glad you have read those epistles for yourself and not through the lens of others. Yes, I have read Calvin. I am a former cradle Protestant, so I’m not only familiar with “The Institutes” but alot of his commentaries, as well. I’ve read biographical writings that revered John Calvin to the point of almost worship and other’s that were not so kind in reflecting on his legacy.

I haven’t read much Luther except biographical works from Protestants, Catholics and Catholics who can even empathize with the early Luther

As far as charismatics – The Catholic faith welcomes the Charismatic Renewal in our Church. From my understanding, the Catholic faith never said there were no more miracles or workings of the Holy Spirit since the establishment of a canon of scripture.

As far as fractured sects and Constantine, etc., I know from what I have read that the Church believed in the Real Presence of the body and blood of Our Lord in their sacrament. They did not believe in Sola Fide, but grace alone that produces an obedience of faith through love.

They could not believe in Sola Scriptura because the New Testament had not been put together completely and most could not read the scriptura if they even had a copy. No way were they sent home with their parchment to let the “Holy Spirit” lead them without anyone teaching them the Tradition of the faith.

So, those alone show me that the church looks alot like my Church.

Blessings on your journey,
Teri
Ken Temple October 12th, 2009 8:48 pm :
In interpreting these verses, we must also consider the state of the New Testament canon. Since most of the New Testament was unwritten at the time St. Paul was writing, he could only have been referring here to the Old Testament.

Interesting article and discussion!

I enjoyed reading this today; and I will admit I need to go back and read it again and all the comments also.

You cited 2 Timothy 3:15-17 before the above quote, citing the Westminster Confession of Faith proof texts. If Paul wrote 2 Timothy around 67 AD, before his martyrdom; and since that is obviously the last book he wrote; and Mark and James wrote around 48-50 AD; Matthew in 50-55; Luke in 60, Luke wrote Acts in 61 AD; and all of Paul’s epistles were written from 49 AD – 67 AD; and I Peter in 64-65 AD; then most of the NT was not unwritten at the time the apostle Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:15-17. What do you say to that? We know by historical research and the internal evidence of the text.

What is left is John’s writings (Gospel of John, 3 epistles, Revelation), Hebrews ( which must have been written between 68-69 AD before the destruction of the temple in AD 70; Jude, and 2 Peter. That is not “most of the NT”. Peter himself wrote 2 Peter, so it was also written about the same time as 2 Timothy, before his martydom by Nero, around 67 AD.

In 2 Timothy 3, verse 15, he does refer to the OT, but then in verse 16 he expands it to include all Scripture; so it seems to go beyond the OT. Since Paul quotes both Law (Deut. 25:4) and Gospel (Luke 10:7 and Matthew 10:10) in I Timothy 5:18 and puts them together as “Scripture” ; and I Timothy comes before 2 Timothy, then Paul is including the gospels and the law.

Personally, I believe John also wrote all his 5 works before 70 AD, before the destruction of the temple – because of the internal evidence that shows that Nero was the Caesar at the time of the writing – Rev. 17:9-10 – “the seven hills = Rome; the 6 kings are the five Caesars before Nero, beginning with Julius Caesar and it says “one is”. Also “Neron Kasar”, written in Hebrew does come out exactly as 666. The adulterous/prostitute is Israel who has, like in the OT, “played the harlot with the Baals” and has the forehead of a prostitute. ( Rev. 17:5 and Jeremiah 3:3). It is obvious that the “great city” of Revelation 11:8 is Jerusalem, which is spiritually/mystically/symbolically called Sodom (see Isaiah 1:9-10 where God calls Israel “Sodom”) and Egypt. (Ezekiel 23:3, 8, 19, 27) Israel had become the enemy of God, “mystery Babylon”, who rode the beast of pagan Rome, controlling her and manipulating her to crucify Jesus ( we have no king but Caesar) and persecute the saints. Rev. 11:1ff seems to indicate the temple was still standing at the time.

Anyway, it seems clear that most of the NT was written before 2 Timothy, and 2 Peter and Hebrews and Revelation were being written around the same time. Jude maybe the only book written after 70 AD – and the last book of the NT – which is why he says, “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”. (Jude maybe 80 AD)

If these NTs were all already in existence, then they were “canon” (criterion, law, rule, principle, standard) at the time they were written; “God-breathed” quality or “inspiration” is what determines canonicity. Just because it took time for all the books to get put under “one book cover” ( so to speak) does not undermine the epistemology of how we know which books belong in the canon. The reasons why it took a while are:
a. because the nature of the writings themselves were individual writtings written to different places, Galatia is quite far from Rome and Corinth. They were not written at the same time or by the same authors or to the same place.
b. Persecution and burning of the Scriptures by the Romans.
C. Difficulty and expense of writing, copying and publishing the books. no printing presses then.
Ken Temple October 12th, 2009 9:30 pm :
Athanasius sounds like he believed in an early form of “Sola Scriptura” in 367 AD – “these alone”

Your version has “in these alone the school of piety preaches the Gospel” – this is even stronger – the gospel is alone found in the Scriptures; so traditons later added are not part of the gospel. (Mary dogmas, Papal dogmas, purgatory, indulgences, treasury of merit, etc.)

I cut this ( below) from the http://www.ccel.org website, which from all that I can tell, is the same as the http://www.newadvent.org Roman Catholic cite that has the early church fathers, etc.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html

6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.” Matt. xxii. 29; John v. 39..’
Ken Temple October 12th, 2009 9:37 pm :
Teri,
Hi !

You wrote:
They did not believe in Sola Fide, but grace alone that produces an obedience of faith through love.

They did not believe in Sola Fide,

[ But if Paul and Jesus and the other apostles did, (which they do seem to) then that is older than the post-apostolic church. Furthermore some writers did articulate "faith alone", because they understood it as "apart from the merit of works" in order to gain justification or salvation. Ambrosiaster ( 300s AD) several times in his writings in commenting on NT verses says "Faith alone".]

but grace alone that produces an obedience of faith through love.

this is the same as “justification is by faith alone; but that faith does not stay alone, rather it lives and produces an obedience of faith through love”.
Ken Temple October 12th, 2009 9:50 pm :
Some “faith alone” type statements in early church history:

“. . . we are not justified by means of ourselves, nor by our own wisdom or understanding or godliness or works which we have done in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which the Almighty God has justified all those believing from the beginning.” I Clement 32

The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, (Thomas Oden, general Editor of the entire series), Romans Edited by Gerald Bray, Volume VI (Romans), IVP (ICCS), 1998, p. 101, Abrosiaster’s commentary on Romans 3:24.

“They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone (Latin: sola fide) they have been made holy by the gift of God.”

Ibid, p. 112, commenting on Romans 4:5:

“How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone (Latin: sola fide) ? Therefore there is no need of the law when the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone ( Latin: per solam fidem).”

Gerald Bray, Ibid, Volume VII ( I and II Corinthians), comment on I Cor. 1:4, p. 6 :

“God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone (Latin: sola fide) he receives the forgiveness of sins.”
Ken Temple October 12th, 2009 10:09 pm :
Here is a good article answering the issue of epistemology and the Roman Catholic apologetic of “how do you know?”

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/07/in-defense-of-sola-scriptura-part-seven-what-about-the-canon/
Matt October 12th, 2009 10:16 pm :
Ken, these are some great passages from the ‘patristics’. Are you committed to a “faith alone” presentation of the Christian gospel? I am curious, as I am committed to such, and I am merely wondering if this has prompted your research (which I commend, by the way!).

Matt
Bryan Cross October 12th, 2009 11:48 pm :
Mark,

Welcome to CTC. In #164 you wrote:

Besides, I CAN prove historically that the Catholic Church alone is not the visible and authoritative church that Jesus established. ME! And every other Jesus loving non-Catholic pastor (or layperson too) in history. And that IS drawing a bull’s eye around an arrow in the wall. I admit it. To me the fact that there are legit elders in the church that are not catholic is in part proof that the catholic church is NOT the sole visible and authoritative church.

A Jehovah’s Witness could say the same thing. So could any second-century gnostic. But presumably you wouldn’t grant that they are members of the Church Christ founded. Clearly then, merely pointing to yourself is not sufficient evidence that the Catholic Church is not the visible and authoritative Church that Christ established. Pointing to yourself to show the extension of the Catholic Church begs the question, by assuming precisely what is in question. So, what is needed to determine (in a non question-begging manner) the extension of the Church Christ founded is a principled way of distinguishing the Church Christ founded from the heretics and schismatics separated from her. And Christ provided a principled way to do this when He gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter. And this governing and teaching authority has been handed down by way of apostolic succession.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Mark Tucker October 12th, 2009 11:51 pm :
Teri,

On your statements: “They could not believe in Sola Scriptura because the New Testament had not been put together completely and most could not read the scriptura if they even had a copy. No way were they sent home with their parchment to let the “Holy Spirit” lead them without anyone teaching them the Tradition of the faith.”

They could believe in Sola Scriptura in as much as they HAD of the compiled scripture, and anyway even though that was an important time we live in a time after the canon has been compiled (even though we may disagree with what it is exactly). So hypothetically, they may not have believed in Sola Scriptura, but we definitely can today. At least in a more complete sense. And yes they were sent home with people gifted to teach them the faith, just as believers are today. But with the Bible as the standard authority, as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps your church would look a lot like it did back then, perhaps mine would to.

in Him,
Mark
Bryan Cross October 13th, 2009 12:09 am :
Ken, (re: #170)

Welcome to CTC. The passages you cite from the Church Fathers do not mean “faith alone” in the sense meant by Luther (i.e. faith not informed by agape). The Fathers there are speaking of a faith that is informed by agape. We discussed that in my post titled “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?”

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Mark Tucker October 13th, 2009 12:28 am :
Thanks Bryan,

This is a fruitful discussion. I figured I was only scratching the surface. Obviously, you all have dealt with these questions a great deal.

I actually anticipated your following response:
“A Jehovah’s Witness could say the same thing. So could any second-century gnostic. But presumably you wouldn’t grant that they are members of the Church Christ founded. Clearly then, merely pointing to yourself is not sufficient evidence that the Catholic Church is not the visible and authoritative Church that Christ established. Pointing to yourself to show the extension of the Catholic Church begs the question, by assuming precisely what is in question. So, what is needed to determine (in a non question-begging manner) the extension of the Church Christ founded is a principled way of distinguishing the Church Christ founded from the heretics and schismatics separated from her. And Christ provided a principled way to do this when He gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter. And this governing and teaching authority has been handed down by way of apostolic succession.”

…which was why I added the “Jesus-loving” part. Now, we could argue all day about the parameters of “Jesus-loving,” but since I used it I will say that it is broader than The Church but narrower than Jehovah’s witnesses. So, in my understanding of scripture alone, it is anyone who has repented of their sins, acknowledged the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and committed themselves to following Him. Does that answer your question?

Also, I said it was IN PART proof, not fool-proof. But, I agree that we need a principled method of determining the visible church, and actually I agree that scripture alone cannot determine the parameters of the visible church. People are needed (Even II Cor. 13 commands us to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith). And I agree that Jesus demonstrated that the keys have been given to the apostles. But the big jump is that you assume that those keys were restricted to the Catholic Church, and still even today rest there. Even scripture speaks of God’s blessing being stripped from someone when they failed to be faithful to the responsibility by which they were called (King Saul, the Israelites that left Egypt, the church a Ephesus in Rev. 2:5 ) and began to serve themselves. I don’t mean at all to say that I believe that God has completely abandoned the Catholic Church, but I do think there is good reason to believe that they alone certainly do not carry the keys to heaven and hell as you suggest. I do believe in a modified, and I think more biblical understanding, of apostolic succession. It’s the manifestation of the gifts of the spirit (I Cor.12, Romans 12) distributed to those in the visible church (little “c”) for leadership and oversight and preaching and teaching. But just as in the Catholic Church, it is not without imperfections.
Bryan Cross October 13th, 2009 1:47 am :
Mark,

Thanks for clarifying. In Catholic doctrine, there is a distinction between the members of the Church Christ founded, and persons in a state of grace. Here’s the distinction: Not every member of the Church Christ founded is in a state of grace, and not every non-member of the Church Christ founded is not in a state of grace. So, we don’t determine the extension of the Church Christ founded by determining the extension of those in a state of grace. (That would be quite impossible anyway, i.e to see into the hearts of men.) Anyone who loves Jesus (with agape, not merely with natural human love) is, by that very fact, in a state of grace. But such a person is not necessarily a member of the Church Christ founded. A person is incorporated into Christ’s Church, we believe, through the sacrament of baptism, not through faith alone. We recognize that a person may love Jesus prior to being baptized. In that case, that person would be in state of grace prior to being a member of Christ’s Church.

So, I think we agree that those who love Jesus are in a state of grace. Where we disagree, perhaps, is whether anyone who is in a state of grace is, by that very fact, a member of the Church Christ founded. On account of this distinction, pointing to a person who loves Jesus and is therefore in a state of grace, but who is not a member of the Catholic Church, would not show that the Catholic Church is not the visible and authoritative Church that Christ established.

You qualified your “loving Jesus” criterion by adding five other conditions: (1) repenting of one’s sins, (2) acknowledging the deity of Christ, (3) acknowledging the death of Christ, (4) acknowledging the resurrection of Christ, and (5) committing themselves to following Him. I agree that these are all good and important things, but it seems entirely arbitrary to make these five things (in addition to loving Jesus) the sufficient conditions for membership in the Church Christ founded.

We agree on a quite a few things regarding Church authority. However, you pointed out: “But the big jump is that you assume that those keys were restricted to the Catholic Church, and still even today rest there.” We (Catholics) believe that Christ only has one Church, the one He speaks of in Matthew 16. He has only one Bride. So, we believe that the one Church of which we speak in the Creed: “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” is the Church with the keys. So far, I think we (you and I) are mostly agreed. The point of disagreement, so far as I can tell, turns on whether that Church retained the keys. You raise the possibility of God’s blessing being stripped from the Church, as it was from King Saul, the Israelites who left Egypt, and the church at Ephesus in Rev 2:5.

I find that this is very common line of thought among Protestants. But it is also a very dangerous line of thought, because every heresy and schism in the history of the Church could make use of it to justify themselves. So if we find ourselves resorting to ecclesial deism to justify being separate from the Catholic Church, we have to consider the possibility that we, being no more immune from error than all the heretics of past ages, could be making the very same fundamental error that they made in assuming that the Church had gone off the rails, and that they [i.e. the heretics] were thus justified in acting against the Church’s highest magisterial authority, and remaining separate from her. If a person is wrong about this, he will be found to be fighting against God, as Gamaliel pointed out.

But we also have good reason to believe that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church cannot fail, cannot lose the deposit of faith or fall into heresy or apostasy. Here’s why. If the Church is the Body of Christ, then the Church cannot fail, because Christ cannot fail. See my post titled, “The Indefectibility of the Church“.) God did not shed His blood on the cross only to abandon His Church such that she would fall into heresy or apostasy. The union of God with man that took place at the incarnation, and continues in His Body, the Church, entails that the Church is not like King Saul, in that respect, and not like the Israelites in that respect. The promises and benefits of the New Covenant are better than those under the Old. Regarding the Church at Ephesus in Revelation, we need to remember the distinction between the universal Church, and a particular Church. Particular Churches (e.g. Ephesus, Smyrna, etc.) can fail. But the universal Church cannot fail — the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. She is the pillar and bulwark of truth, as St. Paul says (1 Tim 3:15). And the stone on which the universal Church is built is Petros, the fisherman, to whom Christ gave the keys, and in whose line these keys are retained. The Church where Peter’s chair remains, where he spilled his blood and handed on those keys, is the Church with which all Christians (and all other particular Churches) are to be in full communion, as St. Irenaeus points out:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every [particular] Church should agree with this [particular] Church [i.e. the Church at Rome], on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (Against Heresies, III.3)

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Tim A. Troutman October 13th, 2009 3:27 am :
Ken, the article you posted does not answer the charge of the canon. We will get into this with some more detail in an upcoming article (not the next one but the one after that). But in brief, it is a problem with consistency in one’s epistemology not the fact that one doesn’t have absolute certainty. Any apologists claiming what the author argues against is a bad apologist. I’m not saying he’s committing a straw-man fallacy; I’m sure he’s run up against that line of argument before.

The consistency problem can be summarized in a simple line: You cannot trust the act more than the agent or the product more than the producer. His article does not deal with the consistency of the Protestant claim. Namely: whether one can trust the canon and distrust the Church who selected it. This discussion between a Protestant (Kenny) and I (starting at comment #10) deals with some of the issues he raises and shows that his second point is a form of skepticism. Also, the link in my comment above (162) refutes the “tu quoque” argument.
Tucker October 13th, 2009 9:53 am :
Bryan,
Where does the Orthodox Church fit into your argument?
Are they recognized as being apart of the Church in a Catholic sense, but differ on key points thus dividing THE Church in doctrine?
Bryan Cross October 13th, 2009 10:50 am :
Mark,

There are fifteen Orthodox [particular] Churches, though the Orthodox Church in America is not recognized by some of the other Orthodox Churches, so on that counting there are fourteen. These are actual particular Churches, because they maintain apostolic succession, and so have valid Orders and a valid Eucharist. (See Responsa quaestiones, 2007 ) But, from a Catholic point of view, those Orthodox Churches are in schism from the Catholic Church, because they have not maintained unity with the successor of St. Peter, and with those in communion with him. “Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (CCC 2089)

Dominus Iesus provides a succinct explanation of the Catholic position:

The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27), which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18). And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”. This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”. Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity — will never be lacking.

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”. “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”. (Dominus Iesus, 16-17)

What is the meaning of the statement, “the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church”? It means that the Holy Spirit, who is the soul of the Church, is especially present and operative in these Churches, through their valid sacraments. Wherever apostolic succession has not been maintained, then the only valid sacraments are baptism and marriage. Such communities are for this reason termed ‘ecclesial communities’, not particular Churches, while the Orthodox Churches are referred to as ‘Churches’ because they have preserved apostolic succession, and thus a valid Eucharist (as well as the other sacraments). Persons in separated Churches and ecclesial communities are in some degree of communion with the Catholic Church, on account of their baptism (which is a sacrament of the Catholic Church), and insofar as they share the same faith (e.g. the Nicene Creed). But, such persons are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, insofar as they do not share the same faith, the same sacraments, and communion with the successor of St. Peter.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Ken Temple October 13th, 2009 11:30 am :
Bryan,
thanks for the welcome!

I was just showing that there is historical precedence for “faith alone” and Luther was not the first. It was not a totally new concept.

When the Bible says “no flesh will be justified before God by the works of the Law”, that is the same as “by faith alone”, or “apart from works”. It is true that Luther that did not develop what Galatians 5:6 means as much as he should have ( although he clearly wrote that a faith that is dead and does not produce any good works or fruit is not real faith); “faith working through love”; but Calvin and the rest of the Reformed tradition did. Faith alone does not mean mere intellectual accent. ( James 2:19) and one cannot claim to have faith, but have no change in their life or fruit or good works or hatred for sin, etc. ( James 2:14-26)

So, if by “faith formed by love” ( Galatians 5:6) you mean, “a faith that does not stay alone, but produces good fruit, good works, growth, change, holiness, deeper repentance, hatred of one’s own sins, sensitivity to sin”, then the Reformed traditon agrees with that.

The point of those patristic passages is that it shows that the phrase “sola fide” was not a completely new theological thought. There is historical precedence for justification by faith alone.
Tucker October 13th, 2009 11:39 am :
Thanks Bryan,
I am going to chew on that one.

PS. I am not Mark, I dont think he would want to claim my comment
even though we MIGHT be related.
Ken Temple October 13th, 2009 11:39 am :
Matt,
Regarding “faith alone” – yes, I beleive Luther and Calvin were right on justification
(Romans 3:9-28; 4:1-8; Galatians 1:6-9; 2:16; 2:21; 3:6-29; 5:1-12; Philippians 3:9; many more)

and I also believe they were right on election/predestination and man’s deadness in sin and inability to come to Christ unless God first changes the heart. (Luther’s “Bondage of the Will”) (which Augustine agreed with) (John 6:44; Ezekiel 36:26-27; Acts 16:14)

But all must hear the gospel and the believers in Christ must go and share and live and witness the gospel to all nations. ( Matthew 28:18-20; Romans 10:13-15; Romans 15:20-21)

Sincerely in Christ,
Ken Temple
K. Doran October 13th, 2009 11:46 am :
Dear All,

There is in fact a lot of historical evidence for Bryan’s (and Cardinal Ratzinger’s, and the Magisterium’s) assertion that it is necessary to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome in order to be a member in good standing of the Catholic Church. For example, see the history of the Donatist Schism (one which Saint Augustine worked mightily to end). Many historical examples of this assertion can be found in the book “The Early Papacy To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451,” by Adrian Fortescue. Pick it up from your library, or check out the preview on Google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=G70C9EUgEH4C&dq=Adrian+Fortescue+chalcedon&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=BllHziXT_H&sig=ayX5oGuKUAo7t1zh1kM_OnskOSQ&hl=en&ei=e5vUSuSEFdPT8AbCh7mODQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

In contrast with the Protestant claims that Sola Fide (in the Reformation sense) or Sola Scriptura (in the Reformation sense) were “taught” by the early Church Fathers and the great saints who learned from them, the Catholic claims about the papacy actually _are_ present to an overwhelming degree in the records of antiquity.

I would note as well, that if you only count the handful of documents that are most temporally close to the writings of the apostles themselves, you should by no means expect to have a dataset large enough to “prove” any doctrine for or against any modern Christian theory. These authors didn’t write their letters in order to supply evidence for skeptical schismatics 1,900 years later — they wrote them for present concerns which were much more pressing! But, as a matter of fact, due to luck (or perhaps something greater) the very limited evidence from the earliest years (such as first clement and Ignatius’ letters) support the Catholic claims quite well. There is no reason to expect that they would contain enough data to do so. But they do. And when you get to Augustine’s time, you will find the data set large enough to very easily refute the usual protestant ecclesiological claims.

The early Church had bishops, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and a primacy of power (not merely honor) at Rome. And they didn’t view these things as accidents, but as part and parcel of a Catholic Church that was infallible, as Saint Augustine said: “Unless the Lord dwelt in the Church, as she is now, the most careful speculation would fall into error; but of this Church is said: She is the holy temple of God.”

Saint Augustine said this about a Catholic Church that he admitted was full of sinners. But he knew, as Saint Irenaeus knew, that “where the gifts [charismata] of the Lord are placed, there we must learn the truth, namely from those who have the succession of the Church from the apostles. . . These preserve our faith.”

And so Saint Augustine could compose his little psalm, or ditty, begging the Donatist schismatics (who had broken from unity with the successor of Saint Peter) to come back to the fold: “You know what the Catholic Church is, and what that is cut off from the Vine; if there are any among you cautious, let them come; let them find life in the Root. Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the Vine: a grief it is when we see you lying thus cut off. Number the Bishops even from the very seat of Peter: and see every succession in that line of Fathers: that is the Rock against which the proud Gates of Hell prevail not.”

That is why we ask you to come to (or come back to!) the Catholic Church in communion with Saint Peter’s successor. Because this has been the same request that all faithful Catholics have made throughout history, including the great Saints of the early Church such as Saint Augustine. We are in company with them when we ask you to enter company with us.

Sincerely,

K. Doran
Ken Temple October 13th, 2009 12:16 pm :
Matt Y,

You wrote in your article:

“In interpreting these verses, we must also consider the state of the New Testament canon. Since most of the New Testament was unwritten at the time St. Paul was writing, he could only have been referring here to the Old Testament.”

Your article says that most of the NT was unwritten when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:15-17.
This cannot be correct, if Mark was written around 48-50; James 48-55; Matthew 50-55; Luke 60; Acts 61; and all of Paul’s letters before 2 Timothy – 49 AD (Galatians) – 67 AD. Most of the NT was written before 2 Timothy 3:16-17. For the rest of the books, see the details above.

What do you (or anyone else) say to that?

The existence of the writings at the time of the writings, since they are “God-breathed”, makes them “canon” (criterion, law, rule, standard, principle).

Paul clearly is talking about the OT in verse 15, but he expands that to “all Scripture” in verse 16 of 2 Timothy 3; so he is including a lot of NT also – especially when he calls both OT law and Gospel “scripture” in 1 Timothy 5:18 ( Quoting Deut. 25:4; Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7).
Ken Temple October 13th, 2009 1:18 pm :
Someone above quoted Irenaeus’ famous statement on the church in Rome, in Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 3.

This does not mean what the modern Roman Catholic says it means, reading back into it all of the development of centuries into Irenaeus’ statement.

At the time, it just meant that the truth of the Scriptures and the tradition handed down from the apostles was still in the churches, the teaching that the OT God was the same as the NT God, the Father. Irenaeus is just showing the Gnostics that no church teaches what they teach – that God is a Demi-urge who is evil and malevolent. Protestants agree with this; there is nothing here about taking Irenaeus’ statement and extending it to include all the other man-made traditions that the Roman Catholic Church claims are part of the apostolic deposit.

There is also debate as to what the Latin means of AH 3:3 — it could mean, “all the churches resort to the church in Rome, because being the capital, Christians from all over the empire come to Rome, and so she reflects what all the other churches teach also, because she is made up of so many others from all over the empire.

Also, Irenaeus goes on to later explain that we should resort to the Scriptural proof as to what the true tradition is:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 5:

1. Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, John 14:6 and that no lie is in Him. As also David says, prophesying His birth from a virgin, and the resurrection from the dead, “Truth has sprung out of the earth.” The apostles, likewise, being disciples of the truth, are above all falsehood; for a lie has no fellowship with the truth, just as darkness has none with light, but the presence of the one shuts out that of the other. Our Lord, therefore, being the truth, did not speak lies; and whom He knew to have taken origin from a defect, He never would have acknowledged as God, even the God of all, the Supreme King, too, and His own Father, an imperfect being as a perfect one, an animal one as a spiritual, Him who was without the Pleroma as Him who was within it. Neither did His disciples make mention of any other God, or term any other Lord, except Him, who was truly the God and Lord of all, as these most vain sophists affirm that the apostles did with hypocrisy frame their doctrine according to the capacity of their hearers, and gave answers after the opinions of their questioners,— fabling blind things for the blind, according to their blindness; for the dull according to their dulness; for those in error according to their error. And to those who imagined that the Demiurge alone was God, they preached him; but to those who are capable of comprehending the unnameable Father, they did declare the unspeakable mystery through parables and enigmas: so that the Lord and the apostles exercised the office of teacher not to further the cause of truth, but even in hypocrisy, and as each individual was able to receive it!
Ken Temple October 13th, 2009 1:50 pm :
Al Kimel is an Anglican who converted to the Roman Catholic Church and used to have a blog called “Pontifications”. In his article on the canon, he both denies that the church “created” the canon; but then later seems to actually assert that without using those words. I did manage to preserve some of the quotes of his article.

Al Kimel’s site appears to have been changed, because I cannot find these statement’s he made back in 2006 ( ?) in an article on the canon: (interspersed in my comments that I made on Dave Armstrong’s blog back in 2006. He took down his web-site; but others like Philip Blosser refer to it in their apologetic against Sola Scriptura. http://catholictradition.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_catholictradition_archive.html

My main point is that Kimel also uses Presuppositionalism (the church determined the canon, and declared it so, so that makes it so; even if, as Kimel believes, Matthew did not write Matthew or John did not write Revelation or Paul Ephesians or Peter either 1 or 2 Peter and he basically says, “if the church says it’s ok to declare Pseudonymous writings “canon”, then who am I to question it?”) in his belief that the Church determined the canon. And Phil Blosser agreed with this kind of reasoning.

For me, that is very liberal to believe that those books were not actually written by the apostles themselves. I believe Peter actually wrote 2 Peter right before he was executed and martyred. I Peter is a higher style of Greek because Silvanus wrote it for him. ( I Peter 5:12)

Pontificator, Al Kimel, in his blog and article on the “canon of Scripture” says that the church did not “create” the canon of Scripture: (but later says things that actually contradict that.)

“Did the Church “create” the Scripture? No, the Holy Spirit of God did–both in inspiring the biblical authors to compose the sacred texts and in inspiring the Church to recognize and authorize these texts as Scripture. The Bible cannot be divorced from the living voice of the Church. As Fr John Breck has written, “It is the work of the Spirit that enables the Church both to generate and to interpret her own canon or rule of truth.”

But, earlier, by saying that John probably did not write the Apocalypse and that Paul did not write Ephesians or the Pastoral Epistles, and that Peter may not have written 1 and./or 2 Peter, and that Pseudominity is OK, if the church declares it scripture, then Al Kimel actually contradicts himself, in my humble opinion, and although writes, “the church did not “create” Scripture”, he actually does say it in a round about and backdoor way:

“The anonymous author of Hebrews probably was not an Apostle. John of the Apocalypse probably was not John, son of Zebedee. And then we have to acknowledge the critical problem of pseudonymity. The Apostle Matthew may not have written the gospel attributed to him. The Apostle Paul may not have written Ephesians and the Pastorals. The Apostle Peter may not have written his two letters; etc. The question of authorship of many books of the New Testament is a hotly contested matter in scholarly circles. Surely Atwood knows all of this, but without mention.”

“If the historical evidence leads us to conclude that God employed the convention of pseudonymity in his sacred writings, who are we to complain? who are we to judge? I stand by the Word of God as confessed by his one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

These last two sentences actually are teaching a kind of “creating” of Scripture, while trying to escape the charge that the RCC actually teaches that the RCC “creates” Scripture.

This just shows examples of two Roman Catholics who don’t think it is a big deal for the church to declare something “Scripture” or “canon”, because it allegedly has that power and authority to do so; even if they were written years after an apostle died, Pseudonomously, etc.
Teri October 13th, 2009 2:06 pm :
Hi Mr. Temple,

I am glad to see you that you are willing to engage in dialogue with these godly men at Called To Communion. That’s wonderful!

They are all extremely knowledgeable regarding the doctrines of the Reformed faith – most having grown up in the faith and/or graduated from a Reformed Seminary.

Sometimes it’s a good idea to let them answer the questions you pose or respond to your statements before you continuing posting.
It’s aptly named “Called To Communion” because they are committed to that unity that Our Lord prayed for.

I hope from your stopping by this blog that the gentlemen at Reformation Beggars All, Mr. White’s Alpha and Omega Ministeries, etc. are interested in a dialogue towards that unity. That would be a true answer to many prayers.

May the peace of Christ be with your spirit,
Teri
Ken Temple October 13th, 2009 2:19 pm :
Tim,
I don’t see the Protestant position on the canon as a problem in epistemology. ie, “How do we know?” The internal evidence of the Scriptures along with history tells us. Relying on historical evidence and backgound is not the same as believing the church is infallible. We can easily look at Scripture and history and see the good things in the early church and discern those areas that they were wrong on. We are free to evaluate and think. How do you know the RCC is the same church Jesus started? It has changed much. It has added many things slowly over the centuries. It took a long time to declare the defining dogma of the RCC – infallibility of the Pope – 1870 AD; yet the apologetic method of RCs seems to read that back into everything from Irenaeus to Leo I and beyond. Church history is important; but our “distrust” is not of the early biblical church or early “catholic” ( little c) church of the first 5 centuries; but of the medieval and Council of Trent and modern Roman Catholic Church, that has added many things over the centuries to the original deposit and also done many sins and made many arrogant statements. ( Like Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctum – “It is necessary for salvation for every living creature to be in submission to the Roman Pontiff”; and Pius IX: “I am the tradition”)

To me, the constant montra of Roman Catholic apologetic methods of “how do you know?” you are right” or “How do you know the canon is correct” or “how do you know your interpretation is the right one?” or “how do you know you are in the right church? are methods that one could ask of anything and go on and on in hyper-skepticism. The modern Church of Rome gives no assurance, because you ultimately have to rely on your own mind also to decide that that is the church for you. The RC apologist questions the Protestant and appeals to the humility/pride argument if have confidence in your interpretation/doctrines/church (Protestant church). They say, “you are leaning on your own understanding”, Proverbs 3:3-5 and that is arrogant, etc.

Sensitive Protestants who don’t want to be arrogant find that argument powerful and persuasive; coupled with disillusionment of the lack of unity in Protestant circles and the lack of historical grounding and knowledge of the early church and church history; and the desire for liturgy, ceremony, ritual, art, mystery.

If you want the Roman Catholic church to give you that feeling of security that you know you are in the right church; that’s your choice; but it seems like a method of creating doubt that could be used about anything. I think that Michael Patton’s article makes a good point that the constant questioning of “how do you know?” will drive people to act like the character in the movie, “What about Bob?”

The protestant can be confident about his church, interpretations, knowledge, etc. without being arrogant. We can trust God and the Scriptures.
Bryan Cross October 13th, 2009 2:29 pm :
Ken, (re: #182),

Regarding whether the concept of being justified by faith alone was a “totally new concept” in the sixteenth century, we need to be careful not to equivocate, because the “alone” has a different with-respect-to-whatness in the two cases. The Fathers, as I mentioned, were speaking of living faith, i.e. faith informed by agape. We are justified (initially) not by works of the Law, but by faith-informed-by-agape, and this [i.e. faith-informed-by-agape] is the fruit of the grace we receive in baptism. But the early Protestants took the ‘alone’ [in initial justification] not only to exclude works of the Law, but also to exclude the presence of agape in us as an instrumental cause of our justification. They claimed that we are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. But the Catholic Church believes (and has always believed) that it is agape that makes faith to be living faith, and hence that we cannot be justified by faith that is not informed by agape. That is why last year Pope Benedict said, “For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.” So to claim that these patristic passages give a precedence for “justification by faith alone” [in the Protestant sense] is to equivocate on the ‘alone’. We have discussed this issue in more detail in the “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?” post. This present thread is about hermeneutics and the authority of Scripture. So if you have thoughts or comments about sola fide, I recommend that you comment on that thread, to keep this present thread on topic.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
K. Doran October 13th, 2009 2:48 pm :
Dear Ken,

You said: “It took a long time to declare the defining dogma of the RCC – infallibility of the Pope – 1870 AD; yet the apologetic method of RCs seems to read that back into everything from Irenaeus to Leo I and beyond. Church history is important; but our “distrust” is not of the early biblical church or early “catholic” ( little c) church of the first 5 centuries; but of the medieval and Council of Trent and modern Roman Catholic Church, that has added many things over the centuries to the original deposit and also done many sins and made many arrogant statements. ( Like Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctum – “It is necessary for salvation for every living creature to be in submission to the Roman Pontiff”; and Pius IX: “I am the tradition”)”

Why don’t you read my comment above in #185? And then read the tiny little book that I cite there. It is a very little book. In the time it takes you to make 5 or 6 comments on this website, you could read the entire little book. I don’t think you will claim that we are “reading back into” early church history when we claim that the early church had a belief in papal power.

As far as “sins and arrogant statements” are concerned: God knows that I have many to answer for. But I won’t answer for those of other Catholics. And I won’t accept you speaking as if either we — or the Magisterium — have to answer for the personal sins of other Catholics. Go answer for the sins of other protestants: for the sins of writing distorted histories of the Spanish inquisition, of falsifying quotes from the Fathers, and from bigoted treatment of my ancestors when they came to these shores. And if you don’t think you have to answer for these sins that you didn’t personally commit, then don’t even think about asking us to answer for the sins of some lunatic pope who — while keeping doctrines pure — made himself and all who were in his personal influence impure.

Again:, as far as the purity of the doctrines: why not just read the evidence of early papal power and it’s acceptance North South East and West? It will take you a couple hours. It will do you some good. We’re not “reading” anything back into history. It’s there for whoever wants to see it. The early Church believed that it was necessary to be in communion with the Pope of Rome to be a full member of the Catholic Church. The Church still believes this, and still teaches it. Boniface’s statement is a badly worded combination of: (a) there is no ordinary salvation outside the Church; and (b) Ordinarily, you have to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome in order to be in the Catholic Church. Both (a) and (b) are amply supported by patristic evidence. However bad Boniface’s wording was, there was in his statement a _germ_ of truth that the early Church would never have denied.

Sincerely,

K. Doran
Bryan Cross October 13th, 2009 3:36 pm :
Ken, (re: #187)

St. Irenaeus’s statement means exactly what it says: “For it is a matter of necessity that every [particular] Church should agree with this [particular] Church [i.e. the Church at Rome], on account of its preeminent authority.” It means that every Church and every Christian should agree with the Church at Rome, on account of its preeminent authority. St. Irenaeus is not saying that the reason everyone should agree with the Church at Rome is because it teaches his own interpretation of Scripture, or what he thinks is the correct interpretation of Scripture. Rather, for St. Irenaeus, the preeminent authority of that Church wherein Peter’s chair resides, is the very standard for the authoritative interpretation of Scripture and what is the Apostolic Tradition.

In his preface to Book III, he shows that it is through the Church that we know and receive the Apostolic Tradition, writing, “you shall have from me a very copious refutation of all the heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shall you resist them in defence of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons.” For St. Irenaeus, those who reject the Church’s teachings are rejecting the Apostles. And those who reject the Apostles are rejecting Christ. And those who reject Christ are rejecting God the Father.

In the second chapter of Book III, he writes, “But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, …” showing that the deposit of faith is preserved by means of succession from the Apostles. He says the same thing again in chapter 3, immediately before the original quotation that I cited. He writes:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.

Again, St. Ireneaus is saying that the guarantee of the Apostolic Tradition is the succession of the bishops. The Gnostics cannot trace their lines back to the Apostles. But the particular Churches of the Catholic Church can do so. And the most important particular Church, founded by the two most glorious apostles (Peter and Paul) preserves the Apostolic faith by way of apostolic succession, because in the following paragraph St. Irenaeus lays out the succession from Peter to bishop of Rome at the time St. Ireneaus is writing:

Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Here he is pointing out that the present bishop of the Church at Rome, Eleutherius, holds the inheritance of the episcopate. And by this succession from Peter to Eleutherius, the tradition from the Apostles has come down to Christians (St. Irenaeus being the bishop of Lyon, in present day France, at the time he was writing this.) And in chapter 4, he again says that the Apostolic Tradition is found in the Church, writing:

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

The Catholic Church is, he says, the entrance to life, because the Apostolic deposit is found in its fullness only in the Catholic Church. All others who claim to give us a message about what Christ taught, or what the Apostles taught, are thieves and robbers. They have not come through the Church, or been authorized by those whom the Apostles authorized, to hand on the Apostolic testimony. Even if the Apostles had not written anything down, we would still know the deposit of faith by way of apostolic succession, to follow the course of tradition handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches. And the same is true regarding the interpretation of Scripture. We ought not follow just anyone in their interpretation of Scripture, but only those having the authorization coming down from the Apostles, i.e. only those having apostolic succession.

So when we get to this opening line in chapter five, it must not be taken out of the context of the preceding four chapters. Consider again then, what St. Irenaeus says at the beginning of chapter 5:

Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, (John 14:6) and that no lie is in Him.

He is not there advocating some form of solo scriptura. On the contrary, he is urging his reader to see and understand what the Apostles wrote in light of the Apostolic tradition handed down in the Apostolic Churches. And that is exactly what the Catholic Church has always believed and taught, and continues faithfully to believe and teach to this very day.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
roma victor October 13th, 2009 4:32 pm :
Bryan said,

“St. Irenaeus’s statement means exactly what it says: “For it is a matter of necessity that every [particular] Church should agree with this [particular] Church [i.e. the Church at Rome], on account of its preeminent authority.”

…

He is not there advocating some form of solo scriptura. On the contrary, he is urging his reader to see and understand what the Apostles wrote in light of the Apostolic tradition handed down in the Apostolic Churches.

What is so ironic is the fact that it is precisely because of fringe groups of Christians spread throughout the empire then (in what can be considered as an early application of Sola Scriptura) that made concurrence with Rome and Apostolic Succession such a vital necessity since there were so many current and newly emerging groups of Christians (as Christianity was beginning to take hold of certain vast areas in the empire as it gained momentum) who were misinterpreting Scripture with ideas all their own.
K. Doran October 13th, 2009 7:11 pm :
Dear Mark,

You said: “If indeed one church were to hold that position anyway. For example, did you know that there were all kinds of varieties of churches in the early Church? Charismatics even! For all we know, the Charismatics may be the closest thing we have today to the church that Jesus established. Imagine that! It wouldn’t surprise me at all. In regards to your statement about “a house divided against itself” Jesus was referring to the relationships of Satan and his demons. So I am not sure how is relates exactly. But the way the church conquered Rome was clearly not because of its unity, it was deeply fractuous, but rather through the love of Christ to one man, Constantine. ”

Mark, the early Church was deeply connected, throughout the world, well before Constantine. When Rome condemned a heresy, it was condemned everywhere. When the Church of Rome asked for it, local councils were held everywhere simultaneously to convene on the question of Easter. Rome heard appeals. Rome issued judgments based on these appeals. Even the people who argued with Rome when they were angry with her judgments usually stayed orthodox and in her communion because they knew (and taught by their own words) that being in communion with Rome meant being in the Catholic Church. The early Christians that we know about today, whose writings and lives we revere, called themselves “Catholics.” This is because they were part of a universal Church, and this is how they distinguished themselves from ruthless and disorganized heretics — who you would not want to be associated with, trust me.

When I started practicing my Faith again a few years ago I always assumed that I would find lots of evidence for early Protestants, and that the “development of doctrine” would need to be called upon to explain how the true Church became Catholic from its apparently protestant roots. I assumed that the only justification for this schism would be such evidence. I’m still waiting for the evidence. I can’t find the early Protestants. I see (1) Catholics, (2) moral people who were still not at all Christian in the Catholic or protestant sense, and (3) crazed immoral heretics. I can’t find the protestants, and I don’t think they existed.

You should read again what I wrote above about the necessity of being in the one true Church. The early Church taught this necessity, and that is why we still preach it.

Sincerely,

K. Doran

By the way, no one has answered Wilkins’ question up in #161, as far as I can tell. I thought it was important, and someone should answer it.
roma victor October 13th, 2009 7:22 pm :
K. Doran:

Concerning Easter, I should point out that one of the striking examples of how Rome held prominent authority even during these days is the fact that churches in Asia held Easter right at Passover unlike churches in the West which held it on the following Sunday.

Note that Pope Victor I needed only threaten those in the East with excommunication (in the immediate context, it meant — as it does even now — being cut off in Communion with Rome) if they should continue celebrating it in that very manner; the asian churches, of course, did conform.
Teri October 13th, 2009 8:05 pm :
Matt Y., Bryan, Tim, K.Doran, and all of the CTC authors,

You guys may need to correct me, but doesn’t the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel point to Rome? If the “Rock that is not cut by any human hand” is Our Lord and the Apostle Peter, whom He referred to as “Rock” holds these keys – it clearly shows the last Kingdom is Rome and that Our Lord established His kingdom there.

Daniel 2
“44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever; 45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. ” RSV-CE

Blessings,
Teri
Ken Temple October 13th, 2009 8:19 pm :
Bryan,
thanks for the posts on Sola Fide. Someone else mentioned the issue, so that is why I tried to show at least some evidence from early church history for it. But you are right that that is not the main subject of the article by Matt Yonke.

Most of my other posts here are about the subject of the canon and Sola Scriptura and hermeneutics; so I will go there to ask about the meaning of “faith in charity” there.
Ken
Ken Temple October 13th, 2009 8:53 pm :
Bryan,
On Irenaeus’ statement in AH 3:3:2 –

Here is the footnote 3313 to Irenaeus Against Heresies, 3:3:2 about Rome; and “a more potent principle” (capital of the Empire, powerful) and he says “every church resorts to her”. Anyway, the point is that there is scholarly debate over what Irenaeus meant.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.
Ken Temple October 13th, 2009 9:28 pm :
He is not there advocating some form of solo scriptura.

That is true; but he is indicating some of primitive form of Sola Scriptura in principle; as there is no contradiction between apostolic teaching/apostolic deposit/apostolic tradition and Scripture. If the apostles taught it orally, then everything that was necessary for us to know was written down in the Scriptures. (note the difference between Solo and Sola; see Keith Matthison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura.

On the contrary, he is urging his reader to see and understand what the Apostles wrote in light of the Apostolic tradition handed down in the Apostolic Churches.

Again, there is no contradiction between apostolic tradition and the Scriptures. The later traditions of the Roman Catholic Church are not apostolic, they are additions and corruptions.

And that is exactly what the Catholic Church has always believed and taught, and continues faithfully to believe and teach to this very day.

It claims that, and claims that Marian dogmas and indulgences and purgatory and the treasury of merit and infallibility are apostolic, but they were not apostolic at all. Infant baptism was not apostolic. (see “Baptism in the Early Church, by Professors Hendrick F. Stander and Johannes P. Louw; Carey Publications, Reformation Today Trust, 2004. Two Paedo-baptist Protestants who admit that infant baptism did not become the dominant view until the 4th Century.) They were slowly developed over centuries, adding, contradicting, and corrupting the original deposit in RCC teaching.
Bryan Cross October 13th, 2009 9:30 pm :
Ken, (re: #199)

If your point is that the passage is disputed by scholars, then I do not deny it. As someone in academics myself, I’ve learned that pretty much everything in academics is now ‘disputed’ — even infanticide and bestiality are now disputed, thanks to professors like Peter Singer at Princeton. So the fact that this passage is “disputed” by certain scholars proves nothing, just as the fact that the authenticity of Scripture is disputed by many scholars proves nothing. In many cases it shows that that scholar simply doesn’t want it to be true, or has an agenda against it.

However, the Church has always known exactly what St. Irenaeus was saying. It has never been a dispute within the Church. The contemporary dispute is just that, a contemporary one by those who have abandoned the Church’s Tradition, and so are left groping in the dark to try to understand the ‘opaque’ meaning of St. Irenaeus’s words. Jesus didn’t entrust the Church to a succession of scholars, but to a succession of bishops. And in the light given to us through the Apostolic Tradition those bishops have handed down to us, what St. Irenaeus is saying is perfectly clear.

He is most definitely not saying that Christians outside of Rome are responsible for the orthodoxy of the Church at Rome. That would be to flip upside down precisely what he is saying. He is saying that the Church at Rome possesses the standard of orthodoxy to which all other Churches must conform, on account of her preeminent authority. In this case, the Protestant (who wrote this footnote) is revealing his bias. His theology is distorting the words of St. Irenaeus, apparently to avoid its obvious implications.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Ken Temple October 13th, 2009 9:52 pm :
Thanks Teri –

They are all extremely knowledgeable regarding the doctrines of the Reformed faith – most having grown up in the faith and/or graduated from a Reformed Seminary.

Yes, I can see that they are all very knowledgable and gifted and have a very formidable web-site here. They make their arguments with a good tone.

However, Jerry Matatics, Scott Hahn, and Robert Sungenis were all former Presbyterian/Reformed guys also. I have listened to and watched all of Matatics and Sungenis debates with Dr. James White and Dr. White definitely won the debates on substance and the issues.

Sometimes it’s a good idea to let them answer the questions you pose or respond to your statements before you continuing posting.

You are right here! There is just too much to write in response to this issue! I am too wordy and not gifted at conciseness.

It’s aptly named “Called To Communion” because they are committed to that unity that Our Lord prayed for.

That is good – John 17:20-23. But the RCC itself caused the dis-unity by leaving the gospel and the Scriptures. Even Peter Kreeft admitted this. (see below)

Unity at the expense of truth is the great concern of Protestants like me and others who see the desire for unity has caused some to abandon the truth of the Scriptures and principles like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and Sola Gratia (Grace alone saves and makes the dead sinner alive; the will of the unregenerate is in bondage and cannot believe until God changes the heart). True Unity only comes with agreement on the truth. The unity of the Spirit – Ephesians 4:1 ff – is a unity around the one Spirit and the one truth of the gospel.

Peter Kreeft wrote:
“How do I resolve the Reformation? Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and good works? Very simple. No tricks. On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial. As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel.”

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0028.html
Bryan Cross October 13th, 2009 10:49 pm :
Ken, (re: #200, 202)

It is the mark of wisdom to deliberate carefully, patiently, and in an ordered way. Sophistry, by contrast, is scattered in many places at once, entirely disordered and haphazard, and so cannot think carefully or clearly about anything, or reach the truth through deliberation. Here at CTC, we want to foster a context in which not only our tone, but our method as well, is that of wisdom, not sophistry. So while we could talk about the Marian dogmas, purgatory, indulgences, the treasury of merit, infallibility and infant baptism in a thread focused specifically on hermeneutics and the authority of Scripture, we aren’t going to do so. That would be to descend into the usual type of exchanges that take place all over the internet, are of little value, and have nothing to do with a careful, focused, charitable, sincere and mutual pursuit of the truth. The conversation would not be profitable or productive, and it would not be the way of wisdom, by which we could be led to mutual agreement. So, let me ask you to keep your comments on topic. Here we’re not interested in scoring points or ‘winning’ debates. We are pursuing unity with our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we’re doing so by pursuing the truth together. We do not desire “unity at the expense of truth.” Here’s a line from our very first post in February, “We believe that genuine unity comes through truth and never by forsaking or compromising the truth.” (“Welcome to Called to Communion“)

Regarding the claim by Kreeft (written in the late 80s, I believe, when he was a relatively new convert), he was mistaken in that regard, without qualifying his statement to treat only of initial justification. I have a great deal of respect for Peter Kreeft, but he is not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. (And if I recall correctly, Kreeft has since retracted that statement, but I don’t remember where I read that.)

One other thing, just as a matter of housekeeping/procedure. If you are quoting someone else’s comments, please put the other person’s comments in italics (or blockquoted), and leave your own comments in plain font. That’s the pattern that we’ve adopted here, and it would be helpful if we can be consistent with that pattern, for the ease of our readers, and to avoid confusion. Thanks!

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Ken Temple October 13th, 2009 11:25 pm :
Bryan,
Thanks for letting me know about the quoting procedure; I did not know. I don’t know how to do the blockquoted (with white spacing, I am assuming) – I like that even better; it is easy on the eyes.

I sincerely do not understand why you think mentioning some of the other RCC traditions that Protestants have trouble with (below) is off topic; or is “Sophistry”.

So while we could talk about the Marian dogmas, purgatory, indulgences, the treasury of merit, infallibility and infant baptism in a thread focused specifically on hermeneutics and the authority of Scripture, we aren’t going to do so. . . . So, let me ask you to keep your comments on topic.

From a Protestant perspective, when you are raising the issues of the Authority of Scripture, hermeneutics, and ask the question, “how do you know?” about the canon, and then make claims about church authority claims of the RCC; I honestly don’t see how you can say to mention those things is off limits; and I don’t understand how it is sophistry; especially when the discussion comes to Irenaeus and what he thought was the apostolic deposit or tradition. Since we both agree with each other against Gnosticism, and that is the main group of heresies that Irenaeus is speaking against, and RCC apologetics uses Ireneaus’ method of appealing to apostolic succession and the bishops and presbyters and the statement we talked about concerning the church in Rome ( “a more potent principle” or “pre-eminent authority” in AH 3:3:2).

None of those things are taught by Irenaeus, which is the point that his argument against the Gnostics was that the doctrine of God as creator, father, and good; and in all the apostolic churches; and not like the Gnostic Demi-urge; is fully compatible with Protestantism. His rule of faith is fully compatible with Protestantism (conservative, Biblical; not talking about liberals, they don’t count.)

His appeal to the apostolic deposit in the churches at that time is fully compatible with Protestant teaching. Irenaeus is not claiming that the church can later in history add other things; as the RCC does.

Seems unfair to say “you cannot mention those issues”; as they are some of the very issues that are at the heart of the debate of hermeneutics and the authority of Scripture, etc. between RCC and Protestants.

Do you deny that the RCC claims that those things are part of the unwritten apostolic deposit that came out later in the worship and piety and life of the Church?

If the RCC claims them as apostolic, then I don’t see how you can exclude them from discussion, since they touch on the issue directly.

If you can show me why those things are off topic; then I will stop. Help me understand.
Ken Temple October 13th, 2009 11:30 pm :
I am sure that Peter Kreeft wished he did not write that; but he did. I understand that he probably qualified it later. Still, it is fair game and I don’t see why it cannot be used as evidence of the reasons for the disunity and the break with Rome in the Protestant Reformation.
wilkins October 13th, 2009 11:59 pm :
hey Ken,

i see via Google that you’ve been using that quotation from Kreeft for a long time: do you believe that Kreeft would agree with your interpretation of his quotation? do you believe it matters whether he agrees with your interpretation of his text?

i’m wondering what connection (if any) exists between that text and your interpretation and whether (and to what extent) any such connection can be judged either authentic or inauthentic.

one of the specific points that Matt Yonke makes in his article is that ‘text-as-final-arbiter’ is incoherent precisely because a text can’t tell us whether someone’s interpretation of it is accurate. i believe you’re Kreeft quotation demonstrates Yonke’s thesis. you’re interpreting Kreeft’s text to support your claim that Catholicism abandoned the gospel and the scriptures. because that’s such a bold claim, and because you make it with (what seems like) licensed temerity, i thought i’d ask you to explain why it is that i should believe your interpretation of the Kreeft text is accurate.

text-as-sole-arbiter: does a position like that have some internal mechanism by which it can determine which interpretations of the text are certainly right or wrong? or are we, as Mark said above (#157), deadlocked in undecidability/aporia, everything fallible and without final authority?
Bryan Cross October 14th, 2009 12:28 am :
Ken, (re: #204,205)

In order to reason about something effectively, it is essential to be focused and ordered. If you look at our “Note to Readers,” you will see that we are approaching these subjects according to a systematic order. And so this requires patience and a measured approach to these various doctrinal disagreements.

A pertinent subject underlying the discussion of the other doctrines you mention is the concept of the development of doctrine, and how development is distinct both from novelty (i.e. “addition”) and corruption. But we have not covered that subject yet (that’s a bit down the road on the schedule), and so it would be premature at this point to discuss purgatory and the Marian dogmas, etc.

You claim that St. Irenaeus’ appeal to the apostolic deposit in the churches at that time is fully compatible with Protestant teaching. But that is not true, because part of the rule of faith, for St. Irenaeus, is to keep full communion with that Church having preeminent authority, i.e. the Church at Rome. No Protestant (as Protestant) affirms that. In addition, no Protestant (as Protestant) can affirm what St. Irenaeus says below:

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God— namely, strange doctrines— shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud. Leviticus 10:1-2 But such as rise up in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, [shall] remain among those in hell (apud inferos), being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Chore, Dathan, and Abiron. Numbers 16:33 But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did. (AH IV.26)

Why can’t Protestants (as Protestants) affirm that? Because Protestants themselves abandoned apostolic succession, denying those having the “certain gift of truth”, departing from the primitive succession and following others who were self-appointed ‘authorities’ who assemble any place whatsoever, without permission of the bishop (as St. Ignatius of Antioch in AD 107 had stated was not permitted). The first Protestants did precisely what St. Irenaeus condemns.

And St. Irenaeus also affirmed that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, and that it is a sacrifice wherever it is offered. He affirmed baptismal regeneration. He affirmed that we can merit from God. He affirmed the need for confession of sins (to the Church, not just privately to God). These are things Protestants do not affirm. So it is just not true that St. Irenaeus’ appeal to the apostolic deposit in the churches at that time is “fully compatible with Protestant teaching.” The very opposite is true.

As for the Kreeft statement, you wrote:

I understand that he probably qualified it later. Still, it is fair game and I don’t see why it cannot be used as evidence of the reasons for the disunity and the break with Rome in the Protestant Reformation.

It would be “fair game,” if we were playing a game. But we (here at CTC) are not playing a game. We are pursuing truth, and that’s an entirely different activity. A person’s statement is not ipso facto evidence that the statement is true; it is in itself evidence only that the person, at one time, believed it to be true. And no one is disputing that Kreeft at one time believed his statement to be true. So, for that reason, Kreeft’s statement is not evidence either for Catholicism or for Protestantism. That’s why using it in this discussion is engaging in sophistry, i.e. trying to “score points.” You are used to years of this stuff at other sites. We don’t do that here. So it may be very difficult for you to adjust to our approach here. You may need to step back and read through our past posts, and get a feel for how we are proceeding. I have discussed the distinction between sophistry and true philosophy (i.e. pursuit of wisdom and truth) in my post titled “On Imitations and the Gospel.”

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
K. Doran October 14th, 2009 9:41 am :
Ken,

You mentioned Saint Athanasius as a sola scriptura believer. Allow me to introduce your friend, Protestant Athanasius, to our friend: Catholic Athanasius. Catholic Athanasius, the floor is yours:

“[H]old fast, every one, the faith we have received from the Fathers, which they who assembled at Nicaea recorded in writing, and endure not those who endeavour to innovate thereon. And however they may write phrases out of the Scripture, endure not their writings; however they may speak the language of the orthodox, yet attend not to what they say; for they speak not with an upright mind, but putting on such language like sheeps’ clothing, in their hearts they think with Arius, after the manner of the devil, who is the author of all heresies. For he too made use of the words of Scripture, but was put to silence by our Saviour. . . . Had these expositions of theirs proceeded from the orthodox, from such as the great Confessor Hosius, and Maximinus of Gaul, or his successor , or from such as Philogonius and Eustathius , Bishops of the East , or Julius and Liberius of Rome, or Cyriacus of Mœsia , or Pistus and Aristæus of Greece, or Silvester and Protogenes of Dacia, or Leontius and Eupsychius of Cappadocia, or Cæcilianus of Africa, or Eustorgius of Italy, or Capito of Sicily, or Macarius of Jerusalem, or Alexander of Constantinople, or Pæderos of Heraclea, or those great Bishops Meletius, Basil, and Longianus, and the rest from Armenia and Pontus, or Lupus and Amphion from Cilicia, or James and the rest from Mesopotamia, or our own blessed Alexander, with others of the same opinions as these—there would then have been nothing to suspect in their statements,the character of apostolical men is sincere and incapable of fraud. (Circular to Bishops of Egypt and Libya 8; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)”

Ken, there is so much evidence that the Church fathers of the first 400 years of Christianity believed in an ecclesiastical authority that is higher than you do. At some point you need to confront that evidence. It doesn’t appear, from your debates with Dave Armstrong, that you have. And this is probably why you’re posting comments on this thread that have to do with every topic under the sun. You need to spend less time writing comments that are not directly related to the thread, and more time reading (a) the primary sources and (b) short Catholic treatises on patristics.

The papacy is a good place to start (check out the link in comment #185). Also check out Dom John Chapman’s little essay on the first eight general councils. It’s free on google books, I can send you the link if you have trouble finding it.

Lastly, your comment about modern Catholics “reading” our views into Leo I is humorous and silly. Leo I was more ultramontane than the post-Vatican I Church. He cooperated with imperial power to coerce 600 Fathers at Chalcedon to accept and proclaim the only words in that council’s definition of Faith that were actually important to the controversy: two natures. They didn’t want to proclaim this (they wanted to settle on “of two natures,” which the heretic monophysites could agree with). But they agreed to it because he was the head of the Church, and because the emperor and empress at the time were orthodox, and were willing to use imperial power to chastise the heterodox (whom they personally defined to be anyone who disagreed with Leo I). No, Ken, we’re not reading anything into Leo I. Or if we are, then we’re reading him as less of a unrepentant papist than he really was.

Sincerely,

K. Doran
Ken Temple October 14th, 2009 12:21 pm :
Bryan wrote:

A pertinent subject underlying the discussion of the other doctrines you mention is the concept of the development of doctrine, and how development is distinct both from novelty (i.e. “addition”) and corruption. But we have not covered that subject yet (that’s a bit down the road on the schedule), and so it would be premature at this point to discuss purgatory and the Marian dogmas, etc.

Ok, fair enough. I read your note to the readers (which I had not before) and I see your point and that you have planned it this way. Very good. Sorry I jumped the gun.

I didn’t mean Peter Kreeft’s quote as “playing a game”, by the phrase “fair game” – it is an expression that it is fair to use in following rules. Games have rules; but I agree with you that we are not playing games.

Good quote from Irenaeus AH book 4, 26
Presbyters in the church are a plurality of elders. ( Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) In principle, I agree with this that we should be submissive to our church leaders ( elders, pastors, teachers) and that at that time, as far as teaching against Gnosticism, they were all orthodox, as we Reformed Protestants are also.

Irenaeus used that principle to fight the Gnostic heretics; we would do the same.
Irenaeus believed at that time ( say 180-220 AD) that the succession was not corrupted and that all the apostolic churches taught the doctrines that the apostles handed down. That is true in his arguments against Gnostic heresies.

I guess I don’t see where Irenaeus says that it is a guarantee into the future that the successors will stay on track.

K. Doran mentions Athanasius and the herestic Monosphysites.
We agree with the Nicean Creed, etc. and that Arius was wrong and a heretic. That he used Scripture and twisted it is no doubt, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do today.

Today the coptic church is monophysite and derived their episcopal authority directly from Athansius to Cyril and his successcors later rejected the Chalcedonian decree.

They were the presybeters in the church – how did the Coptic church and the other eastern churches, both monophysite and Nestorian go wrong? (for example, for Egypt, since they had the presbyter/episcopal successsion also from Athanasius) ?? Other churches derived their episcopal succession from Antioch and Jerusalem; what happened to them?

At the end of the Athansius quote he mentions character of the bishops and apostolic men. This is important. On the issue of infallibility, the RCC apologists seem to discount character and say “infalliblity is only about that the popes cannot formally teach heresy; it is not about their moral lives and it does not mean “impeccability”.

Thanks K. Doran for the details about Leo I and his using state power to force the Chalcedonian Creed – I admit I need to read more about that; and that information is helpful to me – it shows me that he harshness of the “orthodox party” possibly started here that lead to the Egyptian and Syrian and other eastern churches welcoming the Muslims as liberators.

–is that not the beginning of the harshness of the Chalcedonian Emperors ( Theodosius to Justinian and beyond) that caused the Greeks and the east to “welcome the Arab Muslims as liberators from their Chalcedonian oppressors” ??
Ken Temple October 14th, 2009 12:32 pm :
that caused the Greeks and the east to “welcome the Arab Muslims as liberators from their Chalcedonian oppressors” ??

that is a mistake, should not have “Greeks” there, as if the Orthodox in Constantinople welcomed the Arabs, they did not.

Probably should be something like:
that caused the eastern churches, Coptic, Syrian/Levant in the east to “welcome the Arab Muslims as liberators from their Chalcedonian oppressors” ??
Ken Temple October 14th, 2009 12:45 pm :
Anyone -

regarding my question and points in # 168 and # 186, which are directly related to the article and subject about 2 Timothy 3:15-17, when it was written, and Matt Yonke’s statement that “most of the NT was unwritten at the time of Paul’s writing”; no one has addressed that yet; and yet that was on subject.
Tim A. Troutman October 14th, 2009 1:37 pm :
Ken – most of us work full time. You’re posting a lot of material and we can’t answer everything in a timely manner. Please have patience with us and also, understand that this is not a debate forum. There are other sites for that sort of thing.
Tim A. Troutman October 14th, 2009 1:47 pm :
168 – the canon developed as a list of books which could be read in the liturgy particularly in response to heretical lists such as Marcion’s. It was not conceived of as an idea to collect books on which to base the Christian religion. That idea would be anachronistic.

186 – same thing. A book cannot be “canon” by definition of the word canon. Canon means list and a book is not part of a list until that list is drawn up. This is a separate question as to whether it was inspired or not; obviously the list did not make the books inspired but rather recognized the ones that were.
K. Doran October 14th, 2009 1:59 pm :
Hi Ken,

You said: “Today the coptic church is monophysite and derived their episcopal authority directly from Athansius to Cyril and his successcors later rejected the Chalcedonian decree. They were the presybeters in the church – how did the Coptic church and the other eastern churches, both monophysite and Nestorian go wrong? (for example, for Egypt, since they had the presbyter/episcopal successsion also from Athanasius) ?? Other churches derived their episcopal succession from Antioch and Jerusalem; what happened to them?”

You’re right — the only individual see that has never formally taught heresy at it’s highest level is the see of Rome. The early church taught that heresy could never worm its way into this see. In Pope Leo I’s time, the way that some people worded this idea was too general, and hence could be interpreted as too extreme. For example, consider taking literally what Peter Chrysologus said in the build-up to Chalcedon: “We exhort you to attend obediently in all things to all that is written by the most blessed Pope of the city of Rome. For blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, grants the truth of the faith to those who ask him.” You will see that this is not what a modern Catholic would say, post Vatican I at least. Our modern statements of papal infallibility are less general, and hence less subject to confusion or abuse!

You said: “that [t]he harshness of the “orthodox party” possibly started here that caused the eastern churches, Coptic, Syrian/Levant in the east to “welcome the Arab Muslims as liberators from their Chalcedonian oppressors””

There’s a lot that could be said here, especially about the words “started,” “harshness,” and “liberators.” But this is a topic that is completely off the main discussion. If you’re interested in learning more, email me at: KBDh02 ‘at’ yahoo ‘dot’ com

In the mean time, please attend to what Bryan and the others have written, and — I urge you — don’t bring up “gotcha” historical points, either explicitly or implicitly.

Sincerely,

K. Doran
Ken Temple October 14th, 2009 2:23 pm :
Tim,
I appreciate that; that most of you work full time and it takes time to answer in a timely manner.

My questions are similar to the discussion between rfwhite and several of you above about “existence of the canon vs. recognition of the canon. He said it better than I could.

I wish he would come back into the discussion.

Also it relates to the ongoing leading of the Spirit in the church, apostolic succession, and developement of doctrine and authority to interpret the text infallibly. The RCC sees things as still open (Bible + something more, ie, infallible interpretations of the RCC Magisterium); whereas Protestants see it as closed ( Jude 3 seems to indicate this; as does Hebrews 1:1-3 and Rev. 22:18 (in principle).

But, still what about the statement that Matt Y. made that most of the NT was unwritten at the time of Paul’s writing ? (context in the discussion is 2 Timothy 3:15-16)

This is important because it seems Paul expands from the OT in verse 15 to all Scripture, including the New in verse 16 (even though some books have not been written yet. I Timothy 5:18 shows Matthew and Luke were already written by then. Mark surely was; all of Paul’s epistles were; Acts was written by 61 AD (internal evidence shows this). So most of the NT was written by 67 AD, when Paul wrote 2 Timothy right before his martyrdom.

Canon later came to mean “list” , but the meaning of the word was “criterion”, “standard”, “rule”, “principle”, “law”. The standard was the apostolic authorship (or associated with an apostle); internal content/quality of doctrine/inspiration; and universal use among the churches spread throughout the empire. Right?
Tim A. Troutman October 14th, 2009 2:49 pm :
I was sorry to see RFWhite didn’t stick around.

The RCC sees things as still open (Bible + something more, ie, infallible interpretations of the RCC Magisterium);

It depends on what you mean “still open.” We do not believe in new public revelation, only that God will use His Church as a protector of the deposit once delivered, not for the destruction of it. We do not believe that “infallibility”, per se, is closed.

But, still what about the statement that Matt Y. made that most of the NT was unwritten at the time of Paul’s writing ? (context in the discussion is 2 Timothy 3:15-16)

This seems to be a question for the academy. I would agree with you that most of the NT was written by 67 AD but, as you know, the majority of scholars would not agree. This is secondary to Matt’s point though, and it still stands. Paul wasn’t appealing to a canon as a sole authority for Christians.

As for the etymology of the word ‘canon’, I don’t know it. I’ll take your word for how it developed. The point is that as we use the word now, canon means list. When we speak of the canon of the Scripture, “list” is what we mean – not inspiration. Those are separate terms in modern usage.
wilkins October 14th, 2009 3:12 pm :
Ken,

you can also go to Google Books, put “God’s Word” in the search box, click on the book authored by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger by that title (it’s the one at top of list) and read pages 22-39 to learn a great deal about succession from the Catholic perspective.

as for dating NT books, Tim’s right on—you’re focused like a laser beam on a date, but Yonke’s argument doesn’t stand or fall on a strict date… in other words, you’re not addressing Yonke’s argument. Yonke makes an explicit case why the approach you’re taking to the Scripture is itself unscriptural, right?

best,
w
Tom Riello October 14th, 2009 3:34 pm :
Ken,

I concur with Tim about the dating of the NT and would also echo that this is secondary to Matt’s point. That being said, when you list the criteria you mention Apostolic authorship or an association with an Apostle. Now, of course, we agree that this is important. But where we differ is this and it is important; we only know this from the tradition. That is to say, the tradition tells us who the Gospel writers are (Papias and others). Thus, the criteria you use to determine what books comprise the New Testament is indebted to the tradition. It is not enough to say Matthew the Apostle wrote the Gospel of Matthew for the simple fact that we do not know that save from the tradition. Now you may respond that you do not argue against all traditions but only those that are not biblical. My response to that anticipated rebuttal would be that the authorship of the Gospels is not a biblical tradition but an extra-biblical tradition. Thus, then Cardinal Ratzinger can say in reference to the historical-critical method that it does, “not stand in some neutral area, above or outside the history of the Church; rather the faith of the Church is a form of sympathia without which the Bible remains a closed book.” I think this matter of fact, take for granted approach to Gospel authorship is problematic on many levels. The saddest is the case of the scholar Bart Ehrman, who after having graduated Moody Bible Institute, went to Princeton to continue his studies. While there his bubble was burst concerning these types of issues (there were others besides the question of authorship of the Gospels). He says, “if your faith is rooted in a belief in the Bible, in a literal understanding of the Bible, and that gets taken away from you, then what do you have left? You either have to change the way you believe or you have to give up your belief.”
Ken Temple October 14th, 2009 3:43 pm :
This seems to be a question for the academy. I would agree with you that most of the NT was written by 67 AD but, . . .

Glad to see that you would agree here.

as you know, the majority of scholars would not agree.

Depends on the scholar – if they are unbelieving and liberal, in my book, they don’t count.

Do you think it is ok to believe that 2 Peter was not really written by Peter himself before his martyrdom in 67 AD under Nero? or that John did not write Revelation and that Paul did not write Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles; and that might push the dates of these books into the 150s AD??

This is secondary to Matt’s point though, and it still stands.

Actually, the point about existence vs. recognition and that Paul is expanding from the OT in verse 15 to the NT also in verse 16 does directly relate to the argument. Especially when Paul quotes from Luke 10:7 and Matthew 10:10 as Scripture; this shows it includes the NT also.

Paul wasn’t appealing to a canon as a sole authority for Christians.

But he was appealing to the quality of inspiration or being “God-breathed”, which pointed to the criterion or standard or rule or principle by which the canon was recognized, would you not agree?

Since only the Scriptures are God-breathed, and all of them are, then they were “canon” (standard, criterion, rule, law, principle) when they were written. So, he teaches Sola Scriptura in principle, even if some books were not written yet. ( Hebrews 68 AD – close to that time; 2 Peter in 67 AD before he was martryed by Nero; and Peter in that epistle affirms all of Paul’s letters as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. Jude, 80 AD ( ?) Personally, I believe there is strong evidence that all of John’s writings were written before 70 AD also.
Tom Riello October 14th, 2009 3:52 pm :
Ken,

If you could get around to addressing the question of Gospel authorship that I asked I would appreciate it. Of course, at your convenience.
Ken Temple October 14th, 2009 3:57 pm :
Tim wrote:

Now you may respond that you do not argue against all traditions but only those that are not biblical. My response to that anticipated rebuttal would be that the authorship of the Gospels is not a biblical tradition but an extra-biblical tradition.

Tradition in a neutral sense, “things passed down”; Or just “history”, “historical evidence”. I see no problem here to the Protestant position. Sola Scriptura does not say it has to contain all exhaustive knowledge relevant to historical background and dating, etc. There is no good reason to doubt and be skeptical of these traditions, which the liberals and skeptics do; like Erhman, as you point out.

Question: People say that “Kata Matheion” and “Kata Markon” and “kata Lukan” and “Kata Ioannan” were added to the Greek manuscript copies later. Do we have evidence of manuscripts without those inscriptions and how do you know for sure that they were added later, according to the tradition of Papias, Irenaeus, and Eusebius and others??
Ken Temple October 14th, 2009 4:01 pm :
Tim wrote:

Thus, then Cardinal Ratzinger can say in reference to the historical-critical method that it does, “not stand in some neutral area, above or outside the history of the Church; rather the faith of the Church is a form of sympathia without which the Bible remains a closed book.” I think this matter of fact, take for granted approach to Gospel authorship is problematic on many levels.

I don’t understand the quote from Ratzinger; can you explain it?
Ken Temple October 14th, 2009 4:04 pm :
I learned how to do the blockquote thing by seeing it typed out in the emails that are sent.
Tim A. Troutman October 14th, 2009 4:06 pm :
“Depends on the scholar – if they are unbelieving and liberal, in my book, they don’t count. “

If you stack the population of scholars in your favor, is it a wonder that their consensus agrees with you? There’s a parallel with the Protestant ecclesiological argument here. Like you, I have little to no respect of liberal scholars, but the point stands that as far as historical research goes, most scholars would agree with what Matt said even though you and I don’t.

Since only the Scriptures are God-breathed, and all of them are, then they were “canon” (standard, criterion, rule, law, principle) when they were written.

Let’s get on the same page about the word “canon” or just stop using it. It means ‘list’ in English and that’s the language Matt was using in his paper. Furthermore, your rebuttal still side-steps the issue. This sort of equivocation is not pursuant to unity.
Matt October 14th, 2009 4:09 pm :
Ken, Thank you for your answer (#84). I like your biblical passages and the call to preach the gospel to all throughout all nations. It is good to see you here. Keep the faith, and keep honing the gospel skill a la Ephesians 6.
roma victor October 14th, 2009 5:05 pm :
Since only the Scriptures are God-breathed, and all of them are, then they were “canon” (standard, criterion, rule, law, principle) when they were written.

Again, just which books?

If you had any learning in ecclesial history, you would’ve known that depending on what province you visited, there were variously conflicting canons.

For example, many such provinces rejected Revelations, Jude, 2nd and 3rd John, Hebrews as part of Scripture.

Hermeneutics and the Authority of Scripture

393 comments Leave a comment »

393 comments
Leave a comment »