I have been recently contemplating the nature of the evidence concerning the claims of Rome, and asking myself this question: what is the linchpin of Romanist claims? Surely, it is the Petrine succession argument for the Popes. Without an ironshod succession from Peter to Benedict XVI, there is no sacramental magisterial authority at all. It does no good at this point to claim that the apostolic succession can be legitimated without the Papal succession, since the Papal succession is what legitimates all the rest of the succession down to the ordination of priests. If the Papal claims are void, then so are the ordinations that come from a false Papacy.
So, the question then becomes this: is it historically plausible to claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome? We will be delving into this question in the next several posts, and asking the historical questions concerning it. The reason why this question is the easiest to probe is that there is one simple fact that comes into play here: if Romanists use tradition and the Magisterium to settle the question of the authority of tradition and the Magisterium, that is circular. There are many claims that the so-called individualist interpretations of Scripture by Protestants are circular. I would disagree, since the interpretations of the Reformers have a solid basis not only in Scripture itself, but also in the early church fathers. But that is a side point. The point I wish to make here is that this is a historical question, concerning the succession of the Papacy. Therefore, using the Papacy to legitimate the Papacy won’t work. There are a few typos in this article, but I suggest it as initial background reading for the exegetical questions concerning Matthew 16, as well as the historical arguments concerning whether Peter was ever bishop at Rome.
The main point I wish to raise here is the methodological one: on what basis do we evaluate the claims of the Papacy? Here, exegetical questions arise (especially the interpretations of the church fathers, which, as you will see by reading the article, are not in favor of the Romanist claims, as even Roman Catholics have admitted), as well as historical questions. On the historical rise of the Papacy, so far I haven’t found anything more eye-opening than Richard Bennett’s account (chapters 4-6). We will, of course, be examining Romanist accounts of the Papacy as well as Protestant ones.
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
Outlaw Presbyterian said,
July 25, 2012 at 10:45 am
Have you read volume 1 of Schaff’s Church History series? He documents a lot of historical and time-line problems with papal claims.
greenbaggins said,
July 25, 2012 at 11:03 am
OP, have it, but haven’t read it. I have, however, read a number of accounts of the Papacy’s history that document some serious problems to the claims of continuity. But I’ll be sure to look that up in this discussion. Thanks for the heads up.
Austin Britton said,
July 25, 2012 at 11:58 am
For an interesting Eastern Orthodox treatment of the papacy, I would recommend readers look at Laurent A. Cleenewerck’s “His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches”. He treats the issue exegetically, historically, and theologically in a very careful manner.
Seth Stark said,
July 25, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Here is another brief article dealing with Matthew 16 (written by a reformed Presbyterian minister): http://www.graceway.com/articles/article_017.html
Martin said,
July 25, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Also take a look at “The Chair of St. Peter” by William J. La Due, a Roman Catholic author. He seems to want to revive the old debate about councils vs. popes, but his history of the early church in Rome in the early part of the book is interesting.
Frank Aderholdt said,
July 25, 2012 at 4:02 pm
This is not an argument but merely an anecdote from many years of observation. While Protestants mostly speak of “the Lord,” “Jesus,” “the Lord Jesus Christ,” or at least “God,” Roman Catholics invariably speak of “The Church” first. I’ve heart this too many times for it to be an accident. The centrality of the Church as THE mediating institution works its way very deep into the RC consciousness. We who have been Protestant all our lives can scarecely comprehend the hold that The Church has on the average Roman Catholic. It’s their strong tower, their place of refuge, the source of their salvation.
Back to the substance of this discussion: Dr. Michael Kruger’s (RTS Charlotte) ongoing work on the canon is outstanding. His recent four Kistemaker lectures at RTS Orlando are essential listening, as is his book “Canon Revisited.” His arguments not only demolish the old Baur thesis but are just as effective in dealing with traditional RC apologists.
Trent said,
July 25, 2012 at 4:07 pm
I heard that Peter never set foot in Rome…is that true?
Frank Aderholdt said,
July 25, 2012 at 4:26 pm
I’ve been reflecting on my anecdote and connecting it with Lane’s question, “The main point I wish to raise here is the methodological one: on what basis do we evaluate the claims of the Papacy?”
From my limited experience, discussions about Papal claims must take second place to the nature of The Church itself. If The Church (both words capitalized on purpose here) is indeed God’s ordained channel through which all initial, sustaining, and final grace must flow, then the Papacy follows with inescapable logic. For the Roman Catholic, The Church is this awesome superstructure, without which salvation is unthinkable. From before the cradle to beyond the grave, everything must center around the ministrations of The Church. The Pope as “CEO” is the benign Father who assures us that all is well. For the Roman Catholic, the Pope’s visibility is concrete proof that The Church is what she claims to be.
When one comes to see Christ Himself as the center, rather than The Church, the question of the Pope and his authority should answer itself.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 25, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Frank @ 6 – thanks for the input! I’ve had the Kruger book on my “to-read” list for a few months. I’ve just upgraded it to my “currently reading” status. I’ve read some good stuff about canon, and I’m excited to get back into it.
Peace,
Andrew
olivianus said,
July 25, 2012 at 4:59 pm
I wish Reformed people would look into the Theology Proper (Absolute Divine Simplicity) that played a huge role in the development of the Papacy. The Puritans’ Historicism plays into this as well. Edward Moore (St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology) wrote an article on Gnosticism on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Moore says,
“According to the Gnostics, this world, the material cosmos, is the result of a primordial error on the part of a supra-cosmic, supremely divine being, usually called Sophia (Wisdom) or simply the Logos. This being is described as the final emanation of a divine hierarchy, called the Plêrôma or “Fullness,” at the head of which resides ************the supreme God, the One beyond Being***********…Indeed, while the receptive hermeneutical method implies that we have something to learn from a text, the method employed by the Gnostics, which we may call the “revelatory” method, was founded upon the idea **********that they (the Gnostics) had received a supra-cosmic revelation, either in the form of a “call,” or a vision, or even, perhaps, through the exercise of philosophical dialectic****************. This “revelation” was the knowledge (gnôsis) that humankind is alien to this realm, and possesses a “home on high” within the plêrôma, the “Fullness,” where all the rational desires of the human mind come to full and perfect fruition…On this belief, ****************all knowledge belonged to these Gnostics, and any interpretation of the biblical text would be for the purpose of explaining the true nature of things by elucidating the errors and distortions of the Demiurge.**************”
Pseudo Dionysius’ Ecclesiology in his Celestial Hierarchies were designed right off of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. In Dionysius’ 8th Letter he forbids that Deacons correct priests. He says that “even if disorder and confusion should undermine the most divine ordinances and regulations that still gives no right even on God’s behalf to overturn the order which God has himself established.” (Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, pg. 41) Rorem mentions on page 20 of his Pseudo-Dionysius, commenting on Letter 8
“For Dionysius authority and revelation flowed from God down through the angelic beings to the Hierarchs through them it continued down to the priests and to the deacons and finally to the various groups of laity…this pyramid was symbolized in the positions they occupied during the communion service”.
Rorem points out on page 32 that **************Bonaventure gave the pope of Rome the highest place of authority as “a natural extrapolation of Dionysian principles.”************** On page 93 Rorem points out that Dionysius’ Ecclesiastical Hierarchies posited the Hierarchy as the means of salvation. Ergo, outside the Hierarchy there is no salvation. On page 92 Rorem explains that in Dionysius’ Ecclesiastical Hierarchies the Biblical and Liturgical symbols that men are confronted with in this life are anagogical symbols to aid in assent through the Hierarchies. On page 94-95 Rorem explains Dionysius’ Celestial Hierarchies and mentions that the meanings of the Liturgical Symbols are to remain secret from the common man but revealed only to “sacred initiators”. He mentions that man’s knowledge is something accommodated and therefore, this accommodation is why man needs a Hierarchical authority to interpret the truth for him.
Is it too much to say that Van Til and Protestant Scholasticism in toto bought into this Neoplatonic, Absolute Divine Simplicity, without any warrant from Protestant Principles? It was Eck who used this System against Luther in their debate! Is it too much to say that Dr. Gordon Clark pointed out all these issues in his denials of ADS, in his denials of analogies of proportionality, finding all of them to be products of Neoplatonism? Maybe not. Maybe Dr. Gordon Clark’s Epistemology is the only logical way out of Anchorism.
Bryan Cross said,
July 25, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Lane,
You wrote:
Not if in the first case they are used only according to their historical value. Appealing to a divine authority (as such) in order to establish its divine authority — that would be circular. But appealing to historical evidence that also happens to belong to Tradition or Magisterium, in order to determine the authority of the Tradition and the Magisterium, is not circular.
And Stevens begins by saying:
This way of approaching Scripture presupposes “solo scriptura.” If in an attempt to answer a question between Catholicism and Protestantism one makes use of a methodology that presupposes solo scriptura, there is no point going through the exercise. One has already determined the outcome by one’s choice of methodology, and in that respect begged the question against the Catholic position.
Using that solo scriptura methodology, Stevens infers from Mt. 18 the following conclusion regarding Mt. 16:
Even though there are ways of harmonizing Mt. 18 and Mt. 16 that preserve Petrine primacy, Stevens simply concludes that “it is apparent” that those are wrong. Well, that’s his personal interpretation, one among many possible ways of interpreting the meaning and relation of Mt. 16 and 18. But the solo scriptura approach he is using simply begs the question against the Catholic position. He does the same with the Luke 22 passage, using that to conclude that St. Peter was in an inferior position in relation to the other Apostles. Again, the method presupposes solo scriptura, that Scripture is not to be approached through Tradition, but de nuda, and the resulting interpretation is then to be used to critique Tradition.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 25, 2012 at 8:29 pm
It seems to me that the approach of lots of Protestant scholars to Tradition is a bit like that of liberals toward Scripture when it comes to assessing the data.
For example, if a liberal approached Scripture in a purely neutral way and simply collated and evaluated the data on, say, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, he could very easily find a way to sincerely interpret the data as contradictory and therefore false.
The response of the Christian, in my opinion, should not be to say, “Hang on! There is only one way this data can be interpreted, and that is to see it as complementary rather than as contradictory.” Instead, the Christian should say something like, “Yes, you can come to your conclusion that the resurrection never happened honestly, but that conclusion is by no means necessary.”
In other words, Christians bring with us a measure of faith and trust to the Bible rather than suspicion. The Catholics I know seek to bring a similar hermeneutic of trust to the testimony of the early fathers on issues relating to Rome’s claims.
So if it is OK to choose a complementary rather than contradictory interpretation when it comes to Scripture, why is it “circular” for a Catholic to take a similar approach when it comes to Tradition?
And can this question be answered in a way that does not presuppose Sola Scripura?
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 25, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Jason,
If I understand what you are saying, you are comparing the Protestant’s high view of Scripture against the Catholics high view of Tradition.
I think protestants have a pretty clear understanding that we view Scripture as God’s Word because the Holy Spirit convicts us as such.
I don’t know about Catholics, but would a Catholic hold a high view of Tradition because the Holy Spirit convicts them as such?
For further reading, see WCF chapter 1.
Peace,
Andrew
PS it’s very possible this discussion is way over my paygrade…
Frank Aderholdt said,
July 25, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Jason,
I thought that you had already answered that question to your own satisfaction. So why not just tell us rather than ask us? Then we can continue the conversation instead of dancing around the issue.
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 25, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Well, OK. It seems to me that it is pretty arbitrary to fault the liberal for being too suspicious while faulting the Catholic for not being suspicious enough.
Frank Aderholdt said,
July 25, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Now that’s something to chew on, Jason. Got my thinking cap on. I suspect this may be more of an illustration than an argument, but I need to probe deeper. The issue seems to be human autonomy vs. divine authority in the case of the liberal, and our reception of divine authority in the RC/Protestant debate.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 25, 2012 at 9:08 pm
I suppose from what I’ve read, the problem in the 1920’s was that the liberal was rejecting Historic Christianity. I think that’s a harsher charge than simply claiming said liberal is suspicious.
As for the Catholic, I thought the issue Luther uncovered was that the Pope wasn’t infallible.
Infallible is a word Protestants like, especially in connection with Scripture. It’s probably because that Augustinian monk needed something infallbile, since the Pope was no longer.
Having been raised Protestant, and I still accept the label given me since I was born, my personal devotional time in Scripture has only stregthened my conviction about Scripture, and when I read the words of WCF 1, they resonated.
I wonder if Catholic tradition has the same affect for said Catholics? Meaning, does the Catholic, because of the high regard for tradition, get the same sense of God’s presence when reading, say, the Catholic Catechism, as I get when I read Psalm 139:23-24? Obviously there is overlap. I just wonder what the relationship between the Catholic and his tradition looks like, in real life…
greenbaggins said,
July 25, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Jason, I’m intending to move in the direction here of proof. Try a thought experiment. Suppose 45 early church fathers had commented on Matthew 16, the passage about Peter, and suppose not one of them support the Papal claims to be Peter’s successor. What would that do to the claims of the Pope? As a matter of fact, I just read a ROMAN CATHOLIC scholar who admitted point-blank that the early church fathers’ exegesis of Matthew 16 did not in any way support the papal claims of Petrine succession. The question I would have (for you and Bryan, actually) is this: is that Roman Catholic scholar begging the question of sola scriptura, when he came to the same conclusion about the early church fathers as I did?
greenbaggins said,
July 25, 2012 at 9:16 pm
It’s on page 11 of the article I cited, by the way. The Roman Catholic is J.J. Dollinger.
Andrew McCallum said,
July 25, 2012 at 10:02 pm
Jason (re: 12 and 15),
I welcome the critique of the liberals and in many cases they have fair questions. What they are asking us to do is justify the reason for approaching the Scriptures the way we do. What, they ask, are our ground rules, assumptions, and hermeneutical principles for approaching the Scriptures? And of course we ask the same sorts of questions of them.
So in the case of Roman Catholics, we are asking what sorts of assumptions and hermeneutical tools ought to be brought to bear as we interpret the tradition of the Church. And more specifically to the case at hand, how do we interpret the Fathers as they weigh in on the matter of the authority and proper function of the Bishop of Rome? I think that Lane’s point is just that we cannot assume current Roman Catholic dogma as we approach the question.
Bob S said,
July 25, 2012 at 10:32 pm
11. Mr. Cross
Well, that’s his personal interpretation, one among many possible ways of interpreting the meaning and relation of Mt. 16 and 18.
No, that’s just your personal interpretation and a perverted one at that.
But when you finally make your way out of the hall of mirrors and the labyrinth of bizarre hypocritical epistemology you and the CtC crowd affect, the discussion will have moved on, if not that you never really knew what it was about in the first place.
Let me make myself perfectly clear. When Rome appeals to Scripture, everybody says fair enough. It is the common ground for all parties concerned in some shape or fashion. But when we look at the straight forward claim of Scripture and Rome’s claim in light of it, then we say, guess what? Rome appeals to and recognizes – at least nominally – an authority that hardly returns her the favor. Who are you gonna believe?
Yeah, I know the early church fathers, the early church fathers – which in no way unanimously maintained the Roman claims for the chair of Peter that Rome says they did. Funny that.
But hey, if it’s private interpretation and every man is his own epistemological Forgotten Island, then baby, it’s turtles all the way down and there is no way to make sense of the cosmos, never mind this conversation.
IOW it seems to me (I’m in the private interpretation mode, so of course any errors on my part must be charitably excused, reprobate and protestant heretic that I am) that it is the height of arrogant sinfulness to assume your remarks are more perspicuous than Scripture, never mind Rome’s.
Because if you really believe that your remarks are just that, then you need to – respectfully – shut up and stand down.
Of course it would be far better if you would repent and render an abject apology for your hierarchical hubris, in which case we would say there is hope for you yet.
But not if you continue in this same line of bashing private interpretation, all the while asserting the primacy of your own interpretation, much more the perspicuity of your comments and Rome’s over Scripture.
That is the status quaestionis.
Don’t beg it.
Thank you.
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 25, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Lane,
There are so many issues involved in this question, and to be honest, I hardly feel qualified. A couple things I would say are:
(1) If the Catholic case for the papacy depended on all or a majority of the ECFs’ interpretation of Matt. 16, then I’d say you have a smoking gun. But you’d have to show that the evidence you’ve found is indeed relevant to their case.
(2) You’d also have to account for the development in the church’s understanding of the Petrine office. As you may know, someone like Newman would say that until there were actual battles happening between bishops (rather than mere intra-congregational disputes), the need for, and thus a fuller understanding of, the pope’s role was not yet appreciated. To use an example that James White thought was silly (but I think is awesome), if little 6 year-old Jesus of Nazareth couldn’t have given a fully-orbed defense of his mission, then it stands to reason that development in the self-understanding of his mystical Body would also be allowable. Christology drives ecclesiology, is what I’m getting at.
You already know the answer to this. (I just read a PCA minister deny imputation, which must mean it’s not PCA doctrine, right? And my gay Christian friend proves that homosexuality is OK for Christians, right? You get the idea.)
I’ll leave the question-begging stuff to Bryan. But to the degree he is approaching the bare data and seeking to interpret it neutrally with a view from nowhere, is the degree to which he is betraying whatever Catholic ideals he supposedly has.
PS – That last paragraph is what will lay you open to the question-begging charge from Catholics. I’m still wrapping my head around what they’re getting at, but I do think they make a fair point.
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 25, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Andrew,
If I’m not mistaken, you and Liccione have been talking about the preferability of your two distinct interpretive paradigms for years, which makes me loath to start that debate all over.
Bryan Cross said,
July 25, 2012 at 10:53 pm
Lane,
Here’s what Dollinger says:
The problem is that that claim is easily refuted. Here’s one example. Tertullian writes:
Here’s another example. St. Cyprian writes:
“[B]oth baptism is one and the Holy Spirit is one, and the Church founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, by a source and principle of unity, is one also.” (Epistle 69)
And Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, writes,
Jacob, bishop of Nisibis, of Syria (338), writes,
St. Hilary (315-367/68) provides further examples:
St. Basil the Great (330-379) writes:
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 25, 2012 at 11:41 pm
Hi Jason at 22,
Hey, first off, it’s nice to “meet” you, in reading your comments here. I started reading blogs about the time you stepped down from your position as a PCA pastor (as I understand). I hope all is well. The blogosphere was humming with the news of your departure at the time I started poking around.
Me personally, I found the OPC in my freshman year of college in 2001. I’ve personally embraced the Reformed faith, and haven’t looked back. Learning the doctrines of grace was a watershed moment for me, something I treasure deeply. Anyway, that’s me.
Here’s what I’m still thinking about:
“Christology drives ecclesiology, is what I’m getting at.”
Alright, so I’ve started getting into Christology, a little while back. The discussion that Lane has started centers around the basis for the office of the Pope. If we take your words here, where in Christology, if anywhere, do you necessarily see the role of Pope displayed? I certainly don’t see it. But maybe I don’t know where to look…
I was raised fundamentalist baptist, and have never been to a Roman Catholic mass. So I have not yet found a reason, in my studies of Church History, the Bible, or Christology, of why I should start listening to the Pope for me to help understand any rules of faith and practice, as our confession states. Said another way, why should I go read the Pope’s blog or twitter feed, instead of GreenBaggins? I’ve been harsh at times with the people around here, but at the end of the day, I kind of like this place. Do you know of any reasons why I should go hang with the Pope?
I appreciate that you also state, “There are so many issues involved in this question, and to be honest, I hardly feel qualified.”
It seems we both have a lot to learn, and are eager to. I’ll be reading along, I hope you do as well.
Sean said,
July 25, 2012 at 11:53 pm
If I might add to what Bryan said in # 24. Not only do many of those fathers relate the papacy to Matt 16:18, even if they did not explicitly relate the papacy in that single passage, they still held to apostolic succession from chair of St. Peter.
For example, “I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.” Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395)
Or, “The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today.” Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402)
Andrew McCallum said,
July 26, 2012 at 12:15 am
Jason (re:23),
The specific question that Mike L and I have debated is that of the necessity of ecclesiastical infallibility. Mike agrees that a doctrine of infallibility cannot be rigorously developed from the Scriptures or the writings of the Fathers. So his defense of ecclesiastical infallibility is essentially a philosophical one which rests on the argument that there is no way to distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion about revelation without an appeal to an infallible human institution, which is of course for the Catholic theologian is the Church. The arguments for and against this approach rest of different paradigms and perhaps the connection with Lane’s thread here is on this matter of appeal to such paradigms. Mike and I agree that the difference between Catholic and Protestant reflect differing interpretive paradigms but I think Mike and I have been very clear as to what these paradigms are. So as we move into the debate that Lane frames here, the question that we Reformed would have of the Catholics is what interpretive paradigms should be utilized to derive the doctrine of the papacy from the writings of the Fathers. As we speak to Roman Catholics it seems to us that this if often poorly defined.
In the case you brought up of the liberals, we conservatives are quite adamant that we do not assume that either side can come to the debate in a completely neutral manner and analyze raw data with no bias whatsoever. This is impossible we would argue. And for the most intellectually honest liberals I think they will concede this. They are bringing something into the debate. So now as we look at Catholicism we don’t for a minute think that the Roman Catholic scholar approaches the interpretation of the Fathers to gain a doctrine of the papacy in a neutral manner. So how exactly does the Roman Catholic interpret the Fathers in order to come to a proper understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome? This is the sort of question that Lane is asking in #18.
In your example to Lane of Jesus at 6 yrs old, I would say that Jesus just did not know the full extent of his ministry at that point. I suppose that analogy would hold to the case at hand if it is true that the ECF’s just did not know the full extent of the role of the Bishop of Rome and nothing they said collectively would in any way contradict what Roman Catholic theologians would later claim for the role and authority of the Roman Bishop. Thus for example, what Clement of Rome claimed for his authority at the turn of the 1st century could not contradict in any way what the popes of the High Middle Ages claimed as their rightful authority. So how do we go about deciding whether this is indeed the case?
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 26, 2012 at 12:15 am
Andrew,
Well, my main point was not that the papacy can be demonstrated by Christology (and I hesitate to wade in those waters). Instead, I was trying to show that the idea of development in the self-understanding of the mystical body of Christ, the church, should not be easily dismissed by those who grant development in the self-understanding of the Head of that body, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus wasn’t born able to speak German and do crosswords. He learned things, he grew in stature and wisdom, and in favor with God and man. So if our ecclesiology grows from our Christology, then Newman’s idea of development shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. Sure, none of this proves the papacy, but that wasn’t my intent.
Every time I hang with the pope he sticks me with the bar tab, but other than that he’s rad.
I have more serious and substantial thoughts on this, but I will refrain from posting them now.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 26, 2012 at 12:25 am
Thanks, Jason. I look forward to further thoughts that you put out. Take care.
TurretinFan said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:18 am
Cross quotes Dollinger thus:
Cross then alleges: “The problem is that that claim is easily refuted.”
But look at the examples he tries to provide:
Tertullian is his starting place, but the quotation he provide doesn’t even mention Rome. In fact, not a single one of his quotations even mentions Rome.
Nor does Tertullian (at least in the quotation he provides) mention anything about the gift to Peter being transmitted to someone other than Peter. In fact, that’s yet another commonality to the quotations he provides.
So, not only do the quotations fail to provide the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter, none of the quotations explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors. Dollinger’s claim is not refuted – it is confirmed.
– TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:32 am
Sean, on the other hand, provides one quotation that mentions Rome and another that mentions succession. But based on Sean’s wording, I think it’s safe to say he’s aware of the fact that even someone as late and Western as Augustine isn’t a counter-example.
William Webster provides an excellent analysis of Augustine’s view of Matthew 16, as well as that of other fathers, beginning from Tertullian:
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html
-TurretinFan
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 4:13 am
Readers here who want to keep “interpretive paradigms” in mind should consider that Archbishop Roland Minnerath, who was a contributor to the Vatican’s 1989 Historical and Theological Symposium, which was directed by the Vatican’s Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, at the request of the then Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the theme: “The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the First Millennium: Research and Evidence,” has made the admission that the Eastern Orthodox churches “never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West.”
Here’s Minnerath’s statement in context:
I don’t think it could be said that Archbishop Minnerath was operating from a question-begging “solo Scriptura” paradigm.
So Protestants have sufficient grounds to reject the papacy merely on Eastern Orthodox terms.
In any event, the fact that Rome never made its historical case for the papacy means that whenever we are asked to now accept the papacy, the burden of proof lies with the papacy to prove its own case, before anyone “separating” from it needs to formulate a case.
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 4:30 am
Speaking of that historical case for the papacy, J. Michael Miller, in his doctoral dissertation, The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology (Universita Gregoriana Editrice, Roma 1980):
Now, here is a point precisely where Leo’s reasoning can be challenged by exegesis. We know now that Peter’s “firstness” was not a kind of primacy of power, but a temporal primacy: he was the first to preach at Pentecost, he was the first to allow the Gentiles into the church, etc.
And again, this was THE argument in favor of the papacy in the fifth century. Pope Leo I is generally regarded as the first real pope, in the sense that he realized a “fully-developed” papacy.
The Roman Catholics here need to defend this argument; they need to show why the Eastern church was wrong for never accepting it. It seems to me that God does not allow himself to be bound to some kind of permanent institution based on Roman hereditary laws.
Eric Castleman said,
July 26, 2012 at 7:15 am
I am EO, and my perspective on this discussion is that Catholics have the upper hand against protestants because the reformation accepted the dogmas that led to papal supremacy – the difference being -that Roman Catholicism is consistent with such doctrinal positions as ADS and the Filioque, though I do not intend to divorce them, just make the distinction. So, Rome doesn’t have a clear cut patristic source for papal infallibility, though, neither does reformed theology have a patristic father in support of sola scriptura. Both positions are predicated upond divine simplicity. Both ideas profess that in order to have unity, authority must not be broken down, but centralized to a single source. The problem with this is that it isn’t Christianity, but Neoplatonic. It is the One and multiplicity. However, how does the schema work in regards to Triadology and Christology? Only when you force the divine nature to be such, do you have such ideas as the Filioque, and guess what? Papal infallibility.
However, I am Eastern Orthodox, and we reject such notions of God, which is why we are separated from Rome. However, reformation churches accept ADS and the Filioque – which is why, as I said above, gives Rome the upper hand, because it actually is consistent, since Divine Simplicity and the Filioque can’t be argued from scripture alone, but presupposes a philosophical premise which is read into scripture. Sola scriptura fail.
Orthodox ninja OUT!!! (puff of smoke)
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 7:24 am
Eric, in Sola Scriptura, if you don’t caricature the position, God himself is the sole authority. Scripture is the “lens”, the interpretation. Rome makes itself the “lens” for the “lens”. The Roman position is very convoluted, and it’s not correct to say that “the Reformation accepted the dogmas that led to papal supremacy”. The Reformation was the beginning of an examination of such things.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 26, 2012 at 7:56 am
Hi Jason at 28:
I promise I will stop analyzing your words alone. But I think there’s some things we need to think about.
“Well, my main point was not that the papacy can be demonstrated by Christology (and I hesitate to wade in those waters). Instead, I was trying to show that the idea of development in the self-understanding of the mystical body of Christ, the church, should not be easily dismissed by those who grant development in the self-understanding of the Head of that body, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus wasn’t born able to speak German and do crosswords. He learned things, he grew in stature and wisdom, and in favor with God and man. So if our ecclesiology grows from our Christology, then Newman’s idea of development shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. Sure, none of this proves the papacy, but that wasn’t my intent.”
I appreciate your unwillingness to pull out the “Christology” card in this discussion. What do I mean? Well, I’ve seen it now several times, when a discussion is brought up (whether it be creation, or 2 kingdoms, or others), and then a Christological argument is made on behalf of one side. Well, between you and me, that’s a power-play move, for either side. So I will actually grant you a lot of credit – perhaps I was trying to lull you in, and you didn’t bite! I don’t know why I do what I do (perhaps that’s what I took to Calvinism at an early age – it just made sense…).
But consider that you were the one that, in the first place, did indeed bring up Christology in the debate. I can follow your logic, about what Jesus of Nazareth was like when he was a 6 year old. But here’s the thing – I’m not exactly sure why in your thought / theological formulation, you use that construct / example (of a young Jesus) and then make your defining point, about how Christology drives eclessiology. What I am saying is, you are kind of softening your approach – which I think was particularly wise. So I just want to point that out.
Now, that does leave the question open still, though – should we evaluate the Papacy from the viewpoint of Orthodox (not meaning eastern) Christology? Well, I happen to think so. We should evaluate the Papacy in many ways, comparing Orthodox Christianity to it, and see whether it stands or falls.
I am an accountant, and not a professional theologian. So I am not the person to do this (that defense). But I can read and pray about it all the same, and I invite anyone here to make a clear stab at this.
There’s some things you say about your understanding about the doctrine of Scripture that, if you are willing, I would like to discuss with you. I’m going back, instead of your comment at 28, but rather to the first one I responded to. You talk about the circularity and so forth.
I just want you to know, despite my lack of formal training, I’ve been schooled and brought along by faithful men, in regard to my thoughts on Scripture. There’s more to be discussed here. Because the latest comment here (about how Protestants view things using a “lens”) is, in my view, spot on. I can’t always keep up with everyone here on GB. But you bring up some interesting points, and given your background and your change in status, there’s some particularly interesting things we could explore.
I apologize for the psychoanalysis, and I must sound extremely condescending. It’s just, I have really thought about the Doctrine of Scripture. Productively or not, God knows. But after considering, I’ve come away with a peace about how I view Scritpure, in my protestant tradition, that I am unable to fully capture in words. But if people are willing to wade through the lengthy prose from my fingers, I would love to share my personal encounter with the Bible, my rediscovery with it, and how the Bible is leading me to ultimately deeper and more meaningful fellowship and communion with the One true and living God.
May God be praised through our blogging and commenting,
Andrew
Bryan Cross said,
July 26, 2012 at 8:01 am
Bob S, (re: #21)
You’ll be putting Lane out of a job. Every week he gets up, reads a passage of Scripture, and then explains it, which performatively assumes that his explanation is more perspicuous than is the text. Otherwise, he would merely read the text out loud, and then sit down in silence. Your statement makes all expository preaching the “height of arrogant sinfulness.”
If you think I have asserted the “primacy” of my own interpretation, you have misunderstood me. I have said nothing about my own interpretation. I only noted that Stevens’ interpretation is one among others, and that by using the solo scriptura methodology he uses to arrive at his interpretation of the three passages he discusses, he presupposes the truth of Protestantism.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
July 26, 2012 at 8:05 am
TF,
The purpose of the patristic quotations I cited in #24 was only to show that there is explicit recognition among the Church Fathers that Christ chose to build His Church on St. Peter, and that this is a way they understood Matthew 16. I assumed Lane was already sufficiently familiar with what I have written elsewhere regarding the patristic evidence for apostolic succession (see here) and the patristic evidence for the primacy of the Chair of St. Peter at Rome (see here). When the citations I provided in #24 are considered in that broader context (rather than abstracted from that context), then patristic evidence for Peter being the rock on which Christ built His Church is evidence for a patristic recognition of the primacy of the episcopal succession from Peter, particularly in the See he designated as preserving the office to which Christ appointed him when giving to him the keys of the kingdom.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 26, 2012 at 8:18 am
Andrew M at 27 et al:
Interesting about your thoughts on the 6 year old Jesus:
“In your example to Lane of Jesus at 6 yrs old, I would say that Jesus just did not know the full extent of his ministry at that point. I suppose that analogy would hold to the case at hand if it is true that the ECF’s just did not know the full extent of the role of the Bishop of Rome and nothing they said coIn your example to Lane of Jesus at 6 yrs old, I would say that Jesus just did not know the full extent of his ministry at that point. I suppose that analogy would hold to the case at hand if it is true that the ECF’s just did not know the full extent of the role of the Bishop of Rome and nothing they said collectively would in any way contradict what Roman Catholic theologians would later claim for the role and authority of the Roman Bishop. Thus for example, what Clement of Rome claimed for his authority at the turn of the 1st century could not contradict in any way what the popes of the High Middle Ages claimed as their rightful authority. So how do we go about deciding whether this is indeed the case?llectively would in any way contradict what Roman Catholic theologians would later claim for the role and authority of the Roman Bishop. Thus for example, what Clement of Rome claimed for his authority at the turn of the 1st century could not contradict in any way what the popes of the High Middle Ages claimed as their rightful authority. So how do we go about deciding whether this is indeed the case?”
Look, everyone, let’s step back a second. The theology that each one of us personally holds to, EO, protestant, Romanist, etc etc, our beliefs and clingings do not exist in a vacuum. Let’s consider just one quick thing, and I am really sorry, that I am not as sophisticated as you.
I don’t see this evaluation and continued thinking about the 6 year old Jesus as particularly helpful for Lane’s question. I don’t mean to be harsh.
But said more simply, we are simply saying that not all of the theology that we hold to today existed in its most deveolped form. We are beings that exist in time – this should not surprise us that there were steps that occured, as God’s plan of redemption unfolded in history! I mean, it’s just common sense.
So the real question we are asking is how specifically did the doctrine of the Pope develop and on what basis might a Christian hold to that doctrine, given the reformation (Luther and Calvin) and their arguments.
And we’re trying to see what ECF’s taught.
Well, again, let’s explode this out further. How about we take that thought of looking to ECFs, and instead, look to the OT.
Where in the OT do we find the doctrine of the Pope?
We should be able to find it.
Because what is the Bible doing? It is God’s Word, revealing to us God’s plan to save a people for himself. My heart melts as I approach Scripture in the morning, as I read it in light of God’s love and what He has done for His people, over the centuries.
The people of the OT did not have what we have brothers! We look back to Christ, and the story told by the Bible, to us, is not just the greatest story ever told, but the greatest story that could EVER be told! (to borrow some of Plantinga’s words).
Again, we do not exist in a vacuum. We all carry the baggage of our upbringing. I’ve only ever been, and likely will always be, a protestant. There’s just too much good stuff I find when I do my personal devotions in the morning, for me to want to go seek the Pontiff for his advice. Now if he wants to golf with me, well, maybe then him and I have something to talk about…
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 26, 2012 at 8:32 am
PS I guess if I have a point, yes, we can consider the 6 year old Jesus, if we must. But I’m suggesting a new strategy – “let the wookie win.”
My point: anyone can type type type and bury each other in long comments. Those the “wookies.”
My protestant brothers, we have nothing to defend! I don’t want to get in the habit of quoting the Swiss guy that we seem to be moving away from, but I think we can say with Mr. Barth, “The best theology would need no advocates: it would prove itself.” (from his wikipedia page).
Let’s try to get the Bryan Cross’s and Jason Stellman’s talking. Protestant folks, we are comfortable where we are at. If we can get them talking, maybe we can get them to see that, yes, we Protestants do not accept their Pope’s teaching, but we have good reason. And at the end of the day, we can both sides argue till we are blue in the face. The 6 year old thing is a rabbit trail – I mean, just look at yourself – you were once 6 years old! Where was your theology when you were six?
I’ll tell you – God was bringing you along, into a deeper appreciation for who He is and His love for you. Yes, YOU! That’s where Jesus was when he was six. He believed his mother and father and grew up in wisdom and stature. Let’s not get all mystical about the person of Jesus. At the end of the day, yes, Christology is that kind of mysterious set of doctrines that NONE OF US is going to nail down. So we can read what great minds thought (thinking especially McGuckin here, that’s a shout out to you EO readers!). But let’s do what Jason says – wade carefully into the Christological waters.
I want to see someone provide a fully orbed defense of the doctrine of the Pope from the Old Testament. I challenge, because I believe, it can not be done. The OT points to Christ, not the Pope. And HE is the true head of the church.
Ninja smoke,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 26, 2012 at 8:39 am
PPS we need not fear that some are swimming the Tiber. It’s not a one way only swim – I hear the waters are shark infested, but maybe, just MAYBE, we’ll find those willing to do the return trip. I hear the grass isn’t always greener on the other side…
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 26, 2012 at 8:50 am
Last comment – do any of you Catholic brothers have a golf outing scheduled with the Pope? We’ve been talking about creation around here, I wonder if he’s ever heard about something called, the “theory of evolution.” It’s no biggee, we’ve got it under control over here on our side, just thought maybe if you were golfing or something, you could ask…
I’ve also heard some good jokes where they mention the “Pope.” That’s probably the extent of my knowledge of the things in this thread. But I’ve not yet received a reason why I can’t talk my mind here, anyone can comment right? What else is the point of all of this, unless we are completely forthright with your thoughts…
Maybe stick to good jokes and only bring up theology on the golf course if you are trying to get in his head / mess up his golf game.
Anyone know his handicap?
Andrew McCallum said,
July 26, 2012 at 9:18 am
I don’t see this evaluation and continued thinking about the 6 year old Jesus as particularly helpful for Lane’s question. I don’t mean to be harsh. But said more simply, we are simply saying that not all of the theology that we hold to today existed in its most deveolped form.
Andrew B,
Rome would give a hearty “Amen” to your last sentence above. This is exactly their point. The reason why the beliefs concerning the Bishop of Rome sound so different as we compare let’s say 1st and 14th century statements on the power and authority of the Bishop of Rome is just this matter of doctrinal development. Rome feels she is lots smarter on the details of the deposit of the faith after 14 centuries of considering and formulating more exact statements of these doctrines.
We Protestant types want to go back to the first century and determine exactly what the Fathers (East and West) believed about the extent of this authority. One of the difficulties in these dialogues is that Rome approaches the matter with a modern Roman paradigm. She has to, there is no alternative for the adherent of Roman Catholicism unless they are willing, at least for sake of ecumenical dialogue, to suspend such assumptions. But, as you can see from Bryan’s statements and the responses to them, these paradigmatic concerns are massive pink elephants in the room no matter how much both sides say they are ignoring them.
Cheers for now….
dave said,
July 26, 2012 at 9:32 am
(First time to comment for me.) As I read through the discussion of Christology driving Ecclesiology, in this case as it relates to developing self awareness, I am struck by how much sense it appears to make at first glance. However, to say that because Jesus grew in his self awareness the Church can be said to similarly develop is all well and good, but from a Reformed position there is one, I think major, caveat that must be made: Jesus was without sin and could therefore develop in his self awareness infallibly. Given the effects of sin on our whole person, is there any reason why we should expect the Church, perhaps more appropriately the Magisterium, to develop infallibly? Given the Fall, and its impact on those who descend from Adam by ordinary generation, who’s to say the West did not wrongly develop regarding the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or on any other doctrine for that matter?
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 9:41 am
Just for the sake of history on this topic, in another discussion here, Bryan offered a long litany of church fathers as evidence for the Chair of Peter; What is genuinely instructive is that Turretinfan has examined each and every citation he gave, and the results are very impressive.
Here is a summary of Turretinfan’s analysis of these “numerous examples of Church Fathers other than bishops of Rome, referring to St. Peter or the See of Peter explicitly as the rock upon which Christ founded the Church, and to which Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom”:
Turretinfan’s conclusion:
And my bottom line is, each and every “citation of support” for different aspects of the papacy need to be examined in detail, because, while they are often presented by Roman Catholic Apologists as evidence, the real story is often quite different.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 26, 2012 at 9:49 am
Andrew M:
“But, as you can see from Bryan’s statements and the responses to them, these paradigmatic concerns are massive pink elephants in the room no matter how much both sides say they are ignoring them.”
Thanks for your thoughts towards me, and your help! As you can tell, I am a bit of a goofball, and I shouldn’t be so quick to immediately claim ignorance.
As Machen said, “The Christian religion flourishes not in the darkness but in the light. Intellectual slothfulness is but a quack remedy for unbelief; the true remedy is consecration of intellectual powers to the service of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
I take my leave of you now, for reals, because I really appreciate all of you Christian scholars. For those of us reading at home, let’s remember, this is only a blog. Only a blog. Make sure to use the ordinary means of grace (see WSC 89). Go to church. Read your Bible, and pray.
If you feel like having a little break, see what the internet apologists are up to.
Subjecting all my intellectual powers, my actions, and I am and will do, to the Lord Jesus Christ,
Andrew
Bryan Cross said,
July 26, 2012 at 10:57 am
Andrew M, (re: #44)
Keep in mind that you’re posting this on the blog of a PCA pastor who in April just defended the notion of development of doctrine. See his comment #2 under his post titled “Burden of Proof in Protestant-Catholic Dialogue” as a way of explaining why the Fathers do not know of the Reformed gospel.
It is arbitrary to reject the possibility of development of doctrine as applied to the papacy, while affirming the development of doctrine with respect to soteriology.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 26, 2012 at 11:13 am
Bryan M:
“It is arbitrary to reject the possibility of development of doctrine as applied to the papacy, while affirming the development of doctrine with respect to soteriology.”
I’m truly ignorant with regard to Catholicism. I found the “Doctrines of Grace” at age 18 (coming from a baptist upbringing) and have been reveling in what I found.
My question to you:
Within the tradition I now exist, I view Calvin and Luther’s understanding of the doctrine of the Papacy to be the most true to new testatament teachings. Said another way, yes, the Papacy did develop, it developed into what is stated in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Why should I reject Calvin and instead join with someone else? You may consider this a rhetorical flourish if you like – so I am remaining tight lipped (and in a sense, “silent”) despite the words coming from my fingers here. Said another way, make your claim that Calvin in wrong and the Pope is right. Remember, when I found John Calvin, I was like a duck to water. So I’m not exactly running to put my tiber shorts on and take a dip. Or said rather, I’m a bit out of shape – likely the sharks would have a feast day if I felt like taking a dip.
Just a blog,
Andrew
rcjr said,
July 26, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Ignore if this has already been covered, but have you noticed that Rome argues that the church determines and legitimizes the canon (when the truth is she merely received it) and then in turn argues that papal authority is grounded in a Biblical account of Caesarea Philippi, which of course has no authority until the church gave it authority. Seems like a fairly serious chicken-egg sticky wicket to me.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
July 26, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Bryan Cross, #47: “Keep in mind that you’re posting this on the blog of a PCA pastor who in April just defended the notion of development of doctrine. See his comment #2 under his post titled “Burden of Proof in Protestant-Catholic Dialogue” as a way of explaining why the Fathers do not know of the Reformed gospel.”
Lane Keister: “Secondly, you are not allowing for the development of doctrine. Doctrines gain in specificity, especially as they are challenged by heresy. But gains in specificity could be incorrect gains. Contrary to Romanists, I affirm that the church can enter into apostasy (witness Old Testament Israel and Judah). If we take the analogy of a tree, we can get at what I am trying to say. The early church may be compared to the trunk of a tree. Romanists branch off one way, Eastern Orthodox another way, and Protestants a third way. Elements in the early church sometimes point way, sometimes another. All we as Protestants, therefore, need to do is prove continuity with the trunk. Protestant arguments that Romanism is wrong depend on exegesis, not on historical argumentation. If you argue the way you propose, then you are confusing the branch stage of church history with the trunk stage of church history. What you are asserting is equivalent to saying that if John Calvin had lived in the early church, they would have thrown him out. I seriously doubt it.”
Actually Pastor Lane, I think Protestant arguments that Romanism is wrong utilizes both exegetical arguments and historical arguments.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
July 26, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Bryan Cross, #47: “It is arbitrary to reject the possibility of development of doctrine as applied to the papacy, while affirming the development of doctrine with respect to soteriology.”
With regards to your statement that there’s development of doctrine with respect to soteriology, would the doctrine of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus count as a soteriological doctrine that developed over time?
Also, with respect to Jason Stellman I just read the following excerpt dated 7/24/2012:
“Just a few weeks ago I leaned over and looked Jason in the eye. He was sitting on the couch in my office, a matter of feet from where I am sitting right now. I’m sure he noted with some humor my lava lamps, which would have been directly behind me as I spoke. “If you are going to Rome, go all the way. Mary, Popes, the whole nine yards. Then debate me on it.” He laughed.
As I sadly read the above cited words I could not help but shake my head. Jason knows the Apostles did not teach what Rome teaches on so many things. He knows there wasn’t a single person at Nicea who believes what Rome requires him to believe de fide today, and that he has to buy into a massively complex, easily challenged house of philosophical cards to keep the Roman authority system standing.”
From: Dear Jason: the Church Won? You Didn’t Even Throw a Punch, My Friend
Andrew McCallum said,
July 26, 2012 at 1:40 pm
It is arbitrary to reject the possibility of development of doctrine as applied to the papacy, while affirming the development of doctrine with respect to soteriology.
Bryan,
I really don’t want to reject out of hand the possibility that the doctrines surrounding the authority of the Roman Bishop developed properly from what we find in the deposit of the faith. The precise role that the Bishop of Rome plays in the RCC system, and how it developed, should be part of the discussion as Catholics and Protestants speak to each other. We Reformed just want to know at the outset what the starting point is with regards to Rome and her bishop. You mention the development of soteriology – there is lots in the Scriptures, OT and NT, on soteriology so we have a good starting point for discussions of the development of soteriology. But where do we start with respect to Rome? There is of course lots in the Scriptures on the Apostles in general and Peter specifically, but there is no obvious connection made between Peter and Rome in the biblical corpus. This connection is made in later centuries. So how the connection is made and whether it is justified is the sort of thing that I imagine that Lane will get into in upcoming posts.
So yes, let’s talk about the development of the doctrines surrounding the papacy. This is just what we need to focus on.
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 1:41 pm
From TUAD #49:
I don’t know that this “tree” metaphor is an entirely helpful metaphor. There is too much opportunity for equivocation. Roman Catholics will use it as a metaphor for “authority of the succession of individuals”, and Protestants use it as a metaphor for orthodox doctrine.
But in reality, if you look at the early church (in the first several centuries), there were multiple factions, in multiple ways. I’m not saying this in the sense that there was no common orthodoxy in the Apostolic era when the New Testament was being written. Walter Bauer (of the Bauer thesis) documented differences in places like Edessa and Alexandria and Rome. Darrell Bock has even (in “Missing Gospels”) noted that there is something helpful about this concept. We are certainly willing to say that the concept of “monarchical bishop” appeared earlier in Antioch (per Ignatius) than in Rome (mid second-century).
There are clear differences by the fourth and fifth centuries, as we are able to talk about the Alexandrian hermeneutic, the Antiochian hermeneutic, and Rome which seemed to be contemplating how wonderful it was.
The schisms surrounding the Christology of the fifth century were horrific (for a wide range of reasons, some of which were doctrinal. And many theologians today are quite willing to say that the “Nestorians” were not heretics, including JPII in 1994).
At the beginning of the second century, it seems quite likely that there was no longer a “tree trunk”, merely a structure where there was already disagreement and it was already becoming a tangled mess.
Bryan Cross said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:00 pm
rcjr, (re: #48)
This would be a chicken-egg circularity if, according to the Catholic Church, the authority of the Church was derived from Scripture and the authority of Scripture was derived from the Church. But the Catholic position is not circular. That’s because, according to the Catholic Church, her intrinsic divine authority comes directly from Christ Himself. He Himself gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter. Likewise, the intrinsic divine authority of Scripture belongs to Scripture because it is divinely inspired (God-breathed) by the Holy Spirit.
In both cases, each also derives extrinsic authority from the testimony of the other. The authority Scripture has by way of the Church’s recognition and approbation is that of divine attestation and testimony concerning the identity and nature of Scripture. I have explained this in comments #247, 251, and 255 of the Josh Lim thread at CTC. Similarly, Scripture testifies to the authority of the Church, and in that way Scripture gives extrinsic authority to the Church. So both have intrinsic authority, and both also have extrinsic authority from the other.
Here too, there is no circularity, because in the order of knowing, we come to know the divine authority of Scripture through the testimony of the Church, and we come to believe the divine authority of the Church through the motives of credibility. That’s a non-circular line of reasoning. Once their [i.e. the Church and Scripture] divine authority has been established in this non-circular way, then there is nothing circular about two divine authorities each testifying to the divine authority of the other, just as there is nothing necessarily circular about the Father testifying to the divine authority of His Son, and the Son testifying to the divine authority of the Father. The problem of circularity arises in lines of reasoning, not in the mutual testimony by two divine authorities concerning the authority of the other.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:04 pm
For the record, while I am grateful to James for spending some time with me, he only carved out a small fraction of the time given to me by other men whose counsel I sought. I flew to Phoenix on a Tuesday and back to seattle on a Thursday just to have around 90 minutes of time with James on a Wednesday.
Again, I don’t want to appear unappreciative, but we barely had the time to dance around each other in the ring and land a jab or two. If I didn’t “throw a punch” it’s because the bell rang earlier than I expected!
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Jason #56: Two things:
1. You are mixing your metaphors: “I fought the church and the church won” — it’s not James White against whom you didn’t throw a punch. He meant, you never threw a punch at the RCC.
2. If you were going to see him, why didn’t you prepare in any event? Were you hoping to learn something from him? Or were you hoping to convince him?
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:33 pm
John,
1. But the only way James can assess my fight is by the brief time we spent together. Other than that, he has no idea what my fight has been like.
2. Oh, I prepared plenty. Unfortunately I only got through a small portion of my written questions before we had to wrap up.
Again, I’m thankful for the time, but I wish it had been longer.
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Bryan #55: Bryan — There are a half dozen things wrong with your response here:
1. You are making an assumption about the nature of Peter’s “authority” – what “authority” in fact was given to him, when that’s by no means clear from Scripture.
2. You are making an illicit comparison between Peter’s actual authority, and the authority of Scripture.
3. You are making an illicit comparison between Peter and the Roman Catholic hierarchy of today (no one outside of these folks in “the Church” has any authority at all)
4. You are making the assumption that, whatever authority that Peter (uniquely, as Peter qua Peter) did have, that he could pass that on in any way, much less the way you are assuming that he did it.
5. You say, “Scripture testifies to the authority of the Church”. But
a) What passage(s) are you alluding to?
b) What type of authority do they assign to “the church”?
6. You say, “we come to know the divine authority of Scripture through the testimony of the Church”. But that is neither self-evident nor self-explanatory.
rcjr said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Bryan,
Thanks for the explanation. I like the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic in the sense that it is Jesus giving Peter the power, not the recording of that event that gives him that power. I don’t, on the other hand much care for the distinction insofar as intrinsic plays out as invisible and unassailable. That is to say, how do we know Jesus gave this power to Peter apart from you all saying so when the only way we know Jesus said this is because text x says so, which text, while it may have an invisible, unassailable authority, we know is authoritative is because some Pope way down the line turned “We receive these books…” into “We declare these books…” In short, my argument is not on the a priori or ontological level but a posteriori and epistemological level if I’m not bungling my fancy words. We know the Bible is the Bible because the Pope says so. We know the Pope has the authority to do this because the Bible says so. Or perhaps to be more fair, “We defend the Bible as the Bible by affirming the Pope says it’s the Bible. We defend the Pope’s authority to so declare on the basis of what is in the Bible.
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Jason 58: Unfortunately I only got through a small portion of my written questions before we had to wrap up.
He is the only person in the world who could have answered those questions for you? Did you honestly have questions at that point, or was this meeting a formality (so you could then plausibly say, “I talked with everyone, even James White!”)?
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Actually, John. I have been orchestrating this thing since the ’80s. In fact, I anonymously funded James’s education in the hopes that I could one day sit down with him for an hour and a half and then brag that he couldn’t convince me.
Sean said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:47 pm
johnbugay,
Why would you even think that Jason met with James and apparently other men only so that he could gloat about who he met with?
That is very uncharitable, which should be obvious. Notice how Jason did not even volunteer that he met with James. It was James who volunteered it.
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Jason, you have in reality been making this “investigation” since 2008. If you couldn’t find all the major theologians you needed to find, to answer all the questions you could possibly ask in that time, well, it really does seem as if you weren’t trying all that hard.
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:50 pm
There you go again, John. You were one of the first commenters when I resigned, calling me a liar. Seems you haven’t changed your tune, despite backing off when told what a non-Christian you look like when you get mad.
Sean said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:50 pm
johnbugay,
Which theologians and bishops did you fly out to see and visit with when you decided to abandon your Catholic faith?
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Sean, Jason did announce to the world that he met with James White on his own blog.
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Jason 65, if this appears as if I’m calling you a liar, then …
And Sean 66, I talked both with “a priest from Opus Dei”, and also my own pastor, who really didn’t seem all that eager to persuade me to stay.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Hey now – so I don’t think my comments are making it through…but…
When my ex-girlfriend dumped me, I moved on.
Jason, et al:
We should be able to have a Roman / Geneva dialogue, and keep personal matters out of it. This is important. I for one, will never again mention golf (I will try really hard!!)
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:04 pm
And that would be my cue to stop participating in this thread.
Brandon said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:06 pm
I’m more of a lurker than a commenter but I want to briefly opine.
I’d like to see an actual discussion take place and not the verbal spat that Jason and John have with one another. I understand Jason, that John is the one addressing you, but if you guys want to have a discussion about your difference I believe it would be more appropriate to do so in another forum
Given your opinions on the matter, John, wouldn’t this be like casting pearl before swine (I hope you do not gather from this that I am identifying you as swine, Jason)? I’m not trying to get wishy-washy. Have disagreements. If you have personal issues, fine. But this lurker would appreciate reading about the important issues and not the personal spats. Just my 2 cents…
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Brandon, I addressed him on his own blog, but he didn’t address me back. He just sat back while everybody else said I was “mean”.
We’ve had a fairly civil email exchange recently, but he offered nothing of substance.
He wants to make these grand announcements, but when somebody challenges him, he just seems to want to crumple.
I’m not really even challenging him all that aggressively. I asked him how ready he really was to meet with James White, and, I sort of hinted that, given his proximity to WSC and his notoriety, he could have asked really hard questions of almost anyone else in the world.
How is that calling him a liar? He has a chance to explain how he stumped all the folks he talked to.
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Seriously, this is a question to one and all. Have I called Jason a “liar” here? Have I been unkind in any way?
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:24 pm
John Bugay: “Have I been unkind in any way?”
No, I don’t think so.
Steve G said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:27 pm
John
Jason has said that he talked to a lot of different people, and I see no reason to not take him at his word. Your frustration seems to be that despite this, he didn’t come to the same conclusions you did about the Catholic Church. Therefore, apparently to you, he just obviously didn’t talk to enough people or the right people, and therefore is misleading us when he says he did.
I think that is unfair. I don’t agree with his decision but I don’t assume that because we disagree, it is all due to an act of bad faith from Jason when it came to getting his questions answered. I’m not clear on what you are wanting from him at this point
If you have a specific question about Catholic theology that you want to interact with him, then fine, ask away. But the innuendo is unbecoming.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Sean Patrick, #63: “That is very uncharitable, which should be obvious. Notice how Jason did not even volunteer that he met with James. It was James who volunteered it.”
Actually, I’m not sure about that. I think Jason Stellman volunteered earlier in some other blogpost or comment that he met with folks like Michael Horton and James White during his Presbytery-granted sabbatical.
Steve G said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:30 pm
“Seriously, this is a question to one and all. Have I called Jason a “liar” here? Have I been unkind in any way?”
You’ve implied he’s not telling the truth and yes, you have been unkind.
rcjr said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Not sure what could follow if this appears as if I’m calling you a liar, then …” but, “I am indeed calling you a liar.” I may be missing something and am sorry if I have misread, but yes, that’s how I read that.
rcjr said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:40 pm
That said John, I liked it there when our Roman friends tried to catch you hypocrisy and you have a ready answer.
David Weiner said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Bryan # 55,
“He Himself gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter.”
You seem to take it for granted that the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ (Matthew 16:19) to which Peter was given the keys and the Church which (Matthew 16:18) Christ will build on the rock are one and the same. Any references that might support this would be appreciated.
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:47 pm
RC 77, it’s possible also to read that as “If you think this is me calling you a liar, you are way too sensitive”. I was too sensitive to call him “too sensitive”.
Look at the context. What have I really said in this thread? He’s the one with the article, “I fought the [Roman Catholic Church], and the church won”. It’s his metaphorical language.
He was complaining that he only had 90 minutes with James White. His implication was that somehow hindered his “fight”. His implication is, “White wouldn’t spend the time with me, I couldn’t ask all my questions”.
I told him, he had access to some of the best theologians in the world. And he says, “So you’re calling me a liar now”.
Sean said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Or, its possible also to read that as, “If you think this is me calling you a liar…then I am going to eat a cheese steak sandwich for lunch next Wednesday.”
Or maybe, “If you think this is me calling you a liar then the Texans are going to win the Super Bowl.”
Or, maybe you could just apologize? Most adults apologize when something they say causes offense, even when offense was not intended.
Sean said,
July 26, 2012 at 3:58 pm
*The Texas ARE going to win the Super Bowl this year, by the way. *
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Look Sean, Jason is the one making this out to be a titanic struggle. “He fought the church… and the church won”. He is the one making this out to be a situation in which, “I fought as hard as I possibly could, and I still lost”.
Now, I know him to be a bright guy. A bright guy, with access to really, all the best minds in the Reformed world. And I asked a question, “how hard did you really fight?” Who, aside from James White, let you down? Who among these really bright minds couldn’t answer, or didn’t answer, all the questions that you asked of them?
This has relevance to all the folks here. If there are questions that couldn’t be answered, all of us heretics here need to be challenged with them, because our immortal souls are at stake.
If Jason really fought, and lost, what was it that knocked him out?
It’s in [all of our] best interests to know what those questions are.
Sean said,
July 26, 2012 at 4:09 pm
John,
If I were you, rather than chase him at every corner and questioning his every motive, I would give him a chance to cover all those questions. In time, Lord willing, you’ll have a chance to understand the precise issues.
Or, if I was truly concerned about motives I would reach out to him privately.
Sean said,
July 26, 2012 at 4:10 pm
PS. I saw that you did not challenge my assertion about the Texans winning the SB. I’ll take that as an admission that you agree ; )
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 4:17 pm
I’ve spoken to him privately in the past, and I’ve describe the dilemma he put me in. He made accusations in public, about things he had bound me to secrecy in private.
But what I’ve said to him here is on the public record. What I’ve said is plain to see, and the readers here (if they are interested) can judge for themselves … in that little bit of back-and-forth, did I call him a liar? I really don’t believe I did. Or did he just steam off and decide to deride my character, based on a few hard questions I was asking him.
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 4:17 pm
FWIW, I did not watch a minute of NFL football last year.
Brandon said,
July 26, 2012 at 4:40 pm
John,
I followed the happenings on Jason’s blog. My plea is to address the personal issues privately. I understand that his conversion is a public issue and he has made it an issue in the blogosphere. Your response to Jason’s conversion did seem to be to be hostile and accusatory.
But please know, I am not emotionally invested in this. I do not know you or Jason and I like to assume the best about people until proven otherwise. I’m not trying to make a character judgment.
Whatever your motives, however, your attempts to call Jason back publicly have been exhausted. You have addressed the issues on his blog, here, and elsewhere. I think the personal issues with Jason just detract from the conversation. I will sincerely hope the best and that you are doing this because you love Jason and want him to repent and come back to the Gospel. Even with that in mind, I believe that it is time to drop the discussion of Jason as a person.
You are well read John, and I would love to see you interact with the claims to the Roman papacy. I believe that interacting with Jason like you have in 61-70 distract you from composing more meaningful responses. I think your time and energy would be better served engaging Jason’s arguments rather than his character.
Humbly,
Brandon
rcjr said,
July 26, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Fair enough Sean and John. Your readings are just as plausible (save that whole Texans thing) but I still say a person could read it the way I did.
Eric Castleman said,
July 26, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Johnbuggay, you wrote:
“Eric, in Sola Scriptura, if you don’t caricature the position, God himself is the sole authority. Scripture is the “lens”, the interpretation. Rome makes itself the “lens” for the “lens”.”
Reformed distinctives on the issue of sola scriptura do not have any less hurdles to jump in regards to the interpretating process of scripture. The only difference between a Protestant and the pope, is that the individual interprets scripture, whereas the pope clarifies scripture. There isn’t an extra lens. Calvin argued just as much for the churches authoritative interpretation, the only difference being, that it wAs his interpretation, not Rome’s.
Reed Here said,
July 26, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Gents: might I ask y’all to drop the John-Jason-liar discussion. Nuff said. If either of them want to talk to each other off-blog, they know how to do so. Now, back to the topic …
paigebritton said,
July 26, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Moderator input —
Please focus on Lane’s post topic, folks. That’s complex enough.
I will take the liberty of removing any further comments about what Jason did or didn’t do, and what John did or didn’t mean.
pax,
Paige B.
paigebritton said,
July 26, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Woah, brain match.
johnbugay said,
July 26, 2012 at 5:55 pm
I actually have posted some pretty nifty stuff in 32 and 33 which are highly pertinent to the topic, but which have yet to be addressed.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 26, 2012 at 11:37 pm
umm.. I perceive something is going on in Dave @ 44. I don’t want to sound like I have secret knowledge, but some of those thoughts, when applied elsewhere, I think lead to places that I am not exactly sure many people on this blog want to go. anyone want to hear me out?
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 26, 2012 at 11:38 pm
PS i’ll email them to the blog owner. Going dark, Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 26, 2012 at 11:47 pm
No – these must be addressed.
Dave,
Nice to have a first time commenter. I was once one myself, not long ago.
You end your comment with, “what’s that mean for any doctrine, for that matter.”
You are in dangerous water, my friend. Do you really, for example, want to throw out the doctrine of inspiration?
I think you need to read BB Warfield.
Just a blog. And Just my two sense,
Andrew
Andrew McCallum said,
July 27, 2012 at 7:27 am
John (re: 94),
Definitely some interesting thoughts in #32/33. I agree with you about the EO perspective but I wanted to point out that there is also a school of thought in the Roman Catholic West even up until the 17th century which comes to the same conclusion as the EO’s – ultimate authority lies with the councils apart from and even against the popes. Trent kills Conciliarism for all intents and purposes but there were RCC theologians even at Trent who opposed the claims of the papalists. So I agree that the EO perspective is a helpful one, but the rejection of the claims of the papacy, such as we know the papacy today, was not just an Eastern perspective. I’m sure I’m not saying anything you don’t know but I thought it was worth saying. The EO perspective has value but I also think we need to develop a distinctly Western answer to the RC’s. Conciliarism as a formal movement is a product of the late Medieval era, but its roots go right back to the beginning….
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 27, 2012 at 7:29 am
Dave at 44:
Comments in-line:
” As I read through the discussion of Christology driving Ecclesiology, in this case as it relates to developing self awareness, I am struck by how much sense it appears to make at first glance. However, to say that because Jesus grew in his self awareness the Church can be said to similarly develop is all well and good, but from a Reformed position there is one, I think major, caveat that must be made: Jesus was without sin and could therefore develop in his self awareness infallibly.”
[AB Comment – fantastic insight]
Given the effects of sin on our whole person, is there any reason why we should expect the Church, perhaps more appropriately the Magisterium, to develop infallibly?
[AB Comment – the church is not infallible – yes, I’m OK with this so far…]
Given the Fall, and its impact on those who descend from Adam by ordinary generation, who’s to say the West did not wrongly develop regarding the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or on any other doctrine for that matter?”
[AB Comment – As Christians, we place our intellectual capabilities squarely at the feet of Jesus, as we serve him with all that we are. You are in a way undermining Christian teaching (i.e. how can we believe any doctrine, since they are the product of sinful man?). You should ask your question another way – how do we determine what is authoritative? How can we know whether our doctrine of Inspiration, or our doctrine of inerrancy, or our doctrine of Scripture is true? Dave, in protestantism, the Bible is our authority. Now, just something personal, I had to learn something. And that is, the Bible is not a person. Jesus is. The Bible is all about Jesus – that’s what having a redemptive historical approach to reading Scripture is all about. You need to be careful in stating that just because humans are depraved, that doesn’t mean that anything that pours forth from a human (like language or a doctrine) is necessarily flawed. God uses our faculties, language, and doctrines to reveal himself to us. I need to also read John Frame’s “Doctrine of God.” But please consider a book by Fred Zaspel, “The Theology of BB Warfield.” I have my copy here, it’s been on my “to-read list.” It’s now on my “currently reading.” Zaspel really unfolds BB Warfield’s teaching, and has a whole chapter on “Bibliology,” within which, he dives deep into what that man taught about “inspiration as a church doctrine” and “canon” and others. Please consider Jason Stellman’s suggestion of discussing the 6 year old Jesus as a fun and colorful side attraction, but not really helpful for Lane’s questions. Jason, as you may know, was a PCA pastor, but left for the Roman Catholic Church. And the blog owner Rev. Keister, is a PCA pastor. So there’s interesting personal things, and other matters, existant in this thread. It goes back to my theory that these blogs and comments really should be taken with more care (no offense necessarily should be taken, any of you blog people) and really, I hate to say, the church kind of has no business with this blogging and internet communication. sure, I may be myopic – but why not blog about cars or golf. Why are we bringing theology down to that level?
Just a rhetorical flourish,
Andrew
TurretinFan said,
July 27, 2012 at 8:05 am
Bryan:
You wrote:
It looked as though the purpose was to attempt to rebut what Dollinger said. Simply showing that a few of the fathers thought Christ was building his church on Peter doesn’t rebut Dollinger.
These hand-waving appeals to “broader context” would more persuasive if (a) it were not you yourself that selected the quotations we were considering and (b) if it were not someone like Dollinger against whom you were making such an appeal.
The problem for your position is that the fathers don’t actually say something that contradicts what Dollinger said, yet you mistakenly allege that Dollinger’s position is easily refuted.
As for your approach of trying to cobble together three distinct streams of patristic thought, even that doesn’t rebut Dollinger’s very specific claim, which is already produced above.
To provide an analogy, if someone were to claim that the fathers never held to doctrine X based on reason Y, it is not enough to show that they held to doctrine X and that they also held to doctrine Y. To rebut the position you would have to actually show somewhere where they link the two together.
I’m not sure why this is hard to follow.
-TurretinFan
johnbugay said,
July 27, 2012 at 9:03 am
Andrew McCallum #98:
Andrew, I reproduced the selection I did specifically to address a claim made by Bryan Cross (somewhere, but I’ve encountered it recently), and his claim is, “if you are going to separate from ‘the Church that Christ founded’, then the burden of proof is upon you to say why you are doing so”.
Maybe you’ve encountered this claim, too. But what is not established is precisely the thing that Bryan takes for granted: that “the Church that Christ founded” “subsists” primarily in the Roman Catholic Church.
That is by no means a given, historically. And it should certainly not be a given here.
Bryan has told me that I’m “begging the question” [in some sense — he’s got a question-begging-detector like nobody else] in some sense by assuming that the Roman Catholic Church is not what it says it is, and then asking for proof that it is.
But the Archbishop Roland Minnerath, who was on the Vatican commission to study precisely that question, is probably THE MOST knowledgeable Roman Catholic on that very topic, and he certainly cannot be said to be “begging the question” in any sense that Bryan can conceive of.
Thus, rather than be shut down in this discussion by Bryan simply saying, “Oh, I don’t have to answer that because you’re begging the question”, I’d like to see him address what Archbishop Minnerath had to say, about the East never having accepted Rome’s claims, and to see, then, where he feels his “burden of proof” might lie, in the light of that.
dave said,
July 27, 2012 at 9:09 am
Andrew @ 99,
Thanks for your thoughts. Interestingly, along with my hesitation to post at all (I have lurked off and on for a while) I also had a version of that comment that did not include that last line “or any other doctrine for that matter.” My reason for including it was simply to point out that the supremacy of the Roman see is not the only RC doctrine that I, or other Protestants, would have a problem with.
To your point, while there are noetic Consequences of sin I don’t think that our ability to understand the scriptures is non-existent. I do think that, in laying our intellects at the feet of Jesus, we need to remember that Scripture is infallible, not our interpretation, and so we need to have humility in all of our interpretations (note: that does not mean the absence of certainty nor does it mean that we lack confidence in the Holy Spirit’s illuminating power at work in us – If I remember correctly I am pulling those thoughts from Sinclair Ferguson and Michael Horton respectively). So, in the end do I want to throw out inspiration? No. Do I want to throw out the virgin birth? No. Do I want to throw out the deity of Christ? Absolutely not! Do I think that some things are so plain in themselves that anyone of basic intellectual capacities can understand them (WCF, 1)? Yes, absolutely. Are there other doctrines that are not quite as plain and therefore require a higher level of humility? Yes, that too (but that does not mean that once I have been convinced from Scripture that I don’t have a strong level of conviction, e.g. Covenant of Works, Infant Baptism).
I hope that clarifies.
Dave
dave said,
July 27, 2012 at 9:21 am
I should add that by “strong level of conviction” I mean that I can, in good conscience, say that that the WCF, for example, contains the system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture. I would say that is a pretty good level of certainty.
Sean said,
July 27, 2012 at 10:02 am
johnbugay.
What did Archbishop Minnerath actually say? Is the essay available online anywhere? At face value, what you have cited him saying does not seem very controversial. The Eastern Orthodox Churches do not accept the papal definitions held by the Catholic Church. I don’t think that is debatable.
However, there are millions of Eastern Catholics, I might add, that do. Several members of Called to Communion belong to Byzantine Catholic parishes.
johnbugay said,
July 27, 2012 at 10:28 am
Sean, Minnerath’s essay is in a book; full bibliographic information is available at the link provided. In essence, he gives an overview of “Petrine theology as elaborated in the West”, and then says “the East never shared this view”. He makes his statement in the context of an ecumenical discussion in a location just outside of Rome.
It’s not good enough for you to say “it’s not controversial”. You have to deal with it. Bryan’s statement that the burden of proof is upon those who leave “the Church that Christ founded” itself begs the question.
The papacy was not ever accepted outside of Rome — Rome has never made the case that it existed. It never had jurisdictional primacy over the whole church. It begs the question to suggest that anybody in the world needs to accept it, either in its Vatican I or Vatican II formulations.
greenbaggins said,
July 27, 2012 at 10:41 am
To all, I have been at Presbytery yesterday, and didn’t have a moment to call my own. So, I’m just now getting back to Jason and Bryan.
Jason (22): Regarding your question 1, my point was seeking to be relatively simple, actually: my interpretation of Matthew 16 is accused of being circular, because it presupposes sola Scriptura. But if all these church fathers actually hold the same view I do, then that argument doesn’t hold water, especially if Romanists simultaneously claim that none of the ECF believed in sola Scriptura.
Regarding your issue 2: I would direct you to Richard Bennett’s book on Catholicism, where he traces the history of the rise of the papacy as filling the vacuum of power left by the sacking of Rome. He argues that the papacy is really a continuation of the Roman empire. You may think that’s crazy, but read the book. He marshals some very impressive evidence.
Bryan, your quotations are not to the point (and I would agree with TFan’s 30). I was not evaluating whether Dollinger’s claim was true or not. I was seeking to prove that my interpretation of Matthew 16 could not be said to depend (in a circular fashion) on sola Scriptura, if even a Romanist also came to the same conclusion I did WITHOUT SOLA SCRIPTURA. Therefore, your argument that my so-called private interpretation (which I would actually argue agrees with many of the ECF) of Matthew 16 is circular is false.
You know, Bryan, your claims concerning seemingly all Protestant interpretation of the Bible bears a very close resemblance to post-modernism in this respect: you seem to be assuming that there is no inherent meaning in the text of the Scripture until it is interpreted by someone. My question is this: did God actually mean anything at all when He gave us this book? And if a person seeks to discover that meaning by himself, individually, does that automatically assume sola Scriptura in a circular way? Or is it even theoretically possible that God meant sola Scriptura to be one of the doctrines inherent in the meaning of the text which He gave, such that when we find it, we start believing it? For that would not be circular. The reason it would not be circular in that case is that God would have started the whole ball of wax, not us. And, in fact, that is exactly what Protestants believe. We believe God gave us the Bible, and in that Bible, God gave us sola Scriptura. Our response, therefore, is to believe it.
Sean said,
July 27, 2012 at 10:41 am
John,
Deal with what? That the Eastern Orthodox do not share in the definition of the Bishop of Rome with the Catholic Church? What is there to deal with? That is not debated.
Also, I have not read the book and its seems that you have way more time on my hands to read as much as you do. Please don’t expect that the average person has all of your books at their fingertips or the time to engage in every paragraph you post online.
Now that is a separate claim. On Triablogue, when you first wrote about Minnerath you said that Archbishop Minnerath “has made the admission that the Eastern Orthodox churches never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West.”
I don’t think anybody here would disagree that the Eastern Orthodox churches have never shared the Petrine theology of the Catholic Church. But that is not saying that ‘the papacy was never accepted outside of Rome.’
johnbugay said,
July 27, 2012 at 10:48 am
Sean 107, everybody knows that the “Eastern Orthodox Churches” are one and the same with “the Churches that Christ founded” located in the Eastern part of the empire. Just start at the beginning. These same churches (see the councils of Constantinople, 381 and Chalcedon, 451) “officially” and Magisterially attributed Rome’s position to political position within the empire.
Just because some theologian expresses some admiration for Peter doesn’t mean he “accepts the papacy”.
So for you guys to speak of “the Roman Catholic Church” and somehow equate that with “the Church that Christ founded”, well, that’s just begging the question.
Sean said,
July 27, 2012 at 10:55 am
John.
We’re having somewhat of an unbalanced conversation because I don’t have access to what Minnerath wrote. I’ll try to order the book, read the essay and post a response on Called to Communion. However, I am going to go ahead and place a big bet that Archbishop Minnerath did not go as far as you are taking him to go with all of this.
It turns out that portions of Minnerath’s essay are available on Google Books online. Its not the whole piece but he does say, in the portion available, that petra in Matt 16:18 is generally agreed to refer to the person of Peter and not just his faith. So, boom goes the dynamite.
johnbugay said,
July 27, 2012 at 11:04 am
Sean, no “boom”. I cited Minnerath verbatim, and I gave you the context. No one contests that Peter was important, and no matter how important Peter is.
But Peter absolutely is not “the papacy”. Eastern churches, while allowing that Peter was important, never accepted the supposed authority of “the successor of Peter”. From the beginning.
Bryan Cross said,
July 27, 2012 at 11:21 am
Lane, (re: #106)
You wrote:
The protasis of the conditional is precisely the problem, because he was, in essence, using a sola scriptura method, insofar as he approached the question in the abstract manner I described in #38. The Tradition through which we [Catholics] approach Scripture isn’t limited to only those patristic statements that explicitly discuss a passage in Scripture.
That’s not my position. Nor have I said anything that entails such a notion.
Of course.
Not necessarily. Say a person who knows nothing about Christianity picks up a Gideon Bible in a hotel room and starts reading it, and trying to understand it. Is he presupposing sola scriptura? No. He’s just trying to understand what he’s reading. But if he comes to the point of seeing in Scripture some reference to “the Church,” and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, and that it is said to be the “pillar and ground of truth,” and that it will remain until Christ returns, and he decides that he will treat his own interpretation of this book as superior or more authoritative for himself than whatever interpretation of this book that presently existing community might hold, then, yes, he is presupposing sola scriptura. I’ve written about this in “The Tradition and the Lexicon.”
Theoretically possible in the sense of logically possible, yes it is logically possible that God could have instituted His Church to be governed by the principle of sola scriptura. So, how exactly should one go about deciding this question [i.e. Did Christ and the Apostles teach sola scriptura to the Church, or did Christ and the Apostles hand on a living Tradition and a Magisterial authority in His Church?] in a non-question-begging way? I approach this question not presupposing the ecclesial deism that makes the testimony of the post-Apostolic Church worthless. And for that reason, it seems to me, we should look to the testimony of the post-Apostolic Church in order to answer this question in a non-question-begging way, to determine how did they understood the relation of Scripture to the Church, the role of Tradition, and the authority of the Church leaders. The notion that there is meaning in the text is compatible with both answers to the question, so that notion [i.e. that there is meaning in the text] does not decide the question. Likewise, the fact that some percentage of persons who start reading the Bible believe the Bible also doesn’t decide the question, because it too is compatible with both answers.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Brandon said,
July 27, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Sean,
Would you acknowledge that Petrine Primacy is not equivalent to “Petrine Supremacy” (I’m not trying to be pejorative–perhaps you could give me a better word to use?)?
First among equals is a fine title, and my reading of the ECF’s suggests that many of them believed in Petrine primacy. Do you believe that those in Rome always held to primacy and supremacy?
Brandon
Sean said,
July 27, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Brandon.
I think ‘Petrine Supremacy’ needs to be properly defined before I could comment. Also I would ask what you think the difference is between ‘primacy’ and ‘supremacy.’
Even in the Catholic Church, the local bishops have ‘supreme’ authority in their respective local churches.
Brandon said,
July 27, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Let me take a step back because I believe that I’ve made a terminological error. Petrine Supremacy and Petrine Primacy are essentially the same thing. There is a slight distinction between them but not one that is really germane to this topic
What I was attempting to express however, is that there are those who are willing to give to the Roman see the title “first among equals” (which I was using for the term Papal Primacy). The RCC however, teaches that the Roman bishop has supremacy over the other bishops by virtue of his office in the chair of Peter.
The distinction I am attempting to draw is between those in the early church who would acknowledge that Rome held a special place in the Christian tradition and those who believed that Rome was seen as the bishopric which had authority beyond its geographical jurisdiction. Just because an ECF says that the bishopric of Rome was established by Peter did not mean that he believed everything that the modern RCC claims.
My question is, do you see such a distinction, or do you believe that one necessitates the other?
Feel free to probe more if ambiguity remains.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
July 27, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Suppose a Catholic recognizes that the ecclesiastical and historical claims of Rome regarding the papacy don’t hold up. I.e., that the evidence is against it.
But the Catholic, despite not believing in the papacy, wants to remain a Catholic. Anything wrong with that?
Would the Roman Catholic Church want a member who doesn’t believe in the papacy?
David Gadbois said,
July 27, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Lane said The main point I wish to raise here is the methodological one: on what basis do we evaluate the claims of the Papacy? Here, exegetical questions arise…
Yes, indeed, how should we evaluate the claims of the papacy given that the charter document of the church, the New Testament, says nothing about such a perpetual office, even if we adopt a maximalist reading of Matthew 16 and hold that Peter was the top dog amongst the Apostles? How else could we prove that Jesus established such an office?
The Apostles do, however, spend a good deal of time in various parts of the NT describing the nature, duties, and qualifications for the offices of elder/presbyter and deacon, and the pastoral epistles provide no small amount of guidance addressed to them. It would be, at the least, strange if Jesus established an office of the papacy and the Apostles recognized such an office yet were completely silent on the matter in their inspired writings. It simply is not credible to believe they would write so much about the offices elder and deacon yet write nothing about an office that held primacy and authority over them.
Bryan Cross said,
July 27, 2012 at 1:30 pm
David,
From a non-sola-scriptura point of view, that is, from a point of view in which Scripture is not the entirety of the deposit, but the entirety of the deposit is embodied in both Scripture and Tradition, it is neither “strange” nor “not credible” that explicit articulations of certain doctrines are not spelled out as such in Scripture.
So, your strangeness criterion is a question-begging criterion.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
July 27, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Bryan, from Roland Minnerath’s point of view (“there was no question of the Roman bishops governing the church in distant solitude … the East never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West. It never accepted that the protos in the universal church could claim to be the unique successor or vicar of Peter”), it is not “question-begging”. “The Tradition” holds that Christ did not establish such an office.
How would you respond to Roland Minnerath?
Steve G said,
July 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Now withstanding tradition, it still remains strange that scripture says nothing of such a fundamental organizing principle such as the papacy. We hear of teachers, preachers, prophets, elders, deacons, etc, but not one word about the pope!
johnbugay said,
July 27, 2012 at 2:10 pm
For anyone who is wondering who Roland Minnerath is, from comment #32:
It is impossible (or should be) for Bryan to say that Minnerath’s is a “question-begging” statement. He thus needs to respond to it.
David Gadbois said,
July 27, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Bryan, you say “but the entirety of the deposit is embodied in both Scripture and Tradition,”.
I’m sorry, but I’m a bit of a textualist, and unfortunately the Roman Catholic church has not been kind enough to publish an infallible book or collection called “Tradition”, so there is nothing to exegete.
What I’m trying to say is that an appeal to the notoriously nebulous RC concept of “Tradition” (it is, after all, whatever the magisterium says it is) cannot provide a basis for historically establishing the idea that our Savior instituted a perpetual office of the papacy during the 3rd or 4th decade of the 1st century. It is not a textual, historical record that can be scrutinized. The concept is evidentially worthless. And, no, it has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting the premises of sola scriptura. Even a non-Christian historian can ask the simple question “where is the record of Jesus or the Apostles’ teaching on X, Y, and Z?”
Bryan Cross said,
July 27, 2012 at 2:18 pm
David,
Everything you said in that comment (presently #121), would have made it impossible for you to receive the gospel from the Apostles if you lived in Antioch in AD 37. It would dismiss the Apostles for not providing a textual record written by Jesus Himself. It would accuse the Apostles of saying that the deposit from Christ is “whatever the Apostles say it is.”
You’re “textualist” stance is a question-begging stance. It presupposes the impossibility (at least unacceptability on your part) of God establishing the Church with a living and authoritative oral Tradition.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
greenbaggins said,
July 27, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Bryan, the post-apostolic tradition doesn’t settle the question, either. The Romanist can find stuff in it that supports their position. The Protestant can find stuff that supports our position. Both claim the tradition supports their view. How does one adjudicate this position?
Then, it seems to me that the question involves the related question of the Reformation, and whether the Reformers left, or were kicked out. And again, from the Romanist position, the Protestants were the schismatics. From the Protestant side (and Luther did NOT want to leave the Catholic church! He wanted to reform it), the Romanists cast out a position that had always been part of the tradition. So, from the Protestant angle, it was the Romanists who cast out truth. Casting out truth is schismatic. So, from the Protestant perspective, even though Romanists claim that the Protestants are the schismatics, from our perspective, the Romanists cast out truth so as to be able to retain the appearance of continuity with the truth, when in fact, they reified only one strand of the tradition. If one reads volume 3 of the King/Webster trilogy on the ECF, it becomes VERY clear that sola scriptura was accepted in the early church. If one reads Thomas Oden’s Justification Reader, it becomes clear that sola fide was accepted in the early church. Neither was accepted universally, of course. But neither was officially excommunicated, either.
So now we come to the question of progression of doctrine and tradition. Now the question of the identity of the tradition becomes very acute. Where is it found? In the line of continuity of the Romanist position? Or in the line of continuity of the ECF through to the Reformers? If modern Romanists get to define what tradition is, then they can simply define the Protestant position out of court. That, of course, is begging the question. Whose tradition, and what line of tradition trumps? All I’m pointing out in this paragraph is that Protestants can claim tradition, too, though we do not elevate it to the level of Scripture.
David Gadbois said,
July 27, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Bryan said It presupposes the impossibility (at least unacceptability on your part) of God establishing the Church with a living and authoritative oral Tradition.
So in this instance the chameleon-like RC “Tradition” morphs and shape-shifts into its form as oral tradition. But there is no historical evidence of any such oral tradition, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not even push this meaning when it defines Tradition as we demonstrated here:
Bryan said Everything you said in that comment (presently #121), would have made it impossible for you to receive the gospel from the Apostles if you lived in Antioch in AD 37.
That surely doesn’t follow. Firsthand testimony from a contemporaneous eyewitness is surely of great evidentiary value, especially when their ministry and testimony is authenticated by miracles (and, eventually, their martyrdom). You can’t equate that with 265th-hand testimony of events from millenia in the past. The epistemic situation of even the second generation Christians, who never met the Apostles, would be quite different than those who personally sat under the apostolic ministry. And peering back many generations and centuries into history, we have no choice but to rely on textual documentation and records. “Because a man in Rome with a funny hat says so…” does not qualify as historical evidence.
Sean said,
July 27, 2012 at 3:59 pm
But there is no historical evidence of any such oral tradition
David, can you elaborate? What claim, exactly, do you claim has no historical evidence?
Frank Aderholdt said,
July 27, 2012 at 3:59 pm
To me, the self-authenticating nature of Scripture is the key to breaking the endless cycle of battling sources and the lobbing of countless ECF quotations over each other’s walls.
I refer again to Michael Kruger’s superb work on the canon. Listen especially to his first lecture in this year’s Kistemaker lecture series at RTS Orlando, and read Part 1, Determining the Canonical Model, in “Canon Revisited.” Kruger’s analysis of three approaches to canon – as Community Determined, as Historically Determind, and as Self-Authenticating (“My Sheep Hear My Voice”), completely convinced me that the Protestant position is the correct one. As I wrote earlier, this approach not only answers the older liberal thesis but the Roman Catholic view as well. The three ways of arriving at an authoritative canon work togehter in perfect symbiosis. Each complements the other, yet Scripture as self-authenticating provides the unshakable foundation for all.
I’ve centered on canon in my comments in this discussion because in my opinion, if you understand canon right, the entire Roman Catholic authority superstructure, with its exclusive claims over the consciences of believers, will collapse.
If Scripture is indeed the very Word of God it must, over time, be self-evident and self-authenticating to the Church universal. The redeemed people of God taken as a whole (of course we acknowledge heretics and sinful sheep in her midst) will bow before the divine authority of the Bible through the work of the Spirit. The Church as institution is certainly complementary but cannot not be primary, in the submission of Christians to the Word of God. “My sheep hear my voice.”
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
July 27, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Bryan Cross and Sean Patrick,
I asked this earlier in #115: “But the Catholic, despite not believing in the papacy, wants to remain a Catholic. Anything wrong with that?
Would the Roman Catholic Church want a member who doesn’t believe in the papacy?”
What are your thoughts? Does the Roman Catholic Church want de facto cafeteria Catholics who don’t genuinely subscribe to all of the Magisterial dogma?
Sean said,
July 27, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Truth Unites…and Divides.
I think there is definately something wrong with Catholics wanting to remain Catholic that do not accept Catholic dogmas.
Further, when I was Presbyterian I don’t think the PCA ‘wanted’ members (or even allowed members) if those people rejected enough Presbyerian dogma.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
July 27, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Sean Patrick: “I think there is definately something wrong with Catholics wanting to remain Catholic that do not accept Catholic dogmas.”
Suppose you by chance overheard a conversation from someone in your Catholic parish who doesn’t accept all of the Catholic dogmas. It could be that they reject the dogma of the papacy or the Real Presence or any of the Marian dogmas or Magisterial teaching concerning contraception or masturbation, or whatever. You are basically a witness to a real, live, genuine Cafeteria Catholic. (May it never be.)
You’re not going to report the Cafeteria Catholic to your parish priest, are you?
Suppose your parish priest also hears and witnesses the same behavior/speech of these Cafeteria Catholics. He does nothing, says nothing. He doesn’t regard it as a teaching moment, for whatever reason. Basically, your priest shrugs it off.
Would that bother you? If so, would you report your priest to your bishop?
David Gadbois said,
July 27, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Lane, I think it is just getting stuck in the weeds to try and read the tea leaves of the early post-apostolic church. The historical record is incomplete, we only have small glimpses into what the church looked like in the earliest years of the 2nd century, and even less of a clear picture of the church in the latter decades of the 1st century. Even if there was a fully-recognized Roman papacy in the 2nd century, so what? That is still not proof that Christ established any such office. Even if the Roman papacy was the prevailing belief, it would still be an illegitimate distortion of church government, lacking the direct sanction of Christ. And, frankly, I would not find it particularly surprising that unbiblical hierarchical impulses would creep into the church and its form of government in the decades following the death of the apostles, progressively worsening and eventually culminating in the Roman papacy. Even the Apostles themselves had to deal with self-proclaimed “super Apostles” who wanted to claim pre-eminence for themselves.
greenbaggins said,
July 27, 2012 at 5:15 pm
I hear you, David. Ultimately, our arguments cannot rest on the historical evidence of the early church, I agree. However, the Reformers never once allowed the Romanists to claim history. The Reformers consistently and persistently claimed that their doctrine was the doctrine of the early church. I, for one, am not willing to allow the Romanists their claims of church history. Church history is on our side, not theirs.
Hugh said,
July 27, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Hey, Truth @ 129,
If the priests protect the “penitent,”
if laity are taught to be lazy,
if bishops protect pedophiles,
why think anyone’s gonna care about cafeteria catholics?
David Gadbois said,
July 27, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Sean said David, can you elaborate? What claim, exactly, do you claim has no historical evidence?
I don’t wish to rehash everything I already said in that “Oral Tradition Debate” thread (see especially my conclusion at post #325). There is no evidence that the Roman church (or any church) has sustained an oral tradition from the time of the apostles, genuine or not. Rome does not even make such a claim for herself. An oral tradition is a fixed, verbal body, like the Quran or Homer’s epics. It is transmitted by recitation and memorization. In literate societies, this body invariably gets written down at some point. It is documentable. It is not an open-ended, blank check. And unless we are talking about an outright cult, it normally is not a secretive deposit.
Sean said,
July 27, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Lane.
I, for one, am looking forward to you demonstrating this claim.
Thorin said,
July 27, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Two points:
1) It is not surprising that there is no discussion of succession to Peter in the New Testament, for the simple reason that Peter was alive when most of the New Testament was written. Peter’s supremacy among the Apostles was already well known, as shown by the Gospels. And the discussion in the New Testament of qualifications for presbyters concerned an office being filled in the local churches and was directed at those local churches. There was no similar need for a discussion of the qualifications for the Petrine office, because no such ministry was being established in the local churches that were the recipients of letters in the New Testament.
2) The Eastern Church recognized, early on, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and also recognized his jurisdiction over the Western Church. The logical conclusion from this is that the Petrine office has apostolic origins, even though the Eastern Church and the Western Church disagreed over the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction over the East. It is not logical to conclude from this disagreement between East and West over the scope of the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction that the papacy is a nullity and that the Christian Church has no need for the Petrine ministry.
Jeff Cagle said,
July 27, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Lane (#106): You know, Bryan, your claims concerning seemingly all Protestant interpretation of the Bible bears a very close resemblance to post-modernism in this respect: you seem to be assuming that there is no inherent meaning in the text of the Scripture until it is interpreted by someone.
I strongly concur. Bryan, you protest (#111) that you have given no cause for Lane’s observation.
However, you then go on to say
But if [an individual] comes to the point of seeing in Scripture some reference to “the Church,” and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, and that it is said to be the “pillar and ground of truth,” and that it will remain until Christ returns, and he decides that he will treat his own interpretation of this book as superior or more authoritative for himself than whatever interpretation of this book that presently existing community might hold, then, yes, he is presupposing sola scriptura.
You present only two options for our individual: he must assert the authority of his own interpretation or else of the interpretation of the community.
Interpretation here, interpretation there, but no inherent meaning in sight. The meaning of the text is not presented as a possible authority.
You may well believe that Scripture has meaning independent of interpretation — but you never speak in such a way. In fact, your chief apologetic method is to argue that the individual can only submit either to the interpretation of a superior, or else to his own interpretation; everyone must have a highest interpretative authority.
Further, you explicitly reject the notion that the actual meaning of Scripture can serve as an authority.
So unwind this riddle for us: Where is there room in your view for an inherent textual meaning that does not depend on interpretation?
dgh said,
July 27, 2012 at 10:05 pm
For what it’s worth, when Bryan says:
“Everything you said in that comment (presently #121), would have made it impossible for you to receive the gospel from the Apostles if you lived in Antioch in AD 37. It would dismiss the Apostles for not providing a textual record written by Jesus Himself. It would accuse the Apostles of saying that the deposit from Christ is ‘whatever the Apostles say it is.’ You’re ‘textualist’ stance is a question-begging stance. It presupposes the impossibility (at least unacceptability on your part) of God establishing the Church with a living and authoritative oral Tradition,”
it makes me wonder if the church blew it by ever forming a canon. What a great gig to rely only on oral tradition and not have to worry about texts.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 27, 2012 at 10:25 pm
dgh,
i’m sorry but i don’t follow. it is written language that is getting you down?
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 27, 2012 at 10:31 pm
Jeff Cagle at 138:
“So unwind this riddle for us: Where is there room in your view for an inherent textual meaning that does not depend on interpretation?”
Me and Dave were getting at something (or rather, it was Dave alone) – there are some things so clear that we are without excuse. But not all things in Scripture are equally plain.
There’s no riddle. Yes, sometimes we are asking what the word “is” is, but other times, Jesus is risen from the dead, and enough said.
That rhymes,
Andrew
David Gadbois said,
July 27, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Gents, I trimmed quite a few off-topic posts off of the comment thread. Stick to the topic – the claims of the papacy.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 27, 2012 at 11:35 pm
Keep up the good work, Pope David.
That’s a joke, man. But trim if you want.
I’ve yet to see anyone yet answer my challenge after ninja smoke comment 40 from yours truly…
Ninja smoke,
Andrew
David Gadbois said,
July 28, 2012 at 12:07 am
Thorin said And the discussion in the New Testament of qualifications for presbyters concerned an office being filled in the local churches and was directed at those local churches. There was no similar need for a discussion of the qualifications for the Petrine office,
The problem is worse than that, there was not even a mention of the office of pope in even an offhanded manner. There were no commands, for instance, to elders, deacons, or congregants to coordinate with or submit to the successor of Peter.
The Eastern Church recognized, early on, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and also recognized his jurisdiction over the Western Church. The logical conclusion from this is that the Petrine office has apostolic origins,
Actually, that is a complete non sequitur. There are many intervening factors that could account for a post-apostolic conception of Roman primacy quite apart from Christ’s sanction.
It is not logical to conclude from this disagreement between East and West over the scope of the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction that the papacy is a nullity and that the Christian Church has no need for the Petrine ministry.
The Christian Church needs the offices, sacraments, and means that Christ established, no more, no less.
Andrew McCallum said,
July 28, 2012 at 12:32 am
Church history is on our side, not theirs.
Lane (131),
As I read the history of the Church there are some doctrinal matters where the beliefs of the RCC today are closer to the beliefs of the Early Church than where we are (i.e. a distinct Episcopacy that is at least after the first several centuries dominated by Rome) and others where the beliefs of the Early Church don’t even hint at what Rome today believes (i.e. The Assumption). Most issues would I think fall somewhere in between these two examples in terms of whether they would support current Roman dogma. So in what sense is Church history on our side? This is just a thought, but might it be better to say that that Rome cannot establish its credibility even by her own historical standards?
I don’t mean that history is not important. History is important in the establishment of any science, theology included. The Evangelical world is awash with examples of churches and denominations who are making the same mistakes that have been made so many times before in the history of the Church because the leaders of these churches are too ignorant or proud to investigate how God has worked in the Church in previous ages.
Anyway, on the matter of Protestant swimming the Tiber, I have heard many Protestants turned Catholic talk about how reading the history of the Church was a major factor in their turning to Rome. By this they mean that they have read many things which fall into my category above which seem to support current Rome (for whatever reason the things which don’t support Rome get pushed into the background). But I think more importantly than any specific dogma, there is in the minds of these converts a certain feeling that history establishes a vital connection between Peter and the current Roman bishop. This is what I like to refer to as the “we have Peter as our Father” argument. This argument from succession seems to be the decisive argument which trumps all other historical arguments. And once the new convert has come to this conclusion other historical considerations are, for all intents and purposes, not relevant.
So in terms of apologetics, I guess I am sort of kind of agreeing with David G’s conclusions in #130. Maybe I’m wrong but at least at this point I don’t think that individual arguments about the role and function of the Bishop of Rome in the early centuries of the Church will convince the committed RC. But I do feel that the study of the history is a valuable one and is a vital study for all of us. So I look forward to your continuing posts on the papacy even if the RC’s decide it is not worth their time.
Cheers for now….
Eric Castleman said,
July 28, 2012 at 2:32 am
Sorry for my rumblings. Back to the topic. Given protestant acceptance of Roman Catholic dogmas, such as the Filioque, the pope is then biblical, and necessary:
“The error of those who say that the Vicar of Christ, the Pontiff of the Roman Church, does not have a primacy over the universal Church is similar to the error of those who say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. For Christ himself, the Son of God, consecrates and marks her as his own with the Holy Spirit, as it were with his own character and seal, as the authorities already cited make abundantly clear. And in like manner the Vicar of Christ by his primacy and foresight as a faithful servant keeps the Church Universal subject to Christ. It must, then, be shown from texts of the aforesaid Greek Doctors that the Vicar of Christ holds the fullness of power over the whole Church of Christ.
Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Bk 2
See, I actually sit in a church that is vacant of the Filioque, and the pope.
Eric Castleman said,
July 28, 2012 at 2:42 am
Let me add, the Filoque was also not accepted in the early church, but was later added. You can say, that the pope is the product of sola scriptura, and the rejection of the fathers.
dgh said,
July 28, 2012 at 8:35 am
Eric, filioque actually makes Rome Protestant since they have departed from the early church fathers. Or is it the case that when Rome departs from the early church, it’s good. When Protestants do it, it’s bad.
Man, having that pope sure comes in handy.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 28, 2012 at 8:47 am
Eric at 150:
“You can say, that the pope is the product of sola scriptura, and the rejection of the fathers.”
No you can’t. That’s my point in comments 39 and 40. Sure, the quote from Thomas in your 149 is interesting. But does not prove anything. I’m still waiting for someone to build a Biblical argument for the pontiff. You may think I am being simplistic. But what I am saying is, devoid of any church (a harsh way to describe my upbringing, which was in a revivalist semi-pelagian, Finneian, 19th century dispensational “potting soil,”), I read my Bible daily and built my foundation from the Bible alone, as a child (12 year old Jesus?).
I then encountered the Moderns (Tillich first at age 18, Bultmann and Barth wouldn’t become important until my later 20’s) so I had a theology courtesy of such.
The problem with the Moderns is too much to go into here. Despite their problems, I was reading protestants. So Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura were still in the backdrop of even ones such as Tillich (I hope that’s not a stretch, someone correct me if I am wrong).
Machen and the brave men during the 1920’s and 30’s is where my theological journey ended. Sure, you may think it’s highly coincidental that my journey ended where it began, the OPC that I was invited to by the girlfriend I met at UCSB. It was just a convenient answer. But when you read Machen, you find something rather important going on, that I continue to see a failure to acknowledge by many many people here.
My friends, we must engage the romanist, scientific, mystic, anglican, etc etc challenge. And move forward unafraid.
My only point here, despite a few rhetorical flourishes, is that I NEVER once even considered the Pope during my upbringing. Is that what’s next in my personal faith journey? My friends, I have not even bought tiber trunks yet – I mean, nothing I read about the doctrine of the Pope makes any common sense.
Someone tell me, as one who ‘loves’ my Bible, why the Pope is relevant to me.
I’m sure he’s a nice guy. But he’s more like the monarch of Britain. I nice historical figure peice. But there are real people discussing real issues. It’s time Romanists makes some apologies for thinking their way is the only true way, and acknowledge that the questions are more difficult than they want to suppose.
We love you, Romanist brothers, but if you leave our tradition, and then come post on our blogs, you do look like the regretful ex-girlfriend. I’m sorry, But it’s all a bit pathetic, these blogs and such. Why are we reading and typing, instead of spending time in God’s Word? You want answers? Take your request to God. Do not be anxious in anything brother, but by prayer and petition.
You can delete or trim this comment. But it’s time the Roman Catholic Church face the music, and work to be a contributing member. Keep your Pope all you want, just like the Brits. But don’t tell me that I have to subscribe to his twitter feed.
All I want to know is his handicap. If you can’t answer my other questions, start there.
Peace,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 28, 2012 at 9:02 am
PS Last thought development:
Romanists:
I want you to use Scripture to prove why I should swim the Tiber, or at the very least, subscribe to the Pope’s twitter feed. You know I would golf with him, so there’s no love/hate relationship.
Like Israel, Romanists, you want a king, and you have Saul. I’m sorry, but it’s time you see that Saul was not the intended king. David was. And who was it that David looked to? Read the psalms – he was not asking the religious figure head of his day for answers.
No:
http://www.esvbible.org/search/mark+12%3A35-37/
Christ is the Head. Face the facts,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 28, 2012 at 9:17 am
I mean, Bryan, Stellman, “you oughtta know.”
And maybe you aren’t Morissette fans. But if you read those lyrics, that’s the answer.
Shoot me an e-mail : andrew(dot)d(dot)buckingham(at)gmail(dot)com
i have things to tell both of you, outside of blogospheric space.
trim away the fat,
andrew
Jeff Cagle said,
July 28, 2012 at 9:52 am
Thorin (#135): Peter’s supremacy among the Apostles was already well known, as shown by the Gospels.
Actually, Peter’s supremacy is undermined by the Gospels and other NT documents.
(1) Peter is presented as quite fallible, in contrast to Christ.
(2) Peter is never presented or introduced as Jesus’ representative. Jesus does not direct the other apostles to listen to Peter (contrast: “This is my beloved son. Listen to him”). After the resurrection, Jesus does not install Peter into any office of supremacy.
(3) Peter is singled out as getting the Gospel wrong … not once, but twice (Acts 10, Gal 2). He also, of course, gets it right in other places.
(4) It is not Peter, but James, who renders judgment at the council of Jerusalem; and it is the apostles and the whole church who ratify that judgment.
Nothing in the Gospels supports Peter’s supremacy over the others. But something in the Gospels does, very much, condemn those who claim supremacy:
A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. — Luke 22
Where is there room here for a Bishop to lord it over the others? But that is the papal claim: “To properly belong to the Church of Jesus, one must first acknowledge the headship of the pope.”
Thorin (Oakenshield, I presume?): The Eastern Church recognized, early on, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and also recognized his jurisdiction over the Western Church. The logical conclusion from this is that the Petrine office has apostolic origins…
Actually, that’s not a logical conclusion, which is why the Eastern Church doesn’t go there.
Even if one grants, for the sake of argument, that the Apostolic Fathers recognized the Bishop of Rome as “first among equals”, there is no way to make a logical jump to “supreme over the others.”
In fact, “first among equals” is antithetical to “supreme over the others.” Rather than leading to a conclusion of a Petrine office, it leads to the conclusion that Peter’s office is the office of apostle and no more.
Pete Holter said,
July 28, 2012 at 10:17 am
Hey all! I hope I have something good to share here. Quoting from the background article…
“It is apparent, therefore, that the words in Matthew 18:19, concerning binding and loosing, do not constitute an especial privilege of Peter. They plainly put no difference between him and the other apostles.”
Since the words were directed to Peter alone in Matthew 16 and then to all the others [with Peter included] in Matthew 18, we actually do see a difference between Peter and the other apostles. He can bind and loose for the sake of the whole Church, and the rest of the Church can bind and loose together with him. We note that he was given “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19), and that all of the apostles have the similar power of binding and loosing (Matthew 18:18) because they are united with Peter who had been given the keys. And when our Savior gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, we see that He yet retained them with Himself in heaven (cf. Isaiah 22:22, Revelation 3:7). We can proceed from here to deduce that Christ exercises His all-encompassing authority “in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18) (1) without mediation in heaven, (2a) indirectly and principally through Peter’s mediation on earth, and (2b) indirectly in a shared sense through all other mediation in union with Peter. And, of course, Jesus exercises His authority on earth outside of secondary agency as well.
“Hence when Christ said to Peter, ‘Feed My sheep,’ these words bestowed upon him no privilege that was not given to the other apostles, and to the elders of all the churches. […] ‘What is that to thee?’ And in these words the Master asserted John’s entire independence of Peter, and gave no hint that He had given Peter jurisdiction over John.
“Thus not even once in any of Christ’s words and actions, as recorded in the Gospels, was there given any hint whatever of Peter’s primacy and authority over the other apostles, any hint that He had made Peter His successor, His vicar, or vicegerent, the visible head of the church.”
But if all of the sheep that Jesus committed to Peter were in fact all of Jesus’ sheep, then this would be a universal concern, as opposed to the more local concern given to the elders serving over local churches. We note that Peter, in his universal mission throughout the Church, “went here and there among them all” (Acts 9:32). Keeping in mind Peter’s inauguration of the Church’s mission to the Gentiles, and his presence among the Gentiles in Antioch when rebuked by Paul, we gain confidence from Acts 9:32 that the Catholic understanding of Peter’s pastoral care over the Church at large was indeed being vouchsafed to him by our Lord on the beach in John 21 (although not there only) when He told him to feed His sheep and to come follow Him.
In John 21, Peter swims ahead of the rest of the apostles to reach Jesus first. And the other apostles, following behind Peter, bring with them the whole catch of fish in the net of the kingdom of heaven (cf. John 21:7-11, Matt. 13:47-50). And so we see the boat of the universal Church follow along behind Peter in his great love for Jesus. But even when the apostles brought the boat to shore, it was not they who brought to Jesus the fish that they had all caught together. It was Peter alone who went back to the boat to bring the whole catch of fish the rest of the way to Jesus. Isn’t that neat? :) This context helps us to appreciate the uniqueness and universality of Jesus’ exhortation to Peter, “Feed My sheep.”
With love in Christ,
Pete
Paul Weinhold said,
July 28, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Dear Jason,
I recently returned from Rome, where I visited St. Peter’s Basilica. I saw a relief of Peter’s crucifixion; his face was worn away from the many pilgrims who have touched it over the centuries. I saw a bronze statue of him; the toes of his feet were worn away from those same pilgrims. And I saw the bones of St. Peter buried below the altar.
May the same Spirit who preserved St. Peter comfort and guide you all the days of your life–and most especially in these days of personal trial.
ad maiorem dei gloriam,
Paul Weinhold
Jeff Cagle said,
July 28, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Pete (#151): Since the words were directed to Peter alone in Matthew 16 and then to all the others [with Peter included] in Matthew 18, we actually do see a difference between Peter and the other apostles. He can bind and loose for the sake of the whole Church, and the rest of the Church can bind and loose together with him.
Sadly, this reading does not follow from the evidence you adduce. We know from Matt 16 that Peter is promised the keys; we do not know that the other disciples are not.
We find out in Matt 18 that the other disciples are in fact given the promise of the keys using the same “binding and loosing” wording as is used with Peter.
This therefore adjusts our reading of Matt 16.
When my daughters were younger, if we complimented one of them (“good job!”), the other would get jealous (“What about me?”). It took them a couple of years to learn that thinking well of one did not imply thinking poorly of the other.
So it is here. A promise directed toward Peter in Matt 16 carries no implication of lack of promise towards the others; and when the promise is in fact delivered to all in Matt 18, we don’t consider this a reversal.
If you can hear it, please observe that accepting the RC interpretation of Matt 16 leads to defending the RC interpretation of Matt 16, as you have done here. This is natural and good.
But the RC interpretation of Matt 16 does not rest on good and necessary interpretation of the text. It rests instead on the teaching of the Church. *The* fundamental reason you and other Catholics believe that Matt 16 teaches Petrine primacy, is that you have first affirmed that “I believe whatsoever the Church teaches to be true.”
As a result, the defender is left in the unfortunate position of having to make inadequate arguments for the RC position. That’s because the ground of the RC position is nothing more nor less than “because the Church says so.”
This ground decouples interpretation from actual arguments and makes interpretation rest instead on arguments from authority — which we all know to be formal fallacies.
I’m not saying that you or other Catholics cannot make arguments, or do not make arguments. I’m saying that those arguments are beside the point. For Catholics, the meaning of Matt 16 is whatever the Church says it is — and supporting arguments follow afterwards.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
July 28, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Jeff Cagle: “This ground decouples interpretation from actual arguments and makes interpretation rest instead on arguments from authority — which we all know to be formal fallacies.”
Isolating this paragraph alone, it kind of reminds me of secular political liberals who seemingly worship President Obama. He has the authority and his administration is seemingly the Magisterium.
“interpretation rest instead on arguments from authority”
Obama Zombies!
dgh said,
July 28, 2012 at 2:40 pm
And just to keep up Jeff’s point, if Peter is primary, why does Paul get so much face time in Acts and the epistles? I mean, if Rome is Peter’s place of authority, why is it Paul who has the mission to the gentiles/Romans? And why do we not see Paul or Luke or Timothy checking in with Peter (not to mention being silent about Mary).
Bryan Cross said,
July 28, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Jeff,
We’re talking about God here, who always does things for a purpose. If He wanted all the Apostles to receive the keys in the same way, then He would have given the keys to them all in the same way, and there would be no Mt 16:18. There would be only Mt 18. Giving the keys to Peter solely, and first, and then subsequently giving the power of binding and loosing to the other Apostles indicates that by divine establishment there is something unique about Peter’s role with respect to the keys, and therefore that the other Apostles use of the power of the keys in some way relates to Peter. That role and relation came to be understood more clearly as the Holy Spirit continued to lead the Church into all truth. PCA pastor (and WTS grad) Craig Higgins recognizes an ecclesial role for the successor of Peter in his section of the article “A Plausible Ecumenism.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeff Cagle said,
July 28, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Bryan, that argument over-reads the evidence. You argue that Jesus speaks only to Peter in Matt 16; this must be done for a reason; that reason must therefore be Petrine succession.
But in fact, there are many possible reasons that Jesus speaks to Peter in the singular in Matt 16. You have settled on one of them without eliminating the others.
What supporting evidence do you have that eliminates the others?
If I ask a question of my class, and a student replies correctly, I will praise that student in front of the others. Sometimes, I will speak to him (or her) in the second person singular and amplify the point that he made. (“Yes, good point. Very soon, we are going to see that all local extrema occur at critical points”). While amplifying that point and speaking to the individual, I am really speaking to the whole class. The things that I say to the individual apply to all, and the majority of my students realize this.
Without supporting evidence, it is not reasonable to assume that what Jesus says to Peter in the presence of the others is supposed to apply to Peter and not the others, especially in light of Matt 18.
If we were to use that logic, we would have to assume that Peter was the only one of the disciples in the boat who lacked faith (Matt 14.31). Such a conclusion is clearly absurd; so is the argument from Matt 16 — but this is less clear to you because it is consistent with what you already believe for other reasons.
Put another way: The Matthew 16 –> Matthew 18 sequence is consistent with Petrine succession, but it is not evidence for Petrine succession because it is consistent with many other possible interpretations as well.
Now, you may be thinking that Jesus speaks of the keys only to Peter, and this clearly sets him apart. But have you considered that the power of the keys as Jesus explains it is the power of binding and loosing? This raises the important question: What does Peter have that the other apostles do not? And how do you know this?
Pete Holter said,
July 28, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Hi Jeff!
You wrote,
“Sadly, this reading does not follow from the evidence you adduce. We know from Matt 16 that Peter is promised the keys; we do not know that the other disciples are not.
This argument actually cuts both ways. We know from Matthew 16 that Peter is promised the keys; we do not read anywhere that the other disciples were promised the same.
You also wrote,
“We find out in Matt 18 that the other disciples are in fact given the promise of the keys using the same ‘binding and loosing’ wording as is used with Peter.
“This therefore adjusts our reading of Matt 16.”
You say that the “other disciples are in fact given the promise of the keys using the same ‘binding and loosing’ wording as is used with Peter.” However, Peter is among these “other disciples.” So we actually have nothing in the text to suggest that we are wrong to say what I had said before, that the other disciples share in this ministry on account of their unity with Peter who has the keys. The language of binding and loosing is used both times, and Peter is present both times; and the giving of the keys is mentioned only once, where Peter is the only one being addressed. Therefore, based on what the two passages actually say, I think we conclude better by saying, “Matthew 16 adjusts our reading of Matthew 18”: the disciples share in the ministry of binding and loosing on account of their unity with Peter who has the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Bryan Cross said,
July 28, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Jeff,
Tradition.
And his pupil writes:
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeff Cagle said,
July 28, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Bryan,
Can I conclude from your argument that you are conceding that there is not supporting evidence in the text of Scripture for your argument?
johnbugay said,
July 28, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Bryan — it was a changing and evolving “Tradition” that was not accepted in the east, a fact that is certified by Archbishop Roland Minnerath, as I’ve explained several times up above, in comments 32 and 120. Again, for those who may not have read all the comments:
Is Minnerath operating from a “question-begging” presupposition, or his he being honest? Why aren’t you responding to what Minnerath said?
We don’t deny that Peter was important, but in the way that I have described at this link. And of course, as I noted there, for Matthew, “The major issue of that time was the admission of the gentiles into the church, and how that was to be accomplished”. This is precisely the way in which Peter was “first”. This kind of primacy happens once, and it is over.
johnbugay said,
July 28, 2012 at 5:25 pm
And again, Bryan, the reason I keep bringing up Minnerath, because you are very quick to place “the burden of proof” on anyone “leaving the Church that Christ founded”. But you have not actually established that the Roman Catholic Church is “the Church that Christ founded”. The East, never having accepted Roman formulations, proves that “Roman primacy” must be explained in some detail. Not with simple citations, under the header of “Tradition”, which say that Peter was an important apostles. You have got some burden of proof here, which you’ve always tried to avoid. But you owe an explanation.
Hugh said,
July 28, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Jeff 155ff & Bryan 158ff,
As I said over at Tim Prussic’s Providence blog on the subject of the disciples being given the ability to forgive sin:
Hugh said,
July 28, 2012 at 5:50 pm
~ tradition trumps all ~
@ 161 Bryan replies to Jeff’s question, “What supporting evidence do you have that eliminates the others?” With, Tradition.
Uncle Tevye has
outfoxed us
outflanked us
out-manned us
outgunned us
trumped us
trussed us
tied us up
& fit us for slaughter!
Touché, Tevye, touché!
Sean said,
July 28, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Not speaking for Bryan but…
No, not at all.
John. # 161. Like I said, I don’t have Minnerath’s essay but I did see where he says, in relation to the very passage at hand, that ‘petra’ in Matt 16:18 is generally agreed to refer to the person of Peter and not just his faith
David Gadbois said,
July 28, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Bryan, plucking a few quotes from ECF’s and calling it “Tradition” does not constitute evidence that Christ founded a perpetual office of the papacy.
The Roman church never identifies such quotes as constituting “Tradition”, it is just your own inductive research into the beliefs of several ECFs. At best all we have is a self-appointed Roman Catholic internet apologist’s opinion of what constitutes evidence for RCC tradition. Thin gruel, indeed.
johnbugay said,
July 28, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Sean, I don’t deny that Peter was important. I totally reject, however, that there was any “succession” in his importance. I’ve stated in what sense he was “first”, and in what sense the church was “built” on him. He first preached at Pentecost; he first admitted Gentiles into the church.
Bryan is very careful never to positively articulate his case; he’s always finding something else wrong with whatever anyone else says. It’d be an interesting study to go through his works and find all the times when he says “you’re begging the question”.
Now, you’ve got an Archbishop on the Vatican commission that studied the issue of “Roman primacy in the first millenium”, and he is saying “The East never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West. It never accepted that the protos in the universal church could claim to be the unique successor or vicar of Peter”.
Nor do I accept the claim that the Roman bishop is “the unique successor of Peter”.
You and or Bryan must positively articulate the case for it. Else, any claims that you make in favor of a papacy may simply be dismissed from this side as “begging the question”, in the dialectical sense.
Thorin said,
July 28, 2012 at 6:10 pm
The Eastern Church accepted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome from a very early date. It also accepted the fact that he exercised jurisdiction over the Church in the West. What was contested was his jurisdiction over the Church in the East. The Orthodox view, which acknowledges an important role for the Bishop of Rome, does not validate a view which acknowledges no role whatever for the Bishop of Rome.
And there certainly were Eastern churchmen who recognized that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was rooted in the role of Peter. For example, Flavian, the deposed Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote to Leo I before the Council of Chalcedon, appealing to “the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles.” (And at Chalcedon, of course, it was acknowledged that Peter had spoken through Leo.)
Sean said,
July 28, 2012 at 6:15 pm
David.
That is not at all what we’re doing here. By virtue of the fact that we’re communicating on a blog we are limited to only posting several examples.
Here is an idea. Give me the names of three early church fathers that denied the episcopal nature of the church and denied that the bishops were held in succession from the apostles and denied that the bishop of Rome was a source of unity for the whole church. Just name those fathers right here and right now and we’ll examine their extant corpus to see whether you are right or we’re right.
I’ve been reading John Bugay and James White and Steve Hays and others for years claim that apostolic succession is some ‘pious fraud’ or ‘convenient lie’ that was foisted on an unwitting church in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th century. Trouble is that no church father who was alive to witness this fact raised a stink! They just all went along with it.
All of this evidence, that I read as a committed Presbyterian in 2005-06 forced me to seriously question why it is that I am not in communion with a bishop who is in succession from the apostles. It was important for Augustine. It was important for me.
johnbugay said,
July 28, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Thorin — the East, according to Minnerath (who studied the issue for the Vatican and is probably the best and most authoritative spokesman on the topic from the Roman Catholic perspective) clearly says “The East never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West. It never accepted that the protos in the universal church could claim to be the unique successor or vicar of Peter”. So I am going to believe his account and not yours.
Nobody doubts the bishop of Rome was important; that was because (per Constantinople, 381, and Chalcedon, 451) a. Rome was important for political reasons, and b. the Roman bishop did not have jurisdiction over Eastern churches.
johnbugay said,
July 28, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Sean 169:
It was important for Augustine. It was important for me.
Augustine was duped (i.e., “believed pious fictions”); you were duped.
Bryan Cross said,
July 28, 2012 at 6:24 pm
David,
Here and in a previous comment above you misrepresent the Catholic understanding of Tradition, as though it consists only in quotations from the Apostles that were not written down in Scripture. But the Catholic conception of Tradition is much thicker than that. The quotations I cited above are part of Tradition. Some books that explain the Catholic understanding of Tradition are Congar’s Tradition and Traditions, as well as his The Meaning of Tradition. See also Agius’s Tradition and the Church.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Sean said,
July 28, 2012 at 6:26 pm
John,
As much as I respect you, I feel totally comfortable siding with St Augustine, Doctor of the Holy Catholic Church on this matter.
johnbugay said,
July 28, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Sean, I don’t believe you really respect me. Nevertheless, I feel far more comfortable siding with Archbishop Minnerath, who says that the East never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West. It never accepted that the protos in the universal church could claim to be the unique successor or vicar of Peter.
So, with the east, I don’t accept the Petrine theology as elaborated in Augustine’s west. And for you to prompt me or anyone else here to accept it, without a positive argument making the case, you’re just begging the question.
David Gadbois said,
July 28, 2012 at 6:43 pm
The Romanists here don’t seem to be aware of the fact that an appeal to Matt 16 for petrine primacy still only constitutes half of an argument. Where is the biblical evidence for a *perpetual office* of the papacy? If it is really incumbent upon us to believe that our Lord Jesus established such an office, this issue cannot be shirked, nor is it sufficient from the standpoint of basic historical honesty to punt to “Tradition” to fill in the gaps here.
Hugh said,
July 28, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Some articles from an Ortho’x perspective:
An Orthodox View of the Great Schism, an excerpt from The Orthodox Church, by Bishop Kallistos (Ware)
Papal Infallibility Becomes Dogma. Excerpt from Two Paths, by Michael Whelton
Papal Monarchy – Collegial Traditions. Excerpt from Two Paths.
Papism as the Oldest Protestantism
Why I Abandoned Papism
Orthodox Traditionalism vs. Roman Catholic Traditionalism
Papal Supremacy: an Orthodox Tradition Q&A
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_rc.aspx
Books:
Meyendorff, John. The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church
Carlton, Clark, The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church
Guette, Abbe, The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Church
David Gadbois said,
July 28, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Bryan said Here and in a previous comment above you misrepresent the Catholic understanding of Tradition, as though it consists only in quotations from the Apostles that were not written down in Scripture.
I never said any such thing. I distinctly distinguished oral tradition as one of the elements of “Tradition”.
And it is precisely the problem that the Romanist conception of Tradition is so, um, “thick.” It is so vague and nebulous as to be unfalsifiable. And as such it is historically worthless if we want to be honest inquirers into how Christ actually established his church in the first century.
But the Catholic conception of Tradition is much thicker than that. The quotations I cited above are part of Tradition.
How do you know? ? All this is is an exercise in quote-mining sections from the ECFs that happen to support modern Romanist dogma. It is your own opinion about what you think various ECFs got right, nothing more. You have no imprimatur on your blog posts.
Hugh said,
July 28, 2012 at 7:01 pm
John, David, et. al.,
There is a curious implicit faith exercised by the papists, particularly by those who’ve poped out of Reformed Protestantism.
In such works as Madrid’s Surprised by Truth or Grody’s Journeys Home or the Hahns’ story, these folks considered themselves Christians prior to going to Rome, but at some time felt a sort of longing for something more venerable, more legitimate, whatever. And they converted to Romanism, finding the pope’s corral
They made what they believe was a free will decision, based on historical evidence, the Bible as interpreted by Rome, and her canons & decrees (i.e. her propaganda) to join the RCC.
By contrast, in the testimonies of ex-priests in Bennett/ Buckingham’s Far From Rome, Near to God,* we find the men being converted (not converting) to Christ (not to an institution).
A small semantic difference? Perhaps.
But one group decides to do something to feel more religious, more pious, more righteous.
Another group is simply passive: Their eyes are opened to their wretched state, as well as to their glorious Redeemer. They are given the gift of faith, and believe on Him unto eternal life.
* http://www.amazon.com/Far-Rome-Near-God-Testimonies/dp/0851517331
Hugh said,
July 28, 2012 at 7:03 pm
…they converted to Romanism, finding the pope’s corral more satisfying to their senses and sensibilities.
johnbugay said,
July 28, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Hugh, I am familiar with many of the works you are posting. I’ve recently been in a discussion with Bryan in which he made the claim that anyone leaving “the Church that Christ founded” “has the burden of proof” to explain his reasons. What goes along with this, in his mind, is that any evidence that is derived from a “solo-Scriptura” hermeneutic is “question-begging”, and thus discussing it is not something he has to do.
I’m producing an archbishop, from his own communion, who is now disagreeing with his claims that the early church was somehow unified around “the bishop of Rome”. This archbishop, who was on the Vatican commission studying this very issue, thus disagrees with Bryan, [supposedly] from within Bryan’s own “interpretive paradigm”.
Bryan has a PhD in philosophy, and he loves to throw his weight around, telling everyone what’s wrong with their argument. Here, now, is an argument he understands — an argument from within his own authority — and he seems to be at a loss as to how to respond to it.
Bryan Cross said,
July 28, 2012 at 7:13 pm
John,
Nothing Archbishop Minnerath says in the first boldened section is incompatible with Catholic doctrine or a recognition of papal primacy, because what he is talking about there is the manner in which the primacy is exercised, namely, in a conciliar form that also reflects very clearly the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. The Church could, in principle, go back to that form of the exercise of the primacy. See Adam DeVille’s Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy. The second boldened section is likewise fully compatible with Catholic doctrine, because Petrine theology was in fact elaborated more in the West than in the East. That’s not surprising. Given the Petrine office, where else would we expect it to be more elaborated. But that does not mean that the East never recognized papal primacy. Otherwise, the Ravenna document would be, for the Orthodox, a corruption, unfaithful to their patrimony. Metropolitan Ware recognizes that sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum (pastoral care of all the Churches) belongs to the pope by divine right. (See here.) But again, he is concerned about the manner in which that care is exercised. That’s in part what needs to be worked out in Catholic-Orthodox reunion. Finally, the last boldened statement in the quotation from Archbishop Minnerath is referring to the fact that Alexandria and Antioch were also Petrine Sees. There is a genuine sense in which those Sees also share Petrine authority. And the East has perhaps been more conscious of this than the West, although it is reflected already in the canons of Nicea, and if my memory is correct Pope Gregory the Great affirms it as well. But Archbishop Minnerath’s statement is not a claim that the Eastern Churches never recognized the primacy of the successor of St. Peter at Rome.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Constantine said,
July 28, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Hey, I like Bryan Cross’s game. Can I play?
ECF’s who did NOT believe Christ’s church was founded on Peter:
Origen:
Cyprian:
<blockquote? "Certainly the rest of the apostles were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship of dignity and power" – Cyprian, De Unitate, 4.
…and again:
Jerome:
Hilary of Poitiers:
St. Ambrose of Milan:
I hope we can play some more!
Peace.
johnbugay said,
July 28, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Bryan, DeVille’s is a work of wishful thinking. And you’d disagree with Ware on a thousand issues. As you are wont to say, any theologian can say anything, and none of it is binding. Neither of these has any authority among the Orthodox at any rate.
Of course nothing in Minnerath’s work “is incompatible with Catholic doctrine”. “Catholic doctrine” has cut itself free from any historical reality. But Minnerath is in an ecumenical discussion with people who will not permit him to be evasive as you are evasive, and thus, he must be honest with history.
So every time you cite “Catholic doctrine” on this, you are begging the question.
And contrary to what you say, Archbishop Minnerath’s statement is precisely a claim that the Eastern Churches never recognized the primacy of the successor of St. Peter at Rome.
Minnerath’s selection in the work How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? may be read at this Google Books link, beginning on page 34.
The pages not shown in this preview, 38, 39, 45, and 46, are are provided here, so the complete essay is now available.
Sean said,
July 28, 2012 at 7:50 pm
John
Would you disagree with Catholic Arch-bishop Minnerath on ‘a thousand issues’ or do you agree with everything Minnerath says?
Constantine said,
July 28, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Pete Holter @ 151
Hey Stranger,
I hope you are doing well.
But, for your own good and to keep you in good stead with your bishop, I wanted to let you know that you have strayed very far from established Catholic dogma. While all of your Scriptural quotations are very interesting, and your personal interpretations are fun, they fail the test imposed upon you by the Romanist Church.
To wit, Pope St. Pius IV binds all Romanists, thusly:
So any Scripture quotation you use, Pete, must be assumed or proven to have unanimous consent…which they never can have.
Here are just a few examples:
You wrote: “Since the words were directed to Peter alone in Matthew 16 and then to all the others [with Peter included] in Matthew 18, we actually do see a difference between Peter and the other apostles.”
St. Cyprian disagrees:
You further write:
“We note that he was given “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19), and that all of the apostles have the similar power of binding and loosing (Matthew 18:18) because they are united with Peter who had been given the keys.”
But you presuppose the primacy of Peter, deduced from Scripture, which fails the unanimous consent test.
To wit, Chrysostom as but one example:
<blockquote? [That John] "Is the pillar of the churches throughout the world, who hath the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Hom. i in Joan, pg. 59:480). [John & Peter received]: The charge of the world" (Hom. i in Joan, pg. 59:25.)
Chrysostom did not believe in your interpretation of Matthew, Peter.
Sorry to be so blunt, but to assert your answer is “the truth” runs afoul of your “Tradition”.
But I like the fact that you read Scripture on your own. I see the Holy Spirit working in you to save you from those Roman delusions!
Peace.
Constantine said,
July 28, 2012 at 8:06 pm
I think bryan @ 159 may be a little too selective in his interpretations of Ambrose.
Because elsewhere, the beloved saint has this to say:
Thorin said,
July 28, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Bryan Cross is hardly being evasive. Indeed, I have always found his arguments to be careful, cogent, and charitable.
Since Mr. Cross referred to the Ravenna Document, I thought it might be useful to quote the consensus recognized by the Catholic and Orthodox participants in that dialogue:
41. Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.
42. Conciliarity at the universal level, exercised in the ecumenical councils, implies an active role of the bishop of Rome, as protos of the bishops of the major sees, in the consensus of the assembled bishops. Although the bishop of Rome did not convene the ecumenical councils of the early centuries and never personally presided over them, he nevertheless was closely involved in the process of decision-making by the councils
This consensus, of course, does absolutely nothing to support the view that there is no apostolic succession or that bishops do not rightly exercise authority in the Church, much less that the office of the Bishop of Rome may safely be disregarded.
Jeff Cagle said,
July 28, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Bryan, with all the fur flying, you may have overlooked my question in #160?
Constantine said,
July 28, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Sean @ 169 issues the following challenge:
“Give me the names of three early church fathers that denied the episcopal nature of the church and denied that the bishops were held in succession from the apostles and denied that the bishop of Rome was a source of unity for the whole church.”
1. Episcopal nature of the church: I could recommend a great book to you by two Roman Catholic scholars entitled, “Antioch and Rome: New Testament cradles of Catholic Christianity”. The co-authors are John Meier who is/was the head of the Scripture Department at St. John’s (RC) Seminary in Yonkers, NY and Raymond Brown who needs no introduction. According to Meier you have vastly overstated your implicit claim to an “episcopal” nature of the early church, in particular. Meier, whose focus in this work was on Antioch explains how that early church (i.e. Matthean) was built on “prophets and teachers” as in Acts 13:1-2. There was no bishop. He speculates that the bishop was the result of the need for a coordinated response against the Gnostics who were widespread and energetic in their work.
This, I found very interesting: “Moreover, when we read Ignatius’ demands that nothing be done without the bishops’ approval, we should remember that the whole church at Antioch might be the size of a present-day parish, the bishop playing much the same role as a pastor.” (pgs. 76-66).
So the alleged “episcopal” nature of the church appears not to be so simple as official Rome would have it. Especially since the episcopate “evolved” at a time after Peter had been there.
2. As to “succession”, I will defer to the later work of Lane, here, and others. If you mean the term in the sense that you are bound, as a Catholic to mean it, in the Vatican I sense, it can be dismissed with great ease.
3. As to those who denied that the bishop of Rome was the “source of unity”, that is fairly easy:
a. Cyprian: 295 convened a council to override a declaration of the bishop of Rome.
b. Augustine: Worked diligently against Zosimus who had introduced Pelagianism into the church.
c. Tertullian referred to the bishop of Rome as “Pontifex Maximus” said term being an honorarium for the head of the pagan church at Rome.
Those are just from memory. If I can be permitted to consult my library, more may appear.
Peace.
Sean said,
July 28, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Constantine.
Let’s pick one of the fathers you cite rather than trying to go all at once on all of them. How about Ambrose of Milan?
You quote him saying: “Faith in then the foundation of the Church, for not the human person of St. Peter but of faith is it said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” – St. Ambrose, De Incarn., v. 34, P.L. 16:827
Firstly, notice how St. Ambrose does not say that Peter does not have a real successor or that apostolic succession is false or that the chair of St Peter (the successor) is a source and mark of unity for the whole church. Ambrose merely says that faith is the foundation of the Church and the faith that St Peter expressed is the faith of which the gates of hell will not prevail against. This is an interpretation that is not at odds with the claims of the Catholic Church. Of course the faith that St Peter professed in Matt 16:18 is important. But, this does not change the fact that Christ gave St Peter, alone, the keys to the heavenly kingdom.
Notice how Ambrose goes on, in his explanations of the psalms of David, affirm the precise thing we’re claiming:
…On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (“Commentaries on Twelve of David’s Psalms”)
And in the same work he concludes, “At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church.”.
Ambrose also says of the Roman Church to Emperor Gratian, “Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion.” Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 (A.D. 381).
And of those that are not in communion with the chair of St Peter he says, “For they have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.'” Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, 7:33 (A.D. 384).
So, as we can see St Ambrose affirmed the precise nature of the office of Peter that the Reformers rejected.
Bryan Cross said,
July 28, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Constantine,
Origen’s statement is not denying the uniqueness of the authority given to St. Peter, but affirming the truth that there are twelve foundation stones in Christ’s Church (Rev. 21:14), and Christ’s promise to St. Peter concerning the gates of hell applies to them insofar as they remain in communion with St. Peter. And the Catholic Church still believes that, and it is no way incompatible with or contrary to what I’ve already said.
The quotation from St. Cyprian likewise is affirming that *as Apostles,* they were all equal. None of the Twelve had lesser or greater portion of apostolicity than the others. And the Catholic Church still believes that, and it too is compatible with what I’ve already said. But you also did not include what St. Cyprian *does* say about the uniqueness of St. Peter. See the section on St. Cyprian in the link titled “The Chair of St. Peter” in comment #38 above. It fills in the picture, and shows that St. Cyprian did affirm the primacy of St. Peter and his successors in the Chair of St. Peter at Rome.
Regarding your citation from St. Jerome. Your ellipsis left out some pertinent information. Here’s the full quotation:
With the missing information supplied, the statement becomes one that fully supports the Catholic position.
Regarding your quotation from St. Hilary, in that same book (i.e. Book VI,) he writes, “blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” And in the paragraph following the one you quoted, he writes:
See also the quotations from St. Hilary in #24. What is made clear in this fuller context is that for St. Hilary, it was because St. Peter professed this faith (as a gift from the Father) that God rewarded him by making him “to be the foundation-stone of the Church” and giving to him “the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” St. Hilary, and the other Church Fathers, do not treat this in an either/or manner: i.e. either the rock is Peter, or it is his faith. Rather, the two are intrinsically linked together. The faith does not float free, like a platonic form. It is sacramentally located in St. Peter and his “episcopacy,” for it was this faith that Christ prayed would fail not. For St. Hilary, the faith of the Church is found in St. Peter whom Christ made the rock; the two cannot be separated. To separate from St. Peter is to separate from the faith. To separate from the faith, is to separate from St. Peter. And this is fully compatible with everything I said, and the Catholic Church still affirms it today. That is likewise the way the statement you quoted from St. Ambrose complements and harmonizes with the quotation I provided above from St. Ambrose. This the same St. Ambrose who said, “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” The faith and the office are inseparable. Such a statement would be pointless and irrelevant to St. Ambrose in the fourth century, if it applied only to the person of St. Peter who was martyred in AD 68, and not to his enduring office, through which he, under the Lord, continues to lead the Church.
It may be a game to you, but these are matters of eternal consequence, and ought to be treated with the carefulness and sincerity matters of eternal consequence require.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
David Gadbois said,
July 28, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Someone wake me up when these guys actually get around to providing some historically credible evidence that Christ established a perpetual office of the papacy.
Hugh said,
July 29, 2012 at 12:09 am
I remember this book coming out when I was in seminary. The author (I think Scott Butler) somehow got my name & number as an avid anti-popish person, and sent me a free copy.
Anyone see anything new in it? He claimed Reformed guys were poping left and right (and in the ’90s, they WERE!).
Vimeo video debate on Peter’s Papal Primacy: http://vimeo.com/8910416 (Sungenis & Butler v. White & Zins)
Hugh said,
July 29, 2012 at 12:14 am
Here’s the whole debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7kehrfDMI8
Sungenis & Butler v. White & Zins on was Peter the proto-pope?
johnbugay said,
July 29, 2012 at 5:59 am
Bryan, Minnerath is precisely talking about “the developments” not of “the manner in which the primacy is exercised”, but of the developments of Roman theological and doctrinal proposals. He says in a page that I just posted:
No matter the “warm fuzzies” Minnerath thinks that the East felt for the west, it is entirely possible to see that as honest Christian deference, whereas Roman bishops were exercising a process (in their newly found wealth) of primping in a mirror, and saying precisely how wonderful and necessary they were to the church. It wasn’t just primping, though. Deceit was involved, as Roman pontiffs in that era began an active campaign of re-writing their own history to suit their needs. This, too, is documented; it is not in question.
Your statement, too, that The Church could, in principle, go back to that form of the exercise of the primacy, raises the question, if it were to “go back” to a form of “exercise” “of the primacy” that it held before 500 AD, what, then, of the last 1500 years? How could it have gotten things so wrong? Especially in those high middle ages? How can “the primacy” be said to be “doctrinally infallible” if it gets wrong those hard-edges of “the deposit” so central to its own “exercise”?
The fact that “the East” has “never taken into accounts the doctrinal developments” which made the papacy the central “infallible” feature clearly means that they were not ever central to “the Church that Christ founded”.
Look at your statement here, referring to “the second bolded statement”:
The East never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West. It never accepted that the protos in the universal church could claim to be the unique successor or vicar of Peter.
You said:
This is clearly doctrinal. Because Christ “founded” the church in “the East”, not in Rome. It is perfectly ridiculous for you to suggest that “the Primacy”, first located in the East, moved West, articulated its theology, then never quite convinced the East that that was what it had been dealing with all these centuries.
This is the highest order of prevarication on your part. You need to admit this, and then you need to apologize to everyone you’ve been deceiving for so long, and further, you need to explain your errors to them in great detail. You’ve been causing a tremendous amount of harm.
More than that, though, the papacy owes a clearly articulated apology to the world for this deception.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 29, 2012 at 8:33 am
Thanks for the blog post, Lane. It seems there are deeply rooted opinions and feelings about issues you raise. Looking forward to further blog posts, brother. Between you and me though, reading these comments gets a little tiresome. I may just stick to what you write…everyone’s an mouth price these days. Peace.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 29, 2012 at 8:34 am
*a mouth piece … autocorrect…:-)
TurretinFan said,
July 29, 2012 at 11:02 am
David Gadbois:
You wrote: “Someone wake me up when these guys actually get around to providing some historically credible evidence that Christ established a perpetual office of the papacy.”
I’ve noticed that a few of the advocates for the papacy seem to think that they can lower the bar by accepting “development.” But:
a) Rome’s own official documents couch their dogmas (including the dogma of papal infallibility) in terms of being something continuously held from the beginning – not in terms of development from something previously held; and
b) There is no real standard for what is sufficient to constitute sufficient basis for later development.
Expanding on (a), these defenders of Rome are defending her on grounds that contradict what she says. For example, the First Vatican Council taught: “That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This holy see has always maintained this, the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.”
But the constant custom of the churches does not demonstrate a view that the Roman bishop is the supreme teacher of the church. Those who think that holding to “development” can rescue the papacy by lowering the bar need to realize that they have lowered it into a place where it bumps into Vatican I.
-TurretinFan
Pete Holter said,
July 29, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Hey Constantine!
We’re doing well, thanks. But still waiting for you to become Catholic… :)
I’ve only read a small portion of Cyprian’s writings, so I’d rather not comment on what he’s saying. However, the more important point between you and me seems to be found further down in this treatise:
In what I have read from Cyprian, I recognize myself as being in communion with him. And I am subject to the bishops that he mentions here, and am in communion with the bishop of Rome, as was he, as strained as those relations were. John Calvin, on the other hand, despising all of the bishops, “set up another altar,” or, rather, tried to tear down the altar and replace it with something else. He admitted that “scarcely one in a hundred [bishops] has been elected who had any acquaintance with sacred doctrine” (Institutes, 4.5.1), and “scarcely one benefice in a hundred is conferred without Simony” (Institutes, 4.5.6), and that there are “very few bishops, if any at all, and scarcely one in a hundred of the other clergy, [who] mounted the pulpit once in their whole lifetime” (Institutes, 4.5.12). And yet, he broke communion with every last one of them. He lost sight of that true and great love for unity that Augustine held so deeply:
I think that we all agree that all of the apostles have a universal mission. But Chrysostom still gives a primacy to Peter:
He also makes specific comparisons between Peter and John in order to draw attention to Peter as holding “the first place”:
Finally, Chrysostom says,
And this agrees with the Council of Trent where it taught that
I think I should also share that Pope Benedict recently wrote that it is “on the basis of his renewed faith” that Peter “becomes the rock that is to prevail against the destructive forces of evil” (Homily, 2/19/12). And that Jesus’ promise made to Peter—that “ ‘the gates of the underworld,’ that is, the forces of evil, will not prevail”—only holds true “inasmuch as he is the faithful steward of Christ’s message” (Homily for the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul, 6/29/12).
With love in Christ,
Pete
Sean said,
July 29, 2012 at 2:37 pm
TurretinFan #197
The Councils when defining Catholic dogma are not denying that development has occurred. The language used such as “constant custom of the church”, etc is found in all the Ecumenical Councils when defining doctrine. This does not deny that some development of terminology and theology occurred. You’ll find the same language whether the councils are talking about the papacy or the Trinity or the incarnation or the sacraments etc. I don’t know of any council pronouncment, even thouse that a Reformed person would except, that say, “Oh, and this was of course developed…”
The purpose of an ecumenical council is to define Christian dogma once and for all. Not to discuss the details of every growth in developement.
Unless you can point me to where Vatican I says, “We deny that the Church’s understanding of the chair of St Peter underwent any development” then your argument fails.
“Immediately given by the apostles”, “constant custom of the church”, “always believed” etc do not deny development. This is what Catholics believe. We firmly believe that the doctrines defined in the councils are given by the apostles and the constant custom of the church.
Andrew McCallum said,
July 29, 2012 at 3:19 pm
TF (197),
The whole development thing is another reason why I am a little skeptical that there can much progress made between Catholic and Protestant by exchanging proof texts from the history of the Church on the papacy, or any other issue that divides us. No matter how little evidence that there might seem to be for a given RC dogma in the early centuries of the Church, the concept of development can be used like a magic wand to dismiss any skeptics. It is claimed by Rome that every distinctively Roman Catholic dogma was present in some inchoate form in the deposit of the faith, often so obscured as to be invisible, but yet it was there from the beginning. To me it makes much of what is distinctly Roman Catholicism sound rather gnostic.
David G talked about being a “textualist” in one of the notes above. I resonate with this as think all systematic Reformed folks do. We want and need something that we can intellectually sink our teeth into. The vague references to development without any specific reference points just gives me a headache. So again, where are we going with all of this reference and refutation from individual Church Fathers on Rome and Peter?
albertdavidanders said,
July 29, 2012 at 3:21 pm
I am interested in one particular theme of this thread: the extent to which the Eastern Fathers accepted Papal claims.
I wonder – how many Eastern fathers would it take to establish that “The East” did or did not accept claims of Roman primacy? I hope for my way of framing the question to be suggestive.
Taking a patristic poll is just not how dogma is defined or develops. How many eastern fathers accepted or rejected the definition of Niceae, for example? If we recall the “blasphemy of Sirmium,” we remember that at one time “The whole world groaned to find itself Arian,” as Jerome would lament.
The same goes for many other dogmas. We can almost always find some subset of the fathers who can be made to seem to dissent from almost any Catholic (or catholic) dogma. But what of it? As long as we can show that a doctrine is ancient (even if not fully developed), and that some version or articulation of it can be found widely across the Christian world, then I think it cannot be dismissed out of hand as innovative.
With that in mind, I think there are two other questions that are more instructive:
1) Were there eastern Fathers who accepted a juridictional primacy for the Bishop of Rome?
2) Were there Eastern Fathers (or councils) before Photius who condemned Roman claims as heretical?
The answer to 1 is clearly yes. (I’ll document below.)
The answer to 2 is no.
The eastern claim of Rome’s heresy has always puzzled me. If Roman primacy was such an obnoxious heresy – worse than monophystism, for example (which would certainly be the right wing view of modern orthodox), then why did so many Eastern bishops consent to and even celebrate Rome’s intervention in so many doctrinal, and even jurisdictional disputes? Can you imagine the fathers at Nicea II, or at Chalcedon seeking or celebrating the endorsement of Arian or Nestorian bishops?
And why did they not call a council (without Rome) to condemn these obnoxious claims?
As for eastern fathers accepting Roman Primacy, I’m very partial to one passage from Theodore Abu Qurrah – an 8th century Syrian bishop. Hardly a bastion of Latinate Christianity, and plenty late for a fully orbed Roman claim needing refutation:
“You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.
Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself, this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean them by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabelllius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter, the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly ‘the gates of hell’, which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts.” (pp. 68-69) Library of the Christian East, vol.1
Thanks,
David
Sean said,
July 29, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Anderew # 201.
What do you say about all the evidence that has been posted on this very site from fathers such as Augustine and Ambrose? Do you agree with John Bugay that these unfortunate fathers, as well as any other that believed in apostolic succession and the unique primacy of the chair of St Peter, were just wrong? That they just believed and passed on this ‘pious lie’ through the centuries?
Sean said,
July 29, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Con’t (sorry did not mean to post so quickly above)
What we have in the extant historical record (which by the way comes to us in texts) from the fathers from at least the 2nd century onwards is a clear testimony to sacramental apostolic succession and a growing sense in the unity provided by the chair of St. Peter. That is not even disputed by John Bugay because he says that it was at this time that the ‘pious lie’ took hold and overtook the church until the Reformation rescued the church from itself.
The Reformation view of things requires that the fathers lied or misunderstood the nature of the church. It requires that the ‘real’ polity of the church was lost in the fist generation and gee if we only had more extant data from AD 33 – AD 150 that data would obviously show that the church lacked any notion of succession and Linus did not succeed Peter contra the first surviving data which talks about Linus succeeding Peter.
Burton said,
July 29, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Hello Gentleman,
Must admit I’m not quite up to par regarding the obvious specialized training and extensive reading represented at this site (from both sides). I hope my question is not too far off topic. John Bugay, you will likely recognize the question as one I posed to you over at CtC, but never felt I got a straight answer.
Assuming that the papacy is a Romanist invention and not established by God, and that the Reformed understanding is correct, how do you as a Reformed pastor (or layman) define orthodoxy versus heresy and schism versus unity? Are these definitions binding on all Christians, or just those of our denomination?
I am a Reformed Protestant, not uneducated and reasonably well read (though I’m not sure that should make a difference), and hopefully open to the leading and interior witness of the Holy Spirit (that has been my constant prayer for the decade that I have been struggling with the claims of Protestantism versus Catholicism). At sites like this one and CtC, I read many well reasoned Protestant arguments against Catholicism, but very few good positive arguments for the Reformed interpretive paradigm. It seems that, for a Protestant, there is no means of knowing with reasonable certainty which doctrines of faith and morals are heretical and which groups are schismatic. For example, conservative Protestantism has accepted contraception, and in some circles sodomy (within marriage), as fully compatible with faithful moral practice for followers of Christ. Is there any means by which my Pastor can tell me if these practices are sinful or not? If I read the New Testament prayerfully and conclude that God infuses rather than imputes righteousness, am I a heretic? By whose judgement?
If one of our elders breaks from our congregation over a particular doctrinal issue, how can I, as a Reformed Protestant, know if he is committing the sin of schism or simply forming another legitimate branch? It would seem that some form of visible authority or head, ordained by God, would be necessary to define heresy and schism, for the sake of the spiritual welfare of me and my family. I’m not saying that this is the Pope, but I am wanting some sense of how this can be resolved using the Reformed model.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Burton
johnbugay said,
July 29, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Burton 205:
I’ve just completed a book review of Bock’s Biblical Theology of Luke and Acts. It will give you a good idea of how I begin to look at these questions. In essence, Scripture itself is God’s own “interpretation” of His own redemptive acts in history. Rome likes to tell people it, and it alone, “infallibly” posits the hard edges of “the deposit of faith”, but it goes one better and claims that its authority to do this is for all time because of some nebulous reasons they never get around detailing. Notice that the “hard edges” that they claim to have can only even be imagined with Michael Liccione’s quite backward “Interpretive Paradigm”. How in the world did anyone get along without it. In fact, who, outside of the little CTC clique, even knows or cares about this? Where in Catholic dogma does that appear?
But if God himself posits to us the things He expects of us, directly in the Scriptures, how is it that Rome thinks it can do better than he has done? For all the bluster about their ability to [through “authority”] provide you with “certainty”, they can’t give it to you. They can’t give you the “infallible canon” of Roman Catholic dogma. They’ve got the Bible, to be sure, but they modify that with Tradition; these things are written in the CCC, but that wasn’t clear enough. They have to add these follow-up documents from the CDF on virtually every topic — there’s a constant flow of “clarifying”. You’d think they’d have gotten things figured out by now.
To be sure, there is a need for theologians and philosophers to consider new things within an ever-changing world. But even a doctrine like the Trinity, which was evident to Athanasius in the Scriptures, can possibly be improved upon.
Why not be satisfied with what God has posited — be content where you are, and allow that God has put his own Godly people around you who can help guide you through life. And too, why not be content to know that God has put the Baptist friends in your neighborhood, to live out God’s call in that context. Same with the Lutherans, and the Mennonites, and if you run into some Mormons, why not ask them how they know about that far away planet where they’re supposed to have come from?
Nobody in the world has the “hard edges” of “the deposit of faith” that you want. Not the Roman Catholics with their ever-expanding re-reflections on something as foundational [to them] as the papacy. Not the Syrian family, with the 22-volume canon of the NT who’s calling on Christ right now to save them during these times of trouble. Not the Presbyterian ministers here who are devout and knowledgeable and given by God to be our guides.
Sean said,
July 29, 2012 at 4:52 pm
John Bugay.
# 206.
Was it important that the council of Nicea defined the Blessed Trinity against the Arians? Was that important. Why didn’t the council fathers just relax and trust that God’s word was good enough on the matter?
johnbugay said,
July 29, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Sean, it was important. But it did not have the significance that you attribute to it.
Sean said,
July 29, 2012 at 4:59 pm
John Bugay.
Pray tell what, exactly, did the Council of Nicea lack in significance that I attribute to it?
What about the Council of Chalcedon? Was that important? Was it important to create a ‘hard edge’ for the whole universal church to combat the Monophysites?
albertdavidanders said,
July 29, 2012 at 5:09 pm
John Bugay,
“Why not be satisfied with what God has posited?”
I think this is a fascinating question. Could you please comment on where, when, and how God has “posited” that the 66 book Protestant Canon is to serve as the Rule of Faith for the Christian Church?
Another way of framing the question:
“What provision did Christ make for the continuing, authoritative exposition of the Christian faith?”
Granted that you do not believe He “posited” the Cathoic Magisterium in answer to this question, what did He posit?
To the best of my ability to discern, the common Protestant answer to this question is:
The Catholic Church is not the Rule of Faith.
Scripture is inspired.
Therefore, Scripture is the Rule of Faith.
I don’t think I need to explain to you why this syllogism does not work.
I have never seen any Protestant – not even Whitaker – try to make a sustained argument to the effect that Sola Scriptura (framed around the 66 book canon) is a revealed doctrine. At best, it is an invalid inference from inspiration.
Thoughts?
-David
Constantine said,
July 29, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Sean @ 190
Hi Sean,
I think your zeal to defend Rome is showing. The very least that can be said – and that needs be said – is that Ambrose was inconsistent. Therefore, he is a dubious source for your side.
Please consider the following:P
So a true scholar – one acknowledged on both sides of the debate sees the inconsistencies in Ambrose’s Petrine doctrine. Hence, again, he can’t be said to take your side.
Peace.
johnbugay said,
July 29, 2012 at 5:59 pm
David Anders — See Kruger’s Canon Revisited, and then tell me I can’t be satisfied with a 27-book New Testament canon.
The ordained ministry.
“III. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience…”
So far as adhering to a “rule of faith”, we don’t really know what the content of this was. Protestants certainly hold that Scripture is the rule of faith. Outside of Scripture, which we can check, Rome has posited all sorts of very bad things.
Maybe you can tell me when Michael Liccione’s “Interpretive Paradigm” first made its appearance in Christian history.
johnbugay said,
July 29, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Sean 209:
A Nicene Creed that could bind the faithful in unity.
Sean said,
July 29, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Constantine # 211.
That is a statement that says nothing more than something that Ambrose DID NOT say. In other words, its a statement about silence.
I posted some very clear passages of what Ambrose did say on the very topic at hand and have not seen those explained away.
Further, I don’t expect Ambrose to have presented a fully developed down to the last detail petrine theology. So, what Ambrose ‘did not say’ is of little consequence when compared to what he DID say.
John # 212.
I really hope you stay around Called to Communion long enough to enjoy our upcoming review of “Canon Revisited.” But, I notice you did not answer David Anders at all. He did not even ask you about the 27 book NT canon.
# 213.
I don’t think that the Nicene Creed alone was enough to bind the faithful in unity. Does it bother you that Nicea created a ‘hard edge’ which excluded the Arians from the Christian faith? Does it bother you that the council fathers didn’t just hold the 66 book Protestant canon in the face of the Arians and say, “This is sufficient.”
Pete Holter said,
July 29, 2012 at 7:06 pm
David Gadbois wrote,
Hi David Gadbois!
Peter was prayed for especially so that he might be able to confirm the brethren, i.e., all the brethren, in the faith. It was pointed out earlier that Peter alone was given the power to bind and loose, and that subsequently all of the apostles together with Peter were said to have this power in Matthew 18. So again, Peter alone, in his profession of faith, became the foundation of the Church in Matthew 16; and again we see that the other apostles were joined with Peter in this same doctrine and likewise became collaborators in laying this foundation (Ephesians 2), which is Christ. Again, all of the apostles aid in catching the fish, but Peter is the only one to drag the full catch of fish to Jesus in John 21: All believers come to Jesus through the faith that Peter confessed and the love that he displayed.
As another point of confirmation, consider that in Matthew 17:24-27, tax collectors approached Peter and asked him, “Does your teacher not pay the tax?” Peter answered for Jesus and said, “Yes.” Jesus’ response is to have Peter miraculously pay for just the two of them by using a single coin: Peter and Jesus united as one. Just as it was Peter and Jesus who were so closely knit together when Peter professed his faith in Him—so much so that Peter was given his very name from Christ the Rock—so again this scene points to the fact that Peter is being united to Jesus in a unique way as Christ’s representative in God’s Church for proclaiming the Gospel of the freedom of the sons of God to an unbelieving world of “tax collectors.”
If we can be confident that Jesus established a pastor at the head of His Church in the times of the apostles—for the sake of maintaining a unified proclamation of faith in Christ so that the world might believe—then this is the structure that we should expect to find until His return. And if you can get this far, the following line of reasoning from St. Francis de Sales becomes helpful to consider:
With love in Christ,
Pete
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 29, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Sean at 208 and 209,
If you are addressing me (I’m not that knowledgeable…)…
I’m willing to allow that our early church fathers allowed for a Pope, not as liars, but as an immature polity.
But I don’t really know my history. I should read what was mentioned in comment 1.
What I don’t understand is a blog like called to communion. I don’t really understand the comments on this blog. There’s a real discussion about
proper polity that should be taking place. I don’t see much of value coming about here. I’ll study the comments and other readings as I have time. I just don’t what is driving you all.
I will respond to comments, but not offer new thought.
Peace,
Andrew
Constantine said,
July 29, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Bryan @ 191
You write, “…and Christ’s promise to St. Peter concerning the gates of hell applies to them insofar as they remain in communion with St. Peter.”
I don’t see anything in the quote about “communion with St. Peter”, Bryan.
You write, again, “The quotation from St. Cyprian likewise is affirming that *as Apostles,* they were all equal. None of the Twelve had lesser or greater portion of apostolicity than the others. And the Catholic Church still believes that,,,”
Perhaps you would be kind enough to reconcile your statement with the formal, infallible teaching of Vatican I, which states as follows:
According to Vatican I, Peter did, in fact, have a “greater portion of apostolicity” – he was given “preference to the rest of the apostles” and had a “primacy” (i.e. singular) of power. Since Cyprian is obviously is possessed of “distorted opinions” why would you, as a Catholic rely on him?
So that is what always makes these discussions of the papacy so interesting, Bryan. Catholics must deny something in “Tradition” to make whatever the flavor-of-the-day is, work. If you give me Cyprian, you must deny Vatican I and vice versa.
Regarding Cyprian’s assertion to the uniqueness of Peter, it is established that he rewrote that position in light of Stephen’s abuse of Matthew 16:18.
And thank you for your correction about Jerome. So you agree with Jerome and against Cyprian, that Peter did have a qualitatively different relationship to the church. How can we tell which one is correct?
As regards your commingling of the faith and person of Peter in the writings of Ambrose, please see my response to Sean above. As I noted there, JND Kelly writes about Ambrose and the alleged primacy in Matthew 16:18 “his fuller discussion of the text suggests that the rock mentioned in it was not the apostle’s person so much as his faith in Christ’s Messiahship or divinity, or even the Saviour Himself, the object of his faith. “ (See citation above.)
The totality of Ambrose’s writings, according to this Patristics scholar, when analyzing Matt. 16, refers to Peter’s faith and not his person.
And you are exactly right about the eternal consequences. That is exactly why we must rid ourselves of this dependency upon earthly things and acknowledge God as Savior, Himself. God didn’t need a pope before Rome and he doesn’t need one now.
Peace.
Constantine said,
July 29, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Sean:
I love this…..
“That is a statement that says nothing more than something that Ambrose DID NOT say. In other words, its a statement about silence.”
I’m going to have to remember this the next time a Catholic says, “Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible!” I’m going to send them to Sean so he can explain why they can’t say that – it’s an argument from silence.
How absurd.
Ambrose wasn’t silent on church authority. He just didn’t say what you need him to say.
Peace.
Sean said,
July 29, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Constantine. I did not say that Ambrose was silent on church authority.
At this juncture I need to bow out. Look forward to further discussions.
Sean said,
July 29, 2012 at 8:28 pm
But, in case I was not clear: What St. Ambrose DOES say about church authority, succession and St Peter’s chair is perfectly consistent with Catholic soteriology and in fact is exactly what we’d expect to find from a father such as St Ambrose. On the flip side, what St Ambrose DOES say about eccliesiology completely rules out the Reformed conceptions of the same.
Sean said,
July 29, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Sorry, meant ‘eccliesiology’ above.
Hugh said,
July 29, 2012 at 9:44 pm
But Connie @ 218, doesn’t Vat Uno trump Cyprian?
Pete Holter said,
July 29, 2012 at 10:27 pm
David Gadbois wrote,
Hi David Gadbois!
Peter was prayed for especially so that he might be able to confirm the brethren, i.e., all the brethren, in the faith. It was pointed out earlier that Peter alone was given the power to bind and loose, and that subsequently all of the apostles together with Peter were said to have this power in Matthew 18. So again, Peter alone, in his profession of faith, became the foundation of the Church in Matthew 16; and again we see that the other apostles were joined with Peter in this same doctrine and likewise became collaborators in laying this foundation (Ephesians 2), which is Christ. Again, all of the apostles aid in catching the fish, but Peter is the only one to drag the full catch of fish to Jesus in John 21: All believers come to Jesus through the faith that Peter confessed and the love that he displayed.
As another point of confirmation, consider that in Matthew 17:24-27, tax collectors approached Peter and asked him, “Does your teacher not pay the tax?” Peter answered for Jesus and said, “Yes.” Jesus’ response is to have Peter miraculously pay for just the two of them by using a single coin: Peter and Jesus united as one. Just as it was Peter and Jesus who were so closely knit together when Peter professed his faith in Him—so much so that Peter was given his very name from Christ the Rock—so again this scene points to the fact that Peter is being united to Jesus in a unique way as Christ’s representative in God’s Church for proclaiming the Gospel of the freedom of the sons of God to an unbelieving world of “tax collectors.”
If we can be confident that Jesus established a pastor at the head of His Church in the times of the apostles—for the sake of maintaining a unified proclamation of faith in Christ so that the world might believe—then this is the structure that we should expect to find until His return. And if you can get this far, the following line of reasoning from St. Francis de Sales becomes helpful to consider:
With love in Christ,
Pete
jsm52 said,
July 29, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Pete Holter,
Did Paul not get the memo? Or for that matter, the writer to the Hebrews, James, or John? The silence is deafening in the N.T. There’s a whole lotta assuming going on here…
albertdavidanders said,
July 29, 2012 at 11:06 pm
John Bugay at 212.
John,
I think perhaps I was not sufficiently clear in my question.
I wasn’t asking about how we identify the canon.
(For the record, however, I have glanced at Kruger.)
For the sake of argument – even if I were to grant Kruger his thesis – (‘self-attestation’) – this still does not get at my question.
The question is not, “how do we identify the canon?”
It is, rather, “How do we know that the canon is (or is not) the rule of faith?”
My understanding of the Protestant confessions leads me to the understand that
1) All articles of faith must be established by divine revelation.
2) Sola Scriptura is an article of faith.
3) Sola Scriptura means that the canon (however we come to recognize it) is the Rule of Faith.
Presumably, then,Sola Scriptura must be established by divine revelation.
My question: where does divine revelation establish that this canon of Scripture we possess (however we come to recognize it) is the Rule of Faith.
Kruger (from what little I have read) only deals with the question of identifying the canon. This is a completely separate question.
By Protestantism’s own terms, I either need some divine revelation to tell me that the Canon is the Rule of faith, or I need to concede that Sola Scriptura is not an article of faith.
Does this make sense?
Finally,
I am glad to see that you agree about Christ’s provision.
I also believe that Christ established the ordained ministry as the authoritative provision for the continuing exposition of the Christian faith.
I note that Christ nowhere pointed to the Canon of Scripture to fulfill that Role.
This is why I believe the ministers of apostolic doctrine are the Rule of Faith established by Christ – not the Holy Scriptures.
This, of course, raises the further question: How do I identify those ministers to whom this charge has been entrusted?
-David
Jeff Cagle said,
July 29, 2012 at 11:12 pm
So this goes back to the question in #160.
We have the statement in Matt 16 about “the keys.”
The facts on the ground are
(1) Jesus explicitly gives the keys to Peter (16.19a).
(2) He elaborates that Peter has the authority to bind and loose (16.19b).
(3) He declares at another time to all of the disciples that they have the authority to bind and loose (18.18).
The Catholic interpretation of this sequence, represented here by Brian and Pete at least, is that the “key” phrase is the key phrase: Peter uniquely has the keys to the kingdom, which then entails Peter’s unique role as source and head of the church.
The question is then raised (#157), How does one know that this is the proper interpretation of Matt 16?
For I think we can all agree that the bare words, “I will give you the keys to the kingdom” are not obviously code for “I am making you head and source of the church.” Right? There are some leaps in understanding here.
What supplies those leaps? Bryan’s answer (#159) is “Tradition.” I’m going to tentatively assume that this is his complete answer, since he has not yet seen my question #160. Bryan, if you have more Scriptural support for the RC reading of Matt 16, feel free to adduce it at this time.
NOW.
This raises two more questions.
(1) (the easier of the two) How do we know that the quotes from Ambrose and Augustine, say, are genuinely part of the church tradition?
Let’s focus on Augustine. We agree that he was not infallible, so not all of his statements are Tradition. Which, then, and how do we know?
Then,
(2) Having identified the portions of Ambrose and Augustine that are truly Traditional, how that the Roman Catholic reading of Ambrose and Augustine is the correct reading?
This actually a vexed question with Augustine. For at some points, he sounds Roman Catholic: “Peter too would walk. He as Head, Peter as Body: because, “Upon this rock,” He saith, “I will build My Church.”” (Aug Sermon Ps 55).
But at other points, he makes the same argument that I have made:
— Aug Sermon Matt 14.25
Here, Augustine does not sound Catholic — while Peter has chief place in the Apostleship, nevertheless, the church is not built upon Peter but rather on Christ. The Rock is not Peter, but Christ Himself.
So. Since Tradition is the ground for your understanding of Matt 16, how does one identify Tradition, and how does one properly understand it?
For on a plain reading of Augustine, whom I assume is properly Traditional, Peter is not the Rock on which the church is built.
Brad B said,
July 29, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Hi Pete, #222. you wrote
If this is to establish Peter as the primary apostle, the proto pope, I find it hard to believe that Jesus would’ve ever knocked Saul of Tarsus to the ground in the first place if an infallible leader was already in place.
I think you are reading into the text the significance of the fish haul. I’ve not heard this before, but is this also an interpretation endorsed by the RCC?
Another thing, not directed at Pete, Jesus never elevated any man in an office and in fact made statements that the greatest in heaven would be the servant of others. I dont see the Bishop of Rome fitting this pattern. But in Eph 4, the provision for the building up the body for service is found without a specific position between the Spirit of God and apostles IOW, it would seem to be a critical ommision.
Jeff Cagle said,
July 29, 2012 at 11:31 pm
David (#224): Your argument would demolish Tradition just as easily. If Tradition is the way in which we know that Scripture is God’s Word, then how do we know which Tradition is properly Traditional? Worse yet, if Tradition is the way in which we properly understand Scripture, then in what way do we properly understand Tradition? See #225.
The way out of the conundrum is to distinguish between word of God and word of man.
The word of God is absolutely authoritative because it is from God Himself.
The judgment of the church as to which books are actually canonical is relatively authoritative, because that judgment is the word of man. It is fallible — but very, very likely to be correct.
And in fact, the church at times has struggled to identify which books are “in” and which are “out.” So we don’t have to look hard to see the fallibility of the church’s judgment. However, if someone wants seriously to throw out, say, Mark 16, then he needs a crackerjack argument for it, since the collective judgment of the church is against him.
[Note: I happen to believe that Mark 16.9 – 19 are not canonical, but I wouldn’t go to the stake for that belief because the historical judgment of the church is against me]
The point is that fallibility is not a binary affair. The theory of gravity is fallible, but I’ve never met anyone willing to bet against it. The Pauline authorship of Hebrews is likewise a fallible hypothesis, but many more are willing to bet against that one. The canonical status of Hebrews, however, is settled theology: fallible, but very likely to be correct.
We have an infallible Word, fallibly recognized and interpreted. Welcome to reality. :)
Hugh said,
July 29, 2012 at 11:46 pm
No, jsm55, Paul didn’t get the memo, b/c it came centuries later.
Like Muhammad and Jos. Smith, the magisterium is able to supersede Writ.
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 30, 2012 at 12:35 am
Jeff,
I would be curious to know why you think this would not also be an argument in favor of baptismal regeneration. Not only RCs, but EOs, Anglicans, and Lutherans affirm it. So if the “collective judgment of the church” across so broad a spectrum affirms it, then why is it not “very, very likely to be correct”?
Andrew McCallum said,
July 30, 2012 at 12:38 am
Sean (re: 203),
I have not read all of the posts after yours, and John or others may have answered as well. But I will say that Augustine did not believe what modern Rome does by the concept of primacy. There is much more contained in the concept of Roman primacy by the time of the Reformation in RCC dogma than the ECF’s would have ever allowed for. You can see this in the exegesis of Augustine and the ECF’s of Matt. 16 where the rock is equated with Peter’s faith rather than Peter the man. Primacy did not mean universal jurisdiction.
My point in the post you answered (201) was to question how valuable it was to count up proof texts from the Fathers. There are some beliefs in Early Christianity which sound very much like current Roman Catholic belief and some things where you cannot find anything resembling RC dogma in the writings of the ECF’s. So the simple question is how do we interpret the historical evidence? What percentage of the Fathers does it take to clearly affirm something before we say that a given RC dogma has historical warrant?
The other concern is the rather hazy conception of development employed by the RC theologians when there does not seem to be any obvious proof of a dogma from early sources. Everything is current RCC dogma is there in the deposit of faith we are told, even though it may be in a primitive and inchoate form. The whole system is rendered un-falsifiable in my estimation. My tentative assessment to Lane was that there does not seem to be a meaningful way we can assess claims and counter claims by relying on the supposed consensus patrum because we cannot come to any agreement as to what this is utilizing standard historical methodologies.
I think that there are other ways to better assess RCC dogma than making lists of what Fathers seemed to believe in what dogmas.
Bob S said,
July 30, 2012 at 12:45 am
Bryan
37 The barefaced audacity of all the former protestants over at CtC never ceases to amaze me. They not only do not bother to refute the reformed position, even more damning, they do not even seem to know what it is in the first place. How convenient is that? Evidently one and all have been blinded by the light beaming in all its refulgence from the face of his most eminent holiness.
Yet what does WCF I:7 say? The things necessary for salvation are so clearly taught that the even the unlearned by due use of the ordinary means may understand them Ps. 119:105 even as the Scripture also says, there are many things hard to be understood in Scripture 2 Pet. 3:16.
And what are the ordinary means, but the reading and especially the preaching of the word Neh. 8:8, Act 26:18, Ps. 19:8, LC155, SC 89. IOW Scripture tells us that its perspicuity does not rule out preaching, but preaching accomplishes the purpose of Scripture, glorifying God in the salvation of sinners. And in that preaching appeals to a man’s understanding and reasons with him from a text, well that smacks too much of private judgement over the blind faith preferred by Rome. So much for example of Paul in Acts 17:2 or 18:4 reasoning out of the scriptures with the Jews on the sabbath.
To that end, Rome eschews preaching in favor of pictures and passion plays, which are books for the ignorunt, if not the dramatic eye candy of the mass in the resacrificing of Christ contra Heb. 10:10,12.
Whatever Scripture might have to say or the distinctions it offers are null and void other than the cursory drive by appeals to the same for what, papal infallibility, oral tradition and a blind faith in holy mother church that makes short work of Scripture, reason and even history/tradition? Evidently she must increase and they must decrease. Indeed.
Ahem, there you uh . . . . go again, giving us your private interpretation/judgement on a Pope Steven or Steve what’s his name. It’s hard to tell, because however inescapable, private interpretation is so unreliable, you know.
Even further, how do you even know that you are who you think you are, never mind what we think you are, if not that two plus two really equals four and a half? Besides, is my private judgement really any different than the papal interpretation that says you, who are not even in holy orders, have no authority nor imprimatur whatsoever to authoritatively declare anything about Romanism?
As for presuppositions, we all have them and yes, first principles and axioms are unprovable. But that is not what the question is. Rather are one’s presuppositions consistently held and noncontradictory, as well that one’s beliefs are coherently based upon them. Because Protestantism considers Scripture the only infallible rule for faith and life, while Rome considers Tradition to hold first place in authority.
Yet the joint in the harness for Rome, like Islam and Mormonism, is that at some point she appeals to Scripture as justification for her position on whatever, the papacy, if not reason and history/traditions, again however nominal, drive-by and shallow the nature of those appeals. At which point, her intellectual paradigm/justification fails, as does the Muslim and Mormon because the Scripture shares the throne with nothing or no one.
According to Rome, Scripture is not quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart Heb. 4:12. Neither did Paul actually tell Timothy in 2 Tim. 3:15 that from a child he had known the holy scriptures, which are able to make one wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Nor were the Bereans more noble than the Thessalonicans because they searched Scripture to verify that Paul’s gospel was biblical in Act 17. Neither did Christ ever exhort his hearers to read Scripture or chide them on their ignorance of it in Matt. 12:3,5, 19:4,22:31; Mk. 12:10,26, Lk. 6:3. Who are you going to believe?
Which is to say Scripture and the church are not two equal authorities with intrinsic and extrinsic authority as per your 54. Rather like the woman at Jacob’s well, the Samaritans first believed in Christ on account of her testimony, but once they had heard Christ, they believed in him on account of what he said Jn 4:39,42. So too Augustine on the testimony of the church versus Scripture.
Bob S said,
July 30, 2012 at 12:49 am
Speaking of which, how come the great Augustine did not toe the line on the papal interpretation of Matt. 16? Where is the monolithic uniformity in the early church that Rome claims there was on its distinctives? You were asked this once before in the Oral Traditions discussion (#238) and did not answer it then and I daresay you cannot answer it now. Christ is the rock upon which Peter and the church are built. Sermon XXVI. Again on Matt.xiv. 25: Of the Lord walking on the waves of the sea, and of Peter tottering and
Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tract. CXXIV.
And if as per 47 It is arbitrary to reject the possibility of development of doctrine as applied to the papacy, while affirming the development of doctrine with respect to soteriology, one might just as well reply that it is arbitrary to reject that the development of the doctrine of the papacy is demonic in that Christ explicitly calls Peter “Satan”, not five verses past the latter’s supposed induction to the papal throne.
But in all this, we also note the prevailing fallacy of the undistributed middle term. As others have mentioned, Peter is one thing, that his primacy if granted, necessarily flows to his non apostolic successors quite another; it is a non sequitur. Yet it but one instance where something is blithely assumed without ever being proved.
As for question begging, 117 is a beaut. In answer to David asking why the apostles did not mention at all the papal office even as they explicitly did other, we are told:
From a non-sola-scriptura point of view, that is, from a point of view in which Scripture is not the entirety of the deposit, but the entirety of the deposit is embodied in both Scripture and Tradition, it is neither “strange” nor “not credible” that explicit articulations of certain doctrines are not spelled out as such in Scripture.
122 is the black cruachan calling the kettle, um . . . purple, right?
You’re “textualist” stance is a question-begging stance. It presupposes the impossibility (at least unacceptability on your part) of God establishing the Church with a living and authoritative oral Tradition.
Rather Protestantism affirms that Christ established the church with a living, authoritative and apostolic tradition, that was inscripturated and passed on to us in the NT.
IOW suffice it to say a prima facie case can be made that all in all Rome teaches a vicious, wicked and gross fideism, that butchers Scripture, reason and history/tradition even as she claims to honor them.
To be sure these days, getting protestants to agree is like herding cats, but if the alternative is the troupe of trained seals over at CtC barking “Submit to Rome and make a burnt offering of your conscientious judgement to the little Papa lest thou be damned forever” the answer quite simply is as Frank pointed out:
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. John 10:26-29
Mark that, no man, not even the pope himself or any of his self appointed drummers , is able to pluck Christ’s sheep out of his Father’s hand.
If I were you, I’d appoint myself to something else.
Jsm52 said,
July 30, 2012 at 12:54 am
Jason,
You wrote:
I would be curious to know why you think this would not also be an argument in favor of baptismal regeneration. Not only RCs, but EOs, Anglicans, and Lutherans affirm it. So if the “collective judgment of the church” across so broad a spectrum affirms it, then why is it not “very, very likely to be correct”?
Maybe 17th century Carolines and latter-day Anglo-Catholics, but not the Church of Cranmer, Latimer, Jewel, Grindal, and Hooker. Read up on the English reformation before making that assertion (McColluch, Null). And I don’t think Luther and Melancthon took that position either.
Jack
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:00 am
Jack,
Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, then just change my question to include only the RCs and EOs. That is still an overwhelming majority of Christians who have ever lived, right? Does that number not constitute “the collective judgment of the church”?
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:07 am
Benedict:
Any thoughts?
Are you a golfer?
Jsm52 said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:12 am
Well, if it’s all about the number of votes one can cobble together, then Jesus, the disciples,and the prophets lose vs. the majority of the priesthood, Pharisees, and the Israelites of O.T.
So-called consensus does not equate truth.
Bob S said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:16 am
224
I also believe that Christ established the ordained ministry as the authoritative provision for the continuing exposition of the Christian faith.
I note that Christ nowhere pointed to the Canon of Scripture to fulfill that Role.
This is why I believe the ministers of apostolic doctrine are the Rule of Faith established by Christ – not the Holy Scriptures.
This, of course, raises the further question: How do I identify those ministers to whom this charge has been entrusted?
You couldn’t be more confused if you tried, David.
Christ gave the charge to the apostles to teach and preach everything he had taught them going into all the world in Matt. 28:18-20, promising to be with them and to give them Holy Spirit to bring all things to their mind Jn. 16:13.
Which is to say Christ through his Spirit inspired Paul to write in 2 Tim 3:15 that Scripture is sufficient to prove and establish every good work, even that of determining who is faithful minister of Christ.
Respectfully you need to up your game if you can’t comprehend something as elementary as this.
IOW you are in way over your head and like Bryan, you need to get out while the getting is good.
cheers
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:28 am
I didn’t say it does. I am echoing Jeff’s statement back to him and applying it to a different issue.
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:30 am
Bob,
I don’t know if it is deliberate, but you come off as incredibly dismissive and condescending. Is that something the mods here approve of?
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:35 am
Get out and golf I might add…
Golf, Jason? Let me know, bro. I’ll buy at the 19th hole. Even for your pope.
Jsm52 said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:46 am
Jason,
I figured your intent was toward Jeff’s comment. But my point is directed toward the main “consensus” thrust I keep hearing from our RCC brethren. Adding up historical chits (via one’s interpretation) doesn’t settle things. Scripture speaks… Authoritatively, but not always to our satisfaction. We creatures are left precariously dependent, individuals and church, upon our Creator and Redeemer. It’s messy. We all struggle against it. And He remains faithful to His word and His own.
Best regards as you struggle…
Jack
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 2:01 am
JJS (#229): I would be curious to know why you think this would not also be an argument in favor of baptismal regeneration.
It is, actually. I don’t believe in baptismal regeneration, but only because the Scriptural argument against it is very compelling.
However, absent that compulsion, I would probably be favorably inclined towards BR.
Back to you. As you have observed the discussion of “the keys”, what do you make of these facts?
* On the one hand, we have a phrase in Scripture: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom”, and an interpretation of that phrase that is supported by Tradition — assuming, that is, that it is a Roman Catholic and not an Eastern Orthodox or Protestant interpretation of the Tradition, and leaving out certain uncomfortable quotes by Augustine.
* On the other, we have a plain command from Jesus to the apostles as they argue over who is the greatest: Don’t do it.
Yet the Catholic understanding of the very Church itself is grounded in the claim that Peter is the greatest apostle. If one cannot submit to that claim, one cannot properly belong to the Church.
Do you believe that Tradition is superior to matters that are plain, big, and obvious in Scripture?
Or is everything in Scripture up for interpretational grabs? Do the “keys to the kingdom” create a loophole by which the successors to Peter can assert that they are, in fact, the greatest apostles?
[If there’s an edge to my tone here, it’s directed at ideas and not towards you or any other RC personally]
Bob S said,
July 30, 2012 at 2:09 am
Jason I could respond with DT King’s famous line, but we know how that would end up.
Or I could berate you like Bryan would if you were a protestant, for appealing to your private judgement in order to club me for my exercise of the same.
Very well, but FTM the last time we crossed words here, you were chiding Mr. King for a more kid gloved approach to the Romanists trolling for converts – and what, fell in with CtC precisely because you didn’t see the love outpouring in the combox like you thought it should?
Regardless my response to you will be pretty much the same now as it was then. If you wish to play Barnabas to DAnders/John Mark, go right ahead.
And we know how that will end up, right? Maybe another trophy novice page at CtC like Josh Lim’s. You might find that acceptable, but I don’t.
Personally, I found David’s remarks pretty dismissive, patronizing and ignorant. After all, he claims to be a protestant, but like all the other fanboys over at you know where, he still sounds like he’s more than one toke over the line of wading across the Tiber.
Fine, that’s his business, but I consider the conflict with Rome to be on the order of Gal. 1:8,9 and forthright reproof more biblical than a judas kiss.
Your mileage of course, may vary as well as David Ander’s, not to mention that of course the mods will have the last word.
Till then, au revoir.
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 30, 2012 at 2:38 am
Thanks, Bob. That’s what I thought.
Eric Castleman said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:20 am
Just my opinion, but after reading all the comments, there is quite a bit of hand waving going on from the Protestant side. It is either gross overstatements about how the patristic fathers were Protestant, which is not even what an educated Protestant on the patristic era would ever foolishly say.
The problem seems to be, that both the Catholics and Protestants are cherry picking from one father here and there. What about the councils, where the collective body of bishops and priest congregated and spoke as a universal body and bound the consciences of future Christians? What do those writings say?
First off, I can tell you that there was no thought of a prebyterian government. Synergism was taught, and Monergism was rejected as heretical, which was intertwined throughout heretical views such as the monothelitism, Monoenergism, and pelagianism (surprise!) We have one writer on here who says that God didn’t die on the cross, but Jesus died. GAME OVER! You are not even doing Christianty anymore, go become a Buddhist and make a yoga workout video, because who cares what else you believe once you profess that Jesus isn’t God.
Go read St Cyril of Alexandria. The guy outright rejects the Christology that the reformed profess, and unlike quoting Origen (who was a heretic btw) his writings were upheld in 2 ecumenical councils. Go read St Maximus the Confessor. His writings were placed into the cannon of the 6th council. His writings would make Calvin poo his tunic
Were in the early church, do we find a father that speaks like a Protestant? Even more, are his thoughts then collectively accepted in a universal council by the Bishops?
Finally. Let’s just say that there was no pope in the early church, does that mean presbyterian ecclesiology is now correct? This is exactly how all heresy works. It is assumed that the correct position is always the polar opposite of the heretical position. ‘oh, Pelagius taught that there was one will in salvation and it was man’s will, and that is heresy, so the correct position must be that it is God’s will” nope! “oh, so Jesus two natures cannot be separate, so that means we have to smash them together, and we will be correct” nope! …and on and on the heretical wheel turns.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 4:00 am
Well, I know you will golf…
Yes, Eric, if its Cyril yo want me to read, I for one, can cancel golf. He is fun to read, yes yes yes…
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 4:18 am
PS, Jason et. al
We your reformed brothers are here to listen. We’re not licensed shrinks, not me at least, but help us understand your struggles. Despite being a Calvinistic jerk at times, for my part, I just want to be a friend. Peace.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 4:34 am
Eric, one more thing, my friend:
“Finally. Let’s just say that there was no pope in the early church, does that mean presbyterian ecclesiology is now correct? This is exactly how all heresy works. It is assumed that the correct position is always the polar opposite of the heretical position. ‘oh, Pelagius taught that there was one will in salvation and it was man’s will, and that is heresy, so the correct position must be that it is God’s will” nope! “oh, so Jesus two natures cannot be separate, so that means we have to smash them together, and we will be correct” nope! …and on and on the heretical wheel turns.”
Take a deep breath…and relax. With all my pelagian years of growing up, coloring your truly, please know that my faith does not rest in my corrected reformed doctrine, or, and I might get in trouble, my faith does not rest on a book. It rests on a person – this second person of the Trinity that you are bringing up. I have studied McGuckin, and can read his book a third. Yah, man, we are proud of what we’ve developed vis a vis church government. But yes – we presbyterians don’t have a lock on things. The perfect church government can still result in nightmare in the church for the witness of Christ, when handled by unGodly men.
All I am saying is, pretend that the guy whose fingers are responsible for this post, grew on an island for 18 years, with nothing but a Bible and Paul Tillich. And then someone parachutes in a book from McGuckin, and some John Owen. And then, another book from Benedict comes in, with all of his twitter feeds.
Sorry bro – there aint no basis for the Pope. I have no problem if you think he’s rad, or wahtever. But I’m not getting a twitter account.
Valley girl style, “WHATEVER….”,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 4:42 am
And for all ya’ll’s sake, please stop posting comments. My church leadership says, ‘cut it out, Andrew…don’t even look on those theology blogs…’
So for your sake, whoever you are, turn the blogs of, and focus on your families and those around you. Blog and comment if you must, but for your sake, try to avoid it.
There will come a time. Just know, these blogs need to stop eventually. Do as I say, not as I do.
Peace, friends.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:03 am
Stellman and others who still haven’t turned off blogs at 2am (time here in good ol’ Cali…)
Just check out the ‘opc blogs,’ if you like
http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=341
http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=70
Let the wookie win,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 6:31 am
PS, Jason, you don’t have to answer. But why are you posting on the blog of a PCA minister?
My suggestion is you leave Lane and us, alone.
Peace,
Andrew
johnbugay said,
July 30, 2012 at 7:15 am
David Anders #224:
Turretinfan has done quite a bit of legwork on the topic of Aquinas and the rule of faith, which you may want to look at. Here is a sample:
Meanwhile, you should see Kruger’s summary of how the “rule of faith” functioned within the second and third century church:
Just as a comment on all the Patristics citations that are floating around, there is a difference between throwing out one or two quotes, and really understanding a particular writer’s whole corpus of writings. Kruger here (and Vanhoozer and Cullmann) are individuals who could immerse themselves in all of Irenaeus’s writings, in the original languages, and to understand what’s really the emphasis and what’s likely a throwaway quote. Such a distinction is genuinely important in understanding what Irenaeus (and other early writers, such as Clement of Alexandria) meant by “the rule of faith”.
Finally, on the topic of “rule of faith”, Bavinck says:
While Bavinck allows for the role of the church “pedagogically”, “in the logical order Scripture is the sole foundation (principium unicum of church and theology. In the conflict between (church and Scripture), the possibility of which can never be denied on a Reformational view, church and confession must yield to Scripture. Not the church but Scripture is self-authenticating, the judge of controversies, and its own interpreters. Nothing may be put on a level with Scripture. Church, confession, tradition—all must be ordered and adjusted by it and submit themselves to it … Scripture alone is the norm and rule of faith and life” (Bavinck, vol 1, pg 62).
Continuing:
It is a ridiculous question at two levels.
First, as Oscar Cullmann noted, in response to his work on Peter, no Roman Catholics actually addressed that work. They asked this question. It seems to be the question of first- and last-resort for all Roman Catholics. And it has been sufficiently answered (see Kruger, for example).
Second, As Kruger notes regarding this question:
In essence, your question is nonsensical because it carries with its own answer. You are, to quote a phrase, “begging the question”.
Kruger’s model of “self-attestation” relies on not just on one, but on three facets:
1. Divine qualities of the works themselves: ““My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me”.
2. The Apostolic Origins of the works: Imagine, Paul writes a letter and sends it to Corinth. It is kept and acknowledged as a letter from the Apostle. He writes a second letter. This, too, is kept. He writes to Rome and Galatia. These, also, are kept and collected. (There’s a very good chance that Paul himself kept a collection of his own letters; but it is even more highly probably that these were collected within his own lifetime). So there never is a time when the church didn’t have “a Pauline canon”.
3. Corporate reception: by a very detailed process (which includes a study of manuscripts, ancient book binding, actual artifacts of the writings themselves – including which works were included in which manuscripts, and when), Kruger outlines how these various “canons” came together, (including the Gospels and the “catholic” epistles); this was not a smooth ride, but by and large, by Irenaeus’s day, there was a “canonical core” which was known as “THE New Testament” – there were 23 books which were not contested at all.
So again, if you understand Sola Scriptura as it is defined, rather than as you choose to caricature it, there is more than enough evidence to justify that the canon of the New Testament is “self-attesting”, and Christians today absolutely may feel justified in accepting the 27-book canon of the New Testament, without at all relying on anyone else’s authority (least of all, Rome’s).
Just by way of summarizing my own position, the way that you have become Roman Catholic is all word-games and mind-games, almost completely divorced from the actual history of the early church, and from the actual things the early church believed.
As someone here has mentioned, Christ himself forbade the disciples from “arguing which was the greatest”. Yet throughout history, it is the jockeying for position that has caused huge amounts of damage to “the church”. Few people today agree that the “Nestorian” churches held to any heresy, but they were cast off by Rome and the “Orthodox” churches, and millions of them perished by the sword. The same is true of the “Monophysites” of Egypt – they held fast to Cyril of Alexandria’s earlier Christological formulation, and they, too, were cast off by Rome and the “Orthodox”, and they, too, have largely been killed off.
It needs to be said: this “Great Schism” of the fifth century was far more massive of a split – with far more horrific consequences, than any other splits in the church. On the surface, these were splits over Christology, but foundationally, these were splits over “authority” – as in, “my position is more authoritative than yours”. And again, it was largely claims of authority that caused the 1054 split.
And yet, you CTC guys are at it again – “The Roman Catholic Church has the only authority to say what Scripture is, and what is Scripture” – the mind-games you play to come to this position are truly mind-boggling. Divorced from history, divorced from Scripture. And ultimately harmful, I am sure. How can I know this? Where else in history has anyone else held to Michael Liccione’s “Catholic IP”? When did it come into being? And yet, you’re all very satisfied with yourselves to hold it as an article of faith.
Burton said,
July 30, 2012 at 7:50 am
John,
Thanks for your response to my question (#205). At one level, your response really resonates with me. God gave us His Word in written form. It is universally accepted for two thousand years to be infallible revelation. Why look for anything more? Read it, and God will reveal through His Spirit the truths necessary for salvation.
I think the reason I still struggle with this is that to at least some degree, hard edges seem to be necessary, and I don’t see how the Protestant rule of faith as described can provide them. The Council of Nicea provided a hard edge to the doctrine of the Trinity that I don’t honestly think I could have arrived at on my own, and it seems that many in the early Church who had access to the Bible missed that hard edge as well. I also believe that a hard edge is necessary when defining the entire canon, both OT and NT. From my layperson’s reading, there seem to be reasonable arguments on both sides of the OT canon debate, and I can’t find any means by which the Protestant rule of faith can settle the question.
On moral questions, especially regarding human sexuality (the major moral battleground of our age), I am becoming increasingly convinced that hard edges on the issues of contraception, sterilization, and sexuality within marriage are truly necessary for the spiritual health of families and the church as a whole.
Maybe I do have an unhealthy felt-need for “hard edges” where they cannot exist, but I don’t see how we can define orthodoxy and true unity without at least some firm “line in the sand”, and I didn’t read in your answer how that can be accomplished, or why I am mistaken about its necessity.
As an aside (to all), posting a comment at this site is already intimidating enough for a layperson who is less trained and well-read than most of you. The obvious acrimony and ill-will from some commentors makes this all the harder, and undermines the purpose of this blog (assuming I understand its purpose). Can we start with the assumption that all here truly want to follow Christ and are seeking to do so with sincerity? If a brother has fallen into error, why not seek to bring him to the saving truth in a winsome way?
Burton
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 8:00 am
Jeff Cagle (227): (John Bugay, et al)
“David (#224): Your argument would demolish Tradition just as easily. If Tradition is the way in which we know that Scripture is God’s Word, then how do we know which Tradition is properly Traditional?”
Again – You have misunderstood my question. I said nothing about how we come to recognize Scripture as God’s word. In fact, I allowed for the sake of argument that we recognize God’s word through self-attestation – or any means you like.
So, again . ..
Granted (arguendo) that we recognize these 27 books by illumination, self-attestation, or what-have-you, to be God’s inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word . . .
How do we know that God intends them to be the Rule of Faith (i.e., the final authority to which we appeal when deciding Christian doctrine, settling controversies, etc.)?
It seems to me that inspiration clearly implies authority, but what kind of authority?
There are many authorities – even divine authorities – that must not be contravened, but may not be intended as a Rule of Faith. Eg. Conscience: “To act against conscience is neither right nor safe.”
Conscience is from God, and fully authoritative (I should not go against it.) But God does not intend conscience to be the Rule of Faith for the Church.
This is analogous to how Catholics view Scripture: Scripture is fully authoritative and divine. I cannot act or believe anything contrary to Scripture. But God has nowhere indicated that Scripture is to be the Rule of Faith. That is a SPECIFIC kind of authority. How do Protestants know that Scripture possesses that kind of authority?
To the best of my ability to discern, they merely assume it without argument. In fact, I’m certain of this. Richard Muller, in one of his tome’s on the Reformed scholastic doctrine of Scripture, admits as such:
Final, regulative authority is implied by inspiration.
The problem, from a Catholic point of view, is that the syllogism simply does not follows.
David
TurretinFan said,
July 30, 2012 at 8:32 am
David:
You think it is a serious question what authority the Word of God has for the church? But if you do, then hear the Word, which states:
Acts 5:29
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
And there are many warnings provided which encourage us to this end, such as:
Daniel 9:14
Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice.
-TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 8:41 am
David (#253): You’re correct, I misunderstood your question.
One reason that we know that Scripture is to be the Rule of Faith is by simple logic: It is the word of God; all else is the word of man. So to what else would we turn?
Another reason is that Jesus required it. Mark 7 makes clear that He drew a distinction between the commands of God and word of God, which He expected to be obeyed, and the commands of men and word of man, which He did not.
A third reason is that Scripture itself commends those who test the commands of men against the word of God. The Bereans are an obvious example, but there are many OT examples as well.
From my point of view, then, Scripture must be obeyed (we agree?); Scripture makes a distinction between God’s word and man’s in that regard; and Scripture commends the testing of the commands of men against the word of God.
That seems to me to be enough to get to some form of sola scriptura.
But what form? More later — gotta be dad.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:12 am
Hi Turretin Fan 259,
It’s nice to ‘meet’ you.
I opened up the lid of my laptop to make a once sentence post here, on the topic you are already talking about. Our infallible word, the Bible.
People are saying in this thread that we tear down the doctrine of the papacy, but that we protestants don’t “fill the void” and we are begging the question, by making Scripture our authority. They say we are circular.
I’m just pointing out, that we can’t convince anyone of the strong faith we have in Sola Scriptura. They say this is easy to debunk.
There’s just so much to be said about how we view Scripture. And we we argue till we are blue in the face, since others have no intention of joining our cause, still baffles me, but throughout history, some are called to take up this defense. I guess in the year 2012, this happens over the internet blog forums like this.
It’s just we’re pulling teeth. I guess we are getting under the Romanists’ skin when they start posting over here in our territory.
I just don’t know why our church more broadly (including various branches within the western church) must hash this out in public for all to see.
Whatev – I’m going back into my cave.
This post is too long – only point, yes, we are on secure footing with our high view of Scripture. Barth got this wrong, but we’re moving away from his Tyranny.
We’re on the move, fellow protestants,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:27 am
Albertdavidanders,
Greetings.
Not bring knowledgeable myself (but trying to show love, see 1cor 8:1-2)…
What would you use in place of Scripture for your rule of faith and practice?
Just curious.
Scripture is working just fine for me. And I think the Holy Spirit is convincing us as such. That’s what WCF chapter 1 says.
I still need to read what Owen said on the H.S….
In my cave reading purtians,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:28 am
*being
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:29 am
Jeff Cagle (255)
Thanks for your response.
Your reference to Logic here is very apt. The historic Protestant apology for Sola Scriptura has always proceeded by way of inference, rather than by the direct teaching of divine revelation.
Scripture is the Word of God. Christ cautioned us to prefer the Word of God to the Word of man, etc.
However, there are a number of problems with this argument as it applies to the dispute between Protestants and Catholics.
All Protestants and Catholics agree that we should prefer divine authorities to merely human authorities. That is not in question.
Jesus, himself, did not restrict divine authority simply to the written word of God. His own ministry is a performative contradiction of that thesis. He claimed the right to interpret, abrogate, and supplement divine-revelation-in-Scripture. (Sola Scriptura was not operative in his own ministry.)
He then could say to the apostles: whoever hears you hears me; Whatever you bind on earth . . . . , etc.
Clearly, he endowed the apostles with divine authority. Not just as witnesses, but as judges and legislators, too. But he did not limit their authority to their own written words.
Furthermore, your response suggests an interesting dilemma:
If you admit that divine revelation does not specifically call for the doctrine of sola scriptura – rather, we arrive at SS by logical inference from intuitive first principles – then you acknowledge either that SS is not an article of faith – or, that articles of faith do not require the specific teaching of divine revelation.
Thanks,
David
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:32 am
Jeff,
To assume that Scripture is the only divine authority not only contradicts the express teaching of Scripture, it is also to beg the question.
-David
johnbugay said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:33 am
Burton 254:
Burton, there are a couple of things to say about this:
1. God himself never gave “hard edges” in the Old Testament. Michael Liccione admitted as much in the Joshua Lim thread. So where might these “hard edges” be perceived in the church age?
2. Your comment on the Trinity gives some response to this. True, no one of us probably could have “arrived at it on our own”, but the Protestant understanding certainly understands the teaching ministry of the church. Which brings me to point 3.
3. Even the “hard edges” as you say, did not produce unity in the church. Even after Nicea and Constantinople (381), there is still a big fight over the filioque clause.
And as you say, think about it this way: the church of the first 400 years (almost) did not have a fixed canon though they had Kruger’s “canonical core”. This was sufficient for them.
I believe my discussion with you began over a recommendation of Michael Kruger’s work, “Canon Revisited”. This will go a long way toward responding to your question on the NT canon. Regarding the OT canon, Josephus is a relevant first-century witness; Jesus, in Luke 24:44, speaks of “all the Scriptures”, “the law, the prophets, and the writings”.
Consider:
You said:
In that Joshua Lim thread, I mentioned that we are in a “culture of persuasion”. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with you that human sexuality is “the major moral battleground”, though it is a very prevalent one.
On this, however, Rome’s hard edge — “artificial” contraception vs “natural” contraception, is arbitrary, and not helpful (especially to the 90% of Roman Catholics who practice artificial contraception). You don’t mention abortion — that’s an obviously non-artificial place to draw the line — and the church does have “ministerial” authority to explain and teach.
I suppose that’s my answer to your comment about a “line in the sand”. God has never seen fit to give any of us those “hard edges”. Not in the OT (though what they had was sufficient), not in the NT. The RCC doesn’t provide those “hard edges” (I’m assuming you’re in agreement with that one from my 206). What we have is sufficient for God’s purposes.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:37 am
I don’t see what’s so complicated. Luther said, like, 6 years, I think (or else I am way off) after his 95 theses that the Pope was not infallible, and he explains Solar Scriptura.
Is the pope still infallible for the Romanist? Because apostolic succession? Yes, both can’t be true (either the pope is at the height of authority, or the Bible is).
We Protestants reject the infallible Pope.
We retain an infallible Word.
Moderns reject infallibility altogether.
Variety is the spice of life?
Let the battles continue. People have reasons for why they defend these positions. I guess some people like to argue…
But I understand the foundation of our faith is at stake.
Resting in the everlasting arms,
Andrew
sean said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:40 am
Forgive me, I haven’t read all the comments and I know topically we’re supposed to be on the ‘primacy of the papacy’ but this is at least a complimentary issue. The protestants have a tradition, so this isn’t an argument per se against tradition but we subjugate that tradition to the final authority of scripture. 2 Tim 3:16 makes a very particular argument that the scriptures are God-breathed. We tend to gloss over this and claim they are thus ‘inspired’ and given through men particularly stamped with ‘apostolic authority’ not disimilar to the role of the prophets in the o.t. but now confirmed in writing. Kline makes the argument, that appears terribly compelling, that the scriptures(god-breathed) created the church. He parallels this with God’s creative fiat word in creation. IOW, the creation is THE PROOF of the creative power of God’s speaking or in this case breathing forth. So, it’s not a situation of where the church, gives us the scriptures but God’s breathing forth of the ‘canon’ creates the very structure, the church, of which it now gives direction. The RC likes to claim the church gave us the scriptures and affirms the canon. IOW, we have the scriptures because the church gave them to us. But 2 Tim, if we follow Kline on this, says the scriptures gave us the church via God’s creative word. I think Horton tracks similarly along this line when he talks of the ‘speech act’. So, just from a general argument starting point, the protestants in affirming the creating, ex-nihilo, power of God’s breathing forth, yes through apostolic men(not arguing for apostolic succession here in the form of romish magisterium), have the right idea, at least the canonical idea, of the scriptures standing over the subsequent tradition and yes based further yet on the idea of perspicuity, stands over the tradition and renders judgement on that tradition. Before it starts, if it starts, protestantism does NOT argue that all things in scripture are alike in their perspicousness. So, at least the idea that scripture renders judgement on early tradition, medieval tradition or contemporary tradition is the canonical idea. So, it’s not a question of tradition early, middle or late, but of a tradition in line with a God-breathed canon and forever being brought to that bar.
TurretinFan said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:49 am
“Jesus, himself, did not restrict divine authority simply to the written word of God. His own ministry is a performative contradiction of that thesis. He claimed the right to interpret, abrogate, and supplement divine-revelation-in-Scripture. (Sola Scriptura was not operative in his own ministry.) He then could say to the apostles: whoever hears you hears me; Whatever you bind on earth . . . . , etc. Clearly, he endowed the apostles with divine authority. Not just as witnesses, but as judges and legislators, too. But he did not limit their authority to their own written words.”
Jesus is ascended and the apostles have gone to be with Him. Yet we still have the Scriptures. Whereas before we had Scriptures and Jesus and the apostles, after Jesus’ ascension we had only Scriptures and the apostles. After the apostles’ death, we have only Scriptures. It doesn’t seem like something that should be difficult follow.
-TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:55 am
You are forgiven for forsaking the word of man in this thread, here. It seems people who like pain are the ones who will read all 267. Yes, we all want to be heard. Its just this is out of hand.
Jesus tells me I am forgiven. I read that somewhere in a book I read, when i was 6 years old, or so.
Resting,
Andrew
Andrew McCallum said,
July 30, 2012 at 10:08 am
David (re: 261),
The historic Protestant apology for Sola Scriptura has always proceeded by way of inference, rather than by the direct teaching of divine revelation.
There are certainly passages in Scripture, OT and NT, which we can and do refer to which speak to the sufficiency, completeness, and uniqueness of divine revelation. But given a differing philosophy of Protestant and Catholic in approaching Scripture it’s my experience that these texts don’t have much resonance with Catholics. In the context of Catholic-Protestant exchanges I prefer to switch the burden of proof onto the Catholic theologian and ask him/her to justify the belief that there is something else besides Scripture that, along with Scripture, is infallible in it’s teaching. Both sides agree that Scripture is infallible. That’s a good start. We then ask the Catholic for proof from the history of the Church or Scripture or somewhere else (here I would include the philosophical sorts of proofs like those that Mike Liccione attempts). Maybe there is some sort of justification for a body of knowledge outside of Scripture that is rightfully accepted as infallible. But if the Catholic apologist cannot provide this then we are left with Scripture alone as the only infallible authority for the Church. And that is the essence of sola scriptura. At this point I’m not arguing that the Catholic cannot provide such proof, but only laying out what I think are some reasonable ground rules. Are you OK with this approach, David?
Clearly, he endowed the apostles with divine authority. Not just as witnesses, but as judges and legislators, too. But he did not limit their authority to their own written words..
But you need to move beyond the Apostles. Their authority was unique. Is there evidence that Jesus promised that successors of the Apostles would speak infallibly outside of quoting the Word of God? If so why don’t we find some sort of evidence of such a belief in the testimony of the immediate successors of the Apostles?
TurretinFan said,
July 30, 2012 at 10:18 am
Sean (regarding the “Scripture created the church” point):
More precisely, it is the Word of God that formed the church, not vice versa – and Scripture is the Word of God in writing (as everyone in this debate acknowledges).
If Rome wants to claim that her popes, councils, and other traditions are also or additionally the Word of God, let her try to support that claim – but Rome’s apologists have been failing to meet that burden for centuries.
-TurretinFan
sean said,
July 30, 2012 at 10:30 am
Fair enough TF on the further clarification. The romish claims have to be based on exegesis of that Word. That can’t bail out of the ‘proof’ by claiming the church came first.
TurretinFan said,
July 30, 2012 at 10:32 am
Further to my last point about Rome’s apologists failing to meet the burden of showing that anything we have today, other than Scripture, is God’s word – we have a great example from ADA: “Jeff, To assume that Scripture is the only divine authority not only contradicts the express teaching of Scripture, it is also to beg the question. ”
There are many authorities that are provided by God. Those include the civil magistrate (see Romans 13), the parents (see the 5th commandment), and the religious leaders. The Sanhedrin had divine authority – Jesus even explicitly told his apostles to obey them.
Thus, the Sanhedrin had more explicitly divine authority than the Roman hierarchy ever did. Yet, notwithstanding that explicit divine authority, the apostles refused to obey when the choice was between obeying that authority and obeying the Word of God.
This shouldn’t be a hard concept for the conservatives in the Roman communion to grasp. They claim that the bishops and priests have divine authority and are, in some sense, vicars of Christ. Nevertheless, when their local liberal priest or bishop comes into conflict with (their interpretation of*) church teaching, they follow (their interpretation of*) church teaching.
Just because something has divine authority doesn’t give it supreme or ultimate authority. Parents have explicit divine authority – but they are not infallible. The same is true of elders, even elders who live in palaces, wear expensive robes, and persuade people to kiss their rings.
What Rome’s apologists need to establish, but can’t, is that the teachings of Rome are on a par with the very Word of God inscripturated in the sacred canon. Once Rome’s teachings are properly subordinated to the Scriptures, you get the Reformation.
-TurretinFan
* “their interpretation of” gratuitously added as a tribute to the many times we’ve seen it gratuitously added before “Scripture.”
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 10:51 am
TF (266):
“Jesus is ascended and the apostles have gone to be with Him. Yet we still have the Scriptures.”
Yes – I’m glad you point this out. This is exactly the kind of argument from the Protestant side I am trying to highlight.
It amounts to, “Well, maybe Jesus didn’t specify the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but, after all, Scripture is the only divine authority we have left, so it must be the Rule of Faith.”
Do you see how this is not an argument from the teaching of revelation, but rather an inference from the EXISTENCE of revelation?
This is exactly the argument I find over and over again in the Reformed Tradition. To quote from something I’ve written elsewhere:
“The Dutch theologian Leonard van Rijssen, for example, argued simply, ‘From these attributes of Scripture it follows that it is a canon and norm of the things to be believed.” According to Richard Muller, Rijssen understood Scripture’s canonical authority “as a deduction, not directly from divinity or divine authority but from several attributes of Scripture.’ Rijssen’s argument was not unique. Luther and Calvin both suggest it. Others, like Musculus, Polanus, Turrentin, Hyperius, and Vermigli, teach it more explicitly.”
My objection is that the conclusion (Scripture is the Rule of Faith) does not follow from the premise (Scripture is divine.)
It is perfectly logical to allow the divine authority of Scripture (which all Catholics do), without conceding that God intends this authority to be the Rule of Faith.
Since Sola Scriptura is proposed by most Reformed Confessions as an article of faith, what we need is not simply a tenuous logical inference from a metaphysical fact (the existence of a divine revelation), but rather a revealed TEACHING establishing this article of faith.
If Protestants cannot produce such a revealed teaching then, it seems to me, one of two results follow:
1) Sola Scriptura is at best theological opinion (not an article of faith, since it is not taught by divine revelation),
Or,
2) Not all articles of faith need to be taught directly by divine revelation, but can also be deduced (inferred) by human reason from metaphysical and other philosophical truths. [Which, however, contradicts the main point of SS]
Andrew (#268):
What I concede is that there are many passages of Scripture that speak of the divine authority of some Scriptures and caution against reliance on merely human authority. However, I don’t think there are any Scriptures that teaching the complete sufficiency of the Protestant canon as such. (Which is, after all, the point at issue)
Even the Locus Classicus (2 Tim. 3:16) teaches only what all Catholics affirm: Scripture is inspired and useful for teaching, rebuke, etc.
As far as the burden of proof is concerned:
Correct me if I am wrong, but the burden of proof is always on him who asserts.
In this case, each side has a burden of Proof:
Catholics must establish that Christ established a Church, endowed it with divine authority, and indicated that the Church is the Rule of Faith.
Protestants must established that Christ (or some divine authority) has specified the Biblical Canon as the Rule of Faith.
-David
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 11:01 am
Remember, I’m no professional. Is there anyone arguing Luther was bringing, ‘new light?’
Your burden of proof argument bears reflecting on, which I can offer you that I will be doing.
You need to read those two links I provided above from the opc website. You want to get to me? Attack my personal heritage, the orthodox presbyterian church. I grow tired of this bickering. There’s work to do, David, at large. You don’t need to become OPC ordained as I have. I just want you to explain your motives. Do you want to all join you in kissing the ring?
Your friend…
TurretinFan said,
July 30, 2012 at 11:11 am
ADA:
If you will but admit that (a) the Scriptures are the Word of God; and (b) Men must obey the Word of God, then we have met our burden of showing that the Scriptures are a rule of faith.
If your phrasing of “the rule of faith,” is meant to suggest that we have to prove the universal negative (i.e., that we have to prove the statement: “and there is no other rule of faith”), hopefully you realize we have no such burden.
As for whether SS is taught, the formal and material sufficiency of Scripture are taught in Scripture. If that is how SS is defined, then your proposed dilemma is avoided. If it is further defined as an application of that doctrine to the present circumstances (the time after the death of the apostles, but before the second coming), then it is simply an application of deductive reason from the Scriptural teaching to the facts at hand – which again avoids your proposed dilemma.
– TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 11:19 am
Yah TF, an application to the present circumstances.
Grateful,
Andrew
PS above about Solar Scriptura, I meant Sola. Pretty obvious. But perhaps humorous given the previous brain match was all about the Sun and whether the days of Genesis have anything to so with ant bites…
Luther was wrong about the Sun – the earth is rotating around it.but to my point, there are battles to be fought. SS is at the center of the disagreement. If that tension within Christendom causes you to lose sleep,talk to your minister.Peace.
sean said,
July 30, 2012 at 11:20 am
But David, we all agree to the apostolic authority of the original apostles so, the protestants are good catholics in that regard and vigorously fight to hold to those teachings as appropriate to such authority, so it’s up to rome to prove continued teaching outside the original as apostolic and not in ‘addition to or contrary of’ and we as protestants will be happy to bring that teaching tradition to the bar of the original apostolic teaching to see if it is ‘true’ to apostolic tradition. We argue for a canon that births the church, not a church that births the canon.
rcjr said,
July 30, 2012 at 11:26 am
ADA, your etc. about II Timohty 3:16 obscures a pretty relevant part of the text. Of course Rome and the Reformation agree that the Bible is inspired. Sola Scriptura isn’t about inerrancy. But the text says it equips us for every good work. Does Rome affirm we can toss all her tradition and still do and be all that we are called to do and be?
johnbugay said,
July 30, 2012 at 11:27 am
David Anders, something Carl Trueman said recently, is a key to breaking this impasse:
If you don’t agree with this, see especially my comments number 183 and especially 195 re. Roland Minnerath].
People by and large understand history, and what history is; they understand authority. They’re less inclined to see or understand epistemology, especially as, say, the papacy is offered up by Rome as a solution to any perceived epistemological problems with Sola Scriptura [which, as you can see from Turretenfan’s comment 274, we don’t accept].
The “tools” we Protestants have in specifically addressing these issues are far more sophisticated than they have ever been. For example, Michael Kruger addresses the canon issue (and essentially solving the epistemological challenge offered by Roman Catholics like David Anders) in a far more thorough way than has ever been done before.
On the other hand, the more we know, historically, about the ancient church, the less likely (“more convoluted and subversive”) claims about the early papacy become.
[Aside from the factual information that Minnerath provides, he also complicates the “burden of proof” on Roman Catholics to turn up evidence that it is somehow “endowed with divine authority”.]
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 11:30 am
Sean,
“While there are a myriad of issues that could be discussed relevant to the canon question, what’s particularly important to remember is that the church does not create the canon; rather, the canon creates the church. The church is what it is because of what the Bible says and not the reverse. The church, as the covenant people of God, receive and recognize the canon; the church does not create the canon.”
http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=472
I think effectual calling is involved too…
But its over my pay grade, gotta run!
Hugh said,
July 30, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Thanks, T-fan @31, for Webster link! Jeff @243 asked, “Do you believe that Tradition is superior to matters that are plain, big, and obvious in Scripture? Or is everything in Scripture up for interpretational grabs?”
It’s interesting, fun, and instructional my reading you MUCH better-read than I papists and Prots. Yet the issue devolves ultimately into authority. One “father” doesn’t trump another. There has to be an adjudicating body of law. For the Romanist, it’s his ever-changing Tradition (not unlike Mormonism, Islam, etc.).
For the Evangelical Reformed Protestant, it’s the Norm. Here’s a nifty quote:
”For Luther, the Scripture was norma normans–the norm that norms. In comparison, the church fathers, the ancient creeds and the doctrinal decrees of the ecumenical councils were normae normatae–normed norms. As evaluated and approved from Scripture, they were authoritative. Sola Scriptura thus meant for Luther that Scripture was the only unquestioned religious authority. It did not mean that Scripture was the only religious authority–as has often been assumed or misunderstood in subsequent Protestantism. As church fathers, ancient creeds and the ecumenical councils’ doctrinal decrees passed the test of and thus stood faithfully with Scripture, they were regarded as subordinate religious authorities which must be respected and heeded.”
–James R. Payton, Jr., Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings (IVP Academic Press, 2010), pp. 142 (in Ch. 6: “What the Reformers Meant by Sola Scriptura“). Found @ http://royatwoodonhighered.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/scripture-as-the-norm-that-norms-payton/
otrmin said,
July 30, 2012 at 12:48 pm
I think the problem here is that postmodernism is seen as merely the absence of meaning in the text. The problem is that postmodernism takes many forms. Roman Catholicism’s brand of postmodernism makes meaning dependent upon community. Kevin Vanhoozer who wrote an excellent book on postmodernism in language wrote the following:
Postmodernity does not mean the end of all authority, however, only universal norms; local norms remain in force. Interpretation is always “from below,” shaped by the readers contextually conditioned context and regulated by the authority of community based norms. [Vanhoozer, Kevin. Is There a Meaning in this Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1998. p.168]
Notice this statement:
Not necessarily. Say a person who knows nothing about Christianity picks up a Gideon Bible in a hotel room and starts reading it, and trying to understand it. Is he presupposing sola scriptura? No. He’s just trying to understand what he’s reading. But if he comes to the point of seeing in Scripture some reference to “the Church,” and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, and that it is said to be the “pillar and ground of truth,” and that it will remain until Christ returns, and he decides that he will treat his own interpretation of this book as superior or more authoritative for himself than whatever interpretation of this book that presently existing community might hold, then, yes, he is presupposing sola scriptura.
In other words, true meaning of scripture “regulated by the authority” of the community of Roman Catholic Church. As one prominent postmodern linguist Stanley Fish put it:
What I finally came to see was that the identification of what was real and normative occurred within interpretive communities [Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Harvard Univ. Press. London and Cambridge Massachusetts. 1980. p.15.]
It will do no good to point back to Matthew 16:18, because as we have already seen, Roman Catholics say they know what the correct interpretation of scripture is because the church has told them, and thus, they know the correct interpretation of Matthew 16:18 because the church tells them. Thus, you are back to the circularity of “Rome is true because Rome says so.”
Now, this circularity is not necessarily bad, from a Van Tillian standpoint. All it shows is that the Catholic is committed to the notion that the ultimate truth of the scriptures is confined to the community of Rome. What makes it postmodern is the limited, finite nature of the Catholic Church. For example, the Syrian Orthodox use this very same argument from Petrine primacy. The Syrian Orthodox say that Petrine Primacy supports *their* church, and will argue against Roman Catholics by saying that the scriptures themselves say Peter was in Antioch. Hence, they argue that Petrine Primacy supports *their* position.
How do you decide which is correct? If you say tradition, remember that it is the Catholic Church who defines what tradition is, and how tradition is to be interpreted, so you are right back to “the church is true because the church says so.” However, worse than that, the Syrian Orthodox say *they* have the true tradition, and that Rome’s view of tradition is wrong. Who is right, and how can you solve the problem objectively if you have already made the church the standard?
The real problem is that the truth of what a text means cannot be confined to any one community. The reason the meaning of any text is objective has to do with the fact that man is created in the image of God, who is a linguistic being, and with whom we must interact on a daily basis, either in rebellion or in covenant. It is this alone that provides the foundation for meaning in language. It is this relationship that is reflected when authors write and intend things, and when readers read and understand. Thus, although we are fallible in our interpretations, it is this relationship between God as the infallible communicator, the human author, and the relationship that each has to the interpreter that provides a way in which someone can test their interpretations to see if they are correct, by understanding authorial intent. To illustrate:
GodAuthor [image of God]interpreter [image of God]
This setup, therefore, provides a foundation by which interpretations can be tested. Because an artifact of the author’s intention is found in the text, the author himself is relying upon the image of God to communicate, and the interpreter has that artifact of intentionality, and is created in the image of God, there is a reference point in God himself in which interpretations of any text can be tested, and found to be true or false.
Thus, meaning in language and the rules for determining meaning in language are ultimately rooted in God himself, with no mediation through any kind of church. To say that it is mediated through the limited, finite church is to cause meaning in language to collapse into postmodernism, because the church is not big and powerful enough to serve that kind of function. Worse than that, it collapses into postmodernism because of the fact that the Roman Catholic has made an idol out of the church. It has made the meaning of the text of scripture dependent upon a mere creation: the church. Worse than that, they pervert the scriptures by saying that the scriptures teach this kind of idolatry. One idolatry simply leads to another.
Finally, textlinguistics has developed the notion of intertextuality, and it is crucial in this discussion of Matthew 16. The reality is that Peter is given the keys of binding and loosing in Matthew 18, only two chapters later. Given that this is the same book, only two chapters later, and the very same language is used of Peter and all of the apostles, how can one rule out the notion that these two texts are related? It would be different if it were in a different book or a different context. And what of the immediate discussion of Jesus saying “Get behind me Satan?” The author is going out of his way to take the focus off of Peter, and onto Christ. Because of the centrality of Christ, it is easy to see why all of the apostles get these keys; it is because they all have the same confession. It is interesting that Peter’s response in Matthew 16 is in response to the question “Who do you say that I am” [Matthew 16:15]. The “you” there is plural [υμεις]. Hence, Peter’s response is not only what Peter believes, but what the apostles as a whole believe. Thus, all the apostles receive the keys.
God Bless,
Adam
Brad B said,
July 30, 2012 at 12:52 pm
I believe that the apostle Paul used logical inference from the OT to speak authoritatively about things he wrote on. God didn’t prepare him as Pharisee of Pharisees for nothing. Logical necessity whether by inference or plain deductive reasoning has precedence carrying the same authority as the prior propositions. Sola Scriptura has solid foundation as though it were directly revealed. Anyone not wanting to see it is the same as one not wanting to see trinitarian conclusions.
Hugh said,
July 30, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Amen, Brad @280. …And as one not wanting to see the doctrines of grace, God’s absolute sovereignty, etc.
Brian Harrington said,
July 30, 2012 at 12:58 pm
This is somewhat (but hopefully not entirely) tangential question, but, observing the white hot zeal of converts to Rome, one wonders why the telos of their efforts is to convince other Christians of their need to return to Mother Church VERSUS proclaiming the Good News centering in the Person and Work of Christ? ( This seems to be a modus operandi similar to a number of the wooly headed fresh TULIP converts who expend most of their efforts lambasting this or that brand of Arminianism (I was most certainly guilty of this). Then also, we have the CREC characters dying on the hill of paedocommunion, covenant renewal worship, “federal headship” and other “distinctives”. The commonality among these disparate groups is usually an obsession over either ECLESSIAL or LITURGICAL considerations. Is this/are these, EFFECTIVELY speaking, their god? Back to the Roman convert, why so little zeal for evangelizing Muslims, members of the Jewish faith, etc. (perhaps this is attributal to Vatican II’s horrific understanding of the covenant, and its supposed inclusion of non-Christians within it?)? Or, take the CREC proponent, who attends a 50 person congregation which is comprised entirely of either disaffected Reformed Baptists, PCAers or OPCers. There is a commonality in approach which would suggest an eclipse of the Person and Work of Christ. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS. Of course, Roman Catholics will respond by repeating the heterodox notion that the church is in effect an extension of the incarnation, such that, to defend eclessial concerns is to “defend the gospel”. However, viz. such a defense, they will simply reiterate the problem of confounding eclessiology with the gospel itself, blurring the Creator/creature distinction, and unwittingly championing idolatry. With young, restless, Roman converts, as with others, one tribe is now being exchanged for another, and parochialism has scored yet another “victory.” Generally speaking, the best approach with erstwhile converts is to pray for them. They are not interested in being reasoned with. It will likely take a few years of abiding 10 minute sermonettes devoid of exegetical substance, a parish totally bereft of any form of church discipline, and related sad effects of “the church in ruins” (as the Reforrmers deemed Rome), before there is any likelihood of their returning to more safe, gospel-centric pastures. This is not to classify Roman Catholics in the same category as Muslims or other non-Trinitarians, but it is to say that the parade of converts across the Tiber these pathologies are on display, and in abundance.
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:00 pm
David (#261, with 262 waiting in the wings):
You write, All Protestants and Catholics agree that we should prefer divine authorities to merely human authorities. That is not in question.
But actually, that is precisely my charge. The ground has shifted from the Word of God to “divine authorities”, which is an ambiguous phrase out of the gate (Authorities that are divine? Authorities authorized by God? Authorities who speak the Word of God? Who are what are we talking about here?).
All Protestants and Catholics agree, or should agree, that the Word of God should be obeyed in preference to the traditions of men. For Jesus said so Himself. So did Peter. If we cannot agree on this, then I fear that my charge sticks.
—
Now, to the question “what kind of sola scriptura?” Scripture places some boundary markers out there.
(1) The Church should not require of its worshipers any practice which contradicts the Word of God or leads its worshipers into sin.
We might pose this in terms of Christian liberty or in terms of sola scriptura or in terms of the regulative principle; they all converge at this point.
But the actual evidence for (1) is found in 1 Cor 8, Mark 9.42ff, Romans 14. Leading brothers into sin OR placing a burden on their conscience in a matter that God has left at liberty, both are contrary to Scripture.
So the doctrine of sola scriptura is not actually directed towards the individual (“Here — take this Bible and come up with your own theology”), but at the Church: The Church must restrain itself from going beyond the Word of God.
(2) There is a legitimate tradition of which Paul speaks. 1 Cor 11, 2 Thess 2 speak to this. But what are these traditions? Are they secret keys to the understanding of Scripture?
Irenaeus, who was in a better position than you or I to know, taught that the apostolic tradition was precisely what they wrote down for us. He says of the doctrines of salvation:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. — Against Heresies, 3.1.1
But of heretics he says, When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. — Ibid, 3.2.1
Irenaeus rejects something that sounds remarkably like the RC argument (in particular, Bryan’s argument) for the need for a highest sacramental authority.
OK, but now Irenaeus says something positive about tradition: 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, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. — Ibid, 3.2.2
So what is this tradition that originates from the apostles? Irenaeus explains:
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. — Ibid, 3.3.1
The “traditions” were not hidden, only to be brought out at a later time. They were (and the larger context of 3.3 makes quite clear) identical to the doctrine taught in the Scriptures. For Irenaeus, tradition did not serve as the necessary interpretive filter for Scripture. Rather, it served to confirm that the Scriptures (and not the Gnostic gospels) were truly the Gospel.
If we had no Scriptures, then tradition would be necessary (3.4). But we do.
So Irenaeus concludes, 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, and that no lie is in Him. — Ibid, 3.5.1
How different this view of tradition is from the RC teaching! The tradition, especially that needed for salvation, is not hidden (“Psst — Mary stayed a virgin, and it’s anathema to believe otherwise. Pass it on!”). Rather, it speaks the same message as the Scriptures.
And Irenaeus’ method has nothing to do with ‘interpretive authorities’ and playing up the alleged non-perspecaciousness of Scripture. Instead, he says:
True knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor curtailment; and reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts. — Ibid, 4.33.8.
It’s evident that Irenaeus believes that sound doctrine depends on manifest, publicly known tradition which adds nothing to nor takes away from the Scriptures.
In short: in light of Irenaeus, it is very likely that the “apostolic tradition” to which Paul refers has the same content as the New Testament.
It is even more likely, in light of Irenaeus, that the RC argument that Tradition is necessary for a proper understanding of Scriptures, especially in places that Scripture is “obscure”, is a very wrong and pernicious argument, tending towards Gnosticism and secret knowledge.
For if it truly were necessary for our salvation to believe in transubstatiation, and perpetual virginity, and the veneration of icons, and purgatory, and the rest — the apostles would have written it down.
Hugh said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Jeff, Their successors DID write it down: ’tis called tradition. ;)
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:03 pm
David (#262): To assume that Scripture is the only divine authority not only contradicts the express teaching of Scripture, it is also to beg the question.
I’m scratching my head here. Part of the problem is that troublesome “divine authority” phrase. For parents are divinely ordained as authorities over their children, yet they are not infallible, which is what we’ve been talking about here.
But also, did you not ask me to demonstrate Sola Scriptura from Scriptures? Why is doing so to “beg the question”?
Anyways, perhaps once you clear up “divine authority” then things will be less murky.
Hugh said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Jeff, John, and other Prots,
The insanity and irrationality began (at least) @ #11: “Appealing to a divine authority (as such) in order to establish its divine authority — that would be circular. But appealing to historical evidence that also happens to belong to Tradition or Magisterium, in order to determine the authority of the Tradition and the Magisterium, is not circular.” ~ Bryan Cross
otrmin said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Hugh, but it would be circular if tradition or Magisterium must be interpreted through the lens of the magisterium. The Catholic Church has the authority to define what is tradition and how that tradition is to be interpreted. Thus, when you appeal to the meaning of tradition, you are still begging the question, because the meaning you apply comes from the Catholic Church.
Andrew McCallum said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:23 pm
David (272),
Correct me if I am wrong, but the burden of proof is always on him who asserts.
Yes, exactly. We both agree that the Scriptures are an infallible source of revelation. But the Catholic asserts that there is in addition to Scripture another source of infallible revelation in that the Church speaks infallibly at certain times and under certain conditions. We are simply asking you to justify (by appeal to Scripture, history, and/or philosophy) that which you assert. If you cannot justify this additional source of revelation then we are left with Scripture as the only infallible source of revelation for the Church. I don’t don’t know how you can the logic of the situation. God gives the Church his Word as divine revelation. If there is no other source that He gives in addition then we must conclude that sola scriptura is correct.
I suppose I should add that I agree with TF that material and formal sufficiency of Scripture is taught in Scripture. But I’m just taking a different approach.
Your discussion with TF on the rule of faith seems to assume that Protestants are denying the ministerial role of the Church in interpreting and applying Scripture. Is that what you believe?
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Hugh (#285): Good catch.
Hugh (#283): Too many layers of irony. I got lost.
Hugh said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Andrew @286 ~ see #285 and from “CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN”:
‘Nuff said, Prots. Repent and believe!
Hugh said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Then,
Hugh said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:35 pm
What part of ‘BECAUSE WE SAY SO’ don’t we Protestants understand?!
Pete Holter said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:47 pm
“Turretinfan has done quite a bit of legwork on the topic of Aquinas and the rule of faith, which you may want to look at.”
Thomas Aquinas wrote of schism, saying
And again in Against the Errors of the Greeks: “to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation” (Chapter 38).
In arguing for the sanctification of Mary in the womb of her mother, Aquinas says that “The Church celebrates the feast of our Lady’s Nativity. […] Therefore even in her birth the Blessed Virgin was holy. Therefore she was sanctified in the womb.” Aquinas knows this to be true from the bare practice of the Church. He even goes on to admit that “Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb” (Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 27). And to explain why the opinion of some Catholics who held that Mary was sanctified at conception is to be tolerated, he said, “Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of certain churches that do keep that feast, wherefore this is not to be entirely reprobated” (Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 27).
When Doug Wilson quoted Jason Stellman as saying that “I have begun to doubt whether the Bible alone can be said to be our only infallible authority for faith and practice,” he responded by saying, “But of course, that is not the formulation of sola Scriptura at all. Protestants hold that Scripture is the only ‘ultimate and infallible’ authority for faith and practice.” I was surprised to read this, but this response suggests that there are other infallible authorities for the Christian, which are themselves subject to the infallible touchstone of the Sacred Scriptures. This is perfect!
The conclusion that I draw from the little that I’ve read of Aquinas is not that sola scriptura is false; but, more simply, that Aquinas does not think that the principle of sola scriptura can function outside of the communion of the Church that he recognized as being the Church, i.e., the one that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. That it certainly cannot function in the hands of those whom he would consider schismatics. And if we think that we have properly understood Aquinas on this point, such that his thoughts on sola scriptura lead us to use him as a weapon against the Catholic Church, he guards against this by saying,
With love in Christ,
Pete
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Catholics don’t think the CC is authoritative “because the CC says so,” for that would indeed be circular.
Rather, Catholics believe they discover in Scripture and the fathers a church that is said to be, and thought of itself as, authoritative. So while they will appeal to ecclesial authority, they will not do so as an argument why anyone else should submit to that authority.
That’s why their argument is not circular.
jsm52 said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Hugh,
You wrote: Jeff, John, and other Prots,
The insanity and irrationality began (at least) @ #11: “Appealing to a divine authority (as such) in order to establish its divine authority — that would be circular. But appealing to historical evidence that also happens to belong to Tradition or Magisterium, in order to determine the authority of the Tradition and the Magisterium, is not circular.” ~ Bryan Cross
One problem with Bryan’s approach is that to determine divine authority from historical evidence, someone still needs to “divine’ (pun intended, sorry) the proper interpretation of fallible historical evidence that is at best incomplete and often in conflict with itself. That seems a large step away from a sure path to understanding truth. It settles nothing unless one comes to it with an already formed conclusion and/or built-in assumptions on the dependability of the historical record. Actually, as Hart said at his blog, history is no friend of the Catholic or the Protestant in being a final arbiter.
So, in my view, that puts us back to task of arguing and comparing competing interpretations of what is authoritative as recognized in the infallible Word of God. And that is what the Reformation was, and still is, all about.
Jack
otrmin said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Hugh,
You ignore that Greek Orthodoxy says the same thing, as does Syrian Orthodoxy. What would happen if I “repented” and “believed” them? Why should I believe your tradition over and against their tradition? That is why I say that your position makes truth communally relative. The only way out is to say that you have made a fallible decision as to which church is correct, thus admitting that you engaged in the same private judgment you accuse us of. How is that fair?
There simply is no way out. The only way out is to give up the position that scripture and tradition must be infallibly interpreted by the church. You must allow that people know the truth, and come to the truth because their heart is changed by irresistible grace and mercy of God. To place the church in that position is utter and complete idolatry.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Andrew Mc at 286,
You are pushing an idea of expanded sources for divine inspirational sources? Which one wins when your multiple sources are in conflict?
We hold the bible is the highest authority.
This discussion really isn’t very complex. I’m not forcing you to subscribe to my WCF. But when you read that document, it speaks for itself. Nowhere else is Scripture so well summarized. You should study more about the reformers, you might like them .
Peace,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Jason we are not circular. Don’t make me start quoting van til. I just don’t know what to say.
I’m happy you post. But what’s driving you dude? Your friend,
Andrew
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 2:00 pm
JJS: OK, but here’s the important question. We have seen that that Scripture itself does not provide anything beyond possible hints (“I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven”) that St. Peter and his successors are the defining center of the authoritative church.
And I think you would agree that no-one outside of the RC church believes that either Scripture or the fathers teach that Peter and his successors are the defining center of the authoritative church.
So if Scripture does not teach Petro-centrism, and the fathers may-or-may-not teach it, then why so certain?
Especially in light of what was pointed out earlier, that Jesus forbade the apostles to contend over who is the greatest?
It’s the certainty that really baffles me. You must have some hard evidence in there somewhere that you haven’t shared yet.
otrmin said,
July 30, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Jason,
Rather, Catholics believe they discover in Scripture and the fathers a church that is said to be, and thought of itself as, authoritative. So while they will appeal to ecclesial authority, they will not do so as an argument why anyone else should submit to that authority.
Then, if you came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was infallible apart from the authority of the church, why can’t we interpret the scriptures and the fathers apart from the authority of the church? If you could do it, why can’t we?
The problem is that, once you admit that the meaning of the text can be derived without submitting to the Roman Communion, then one must ask why it is that one must argue against Sola Scriptura in the first place in order to prove these points. Why can’t we just go into the text, and deal with the text on its own terms? Why the necessity of the added tradition at this point?
The position simply makes no sense. It wants to uphold a mere local authority as the only way in which we can know what scripture really says, but then it wants to say that the truth can be derived without submission to that authority. It is a mess of inconsistencies.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Jason or other Roman Catholics who were once ‘reformed’:
I want to read your stories. I will start with Bryan Cross’ website. Jason Lim I think is the latest one? I can’t for the life of me understand how you could maintain your decision to swim the Tiber. I know I am a condescending jerk. But the only reasons I can think for swimming the Tiber are not any I want to say in public. I don’t want to psychoanalzye you. Just golf and hear how things are with you and the pontiff.
My email has been posted several times.
Good bye blogs,
Andrew
Sean said,
July 30, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Andrew Buckingham.
Instead of saying over and over again that you ‘can’t for the life of me understand how we could become Catholic’ why not just ask one of us?
You can ask me: spctc2008@gmail.com
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 30, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Jeff,
You’ll note that I said that the seeker investigates both Scripture and the early fathers, not Scripture alone (to insist on the latter only would be to beg the question). Nevertheless, the seeker believes he finds sufficient evidence in these sources to indicate that Jesus thought the church he was founding was authoritative, the people who co-founded it thought it was authoritative, and those to whom they passed on their apostolic authority thought it was authoritative.
I don’t see how this is relevant; it’s like saying that no one but Trinitarians think God is triune. Plus, all Catholics probably outnumber the rest of all Christians put together.
The Catholic would argue that the testimony of Scripture and the fathers does indeed teach “Petro-centrism,” but perhaps not in the sense of giving “hard evidence” (of which there is none proving the homooision, the canon, or Sola Scriptura for that matter).
This is where interpretive paradigms come into play. In addition to the evidence he finds (that the NT and early fathers speak of the church as authoritative), he also comes to realize that such authority to bind the consciences of all believers in a council-of-Jerusalem kind of way is necessary in order to distinguish between heresy and schism, essentials and non-essentials, canonical and non-canonical, and unity and schism (whether you agree is beside the point, all I’m trying to do is show how the seeker’s thinking likely progresses).
The seeker then realizes that there are only two real options left for him: EO or the CC (since no other body claims the kind of authority that he sees evidenced in Scripture and the fathers, and which he now thinks is philosophically necessary). Of course, he still needs to decide between these two, and there are others way more qualified than I to explain how that works. But at the very least I am trying to show that the process by which one becomes Catholic or Orthodox is not question-begging, as if the convert believes in the authority of these communions simply because they claim it.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 2:40 pm
I will Sean. I already posted to Stellman’s blog.
I don’t mean to annoy. Sorry.
Expect an email after I get back from Walmart,
Andrew
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 2:44 pm
TF, Andrew, Cagle, et al.
TF wrote:
“If you will but admit that (a) the Scriptures are the Word of God; and (b) Men must obey the Word of God, then we have met our burden of showing that the Scriptures are a rule of faith.”
As you mention in the subsequent paragraph, a lot hangs on what we mean by “rule of faith.”
If you mean simply “a norm to be obeyed,” then all Catholics agree that Scriptures are A rule of faith. But clearly, the Protestant doctrine includes much, much more.
The Westminster Confession, which refers to the Scriptures as the Rule of faith, says in I.10:
“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”
That is a much more robust claim.
It is presented, furthermore, as an article of faith.
My question is simply, “Where is this article of faith taught in Holy Scripture?”
If it is, well and good. But if it is not, then is it actually an article of faith?
TF asserts that the ‘formal and material sufficiency’ are taught in Scripture. He (She?) asserts SS is a deduction from those doctrines.
However, I have not seen any argumentation to that effect.
At best, we have rcjr’s reference to the “equipping for every good work” mentioned in 2 Tim. But, once again, Catholics don’t deny that Scripture (whatever that might be) “equips for every good work.” That’s just not at issue.
What I see in Scripture (please correct me if I am wrong), are many passages that commend the Word of God, passages that condemn the tradition of men, passages that exhort obedience to and study of the Holy Scriptures.
I have just never seen any passage of Scripture that specifies the Christian Church is to decide all controversies of religion by reference to Scripture (Let alone the Specific Protestant Canon) as a final authority.
Furthermore, I see several passages that seem to contradict that specific thesis.
Jesus clearly did not view the Hebrew Canon as sufficient, or as a final authority.
The Apostles appealed to what “seems good to us and the Holy Spirit,”
And Paul appealed to liturgical tradition and the consensus of the Churches (as well as to the Old Testament Scriptures).
Sola Scriptura is a very strong, very robust claim.
It is asserted by Protestant Confessions not just as useful, but as an article of faith – part of the deposit of faith.
Thus, the burden on Protestants is to show that it is taught by divine revelation, or to acknowledge that it is not an article of faith after all.
otrmin said,
July 30, 2012 at 2:48 pm
albertdavidanders,
At best, we have rcjr’s reference to the “equipping for every good work” mentioned in 2 Tim. But, once again, Catholics don’t deny that Scripture (whatever that might be) “equips for every good work.” That’s just not at issue.
Then how does scripture equip you for the allegedly good work of teaching the Queenly Coronation of Mary? Indulgences? the Thesaurus Meritorum?
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 2:53 pm
JJS (#296): Catholics don’t think the CC is authoritative “because the CC says so,” for that would indeed be circular.
But possibly, just possibly, Catholic position really is circular in a subtle way. That’s really what we’re talking about here. No-one thinks that Bryan and the CTC crowd are dumb; quite the opposite. I don’t sit on the other side of my keyboard and triumphally scorn them for believing “X because X.”
Rather, I grieve because they seem to argue “X because Y because Z because A because …” and the ellipses obscure the pointer to X.
Here’s why. What I observe in Bryan’s arguments is that he always returns to the refrain, “That’s your private interpretation.”
What’s the alternative? “To accept the Church’s interpretive authority.”
OK. How do we know that the Church has such an authority?
And at this point, various texts from the fathers are brought forth as historical evidence that the Church has always been regarded as having this authority. Most recently, Bryan mentioned Ambrose and Augustine.
Alright, but: if you think Scripture is ambiguous and subject to interpretation, then how much more the words of the fathers?
And that’s the point that no RC apologist has ever addressed in my presence: How do we know that (a) the fathers really were talking about Petrine supremacy, and (b) that they were correct and authoritative when doing so?
Those questions, I believe, expose the circularity.
So for example, I have demonstrated above that Augustine *did not* regard Peter as the Rock upon which the church was built. This ought to be a blaring klaxon that summons RC lovers of truth to say, “Hey, you’re right, there’s something important here.” At least, there ought to be an argument given as to why Augustine’s words are not part of the Tradition, or why their true meaning is actually something else.
But crickets …
And again, I’ve demonstrated that Irenaeus knew nothing of a secret tradition that stood as interpretative authority over Scripture.
More crickets …
This really is the crucial epistemological issue. If the words of the fathers do not clearly and unambiguously point to Petrine succession, then they cannot be used as self-standing evidence for Petrine succession.
Pete Holter said,
July 30, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Jeff wrote, “we have a plain command from Jesus to the apostles as they argue over who is the greatest: Don’t do it.”
Greetings in Christ!
In these passages, the apostles are arguing over who will get a special place in heaven. And Jesus’ response to them is to live out their callings with humility. Interesting to note, in Matthew’s gospel we see Peter being given the promise of the keys and receiving his new name in Ch. 16. And then we see that Peter and Jesus are alone together at the end of Ch. 17. And then, in Ch. 18, we immediately have the first instance of this question arising in their hearts.
And in Luke’s gospel, this is precisely the moment when Jesus turns to Peter to tell him that, although all are to be sifted as wheat, He has prayed especially for him so that his faith will not fail for the sake of the brethren. How did the one lead to the other?
It is as though Peter’s prominence among the disciples was the cause of the questioning and arguing in each case.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Pete Holter said,
July 30, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Jeff wrote,
“This actually a vexed question with Augustine. For at some points, he sounds Roman Catholic… But at other points, he makes the same argument that I have made… Here, Augustine does not sound Catholic — while Peter has chief place in the Apostleship, nevertheless, the church is not built upon Peter but rather on Christ. The Rock is not Peter, but Christ Himself.
“So. Since Tradition is the ground for your understanding of Matt 16, how does one identify Tradition, and how does one properly understand it?
“For on a plain reading of Augustine, whom I assume is properly Traditional, Peter is not the Rock on which the church is built.”
Hello again, Jeff!
Thank you for raising these concerns. Let’s take another look at his Retractations:
When Augustine offers to “let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable,” he is signaling that he does not have a dogmatic opinion and that, whichever of the two we choose, this is not important to him. If we hold to the first opinion, we should certainly understand it in light of the second. The Church is not built on Peter the man as man. But, rather, on Peter as chief of the apostles and as formed by his faith in Christ by the grace of God:
Pope Benedict has recently shared similar thoughts:
Were Augustine still here, he would be very sad to see that his writings were being used against the unity of the Church to which he clung so tightly. This is exactly how the Donatists tried to use Cyprian, and Augustine spent a lot of time in On Baptism, Against the Donatists explaining why they were wrong to do so. We Catholics try to do the same on behalf of Augustine.
With love in Christ,
Pete
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Otrmin (307)
Thanks so much for your response!
I actually find it very, very helpful because it illustrates perfectly what I think really lies behind the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:
“Catholic doctrine is just so atrocious and horrible that there is no way the catholic church can be the rule of faith, so it must be Scripture!”
If, however, you really want to know how Catholics can rationally hold to Marian doctrine, that is certainly something we can discuss. However, I think the main theme of this thread is religious authority.
-David
Pete Holter said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Andrew Buckingham wrote, “So for your sake, whoever you are, turn the blogs of, and focus on your families and those around you. Blog and comment if you must, but for your sake, try to avoid it. ”
Did my wife ask you to write this??? You’re right. I do hate to leave the discussion, but I really am short on time. I’ll try to share more if I can squeeze it in, but it’s not looking hopeful…
May the LORD be with you and your loved ones,
Pete
Pete Holter said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Oh, and thank you to the Green Bagginses for letting me post here. :)
With love in Christ,
Pete
otrmin said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Jason,
You’ll note that I said that the seeker investigates both Scripture and the early fathers, not Scripture alone (to insist on the latter only would be to beg the question). Nevertheless, the seeker believes he finds sufficient evidence in these sources to indicate that Jesus thought the church he was founding was authoritative, the people who co-founded it thought it was authoritative, and those to whom they passed on their apostolic authority thought it was authoritative.
First of all, even Rome doesn’t agree with everything the fathers said. There are some instances Rome has said that a father was acting as a “private theologian.” You have to distinguish between Irenaeus’s teaching that Jesus was older than forty when he died, and what is true apostolic tradition How do you distinguish between these without the authority of the Church? You also have to deal with the fact that men within the Roman Catholic Church such as Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmayer say that no such tradition ever existed in the fathers. Why are they still in good standing with Rome if this tradition is to be authoritative?
Also, no one denies that the church is authoritative. The issue is whether its authority is infallible. There is a big difference. Also, as others have already pointed out, no one in the early church ever came to the conclusion of Papal infallibility. It was a doctrine that developed later. Why should you accept that doctrine that developed later, and not some of the other oddities that came about in the history of the church?
The Catholic would argue that the testimony of Scripture and the fathers does indeed teach “Petro-centrism,” but perhaps not in the sense of giving “hard evidence” (of which there is none proving the homooision, the canon, or Sola Scriptura for that matter).
Wow, I guess that ignores the entirety of the exegetical work done by men like B.B. Warfield on the topic of the deity of Christ, and all of the men who argued for the deity of Christ from Scripture alone. As far as Sola Scriptura, do you mean there is no hard evidence that would convince *you,* or there is no hard evidence? Also, in this whole discussion, are you really saying that we cannot know what God has said, from what he has not said, namely, that there is no fundamental difference between that which is God breathed [the scriptures] and the word of man? Is it not the case that the canon exists because God has inspired some books and not all books?
This is where interpretive paradigms come into play.
But you just said interpretive paradigms *don’t* come into play, and you are just dealing with hard evidence! Which is it?
In addition to the evidence he finds (that the NT and early fathers speak of the church as authoritative), he also comes to realize that such authority to bind the consciences of all believers in a council-of-Jerusalem kind of way is necessary in order to distinguish between heresy and schism, essentials and non-essentials, canonical and non-canonical, and unity and schism (whether you agree is beside the point, all I’m trying to do is show how the seeker’s thinking likely progresses).
Then why did the council of Jerusalem cite scripture in their conclusion? And before you go off saying that the scripture has nothing to do with their conclusion, could it be that you misinterpreted those scriptures in coming to your conclusion about Rome? Again, we are not presupposing the authority of the magisterium here, so, how do you know that this interpretation is correct? Also, are you aware of the functions of discourse to distinguish between points that are important, and points that are not important in the worldview of the author? Very important in modern discussions of textlinguistics.
The seeker then realizes that there are only two real options left for him: EO or the CC (since no other body claims the kind of authority that he sees evidenced in Scripture and the fathers, and which he now thinks is philosophically necessary). Of course, he still needs to decide between these two, and there are others way more qualified than I to explain how that works.
The problem is, if you are unqualified to explain how that works, then how can we trust whether your decision to chose one over the other was a valid decision? If you cannot explain to us how you did it, then how do we know that the way you did it is valid.
But at the very least I am trying to show that the process by which one becomes Catholic or Orthodox is not question-begging, as if the convert believes in the authority of these communions simply because they claim it.
The problem is, Jason, this kind of a building block approach is riddled with options at every step. You have not told us why it is that you chose each option at each step. I have been down this road before, and utterly rejected everything that you said at each point. Again, how are you going to argue with me if I don’t accept the authority of the Roman magisterium? How can you fault me for not choosing another option? Is that not the same argument you use against us by saying that no one can know which interpretation of scripture is correct without the magisterium?
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:17 pm
OTRmin: You wrote to Jason, “As far as Sola Scriptura, do you mean there is no hard evidence that would convince *you,* or there is no hard evidence?”
This is what I keep trying to get TF, Andrew, et al. to address.
What do you consider hard evidence for the doctrine that
“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture?”
-David
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Otrmin,
I can’t speak for others, but I never intended to deny anyone the right to approach the evidence and seek to understand it apart from the claims of the CC. The only time you would be accused of question-begging would be if you were to insist that the only evidence allowed is biblical evidence, since that would be to presuppose the Protestant paradigm and thus reason in a circle. But to open up the Scriptures and the fathers and seek to discern their mind? Sounds fun.
Let me illustrate. The woman at the well eventually concluded that Jesus was the Messiah. Once she discovered this fact, her responsibility was to submit to and obey him all her days, right? But her initial discovery of who Jesus was did not come because he simply claimed to be the Messiah, but rather, he “told her all the things she ever did” (in other words, the initial discovery resulted from something independent of any claim Jesus made about himself). But just because that discovery was made independently, that did not mean she could continue to subject everything Jesus said to her own rationality or interpretive agreement.
It’s similar with people who become Catholic (it’s not a perfect illustration, but it conveys the basic point). They weigh the biblical and historical evidence and make a judgment. But once that judgment is made, they are responsible to obey the church because of its divine authority. But it would be circular for them to simply appeal to that authority to convince others (and unfair, since that’s how it happened for them).
Hope that helps a bit. I am still getting these things clear in my mind. It’s one thing to struggle through a crisis and another to try to describe it after the fact. Both are hard.
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:21 pm
JJS (#304):
I don’t want to go to the mat much, but I would like to poke at some of your arguments.
I have two hopes. First, even at this late date, I pray (really!) that you might reconsider. As you see, I view Rome as committing an institutional sin, that of raising itself up and lording it over the rest of the church. You can appreciate that I might desire to dissuade you from participating therein.
But failing that, I would also hope to persuade you that certain stock arguments from CtC are not actually sound.
You write, You’ll note that I said that the seeker investigates both Scripture and the early fathers, not Scripture alone (to insist on the latter only would be to beg the question).
And you’ll note that I appealed to both. Even a seeker who investigates both must decide how to arrange the evidence before him. The Scripture is known to be correct; it is the hardest evidence there is. This *ought* to be a principle agreeable to Catholic and Protestant alike.
So my first dissuasion is, don’t rush to criticize appeals to Scripture as “begging the question.” If appealing to the Scripture was good enough methodologically for the church fathers — and that’s how they argued! — then it ought to be acceptable to Catholics.
Especially because I mentioned the fathers in the very next para. ;)
JRC: And I think you would agree that no-one outside of the RC church believes that either Scripture or the fathers teach that Peter and his successors are the defining center of the authoritative church.
JJS: I don’t see how this is relevant; it’s like saying that no one but Trinitarians think God is triune. Plus, all Catholics probably outnumber the rest of all Christians put together.
This is relevant because of the East-West split. At the time of the split, however obnoxious Michael Cerularius may have been, the Eastern argument was that “first among equals” does not entail “supremacy.”
At that time, the East was unambiguously a part of the Church.
And yet the West, following “Peter”, refused to listen to the fellow bishops. It was more important to Leo’s legates and those who came after them to assert papal supremacy, than it was to preserve the unity of the church.
So really, this is more like saying “the rest of us Trinitarians think you’ve locked yourself in a closet, and we’re hoping you’ll come to your senses and come out.”
JJS: The Catholic would argue that the testimony of Scripture and the fathers does indeed teach “Petro-centrism,” but perhaps not in the sense of giving “hard evidence”
Well, that should give great pause. This is the central claim of the church, the pillar on which the rest of their theology rests. It should be the most certain, the strongest point in your position.
If you cannot make it so, then it’s time to look for the exit door.
JJS: This is where interpretive paradigms come into play. In addition to the evidence he finds (that the NT and early fathers speak of the church as authoritative), he also comes to realize that such authority to bind the consciences of all believers in a council-of-Jerusalem kind of way is necessary in order to distinguish between heresy and schism, essentials and non-essentials, canonical and non-canonical, and unity and schism (whether you agree is beside the point, all I’m trying to do is show how the seeker’s thinking likely progresses).
I know that you thought it beside the point, but I must squawk a protest. This is the worst of the CtC arguments, because it destroys the authority of Scripture.
I refer you back to Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.2.1. However the early church fathers thought of tradition, it is clear that they — as represented by Irenaeus — did not accept the argument that tradition is necessary in order to understand Scripture properly. For Irenaeus, asserting the necessity of tradition for proper understanding of Scripture is a heresy.
I urged you at one point to make a distinction in your thinking. We might poke holes in Protestant doctrine. I might concede, for the sake of argument, that sola fide hypothetically needs refinement, or that baptismal regeneration is not impossible.
But those holes do not provide enough room to drive the Catholic Truck through. The CtC argument that you’ve expressed above attempts to create the truck-sized hole — and in your case, it clearly was persuasive.
But it is flawed. For it assumes, whole-cloth, that God’s provision for the Church necessarily takes the form of a human person, or persons, who take care of the interpretation process for the rest of us.
Hence, your use of the word “necessary”: We must have a visible authority that is infallible.
Well, yeah, if we grant that assumption then the rest follows. But whence the assumption?
Bryan expressed earlier that God always does things for a reason. Perhaps God’s reason for the East-West schism was to expose the destructive folly of one man asserting headship over the whole church. In Scripture, which we ought to agree is hard evidence, the position of head is given to Christ alone — and woe to the man who tries to supplant Christ.
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Jeff Cagle writes to Jason
“For [you] assume, whole-cloth, that God’s provision for the Church necessarily takes the form of a human person, or persons, who take care of the interpretation process for the rest of us.”
No, Jason and Catholics do not assume this. First of all, this statement misrepresents the Catholic view of religious authority – as if it were simply a matter of interpreting texts.
Secondly, we do not assume it. We believe that this doctrine (the divine authority of human persons) was taught by Christ himself, and has continued to be held by the church ever since. This is a historical question.
-David
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:32 pm
David (#311): “Catholic doctrine is just so atrocious and horrible that there is no way the catholic church can be the rule of faith, so it must be Scripture!”
That’s in the ballpark, but not quite there.
We have to split off two issues. First, as I consider Catholic claims, why don’t I believe them? That’s the falsification process at work.
Second, independently, why do I believe the Protestant claims? That’s theological construction at work.
Those two processes are, and should be, mostly independent of each other.
And yes, Catholic doctrine does seem to contradict big, basic, obvious points in Scripture. If I were to become Catholic, I would be asked to believe that bowing to icons is not obviously contrary to the 2nd commandment. I would be asked to believe that Peter is supreme over the other apostles. I would be asked to believe that Jesus’ human nature had been endowed with divine omnipresence (in transubstantiation). I would be asked to accept that Peter’s chair had been passed in unbroken succession from pope to pope, despite the fact that some popes had clearly distinguished themselves as false teachers by their behavior.
These considerations falsify Catholic claims because of the hard evidence against them. That would be so whether I were Protestant or whatever.
The argument for sola scriptura, on the other hand, is represented in my comments above.
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Jeff,
Historically, the Protestant apology for scripture has often proceeded from the assumed error of Catholic tradition. (Think of Luther – Pope’s and Councils have erred, therefore . . . )
I agree, however, that the case for SS should proceed, demonstratively, from the positive principles of revelation.
I’m sorry, but I missed your comments above. Could you point me again to the biblical evidence for the doctrine that
“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture?”
Thanks,
David
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Yes, Pete, she did. :-). :-) j/k
Now if you tell my wife I’m even still posting…
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:42 pm
David, #318 is not very clear yet. Lay it out: We’re talking about the rule of faith. You say “Religious authority is not simply a matter of interpreting texts.”
Then of what is is a matter?
Secondly, we do not assume it. We believe that this doctrine (the divine authority of human persons) was taught by Christ himself, and has continued to be held by the church ever since. This is a historical question.
I think you misunderstood. The assumption I was fingering was not “there are authorities”, but that “there must be an infallible interpretive authority to prevent heresies.”
Bob S said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Mr. Anders, where to begin?
I know Jason thinks I am a bad guy and I mistook you for somebody else, but bells began to go off. Maybe the Albert did it.
IOW deja vu. We done been here before.
Not only did it not go well for your side over at your CtC page Is Reformed Worship Biblical? (I gotta admit I am still amazed it’s up, but maybe not for long, eh?), but you’ve already been through the arguments for the good & necessary consequences of Scripture:
G&N consequence is a biblical doctrine inasmuch as Christ in his confrontation with the Sadducees over the woman with seven husbands in Matt. 22:23-33 appeals not to his personal authority, but Scripture – which the Saduccees did accept as an authority – and further chides them for not knowing the implications of Scripture rather than what it explicitly says. See for example the great Genevan divine, Turretin in his Institutes 1:12:9 on Scripture consequences. Comment 11
See also WCF 1:7 VI.
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. (2Tim. 3:15-17, Gal. 1:8, 2Thess. 2:2)
IOW Scripture doesn’t have to say something explicitly, for something to be authoritatively taught in Scripture, whether we are talking about the Trinity, the RPW or Scripture as the rule of faith. Nevertheless we still find you dismissing the G&N consequences of Scripture and begging the question.
Further in 225, 255 and 261 you conveniently gloss 2 Tim. 3:15-17 as only mentioning inspiration, which a bad person pointed out in 238 and rcjr in 277. Well, yes Scripture is inspired, but it is also ‘given by God that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works’.
Another error of fact would be that of 255 where you say protestants assume that Scripture is the rule of faith without argument or scripture proof. Further
In fact, I’m certain of this. Richard Muller, in one of his tome’s on the Reformed scholastic doctrine of Scripture, admits as such:
Huh?
Yet the most egregious example of ignoring the obvious was your statement in 261 that :
Jesus, himself, did not restrict divine authority simply to the written word of God. His own ministry is a performative contradiction of that thesis. He claimed the right to interpret, abrogate, and supplement divine-revelation-in-Scripture. (Sola Scriptura was not operative in his own ministry.)
1. Not only was Jesus the Word become flesh Jn. 1:1,12, he repeatedly appealed to Scripturefor instance, in the Temptation in the Wilderness, not to mention that he repeatedly asked his hearers “Have ye not read”, as well as again inspired Paul by the Holy Spirit to pen 2 Tim. 3:15-17.
2. Even if Christ was not bound by Scripture – in that he is the author of Scripture – it does not follow, it is a non sequitur to automatically apply that to his church, because as the head goes, so the body or something like that. But Christ did appeal to Scripture, ergo your conclusion is mistaken.
IOW maybe newcomers like Burton can sort of understand why some of us take a rather more jaundiced view of whether the self appointed advocates for popery who show up over here to go through the routine really love the truth as much as they profess they do, never mind if that they have a grasp of it to begin with.
And based on more than a few posts, evidently incompetence must be added to the saying that ignorance is the mother of Romish devotion.
Again, it would not be to much to say that Romanism is a vicious, wicked and stupifying fideism that gratuitously butchers Scripture, reason and history/tradition whenever she bumps into them.
otrmin said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:49 pm
albertdavidanders,
This is what I keep trying to get TF, Andrew, et al. to address.
What do you consider hard evidence for the doctrine that
“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture?”
2 Timothy 3:16-17, Matthew 15:1-9, 2 Peter 1:21, etc., and all of the patristic documentation you can find in Webster and King’s work Holy Scripture, The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. Again, whether this evidence will convince you or not depends upon your presuppositions, but that is the evidence I find persuasive given my presuppositions.
Actually, this was the context of my last question. You wrote:
I actually find it very, very helpful because it illustrates perfectly what I think really lies behind the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:
“Catholic doctrine is just so atrocious and horrible that there is no way the catholic church can be the rule of faith, so it must be Scripture!”
If, however, you really want to know how Catholics can rationally hold to Marian doctrine, that is certainly something we can discuss. However, I think the main theme of this thread is religious authority.
Actually, the context of my question was the fact that you had said:
At best, we have rcjr’s reference to the “equipping for every good work” mentioned in 2 Tim. But, once again, Catholics don’t deny that Scripture (whatever that might be) “equips for every good work.” That’s just not at issue.
You said you agreed with our exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and said that Catholicism believes that scripture fully equips for every good work. If that is the case, I don’t think it is an illegitimate question to ask how scripture equips you to teach.the Queenly Coronation of Mary, Indulgences, and the Thesaurus Meritorum. If you really believe what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, then it should not be hard.
Also, my point is not to show how “horrible” Catholic teaching is [although the immorality of adding an entire world of “sacred” tradition to the text thus changing the world of the text is, indeed, immoral as it violates the ninth commandment against God himself]. My point is to say that these things have *nothing whatsoever* to do with the world of the text. I find it strange that Jason has said that homoousios has no hard evidence in scripture, but you are willing to say that scripture equips you to teach the Queenly Coronation of Mary, Indulgences, and the Thesaurus Meritorum! These are things that have nothing to do with the world of the text, and that is my main problem. You have to read an elephant into the text in order to get these things from scripture.
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:50 pm
David: #257, #285 give thumbnails. To summarize:
* The Scriptures criticize those who add human traditions to the commands of God, especially those traditions which nullify the word of God.
* The Scriptures enjoin us to give liberty of conscience to our brothers in matters where God has not spoken.
* The Scriptures praise those who test the words of men, even the words of the apostles, against God’s already-established Scripture.
WCoF 1.9 – 10 is a reasonable construction of those three principles.
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Jeff,
Religious authority of the sort we are discussing is the authority to decide controversies over Christian doctrine and practice. That may include, but is not limited to, the interpretation of texts. It might also include, for example, the authority to regulate and define the contents of the liturgy – based on traditional practice. It might include the authority to define doctrine on the basis of something other than a text – Augustine, for example, argues for the doctrine of original sin based not only on the teachings of Paul, but also from the Church’s liturgical practice.
As to your 2nd, once again – I don’t think Catholics assume “there must be an infallible interpretive authority.” However rational a position that might be on its own terms, Catholics believe in an infallible interpretive authority because we believe Christ established such an authority.
-David
TurretinFan said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:53 pm
ADA:
You stated: “”all Catholics agree that Scriptures are A rule of faith. But clearly, the Protestant doctrine includes much, much more.”
The only much, much more is a negative statement, “and there isn’t any other.” Will you please answer directly whether you think it is our duty to prove this universal negative?
-TurretinFan
Sean said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Were you commenting as “Robert” in that thread?
By the way, no plans to take it down at all.
Bob S said,
July 30, 2012 at 3:57 pm
296
Catholics don’t think the CC is authoritative “because the CC says so,” for that would indeed be circular.
Rather, Catholics believe they discover in Scripture and the fathers a church that is said to be, and thought of itself as, authoritative. So while they will appeal to ecclesial authority, they will not do so as an argument why anyone else should submit to that authority.
Oh, come now, Jason. Bryan and CtC et al doesn’t appeal to ecclesial authority? Next you will be telling me, that they appeal to private judgement. Wait a minute . . .
Never mind.
Romanism is a vicious, wicked and stupifying fideism that gratuitously butchers Scripture, reason and history/tradition whenever she bumps into them.
otrmin said,
July 30, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Jason,
I don’t think you are seeing how your argument is actually undermining what Catholics always say about not being able to know the truth apart from the authority of the Catholic Magisterium. If what you say is true, then a person can know what scripture teaches, and still refuse to submit to it’s teaching, just as they can know what you say is the truth about tradition, and yet not submit to it. In fact, I dare say that in a sinful world, we should expect many people to go over leaps and bounds so they can make scripture say what it doesn’t say, and thus, we should expect many groups to pervert the scriptures.
Still, does that mean that the truth of what the scriptures teach cannot be known unless someone infallibly interprets? Of course not. Are they still responsible to believe the truth? Absolutely, because they know God, are created in his image, and thus know that they are perverting the text. In other words, proper interpretation of scripture is an ethical issue, not an issue of authority. Any person can come to the correct meaning of scripture because, although fallen, he is created in the image of God, and thus can examine the issue, but the question of whether he will do so is an ethical question.
God Bless,
Adam
Bob S said,
July 30, 2012 at 4:09 pm
317 Jeffery
CTC Catholic Truck Crash?
I know, I know, if the mods don’t get me the self appointed one will.
But you’re next, pal.
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 4:29 pm
David (#326): The Confession (and I) agree that there are religious authorities who have the authority to decide matters of religious controversy, matters of worship, and so on. See WCoF 31.
So it should be clear that the doctrine of sola scriptura does not preclude the existence of religious authorities. I don’t know how that changes your understanding, but it should allow you to focus your argument somewhat.
As to your 2nd, once again – I don’t think Catholics assume “there must be an infallible interpretive authority.”
That is the reverse of the structure of Jason’s argument. He does, indeed, assume that there must be such an authority; the only question is then for him, which is it? East or West?
However rational a position that might be on its own terms, Catholics believe in an infallible interpretive authority because we believe Christ established such an authority.
Alright, as an exercise, challenge the rationality of this belief. How do you know it to be true? At worst, you can become a better Catholic by answering the question. At best, you might be able to see the circle.
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Bob S.,
Thanks for referencing the Worship article.
I must confess that I didn’t read every word of commentary, but I lost interest when I noticed the Reformed folks ignored the main thesis: that Calvin enjoins certain liturgical practices as mandatory that have no basis in Scripture.
But more to the point:
I don’t see how quoting the WCF and Turrentin at me is supposed to show that Sola Scriptura is a biblical doctrine?
Of course, I agree that a doctrine does not have to be explicitly stated in Scripture (or tradition) in order for it to be deduced by G &N.
And, of course, I recognize that Christ cites Holy Scripture as an authority – but none of this is at issue.
Also, I am not guilty of factual errors. I have cited Muller above regarding the doctrine of Leonard van Rijssen.
I also think the discussion at the site has confirmed my allegation:
My interlocutors (like van Rijssen) have all argued for SS as an inference from inspiration and authority.
Your reference to Jesus confirms this: You establish what ever Catholic believes – Christ cited Scripture as an authority. This is not at issue.
Nor did I claim that we have an automatic right to follow Jesus in everything he did. I merely point out that Christ nowhere enjoins, practices, or commends the doctrine that “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture?”
Finally, I find your invective to be unhelpful. Rather than assuming and asserting my stupidity or ignorance, we not simply ask for clarification?
I don’t really think I’m ignorant of Reformed teaching (I’ve read more of it than I care to recall.) I may misunderstand some of it. I welcome the corrective.
OTRMIN:
The passages you cite commend the authority of Holy Scripture (whatever that may be). Once again, Catholics also commend the authority of Holy Scripture. This is not at issue. Can you show me a text (or any divine authority we mutually recognize) that establishes the 66 as the final authority to decide Christian doctrine and controversies of religion? Merely asserting that these passages seem to suggest that TO YOU, is not an argument.
Jeff Cagle:
Your three points:
* The Scriptures criticize those who add human traditions to the commands of God, especially those traditions which nullify the word of God.
* The Scriptures enjoin us to give liberty of conscience to our brothers in matters where God has not spoken.
* The Scriptures praise those who test the words of men, even the words of the apostles, against God’s already-established Scripture.
And your conclusion:
WCoF 1.9 – 10 is a reasonable construction of those three principles.
If WCF is a reasonable construction of those principles,if it is to be valid syllogistically, then it cannot contain anything not stated in the premises.
However, WCF does precisely that – it affirms propositions not contained in the premises.
It assumes or implies that
1) that the authority of Scripture (which all Catholics acknowledge) necessarily and exclusively extends to the settling of all controversies of religion.
2) That Christ has not given us any other non-scriptural authority to fulfill that task.
Neither of these is contained in your three premises.
At best, you have established that Scripture is a divine authority that cannot be contravened, and that the Church should not legislate on matters not revealed by God. (I’m a bit uncomfortable with this last statement, as I think even the Reformers were very inconsistent about this, but I’ll let it stand for the time being.)
These assumptions – that the authority of Scripture necessarily and exclusively extends to settling all controversies of religion – and that Christ did not specify any other authority to fulfill that role – are precisely what is at issue.
Once again,
The Reformed apology for SS proceeds as follows:
Scripture is divinely inspired and authoritative. (We agree.)
We cannot contravene Holy Scripture. (We agree.)
Therefore, Scripture is the Rule of Faith. (I.e., is the final authority for settling all controversies of Religion, faith, or practice.)
But, the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
-David
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Can a Catholic brother here tell me whether or not the marriage contract I entered into with my wife almost 10 years ago, in a presbyterian church, whether it’s a valid marriage?
A rhetorical flourish?
Andrew
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 4:49 pm
TF:
You wrote:
ADA:
You stated: “”all Catholics agree that Scriptures are A rule of faith. But clearly, the Protestant doctrine includes much, much more.”
The only much, much more is a negative statement, “and there isn’t any other.” Will you please answer directly whether you think it is our duty to prove this universal negative?
I’m not sure how to understand this.
You and I agree that the Scriptures are a rule of faith – that is, a norm to be obeyed. But are you telling me that you think that exhausts the nature of Scripture’s authority? There are many norms that must be obeyed (reason and conscience, for example), but that are not intended by God to be the final court of appeal for the settling of controversies of religion in the Church.
If all you assert is that Scripture is to be obeyed – then we have no controversy.
However, if you assert that God intends Scripture as the final court of appeal for settling all controversies of religion – then I think you have a burden to show that this is the case.
You don’t have to show that God didn’t intend some other authority. (You don’t have to prove an universal negative, that is.)
But merely asserting the divinity and authority of the Scriptures is not enough to establish what is at issue between Catholics and Protestants.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, that there is no Catholic Church, or Orthodox Church, or any other religion, claiming to be the final arbiter of God’s will. There is just divinely-inspired Scripture on the one hand, and a sea of skepticism on the other.
Even in this scenario, it is not clear (without argument) how God intends that Scripture to be used. Perhaps he intends Scripture as an inspired, authoritative prayer book, or a collection of paranesis, or an inspired record of early Church History, or what-have-you.
It is just not self-evident that God intends Scripture is to be THE Rule of Faith.
For that, you need evidence.
-David
Sean said,
July 30, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Andrew. You could easily discover what the Catholic Church teaches about marriage and what makes a marriage ‘valid’ by cursory research. Do you assume that the Catholic Church would say that your marriage is not valid?
In answer of your question, most Protestant marriages are ‘valid’ and by that I mean sacramental so long as the matter and form are legitimate. Where trouble happens is when a person marries somebody who is already married or somebody is coerced into marriage.
Assuming you were not married before marrying your wife and assuming she was not maried prior – if you and your wife went into the Catholic Church tomorrow you would not have to get ‘married’ in the church because they church would consider you already married.
But that is REALLY far removed from the thread which I don’t think is intended to be a ‘ask anything about Catholicism thread.’
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Jeff Cagle:
“David (#326): The Confession (and I) agree that there are religious authorities who have the authority to decide matters of religious controversy, matters of worship, and so on. See WCoF 31.”
Of course, I’m aware of this teaching.
But, then again, the confession also states that all judgments of religious authorities, councils, and private conscience are to be evaluated against Scripture.
And, I’m aware of the WCF teaching on the “infallible assurance” permitted to the elect.
So which is it? What is the final court of appeal?
Is it the infallible assurance of the elect? The judgment of ordained ministers? Or the ‘settled and sure’ conclusions of scientific exegesis?
If you conclude that the final arbiter of religious controversy – to which I owe submission of mind and will – is the ordained ministry of Christ’s Church – and not my private interpretation of Scripture, and that I can recognize that ministry in a non-question begging way (that is, by some criterion other than their agreement with my interpretation of Scripture) then I would say, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”
-David
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Actually, David, both points are contained in the premises. Being an informal argument, not everything was supplied; but it was all present.
Let’s flesh out a bit.
“1) that the authority of Scripture (which all Catholics acknowledge) necessarily and exclusively extends to the settling of all controversies of religion.”
As I’ve pointed out, sola scriptura and the Confession do not exclude the role of other religious authorities in settling all controversies of religion.
So we must modify your representation to something more accurate. I suggest,
1) The authority of all other religious authorities to settle controversies of religion is derived from Scripture. Their pronouncements are valid insofar as they proclaim what is found in Scripture.
This would follow from point 2. for if they proclaim that which goes beyond Scripture, then they run afoul of binding the conscience on matters wherein God has not spoken.
“2) That Christ has not given us any other non-scriptural authority to fulfill that task.”
This suffers from the same defect, the overlooking of WCoF 31. I suggest an emendation such as
2) All other authorities which fulfill the role of settling controversies of religion are to be regarded as potentially fallible, and their pronouncements should be tested against Scripture.
This would follow from point 3.
Better?
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:03 pm
David (#337): If you conclude that the final arbiter of religious controversy – to which I owe submission of mind and will – is the ordained ministry of Christ’s Church – and not my private interpretation of Scripture …
(c), None of the Above.
This is the stone of stumbling, I fear.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Well, Sean, the CTC is an ‘evangelistic’ (I mean that negatively) and no one can tell me why all you ctc guys are posting comments.
But looking around the internet, I see prots and romish fellows doing this in other forums. I guess this is just where you group is deciding to loiter?
Enjoy your stay. Thanks for addressing my flourish. If you ever want to golf, let me know.
Peace.
Hugh said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:07 pm
The insanity and irrationality began (at least) @11: “Appealing to a divine authority (as such) in order to establish its divine authority — that would be circular. But appealing to historical evidence that also happens to belong to Tradition or Magisterium, in order to determine the authority of the Tradition and the Magisterium, is not circular.” ~ Bryan Cross
Continues @296 ~ Catholics don’t think the CC is authoritative “because the CC says so,” for that would indeed be circular. Rather, Catholics believe they discover in Scripture and the fathers a church that is said to be, and thought of itself as, authoritative. So while they will appeal to ecclesial authority, they will not do so as an argument why anyone else should submit to that authority. That’s why their argument is not circular. ~ New convert Jason Stellman
>Oh.
“why can’t we interpret the scriptures and the fathers apart from the authority of the church? If you could do it, why can’t we?” ~ otrmin @301
>Subsequent ‘revelations’ (authoritative, of course) shoring up papal/ Romish autocracy.
Stellman @ 304 ~ Jesus thought the church he was founding was authoritative, the people who co-founded it thought it was authoritative, and those to whom they passed on their apostolic authority thought it was authoritative.
>Oh.
>Bingo.
Cagle @308 ~ What I observe in Bryan’s arguments is that he always returns to the refrain, “That’s your private interpretation.” What’s the alternative? “To accept the Church’s interpretive authority.”
AND, If the words of the fathers do not clearly and unambiguously point to Petrine succession, then they cannot be used as self-standing evidence for Petrine succession.
>Subsequent ‘revelations’ shore up papal authority (& since 1870, infallibility).
Stellman @316 ~ It’s similar with people who become Catholic…. They weigh the biblical and historical evidence and make a judgment.* But once that judgment is made, they are responsible to obey the church because of its divine authority. But it would be circular for them to simply appeal to that authority to convince others (and unfair, since that’s how it happened for them).
>And, yet, to what other authority do y’all appeal to? ‘The biblical and historical evidence’ is all Romish, by definition validating your position.
>Where a “father” agrees with TODAY’S catechism, he’s is right on. Where he differs, he erred. Same with the schoolmen, Aquinas, et. al.
>* They weigh, they convert. They are not converted by the Holy Spirit, they convert to Romanism. Where aqua baptism conveys the Ghost (but not unconditionally or permanently), and where the atonement procures effects NO ONE’S salvation. Jason, you’ve fallen from whatever smidgeon of grace you had in the PCA.
CTC = Cath. Trash Chat?
Hugh said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Still no Stellman testimony @ Called to Craziness.
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Hi Jeff,
Question:
1) The authority of all other religious authorities to settle controversies of religion is derived from Scripture.
Where are you getting this premise?
It seems to me that we can agree, “The authority to definitively settle controversy must proceed from God.” But this is something different.
2) Their pronouncements are valid insofar as they proclaim what is found in Scripture.
This premise seems to be way overstepping the words of Scripture. However, I would agree that a religious authority should not contradict Scripture.
As to 2 & 3 above about other authorities:
See my comments in 337.
TurretinFan said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:11 pm
“But merely asserting the divinity and authority of the Scriptures is not enough to establish what is at issue between Catholics and Protestants.”
What remains is the denial of the papacy’s claims. But it is up to the papacy to establish the papacy’s claims. It’s not up to the Reformed person to prove the falsity of the papacy’s claims (though we have done so repeatedly).
Of course, the papacy is not the only group out there making claims to have a rule of faith beyond Scripture – the Muslims and Mormons make similar claims.
Just as what distinguishes a Reformed person from an advocate of the papacy is a denial of the papacy’s claims, what remains between the Reformed person and the Muslim is the denial of Islam’s claim about the Koran vis-a-vis the OT and NT — and what remains between the Reformed person is the denial of Joseph Smith’s claim.
All of those denials collectively are summarized in saying the Scripture is “the” rule or the “supreme” rule or the “only” rule or it “exhausts” the field of rules of faith, etc. That’s the universal negative (couched in various ways that are less obviously negative) that you seem to want to insist we prove.
However, in reality the onus is on you to establish the papacy’s claims – something your side has been unable to do despite hundreds of years of attempts.
-TurretinFan
P.S. “Perhaps he intends Scripture as an inspired, authoritative prayer book, or a collection of paranesis, or an inspired record of early Church History, or what-have-you.” I haven’t seriously engaged this argument, because it isn’t a serious argument. You don’t think that Scripture is intended for that purpose, nor do I. There are serious treatments of the question of the intent of inscripturation, but why debate you on a point that you don’t even hold?
Sean said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Mods. Far be it from me to tell you how to manage your house but if it’s not obvious, the recent posts by Bob S and Huge really serve no other purpose than to poison the well and leave everybody feeling like they need to have a shower after reading them.
So much so that I am going to vacate the premises for now.
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Hm. The transmission is slipping between us. I thought I was clear; you thought you had found obvious holes.
Are you suggesting that tradition is the Word of God? But if so, then why is it not a part of the canon?
It seems to me that the only way to have a problem with 1) is to assume that God’s Word extends beyond the Scriptures.
otrmin said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:25 pm
albertdavidanders,
The passages you cite commend the authority of Holy Scripture (whatever that may be). Once again, Catholics also commend the authority of Holy Scripture. This is not at issue. Can you show me a text (or any divine authority we mutually recognize) that establishes the 66 as the final authority to decide Christian doctrine and controversies of religion? Merely asserting that these passages seem to suggest that TO YOU, is not an argument.
Go back and reread what I said again. It is not an issue of the scriptures being an authority, but the notion that they fully equip for every good work! You have said that you agree with it. I have pointed out that it is impossible to derive what you believe about the Queenly Coronation, indulgences, and the Thesarus Meritorum from the world of the text of the 66 books of scripture. It is that phrase, that the usefulness of scripture results in the man of God being fully equipped for every good work that teaches Sola Scriptura. If scripture is fully equipping, then what does it say when something, such as the queenly coronation, indulgences, and the Thesaurus Meritorum have absolutely, positively nothing whatsoever to do with scripture? Obviously, that either the text is false [scripture is not fully equipping], or that teaching these traditions is not a good work [which you deny, because you believe they are part of the gospel].
As far as Matthew 15 goes, the main point is that Jesus holds an alleged tradition passed down from Moses to the higher authority of scripture. Jesus himself tests which traditions are authentic and which are not by an appeal to the scriptures. Why can we not do the same?
So, scripture fully equips us to teach the truth of the gospel, and it is the final appeal as to which traditions are authentic. Sounds a whole lot like:
WCF 1:6 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.
I do not say that these merely “suggest” something “to me.” What I said was that, given my presuppositions, they *actually do* teach Sola Scriptura. However, I understand that a Roman Catholic who is committed to the inerrancy of scripture and the falsehood of Sola Scriptura is not going to like that [as he has to give up one or the other], but I don’t think he can argue against these passages consistently, as is shown by the fact that you refuse to provide any kind of exegetical defense of the Queenly coronation, indulgences, or the thesaurus meritorum from scripture, thus showing how human language has to be butchered to even make scripture relevant to these things. However, I understand, given your presuppositions, that your cannot accept them.
What I was pointing out is the difference between proof and persuasion. You may not like that these passages teach Sola Scriptura, but I think I have shown that they do. Still, even though I believe I have proven that these passages teach Sola Scriptura, that does not mean that you will accept it. You have an overriding authority that prevents you from accepting what these passages teach [the Roman Catholic church]. However, whether or not you are persuaded is not the ultimate authority. The intent of the author is the ultimate authority, and ultimately, the God in whom both the author and myself live and move and have our being.
Hugh said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:28 pm
T-fanatic @344 ~ your 5tht paragraph reminds me that Romanists claim the Bible (our 66 of their 72/73 books) is the Word of God. Yet its self-defining and self-limiting text is explained away for a new & improved religion, a la Islam and the LDS. Same procedure, same source of clarifying post-scriptural ‘revelations.’
Sean ~ Don’t let the door hit…… Oh, he’s gone. :(
He paid me a great compliment. Let me never be well-spoken of by Christ’s enemies. Esp. by Cross & other apostates.
Jeff, Yes, tradition is the word of God. Just like Koran or Book of Mo. See catechism quotes @ 292 & 293, above.
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Pete (#309, 310):
Thanks for the responses. I think you would agree that you have some intriguing speculation happening in the reading of Matt 16 – 18, but not an air-tight case.
The most impressive thing about Matt 18 is that Jesus does not take the opportunity here to affirm Peter’s supremacy.
One would certainly expect that at this point, if indeed the text were constructed with the intent of demonstrating Petrine supremacy.
Clearly, an argument from silence is not dispositive, so I’m not claiming that the silence is a slam-dunk proof. But it does make one assess the evidence.
On Augustine, I understand that you are trying to distinguish between Peter the man and Peter’s office. Nevertheless, Augustine’s behavior demonstrates something less than deference to the bishop of Rome. Consider his criticisms of Zosimus. And importantly, step back and count up the number of arguments Augustine makes from tradition, and the number he makes from Scripture.
Augustine does not act as if the Scripture were unclear and required papal interpretation in order to settle controversies. Nor does he act as if the word of the pope is always to be deferred to.
In other words, Augustine demonstrates a “high view” of the bishop of Rome, but not the view that the RC church teaches.
Hugh said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Jeff, have I missed in this thread any of us mentioning Jesus’ proximate exchange with Pope Pedro Uno @ Mt. 16:20ff?
In v. 15, Peter is “blessed,” and in v. 23, “Satan.”
Hmmm….
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.’ But he turned, and said unto Peter, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.’
What do the popish patriarchs say about THAT bit, eh?
Hugh said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Ah! Found ’em ~ Adam @281, Pete @310.
The latter quotes Ben16 => “The disciple who, through God’s gift, was able to become a solid rock, here shows himself for what he is in his human weakness: a stone along the path, a stone on which men can stumble – in Greek, skandalon. Here we see the tension that exists between the gift that comes from the Lord and human capacities; and in this scene between Jesus and Simon Peter we see anticipated in some sense the drama of the history of the papacy itself, characterized by the joint presence of these two elements: on the one hand, because of the light and the strength that come from on high, the papacy constitutes the foundation of the Church during its pilgrimage through history; on the other hand, across the centuries, human weakness is also evident, which can only be transformed through openness to God’s action.”
Oh! Had but the papacy for one minute seriously considered its frailty, fleshiness and foibles! Instead, she has crushed her opponents as a rock.
If she ever has admitted weakness, she makes the two-fold damning error of rationalizing said sins by reason of her being the ‘foundation,’ as B16 says, and/or by appealing to Mary & Co. to cover his sins.
Note that Peter “was ABLE to become a solid rock;” he wasn’t one by grace alone, contra Christ!
And the erring papacy can ONLY be fixed by its own “openness to God’s action!” A necessarily self-repairing machine, like a Terminator robot.* Truly, Christ’s pseudo-vicar is deus ex machina!
* From Wiki ~ In the “Terminator” film series, a terminator is an autonomous robot, typically humanoid, originally conceived as a virtually indestructible soldier, infiltrator and assassin. Downright popish!
Jeff Cagle said,
July 30, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Pete, or others, Does anyone have an online text of Retractions? I’ve looked for it before without success.
TurretinFan said,
July 30, 2012 at 6:01 pm
“Why didn’t the council fathers just relax and trust that God’s word was good enough on the matter?”
The council fathers didn’t doubt that God’s word was good enough for the matter. Athanasius wasn’t a council father, but he was there and was a great defender of the doctrines taught from the Scripture by the council. Consider what he said.
Athanasius (297-373):
NPNF2: Vol. IV, Against the Heathen, Part I, §1-3.
-TurreitnFan
Hugh said,
July 30, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Jeff ~ http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/retractions ???
Bits & pieces, I know…
Burton said,
July 30, 2012 at 6:06 pm
John (#263),
I appreciate your reply. So we have no “hard edges”, but I assume you believe in the necessity of some means of defining orthodoxy versus heresy regarding doctrine and morals. Is this what you mean by the ministerial role of the church? How, exactly, does the church exercise this ministerial role?
Do you see a distinction between heresy and schism? If so, how does the church in its ministerial role define and correct schismatics?
Bob S (#323)
You seem to be assuming the worst motivations in the RCC commentators. Maybe they are deeply heretical, apostate, and seeking to lead others into their blind idolatry. Even if that were so, your jaundiced invective is a bit hard to take. I am struggling deeply with the presuppositions of my lifelong conservative Protestant faith. Does this this make me, also, incompetent and/or ignorant? As I have stated elsewhere, I am not a pastor and have no graduate level training in theology, church history, philosophy, etc. However, I am reasonably adept at analyzing data and recognizing bias (I am a physician). Having spent a decade prayerfully reading the Bible, Church Fathers, and secondary sources, along with numerous discussions with my pastors and elders, from this layman’s perspective, I do not think the Reformed Protestant case is so ironclad as to justify your frequently condescending judgements.
Burton
johnbugay said,
July 30, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Jason 316:
I understand to obey the need to be obedient to Jesus. You are making an analogy, “once you discover that ‘the Church’ has ‘divine authority’, you are obliged to be obedient”.
This whole process reminds me of the days when people would be approached about a “business opportunity”. You’d show up, someone would draw circles for you.
The real question is, “where’s the beef?” Where are chapter-and-verse of what you believed that caused you to do what you have done? What persuaded you?
The question is being asked, but all that’s coming is the notion, “just wait’ll we start drawing you circles”.
But what’s the business opportunity?
“Just wait till we start drawing you circles”.
Bob S said,
July 30, 2012 at 6:32 pm
333 Mr. Anders,
I must confess that I didn’t read every word of commentary, but I lost interest when I noticed the Reformed folks ignored the main thesis: that Calvin enjoins certain liturgical practices as mandatory that have no basis in Scripture.
The reader can determine for himself if you were answered in Comment #65 over at Is Reformed Worship Biblical?
Yet for starters, as was clearly stated, if you can’t tell us what the reformed doctrine of worship is, you are not competent to criticize it. And it took quite awhile before some could get it. We then moved on to whether Calvin’s practices were justified by Scripture, with mind you, no substantial rebuttal on your part or others.
But more to the point:
I don’t see how quoting the WCF and Turrentin at me is supposed to show that Sola Scriptura is a biblical doctrine?
You will excuse me, but I presume the ability to read for an adult means an ability to follow an argument, not just sound out the words.
Appeal was made directly to Scripture in Christ’s encounter with Sadduccees with the woman with seven husbands as found incidentally in Turretin for G&N consequences.
WCF 1:7 treats the same again w. scripture proofs, which you yet deny as being taught at all in Scripture, without any attempt to close with and refute the argument, but summarily dismiss.
Of course, I agree that a doctrine does not have to be explicitly stated in Scripture (or tradition) in order for it to be deduced by G &N.
But now affirm. Which is it?
And, of course, I recognize that Christ cites Holy Scripture as an authority – but none of this is at issue.
Also, I am not guilty of factual errors. I have cited Muller above regarding the doctrine of Leonard van Rijssen.
I also think the discussion at the site has confirmed my allegation:
My interlocutors (like van Rijssen) have all argued for SS as an inference from inspiration and authority.
Again the full quote from your 255
But you don’t mention van Rijssen until 272 and give no references as to where in Muller you find yours.
But let me quote Muller directly contra what you say he says:
Your reference to Jesus confirms this: You establish what ever Catholic believes – Christ cited Scripture as an authority. This is not at issue.
You claimed SS was not operative in Jesus’s ministry when he appealed to it constantly. He came to fulfill the law and the prophets and repeatedly corrected the Jews for the ignorance of Scripture. Which is to say your comment is simply preposterous. But evidently repeating an untruth long enough is persuasive. At least among the CtC. But not here.
Nor did I claim that we have an automatic right to follow Jesus in everything he did. I merely point out that Christ nowhere enjoins, practices, or commends the doctrine that “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture?”
And where did he pray tell, enjoin something different, even some oral traditions?
Again, as you have so artfully evaded any number of times, Christ by his Spirit inspired Paul to pen 2 Tim. 3:15-17. The inspired Scripture is given to us by God that the man of God might be prepared to every good work.
Maybe “every” means “some” in the arcane CtC argot, but in the real world “every” means “all” as in there is no good work excepted that cannot be determined from Scripture. But if you care to deal in equivocation so egregiously, you need to be much more forthright in defining your terms up front. Than we can know up front you are not really interested in an honest discussion. As in you no waste my time and I no waste yours.
Finally, I find your invective to be unhelpful. Rather than assuming and asserting my stupidity or ignorance, we not simply ask for clarification?
But that’s just it. G&N consequence has been clarified for you before and you still continue to deny it up, until it is so obvious that you can’t. Consequently one finds your studied evasion of the questions on Scriture as the rule of faith to be dishonest. Hence my remarks that you are at least incompetent to the question, which is to put it mildly, charitable.
Muller notes that
Let the reader make the application.
I don’t really think I’m ignorant of Reformed teaching (I’ve read more of it than I care to recall.) I may misunderstand some of it. I welcome the corrective.
Res ipsa loquitur.
The thing speaks for itself.
In aces and spades.
But the hurt card trumps all and takes the jackpot.
Rome must be right even before we know what the reformed argument consists of and after the fact as well.
Carthago delenda est.
Romanism is a vicious, wicked and stupifying fideism that gratuitously butchers Scripture, reason and history/tradition whenever she bumps into them.
Which is too often, if not all the time.
Thank you.
Bob S said,
July 30, 2012 at 7:17 pm
355 Burton,
The emperor has no clothes.
I am sorry, but that’s the way it is when the topic of Romanism comes up here or elsewhere.
You are entitled to your opinion contrary of course, but I have to ask one, are you reformed and two, have you read King and Webster’s 3 volumes on The Holy Scripture, the Pillar and Ground of Our Faith? It is available anywhere if not at
http://www.christianbook.com/scripture-ground-pillar-faith-vols-1/william-webster/pd/4678 and is probably the best current thing available on the topic
(I’d plug Lane’s book gig at Westminster, but they don’t seem to carry it.)
FTM Romanism is far from a slam dunk. Nor is absolute certainty regarding anything possible in this life. But the reformed faith is still more certain than ridiculous roman bill of goods we are being sold by its triumphant – and need I add, duplicitous – advocates in this forum.
But if you think they are good arguments, then again you really need to read Webster and King.
David Gadbois said,
July 30, 2012 at 7:31 pm
I thought I could take a Sunday (yesterday) off from checking on this thread without it more than doubling in size. Wow.
In any case, the comments have once again gone off-topic. This thread is not about sola scriptura. This is about evaluating the Romish claims for the papacy, the actual topic of Lane’s post. I will begin deleting all posts that do not address these claims, either pro or con.
This is another sad performance from the Romanists, BTW, who after hundreds of posts still haven’t been able to construct a positive historical, logical, and theological case to prove that Christ established a perpetual office of the papacy. The burden of proof is on Romanists to establish this, regardless of whether sola scriptura is true or ably defended by Protestants in this thread.
Pete Holter said,
July 30, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Jeff wrote, “…Augustine’s behavior demonstrates something less than deference to the bishop of Rome. Consider his criticisms of Zosimus…”
Hi Jeff!
If you search on Google Books for “Retractations,” you’ll find a partial view pop up.
Since I’ve written somewhat on this before, I just had to make time for this. There go my vacation hours. UH OH!
In case you were not aware of his own positive assessment of Zosimus, Augustine referred to this particular pope as “the venerable,” “holy,” and “most blessed Pope Zosimus” (On Original Sin, Chs. 2:2, 7:8, 8:9, 9:10, & 17:19). When Coelestius had exhibited to Zosimus a readiness to accept the condemnations of Innocent—though he seemed at the same time to be speaking at odds with them—Augustine says that he was treated by Zosimus with “the most merciful persuasion of correction” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk. 2, Ch. 3:5), and that Pope Zosimus had exercised “great compassion” in his proceedings such that Coelestius “was treated with gentle remedies, as a delirious patient who required rest” (On Original Sin, Ch. 6:7, 7:8). When the obstinacy of Coelestius was eventually found out, Zosimus “confirm[ed] without hesitation the judgment of his predecessor in this case” (On Original Sin, Ch. 9:10). And when the Pelagians accused Pope Zosimus of holding something contrary to the faith touching original sin, Augustine came to his defense with vehemence: “Absolutely he never said this—never wrote it at all… [he] would never have said, never have written, that this dogma which these men think concerning infants is to be held” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk. 2, Ch. 3:5)! Likewise, Augustine said that if the Roman Church under Pope Zosimus had pronounced the dogmas of Coelestius to be “worthy of approval and maintenance,” then, indeed, they would have been guilty of “prevarication” because Pope Innocent had already condemned them. But Augustine said that this was “far from the case” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk. 2, Ch. 3:5). Finally, after quoting from a passage of Zosimus’ Tractoria, Augustine exclaimed, “In these words of the Apostolic See the Catholic faith stands out as so ancient and so firmly established, so certain and so clear, that it would be wrong for a Christian to doubt it” (Letter 190).
Of other popes…
Concerning Pope Melchiades’ sentence in the case of the Donatists, Augustine likewise exclaimed, “O excellent man! O son of Christian peace, father of the Christian people!” (Letter 43, Ch. 5:16)
When Pope Innocent pronounced sentence against the Pelagians, he wrote to the Council of Carthage that “it has been decreed by a divine, not a human, authority that whenever action is taken in any of the provinces, however distant or remote, it should not be brought to a conclusion before it comes to the knowledge of this See, so that every just decision may be affirmed by our total authority” (Letter 181). And to the Council of Milevis he said that “I think that as often as an argument on the faith is being blown about, all our brothers and fellow bishops ought to refer it solely to Peter, that is, to the one having the authority of his name and rank, as your Charity has now done, so that it may be for the common benefit of all the Churches” (Letter 182). In describing these letters from the Pope, Augustine said that Pope Innocent “answered all these communications in a manner which was right and fitting for the pontiff of the Apostolic See” (Letter 186). Here we have a pope claiming total authority and universal care over the Church of Christ in the person of Peter, and Augustine acknowledging the fitness of such claims.
Augustine wrote his doctrinal defense to Pope Boniface “for,” as he says, “your correction… if perchance anything should displease you,” on account of your holding prominence on “a loftier height” in “the office of the episcopate” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk. 1, Chs. 1:2 & 1:3).
Speaking generally, he held that the authority of the Western Church alone “should suffice” for us in settling doctrinal disputes and that the Bishop of Rome is “higher in place” among the bishops, as being the one who presides over the entire Western Church (Against Julian, Bk. 1, Ch. 4:13).
As a final specific example, he wrote to Pope Celestine in his anguish, “I beg you to second our efforts, most saintly lord and holy Pope, worthy of veneration with all due affection… I beg you by the Blood of Christ. I beg it by the memory of the Apostle Peter who warned those in charge of Christian peoples not to lord it over their brethren” (Letter 209). And in his great humility Augustine felt that his only recourse, if the Pope could not be persuaded, was to consider his own early retirement. For “the supremacy of the apostolic Chair has always flourished” at Rome in the line of Saint Peter (Letter 43, Ch. 3:7; cf. Letter 53, 2; Against the Letters of Petilian, Bk. 2, Ch. 51:118).
With love in Christ,
Pete
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 7:42 pm
TF (344):
Actually, that is very much what I think Scripture is: an inspired prayer book, collection of parenesis, record of the Church’s liturgical and doctrinal history, etc. etc. It is to inform my life of prayer and worship, my moral life, and to serve as an inspired witness to the teaching of Christ, the prophets, and the apostles. It is not, as far as I can see, the Rule of Faith.
And, again, whether or not the Papacy is a divine institution – the Burden of Proof is always on him who asserts. In this case, Reformed Christians and Catholic Christians both have something to prove.
The Reformed assertion: Scripture is the Rule of Faith.
The Catholic Assertion: The Church is the Rule of Faith.
My challenge to the Reformed:
Where is this assertion taught by divine revelation?
The Reformed answer (as far as I can tell) is: Nowhere explicitly. Rather, SS is a deduction or an inference from the fact of inspiration.
Muller admits as much in his work on Reformed Scholasticism.
My response: I don’t see how this follows. You need a separate argument to show that inspiration necessarily implies final, regulative authority. This is not self-evident.
I’m still waiting for an answer to that question.
As far as the Catholic claim is concerned, I’d begin by looking at what Christ actually said regarding the transmission of Christian doctrine: Whoever hears you hears me; Go into all nations . . . I’m with you; Whatever you bind is bound, etc. etc.
-David
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 8:00 pm
David,
Can we start by answering, saying that you are not defining what the bible is. How familiar are you with Gerhardous Vos, and ‘Biblical Theology?’ If you know about BT, then apologies for this deviation, and you can disregard. Otherwise, we need to start with a better understanding of what the Bible is. The unfolding plan of redemption, His plan to save the elect. This will also involve what is called a redemptive historical approach. Once you know what the Bible is, the fact that the Bible (canon) birth the church, and not vice versa. And your pope is thereby evacuated. Since there is Pope in scripture. Or as I crudely said abo, Saul is a good im
Immayn might be lost.
Peace.
David Gadbois said,
July 30, 2012 at 8:01 pm
It looks like a commenter named Pete Holter took a stab at directly answering my query for positive evidence for Christ’s establishing the papacy. It is just the usual spooftexts with no effort at serious exegesis, along with the gaps and glosses in logic that we’ve come to expect. He said:
So again, Peter alone, in his profession of faith, became the foundation of the Church in Matthew 16; and again we see that the other apostles were joined with Peter in this same doctrine and likewise became collaborators in laying this foundation (Ephesians 2), which is Christ.
So this logically only establishes a chronological priority for Peter, not a primacy of authority.
.” Jesus’ response is to have Peter miraculously pay for just the two of them by using a single coin: Peter and Jesus united as one.
This is not exegesis, this is projection. And even if we were to give the passage the significance you assign it regarding Jesus favoring Peter, it is still light years away from implying an office of the pope.
If we can be confident that Jesus established a pastor at the head of His Church in the times of the apostles…then this is the structure that we should expect to find until His return.
No, that is just your unargued assumption, and it is not even a particularly good assumption. There were plenty of instances when God left Old Testament Israel without a prophet to succeed the prophets He appointed to guide Israel at different times and ages.
This is also tantamount to admitting that there is no actual record or evidence that Christ instituted such a succession. You might “expect” such a thing, but Christ’s sanction does not exist.
if the Apostles…needed a confirmer and pastor as the form (forme) and visible maintenance of their union, and of the union of the Church, how much more now has the Church need of one,
It isn’t up to you, or Francis de Sales, to decide what the church does or doesn’t need. God gives what is sufficient for the good of the Bride and sufficient for accomplishing His will in the world.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 30, 2012 at 8:03 pm
*no pope in Scripture. I need sleep …
David Gadbois said,
July 30, 2012 at 8:18 pm
ADA said
As far as the Catholic claim is concerned, I’d begin by looking at what Christ actually said regarding the transmission of Christian doctrine: Whoever hears you hears me; Go into all nations . . . I’m with you; Whatever you bind is bound, etc. etc.
Why are you Romanists so reticent tto actually put together a linear argument for a central claim of your faith? After so many dozens of posts, where is the beef already?
albertdavidanders said,
July 30, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Not reticent. Just taking it a step at a time, first principles first.
First principle is what Christ taught regarding the Rule of Faith.
If we cannot agree even on the locus of his teaching, we’re hardly going to make any progress on 4th century ecclesiology.
-David
David Gadbois said,
July 30, 2012 at 8:27 pm
The problem is that you seem uninterested in 1st century ecclesiology, specifically you seem unconcerned that there is no record of a papacy being established by the flesh and blood lips of Christ, nor recorded in the writings of His Apostles during the 1st century. I don’t know about you, but I am a convinced Christian because it is a faith grounded in legitimate history. The NT is a legitimate (to say the least!) historical document detailing, amongst other things, how the Apostles ordered the church. They talk a lot about elders/presbyters, and deacons, but have nothing to say about a papacy. Nothing less than a divine command, uttered through Christ or the Apostles, can compel Christians to believe in such an office.
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 30, 2012 at 8:40 pm
David,
Catholics object to being called “you Romanists” just like you would object to being called “you sectarians.” Why not follow the golden rule here?
I believe the case for the cetral claim of Catholicism has been made many times and in many ways over at CTC.
Pete Holter said,
July 30, 2012 at 8:41 pm
David wrote, “It is just the usual spooftexts with no effort at serious exegesis, along with the gaps and glosses in logic that we’ve come to expect.”
Hey David!
Welcome back.
Consider again the scene on the beach with Peter and the net of fish. The apostles “were not able to haul it in, because of the quantity of fish.” But once Peter receives direction from John, he jumps into the water to do whatever he can to get to Jesus. The apostles, invigorated in hope by his example, are able to drag the net full of fish to land. And Peter alone “went aboard and hauled the net ashore.” How was he able to do all by himself what they were unable to do before when all together? This is a superabundance of grace! And consider that on the other occasion when this happened, Peter asked Jesus to depart from him. But this time, not only does he not want Jesus to depart, but with so great love he wants to bring everyone to Jesus. And John points out the unity that Peter provides by saying that “although there were so many, the net was not torn” when Peter hauled them ashore. And so we gain confidence that when Jesus prayed for our complete unity, He had, in part, the role of Peter in mind and the unity that is fostered by having a single pastor to serve over His entire flock that they might be fed.
I also find it interesting that both here on the beach and earlier at the tomb, “the beloved disciple” is a step ahead of Peter, and yet he waits for Peter to act, and then willingly follows his lead.
“And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, ‘The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!’ ” (Luke 24:33-34)
With love in Christ,
Pete
David Gadbois said,
July 30, 2012 at 8:58 pm
JJS said believe the case for the cetral claim of Catholicism has been made many times and in many ways over at CTC.
If it is anything like the performance of Romanists who comment here at GB, I doubt it. So far we have only received appeals to Tradition (Bryan Cross) and half-arguments from the primacy of Peter (as if it proved a perpetual office, even if true), and beside-the-point challenges to sola scriptura.
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Again, they object to being called “Romanists.” Does that matter to you at all?
greenbaggins said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Jason, most of us object to using the term “Catholics” to describe the Roman Catholic church. I, for one, think it is a contradiction in terms to say “Roman Catholic.” I do not grant the use of the term “Catholic” to that perspective. “Papist” sounds derogatory. No doubt some can use the term “Romanist” in a derogatory way, but I certainly do not. To me, it seems like the most accurate term. But if you have an alternative that does not use the term “Catholic” that you would feel more comfortable with, by all means let us know.
David Gadbois said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Pete Holter, are you pulling my leg? Is it honoring to God to be such an unserious student of Scripture? Are you really willing to defend your post as a piece of legitimate exegesis of the Word of God?
David Gadbois said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:25 pm
I thought “Romanist” was quite a bit more civil than “brood of vipers”.
Now: back to the topic, the papacy.
UPDATE: I am trimming a handful of (mostly Protestant) posts. Let’s stay focused, guys, keep the banter to a minimum.
Jason J. Stellman said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Got it: you prefer name-calling to the golden rule. Classy.
I will admit that I may be a bit more sensitive to this kind of juvenile and mocking behavior because it is the sin to which I am prone, and often guilty. But seriously, moderators, if you want profitable dialogue here (as opposed to homogeneity and backslapping) you really should do something to discourage it (I trust you know who the usual suspects are).
It’s one thing to oppose another’s position, but this site is getting the reputation (even among Reformed people) of being a place where the line separating disagreement from derision is continually crossed. If that’s what you want, have at it, and have fun talking amongst yourselves. But if you want actual dialogue partners, then it would be a good idea to try to foster a less hostile and more charitable environment.
But your house, your rules. I promise I won’t say another word on the subject.
Jsm52 said,
July 30, 2012 at 9:55 pm
It seems that a sense of humor is sorely lacking?
sean said,
July 30, 2012 at 10:40 pm
Come on Jason,
Cross’ question-begging flag throwing after every two interactions is classy and amenable to respectful dialogue much less extended dialogue? We don’t grant the other’s starting points. That seems honest enough.
Burton said,
July 30, 2012 at 11:01 pm
Bob S. (#358)
When it comes to the topic of Romanism, that’s the way of it? What’s the way of it? As one Christian brother to another, I truly don’t know what you mean by that. Even if you view David Anders and Bryan Cross and Jason Stellman etc as true enemies, I believe the Biblical command is quite clear on how they, and all men, should be treated. To put it simply, be as forceful with your arguments as you want, but the vitriol is contrary to the way of grace.
I am Reformed. I have not read the book you recommended. Been focusing more on Mathison and Horton and Noll, but it sounds as though it may be well worth a thorough read. I do think it can be deflective to say “just read this book” on a blog rather than articulate your own argument. I have seen folks on both sides of this debate resort to that approach. It could well be that the arguments are long and nuanced enough to be impractical to summarize in this forum.
Just out of curiosity, if I wasn’t Reformed (say, Anglican or Southern Baptist or Charismatic), how would that change your assessment of me?
I agree that the RCC case is not a slam dunk, but neither is the Reformed. I have no illusions about the availability of absolute certainty, but I do believe that a principled means of defining orthodoxy and heresy should exist, as should a meaningful way to define unity versus schism. As I’ve stated before, the RCC may indeed be in error, if not apostate, but I still haven’t heard much in the way of a positive argument for the Reformed rule-of-faith as a means of defining orthodoxy/heresy and unity/schism. I’ve heard “no hard edges” and “no absolute certainty”, followed by a long string of bias laden deprecations against the opposing position. Again, that may be helpful in developing a negative argument against the RCC, but it does nothing to advance a positive argument for your own rule-of-faith.
Burton
Andrew McCallum said,
July 30, 2012 at 11:13 pm
OK then, back to the papacy. The Scriptures make no connection between Apostolic authority and Rome. So we move to the earliest ECF’s and they don’t say much about Rome either. As we move into the next several centuries they say more but nothing close to the kinds of claims we hear for the Bishop of Rome by the High Middle Ages. So which Fathers should we believe? Or maybe the better question is whether there is any way to rationally derive a consensus patrum on the proper authority/role of the Bishop of Rome.
Incidentally for the Reformed folks, I too think that “Roman Catholic” is contradictory, but what does it matter? If “papist” and “Romanist” are offensive let’s leave these terms alone. What’s worse – to use a term we feel is a contradictory term or to loose the audience?
TurretinFan said,
July 30, 2012 at 11:14 pm
ADA:
Re: #361, I thought you already agreed that Scriptures are “A” rule of faith. If so, then the only question is whether there is another rule of faith in addition.
And I could have sworn you already conceded that point.
As I mentioned before, if you concede that the Scriptures are a rule of faith, then you have – in effect – conceded that we have met our burden. The only other assertion required to move from “Scripture is a rule of faith” to “Scripture is THE rule of faith” is the negative proposition “and we don’t have any other rule of faith.”
The burden is on the proponent of that other proposed rule of faith.
Moreover, you assert: “The Catholic Assertion: The Church is the Rule of Faith.”
Interestingly, Benedict XVI (Yes, I know he’s German like Kung, Rahner, and Luther, but hear me out) is reported as saying:
L’Osservatore Romano, 21 April 2012
So, do you concede what that German prelate who claims to be the successor of Peter and Paul concedes? Or do you deny that Scripture is the supreme rule of faith?
I mean one might think that “the Catholic position” is better expressed by the pope who says: “The Church has always considered and continues to consider Sacred Scripture, together with sacred Tradition, “as the supreme rule of her faith” (DV 21) and as such she offers it to the faithful for their daily life.” (19 June 1985, General Audience)
And yes, he’s quoting from Vatican II, but I hear that they are planning on making SSPX finally assent to those teachings.
So, what will be ADA? Are you on the pope’s (I suppose that should be popes’, as the 1985 audience would be the Polish prelate, not the German one) side? Do you agree that he has conceded that the Scriptures are a rule of faith and has further alleged that “Tradition” is as well?
If so, we’ve met our burden on this point – but you still have to meet yours by somehow deomnstrating that your “Tradition” is to be received as the rule of faith.
-TurretinFan
David Gadbois said,
July 30, 2012 at 11:39 pm
JJS said Got it: you prefer name-calling to the golden rule. Classy.
At the risk of stating the obvious, “brood of vipers” is a *biblical* example of name-calling. It ought to serve as a clue that the Golden Rule is not an ethical absolute, devoid of qualification in Scripture.
And I don’t really take offense to being called, for example, a “sectarian”. I understand that it is an ascription consistent with the Roman Catholic theology and practice. It’s not like a personal insult like “your mother wears army boots”, so while I might believe it is dumb as a pile of bricks, I don’t take personal offense to it.
If you honestly believe there is merit in further discussion on this, contact me and/or Lane via e-mail, otherwise let’s stay on-topic.
David Gadbois said,
July 30, 2012 at 11:50 pm
OK, guys, I’m still having to trim this thread (again, mainly Protestant posts). Normally I try to avoid a heavy hand, but when we start getting hundreds and hundreds of comments it becomes a disaster if the topic of the post is not adhered to.
Turretinfan, if you (and John B.) want to debate ADA and others on sola scriptura and tradition, I can open up a new post for you guys to comment there, as we did back with the “Oral Tradition” thread. Should I get this going?
Hugh McCann said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:04 am
M. Gadbois,
Si mes commentaires sont trop vile de post ici….. au revoir, mes freres.
l’Hughuenot
Vive la Reformation!
TurretinFan said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:15 am
DG:
From my standpoint, the only part of Sola Scriptura that Rome doesn’t concede is the negative aspect of it – the idea that the teachings of the papacy (and other “Tradition”) is not the rule of faith.
So, if any of Rome’s advocates (ADA included) want to actually try to establish that the teachings of the papacy must be accepted as the rule of faith, it seems there is no need for a new thread.
On the other hand, if they do not want to try to establish such a thing, it seems that the new thread would not have much of a point.
So, perhaps it makes more sense for me to await such a demonstration here, where it would be on topic already (although, of course, if you would prefer for me to comment in a new/different thread, that’s ok with me).
-TurretinFan
Bob S said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:22 am
376 Burton, whatever.
You come on here as a novice without any idea of the history of Mr. Cross, CTC, Jason Stellman and you’re shocked at the rough and tumble. My question to you would be have you ever read Scripture? It’s not all lovey dovey.
Pete Holter’s stuff has always been ridiculous even over at Beggars All and Dave Anders still can’t acknowledge what 2 Tim. 3:15-17 or Rich. Muller actually says after being apprised of it how many times?- note bene I didn’t say anybody was dishonest or a liar – while Jason has hurt feelings on being called a Romanist and chooses to take a shot at Dave w.o. being equally gracious to GB who explained exactly why protestants don’t go for “Catholic” as being a legitimate term for the Roman church. Besides protestants are schismatic according to Rome if Jason doesn’t know by now. Like for crying out loud. How goofy does it have to get?
In short, fools get answered according to their folly- subject of course to one’s private judgement/discretion as to when one refrains to answer them according to their folly Prov. 26:4,5. Go figure.
And for trying to clue you in on a good book and bring you up to speed, I am “deflective.” Again whatever. This debate here with Mr. Cross et all has been going on since 09 or thereabouts. You said you were confused by all the noise here, so we tried to tip you off. No prob, you can take it or leave it.
But if you are reformed, I assume you know what the WCF has to say about Romanism – though modern presbyterians want to tone down the man of sin business (by the way just to stay sort of on topic). On the other hand when you say “the RCC may be in error, if not apostate”, respectfully you just gave away the farm. If the RCC is not apostate, is not in serious error, the Reformers had no business separating from her and I expect to see you shortly over at CTC celebrating your homecoming like the rest of the happy people, that as we have seen here, can’t reason from Scripture, won’t reason from Scripture and don’t like reasoning from Scripture.
Further, the P&R have their problems, but at least they have a clue as to what the gospel of Jesus Christ is. But don’t take my word for it just because I grew up in that communion, read the Council of Trent and listen to what the whore says in her own words. Anybody who teaches justification by faith alone is anathema. Contrast that with Gal. 1:8,9.
Are we still in the dark?
Then pray God he opens your eyes and soon.
Bob S said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:25 am
380 DG
I don’t see any way that SS won’t come up in discussing the papacy with ADA et al, so if you want to open another thread, you won’t hurt this well poisoner’s feelings.
Pete Holter said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:27 am
Jsm52 wrote, “Did Paul not get the memo?”
Greetings in Christ!
Yes, I think that this is why Paul “went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days” (Galatians 1:18). And also why it was so powerful for Paul to point out that he “opposed [Peter] to his face” (Galatians 2:11). If such a dispute had taken place between Paul and anyone else, the Galatians might be left thinking, ‘Yeah, but what did this or that guy think of what happened?’ The fact that it all went down with Peter brings the issue of gospel pedigree to a close and adds shock value to his defense and full credibility to his claim that he is not “trying to please man” (Galatians 1:10).
On one level, all of this is irrelevant to Paul because he did not receive the gospel “from any man” but “through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:12). And yet at the same time, he’s writing all of these things with the benefit of hindsight in having received “the right hand of fellowship” from the apostles (Galatians 2:9), and of having rebuked Peter and it be accepted. Prior to meeting with Peter and being confirmed by the apostles, Paul was not absolutely sure whether he had the gospel right. He recognized that there was the possibility that he was running in vain (cf. Galatians 2:2). But by the time he’s writing to the Galatians, he knows he’s got it right, in more ways than one.
With love in Christ,
Pete
TurretinFan said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:37 am
“Prior to meeting with Peter and being confirmed by the apostles, Paul was not absolutely sure whether he had the gospel right. ”
Mr. Holter, You’re such an amiable guy that I can only imagine that you don’t see the blasphemy involved in your suggestion that Paul’s direct revelation from Jesus Christ himself would leave him uncertain about whether he had the gospel right, and consequently that he was in need of confirmation from Peter. Peter made up for the deficiencies of the gospel that Jesus gave Paul? Really??
Peter was one of the most prominent apostles, no doubt. Yet what is the testimony of Peter as compared with that of Christ?
Moreover, where does Paul say that he was not sure that he had the gospel right? You write: “He recognized that there was the possibility that he was running in vain (cf. Galatians 2:2).” But even if we take your spin on that verse, he’s talking about his personal walk – not about whether he has the gospel right.
Surely, you’ve misspoken or I’ve greviously misunderstood what you were trying to say by saying that “Prior to meeting with Peter and being confirmed by the apostles, Paul was not absolutely sure whether he had the gospel right. ”
-TurretinFan
Don said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:51 am
Pete Holter #385, assuming posts aren’t deleted and others renumbered,
If you want to follow down to Gal. 2:7-8, then maybe Paul’s successors should be popes to those of us who aren’t Jewish.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:54 am
Bob S 385:
Nice to ‘meet’ you.
You say this debate with Mr. Cross has been going on since 2009. Not a surprise. I guess we reformed ‘hold the line,’ and keep standing with Luther, standing alone on the ‘Word of God, the B – I – B – L – E… Bible!’
Everything I needed to know, was taught in kindergarten Sunday school.
I just want to help the effort, to show the claims that we must submit to the Pope are not from the Bible.
Peace,
Andrew
Pete Holter said,
July 31, 2012 at 2:44 am
TurretinFan wrote, “But even if we take your spin on that verse, he’s talking about his personal walk – not about whether he has the gospel right.
Thanks, TurretinFan. I hope we get to meet someday.
I actually do think that Paul was afraid that he may have had something wrong with the gospel itself in Galatians 2 because he says that he “set before them the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain” (Galatians 2:2). In other words, “Here is the gospel that I preach; am I missing anything? Do I have anything wrong? Do the Gentiles need to be circumcised?” The answer from the apostles was that he had indeed “been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised” (Galatians 2:7), and Titus did not need to be circumcised (cf. Galatians 2:3). In short, nothing was added to Paul’s gospel (cf. Galatians 2:6). It may be that the revelation prompting this visitation had itself caused some doubt.
With love in Christ,
Pete
TurretinFan said,
July 31, 2012 at 3:07 am
Sorry to belabor this point, but let me see if I understand what you’re saying.
You read this: (Galatians 2:1-2)
You think it means he’s checking with the apostles to see if the gospel that he has been preaching by revelation from Jesus for almost a decade and a half is correct?
I’m at a loss as to how you could conclude such a thing.
Especially when just a few verses down he says:
Whatever they were makes no matter to him?
And just a few verses previously he had said:
Moreover, this visit in Galatians 2 comes after he met with Peter for two weeks.
So it’s as though you are saying that Paul didn’t feel comfortable with Jesus’ direct revelation, nor with his private time with Peter and James, but instead he needed to spend some private time with people who didn’t matter to him to get confirmation of the gospel?
Come again?
-TuretinFan
johnbugay said,
July 31, 2012 at 3:48 am
David Anders (361):
Have you not seen my quotes from Archbishop Roland Minnerath, who, having studied the matter for a Vatican historical commission on the papacy in the first millennium, concludes “The East never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West. It never accepted that the protos in the universal church could claim to be the unique successor or vicar of Peter”. The entire document may be found through the links given in comment #183.
This does a bit of shifting of the burden of proof. There are huge swaths of the ancient [Eastern] church who do not accept, and never have accepted “Petrine theology as elaborated in the west”.
This claim that “the Papacy is a divine institution” is merely an assertion on your part. Like the Easterners, we do not accept it either.
Prove it to us.
johnbugay said,
July 31, 2012 at 4:00 am
David Anders 255 (and other comments you have made):
If all God gave you was the command to “stand on your head, or else”, [and you were to know it was God who gave this word – “granting (arguendo) that you recognize this Word to stand on your head by illumination, self-attestation, or what-have-you, to be God’s inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word . . .”] – how in the world (unless otherwise bolstered by baseless claims from Rome that “only we can provide you with the formal proximate definition of what this means”) would you dare ask Him for clarification?
johnbugay said,
July 31, 2012 at 4:22 am
Burton 355
Certainly there is a means of “defining orthodoxy vs heresy” and in that regard, a council such as Nicea (325) or Constantinople (381) or Chalcedon (451) is very helpful. But I think that conceptions of “authority” that the churches of these centuries had was not very helpful at all. Ephesus (431) is counted as one of the “ecumenical” councils, and yet, it was an embarrassment and blot on the history of the church. That is being kind to it. Such shenanigans led to major rifts in the church that has never been healed.
In a similar vein, historically, the papacy is at the pinnacle of those harmful claims to authority.
I have a series I’ve written, both at Triablogue and elsewhere, called “the nonexistent early papacy”. I’ve put together this timeline of the early papacy, which is necessarily incomplete but very revealing nevertheless:
Again and again, “they argued among themselves as to who was greatest”. This is the story of the struggle for “authority” in early Christianity. As Jason Stellman pointed out in comment 296, as he studied the early church, he “discover[ed] in Scripture and the fathers a church that is said to be, and thought of itself as, authoritative”. This is the fruit of that urge to think of themselves as authoritative.
As I’ve stated repeatedly in this comment thread, the Eastern church “never”, ever accepted the claims of the papacy.
You asked, “Do you see a distinction between heresy and schism? If so, how does the church in its ministerial role define and correct schismatics?”
On the basis of the things I’ve written above, I’m willing to say, I don’t have all the right answers, but I’m certain it excludes the Roman way.
johnbugay said,
July 31, 2012 at 4:25 am
Jason Stellman: Regarding my timeline in 393, if you think calling someone a “Romanist” is worth protesting, how do you incorporate these acts of charity into your “paradigm” of who is, and who isn’t “in authority”?
johnbugay said,
July 31, 2012 at 5:08 am
Here are a couple of “oldies but goodies” from my series on “the nonexistent early papacy”:
The Nonexistent Early Papacy: An introduction to the series, it highlights several of the actual contradictions to be found in Roman doctrine concerning the papacy.
As a “Key” to Understand Peter, See Reuben: Biblical, Old Testament “prophecy” that Peter was not ever destined to be “pope”.
Emperor Worship and the Ancient Roman Mindset: Here’s where Jason Stellman’s early church found its urge to be authoritative.
House Churches in Ancient Rome: It’s not enough simply to “tear down” something like the papacy. It’s important to “build” the history of what it was actually like during that time period. This series on “House Churches in Ancient Rome” discusses some of the leaders, and leadership structures, where we have solid information about that time period.
The Papacy’s Missing Link: “The Shepherd of Hermas” wrote in Rome in the years 135-150. He gives a fairly extensive first-hand account of what the church leadership in Rome was like. I’ll give you a hint, he uses these words: “sorcerers carry their drugs in bottles, but you carry your drug and poison in your heart”.
Rome is all about aggrandizing Rome: The “rise of the papacy” corresponds with a burying of Paul’s letters and theology in Rome.
Newman, “The Roman Catholic Hermeneutic”, and Rome’s Foundational Assumption: The “fallback position” on the nonexistent early papacy.
johnbugay said,
July 31, 2012 at 5:59 am
Burton 254:
You said:
Steve Hays has pointed out to me via an email: “Rome doesn’t even claim to provide hard edges on many bioethical issues. For instance:”
Steve says: “By his own admission, the future pope says bioethicists shouldn’t look to the Vatican for specific guidance; rather, the Vatican is looking to bioethicists for guidance.”
Burton said,
July 31, 2012 at 7:07 am
OK, Bob – I get where you are coming from (in terms of how these debates should be carried out) – I just don’t agree. For the record, I’m not shocked at the “rough and tumble”, just think your version of it goes over the line, and detracts from the discussion. If the RCC guys are all fools to be answered according to their folly, then why engage in any serious debate to begin with?
Enough about that. I’d still love to hear answer to my questions in your own words. I teach medical students, and I have often observed that if I can’t articulate a concept to a novice clearly and concisely, then perhaps I don’t understand it all that well myself. So, yes, I do think “go read this book” is a cop-out.
Also, I recognize that my questions are not directly on topic. If they need to be taken to a different thread, I’m happy to be redirected.
Burton
Burton said,
July 31, 2012 at 7:13 am
John Bugay (#394),
Again, I’m not asking why the RCC system is deficient. I’m looking for positive arguments regarding the Reformed view of the ministerial role of the church. Specifically how it defines orthodoxy/heresy and schism/unity in such as way as to have applicability to the church as a whole (e.g. not just a particular Reformed denomination)
Burton
johnbugay said,
July 31, 2012 at 7:30 am
Burton 387 and 398, frankly, do you understand why we might think the RCC is deficient?
You said up above, “I do believe that a principled means of defining orthodoxy and heresy should exist,”
First, why “should” one exist? Is that your own opinion? Or have you adopted someone else’s opinion?
Second, you’ve got Rome’s “principled means”. Enforce dogma by the sword. Do you think it’s deficient? Do you think they’ve improved upon that in any way? (Consider the 90% of American Roman Catholics who practice artificial contraception without paying any mind to what Rome says about it).
You are the great investigator. Why in the world have you been investigating these things for years without having come to any conclusions? These are things over which wars have been fought. They are issues worth discussing, and they are worth discussing heatedly. Bob S. is well within historical norms for these kinds of discussions, and, compared with the early “popes”, he’s far behind in the “sword” category.
The Reformed view of the ministerial role of the church has the ability to “define orthodoxy/heresy and schism/unity” “in such as way as to have applicability to the church as a whole” precisely because it is biblical.
If a pope were to subscribe to the WCF, and make it binding on the consciences of all Roman Catholics, I’d dare say, the next 2000 years would by far go better than the last 2000 years have gone.
Pete Holter said,
July 31, 2012 at 7:48 am
TurretinFan wrote, “You think it means he’s checking with the apostles to see if the gospel that he has been preaching by revelation from Jesus for almost a decade and a half is correct?
“I’m at a loss as to how you could conclude such a thing.”
I think that he mentions things like, “what they were makes no difference to me,” for the sake of the Galatians, so that they do not lose sight of the fact “that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel.” But there is a “revelation” that Paul mentions in Galatians 2:2 that prompted him to go to the apostles to “set before them… the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.” It seems to me that if they actually had adjusted his gospel, he would have written a different letter to the Galatians and would have understood himself to have run in vain for all of those years on account of having had something wrong with the gospel.
I see the difficulties you’re raising. What is your understanding of the text? Why do you think he first went to Peter (my claim: Peter’s the head guy, “I want to get it from you: Tell me everything you know about Jesus”), and then later went to Peter, James, and John (my claim: to make sure his gospel was right)? Thanks!
With the love of Christ,
Pete
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 31, 2012 at 8:15 am
Burton at 398:
I’m not sophisticated like others on this string. But I have experienced in a way the outworking of your question, in how we reformed determined what is orthodox. I don’t want to take us down the rabbit trail of debating questions around creation, but in the Northern California Presbytery, that was exactly how I learned how presbyterianism works out. The conference (which lectures I would be happy to post a link here) was about what is called, “animus imponentis.”
At the risk of bringing theology down to earthly analogy, our presbyterian system (in the orthodox presbyterian church (http://www.opc.org/)) can be analogized to the system of law in the U.S. How does our civil system determine, “just law?” Well, issues are put before the courts, rulings issued, and a case law over time is established.
And of course, we’ve got a document called the “Westminster Confession of Faith” that we love to talk about.
Trust me, books have been written about presbyterian polity (ecclessiology) and I am especially thinking of Edmund Clowney, “the church,” but I don’t think that touches on the questions here per say (I haven’t read it yet).
Your question is good and deserves a sophisticated answer. But we presbyterians are very concerned about orthodoxy. Especially those of us ordained in a denomination with “Orthodox” in it’s name. Yes the Roman Catholics want to be called what they want to be called. But imagine the height of pride that some of us assume, by claiming “orthodox” as part of our accepted label. But in our small denomination, we can blame it on our mainline presbyterian (PCUSA) denomination because they sued us when our original name in the 1930’s (at our formation) was too close to theirs.
They still don’t like us very much.
But we can try…
I tend to indulge my desires for a rhetorical flourish, just, it’s a good question. You can find resources, or ask me for some and I’ll keep going.
Peace,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 31, 2012 at 8:22 am
John Bugay 399:
“If a pope were to subscribe to the WCF, and make it binding on the consciences of all Roman Catholics, I’d dare say, the next 2000 years would by far go better than the last 2000 years have gone.”
This provided an LOL moment for me here. Thanks for the smile… :-)
It’s the Holy Spirit we see working in the church. Yes, churchly matters are difficult many times (I really respect our ministers and elders – as a deacon, I get shielded from a lot of the burden they carry – they are awesome!) but we honestly feel God is at work in bringing about His church, in fashioning a people for himself, and individually molding us to be more like Christ.
We fail at many length, and I need to end my sermon. Let’s just allow honest skeptical “seekers” to keep asking questions.
Keep doing what you do, John. Nice to ‘meet’ you.
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 31, 2012 at 8:27 am
Mods and John,
I should have mentioned this, or else i might get trimmed for not talking papacy… :-)
The WCF is not our version of the RCC’s Office of the Pope or Apostolic Succession. But we all have a deep and abiding sense of God at work in bringing about this wonderful document.
RCC’s office of the Pope just doesnt do it for us. Im waiting for the Biblical arguement for pope. Or else,I will start laying out why Presbyterianism is the most true to NT Teachings.
we will get there, trust me,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 31, 2012 at 8:50 am
Last thing I will say, and then it’s off to my cave with my puritan writings…
We don’t need the Pope to subscribe to our WCF. Our faith isn’t in the WCF at the end of the day, as much as those of us on “this side,” “love” that document.
Or take my motives here. I am not trying to turn any of you into orthodox presbyterians (though I won’t be offended if you look into what the OPC is doing your area :-). But we all need to “labor together” and let our iron sharpen one another.
The Baptists, for example, modeled one of their first confessional documents (was it the london one?) after our WCF.
Westminster is truly a watershed document. Those of us on this side need no convincing. For the RCC’s reading at home, pay attention to what Lane puts forth. We’re really trying to help all parties that want to read. I for one would be happy if the next post about Catholicism does not have 400+ comments.
And with that, I’m doing my part, and will be reading, and not commenting.
We’ll see how long it lasts, but to avoid trimming: Benedict, please chime in if you think we’re off the rails. We left your teaching over 500 years ago, but I for one, would still golf with you, if you are up for some good fun.
Regards,
Andrew
albertdavidanders said,
July 31, 2012 at 9:11 am
TF (378):
OK – it took me a few comments before I saw your point. Now I think I get it.
Your are saying – “If Scripture is “A” rule of faith, and there is no other rule of faith, then, de facto, Scripture is THE rule of faith.”
Have I got that right?
If that is correct, then the problem, from my point of view, is an equivocation over the meaning of the phrase ‘rule of faith.’
This is what I was trying to get at in an earlier response, when I said that the Protestant claim entailed much, much more.
The term has been variously used (as I’m sure you know) throughout Christian history to reference a number of different concepts, so perhaps its unnecessarily obfuscating. I used it since the WCF uses it to refer to the Scriptures; whereas, the Catholic encyclopedia uses it with reference to the Church. Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, St. Thomas, and Pope Benedict all use it in different ways.
So, to clear up the equivocation:
When I acknowledged Scripture as ‘a rule of faith,’ I meant simply ‘a norm to be obeyed.’ (1)
When WCF uses the term, it means ‘a final court of appeal, with reference to which all controversies of religion must be decided, and in whose sentence alone we must rest.’ (2)
From this, I think you can see that simply acknowledging (1) in no way entails (2) – even if no other norm exists.
To illustrate:
Suppose the office of President of the U.S. were suddenly vacated, and no one could find the VP, Speaker of the House, and whatever. (Or, supposing the constitution did not specify an order of succession to the presidency.)
Now suppose that I locate the “President” of my local old ladies knitting club.
She has an authority. She is a president. And, for the sake of the argument, she may be the only “president” alive in the universe.
But that does not give her ultimate executive power over the U.S. Federal gov’t. The nature of her presidency just does not entail that.
To assume otherwise is to equivocate rather badly over the meaning of the term “president.”
In like fashion – I may acknowledge that Scripture is an authority. (I do, as a matter of fact.) And EVEN IF NO OTHER AUTHORITY EXISTS that does not DE FACTO entail that Scripture has the kind of authority ascribed to it by the WCF.
In order to know what kind of authority, what kind of jurisdiction, Scripture has, I need some revelation to tell me.
Prime facie, scripture presents itself as a collection of poetry, historical narrative, prophecy, and occasional epistles. None of those suggests that kind of over-arching constitutional authority ascribed to it by WCF.
Imagine another thought experiment:
We have only the inspired book of psalms. Would anyone say, “the book of Psalms is obviously sufficient for the government/direction of the Church, because its all we’ve got?”
No – because the Book of psalms obviously does not present itself this way.
Now imagine we have psalms plus Isaiah. Same.
Psalms, Isaiah, and the Gospel of Mark.
Etc. Etc.
At what point in the process can you say, “I have collected enough texts for Scripture to fulfill this constitutional, governmental job description?”
How can we give any other answer to this but, “Well, God hasnow told us that THIS collection of books is now ready to serve that purpose.”
But God has not told us that.
Instead, we get the response, “I know this collection of books must serve that purpose, because it is all we’ve got.”
and that doesn’t follow.
sean said,
July 31, 2012 at 9:23 am
David,
Do the epistles written by Paul, Peter, John, James et all, have apostolic authority? And that(authority) of an ex-cathedra declaration?
johnbugay said,
July 31, 2012 at 9:32 am
Andrew Buckingham 405, I’m happy to have provided a chuckle. These are serious issues, which have had strong advocates on both sides for 500 years, and I’m not so sure it’ll be so easy to convince the Roman Catholics. To be sure, I believe that the research on the early papacy is, as I’ve quoted Carl Trueman in #278 in this thread, most historians who read about the topic believe that “the rise, consolidation and definition of papal power is an historically very complex issue; and, indeed, as scholarship advances, the story becomes more, not less, convoluted and subversive of papal claims.”
I believe that “subversive” nature of the research will continue and grow, and our interlocutors here will seen to be more and more marginalized as we go along.
Andrew Buckingham said,
July 31, 2012 at 9:39 am
I’ll go back and read the Trueman thing. Thanks, John. He’s one of my favorite writers.
in my cave,
andrew
Bob S said,
July 31, 2012 at 9:44 am
If the RCC guys are all fools to be answered according to their folly, then why engage in any serious debate to begin with?
Because people such as yourself who have been studying this – for what ten years? – still can’t tell us if the RCC is in serious error or apostate.
albertdavidanders said,
July 31, 2012 at 10:01 am
Sean,
The Authority of Scripture is of a different kind from an ex-cathedra declaration.
Ex-Cathedra pronouncements are not inspired. They are ‘merely’ infallible. They may be infelicitously worded, poorly timed, or suffer from other accidental defects. They are just not doctrinally erroneous.
Scripture, by contrast (whatever it may be) is “God breathed.” More than just free from error.
Moreover, ex-cathedra pronouncements generally decide some point of doctrine, or controversy.
Scripture, however, only rarely does this – it seems to me.
(Galatians is an obvious example.)
The longest book in the Bible, as you know, is dedicated to praise and worship, not theological polemics.
-David
Bob S said,
July 31, 2012 at 10:10 am
Speaking of fools – or if you prefer, wicked foolishness – vide 408. Note that in all of it there is no mention of, much more attempt to explain the Scripture passage of 2 Tim. 3:15-17.
The same which R.Muller says is one of the proof texts for the protestant claim that Scripture is the rule of faith – and which our protagonist blatantly denies R. Muller ever said. Rather our Roman protagonist just blithely proceeds to beg the question, pose theoretical possibilities and attempt to stack the deck in his favor. This is only too typical.
I know. What has this to do with the papacy.
Simply this. Rome is rotten from the head down.
And that head is not Christ.
Further, God will not be mocked. He gives people over to what they want. If they cannot and will not justify their papacy from Scripture, then why should they pay any attention to Scripture on anything else?
Indeed, why should they? The pope is infallible just as the Scripture is, never mind that Scripture has been infallibly defined to include Sacred Tradition – according to what? Sacred Oral Traditions?
But Rome is not in error or apostate. Or so I am told.
Burton said,
July 31, 2012 at 10:26 am
John,
I think I have a pretty good grasp of your arguments for the deficiencies of Rome, within the limitations of my education and the sources I have read. I am sure I have plenty of room for growth in my understanding and pray for the humility to do so.
Do you not believe that there should be a principled means of distinguishing heresy from orthodoxy and unity from schism? I assumed that this was a given, but that may have been presumptuous on my part. The reason for this necessity seems self evident to me, and it is my own opinion. Followers of Christ need some means of knowing the Truth about God and man, the nature of salvation and what it means practically to live as a disciple of our Lord. Perhaps I misunderstood your question.
I don’t claim to be a great investigator. My training provides some degree of expertise in evaluating data and likely from a different angle than most here. I do firmly believe in approaching a data set with as much objectivity as possible, and with full awareness of the bias of opposing perspectives on the data (and as much as possible, my own bias). That being said, the benefits I may derive from my training are likely outweighed by the deficits as compared to those with formal training in areas more directly relevant to the data at hand.
Why no firm conclusion after years of study? I frequently ask myself that same question. I fear that the answer in part is due to my own personal shortcomings and flaws, which I would be reluctant to air out in this forum. Suffice it to say, I hear you. There comes a time when a man takes a stand and fights for it.
I disagree with your appeal to the “historical standards” as a means of defining basic rules of civility and charity. History is filled with sinful men, both within the church and without. I prefer the Biblical standard as proclaimed by Jesus in the Gospels and Paul in his epistles. Happy to agree to disagree on this point, as Bob S. has a different interpretation of the Bible on this issue. No real need to press this any further – not my blog, not my rules.
Back to my question and your answer. So the Reformed elders have the authority to define orthodoxy/heresy and unity/schism for all Christians because the WCF is the most biblical?
Burton
sean said,
July 31, 2012 at 10:29 am
David,
O.K. so that’s a no. So when 2 Tim 3:16 states that ALL scripture is profitable for not only ‘positive’ teaching but REPROOF, CORRECTION that the man of God may be COMPLETE. For you that’s not so much the case;
“Moreover, ex-cathedra pronouncements generally decide some point of doctrine, or controversy.
Scripture, however, only rarely does this – it seems to me.”
And this determination is a determination of private interpretation?
Sean said,
July 31, 2012 at 11:22 am
sean. #416.
Two questions.
2 Timothy 2:21 says, “If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.
Paul is talking about purging ourselves from those things which are unworthy. He states that if we do this, we are prepared to every good work.
Does that mean that our simple purging of the desires of the flesh is all we have to do?
In Titus 3:1 Paul says, “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work…”
Does this mean thta to be ready for every good work we need only to subject ourselves to the magistrates?
The word Paul uses in 2 Tim 3:16 is ‘ophelimos.’ This word is used by Paul three times. Every time the word is used we see that Paul is not saying that this is all you need but he is rather saying that what he mentions is profitable.
We don’t disagree that scripture is profitable. We disagree that scripture claims that scripture alone is the only rule of faith. In fact, scripture itself testifies to a church that had authority to bind doctrines for the whole church.
sean said,
July 31, 2012 at 11:47 am
Sean,
The questions don’t track when we consider the objection to settling doctrinal dispute or adjudicating controversy. Particularly, as we consider the scriptures as covenant document between a greater and lesser and those documents perform function as treaty between the two of them, bounding their relationship by sanction and promise. If the document is inadequate or incomplete or worse yet, in David’s case, uninitended for this use, essentially unreliable for the purpose, then the promises attached for fealty rendered, themselves become unreliable but worse than that the ‘testator’s’ Jesus Christ the Logos, integrity is impugned and discredited. Covenantal canon does not make allowance for distinction between personal and propositional revelation. God speaks(breaths) and it is good and so.
Jeff Cagle said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Burton (#418): Do you not believe that there should be a principled means of distinguishing heresy from orthodoxy and unity from schism?
Yes, and there are two principal principled means. The first is to test doctrines against Scripture. This was the means used by the Bereans, and is the means espoused in WCoF 1. The second is to seek the collective wisdom of the church. This was the means used in Acts 15 and the means espoused in WCoF 31.
So far, Catholics and Protestants (of the ‘sola’ but not ‘solo’ stripe) agree.
The disagreement is over the relative authority of these two means, and the infallibility of these two means.
The Protestant holds that councils can and may err, so that their pronouncements are to be received *as authoritative* insofar as they are consonant with Scripture.
The Catholic holds that God protects the church from error, so that the pronouncements of ecumenical councils, and of the pope speaking ex cathedra, may be considered infallible.
Sean said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:01 pm
sean.
The Catholic Church has been using Holy Scripture to teach, rebuke, correct and train in righteousness for 2,000 + years.
Now, you said, “The questions don’t track when we consider the objection to settling doctrinal dispute or adjudicating controversy.” That passage does not say that scripture alone is what settles doctrinal disputes and adjudicating controversy. That passage says that scripture is ‘profitable’ for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. Nobody here disagrees with that.
Jeff Cagle said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Sean and sean, now I understand why you seemed to be arguing both sides of the issue. :)
Jeff Cagle said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:06 pm
David (#408): Do you really want to compare the authority of Scripture to the president of a knitting club?
Something needs re-wording or re-thinking here!
TurretinFan said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Sean:
Notice that your emphasis on “alone” is an emphasis on the negative. Why not put forth your positive proof that the papacy is also a rule of faith? Why ask the Christian to prove a universal negative to you?
Is it that you simply lack any valid arguments for the papacy?
-TurretinFan
Sean said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:19 pm
# 423.
Is it that you simply lack any valid arguments for the papacy?
No, that’s not it.
I am asking the Protestant to prove that scripture alone is meant to settle doctrinal disputes because that is what the Protestant claims. Seems pretty fair to me.
And, notwithstanding that the Catholic Church has been ‘making a valid argument’ for the papacy for over 2,000 years, we humble few at Called to Communion have published many such articles and essays about the papacy from the perspective of scripture and Holy Tradition which can be accessed from our archive on the site.
TurretinFan said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:20 pm
ADA:
On top of Jeff’s response, the difference between Scripture being the lone rule of faith and one of several rules of faith is not like the difference between a national president and a knitting club president – it’s more like the difference between an emperor and a triumvirate. To extend that analogy, your church (if not you) already formally acknowledges that the Bible has supreme authority in doctrinal issues, but simply insists that “Tradition” (meaning oral tradition and the magisterium in various ways, including the papacy) also does. Therefore, the onus is on you to establish the authority of the other allegedly supreme authorities.
Since this is a thread about the papacy, why not try to establish the authority of the papacy for us?
-TurretinFan
sean said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Sean,
Take up your case with David, he was the one arguing that the scriptures don’t really give themselves to polemical considerations in the realm of theology. Look, we both believe in church polity. As protestants,here, we believe in elder rule that ULTIMATELY must subject itself and tradition to the ONLY infallible rule of faith and life-the scriptures. We even share a belief in apostolic authority, our own deposit of faith. But, you believe those same scriptures speak to another church polity with an magisterium that superintends a ‘deposit’ that parallels canonical authority and has capacity to speak ‘merely’ infallibly, but unerringly doctrinally. Where is the proof from the canon for your polity? The Canon attests to it’s own God-breathed nature and has a testator in the Incarnate Word. What do you have?
TurretinFan said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Sean:
a) Your demand that we prove a universal negative doesn’t really pass the laugh test, once people realize that’s what you’re asking. We both know that Scripture is a rule of faith – if you want to insist that there is also some other rule of faith, it’s on you to prove that, not on us to prove its non-existence.
b) If CtC has so many good essays and so forth (not to mention your imagination regarding the history of your religion), and if you’ve read them, perhaps you can somehow produce an argument from those readings for us to evaluate. If you who actually hold those things cannot produce an argument from them …
-TurreitnFan
Sean said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:24 pm
To save you some time I might start with the following (not hyper-linking because it seems to catch the spam filter when I do that:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/holy-orders-and-the-priesthood/
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/ecclesiology-in-the-early-creeds/
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/08/philosophy-and-the-papacy/
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/the-chair-of-st-peter/
Here is your official invitation to go into any one of those conversations and explain how we’re wrong.
Sean said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:28 pm
# 427.
Do you mean that we should do as you do when you present history? Such as claiming that a church father taught ‘sola scriptura’ because a father taught that scripture was good while ignoring completely what that same father taught about the church? Is that the kind of ‘proof’ you are seeking?
The way its going on this thread is that somebody complains that the Catholic is not presenting his case. The case is then presented (Bless Pete Holter for his efforts) and then that case is mocked, waved away and then back to complaining that no case is being made.
TurretinFan said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:33 pm
ADA:
You wrote: “The longest book in the Bible, as you know, is dedicated to praise and worship, not theological polemics.”
You really should read Athanasius’ letter to Marcellinus regarding the Psalms.
Here is a nice highlight:
“Son, all the books of Scripture, both Old Testament and New, are inspired by God and useful for instruction [2 Timothy 3:16], as it is written; but to those who really study it the Psalter yields especial treasure.”
And again:
“So then, my son, let whoever reads this Book of Psalms take the things in it quite simply as God-inspired; and let each select from it, as from the fruits of a garden, those things of which he sees himself in need.”
Further:
“Never will such a man be shaken from the truth, but those who try to trick and lead him into error he will refute; and it is no human teacher who promises us this, but the Divine Scripture itself.”
More here:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/03/athanasius-to-marcellinus-how.html
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Sean:
“Do you mean that we should do as you do when you present history? Such as claiming that a church father taught ‘sola scriptura’ because a father taught that scripture was good while ignoring completely what that same father taught about the church? Is that the kind of ‘proof’ you are seeking?”
I suppose you make this kind of false accusation for the same reason you try to get us to prove a universal negative: because you cannot put forth any positive case for the papacy.
“The way its going on this thread is that somebody complains that the Catholic is not presenting his case. The case is then presented (Bless Pete Holter for his efforts) and then that case is mocked, waved away and then back to complaining that no case is being made.”
Mr. Holter is a nice guy, but his arguments are not valid. If you think you can bolster his arguments, by all means try to do so. If you think he has made some specific argument that hasn’t been answered, by all means identify it!
-TurretinFan
Sean said,
July 31, 2012 at 12:59 pm
#431.
Not a false accusation but a true observation. You even tried to argue that St Thomas Aquinas professed ‘sola scriptura’ or at least some nascent form of ‘sola scriptura’ on account of his affirming all the qualities of Holy Scripture that we profess several years ago. But, that impossible because of what Aquinas wrote about the church.
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/08/aquinas-on-sola-scriptura.html
Source Above. You said, “Was Aquinas’ view of all things doctrinal the same as that of the Reformed churches? Of course not. As to Scripture, however, his views were quite close (if not identical). Scripture is the supreme authority.”
You do that over and over again. You might as well take something out of Dei Verbum or the Catechism about scripture and try to say that Dei Verbum professes ‘sola scriptura.’
The problem with that should be obvious. “Sola Scriptura” is not only a claim about scripture. It is a claim about the church. That the church does not have the God breathed authority to interpret scripture. Aquinas clearly did not hold that but you try to argue that he did.
So, parden me if your complaining about lack of evidence strikes me as ludicrous.
TurretinFan said,
July 31, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Sean:
I stand by my earlier point that it’s a false accusation. And I’m certainly not going to debate your false accusation about me personally in this thread.
But no worries- I get that you’re trying to attack me for perceived faulty analysis of points I have not raised in this dialog because you cannot present a positive argument for the papacy.
When you get around to actually trying to establish the papacy, let me know.
-TurreitnFan
Andrew McCallum said,
July 31, 2012 at 1:18 pm
TF said: ….your church (if not you) already formally acknowledges that the Bible has supreme authority in doctrinal issues, but simply insists that “Tradition” (meaning oral tradition and the magisterium in various ways, including the papacy) also does. Therefore, the onus is on you to establish the authority of the other allegedly supreme authorities.
David Anders – What TF said above is what I was trying to get across to you in more than one email above, but apparently unsuccessfully. If you are going to posit some source of infallibility beyond Scripture, then the burden of proof is on you to justify this belief. In the Early Church we are historically still a long long way off from anyone suggesting papal infallibility, but maybe you could start with general ecclesiastical infallibility.
Burton said,
July 31, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Bob S. (#412),
If caustic sarcasm and personal insult are your preferred rhetorical tools, that’s your business, but c’mon, don’t pretend to have my best interest at heart.
Burton
Jeff Cagle said,
July 31, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Pete (#361): Thanks for your detailed reply.
I agree with you that Augustine has some complimentary things to say about Zosimus. At the same time, those complimentary things must taken together with his other words and deeds.
Luther, as you recall, was complimentary towards Leo X in 1516-1517, but we all know how that ended.
I would ask you to read (Google Books has it) Chadwick’s The Church in Ancient Society, pp. 456 – 458.
Then, take a look at the canons of the council of Carthage, 419 (here). It’s a little bit of a read, but if the juicy parts are canons 1 – 23 and the letter at the end (last three canons IIRC).
And then some questions:
(1) Do the Africans — which include Augustine — exhibit a high regard for catholicity?
(2) Do the Africans show respect for the bishop of Rome?
(3) Do the Africans consider Rome to be infallible?
(4) Do the Africans consider Rome to be the final court of appeal?
Jeff Cagle said,
July 31, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Pete, I see that you’ve already had a couple of knock-down drag-outs on the issue of Augustine and Zosimus. Given that I’m unlikely to persuade you, perhaps you can offer the final word and we call it quits?
Burton said,
July 31, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Jeff (#419),
I assume that neither of us fall into the “Solo” category. The heart of my question is in your principle #2. I think this would fall into what John B. called the ministerial role of the church. Assuming that two individuals or groups have first searched the Scriptures, but are still in disagreement over a doctrinal issue (and assume they are each labeling the other’s position as heretical), how does the ministerial role of the church function in this setting to define heresy/orthodoxy?
Or, if one of my elders splits from our PCA church to start his own church over a dispute, how with this ministerial role function to define schism and preserve unity?
Burton
David Gadbois said,
July 31, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Tfan said When you get around to actually trying to establish the papacy, let me know.
Well, its been over 400 posts and they still haven’t managed to get around to this, with the lone exception of Pete Holter’s, uh, fanciful exegesis. You’d think they’d be embarrassed of this performance. If they really cared about what Jesus actually taught concerning the nature and offices of the church, you’d think they’d at least take a spirited stab at it.
Jeff Cagle said,
July 31, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Burton (#437):
In the case of a doctrinal dispute, there’s a church-court process; overtures can be (and are!) made to Presbytery and then to General Assembly.
In the case of an individual elder splitting from the PCA to start his own church — well, the answer is fairly clear.
But not all situations are going to be clear. van Til and Clark were each convinced that the other man was teaching matters that boiled down to heresy. In the end, the OPC ruled that both views were acceptable.
A larger body might at some point split off from the PCA. What then? Which Is the True Church?
And here, I think the Confession is helpful: The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.
We see a kind of tension in the statement that accurately reflects the tension in real life. On the one hand, the VC consists of all those that profess the true religion. On the other, the VC has been given a ministry. The first defines the church in terms of profession, the second in terms of institution.
Why this tension? Because we cannot know the secret counsels of God or the true hearts of men. We don’t know who is saved and who is not saved. Rather, the visible church is the “church as man sees it”, as Calvin had it.
Did that answer your question?
David Gadbois said,
July 31, 2012 at 3:21 pm
I’m also perplexed by the mythological nature of their faith. As Protestants we believe in Jesus and the New Testament because they are genuine artifacts of history. We have the manuscripts, we have a paper trail. Their historical credentials are impeccable. We have a reliable document of what Jesus of Nazareth said and taught in time and space, along with the testimony of His Apostles. If these documents do not record Christ establishing a papacy, what other testimony could establish such a fact in a historically credible manner? How can one justify a faith founded on mythological, wishful thinking about a church and bishop that do not have that sort of documented, historical rootedness?
David Gadbois said,
July 31, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Jeff Cagle, I think the trap Burton is falling into is the fallacy of trying to reason backwards from a result (some function or certitude that sola scriptura or a presbyterian form of church government needs to fill) he thinks he needs to have. The question ought to be, what has God and Christ actually given us for our spiritual welfare and the well-being of the church universal? If one considers that to be insufficient or too problematic because it doesn’t accomplish perceived needs, then tough beans. Then his beef is with God, not Reformed theology.
TurretinFan said,
July 31, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Sean:
I see your list of links, and I’ve seen the pages that they link to – but what I’d love to see from you here in the comment box is actually an argument – not simply an invitation to go to another place to have a conversation. You can feel free to poach from those pages, if need be. It’s not plagiarism if you cite your sources.
-TurretinFan
greenbaggins said,
July 31, 2012 at 5:15 pm
It will definitely help matters if the two Seans can provide their last names with each post.
Pete Holter said,
July 31, 2012 at 5:40 pm
Thank you for the encouragement Sean.
From the background article:
The argument presented in the article proves too much because it is wrong even to say, “I am of Christ,” when it is used as a pretext for creating division in the body of Christ. The effect of people following Paul is that they are refusing to follow Peter; and those who lift up Apollos are holding Paul in contempt. This is the larger concern. It’s not so much a problem of who you’re following, as much as it is a problem of at what expense you’re following that person: the destruction of unity in Christ.
Paul’s concern is “that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10), and for us to put away the “jealousy and strife” (1 Corinthians 3:3). But John Calvin nevertheless forsook communion with the Church of his day, and in effect proclaimed, “I am of Christ,” after the manner of the Corinthians. This is precisely what Paul is here condemning. :(
One way of looking at it is like this. The Scriptures clearly and repeatedly commend unity and condemn those who are divisive, warning us to stay away from them…
But the Scriptures nowhere condemn those who believe that Christ has instituted a senior pastor who exercises care over His entire flock, or who believe that the ability to bind and loose on earth what has been bound and loosed in heaven entails infallibility of some kind.
With love in Christ,
Pete
sean said,
July 31, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Will do, Lane. Though I don’t know that I have much more to add.
Sean Moore
Burton said,
July 31, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Jeff,
The process whereby PCA Reformed doctrinal disputes are adjudicated does not answer that larger question of how the Reformed rule-of-faith defines heresy and orthodoxy, unless the General Assembly believes its doctrinal judgements apply to all Christians. If someone is deemed to be a heretic or schismatic within the PCA denomination, but that carries no weight the eyes of other Protestant denominations, then I don’t see how that process serves the purpose. Either a doctrine is heretical or it isn’t, a moral practice sinful or it isn’t.
For example, the PCA general assembly wouldn’t level the charge of heresy at an EPC general assembly that decided to ordain women. The PCA elders understand that their ministerial role is only binding on that subset of Christians who voluntarily identify themselves as PCA. That which might be considered doctrinal error within the PCA has no bearing and is not binding on other Christians, and is therefore a relative definition.
Another way to look at it: if the general assemblies of the PCA, OPC, EPC, Southern Baptist, and AG all accuse the other of heresy (or call it doctrinal error), who is there to adjudicate between them?
If the VC includes all those that profess the true religion, but no one body of believers included in the VC can definitively and in a generally binding way define orthodoxy/heresy and schism/unity (i.e. true religion), then you really haven’t answered my question, and I think the problem is deeper than what you call a tension.
Burton
Burton said,
July 31, 2012 at 6:21 pm
David (#442),
Please feel free to address me directly. If there is no need to generally define orthodoxy and heresy or schism and unity, then I may be entertaining a false presumption. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask (1) if it is necessary to have a means of defining doctrine in such a way that orthodoxy and heresy can be understood by and is binding on all believers and (2) if this is not necessary then why not? and (3) is there good evidence that the early church through Nicea would have shared that opinion.
You suggest that I am arguing backwards from a perceived need, but can’t that accusation work both ways? Couldn’t we as easily say that you start with an unproven presupposition about what was given as a principled means, and then work backward into the way that it must function?
Burton
TurretinFan said,
July 31, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Burton:
a) The question of orthodoxy/heresy is one of objective reality. A dogma is orthodox or it is heretical.
b) That objective reality precedes an conciliar or other ecclesiastical judgment. Arius was a heretic before any council convicted him, and he would have been a heretic even if no council had ever convicted him.
c) A wise council rightly judges orthodoxy to be orthodoxy and heresy to be heresy. A foolish council does the opposite. If “wise” and “foolish” seem to harsh – use “rightly discerning” and “wrongly discerning.”
In other words, a judgment is not right because it comes from a right council, but a council is right because it has correctly judged.
Your wrote, “If someone is deemed to be a heretic or schismatic within the PCA denomination, but that carries no weight the eyes of other Protestant denominations, then I don’t see how that process serves the purpose.”
It’s not clear what you think the purpose is. There are multiple purposes for church discipline. One of the primary purposes is the restoration of the straying sheep. Another purpose, also important, is removal of heresy from the church. A further purpose is the education of the church regarding the difference between heresy and orthodoxy.
None of those purposes requires that all churches everywhere agree with one another about the discipline. In fact, none of those purposes require that any other church agree with the disciplining church.
– TurretinFan
David Gadbois said,
July 31, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Burton said If the VC includes all those that profess the true religion, but no one body of believers included in the VC can definitively and in a generally binding way define orthodoxy/heresy and schism/unity (i.e. true religion), then you really haven’t answered my question, and I think the problem is deeper than what you call a tension.
This reminds me of the Israelites grumbling in the wilderness, complaining about the manna and God’s provisions for them. People that look to the church Christ instituted, in all of its weakness, with the modest provision of fallible elders and deacons, the foolishness of preaching, the humble sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and say “no, thanks, there must be something more than this” are exercising the same kind of unbelief. What God has given us is sufficient.
jsm52 said,
July 31, 2012 at 6:32 pm
TFan –
Excellent explanation on orthodoxy, heresy, and councils.
Jack
Jeff Cagle said,
July 31, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Burton (#448): If the VC includes all those that profess the true religion, but no one body of believers included in the VC can definitively and in a generally binding way define orthodoxy/heresy and schism/unity (i.e. true religion), then you really haven’t answered my question, and I think the problem is deeper than what you call a tension.
Burton, I think what you long for is really eschatological.
And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
Clearly, as I have stated, the PCA general assembly does define orthodoxy and heresy. But the sad truth is that, until we *do* reach unity of the faith, the courts of the church cannot go beyond “our best judgment” to “real and certain truth.”
The RC church offers it, but it cannot deliver — for it, also, does not have jurisdiction over all Christians.
David Gadbois said,
July 31, 2012 at 7:00 pm
I missed Burton’s post from above. He said I do not think it is unreasonable to ask (1) if it is necessary to have a means of defining doctrine in such a way that orthodoxy and heresy can be understood by and is binding on all believers
Well, if you believe in the sufficiency and perspecuity of Scripture, then you have your answer of what that God-appointed means is. It can be understood, and it is binding.
(2) if this is not necessary then why not?
That is switching the burden of proof.
(3) is there good evidence that the early church through Nicea would have shared that opinion.
An interesting question, but irrelevant.
You suggest that I am arguing backwards from a perceived need, but can’t that accusation work both ways? Couldn’t we as easily say that you start with an unproven presupposition about what was given as a principled means, and then work backward into the way that it must function?
No, our doctrine of the church is the product of exegesis of Scripture. We base it on what Christ and the Apostles actually said. The Christian religion is a revealed religion, doctrines are not not “reasoned to”.
Andrew McCallum said,
July 31, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Burton,
In addition what others have said about orthodoxy/heresy, there are a number of different Reformed denominations represented here, but I would say that it is highly unlikely that any of us would get into arguments over what is and what is not heresy. We could go through numerous case studies to prove the matter but that would take far too long.
The thing that intrigues me about your question is that there is very little practical attempt to differentiate between heresy and orthodoxy in Roman Catholicism. There are no end of theological liberals running around in the RCC. It seems to be exceedingly difficult to get oneself kicked out of the RCC by holding to heretical doctrines. The formal unity of the RCC is protected in a manner of speaking by accepting any and all into the RCC fold, from the very liberal to the ultra-conservative. Almost everyone in the RCC is “Catholic” no matter how many issues they might have with current and past popes and current and past Roman Magisteria.
The Reformed get accused of all sorts of things for their adherence to biblical orthodoxy, but I’m very thankful to be part of an ecclesiastical system which is so fastidious over matters of orthodoxy and heresy. Once you leave for Rome I suppose you have to get comfortable with heresy.
Brad B said,
July 31, 2012 at 10:45 pm
The last several exchanges have been very helpful, thanks for taking the time to dig a little.
Like jsm52, #449 TFan’s post resonated a powerful truth to wit, that truth isn’t dependant on popular opinion or even minority opinion of select men. David ehoes this in #453 in slghtly different language to focus the distinctions
Most Christians I know long for unity–Jeff #452 judges aright, Burton’s desire is eschatalogical as is, I believe every participant of this blog posting. David’s #450 said exactly what I’ve been thinking as I first read Burtons query. I often wonder what God is doing, sometimes.
.
I pray to never be one of the 9:42’ers, for that reason, I fear for Roman Catholic apologists[and FV’ists], but maybe they are just 9:39ers. Many things make me wonder…the thing I dont wonder about is that the Lord is in control of all things, that He’s not silent even for a nanosecond and that whatsoever comes to pass has been ordained from the foundation of the world, to His glory. I also dont wonder that this is clealy revealed in scripture and that it is the most devastating yet liberating doctrine that a man can come to know.
Pete Holter said,
July 31, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Hi Jeff!
I pray for blessings for you and your loved ones. I have a few additional thoughts that I like to keep in mind when assessing these later Carthaginian councils.
In his disputes with the Donatists, Augustine drew attention to the fact that “not one, but two or more Councils were held; always, however, in Africa” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Bk. 3, Ch. 10:14). The fact of councils being held only in Africa is problematic because, as Augustine noted elsewhere, the “African Church, if it be compared with the churches in other parts of the world, is very different from them, and is left far behind both in numbers and in influence” (Letter 43, Ch. 9:26). Augustine is saying these things with the knowledge that some 300 Donatist bishops had met in council. Augustine wants to make the point that even though there were so many bishops gathered, the council was still, for all that, only an African council. These considerations help us to estimate the authority that Augustine accords to the 200 some Catholic bishops meeting in the later Councils of Carthage in Africa.
But before we get to them, the African Council of Carthage of 416, which included some 67 or 68 African bishops, wrote to the Bishop of Rome in order “that the authority of the Apostolic See may be added to the decisions of our insignificance” (Letter 175). And the 59 bishops of the African Council of Milevis of 416 acted similarly, acknowledging to the Bishop of Rome, that he “reign[s] over us” (Letter 176). In Book 2 of On Christian Doctrine, Augustine compares the authority of fewer churches of greater authority with the authority of a greater number of churches of lesser authority, and he concludes that the two groups are of equal authority (cf. Ch. 8:12). And here we see councils of 67 and 59 bishops both acknowledging the greater authority of the one bishop of Rome. It makes us wonder how many bishops it would take to equal the authority of the one Bishop of Rome. Whatever our answer, that’s a lot of authority! :) Concerning these two councils, Augustine said that “we were in duty bound not to fail to use our episcopal authority, such as it is, in behalf of the Church.” And this African authority was exercised by simply sending “reports of this controversy… to the Apostolic See” (Letter 186).
A final point that I think is helpful to keep in mind when evaluating these later African Councils is the fact that—unlike much of the other exchanges glimpsed at up above in my previous comment—these councils are dealing with purely disciplinary matters as they relate to Rome. And this brings us now to these later councils.
Pope Zosimus had rested his prerogative to evaluate cases of excommunications on a corrupted copy of the canons of Nicaea. When the papal legate announced this prerogative and its Nicene basis, Alypius responded (not really quoting), “Hey, I remember reading the canons in Greek, and I don’t remember seeing these canons…”. So the African Council sent to the East to get the most accurate copies of the canons. It was not a matter of rejecting Roman authority, but a question concerning the accuracy of the text of Nicaea upon which the Roman Church was resting this particular prerogative.
When the Africans are in council again during the episcopacies of Boniface and Celestine, and this issue is brought to a close, they rightly asked and expected the popes to stand by the canons of Nicaea. This is a more than fair request, especially considering that the Roman Church had thought that they were following Nicea on this in the first place. We also have to keep in mind that the 200+ bishops are asking the popes to accept their decision. To Pope Boniface they wrote, “we ask of your holiness that you would cause to be observed by us the acts and constitutions of our fathers at the Council of Nicaea,” and to Pope Celestine they likewise wrote, “Premising, therefore, our due regards to you, we earnestly conjure you (Latin: deprecamur)…”, i.e., “We pray, we beseech, we entreat…”
We don’t have anything from Pope Celestine indicating that he had a problem with the African proceedings. It seemed to have been an honest mistake that Pope Zosimus would have regretted and been embarrassed by had he still been alive to discover that he had the wrong canons. And the African bishops had good practical reasons for asking the Pope to not second guess the conclusions of the conciliar trials of Africa because of the difficulties of logistics that would be involved, the implication that the African trials were incompetent and could be scorned by the rebellious, etc. What if Pope Celestine had said, “No”? We thank God that love prevailed! For when Saint Cyprian had at an earlier time “poured forth with signs of irritation against Stephen,” Augustine saw him as approaching to “the danger of baneful dissension,” and said that it was “better to pass over those points,” better to not even speak of such things (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Bk. 5, Ch. 25:36). Augustine would certainly not allow any such dissension to happen under his episcopal watch, so long as Christ ruled in his heart.
Unfortunately, the copy of The Church in Ancient Society that shows up for me in Google Books does not display the pages you mentioned. But Constantine had pointed me to Chadwick at an earlier time, and Chadwick does not appear to me to give an accurate presentation of the relations between Africa and Zosimus. In his History of the Church he writes,
Chadwick says that the Africans were “horrified,” that their letters against the Pelagians were “hysterical” (“… which hysterically denounced Pelagianism…”), that the “effect of the edict on Zosimus was crushing,” and that Zosimus simply “bowed to the inevitable.” In his biography of Augustine, Chadwick similarly writes:
Statements such as these simply do not accurately capture the facts of the case. And if all you ever read was Chadwick’s Augustine of Hippo, you’d be left thinking that Zosimus did nothing but get confused and submit to the secular authority. I’ve been blessed to have had the opportunity to read Augustine’s volume on Pelagianism available over at CCEL, as well as Against Julian, and many of his letters dealing with Pelagianism. After reading this material, I’ve found John Dom Chapman’s summary of the situation to really be the best. Antagonistic reconstructions and conclusions of African independence that I’ve seen are far removed from the thought of Saint Augustine and those with whom he communed.
Finally, consider that in one of Zosimus’ letters to the Africans, he wrote,
Just as with Innocent, so too with Zosimus: after reading claims such as these, Augustine has nothing but praise for this man. This would be inconceivable outside of the Catholic Church of our Lord.
My thoughts on your numbered questions in terms of Augustine…
To (1) and (2), I say, absolutely. To (3), I say that Augustine viewed the Bishop of Rome as able to bring a doctrinal dispute to an end, and as able to give a final answer to which we must submit as Christians. And to (4), I say that Augustine viewed the Bishop of Rome as serving as a final court of appeal.
Thank you for your interactions with me. I am sorry for any errors I may have committed in trying to present this material.
With love in Christ,
Pete
jsm52 said,
July 31, 2012 at 11:28 pm
Is it me, or does it seem that the RRC argument is essentially reduced to hair-splitting exegesis of a fallible and incomplete historical record?
David Gadbois said,
August 1, 2012 at 1:46 am
Yeah, jsm52, as if Jesus is going to be care about their knowledge of what church fathers, popes, and saints said on the Last Day, rather than fidelity to what He spake in His Word. Church history, for them, functions as a sort of Talmud, but neither are going to save anyone from the wrath to come.
dgh said,
August 1, 2012 at 6:29 am
David G., but surely our Lord will care what ministers and elders say and do in their ministry of the word, right. Protestants have more than the Word. We have officers who have more responsibility than members. Which is to say that our ecclesiology also values church fathers and dominies, but in a different way from Rome.
My sense is that Protestants sometimes discount the church in their emphasis on the Word (sola scriptura). But the Confession says that councils and synod have worth not simply when they follow the Word but also as an ordinance of God. Church authority and political authority are ordinances of God.
But for Protestants church authority has transparency. We can actually admit when churches err unlike RC’s who have to dodge and weave to protect the coherence of the early church and the infallibility of the Bishops of Rome. Plus, we value church councils (as opposed to church monarchs), and so we have some accountability built in to the system by which our officers interpret Scripture and rule on what is orthodox and heretical.
Reaction to "Conversion" and Debating Roman Catholics said,
August 1, 2012 at 7:17 am
[…] the rest was simply a "catechetical" exercise from the Roman Catholic point of view. The recent thread at Green Baggins on the early papacy was highly instructive, and highly successful for the Reformed folks who were in that discussion. I believe that Lane […]
Bryan Cross said,
August 1, 2012 at 8:03 am
David G., (re: 458)
In the “solo scriptura” paradigm, in which nothing but Scripture has divine authority, it doesn’t matter if people submit to the Church; it only matters that they submit to Scripture. But in the Protestant-Catholic discussion, what is in question is, among other things, precisely the “solo scriptura” paradigm. Using the “solo scriptura” paradigm in defense of the “solo scriptura” paradigm would be to reason in a circle.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 1, 2012 at 8:19 am
Bryan,
It doesn’t matter if I am a church member, and I don’t submit to my Presbyterian elders?
Come on…
As for circulariuty, fine, you want to dance? I’m game.
Andrew
Jeremy Tate said,
August 1, 2012 at 8:26 am
Dgh,
The fact that confessional reformed denominations allow pastors to “take exception” to various teachings from councils demonstrates that within the Reformed paradigm councils in fact have no real authority. Think about it; if the “authority” of church councils only extends to those theological areas where the individual already agrees with the council then what is really “valued” is freedom of thought.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 1, 2012 at 8:27 am
Basically, the circularity thing is really a question about the nature of faith. Its the kind of discussions I got into on atheist facebook threads (bad idea…I deleted all comments, those poor suckers…). Its question about the nature of faith, not papal authority. You should check out j Gresham machen’s “what is faith.” Not meant to be condescending. I’ll chime in when i feel in some small way I might help. But the circularity thing is a rabbit hole for this thread. Get back to the Pope. And Lane’s original words.
Kind regards,Andrew
Jeff Cagle said,
August 1, 2012 at 8:36 am
Bryan, historical Protestantism doesn’t use the solo Scriptura paradigm.
So why bring it up?
Jeff Cagle said,
August 1, 2012 at 8:41 am
dgh, I think David’s point is that in the last judgment, Church teaching will not be a “cover” for those who have disobeyed God’s word.
“Why did you bow to statues of me?”
“The church told me that it wasn’t a violation of your Word!”
“My Word told you otherwise.”
johnbugay said,
August 1, 2012 at 9:23 am
Bryan 460: In the “Roman Catholic” paradigm, in which “Tradition” has the same divine authority as Scripture, people are required to submit themselves to man-made rules in addition to being subject to Scripture. But in the Protestant-Catholic discussion, what is in question is, among other things, precisely the “Roman Catholic” paradigm. Using the “Roman Catholic” paradigm in defense of “Roman Catholic Tradition” would be to reason in a circle.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 1, 2012 at 9:28 am
In the “solo scriptura” paradigm, in which nothing but Scripture has divine authority, it doesn’t matter if people submit to the Church; it only matters that they submit to Scripture.
Bryan – You know better than saying something like this. We submit to the Church as it defined in Scriptures. If Scripture commands that we submit to this Church then how could we ignore it? Roman Catholics submit to the Church because they believe that the Church demands it. It’s a different source for what defines the Church. So in a nutshell what Lane asked in his opening post was whether there is justification (biblical, historical, or other) for the ecclesiastical system that is peculiar to Rome.
Bryan Cross said,
August 1, 2012 at 9:31 am
Jeff,
Is the fundamental reason you are a member of your denomination (a) because it is the very one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Christ founded in the first century, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, and whose determinations of orthodoxy and heresy bind your conscience on account of their divine authority, whose decision regarding which books belong to the Bible determines authoritatively which books you accepts as canonical, and whose teaching concerning the meaning and interpretation of Scripture determines your own, or (b) because its statement of faith presently most closely matches (or at some point in the recent past most closely matched) your interpretation of Scripture, among the available denominations within Sunday morning driving range of your house?
If (b), then you use the “solo paradigm,” as Neal and I explained in “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority.”
I bring it up in response to David’s comment because applied to the papacy question, using the “solo scriptura” paradigm to evaluate the papacy question presupposes the falsehood of the Catholic paradigm. No real evaluation of two paradigms is taking place when one of the two paradigms is being presupposed in the criteria used to compare the two. I would agree, of course, that using the Catholic paradigm to evaluate the Catholic paradigm would also be circular reasoning. But, so far as I know, none of the Catholic persons commenting here is suggesting such a thing.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 1, 2012 at 9:47 am
Stick around Bryan. We’re glad you like reading our blog posts and comments. I for one appreciate your questions. Yes, when two opposing view points are presented, one or the other must be wrong. But from our perspective, denominations are a peace inducing thing – when Luther felt he could no longer submit to the teaching, he did the noble thing and peaceably withdrew. Rather than upset the peace and purity of the church, when one realizes the two can’t be made one, separation is the answer.
Without knowing really anything in this regard, Jason Stellman did the same thing. Is Luther wrong? Stellman? Well, I don’t know what’s prompting him or you to post, other than an honest probing and seeking. I would encourage you to stick around. I’ll re-read all your posts. Not to get in your head. But to try to help. Peace.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 1, 2012 at 9:48 am
(c) None of the Above.
The clue that you have presented a false dichotomy is found in your lack of parallel structure.
Option (a) is presented as an objective fact. Option (b) is presented as a subjective interpretation. You’ve loaded the dice in so doing.
That dice-loading is the key flaw in your arguments concerning authority.
To make the structure properly parallel, you would need to write to it EITHER as
subjectively parallel
(a) because I agree with its claims to be the one holy … church,
(b) because its statements of faith most presently matches my own interpretation…
OR
objectively parallel
(a) because it is the one, holy … church
(b) because its statement of faith is the best representation of what the Scripture teaches.
As I have tried to make clear in our previous discussions on this point, you confuse agency with interpretative authority.
johnbugay said,
August 1, 2012 at 9:55 am
Bryan 467: (a) because it is the very one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Christ founded in the first century,
How is this not merely an assumption on your part? An assumption with lots of steps, but an assumption nevertheless.
And, according to Minnerath, it is an assumption that the Eastern church never accepted.
Alan D. Strange said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:07 am
Luther did not “peaceably withdraw” from the Roman Church. His teaching was condemned by Leo X in 1520 by the bull “Exsurge, Domine,” threatening excommunication in sixty days if Luther failed to repent.
SPOILER ALERT: Luther did not “repent” and instead burned the papal bull, which he took to have no authority, contravening Scripture as it did.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:11 am
Well, if that’s a call to war, I’m ready to fight. Not sure if I have earned the title ‘machen warrior child’ , but being an OPC guy for 40% of my life (and 100% of my adult life), I’m willing to concede we must take the fight to them. Just trying to ‘maintain the peace.’ There’s more I could say about Luther. Thanks for the corrective, Dr. Strange. Peace.
Bryan Cross said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:16 am
Jeff,
You didn’t say what (c) is.
So if the PCA went FV, you would stay in the PCA? If not, then how does (b) not accurately reflect why you are in the PCA rather than, say, the CREC?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:18 am
Jesus did have choice words for those who are the peacemakers – sons of God, no? But sometimes, peace comes by way of sword. Fully understandable. Thanks be for him who through His active obedience secured all on my behalf. May I learn to trust Him for all, all the more, as I rest, take care of those around me, and stay away from these blogs which are the most addicting thing I’ve met since becoming Presbyterian and finding out what good stout tastes like. Seriously, if you don’t need a drink after 473 comments, you are a better man than I… :-)
dghart said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:19 am
Bryan, if your position is a) it is the very one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Christ founded in the first century, how do you know that Mormons aren’t the true church? What if Christ and some of his followers left behind a rival set of plates, with different instructions? Looks to me like your grounded on the quicksand of ever shifting historical revelations. Not to mention that much of your knowledge of the founding of the church comes from Scripture (which happens to be a historical document itself).
Maybe if you were a Jerusalem Catholic, you’d have a better case. Rome came late, even after Antioch.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:26 am
(c) Because the Confession is the best reflection of Scriptural teaching.
So if the PCA went FV, you would stay in the PCA? If not, then how does (b) not accurately reflect why you are in the PCA rather than, say, the CREC?
It’s an interesting hypothetical. I feel much more loyalty to my local church than to the PCA as a whole. If my local church went FV, I would probably leave.
Back at you: If, hypothetically, a teaching of the RC church were shown to contradict Scripture, would you still regard it as the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”?
johnbugay said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:29 am
Jeff 476:
Bad question. Under the “Catholic IP”, by definition, this would never happen.
Bryan Cross said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:37 am
Jeff,
Your (c) is a species of (b). You worship in the PCA denomination because it affirms the WCF, and you affirm the WCF because you think it most closely reflects Scriptural teaching. Your “If my local church went FV, I would probably leave,” shows that your position falls in the (b) category.
My point is not to debate all that, but only to point out that using this paradigm to evaluate the Catholic paradigm is to reason in a circle, by presupposing the answer to the question, in one’s method of evaluating the possible answers to the question.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:42 am
Bryan wrote: “Is the fundamental reason you are a member of your denomination (a) because it is the very one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church … or (b) because its statement of faith presently most closely matches (or at some point in the recent past most closely matched) your interpretation of Scripture, among the available denominations within Sunday morning driving range of your house?”
Naturally, Bryan’s dichotomy is false. There is more that goes into selecting denominational and/or congregational membership than its degree of agreement with one’s own views. Some people are members of a church because that is the church they grew up in – or because it is the church their spouse grew up in – or because they have a great children’s program – or because it is the closest gospel-preaching church – etc. etc.
It’s also false because if one is picking a church because of reason (a), they are picking it because of reason (b).
Furthermore, Bryan’s proposed dichotomy works on a local level with Rome’s communion. In many places, Roman Catholics can pick between reasonably close places of worship based on things like which rite they are, whether they are actively anti-abortion or actively social justice, whether they are charismatic or traditional, or whether they use the traditional latin mass or the new order on a regular basis. Since all of those groups are (on some level) endorsed by Rome, the selection for a Roman Catholic comes down to his personal preference, not whether the local place of worship is “the one true church.”
The one true church is not a single denomination (contrary to the ultra-sectarianism of Rome, the Westboro Baptists, the LDS, and like cults). Instead, there are many denominations that preach the gospel. As a result, one’s decision about associating with a church does not any more depend on determining that the denomination is “the one true church” than an RC’s decision to go to a liberal parish or a conservative parish depends on determining that the specific parish (to the exclusion of the other) is “the one true church.”
Furthermore, Bryan’s accusation that we use the “solo paradigm” is misleading at best. People in the “solo paradigm” happen to agree with us (who don’t use that paradigm) that Rome is not “the one true church” and that actually “the one true church” is not a single denomination. But that doesn’t make the paradigm distinctively “solo” as opposed to “sola.” To provide an analogy, the Nazi’s held (at least in theory) that sodomy was wrong. We happen to agree with them about that. But it would be misleading to say that we have “Nazi paradigm” of sexuality.
The fundamental fallacy of Bryan’s post has already been demonstrated, which is that all he does is point out a shared agreement between sola and solo positions on a matter that distinguishes both positions from the Roman position.
What makes Bryan’s accusation actually false (and not just misleading) is that he also defines what constitutes the “solo position.” He states that “In the “solo scriptura” paradigm, in which nothing but Scripture has divine authority, it doesn’t matter if people submit to the Church; it only matters that they submit to Scripture.”
Now, that position is easily distinguished from the sola position, in which the churches, parents, husbands, and the civil magistrate have divine authority, and in which it does matter if people submit to the churches, their parents, their husbands, and the civil magistrate.
Yet both the sola position and the solo position permit believers to select amongst gospel-preaching denominations. Thus, they are both different from Rome, but yet the “sola paradigm” is distinguishable from the “solo paradigm.”
In short, just because the churches are not the ultimate authority in either the Sola or Solo position does not mean that the Sola and Solo positions are the same.
-TurretinFan
P.S. Incidentally, it’s interesting to see how we’re not seeing Bryan actually trying to argue for the papacy, despite that being the topic of the thread.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:44 am
Your PS, TF, was my thought exactly. BC should go write his own blog post…time for a memosa?
johnbugay said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:49 am
TF 480:
Seems like a move born out of desperation. “This tactic used to work…”
Jeff Cagle said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:50 am
Bryan, really?
Before I wrote #477, I thought, “I’ll bet he is simply going to try to conflate (b) and (c). I should ask him to fix his question first.”
Then I thought, “I should give him a chance to interact more thoughtfully. Perhaps he’ll think about his lack of parallel structure and what it means for his arguments. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and answer forthrightly.”
And then ya let me down, man.
You have to fix your parallel structure problem before we can have a meaningful discussion here.
Bryan Cross said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:58 am
TF,
Where the term ‘church’ refers to that group of persons who sufficiently shares one’s interpretation of Scripture concerning what is the gospel. So that position still falls under (b). And my point is that using the (b) paradigm to evaluate the (a) paradigm presupposes the (b) paradigm.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
jsm52 said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:13 am
I keep reading (Bryan) how Protestants believe that “nothing but Scripture has divine authority.” And then, as Bryan suggests, for them “it doesn’t matter if people submit to the Church” because obviously it has no divine authority. That has already been shown to be a hollow proof built on a false assumption.
The question isn’t about divine authority, but infallible authority. There are two historical sources from which to draw conclusions: 1) Divine history, i.e. Scripture, which is infallible and divinely written for the purpose of God’s people knowing and believing what He has chosen to reveal all man needs to know regarding salvation and the purpose of God; 2) The other is fallible and incomplete history as written by imperfect man. There is no assurance of knowing truth in the second option unless the RCC, as it presumes, has been set up as the infallible interpreter of Scripture and church history. Disagreement over interpretation results from both sources. But at least one of them is complete and infallible.
And I find it quite amazing that “perspicuity of Scripture” is denigrated by the CtC crowd while they argue from an implicit “perspicuity” of so-called tradition and history. Sheesh…
All this emphasis on “tradition” as a proof of the RCC’s bona fides reminds me of Eccl. 1:15 – I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind.
Jack
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:18 am
Bryan,
a1) You’re smart enough to figure out (and you’ve been told enough times) that we don’t define “church” as “that group of persons who sufficiently shares one’s interpretation of Scripture concerning what is the gospel.” You should be above suggesting something you know is not true.
a2) The church of all the faithful is the collection of all people who in fact hold to the gospel. That’s an objective reality, whether or not it is a subjectively discernable reality. Likewise, true churches are churches that preach what actually is the gospel. That is also an objective reality, whether or not it is a subjectively discernable reality. Moreover, true churches include a mixture of the faithful and unbelievers. So, the first sense of church and the second sense of church are different from one another – but neither is defined subjectively.
b) Even if we did use your proposed definition, “church” in that sense does not equate to “denomination” (except in the case of ultra-sectarians like Rome), which undermines your (a)/(b) false dichotomy.
c) The gospel creates the church, not the church the gospel. Even your own church acknowledges this fact. So, this ought to be a shared presupposition in the discussion, even if it is a presupposition. As such, where’s your argument and supporting evidence that your church is the church created by the gospel? Our argument and evidence that our churches are churches created by the gospel are based on Scripture.
-TurretinFan
Bob S said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:18 am
Dunno, the more things change the more they remain the same.
Or semper eadem as Rome puts it.
But for my money I’d go for semper superficial or semper shallow. But what do I know?
Sean tells us confidently in 417
Uh, like isn’t this a red herring? What’s really at issue is what Paul means when he says Scripture is given “that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works 2 Tim. 3:17″.
In 420 Sean says,
Uh, but isn’t this equivocation? Doesn’t the RCC define Scripture to include Sacred Tradition?
In 424 Sean said,
Uh, which is it? Scripture and Holy Tradition or just Scripture which includes Holy Tradition?
Doesn’t the Scripture say something about being double minded and letting your nay be nay?
In 428 Sean waxes deflective with links galore concluding:
Um, maybe if you haven’t done such a good job here of making your case, we’re not really interested in wasting more time elsewhere.
Then in 429 Sean said,
So far, Mr. Holter comes across as an amiable, if not genial dunce. I am sure he means well, but either it escapes you that your argument on 3Tim.3:15-17 consists entirely of red herrings and equivocation and you are then likewise incompetent to judge Mr. Holter’s arguments or you realize your arguments are fallacious, but figure if brassing it out works for you, then why not plump for Mr. Holter’s arguments also.
As for 432 it is simply incoherent.
Arguably it’s a fallacy of the missing middle term.
There’s no question that the Lord made a promise to the apostles. Protestants apply this to the the inspiration necessary to write the NT and in general to the church, while Romanists apply it to the charismatic chrism of apostolic succession. OK. Make your case.
And then there is 445
Bob S said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:20 am
Peter, nowhere does the Scripture condemn those who believe in the Wizard of Oz. What of it?
The question is not the negative, but what does Scripture positively approve of in Christ’s Church? Your position is that Christ approves of the Bishop of Rome of not only having universal jurisdiction, but also infallibility. That’s what needs to be proved. From Scripture alone if you want any ears here. And that doesn’t mean just flooding the combox with texts and assertions.
Bob S said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:21 am
420 Sorry Burton, you are four years to late, at least in this combox when it comes to this junkyard dog clearing the question before his doghouse.
It came up in the April ‘08 discussion of the FV, A Cautionary Note. Comment 21 closes with a quote from Letter XI
. . . from Pascal’s Letter to the Jesuits who protested his ridicule of them. They are close enough to what I think is in A’s City of God, but can’t find at the moment.
“And so far from its being impious to laugh at them, St. Augustine holds it to be the effect of divine wisdom: “The wise laugh at the foolish, because they are wise, not after their own wisdom, but after that divine wisdom which shall laugh at the death of the wicked.”
“For, according to St. Augustine, “charity may sometimes oblige us to ridicule the errors of men, that they may be induced to laugh at them in their turn, and renounce them.”
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/pascal/blaise/p27pr/part12.html
This should keep everybody happy.
We have Scripture, Prov. 1:26, 26:5 – check Protestants.
We have an argument from texts – check philosphers ( I didn’t say sophists) such as Bryan over at CtC
And we have Early Church Fathers – Tertullian being yet another who says “To treat them seriously would be to sanction them.”
IOW bingo.
Further, Bryan dissappeared when he was answered about presuppositions and circular arguments, but lo and behold he is back again pumping the same, (speaking to us no doubt from the steps of St. Peter’s Basilica, just in case you Sunday drivers haven’t figured it out.
But that the Roman circle of infallible Scripture, tradition and magisterium is bigger than the Protestant circle of Scripture alone has yet to be answered. Again, same as for Muslims and Mormons, justify from Scripture your dismissal of it even as you hurry on in search of the Lost Ark of Oral Traditions, the Koran and the Pearl of Great Price.)
ADA can’t answer his evasions of 2Tim.3 and will only return when he thinks everybody has forgotten.
Sean already left, but he’s back.
IOW they love it over here. It’s in their DNA. Like Don Quixote, they love to break a lance.
In part that’s because the comment policy is much more liberal here than at CtC which gets to be a rather stultifying sociological congratulationfest among Romanists who can’t forget their private judgement Prot past.
But that’s just my two cents.
dghart said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:29 am
Bryan, I know we’ve been down this road before, but be honest. You and CTC guys chose Rome because its claims about the magisterium made sense. Or did they send the police and force you to submit?
Sean said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:34 am
Turretin Fan.
And how do you know what the gospel is?
Oh, by your interpretation of scripture.
So, Bryan is absolutely right.
You figure out what the gospel is, based on your reading of scripture and then you identify ‘the church’ by whichever groups of persons preach ‘the gospel.’
Bryan Cross said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:34 am
D.G. Hart,
You can find my answer to that objection in the first link I provided here.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Sean said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:37 am
Actually, the topic of thread has to to with…”on what basis do we evaluate the claims of the Papacy?” And this is exactly his point on pointing out the fact that evaluating the papacy from a ‘sola scritpura’ paradigm is not a legitmate basis for evaluating the papacy.
jsm52 said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:42 am
And how do you know what the gospel is?
Oh, by your interpretation of scripture.
So, Bryan is absolutely right.
You figure out what the gospel is, based on your reading of scripture and then you identify ‘the church’ by whichever groups of persons preach ‘the gospel.’
Can someone here define sophistry?
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:42 am
Sean:
You wrote: “And how do you know what the gospel is? Oh, by your interpretation of scripture. So, Bryan is absolutely right. You figure out what the gospel is, based on your reading of scripture and then you identify ‘the church’ by whichever groups of persons preach ‘the gospel.’”
How we identify the church (an inherently subjective process) is different from what defines the church (an objective reality). The goal of the subjective process is to identify the objective reality. Bryan knows the difference between those two, perhaps you are bright enough to figure it out too.
-TurretinFan
sean said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:43 am
TF says;
‘Furthermore, Bryan’s proposed dichotomy works on a local level with Rome’s communion. In many places, Roman Catholics can pick between reasonably close places of worship based on things like which rite they are, whether they are actively anti-abortion or actively social justice, whether they are charismatic or traditional, or whether they use the traditional latin mass or the new order on a regular basis. Since all of those groups are (on some level) endorsed by Rome, the selection for a Roman Catholic comes down to his personal preference, not whether the local place of worship is “the one true church.”
TF,
You know it hurts my feelings to follow your conversations agreeably.
Sean Moore
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:45 am
jsm:
In fairness to Sean, it’s only sophistry on his part if he’s actually able to distinguish between objective reality (churches that preach the gospel are true churches) and subjective knowledge of that reality (our fallible ability to discern the objective reality).
-TurretinFan
Sean said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:49 am
But your mark of the church (those that preach what I think the gospel is) is entirely subjective. You look for the church subjectively (by reading scripture and looking for a group of persons that preach what you think the gospel is) and then define the church under that subjective understanding.
Your church is not an objective reality. Your neighbor could and may define ‘the gospel’ differently than you and exclude your church from ‘the visible’ church on that basis.
The visible marks of the church that the fathers passed to us are not subjective. They are: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Bryan, ‘benefit of the doubt’ only goes so far.
Are you able to acknowledge that #468 presents a false dichotomy because of faulty parallelism? If not, then why should we accept your arguments?
I really hate to badger, but you need to demonstrate good faith here.
jsm52 said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:03 pm
TFan,
In fairness to Sean, it’s only sophistry on his part if he’s actually able to distinguish between objective reality (churches that preach the gospel are true churches) and subjective knowledge of that reality (our fallible ability to discern the objective reality).
-TurretinFan
I’m beginning to doubt he is able to make that distinction…
Zrim said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:04 pm
But, Jeff (#465), Biblicism is no more a cover for disobedience than popery—as in why didn’t you baptize your children like the church I ordained exhorted you to do? That the Bible told one to withhold the covenant sign and seal won’t be a justification, but it’s a different situation for the one who administered it because he obeyed the church.
Yes, the Word is prior to the church, but that doesn’t mean the church lacks authority. This is why evangelicals mistake Protestants for latent Catholics and Catholics lump Protestants in with evangelicals.
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:05 pm
See, jsm? I don’t think Sean can tell the difference.
“But your mark of the church (those that preach what I think the gospel is) is entirely subjective.”
That isn’t the mark – the mark is “those that preach the gospel” not “those that preach what I think the gospel is.”
“You look for the church subjectively (by reading scripture and looking for a group of persons that preach what you think the gospel is) and then define the church under that subjective understanding.”
In any judgment there is a subjective application of standards. That’s true of our judgments and your judgments too. It’s just a fact of how humans judge.
“Your church is not an objective reality. Your neighbor could and may define ‘the gospel’ differently than you and exclude your church from ‘the visible’ church on that basis. The visible marks of the church that the fathers passed to us are not subjective. They are: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.”
Even if that were the standard, the judgment that Rome meets the standard is still a subjective judgment. Your neighbor could and may define “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” differently than you and exclude Rome from the visible church on that basis. In fact, I’m an example of that – I don’t think that Rome is Holy or Apostolic.
Moreover, even if the standard itself were universally agreed upon, there would still be the subjective determination of whether Rome meets that standard. Is Rome really Catholic? She wasn’t spread throughout the world immediately following the great schism with the Eastern sees. She didn’t meet that geographic test of catholicity (the one Augustine tried to use against the Donatists). Immediately after the great schism with the East, she existed only in a part of the world.
-TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:05 pm
And Sean, your mark of the church is also entirely subjective in exactly the same way (“the church that satisfies the criteria that I believe mark the one, true, apostolic church”).
Anyone, anywhere, who evaluates evidence must do so as a subjective agent.
You can’t escape subjectivity by sitting under the cover of a larger church — for you must first choose the church under whose cover you sit, and then the truth of what you accept is always contingent on the correctness of your choice.
Bryan Cross said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Jeff,
Show me a third option that doesn’t reduce to (a) or (b) in #469, and I’ll have a reason to believe that that there is some third option.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
David Gadbois said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Bryan Cross said Using the “solo scriptura” paradigm in defense of the “solo scriptura” paradigm would be to reason in a circle.
Bryan, this seems to be the only weapon in your arsenal, accusing us of circular reasoning. This cannot stand in for an actual argument that provides positive evidence for the papacy. Even if we are using circular reasoning, that would not be a reason to believe in the papacy.
You need to actually provide such an argument. You guys are just wasting our time.
Bryan Cross said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:17 pm
David,
Of course. My point about circular reason was in no way intended as an argument for the papacy. But, such ground clearing is absolutely essential in order to go about the inquiry in a non-question-begging manner. As for the evidence for the papacy, I couldn’t possibly sum it all up in a combox. I would point to the books in “The Papacy and Magisterium” section of CTC’s “Suggested Reading” page.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
jsm52 said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:19 pm
So in the CtC paradigm, it seems the only objective reality is the Roman Catholic Church?
Everything else (including Scriptural truth) is boiled down to one’s subjective interpretation?
Reminds me of the old Laugh-In TV show line: “Interesting, but crazy…” (said with German accent).
Jeff Cagle said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Bryan, you were clearly shown that (a) and (b) are apples and oranges, the first being objective and the second subjective. This means that, automatically, two other options, the subjective version of (a) and the objective of (b), exist at least as a matter of logic.
This obvious fact needs to be on the table before one can begin to discuss which options reduce to the others.
You just blew it in #468 — we all do — and it would be an important show of good faith if you could ‘fess up.
Bryan Cross said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Jeff,
I don’t wish to badger you, but what, exactly, is third option that does not reduce to (a) or (b) in #469? I don’t see you provide any third option in #508. You talk about “subjective versions,” etc, but what, exactly, is the third option, the one you yourself hold?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
David Gadbois said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Bryan said As for the evidence for the papacy, I couldn’t possibly sum it all up in a combox.
This is a complete cop-out, inasmuch as Lane’s post and this comment thread EXIST FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING SUCH EVIDENCE. It does not exist for the purpose of Romanists taking whatever shots they want at us (we have discussed the sola scriptura/circularity charge many times in other threads).
In keeping with this fact, it looks like I will have to resume deleting posts unless this matter is specifically addressed.
dghart said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Bryan, again you haven’t really come clean. In your links from 492 I went here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/the-tu-quoque/. Again, you misunderstand the Protestant view. Some Reformed do actually believe that preaching is the word of God (defined correctly) and that synods and councils are an ordinance of God. So the contrast you draw between Protestant authorities (only human) and apostolic succession (divine) won’t fly. Plus, your humans are just as prone to error as ours. Look at the contrasts between Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 (sorry, I know you don’t like to range outside the early church).
In this post you also write:
“What the person becoming Catholic discovers in his study of history, tradition and Scripture is not merely an interpretation. If what he discovered were merely an interpretation of history, tradition and Scripture, then what he discovered would have no more authority than any Protestant confession. If his discovery were merely an interpretation, it too would be merely a human opinion. The prospective Catholic finds in his study of history and tradition and Scripture something that does not have a merely human source, either from himself or from other mere humans not having divine authorization. He finds in the first, second and third (etc.) centuries something with a divine origin and with divine authority. He finds the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church and its magisterial authority in succession from the Apostles and from Christ. He does not merely find an interpretation in which the Church has apostolic succession; he finds this very same Church itself, and he finds it to have divine authority by a succession from the Apostles. In finding the Church he finds an organic entity nearly two thousand years old with a divinely established hierarchy preserving divine authority. The basis for the authority of the Church he finds is not its agreement with his own interpretation of Scripture, history or tradition. History, tradition and Scripture are means by which and through which He discovers the Church in reality. The Church he finds in history and in the present has its divine authority from Christ through the Apostles and the bishops by way of succession.”
This is sheer intellectual folly. Everything is an interpretation. Rome’s self-understanding is an interpretation. If you think you can find a body of truth free from interpretation, you may be ripe for becoming that computer Hal in 2001 A Space Odyssey.
Bryan Cross said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:51 pm
D.G. Hart,
This is where we disagree. I don’t think everything is an interpretation. The notion that everything is an interpretation is, in my opinion, a form of philosophical skepticism, similar to Berkeleyan idealism. I don’t hold that philosophical position, and I believe it to be false.
But, resolving the disagreement between philosophical skepticism and realism, would take some time, and take us off topic for this thread. I will say, however, that this disagreement is not fundamentally a theological disagreement, but a pre-theological disagreement, namely, a philosophical disagreement that affects how we approach history and texts.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Bryan, you present
(a) My church is the one, true, holy church.
(b) The teaching of my church best fits my interpretation of Scripture.
In addition, there must also be
(c) My church best fits my understanding of the one, true, holy church.
(d) The teaching of my church best accords with Scripture.
If (d) must always reduce to (b), then (a) must always reduce to (c).
—
David G, I think I’m trying to address the claim of papal supremacy here in terms of focusing on how the historical evidence is evaluated. But if you think otherwise, I’ll leave off.
Pete Holter said,
August 1, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Bob S. wrote, “Peter, nowhere does the Scripture condemn those who believe in the Wizard of Oz. What of it?”
Greetings in Christ, Bob!
My concern here is that in the one case of creating division in the Body of Christ, I would be joining myself to something that is explicitly condemned by Scripture were I to follow after it; but in the other case of being subjected to an infallible hierarchy governed by a universal pastor, I would not be joining myself to something explicitly condemned by Scripture were I to follow after it. So my thought is, How could I choose to do the former as a way of objecting to the latter?
Bob S. wrote, “Your position is that Christ approves of the Bishop of Rome of not only having universal jurisdiction, but also infallibility. That’s what needs to be proved. From Scripture alone if you want any ears here.”
What are your thoughts on the connections between Isaiah 22, Matthew 16, Revelation 1:18, and Revelation 3:7, and whatever other texts you may think are relevant? How do you put them all together?
Also, what do you think of Augustine’s thoughts on Peter as representative of all Christians in the universal church; and then of combining this with Peter’s role within the subset of the Apostles as Chief of the Apostles; and, finally, of what bearing this may have on our understanding of the hierarchy of the Church within the universal church? In other words, how might “Peter” manifest himself differently among the individual members of the Church, and, more specifically, among the individual members of the hierarchy?
With love in Christ,
Pete
Bryan Cross said,
August 1, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Jeff,
Somehow, in #513 I still don’t see specified the third option — the one that you yourself hold. The only third option I’ve seen, that you claim to hold, is the one you provided in #478; and that one reduces to (b).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 1:15 pm
One should, in theory, be able to set forth a positive case for the papacy that does not allege that the other side is using circular reasoning. If so, then it is false that “such ground clearing is absolutely essential in order to go about the inquiry in a non-question-begging manner.”
In other words, the inquiry could proceed by the papal advocate laying forth an argument for the papacy, wherein that does not beg the question, assuming such an argument exists. If the response to that argument begs the question, then that response’s circularity could then be addressed.
But the argument in favor of the papacy hasn’t gotten off the ground yet.
– TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 1, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Bryan, I will take your word that you in good faith do not see the third and fourth options.
This is the ongoing obstacle in our dialogue.
Your interchange with DGH (#512, 513) shows that you have a kind of special-pleading epistemology going on here.
On your one hand, Protestants are mired in the subjective nature of textual interpretation. They cannot read the meaning of the text, but can only access their “interpretations of the text.”
On your other hand, you yourself are able to perceive reality as it is, especially where it comes to the truth claims of the RC church. You are not limited to “your interpretation of history”, but can see it as it really is.
Until you can see the special pleading for what it is, and either admit to yourself and us that (a) and (b) are actually equally subjective (or objective), then we will continue to be at loggerheads.
I understand that you will possibly not agree at this time, which is fine.
But please understand that, beginning with our first conversation in 2007, it has been my desire to faithfully point out the nature of the problem to you.
Lord willing, I will continue to do so.
Grace and peace,
Jeff
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 1:26 pm
“Show me a third option that doesn’t reduce to (a) or (b) in #469, and I’ll have a reason to believe that that there is some third option.”
I’ve already identified other options, such as, “This is the church I grew up in,” or “this is the church my spouse grew up in,” or “this church is a somewhat shorter drive,” and we could add to that, “I get more out of this pastor’s sermons” and “my friends go to that one.” Those may be the fundamental reasons why someone picks a particular Reformed denomination over another, similar Reformed denomination, particularly in places where people are blessed with an abundance of Reformed denominations.
There are lots of reasons people have for picking one denomination over another. There are not only two.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Moreover, as Jeff has already pointed out, the fundamental flaw of the dichotomy is incomplete parallelism leading to lack of exhaustion of the set.
otrmin said,
August 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm
The problem as I see it is this. There are only two options. Either we can know the correct interpretation of scripture without Roman authority, or we cannot. If you answer the latter, then one must the correct interpretation of scripture dependent upon a community. That is what, as I have already pointed out, reduces to postmodernism, because it makes out knowledge of the correct interpretation of a text [including church history] dependent upon community, with no way to decide between the limited, finite communities.. However, if you say the former, and argue that the scriptures teach Roman doctrines, and we can know them without going to Roman authority, then why can’t we go to the text, and have you show us that exegetically? Why must we present all of this garbage about “solo scriptura” when you yourself had to use “solo scriptura” in order to come to the position that Rome was true?
There is simply no way out of this problem. If you admit that you have to presuppose the authority of Rome to get things like Papal infallibility, indulgences, the queenly coronation, and the thesaurus meritorum, you are caught with the fact that other groups claim the same ability to infallibly interpret, and if you have already set the church up as the standard, there is no objective way to decide between the standards given that the church if finite. It reduces to utter postmodernism. On the other hand, if you claim that your private interpretation led you to the conclusion that Rome was true, then the same question of how you know that your private interpretation of scripture that led you to the conclusion that Rome was true is correct in the first place. Worse than that, you are simply contradicting yourself when you accuse protestants of relying upon their private interpretation, since you had to rely upon the same private interpretation to come to the conclusion that Rome is true.
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Jeremy Tate:
Your response to DGH that permitting exceptions demonstrates that the standards have no “real authority,” seems to presuppose that the only kind of authority that is real is absolute authority. That presupposition is wrong. Even Rome’s hierarchy incorporates ideas of subordinate authority. If you are allowed to disagree with your local bishop about what he teaches, that does not mean he has no “real authority.” It just means his authority is not ultimate.
Likewise, the authority of the subordinate standards (WCF 3FU etc.) is not ultimate, but it is real.
-TurretinFan
otrmin said,
August 1, 2012 at 2:00 pm
I would also point out that authority in interpretation is not based in a church; it is based in God primarily and the author of the text secondarily. It is pure reductionism to accuse protestants of mere “private interpretation,” because it leaves out the other factors and interpretation: God and the author. As I mentioned above, we can know the correct interpretation because the author of the text and the interpreter are both created in the image of God, and the fact that both the author and the interpreter live, move, and have their being in God himself. Authority in interpretation comes from the validity of the interpretation, given the fact that Protestants and Catholics both believe the scriptures are God speaking to us. However, it is this relationship between author, interpreter, and God himself [being created in God’s image, and living, moving, and having our being in him] that allows us to know which interpretation is valid.
When it comes to any other field, we would not do this. Take the works of philosophy. Where is the infallible magisterium of Plato, Aristotle, and Marx? Does that mean that all we have is the “private interpretation” of Plato, Aristotle, and Marx, and no interpretation has more authority than the other, such that any Joe Smoe off the streets can come in and make a ridiculous interpretation of Plato, and we must say that it is just as valid as the others? Why not, if there is no magisterium of Plato? Therefore, I would challenge these Catholics who are so enamored with Philosophy to be consistent, they would never pick up another book of Philosophy again unless you can find an infallible magesterium of philosophical writings.
The reality is that interpretation involves both the interpreter and the author and God himself. Yes, to remove the other two factors, does, indeed, leave us with only our own private interpretation. However, if those other two factors exist in interpretation, they provide a reference point upon which to know whether our interpretations are authoritative or not. Furthermore, removing those two other factors destroys authority in any other area of inquiry. Hence, I would also say this argument is simply unlivable.
otrmin said,
August 1, 2012 at 2:05 pm
David Gadbois,
But the argument in favor of the papacy hasn’t gotten off the ground yet.
Bingo.
I think the argument is “The Papacy is true because Rome says so,” and “The Papacy is scriptural because Rome says so.” And added to that is “No one from the Protestant side can even argue against us because they will just be relying upon their private interpretation to do so.”
Mere appeals to authority. And jumping back and forth trying to hold together the arbitrary notion that private interpretation is wrong unless it leads to Rome is simply sad. What a mess.
David Gadbois said,
August 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Tfan said In other words, the inquiry could proceed by the papal advocate laying forth an argument for the papacy, wherein that does not beg the question, assuming such an argument exists. If the response to that argument begs the question, then that response’s circularity could then be addressed.
But the argument in favor of the papacy hasn’t gotten off the ground yet.
Bingo. All we’ve gotten so far is hand-waving. It won’t do to philosophize their way to a pope, we need hard historical evidence. Anything less is just mythology, akin to accepting the claims and superstitions of Joseph Smith or Mohammed.
Arnold said,
August 1, 2012 at 2:32 pm
John & Prots,
Here is a simple question: Who do you believe started the Catholic Church?
If you make a case that it was someone other than Jesus, you have no historical ground to stand on.
If you admit that much, then on what basis do you separate from the Church which our Lord instituted? Any answer to this questions will necessarily put you in a tiny group because there is no principled, consistent answer to this question that is shared by many Protestants.
Sean said,
August 1, 2012 at 2:42 pm
It won’t do to philosophize their way to a pope, we need hard historical evidence.
So, the demand now is to prove the papacy, in a combox, or else you win the debate? Otherwise it’s a ‘cop out?’ Fine.
Besides the scriptural evidence for the primacy of St. Peter, it is a fact that the earliest extant historical data that speaks on the matter confirm the fact that the church, from its infancy, believed in the sacramental succession of the apostles and the unique primacy of the bishop of Rome.
If you disagree than I ask you to answer the following:
Can you name one piece of historical evidence that meets these two conditions:
(1) it shows that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until the second half of the second century, and;
(2) it is stronger evidence than is the list of St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3)
(Please show why it is stronger evidence than is St. Irenaeus’ list.)
Church history is on our side on this. It simply is. This is why John Bugay (and others ) argue that all the fathers by at least the mid 2nd century ‘got it wrong’ or ‘were duped.’ That is required because John (and others) cannot escape what the fathers actually said. Instead, they would rather rely on postulating about what ‘could have been said’ prior to AD 250 in documents that don’t exist because their position demands it. For John Bugay (and others) either the fathers were ‘duped’ or Protestantism is false.
If you are looking outside of church history and demanding scriptural evidence for the papacy than ultimately you’ll be in a position to wave away the scriptural basis and mock it and call me a ‘dunce’ like what was said to Peter Holter. Suffice to say, we believe, as did the fathers, that there is more than enough scriptural warrant to affirm that the church is visible and held together by the unity provided by the successor to St Peter.
(I’d like to point out that Irenaeus’ list is about 250 years before the ‘sacking of Rome’, so much for Richard Bennett’s imaginative story).
Now, I’ll just wait for a response to my query above. Or, you can just dismiss Irenaeus because it does not fit your story but then what would be the point of examining the historical evidence?
otrmin said,
August 1, 2012 at 3:17 pm
I am sorry if I am stringing these posts together, but I have not been here for a day, and these thoughts are coming rapidly as I read through these posts.
I think that there is a great confusion between whether the authority of the Catholic Church is accepted *temporally after* a person comes up with an interpretation of scripture and history, and whether the authority of the Catholic Church is the *logical foundation* for your acceptance of the *validity* of your interpretation of scripture and history. The truth of the first does not necessarily entail the falsity of the second.
For example, let us say that a man who does not know anything about the writings of Plato decides to study Plato’s writings, and the writings of the history of Platonic thought. Let us say he comes up with a particular interpretation of Plato. Now, he wants to know if it is true or not, and he eventually comes to the conclusion that it is true on one basis: there is some nut who claimed to be the infallible interpreter of Plato, protected by God from error, and he has this tradition passed down from Plato to prove that, and your interpretation agrees with his. Hence, you reason that your interpretation must be correct because it has infallible authority behind it. While the acceptance of the infallible interpreter of Plato was temporally *after* he came up with the interpretation of Plato, nevertheless, he still rested the validity of that interpretation upon the infallible interpreter of Plato. He is reasoning:
If my interpretation matches the infallible interpreter of Plato, then it must have infallible authority behind it, and therefore must be true.
The problem is that the protaisis still contains the infallible interpreter of Plato, and the truth is still found in the apodosis. Even though he came up with the interpretation temporally before he accepted the above statement, the acceptance of the validity of that interpretation still rests upon the authority of the infallible interpreter of Plato.
When an exegete comes up with an interpretation, he then goes about looking at the background, context, grammar, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, etc. to justify his interpretation. Hence, the justification comes from the many complex features of language itself. However, it appears that the traditionalist Roman Catholics have replaced with step with saying that the justification of an interpretation depends, not on those features, but upon whether or not an infallible authority is willing to validate that interpretation. While the acceptance of that premise takes place *after* you come up with the interpretation of the passage, your acceptance of the validity of that interpretation is still based upon the authority of the church, and saying that it came temporally after you came up with an individual interpretation does not change that fact.
However, as I have already pointed out, it is the belief that the Catholic Church is the foundation of our acceptance of the validity of interpretation that logically leads to postmodernism. Whether that belief was accepted before or after you came up with an agreeing interpretation makes no difference as to what you finally based the acceptance of the validity of your interpretation upon.
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 4:57 pm
DGH:
I do find it interesting that Bryan didn’t give you a straight answer to your question, “You and CTC guys chose Rome because its claims about the magisterium made sense. Or did they send the police and force you to submit?” The answer seems obvious that it is the former, why would he not just admit it?
Theoretically there could be other reasons (the Vatican is paying them for their allegiance, Cardinal Levada has some compromising photos of them, etc.). But in reality we all know that generally speaking “converts” join Rome because they judge Rome’s claims about itself to be true.
Given that we already know it, it’s a little puzzling why they don’t own it. Is it because it is too frank an admission that their reliance on personal judgment is similar to ours?
-TurretinFan
David Weiner said,
August 1, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Sean #526
“founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul”
How could Paul have founded the church at Rome if he had never been there prior to writing to the already existing church at Rome?
Also, what was the succession of Apostles stemming from Paul, who after all is the only one identified in Scripture explicitly as sent from God to the Gentiles?
otrmin said,
August 1, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Arnold,
If you admit that much, then on what basis do you separate from the Church which our Lord instituted? Any answer to this questions will necessarily put you in a tiny group because there is no principled, consistent answer to this question that is shared by many Protestants.
Simple. The church Christ instituted isn’t Rome. In fact, it is funny that Greek Orthodoxy uses the same argument. When I was in a Bible study with a Greek Orthodox priest, they had a chart, and the chart had you guys separating from them at 1054, and the Greek Orthodox church going all the way back to the apostles. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so serious.
Anyone can claim “we are the church which Christ founded.” However, the only people who can validly claim that is those who teach what Christ taught. When you add things like the queenly coronation of Mary, indulgences, and the thesaurus meritorum, things which come along in history sometimes centuries after the time of Christ, you don’t have Christ’s church.
The church is defined by what the institution teaches, not by organized succession. If they teach what Christ and the apostles taught, then they are Christ’s church. However, if they depart from it, and add things to it [as you have done], then they are not Christ’s church.
Burton said,
August 1, 2012 at 6:03 pm
TurretinFan (#449),
First, thanks to you and David and Jeff for taking the time to answer my questions cordially, particularly given the fact that they are only tangentially on-topic.
I agree 100% with your points (a) and (b). Objective realities exist independently of our ability to recognize them as such. I do have questions about (c), and I’ll try to clarify what I believe the purpose of defining orthodoxy/heresy and schism/unity to be.
By what principled means do you determine which councils have judged wisely and which have judged foolishly? It seems that you do believe in the necessity of correctly identifying the objective reality of heresy/orthodoxy, you just don’t make clear who has that authority and under what circumstance. If Arius and his followers decided, based on the Scriptures, that the Council of Nicea judged foolishly, how would the Christians of that time know which Christology was orthodox and which was heretical? In other words, if there is no principled means for correctly identifying the objective reality of heresy, then heresy becomes whatever the individual judges it to be (because presumably the individual Christian can judge for him or herself which councils -including Nicea- have defined heresy wisely, and which have not).
This leads into what seems to be the self-evident purpose: the ability to reliably recognize the objective reality of heresy/orthodoxy and schism/ unity in such a way that it is recognizable by and binding on all believers for the spiritual well being of the flock. If various ecclesial bodies/ assemblies of elders within the VC can disagree on the definition of heresy, and if none of these bodies has any ecclesial authority over the other, then none can make a legitimate claim to have identified heresy accurately. In this circumstance, how can an assembly of elders carry out the purposes that you outlined? It may be possible, but it would be helpful to me if you could flesh out your last paragraph.
Burton
Burton said,
August 1, 2012 at 6:10 pm
David (#450),
Your response assumes from the outset that Reformed ecclesiology is correct, and you then conclude that anyone who questions this must be grumbling against what God has provided (Reformed ecclesiology). Of course you may be right about my grumbling, but that doesn’t really address my questions.
Burton
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 6:21 pm
“Besides the scriptural evidence for the primacy of St. Peter, it is a fact that the earliest extant historical data that speaks on the matter confirm the fact that the church, from its infancy, believed in the sacramental succession of the apostles and the unique primacy of the bishop of Rome.”
A) The Scriptural evidence is not that Peter was the monarch of the apostles. Quite to the contrary, Paul asserts his equality with Peter. There are certain senses in which Peter is “first,” such as in the lists of the apostles or in speaking up on various occasions. But that is not the kind of primacy that the bishop of Rome claims. He’s not content with being the first bishops in lists of elders – he wants to have universal jurisdiction. Scripture never ascribes universal jurisdiction to Peter.
B) The earliest extra-scriptural historical evidence likewise shows no evidence of any belief that there was a single bishop or elder having universal jurisdiction.
C) The earliest extra-scriptural historical evidence also does not refer to “sacramental succession.” They may refer to “succession,” but that does not have the baggage associated with modern uses of the term “succession” any more than “reformed” means “agreeable to the WCF, LBCF, and/or 3FU” in “And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me …” (Leviticus 26:3).
“Can you name one piece of historical evidence that meets these two conditions: (1) it shows that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until the second half of the second century, and; (2) it is stronger evidence than is the list of St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3)”
You want a piece of historical evidence that proves a negative and is stronger than a list provided by Irenaeus? Considering that Irenaeus’ lists begins at III.3.2 with “the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul,” and given that we know that Paul did not found and organize the church at Rome (see Romans), and we have reason to think that Peter also did not found and organize the church at Rome (since in Acts we see him in Jerusalem and Antioch, but not in Rome and since his primary focus was on the Jews) we have reason to give low weight to the accuracy of the list, especially in its early stages.
Thus, in view of the fact that Irenaeus’ list starts on an untrustworthy note and is offered for an obvious polemical purpose (as opposed to being intended simply to document the facts), its weight is relatively slight.
Lampe has done the legwork to try to show that Irenaeus’ list was derived from Hegesippus’ list. But whether that was the source or not is moot.
It’s mostly moot because even if Irenaeus’ list were accurate, it is – at most – a list of bishops of Rome. It’s not a list of men having universal jurisdiction over all Christians – nor does it purport to be. While Irenaeus has a polemical purpose in the list – the purpose is not tell his opponent that he must submit himself to the then-current Roman bishop – the purpose is to demonstrate that the leadership of the Roman church has close ties to the apostles (notice how Irenaeus claims that Clement, the third in the list, knew the apostles). Irenaeus claims that the then current bishops is the twelfth “from the apostles.”
But that too undermines this list as an evidence of the papacy. According to Rome’s claims, Peter was the first pope – not Linus.
What is bigger evidence of the fact that there was a not a single bishop in Rome is the fact that neither Paul nor Ignatius makes reference to one, although Ignatius generally specifically addresses the bishop of churches in cities to whom he’s writing, and Paul litters his letters with greetings. Moreover, Paul describes a situation in which there are multiple churches in Rome and we are told that it took someone several days to locate Paul at Rome, which would seem unlikely if there was a single monarchical bishop in Rome.
Even bigger evidence is the complete absence from the entire NT, including Acts, of any office of pope.
But, of course, this silence has its limits.
What’s interesting is that, so far, this argument is not an argument for a papacy that existed from the beginning, but for something else – something that Rome doesn’t claim to be – a mere succession of bishops with some vague primacy.
-TurretinFan
Burton said,
August 1, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Jeff (#452),
I may be longing for something that will be but is not yet. But it seems to me that by responding with a ready diagnosis of my underlying condition, you have brushed aside my question to you in #447. Maybe your answer was, “no we can’t identify heresy in a way that is recognizable and binding on all believers, but neither can Rome”.
Burton
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 1, 2012 at 6:23 pm
These are statements that have been explicitly denied several times above. Catholics believe in the papacy because they believe the biblical and historical evidence supports it, and that one initially dives into this investigation independently of any claim Rome makes about itself.
<blockquote<Mere appeals to authority. And jumping back and forth trying to hold together the arbitrary notion that private interpretation is wrong unless it leads to Rome is simply sad. What a mess.
Again, this has been explicitly addressed and denied. I’ll say it again for clarity’s sake: No non-Catholic should just believe in the papacy because Rome says you should.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 1, 2012 at 6:29 pm
(Formatting fixed)
These are statements that have been explicitly denied several times above. Catholics believe in the papacy because they believe the biblical and historical evidence supports it, and that one initially dives into this investigation independently of any claim Rome makes about itself.
Again, this has been explicitly addressed and denied. I’ll say it again for clarity’s sake: No non-Catholic should just believe in the papacy because Rome says you should.
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 6:30 pm
JJS:
Why should someone “believe in the papacy” at all? There is no office of papacy in Scripture. There was no office of papacy in the early patristic period, even as late as Nicaea (4th century). Why should anyone believe in the papacy today?
-TurretinFan
Sean said,
August 1, 2012 at 6:37 pm
That is false. St Peter is indeed recorded in the New Testament and Christ is recorded as bestowing upon him the keys to the heavenly kingdom.
Further, you need to get with John Bugay because he argues that the ‘cat was out of the bag’ with the ‘pious lie’ of the papacy much earlier than you (2nd Century).
More on your larger response to me later.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 1, 2012 at 6:38 pm
If I grant your points, then of course no one should believe in the papacy. But that just pushes the question back to whether your points are in fact true. The Catholic believes they are not, but that the biblical and historical data do indeed demonstrate the papacy.
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 6:41 pm
To sum up my response to Sean:
Even if Irenaeus’ list were trustworthy, all it shows is a series of bishops in Rome with close ties to the apostles. It does not show a primacy of those bishops over anyone else, nor does it place Peter as the first in the series of bishops of Rome (it places Linus first, and suggests he was installed by the apostles, which would suggest two popes at once, if he were really a pope and Peter were really a pope).
Moreover, the list is not trustworthy because it is premised on the idea that Peter and Paul founded and organized the Roman church, which we can be very confident they did not.
So, the evidence falls short.
-TurretinFan
Sean said,
August 1, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Why are you confident that Peter and Paul did not lay the foundation of the Roman church?
What extant evidence do you have that says otherwise?
Sean said,
August 1, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256)
TFan. Do you want to move your date back to at least AD 250 now like John?
David Gadbois said,
August 1, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Sean said So, the demand now is to prove the papacy, in a combox, or else you win the debate?
One could provide a thumbnail argument, or else at least give one line of evidence supporting the claim.
Besides the scriptural evidence for the primacy of St. Peter
Ignoring for now the counter-evidences in the NT that others have pointed out, the evidence you refer to is, at best, inconclusive. It relies on inference from places like Matthew 18, but it is far from being a logically necessary inference. And even if it did teach a primacy of Peter, it does not detail out the nature and implications of that primacy. It certainly says nothing about a distinct *office* (a stronger claim than mere primacy), much less a perpetual office that was to have successors after Peter’s death.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, even a successful argument for petrine primacy is still only half of an argument for the papacy.
it is a fact that the earliest extant historical data that speaks on the matter confirm the fact that the church, from its infancy, believed in the sacramental succession of the apostles and the unique primacy of the bishop of Rome.
But “confirmation” is not direct evidence. It would only mean that elements of church history are *consistent* with Christ’s establishment of a papacy. But then again, such phenomena are possible if Christ DIDN’T found a papacy as well, if it was an early innovation in the church.
Even the confirmatory value is weak, considering that the historical record is far from complete. And as you point out there are only select early sources that *do* speak on the matter at all. That’s exactly what we’d expect if it was an innovation, few would bother bringing it up if it was not widely believed. I don’t see how this can function as a strong confirmation for either view. It only shows that this was one belief, shared by some in the early church.
it shows that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until the second half of the second century
What kind of historiography works like this? It isn’t incumbent on us to prove that something didn’t exist.
Church history is on our side on this. It simply is.
You are simply trying to make testimonies from the 2nd century function as direct documentation of Christ establishing the papacy in the 1st century, but it can’t do that. All it can do is tell us what various ECFs believed. The question is, did they have good reasons for believing as they did? Did they have sound historical evidence that Christ established a papacy, or was it just superstition that developed, for various reasons, around an otherwise-legitimate line of presbyters at the church in Rome? All of these sorts of problems arise when you appeal to second and thirdhand testimony.
This is why John Bugay (and others ) argue that all the fathers by at least the mid 2nd century ‘got it wrong’ or ‘were duped.’
That’s a real possibility. For instance, Iraneus could have been accurate on the raw historical data (an accurate list of succeeding bishops of Rome) but have been wrong in projecting the theological significance he did onto them (that they were endowed with Peter’s authority). He would only have warrant to believe the latter if he had documented evidence that Jesus established a perpetual office of pope).
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Burton:
“By what principled means do you determine which councils have judged wisely and which have judged foolishly?”
You could call the principled means the “Berean method.” You compare what they teach to an infallible standard, Scripture.
“It seems that you do believe in the necessity of correctly identifying the objective reality of heresy/orthodoxy, you just don’t make clear who has that authority and under what circumstance.”
Why would someone need special authority to make such a determination? Isn’t everyone charged with a responsibility of following orthodoxy rather than heresy? If so, why doesn’t that responsibility entail any necessary authority?
“If Arius and his followers decided, based on the Scriptures, that the Council of Nicea judged foolishly, how would the Christians of that time know which Christology was orthodox and which was heretical?”
They would judge by comparing Arius’ teachings to Scripture, which is – in fact – exactly what they did when Arius’ spiritual heirs prevailed for quite a long time.
“In other words, if there is no principled means for correctly identifying the objective reality of heresy, then heresy becomes whatever the individual judges it to be (because presumably the individual Christian can judge for him or herself which councils -including Nicea- have defined heresy wisely, and which have not).”
The individual person can err in their judgment. Just because you think something is heresy doesn’t make it heresy. Just because you think something is orthodoxy doesn’t make it orthodoxy.
The absence of an infallible magic eight ball that can give a “yes, certainly” to a posed question, “is this heresy,” does not mean that heresy becomes whatever the individual judges.
Perhaps an analogy would help. Suppose that you are a guard trying to figure out which people walking up to an airplane are terrorists. Just because you don’t have an infallible way of distinguishing terrorists from ordinary people doesn’t mean that “being a terrorist becomes whatever you, the guard, judge it to be.” It just means you have a harder job, and you’ll sometimes make mistakes. It might be nice to have a magic eight-ball to tell you which people are bad guys, but the fact that you don’t just makes your job more challenging.
The same is true here. Whether or not it is easy to identify heresy – the identification of heresy is not what makes heresy, heresy. What makes heresy, heresy, is its departure from the truth. How well we judge that is a separate question.
“This leads into what seems to be the self-evident purpose: the ability to reliably recognize the objective reality of heresy/orthodoxy and schism/ unity in such a way that it is recognizable by and binding on all believers for the spiritual well being of the flock.”
a) I suppose you mean “infallibly,” not merely “reliably.”
b) But since Scripture already provides an infallible standard by which such judgments can be made, and since all men are bound by Scripture, it is not “self-evident” that an infallible “something else” is necessary to supplement Scripture in order to adequately allow the flock to judge between heresy and orthodoxy.
“If various ecclesial bodies/ assemblies of elders within the VC can disagree on the definition of heresy, and if none of these bodies has any ecclesial authority over the other, then none can make a legitimate claim to have identified heresy accurately.”
Think about that. Is that true when it comes to figuring out what Plato meant? Just because there is no supreme bishop of Plato, are scholars of Plato unable to legitimately claim to have identified Plato’s teaching accurately? Surely not – they can legitimately claim it based on doing proper exegesis of Plato.
The same is true of churches and Scripture. Churches can legitimately claim to have identified the meaning of Scripture, even without the ability to force others to agree with them.
“In this circumstance, how can an assembly of elders carry out the purposes that you outlined? It may be possible, but it would be helpful to me if you could flesh out your last paragraph.”
The assembly of elders can attempt to bring about restoration of a straying sinner by proclaiming the Word to him. The elders can remove heresy by prohibiting communion and, where appropriate, fellowship with the sinner. The elders can teach the church through providing the situation as an example.
There is no claim that the elders will always perform this role perfectly.
-TurretinFan
johnbugay said,
August 1, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Sean 538: Further, you need to get with John Bugay …
Turretinfan and I are closer than the fuzz on a tick’s ear.
We both agree that neither Peter nor Paul “founded” the church at Rome; I’ve gone into quite a bit of detail about the church at Rome before either Peter or Paul got there.
It is Lampe who holds that Irenaeus’s “list” is likely a “fictive construction”, using real names but constructing the list as an unbroken timeline. Roger Collins, using independent research, agrees.
Eamon Duffy uses the phrase “pious fictions” — in fact, there were clearly fictional stories (i.e. “Acts of Peter”, “Gospel of Peter”) floating around in the late second century. These became mixed in with other “Petrine” themes, and for hundreds of years it was impossible to separate fact from fiction. As early as Origen, these fictions were beginning to be cited as if they were fact. It only multiplied.
Your Cyprian quote (542) didn’t mean Peter was in charge; it meant that all bishops (now a common feature for 50-75 years), including the bishop of Rome, were “equals”.
Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea around 250, wrote to Cyprian about “pope” Stephen’s “crass and obvious stupidity”.
Sean said,
August 1, 2012 at 7:31 pm
It also shows that Reformed eccliesiology is entirely inconsistent with church history.
Yet the papacy and apostolic succession were clearly widely believed. If it were an innovation we would expect a reaction against it. Arianism was innovation. The church responded. Nestorianism was an innovation. The church responded. Name me one other ‘innovation’ besides the papacy that just carried forever and was never widely challenged?
It serves to show that from the moment fathers started writing more about the church they saw the church marked with apostolic succession and a strong sense that the chair of Peter had a strong primacy.
Your argument is that this was an innovation. I challenge that. There is absolutely no reason to think this was an innovation that simply hoodwinked the fathers of the faith for 1,500 years.
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Sean:
When Cyprian refers to the “chair of Peter,” he’s referring to each bishop’s local bishoprick. As Roman Catholic scholar, Robert Eno put it: “The Chair of Peter then belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome over against Novatian the would–be usurper.”
for citation, context, and fuller analysis, see:
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html
If you want an example of pious frauds that ended up getting widely accepted, though – consider the Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.
-TurretinFan
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 1, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Is it accurate to say that David, Jeff, and T-Fan will not accept second- and third-century testimony as true evidence for the papacy? Because if such evidence is not admissable, and if only Scripture can be used, then how is the question not begged, the deck not stacked, the game not rigged before it is even begun?
Sean said,
August 1, 2012 at 7:43 pm
#547.
Yeah, I don’t agree with William Webster, at all. With Eno, however, there is a real sense that the bishops all owe their office in their sees to Peter.
Regardless, where is your bishop TFan?
And the Donation of Constantine and the Isidorian Decretals are not doctrines. Neither are they even on the same planet in terms of importance as apostolic succession.
Lastly, what Jason said in # 548…
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 7:48 pm
“Is it accurate to say that David, Jeff, and T-Fan will not accept second- and third-century testimony as true evidence for the papacy? Because if such evidence is not admissable, and if only Scripture can be used, then how is the question not begged, the deck not stacked, the game not rigged before it is even begun?”
a) That sounds like a concession that the papacy can’t be established from Scripture alone. If it is, great.
b) I can’t speak for others, but I am willing to consider what the second and third century evidence is. I don’t accord the historical evidence the same weight I accord divinely inspired and infallible Scripture, but if your claims for the papacy rely on questions of historical fact, I’m willing to hear you out.
c) On the flip side, however, the second and third century evidence can be summarized in this way: while monarchical episcopates became the norm, and while regionally the bishops of large and imperially important towns had greater influence, there was no recognition of a single bishop over all Christendom – or even merely over all the Roman empire (there were Christians beyond the Roman empire, even in that time).
-TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 1, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Jason, I will accept second- and third-century testimony as evidence to be evaluated. Its mere existence is not enough to get me to infallibility.
…if only Scripture can be used, then how is the question not begged?
Certainly, if we were to assume sola scriptura, then concluding sola scriptura would be no great mystery.
But if we assume, not sola scriptura, but the material sufficiency of Scripture as common ground between Protestants and Catholics, then it is worth asking,
(1) Why do some Catholic teachings appear to run contrary to Scriptures? (veneration; forbidding priests to marry), and
(2) Why are some essential Catholic dogmas so very short on Scriptural support?
Again going back to Irenaeus: If we needed to know something, the apostles would have written it down for us.
If Peter really is the source of the entire Church, why is it so scarcely mentioned in the Scripture, and then only cryptically?
If we’re using the rules of evidence to evaluate 2nd and 3rd-century testimony, then it would appear that the 2nd and 3rd century advocates of Petro-centrism are adducing a new idea not already present in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
And the 2nd and 3rd century documents are further removed in time and place from the event.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 1, 2012 at 7:50 pm
It seems to me that now we’re actually getting somewhere.
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 7:51 pm
“Regardless, where is your bishop TFan?”
I cannot, for the life of me, see how this is supposed to be an argument for the papacy.
Both your ecclesiology and my ecclesiology differ from Cyprian’s ecclesiology. I justify my departure from Cyprian back to presbyterian government by Scripture. How do you justify your departure from Cyprian into papacy?
-TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 1, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Burton (#534): Maybe your answer was, “no we can’t identify heresy in a way that is recognizable and binding on all believers, but neither can Rome”.
Yes, that was my answer. Sorry to be oblique. Since you’re a physician, think of it in terms of tests. No test has a 0% false positive/false negative rate … but some are close enough to 0 to be ‘gold standards.’
I would argue that the WCoF is a gold standard, and that many other Confessions are not bad.
If you think about the issues that divide Christendom, they come down to
* Monergism v synergism in justification,
* Worship,
* Sacraments.
But mercifully, issues like rank Pelagianism, trinitarian heresies, and others have actually been ecumenically settled. Praise God!
David Gadbois said,
August 1, 2012 at 8:03 pm
It also shows that Reformed ecclesiology is entirely inconsistent with church history.
It would, strictly speaking, only prove that Reformed ecclesiology is inconsistent with certain elements of church history.
Yet the papacy and apostolic succession were clearly widely believed.
That’s not “clear” at all, if we are dealing with the latter half of the 1st century and early 2nd century. Even moving up to Iraneus’ time, how many even broach the topic?
If it were an innovation we would expect a reaction against it.
Not always or, at least, not right away, depending on the influence and implications of the innovation.
It serves to show that from the moment fathers started writing more about the church they saw the church marked with apostolic succession and a strong sense that the chair of Peter had a strong primacy.
The question is, on what basis did they believe this? Take just Iraneus as an example. He was born about 100 years after Christ’s resurrection, and probably 60 or so years after the last Apostle. The eyewitnesses were all gone. Anything not written down at this point would have been secondhand, hearsay. How would he have known that Christ established an office of the pope 100 years earlier?
Jeff Cagle said,
August 1, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Burton, just to add, you write: If various ecclesial bodies/ assemblies of elders within the VC can disagree on the definition of heresy, and if none of these bodies has any ecclesial authority over the other, then none can make a legitimate claim to have identified heresy accurately.
If by “legitimate”, you mean “guaranteed”, then you are correct.
In fact, this is true even if one church, say Rome, happens to be infallible.
For since no church has de facto jurisdiction over all Christians, we cannot stand outside of a particular church and say, objectively, this church’s claim is in fact the correct one.
Only if Eph 4 is realized can we do this. And I don’t know which side of the second coming that realization will occur.
But now, if one accepts life in the Now and Not Yet, where the church can be a messy place, then creeds aren’t too shabby. There is more right than wrong with the 39 Articles, the Westminster Confession, Augsburg, the Baptist Confession, etc.
David Gadbois said,
August 1, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Burton said David (#450),
Your response assumes from the outset that Reformed ecclesiology is correct
Burton, it appears you missed my response at #453.
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 8:57 pm
“Yet the papacy and apostolic succession were clearly widely believed. If it were an innovation we would expect a reaction against it. Arianism was innovation. The church responded. Nestorianism was an innovation. The church responded. Name me one other ‘innovation’ besides the papacy that just carried forever and was never widely challenged?”
But the papacy was widely challenged. Look at the Great Schism in the East. Look at the Reformation and many proto-Reformers in the West. Look at the challenge that the bishop of Constantinople faced when he tried something similar, earlier.
The papacy was challenged long before papal infallibility was defined as a dogma.
Moreover, the papacy gained acceptance in the west through the influence of a variety of spurious documents, including (as I mentioned before) the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals and the Donation of Constantine.
-TurretinFan
dgh said,
August 1, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Jason (548), but people here — okay Protestants, so we know they’re off — have appealed to 2nd and 3rd century sources. I don’t know that period. But I do know the founding fathers of the greatest nation on God’s green earth and I know you can find John Adams for Christians and against Christianity. The real question begged by CTC folks is that the early church speaks with one tongue. Though Bryan Cross denies it, that’s a whole lot of interpretation going on. Are pope’s infallible only when they speak ex cathedra or also when they interpret?
dgh said,
August 1, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Jason (539), you say that claims for the papacy are based on the Bible and history. So let’s say you’re living in Italy in 1390. You have a pope in Rome and one in Avignon (where seven legitimate popes had ministered for almost eight decades). So how does the Bible or history help you decide which pope to follow?
Sean said,
August 1, 2012 at 9:27 pm
Even if I were to grant that my ecclesiology differs from Cyprian, my ecclesiology is at least consistent with Cyrprian’s ecclesiology whereas your ecclesiology is entirely inconsistent with Cyrprian’s ecclesiology. So, that was my purpose in pointing that out. If we are in an discussion to figure out the faith of the fathers and one view is ruled out off the bat and the other view is entirely consistent than we should be willing to admit that the inconsistent view is inconsistent.
That’s just the problem. The Catholic looks at the earliest evidence that emerges that deal with the topic and sees a lot of consistency with Catholic ecclesiology. As I said before about 200 posts ago, we don’t expect to see the fully articulated fully developed understanding of the role of Peter’s successor but we do so remarkable consistency. We see a belief that bishops are in succession from the apostles themselves. Sound familiar? We see that the ‘chair of St Peter’ is a source for unity of the whole church. Sound familiar?
So, from our point of view, the fact that the extant record on virtually any topic is slim from the NT epistles to about AD 150 does not mean that this clear visible form of the church just appeared out of thin air.
But, I sense that you want to assume some kind of nascent Presbyterian form of church government in that era even though no such evidence for such a form of church government exists.
Lastly, I argue that its very telling that when the ‘cat got out of the bag’ on papal primacy that nobody objected.
The ‘great schism’ was in 1054. That means that the papacy which by the admission of John and TFan took hold sometime between AD 250 and AD 400 went uncontested for at least 600 years. The schism is an entirely different issue. And, if you have not noticed, most Orthodox theologians and bishops agree that the Roman bishop is a bishop of primacy. The disagreement is on the details of what it means.
By the teaching tradition of the Holy Catholic Church.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 1, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Darryl,
As Bryan indicated to you earlier, the two of you are employing two distinct philosophical assumptions regarding the usefulness of ancient texts. As long as that remains unrecognized, then both sides will beg the question without knowing it. But now that you both know this, you can push the argument back a step and debate the two approaches. But as long as you continue without doing that, you’re reasoning in a circle (this applies to all sides, not just you).
That’s a question better suited for a historian. My guess is that it would involve something similar to how a yankee in 1862 would have dealt with the claim of a southerner to be the real president instead of Lincoln (read: someone’s claim is false, and there are rules for knowing whose).
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Sean:
You wrote: “Even if I were to grant that my ecclesiology differs from Cyprian, my ecclesiology is at least consistent with Cyrprian’s ecclesiology whereas your ecclesiology is entirely inconsistent with Cyrprian’s ecclesiology.”
“No pope” is not consistent with “pope.” On the question of “pope” or “no pope” it is Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, and even Anglicanism that is consistent with Cyprian. On other questions, there are other consistencies or inconsistencies.
The question is not so much the degree of inconsistency but the justification for that inconsistency. I can justify my departures from Cyprian on the authority of Scripture. On what can you justify your departures from Cyprian?
You wrote: “That means that the papacy which by the admission of John and TFan took hold sometime between AD 250 and AD 400 went uncontested for at least 600 years.”
I didn’t say any such thing. There may have been individual bishops of Rome who tried to claim broad jurisdiction early on, but at least as late as the late 6th century, early 7th century wrote: “For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops.” (Gregory I, Letter 68).
So, no. There may have been various errors that sprouted up very early on that eventually mutated into papalism – but the papacy was not around in the 3rd or 5th centuries.
– TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 9:53 pm
“And, if you have not noticed, most Orthodox theologians and bishops agree that the Roman bishop is a bishop of primacy. The disagreement is on the details of what it means.”
The disagreement is sufficiently fundamental that Roman Catholics are required de fide to disagree with the EO folks. You might as well say that Arius agreed that Jesus was “divine,” he just disagreed on the details of what that means.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:04 pm
For an example of an early excessive claim of jurisdiction by a Roman bishop, consider Tertullian’s opposition to an early edict that was lax on adultery:
“In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus —-that is, the bishop of bishops —-issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.'” (Tertullian, On Modesty, Chapter I).
What Tertullian used as a mocking term to describe an over-stepping bishop is now a term used by the Roman bishop. That’s how far Rome’s doctrines have slipped into decay. But yes – decay is one kind of development, and a small decay could be said (in some sense) to be “consistent” with a greater decay.
But – no – there was no pope in Tertullian’s day – nor in Gregory I’s day – nor in between, even despite the imperial alliances that Roman bishops often made.
– TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Jason (#562): Actually, sadly, the rule that determined the correctness of the claims of North and South was the rule of victory and surrender.
We would have a much different view of things had, say, Lee captured D.C.
Sean said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:16 pm
TFan.
Do you deny that Cyprian believed that there was a bishop in Rome? If not, than Cyprian believed in the pope.
Here he is again, “A primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair….If a man does not hold to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the truth? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”
The primacy of Peter, Peter’s successor: AKA the pope. It is not established, no matter how much William Webster wants it to be established, that Cyprian was not talking about Peter’s successor who by AD 251 new that ‘Peter’s Chair’ was located in Rome.
Further, he says,
For Cyrpian, priestly unity takes its source from the chair of St. Peter, in Rome. (Note: Not from a Presbyterian General Assembly)
So, I do not grant you the notion that Cyprian had ‘no pope’ or no notion of ‘pope.’ The pope may not have been universally called ‘the pope’ but that means nothing.
The Gregory the first citation has been batted around and answered by apologists much more able than myself and I am running out of time.
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Sean:
You’re still not explaining how you justify your departures from Cyprian. But let’s examine your comments:
“Do you deny that Cyprian believed that there was a bishop in Rome? If not, than Cyprian believed in the pope.”
This is a great example of the illogic that leads people to think Rome has historical support. “Bishop in Rome” is not an equivalent concept to “pope.”
“Here he is again, “A primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair….If a man does not hold to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the truth? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” The primacy of Peter, Peter’s successor: AKA the pope.”
The problem with your argument is that for Cyprian, all the legitimate bishops throughout the world are successors of Peter – not one bishop alone (as is explained at the link I previously provided).
“It is not established, no matter how much William Webster wants it to be established, that Cyprian was not talking about Peter’s successor who by AD 251 new that ‘Peter’s Chair’ was located in Rome.”
It’s not just William Webster. It’s also Roman Catholic historians, like Robert Eno. Your wishful thinking doesn’t convert Cyprian’s claims about the “chair of peter” into papalism.
You quote this: “After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252)”
You really should read what you quote.
You continue: “For Cyrpian, priestly unity takes its source from the chair of St. Peter, in Rome. (Note: Not from a Presbyterian General Assembly)”
No. In the translation you provide the source of *priestly* unity is the Roman church. Notice he calls it the “chief church” not the church where the “chief bishop” sits. It’s one church of a plurality of churches – not the one and only true church. Moreover it is the “Romans” (plural – the people of the church, not the bishop) whom he describes by saying that their ” faith was praised” and against whom “faithlessness could have no access.”
Yes, he thinks that there is a throne of Peter in Rome, but as I mentioned above — well, just let your own historian Robert Eno say it: “The Chair of Peter then belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome over against Novatian the would–be usurper.” and again ” Given what we have said above, it is clear that he did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor, even though the lawful bishop of Rome also held the chair of Peter in an historical sense (Ep. 52.2).”
And Eno is not alone, as Webster demonstrated at the link I provided.
“So, I do not grant you the notion that Cyprian had ‘no pope’ or no notion of ‘pope.’ The pope may not have been universally called ‘the pope’ but that means nothing.”
The bishop of Rome wasn’t universally (or even at all – in that time) viewed as having universal jurisdiction and/or infallibility. He wasn’t a “pope” even though sometimes the term “pope” was used of him (as it was also used of over notable bishops).
The problem is not the absence of the term “pope,” but the absence of the office itself. There was no office of “pope” in the age of Cyprian or in age between Christ and Cyprian.
“The Gregory the first citation has been batted around and answered by apologists much more able than myself and I am running out of time.”
It does not seem that they were very successful in leaving an imprint of that answer in your mind.
What Gregory I denied to John of Constantinople he didn’t assert for himself. There was no office of papacy in his day, just as there was not an office of pope before his day.
-TurretinFan
David Gadbois said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:47 pm
The Catholic looks at the earliest evidence that emerges that deal with the topic and sees a lot of consistency with Catholic ecclesiology.
Well if the “earliest evidence” is not particularly early, it doesn’t carry much if any evidentiary value. And, again, mere “consistency” is insufficient to establish historicity.
As I said before about 200 posts ago, we don’t expect to see the fully articulated fully developed understanding of the role of Peter’s successor but we do so remarkable consistency.
Yes, we are quite familiar with this line, but any legitimate notion of development of doctrine simply cannot put words into the mouth of Christ. Either He sanctioned the papacy during His earthly ministry, defining its nature and roles, or He did not.
So, from our point of view, the fact that the extant record on virtually any topic is slim from the NT epistles to about AD 150 does not mean that this clear visible form of the church just appeared out of thin air.
Funny, the NT is not “slim” on describing the nature, qualifications, and roles for elder and deacon.
But, I sense that you want to assume some kind of nascent Presbyterian form of church government in that era even though no such evidence for such a form of church government exists.
That doesn’t particularly concern me seeing as how there is slim to no evidence in the immediate post-apostolic period supporting any particular form of church government.
[DG] How would he have known that Christ established an office of the pope 100 years earlier?
[Sean] By the teaching tradition of the Holy Catholic Church.
Oh, I was so hoping you’d turn in a better performance than Bryan Cross and not resort to invoking the Tradition Fairy. It cannot function to cover the gaps you want it to in lieu of hard historical evidence, if we are going to be dispassionate, rational students of history.
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 10:54 pm
JJS:
By the way, I want you to know that I am praying that God will give you wisdom in discerning the Scriptural and historical evidence (It’s no more than I would wish for you to ask God on my behalf).
I would be very glad for the opportunity to hear what you think is evidence that there was a pope with universal jurisdiction in Rome from the time of the apostles to A.D. 325, when the council of Nicaea described the regional authority of Rome and Alexandria as comparable (Canon 6).
-TurretinFan
Sean said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:00 pm
You have not established any material departure from Cyrprian and Catholic ecclesiology.
William Webster’s argument that you’re relying on is a bad argument. I just showed that for Cyrprian he identifies the source of priestly unity as the chair of St Peter in the church of the Romans.
As I already told you, even in 2012 Catholic ecclesiology, it is said that all bishops have their office through St Peter. But, just as for Cyprian, the source of that unity is the chair that is the ‘throne’ in the Roman Church. And a bishop sat on that ‘chair’ in Cyprian’s day as it does in our day.
So should you.
I never claimed that we’d expect a fully developed papal understanding in AD 256 so you are raising a straw man here.
Your common refrain is that no matter how much we can show that X, Y or Z father held to the foundational principals of any Catholic doctrine, if we can’t show that their doctrine is fully developed and exactly the same down to the minutia of detail then you dismiss those fathers as historical justification for Catholic doctrine. Such an approach relies on a hermeneutic of suspicion, one that I don’t grant.
I am sorry but you are really reaching here. He identifies the ‘chief church’ and even makes reference to the chair of the episcopate of that city, which is Rome.
Sigh. I could really do without this sort of quip.
QUESTION: Is it true that Pope Gregory I denied that the pope is the “universal bishop” and taught that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over any other bishop?
ANSWER: No. Gregory the Great (540 – 604), saint, pope, and doctor of the Church, never taught any such thing. He would have denied that the title “universal bishop” could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all other “bishops” were bishops in name only, with no real authority of their own. Such a distorted version of the biblical model of bishops is incompatible with Catholic teaching.
But that isn’t to say that the title didn’t — and doesn’t — have a proper sense of which Gregory approved. If meant in the sense that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of all the bishops, the title is correct. If it means he is the only bishop and all the other “bishops” are not really successors to the apostles, it’s false.
What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588. Gregory condemned the patriarch’s act because universal jurisdiction applies solely to the pope…
Like his predecessors and successors, Gregory promulgated numerous laws, binding on all other bishops, on issues such as clerical celibacy (1:42,50; 4:5,26,34; 7:1; 9:110,218; 10:19; 11:56), the deprivation of priests and bishops guilty of criminal offenses (1:18,32; 3:49; 4:26; 5:5,17,18), and the proper disposition of church revenues (1:10,64; 2:20-22; 3:22; 4:11)
Gregory’s writings show that he regarded and conducted himself as the universal bishop of the Church. He calls the diocese of Rome “the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches” (13:1).
He said, “I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church” (5:44). He taught that the pope, as successor to Peter, was granted by God a primacy over all other bishops (2:44; 3:30; 5:37; 7:37).
He claimed that it was necessary for councils and synods to have the pope’s approval to be binding and that only the pope had the authority to annul their decrees (9:56; 5:39,41,44).
He enforced his authority to settle disputes between bishops, even between patriarchs, and rebuked lax and erring bishops (2:50; 3:52,63; 9:26,27).
When Gregory denounced John the Faster’s attempt to lay claim to the title Universal Bishop, his words were in accord with his actions and with his teachings. He was unequivocal in his teaching that all other bishops are subject to the pope:
“As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it” (Epistles 9:26).
Source: THIS ROCK (December 1992)
I really don’t have any more time this week to continue this discussion. Wish I could be duty calls.
Sean said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:05 pm
# 570
Council of Nicea Sixth Canon – By Fr. James F. Loughlin, from the American Catholic Quarterly Review (volume 5, 1880), pages 220-239 — copyright (c) 1997
TurretinFan said,
August 1, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Sean:
“I never claimed that we’d expect a fully developed papal understanding in AD 256 so you are raising a straw man here.”
Who said anything about “fully developed.” Cyprian has no concept of the office of a pope, a universal bishop, a shepherd of shepherds, an infallible one-man-band, or anything of the kind.
It’s not that there was some nuance of the papacy he didn’t quite grasp – it was the big central things that make a papacy different from a metropolitan bishop that he was unaware of, because they didn’t exist in his day.
“Your common refrain is that no matter how much we can show that X, Y or Z father held to the foundational principals of any Catholic doctrine, if we can’t show that their doctrine is fully developed and exactly the same down to the minutia of detail then you dismiss those fathers as historical justification for Catholic doctrine. Such an approach relies on a hermeneutic of suspicion, one that I don’t grant.”
We’re not talking about some intricately nuanced doctrine here. This is not Molinism vs. Thomism or infralapsarianism vs. supralapsarianism or even Amillenialism vs. Postmillenialism.
We’re talking about whether or not the church has the office of pope with universal jurisdiction and infallibility.
And yes – saying that they held to doctrines X, Y, and Z that are not “the papacy” is not showing that they held to the doctrine of the papacy.
As for the “This Rock” article, it demonstrates again the same eisegetical fallacy we saw in your analysis of Cyprian. Consider this explication from Schaff’s History of the Christian Church:
The snippets found in your article take on a very different significance when you add “The see of the Prince of the Apostles alone … has acquired a principality of authority, which is the see of one only, though in three places (quae in tribus locis unius est),” into the mix. Suddenly, it’s not a singular bishop but a triumvirate of key bishops, even despite the singular reference to the “See of Peter” in other places.
There really wasn’t a papacy in that day and age. It’s not just that they didn’t call it “papacy,” or they hadn’t worked out the technical terms – they didn’t hold to that view.
A triumvirate is materially different from a papacy. We can justify our departure from Gregory I, can you?
– TurretinFan
otrmin said,
August 2, 2012 at 12:05 am
Jason,
I know the Roman Catholics on this thread deny that they believe the papacy because Rome says so, but, in reality, when you examine the evidence, you still have to ask how you know that your interpretation of the evidence is valid, and it is then that the Roman Catholics on this board have ran back to the church.
I like what TurretinFan wrote:
DGH:
I do find it interesting that Bryan didn’t give you a straight answer to your question, “You and CTC guys chose Rome because its claims about the magisterium made sense. Or did they send the police and force you to submit?” The answer seems obvious that it is the former, why would he not just admit it?
He is exactly right. You can’t say that the validity of interpretation of history and scripture does not depend upon the authority of the church, and then run back to the authority of the church when it is pointed out that you are engaging in private interpretation every bit as much as we are. The whole thing is like a dog chasing its tail. When you get in trouble with the church, run to private interpretation. When you get in trouble with private interpretation run to the church.
So, yes, I know the Roman Catholics on this board deny it. However, the attacks on Sola Scriptura that I have seen on a thread that should be about the Biblical and historical evidence for the papacy really says otherwise. Why even attack Sola Scriptura if the Papacy can be demonstrated from the evidence alone without the authority of the church? It makes no sense if it is just a matter of the evidence.
johnbugay said,
August 2, 2012 at 5:54 am
I’ve read through the comments here, especially respecting “evidence” in the second and third centuries. I’d like to share some of what I’ve found about “Clement of Rome”, who probably stood at the beginning of the second century (and 30-40 years after the deaths of Peter and Paul).
Starting off here, I feel safe to say that while 1 Clement quotes extensively from the Septuagint (25% of the letter is comprised of OT citations), he is far more heavily influenced by the Hellenistic and Roman cultures, than he was by the New Testament (and by extension, the Apostles).
As a supposed “pope”, he carries quite a bit of weight for Roman Catholics. In his 2001 Catechism “The Catholic Way,” Bishop Donald Wuerl referred to him as “Pope St. Clement of Rome” (pg. 22). Adrian Fortescue, in “The Early Papacy,” said that “Clement [as a “pope”], in his letter, commands the Corinthians to return to the obedience of their lawful hierarchy. He does not advise; he commands. He commands with an authority, one would almost say with an arbitrary tone, that has not been exceeded by any modern pope” (pg. 66). In fact, the Denzinger work, “The Sources of Catholic Dogma” (1957), leading off the section “Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils,” begins with the following selections from the letter 1 Clement:
It’s almost as if Clement, as an early pope, had the same “power to command” as did Pius IX or XII. It would be hard to exaggerate the importance that Roman Catholics attribute to “Clement of Rome.” Yet, the views expressed above are superficial and they exhibit a measure of “wishful thinking.” In recent years, we have learned a few things about him that do not cohere at all with the figure that Roman Catholicism has described.
The Style is not one of “command”, but of “persuasion”
Rather than being a letter that “commands,” Michael Holmes, in his “The Apostolic Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), notes that:
johnbugay said,
August 2, 2012 at 5:55 am
Caragounis, in the Donfried & Richardson volume “Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome”, (notes that “two passages give a characterization of this letter: in 58:2 the author describes it as a symboule, while in 63.2 he describes it as enteudzis peri eirenes kai homonoias (“an appeal for peace and harmony”).”
What’s significant about the form of the letter is that it “is frequently used in the technical sense of a petition to the king” (268). Further along, in comparing 1 Clement to Paul’s letter to the Romans, Caragounis says:
The authoritarian tone spoken of here, is not attributable to any actual authority that the Roman church may have with respect to the Corinthian church. Rather, this tone is due largely to “being the church of the capital”. 1 Clement recognized that it had “no formal right to demand” anything. And yet “the Roman church patterned its treatment of other churches on the model of the Roman empire” (277). Its method is not one of genuine authority. It is rather using tools of persuasion. Caragounis says: whatever position Clement occupies, whether a kind of “monarchical bishop” or not, his only function is as “the mouthpiece” of the church of Rome.
Caragounis concludes:
Where Clement gets his sense of order
John Feullenbach, S.V.D., whose PhD dissertation on 1 Clement provided an encyclopedic overview of all the work on 1 Clement up to that date (1980), says that among Roman Catholic writers:
It should be noted that, in speaking of “development”, a difference is being traced between “elders, overseers and deacons” as used in the New Testament” and how the same words are being used in 1 Clement. I’ve called it a bait and switch on “orders”. Fuellenbach says:
What are those other sources? Consider what has been said of the city of Rome, and the character of the empire in the first century:
Augustus Caesar as Pontifex Maximus
the Roman mindset
This accurately reflects the power given to Augustus Caesar, as described by Everett Ferguson “Backgrounds of Early Christianity,” Third Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, © 1987, 1993, 2003, pgs 26-30):
There is no notion of anything like the imperium maius in the New Testament, but look at 1 Clement:
Consider also:
But consider Paul: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28). And again, Peter:
johnbugay said,
August 2, 2012 at 6:02 am
That 3:1-3 citation just above should be 37:1-3.
2. Misunderstanding Pauline “Grace”
The word χάρις, or charis, or “grace”, has a very long history and a number of different shades of meaning. In T.F. Torrance’s work, “The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers”, Torrance is talking about is the usage of the word “grace” in 1 Clement. In his discussion, he distinguishes between two veins of usage:
1. χάρις in Classical and Hellenistic Greek usage, including Philo.
2. χάρις in Old Testament and New Testament usage.
Summarizing these, the first, Hellenistic usage (including Hellenistic usage and Philo) shows broadly how the concept was used in Greek thought. Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish philosopher, a contemporary of Christ’s, with a wide acquaintance with the works of Greek philosophy. Josephus (“Antiquities of the Jews”, xviii.8, § 1), called him “a man eminent on all accounts” and “one not unskillful in philosophy”. Just here, briefly, I’ll note that among other things, “grace” may be seen as a form of payment, and in Philo the concept even reaches to the point that (in Torrance’s words), “Perfectly sinless must be the man who wants to find grace with God”. TDNT echoes this notion: “Philo can say that χάρις is only for the righteous … One must be worthy of it, otherwise it vanishes”.
On the contrary, in the Biblical conception, both Old and New Testaments, the concept of grace involves “unsolicited and unaccountable love”. “God’s ‘lovingkindness’ is the fundamental relationship upon which the whole structure of Israelite society rested. Includes [the concepts of] mercy and forgiveness, but the true significance of the hesed of God, is that it is everlasting, determined, unshakeable”. “Though the mountains depart and the hills remove, God’s mercy remains true”. In the New Testament, grace is purely God’s initiative; it is God’s initiative in Christ; “in Christ the divine will has been perfectly fulfilled on our behalf”; it completely takes man by surprise (that is, no effort on man’s part is required to earn this initiative), and it is “the primary and constitutive act in which out of free love God has intervened to set our life on a wholly new basis”.
So, these are the two different definitions of grace: in the first, one must be deemed worthy of it before one receives it, and in some cases, one must be perfect before one can receive it; in the second, it is completely God’s initiative in Christ to give it freely, by surprise, and permanent.
Consider Clement’s introduction: “May grace and peace from almighty God through Jesus Christ be yours in abundance” The word is πληθυνθεἰη. Torrance notes, “To Clement’s Greek mind this word might imply the idea that one can have more or less of grace which, of course, on a Pauline doctrine, is impossible. One thinks here of the relation between χάρις and πλήρωμα in Gnostic literature.”
Consider Clement 7:4, 5, and 8:1 together:
3. Contradicts Hebrews and 1 Peter understanding of “who” the Church is
Consider the following:
But consider now Clement:
Keep in mind that this is addressed to “the church of God that sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ”.
Several differences appear here. Compare Hebrews and Clement. Hebrews notes that, in the old times, “sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” do not please the Lord. [For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, vs 4]. On the other hand, Clement wants “the offerings and services to be performed diligently” “for those who follow the instructions of the Master cannot go wrong”.
Also, compare Peter and Clement: Peter says, “you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house”. On the other hand, Clement says “the layman is bound by the layman’s rules”.
I’ve written much more about Clement having adopted the Hellenistic concept of “grace” in the Joshua Lim thread at Called to Communion. Bryan has disagreed with it because the New Testament concept of “grace” in the New Testament, given by Torrance and TDNT, “begs the question” by not permitting “Tradition” to shape the definition.
I’ve posted a lot of information here, but the differences between 1 Clement (“Pope St. Clement”) and the New Testament are striking in many ways – and those differences can be traced to the Greek (pagan) and Roman culture of the day. This is not a “slam dunk”, but it is an honest start to look at the history of where “Roman” Catholicism comes from.
dgh said,
August 2, 2012 at 6:30 am
Jason, up above Constantine in 182 and 189 supplied instances of early church fathers that did not affirm the primacy of Rome. Now you tell me that with the right philosophy I will read those and say “white is black”? Like I say, I’m sure someone who works in the period can find what they want. This isn’t contrasting philosophies of history but different motivations for cherry picking.
If Bryan has a philosophy it is the neat and tidy one where Rome always comes up smelling like Irish Spring. At least Kuyperians know Kant and Hegel.
As for the two popes at the end of the 14th century, the question was not one for a historian but for a believer who confesses Roman communion. It’s a dodge to say that this is only for historians. Roman Catholics faced this situation and had to decide which pope to follow. So the question to you was how your criteria of history and the Bible would solve the predicament. If your criteria can’t entertain that reality, then it’s not much of a criteria since it begs the question. Rome wins no matter what evidence or arguments come up.
This is amazing!
Andrew McCallum said,
August 2, 2012 at 7:05 am
Jason Stellman said: Is it accurate to say that David, Jeff, and T-Fan will not accept second- and third-century testimony as true evidence for the papacy? Because if such evidence is not admissable, and if only Scripture can be used, then how is the question not begged, the deck not stacked, the game not rigged before it is even begun?
Jason – I think we are trying to answer the question as to what the tradition of the Church can teach us about the papacy (or any other Catholic dogma). If we assume that the tradition and history of the Church tell a clear message, if there is truly a consensus partum on the proper role and authority of the Bishop of Rome, then what is it? I and other Protestant here are willing to listen and learn from the Church Fathers but we see that different Fathers have different answers. As I see it the central problem, as we try to assess what history has to tell us on this matter, is that the history of the Church cannot provide any precise prescriptive standards. Protestant, Catholic, EO, liberals, others look at the history of the Church and come to different judgments.
But I also feel that Roman Catholics don’t really try to interpret the data of the history of the Church in order to construct a systematic teaching on papal dogma. Bryan Cross says one “finds” the Church by finding the institution “that has its divine authority from Christ through the Apostles and the bishops by way of succession.” So according to Bryan this is not merely a matter of interpretation of tradition, history, Scripture. It’s just a matter of recognizing and affirming the church on the basis of succession. The best I can determine this is sort of a Roman Catholic version of perspicuity.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 8:30 am
Hey Prots, I used to be one too!
The modern Catholic doctrines do not have explicit evidence in the early sources. That is fine. But that’s beside the point. Neither does the Trinity. Or the canon of the NT, was that a ‘late development’? If you want to draw hard and fast lines around the NT as we all do now, then you have to see that the canon wasn’t set until around 400AD and then what was the rule of faith before that!? And WHO had the authority to set the canon in 400AD and if that entity had the authority to set the NT canon then where did it get that authority and when/how did it lose it?
You have to start asking, where did this stuff come from? The seeds are there. The papacy came from the Bishop of Rome being the Church’s leading Bishop, being the site of the blood of Sts. Peter and Paul. That makes sense. The EOs admit the primacy, just not its function.
Put yourself back in that time period. The Church was one, because it came from one source and was united by the translocal ministry of the apostles. As John was the last surviving apostle, we have Clement’s letter from during John’s life. Read that and Ignatius and Polycarp carefully (John’s disciples). Does that sound like something your pastor would say?
The bottom line is that the Catholic and EO have apostolic succession. Protestants are simply on their own with whatever doctrines and ideas they each individually want. Simply saying that the Catholic and EO “do not teach the gospel” and thus have ceased to be Christ’s Church does not answer the question of when that happened and how. If you pick a time and say it was THEN! then you are on an island by yourself again because there is no Protestant consensus on how/when that occurred.
Simply “teaching what Christ taught” was never the rule to identify a true church in the early centuries. The question always reduces to “how do you know that’s what Christ taught?” and when there was a dispute, it was resolved in favor of the one who had an organic link and succession to the apostles, not the one with the novel doctrine.
Protestantism may have been inevitable with the printing press. But there is no principled reason to separate from the historical Church that has an organic link to the apostles.
dgwired said,
August 2, 2012 at 8:53 am
Hey Arnold. The seeds of Protestantism were also in the early church. http://oldlife.org/2012/08/development-of-doctrine-protestant-style/
Everyone has to interpret history. It doesn’t always work out the way we want it. That’s why some of appeal to the Bible only. At least it is a special revelation as opposed to the general categories of providence. Granted, the Bible has various interpretations. But I’d rather try to figure out what God revealed than how to interpret history to vindicate my decision to join the Roman church.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 9:06 am
dgwired, what authority set the bounds of the NT? Care to answer that? It didn’t happen for a few centuries.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 9:10 am
For the Protestant to be consistent, he must say that the Church has no authority and then that there is no set Scriptural canon either. Maybe the gospels are set and stuff, but what about Hebrews? Epistle of Barnabas? Martin Luther wanted to throw out James. That would be debatable. That’s a consistent view.
For a Protestant to say the canon is set but the Church has no authority makes no sense. That is a contradictory view. What authority set the canon? If you say it was just obvious, then you need to read more about the early Church.
johnbugay said,
August 2, 2012 at 9:12 am
Arnold, read Michael Kruger’s Canon Revisited. I’ll give you the short version. The canon of the NT emerged as the documents were written. That is, Paul wrote a letter, and kept a copy. He wrote another, and kept that one. He wrote a third, and all three became the “canonical core” of divinely-inspired, self-attested writings with Apostolic authority.
The same type of thing happened with the Gospels, and with the non-Pauline epistles (though rather more slowly).
At any rate, by the time of Irenaeus, if not earlier, there was a “canonical core” of 22-23 books, which functioned authoritatively as the New Testament scripture. And this all happened without the “authority” that you seem to be thinking about.
dgwired said,
August 2, 2012 at 9:15 am
Arnold, I believe that would be the Holy Spirit, who happened to be present at Pentecost.
BTW, if you want to appeal to the early councils that “set” the canon, then you may want to become Eastern Orthodox. Rome was following the lead of the East when it came to the early church councils.
And what do you do when tradition conflicts with Scripture? I might take your position more seriously if you ever concede that the tradition and Scripture don’t always line up, say like when you have a pope in Avignon and a pope in Rome, or say when you have church councils wanting to diminish Rome’s authority.
At least Protestants have a realistic view that God doesn’t err. The idea that humans don’t err is well nigh dumbfounding. Does it mean that human authorities are flawed? Well, duh. Just ask any reasonable father about his authority over his children.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 9:16 am
Let’s go to Acts chapter 1. That would be a pretty early part of Church history, no?
Do the apostles go out and say “Whoever preaches Christ can start his own church! Yahoo!” Nope.
They set visible leadership, replacing Judas. Let another take his office is the quote. Paul trains Timothy. The Church is visible and one. Clement states during the first century that the apostles appointed successors. You have to ask, what happened to this succession of Church leadership? Where did it go?
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 9:24 am
“dgwired, what authority set the bounds of the NT? Care to answer that? It didn’t happen for a few centuries”
The Holy Spirit inspired the NT, just as he inspired the OT. Asking “what authority set the bounds of the NT” is like asking “what authority set the date of the ascension?” The NT canon is 27 books before anyone realizes it, after anyone realizes it, and even if some people mistakenly think it is 26 or 28 books.
The bounds of the NT seem to be set with the final Revelation of Jesus Christ to the apostle John. That is, that seems to be the last revealed book – and that book has a stern warning against addition or substraction to it (something that would seem strange if someone could just add another book).
But even if Revelation’s warning isn’t about the NT canon as a whole, the objective reality of “the identity of the inspired books” existed from the moment the last one was penned.
Moreover, the inspiration of the NT was recognized quite early, even if not always perfectly. Thus, for example, we find Tertullian (died 225) citing to or quoting from 25 of the books (the two tiny books of 2 John and 3 John aren’t cited in his extant works, as far as I know).
Keep in mind – despite many of Rome’s apologists seeming to set that Rome gets to decide what the canon is, Rome’s actual theology gives Rome only the power to declare what the canon is. In other words, in both Roman and Reformed theology, the canon is – even prior to ecclesiastical recognition.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 9:40 am
“The modern Catholic doctrines do not have explicit evidence in the early sources. That is fine. But that’s beside the point. Neither does the Trinity.”
a) “The Trinity” is a far more complex theological concept than “the papacy.”
b) All of the fathers, including notables like Athanasius, quite firmly insisted that the doctrine of the Trinity can be proved from Scripture. We agree with them. We’ve heard some of Rome’s apologists deny that this is so – but their position that the Trinity cannot proved from Scripture contradicts the manifestly unanimous consent of the fathers.
As for the “canon” not having evidence in the early sources, you’re mistaken. Leaving aside the fact that canon itself is evidence its own existence, and leaving aside the fact that there is some explicit intra-canonical recognition (Peter recognizes Paul’s letters as Scripture, for example), and even leaving aside things like Revelation’s claim to be Scripture, there is very early evidence (even prior to Athanasius providing his tidy list in the 4th century).
-TurretinFan
dgwired said,
August 2, 2012 at 9:46 am
Arnold, let’s go to Acts and see how Paul plants churches. Let’s ask where Peter is. Let’s compare to the way Protestants plant churches today. Wow, pretty similar.
Btw, you’re wrong that Protestants don’t believe in church authority. We do. We’re just not gullible about it.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 9:46 am
“The EOs admit the primacy, just not its function.”
That’s like Miss Congeniality going around telling people that everyone agrees she was recognized as “the winner”. She was the winner of something – just not the pagent.
A primacy of honor isn’t universal jurisdiction. It’s not infallibility, it’s not what makes the papacy the papacy.
And the EOs are wrong to accord Rome a primacy of honor, after all the atrocious things she’s done – most especially attempting to exert authority over the entirety of Christ’s church.
The papacy is excluded by the fact that the Church has one head and that one head is Christ. I realize Rome tries to claim that they hold to the singular headship of Christ, but her explanation about how there is only one head and Jesus is the Head and the Bishop of Rome is also the head, is not persuasive.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 9:57 am
“They set visible leadership, replacing Judas. Let another take his office is the quote.”
a) That is them relying on Scripture – it’s a quote from the Psalms.
b) Look at the qualifications for holding the office of Apostle. You had to have personally received revelation from Jesus. What bishop of Rome in the entire list from Linus down can claim that? None. They were not sent by Jesus, they never met Jesus during his earthly ministry, and they did not receive a post-ascension special revelation like Paul did.
c) There were people that succeeded the apostles in terms of having oversight in the church. These were the elders and deacons. But the office of elder (or of deacon) does not have the same authority or prerogatives as the apostles. The extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit came by the laying on of the hands of the apostles, but don’t come by the laying on of the hands of those who came after them – even those who received those extraordinary gifts themselves (such as Philip the Evangelist).
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:07 am
Turretin, you seem to think the NT is 27 books is so sure. What makes it so sure to you? Think about that.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:09 am
Turretin, you say “But even if Revelation’s warning isn’t about the NT canon as a whole, the objective reality of “the identity of the inspired books” existed from the moment the last one was penned.”
If this is so, it would be nice to see some Church Fathers saying this. None say such a thing about the 27 books. Sola Scriptura is unheard of. You must wonder, why were Christians so ignorant in the 100s, 200s, 300s, etc and could not recognize that the canon was 27 books ending with Revelation?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:12 am
dg, Protestants believe in Church authority? Really? Can you name one thing you believe in because your Church says so and not because of your own reason? Can you explain why there are 30,000 denominations if they all have authority and different doctrines?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:13 am
Turretin 588, Primacy does mean something if you just look at the early letters and appeals to Rome. The east recognized Rome as a court of appeals, if nothing else. That is something.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:14 am
So, Turretin, if the extraordinary spiritual gifts of the apostles came by the laying on of hands, but then it stopped…why did everyone keep ordaining with laying on of hands? For symbolism?
You will not find any support for that view in Church history.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:17 am
Is the Church visible or not? That is, can anybody just up and start a church?
The apostles would have laughed at that idea. The Church was visible then and has visible leadership to the present day. Disagree?
sean said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:21 am
Arnold,
Have you glanced around your own communion and see how many varied degrees of fealty are rendered to the Roman magisterium? From a doctrinal and fidelity standpoint, Rome is as varied as mainline protestantism
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:39 am
sean, any individual can obviously say whatever they want. The difference is that Catholics have Church teaching and Protestants don’t. Plenty of protestants support ‘alternate’ lifestyles despite going against Scripture, they think they are in accord with Scripture. There is no Church teaching there, just a disagreement over Scripture and they can hold an honest opinion just as you can and each is equally valid in the eyes of those in your church.
Richard said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:53 am
@Arnold: regarding #592 – did you not use your own reason to decide that the Catholic Church’s claims were true?
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:55 am
Arnold:
“Protestants” have the Scriptures. The fact that people disagree over what the Scriptures mean doesn’t make all positions equally valid, There is a right understanding of Scripture, and many wrong understandings. Truth is absolute, not relative.
Moreover, “Protestants” do have church teachings – they just don’t make believe that those teachings are as authoritative as God’s Word.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:59 am
“Turretin, you seem to think the NT is 27 books is so sure. What makes it so sure to you? Think about that.”
a) It’s definitely not because the Council of Trent said so. If that were the reason, I’d accept the OT Apocrypha.
b) There are a variety of things that persuade me to believe that those 27 (all of them) are the Word of God. But chiefly they themselves persuade me. They are self-authenticating. Of course, initially someone told me that this was God’s word and I believed what they told me.
– TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:02 am
Arnold, not sure how long you’ve been following along, but…
I’ve posted many OPC Q&A links. The things you ask about are addressed. If you go to this webpage, just browse and search around. Or I can post the links again. We protestants are happy to help honest questioners / seekers. As we have time, of course, for these endeavors, and aren’t being pulled by the needs of those in our more immediate circumstances.
http://www.opc.org/qa.html
Peace.
sean said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:07 am
Arnold,
I understand you hold to Sola Ecclesia. But your churche’s doctrinal statements and the various degrees of submission rendered to the magisterium render your unity as little more than a wax nose.
Sean Moore
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:11 am
Arnold:
You wrote:
Why would the Fathers need to mention something so obvious? Even the compendium of your church’s most official catechism acknowledges that the church’s role is one of “recognition”:
But we can and people did recognize the canon before Trent claimed to infallibly designate the boundaries.
a) The formal and material sufficiency of Scripture is widely held by numerous fathers of the patristic era. I have provided a lot of documentation on this previously, and I would be happy to provide more, if you need it.
b) Athanasius’ 39th festal letter, which comes before the North African councils of Hippo and Carthage, identifies the list of the 27 book canon (around A.D. 367). He doesn’t claim to be infallible, but he considers himself competent to identify the canon and tell others what is in it.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:16 am
“dg, Protestants believe in Church authority? Really? Can you name one thing you believe in because your Church says so and not because of your own reason?”
It is interesting that holding to ecclesial fideism becomes, for you, the test of church authority.
Does DG have to believe in things simply because his parents say so in order to believe in parental authority? Surely not. It’s likewise a mistake to suggest he needs to do such a thing in order to have church authority.
“Can you explain why there are 30,000 denominations if they all have authority and different doctrines?”
On the 30,000 denominations tale (I’m sure you are repeating it in good faith), it has been debunked. My friend Dr. White recently posted something on it at his blog:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5180
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:22 am
Arnold:
“Turretin 588, Primacy does mean something if you just look at the early letters and appeals to Rome. The east recognized Rome as a court of appeals, if nothing else. That is something.”
You are mistaken. While the Eastern bishops, even the major ones, did frequently try to gain an ally in the bishop of Rome (particularly in their squabbles with each other), they did not accord him jurisdiction over their sees.
There is a difference between trying to gain a politically powerful ally (Rome remained an imperially significant city even during the Byzantine Empire) and appealing matters to a court of appeals.
-TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:24 am
Sean (#561): The Catholic looks at the earliest evidence that emerges that deal with the topic and sees a lot of consistency with Catholic ecclesiology.
Beware of arguments from consistency. There is a lot of evidence that is consistent with the Aristotelian hypothesis that “heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.”
But one little experiment shall fell him … (or thought experiment, as the case may be).
The right way to evaluate a hypothesis is to falsify the alternatives. No amount of evidence consistent with one’s hypothesis does anything to confirm it.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:25 am
“Is the Church visible or not? That is, can anybody just up and start a church?”
Those two things are not equal. Churches that are started up by “anybody” are still visible churches.
“The apostles would have laughed at that idea.”
What’s your basis for thinking this? What’s the earliest place in church history where you see someone in trouble because they started up a church without getting the right permission from the right person?
Off hand, I cannot think of that sort of thing happening until the Donatist controversy – which is hardly the apostolic era. And even then it is the Dontatists who are too rigid in their requirements – not too lax.
– TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:31 am
“So, Turretin, if the extraordinary spiritual gifts of the apostles came by the laying on of hands, but then it stopped…why did everyone keep ordaining with laying on of hands? For symbolism?”
a) It is for symbolism yes.
b) It stopped when there stopped being apostles to lay hands on people. The laying on of hands of non-apostles doesn’t have the same effect.
“You will not find any support for that view in Church history.”
Which part of the view do you think isn’t supported? That laying on of hands is symbolic? Or that people don’t suddenly work wonders just because a bishop laid hands on them? Neither of those views is especially controversial.
-TurretinFan
dgwired said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:36 am
Arnold, telling someone what they have to believe is not the same thing as ecclesiastical authority. Have you noticed that this is not Rome’s view anymore. You’re living in a pre-Vatican 2 world. Have you noticed that the nuns aren’t exactly following what the papacy teaches? Have you noticed the Jesuits? An infallible pope turns out to be pretty ineffectual.
It looks to me like you believe in history more than you submit to Rome.
But you still haven’t wrestled with the problem of when your church authority teaches something different from what Scripture says.
Maybe your real authority is what you say the pope says.
dgwired said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:38 am
Arnold, one more thing. Protestants do have church teaching. That is the problem for former Protestant Roman Catholics. They take with them a confessional/creedal view of the church when in fact Rome is much more about sacramental and liturgical order, not about what the pope teaches. Otherwise, why wouldn’t the Jesuits be out of jobs?
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:56 am
“But there is no principled reason to separate from the historical Church that has an organic link to the apostles.”
a) There is more than one church that claims an “organic” link to the apostles.
b) The principle of fidelity to God provides a basis for separation from a church that has “organic” ties to the apostles but does not preach the apostolic doctrines. The Arian councils had the same organic ties to the apostles that the orthodox councils did.
After all, the Judaizers came to Antioch from James at Jerusalem. They had an organic tie to the apostles, and to one of the most prominent apostles in the original situs of the church.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Can we get to 1,000 posts by next week! Let’s go!!!
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Richard 598, see here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/the-tu-quoque/
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm
After Jason Stellman, Beckwith, and all the rest, don’t you guys have to ask why there is a stream going toward the Catholic Church among educated scholars and none going the other way?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Turretin 599, yes so you admit that a Protestant who disagrees with another Protestant has no court of appeal and no resolution. The disagreement is the final word. Each has the Scripture and disagrees. You can personally align yourself on each doctrinal issue. What makes one Protestant view more or less valid than another when both quote the Bible?
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:18 pm
What I don’t get, Arnold 614, is why after people leave reformed churches, they continue to hang around here and refuse to answer as to their motives. I’m new to the blog world (and my comment 601 was meant to mean that I only post links to OPC Q&A’s, not that I actually write those Q&A’s at that link). I’m all in favor of people asking presbyterians questions, and trying to “stump the chump” is something we all like. But I don’t understand why former reformed are coming back here. The entire presbyterian church becoming Catholic would not change the resolve of those of us with a high view of Scripture. There’s something we really think that you don’t understand, and when at an impasse, I don’t understand why the need for the constant back and forth. Again, good questions are welcome. Those of us who are reformed are simply baffled by the “other sides” moves here. I could say more, but I’ve already said to much. Peace, Arnold.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Turretin 600, you do not resolve WHY you draw a hard and fast line around the 27 NT books. Why those?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Andrew 616, it’s kind of like if you find something special and you want to show your friends. That’s part of it. Can we name any educated Catholic scholars that have become Protestants at all?
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Drop it, Arnold. If you have something to share, go write a blog. But down mire our sincere efforts to understand your inexplicable doctrine of the pope. I really don’t get you guys. But I love ya, man ;-)
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:25 pm
*don’t
simpleelder said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Arnold 615 – God requires you to privately read His word, privately interpret His Word, and privately obey His word. Your judgment from God for your eternity depends upon this.
So what makes one view more or less valid than another? 1st, obedience; 2nd, trembling (Isa. 66:1-2); 3rd, godly wisdom, which includes hermeneutics.
Andrew Buckingham 616 – like Arnold doesn’t have a harmartiological ax to grind? I mean, c’mon. People don’t reject the Christ of God because of a lack of evidence.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:31 pm
“Can we name any educated Catholic scholars that have become Protestants at all?”
You mean people like Luther, Cranmer, and Calvin? Or do you mean recent people like Dinesh D’Souza?
-TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Arnold, if what you found is a pearl of great price, then just go bury it in a field. Don’t worry about protestants – we’ve got a pretty strong sense that God is the one in charge of things. If you want to proselytize us, by all means, keep posting. But at the risk of sounding like a jerk, the more you guys post, the more foolish you all look.
If you are a golfer, let me know. I usually just play by myself before work in the mornings, but my motives here are clear:
golf anyone?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:37 pm
As an honest question, what do you guys think of these verses?
I can see how the Catholic and EO system would make sense of them with confession continuing since the apostles. How would a Protestant make sense of this? The gift of the Holy Spirit went away after John died and then no Church fathers commented on that fact?
John 20
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Turretin 621, I think D’Souza was raised Catholic but was not a Catholic scholar as an adult by any means. I am talking about more recent people. I am not going back to John Henry Newman. I mean more like last 20 years. Do you have any?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Turretin 603, it was so obvious nobody had to say it? Are you sure you want to use that logic?
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:43 pm
“Turretin 599, yes so you admit that a Protestant who disagrees with another Protestant has no court of appeal and no resolution. The disagreement is the final word. Each has the Scripture and disagrees. You can personally align yourself on each doctrinal issue. What makes one Protestant view more or less valid than another when both quote the Bible?”
What makes one view of Plato more valid than another when both quote from Plato? The answer is, “whichever one more closely corresponds to the truth.” The answer is the same about the Bible.
That answer doesn’t require there to be any court of appeals.
But think about the presupposition behind your question.
You seem to think that:
1) One’s point is only valid if a court of appeals adopts it.
2) The only valid court of appeals is Rome.
But then that means that you only know (1) to be valid because Rome says so. That’s the position that JJS says you guys don’t hold.
What gives?
– TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:45 pm
“Turretin 603, it was so obvious nobody had to say it? Are you sure you want to use that logic?”
Considering that your church agrees with me, I don’t think it matters why it wasn’t said. You can consider my point about obviousness withdrawn, if it is a stumbling block to the conversation.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Turretin 607, a church started by ‘anybody’ is relying on the invisibility of the church for its basis as a church. A church with a link to the apostles is relying on the visibility of continuous church leadership for its basis as a church, as a unit of the worldwide communion of Christ with continuity to the apostles.
Early church issue with not having permission? Read Clement of Rome writing to Corinth 96 AD. John was alive, but Corinth appealed to Rome. Clement basically says in chapter 57 “it is better to be found little in the flock of Christ” than to have exceeding honor but be outside of his flock. That is how I would read it. Read the letter, it’s great. He is stern and says you better listen to us, the apostles chose successors and that is how unity is preserved. Don’t start a schism.
Read Ignatius 107AD. He basically says obey the Bishop as if he was Christ. Scary stuff, but that’s what he said. That is John’s student talking.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Arnold (#613): Bryan’s “tu quoque” piece is precisely what I had in mind when I wrote #517.
When you read the piece, what you see is that Protestants can only but interpret Scripture. But according to Bryan,
What the person becoming Catholic discovers in his study of history, tradition and Scripture is not merely an interpretation. If what he discovered were merely an interpretation of history, tradition and Scripture, then what he discovered would have no more authority than any Protestant confession.
So I ask, what special ability does the person becoming a Catholic possess that allows him to go beyond interpretation and to raw truth itself?
According to Bryan, we can know reality. One is able to actually discover the true church in Scripture, history, and tradition. Fine. Then why can we not know what Scripture means?
There is special pleading at play in which the Catholic can *know*, but the Protestant can only *interpret.* The Church can be known, but the Scripture cannot.
This should be a warning sign.
johnbugay said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Arnold, Clement has some pretty serious problems (if you are the kind of person who cares to take such things seriously). See my posts above, #’s 575, 576, 577.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Turretin 608, for the Catholic and EO systems (the ones that go back more than 500 years), the laying on of hands in ordination does mean something: it means the ability to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist, to forgive sins in confession, etc. It means something very real and not just symbolic.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Hands were laid on me at ordination…Do you want to golf?
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 1:56 pm
“Turretin 621, I think D’Souza was raised Catholic but was not a Catholic scholar as an adult by any means. I am talking about more recent people. I am not going back to John Henry Newman. I mean more like last 20 years. Do you have any?”
Beckwith converted from Rome to Protestantism before he reverted. He was and is a scholar – but mostly one of philosophy, not of Christianity per se. You listed him.
But what qualifies as a “Catholic scholar”? Someone like Richard Bennett who was a priest (I think his conversion was more than 20 years ago)?
Most of the people who have come to Christ out of Rome have not been “Catholic scholars,” but hardly any of the people in Roman Catholicism are “Catholic scholars.” I mean – the typical ratio of priests to laity in Roman Catholicism is something like 1000 to 1.
The numbers don’t decide truth – but the overall flow of people is a hemorrhaging of people away from Rome and a massive decline in orders. The Reformation is destroying Rome and will continue to do so, even if a few (or many) people foolishly choose to follow the Antichrist.
-TurretinFan
simpleelder said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Arnold 629 “He [Clement] is stern and says you better listen to us, the apostles chose successors and that is how unity is preserved”
Not!
“And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the office of an overseer. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the elders, and afterwards they provided a permanent rule, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.” (1 Clement 44:1-2a).
Clement instead bears witness to the establishment of the office of elder, which is to exist always in a plurality in each local church – so NOT an episcopacy, so not apostolic succession.
This proven in the next verse:
“Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other eminent men with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for a long time have borne a good report with all these men: we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministry.”(1 Clement 44:2b).
Notice that Clement claims no authority over the church in Corinth, for the men in leadership were already thrust out of office, an action that could not have happened were he the bishop over them. Nor does he claim authority over them. He also claims that elders were appointed “by other eminent men” who were NOT apostles, nor an individual successor to Peter.
And BTW, “stern” is about the last word I would use for Clement. He hems and haws and basically tries to appeal in vain to a group of young rebels in the church, and when he finally comes to the whole reason for writing his letter (after 44 chapters!), he is so indirect it is almost suffocating, and the whole matter is fait accompli. It’s almost a joke.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:01 pm
“Turretin 608, for the Catholic and EO systems (the ones that go back more than 500 years), the laying on of hands in ordination does mean something: it means the ability to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist, to forgive sins in confession, etc. It means something very real and not just symbolic.”
If X is symbolic, X means something.
I didn’t say that the laying on of hands is meaningless, I said it is symbolic.
– TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:05 pm
johnbugay, you want to dismiss Clement? Iranaeus said he had the teaching of the apostles still ringing in his ears and that his letter was treasured and read in the Corinthian church for decades. He also knew Peter and Paul. So let’s toss him out, and all the rest of the Church fathers before Luther too. That makes things a lot simpler. So the only reliable writers after the NT start with Luther.
johnbugay said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Arnold 640, I’m not “dismissing” him, I’m saying he has problems which render your ecclesiology very problematic. And of course here and at other links I go into a great deal of detail about how his problems affect your ecclesiology, and then I say what the ramifications of that are. You are too quick to jump to conclusions and too slow to actually listen. You came here to bloviate.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:09 pm
“Turretin 607, a church started by ‘anybody’ is relying on the invisibility of the church for its basis as a church. A church with a link to the apostles is relying on the visibility of continuous church leadership for its basis as a church, as a unit of the worldwide communion of Christ with continuity to the apostles.”
:shrug: Even if this were true, the apostles didn’t teach us that we have to rely on links to them.
“Early church issue with not having permission? Read Clement of Rome writing to Corinth 96 AD.”
a) Interestingly, the letter you have in mind is anonymous.
b) His letter has nothing to say about people needing permission to start churches.
c) The ecclesiology of Corinth that he describes has elders appointed locally, not elders appointed by the (at that time non-existent) Roman bishop.
“John was alive, but Corinth appealed to Rome.”
What makes you think they “appealed to Rome”?
“Clement basically says in chapter 57 “it is better to be found little in the flock of Christ” than to have exceeding honor but be outside of his flock. That is how I would read it. Read the letter, it’s great. He is stern and says you better listen to us, the apostles chose successors and that is how unity is preserved. Don’t start a schism.”
others in this thread have addressed this, I won’t repeat it …
“Read Ignatius 107AD. He basically says obey the Bishop as if he was Christ. Scary stuff, but that’s what he said. That is John’s student talking.”
James’ students were the Judaizers, but Gamaliel’s student was Paul. Now *that’s* scary stuff.
But if you happen to be under one of Rome’s myriad liberal, social-justice-promoting, contraception-okaying, nun-appeasing bishops, are you going to obey him as if he were Christ? Or do you only obey the Roman bishop that way? If the latter, then what are you doing quoting Ignatius for this point?
Your ecclesiology doesn’t stop with the local bishop, like Ignatius’ did. Mine doesn’t either – but I can justify my departure from Ignatius by Scripture. What’s your justification?
-TurretinFan
jsm52 said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:14 pm
From Jeff 626 – So I ask, what special ability does the person becoming a Catholic possess that allows him to go beyond interpretation and to raw truth itself?
According to Bryan, we can know reality. One is able to actually discover the true church in Scripture, history, and tradition. Fine. Then why can we not know what Scripture means?
There is special pleading at play in which the Catholic can *know*, but the Protestant can only *interpret.* The Church can be known, but the Scripture cannot.
From my 486 – And I find it quite amazing that “perspicuity of Scripture” is denigrated by the CtC crowd while they argue from an implicit “perspicuity” of so-called tradition and history.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:33 pm
dg 612, I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches contrary to Scripture. You can pick any doctrinal issue and analyze it all day long and have a decent case made from Scripture for or against the point. Look at the Protestant denominations, it’s not like 1 knows Scripture really well and the rest don’t. They all have different doctrines. Look at the Arians, they can cite Scripture “not my will but thine be done” therefore Jesus is subordinate to the Father. The Catholic Church comes from the apostles, has been handed down, and has not changed doctrines. Scripture alone did not exist for 1500 years as a guide, and it has existed for 500 and created thousands of denominations. That’s not the mark of the ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Turretin 614, “fidelity to God” by whose standard or authority or rule?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:36 pm
again Turretin 614, what is the PRINCIPLED basis for separating? Is it because in 313AD the Church got legalized and then Bishops got rich and therefore the true Church disappeared? What is it?
johnbugay said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Arnold 644: Here’s a link that shows how that works. In reality, Protestants agree in a huge way on the most important doctrines. Any areas of disagreement are in less important areas:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-roman-doctrines-cant-be-compared.html
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Andrew 622 right back at you
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:37 pm
“Turretin 614, “fidelity to God” by whose standard or authority or rule?”
God’s. The Bible is the Word of God. That’s how we know what He says. We read what he inspired men to write.
-TurretinFan
todd said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“And I find it quite amazing that “perspicuity of Scripture” is denigrated by the CtC crowd while they argue from an implicit “perspicuity” of so-called tradition and history.”
This has really stood out in this discussion. I wonder why God needs an official interpreter, but the RC Magisterium does not. Doesn’t the need for an official interpreter only take us one step back for the need for another official interpreter? In other words, who will interpret Vatican II for us? There are many different views among Catholics about what Vatican II means. Why don’t we need a Magisterium outside the RC Magisterium to interpret the RC Magisterium’s writings for us? Or are we to believe that Vatican I and II are much easier to understand than, let’s say, Galatians, or I Timothy?
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:39 pm
“again Turretin 614, what is the PRINCIPLED basis for separating? Is it because in 313AD the Church got legalized and then Bishops got rich and therefore the true Church disappeared? What is it?”
Are you trying to say that fidelity to God is an unprincipled basis?
And no, I’m not saying that the basis for separating is simply the wickedness of the Roman hierarchy – though sodomite popes like Julius III make my skin crawl.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:41 pm
“The Catholic Church comes from the apostles, has been handed down, and has not changed doctrines.”
Not only has she changed doctrines, her recent converts have to try to justify this change as “development.”
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Jeff 633 good question. I guess the only real difference is that Catholics use reason to determine their source of authority (the Church, Scripture) while Protestants are using reason to determine each of hundreds of doctrinal issues. So we are really doing different things with our reason in a sense. Prot says I am the authority so I use my reason for every issue and have thousands of denominations. Cat says the Church is the authority (Council of Jerusalem, it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us). Cat is using reason to come to his conclusion. But it’s a conclusion on the source of authority, not on each issue. Prot says his authority is Scripture, but really it’s himself interpreting Scripture, and then why Scripture anyway, why the 27 NT books in particular? That question leads back to the Church is why the 27 NT books. Tricky ground to be on for the Prot, I think.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Turretin 637, Reformation destroying Rome? AntiChrist? Let’s use more careful language here. Also, Rome and EO is still like 70% of Christians today.
jsm52 said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:47 pm
what is the PRINCIPLED basis for separating?
How about denying the Gospel? How about the Pope putting himself in the place of Christ?
From 16th century RCC canon law:
The bishop of Rome hath authority to judge all men, and specially to discern the articles of the faith, and that without any council, and may assoil them that the council hath damned; but no man hath authority to judge him, nor to meddle with any thing that he hath judged, neither emperor, king, people, nor the clergy: and it is not lawful for any man to dispute of his power.
The bishop of Rome may be judged of none but of God only; for although he neither regard his own salvation, nor no man’s else, but draw down with himself innumerable people by heaps unto hell; yet may no mortal man in this world presume to reprehend him : forsomuch as he is called God, he may be judged of no man; for God may be judged of no man.
The bishop of Rome may open and shut heaven unto men.
We obtain remission of sin, by observing of certain feasts, and certain pilgrimages in the jubilee and other prescribed times, by virtue of the bishop of Rome’s pardons.
[excerpted from “The Remains of Thomas Cranmer”]
But apart from that, Luther (as has already been pointed out) didn’t leave he was excommunicated. And after going to Worms to defend himself (under safe conduct by the Pope), had to flee for his life when that safe conduct was rescinded.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:47 pm
simple 638 it says “they appointed elders”…so if the apostles personally appointing people doesn’t scream succession to you, I don’t know what would.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:48 pm
And you are still left with the question, who invented succession? Name the person and time. Go ahead.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Turretin 642, apostles didn’t teach we had to rely on links to them? Here is where I use your line “they didn’t have to , it was so obvious!” Because what did they expect, the true church would be a schismatic one or that it would continue in their line of succession?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Turretin, why think they appealed to Rome? Because the letter says so in the beginning. He says sorry it took so long to get back to you.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:52 pm
“Turretin 637, Reformation destroying Rome? AntiChrist? Let’s use more careful language here. Also, Rome and EO is still like 70% of Christians today.”
You don’t really seem to understand what it is stake in these discussions. We’re not trying to get you to change denominations – we’re calling you to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Roman bishop’s claims for himself are not just slightly mistaken – they are antithetical to Christianity. He’s putting himself in a position that can only rightly be occupied by Christ.
If you follow the Roman bishop, you should have no hope of eternal life – because God is a jealous God. That’s what’s at stake here.
Hard words I know, but I hope you would rather hear about it now, than after you go to the final judgment.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:55 pm
jsm 655 okay that is your basis. But you are alone again. There is no Protestant consensus on any basis like that.
johnbugay said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Arnold 657: “Who invented apostolic succession?”
The answer should be in here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/search?q=von+campenhausen
Hans von Campenhausen analyzed that very question, to the satisfaction of the former Joseph Ratzinger.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Arnold at 648:
Cool, man.
Are you able to explain why you and other Roman Catholics are posting on a PCA minister’s blog about the doctrine of the Pope?
I actually mean it when I say I am baffled by the RC’s coming here and discussing these matters. Can you show me the RC blog where reformed folk are debating?
My hunch is that it doesn’t exist.
So what does that mean?
So Lane has set the stage with his blog post.
All I know is that the Pope has a twitter feed. Is that really where you want me to turn?
I’ll be golfing, if any one wants to join me late, you might find me on hole 2 or 3, and I still haven’t heard from Benedict, but does anyone know his handicap? I’m just trying to prepare for what could be some mad skills on the course.
Andrew
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Turretin 660, you admit you are separating. What exactly are you separating from?? Why need to separate from anything if yours is the original true church?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Anybody going to reply to my 627? Honest question. I want to hear what you think.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 2:59 pm
“simple 638 it says “they appointed elders”…so if the apostles personally appointing people doesn’t scream succession to you, I don’t know what would.”
That’s kind of like the color green screaming John Deere. It’s not a logical argument. It doesn’t follow. It’s just wishful thinking.
The RC concept of succession is not just that someone is ordained by someone else that was ordained before them. If it were, we Reformed churches would likewise have “succession” because people like archbishop Cranmer were validly ordained.
“And you are still left with the question, who invented succession? Name the person and time. Go ahead.”
And if we have no idea who invented it, what then? What would that prove?
-TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:02 pm
665 Arnold – I don’t see what you are getting at in 627 – does it have to do with Papal authority?
Help please,
Andrew
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:03 pm
“Turretin 660, you admit you are separating. What exactly are you separating from?? Why need to separate from anything if yours is the original true church?”
I admit I don’t have communion with lots of groups, including the pseudonymous Benedict XVI as well as the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and numerous other heretical groups. And he doesn’t have communion with me. There’s a separation there.
Why does B16 need to separate himself from us? Let him repent and profess faith in Christ alone for salvation and we’ll welcome him.
The true churches (plural) are called to separate themselves from heresy. That’s why we can’t have communion with Rome, as it stands, and without Reformation.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:04 pm
johnbugay 662 and before, no need for accusations, buddy. So who invented apostolic succession? Sure it was clearly formulated in the second century. That’s fine. Imagine if you were there at the time. You say “Well, there’s some Gnostics over here. Then there is the local catholic church over here which was established by an apostle. Hmm, that link to the apostles should have a name.” So there it is. And as I said in 635, the succession and laying on of hands does mean something. That is the universal view of the church for 1500 years.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Here is some fun reading for anybody who holds sola Scriptura and thinks that has any history to it before 1500-
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/05/the-commonitory-of-st-vincent-of-lerins/
jsm52 said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Arnold 661-
jsm 655 okay that is your basis. But you are alone again. There is no Protestant consensus on any basis like that.
All alone? Right… all alone with all the churches/denominations that hold to the Reformed confessions and Catechisms (Westminster Standards, Belgic, Heidelberg, Dort), not to mention those denominations that hold slight variations of those documents.
Get up to speed, A.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Andrew 667, I am really asking a question.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:13 pm
But Arnold 672, this is a blog post questioning Papal authority. Are you using the fact that many people are paying attention to raise other prot/cath questions? I did this, so I understand if you did. But let’s stick o the pope. I wanted to know whether Catholics view my marriage from a presbyterian church as valid, as I was getting mixed messages from before. But a catholic said he thought my marriage was A-OK. If you have a question, can you clarify? It may just be that I am slow. Consider me a notorious rhetorical flourisher. Irenically, Andrew
jsm52 said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Arnold,
BTW, how do you understand those statements of 16th century RCC Canon Law regarding the Pope @ 655?
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:15 pm
PS I will be golfing. Sorry I bring low the ‘intellectualism’ of this blog with my silliness. Take care, folks. Peace – AB
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:30 pm
For the record, I think there are plenty of awesome Protestant believers in Christ. There’s just no reason they shouldn’t be awesome believers within the Church that Christ instituted.
johnbugay said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Arnold 665, the “laying on of hands” from the NT fails at several levels:
1. It was symbolic (as Turretinfan has noted)
2. After the year 95, there were no more “apostolic hands”
3. So after the year 95, the level of “authority” getting “handed on” went way down.
4. Whether you care to admit it or not, “Scripture alone” was all that was available as the Word of God in the world.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:31 pm
673 Andrew, I was just asking out of context, not related to this post.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:33 pm
677 johnbugay, okay so then what do you make of Augustine talking about why he remains in the Catholic Church? Is he just an idiot?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:37 pm
johnbugay 677, the laying on of hands did confer the ability to confect the eucharist and confession, etc. It was not apostleship, but it was these spiritual gifts from the Holy Spirit as in John 20. I am sorry to say that you will find no comments prior to 1500 AD saying that laying on of hands meant nothing and was just symbolic.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Arnold (#653): Thank you for your response.
If I understand, you are saying that the RC needs to exert his reason on one point only: Is, or is not, the RC church THE church that Christ founded?
Whereas the Protestant needs to exert his reason on a multitude of separate issues: Is baptism to be administered to adults or children; what happens in communion; do the saints persevere; etc.?
Is that fair?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:43 pm
681 Jeff, yes that is fair enough. Cat submits to an authority (Church interpreting Scripture and Tradition) and uses reason to reach that conclusion. Cat sees this as reasonable because the founder of the religion (Jesus) founded a Church and this is the Church (With EO) that is continuous with the one Jesus started.
Prot submits to Scripture only, but it turns out that Scripture is not interpreting itself so he takes up the task of interpreting it for himself, and he must interpret each issue separately, so he disagrees with his Prot brethren and starts a new church with his interpretation. What do you think?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:44 pm
If RC and EO can reunite, would you guys take a look at getting together? It’s not as far fetched as you might think. See the 2007 Ravenna document.
johnbugay said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Arnold 679 and 680. We’ll have to talk separately about what it meant to be an apostle, and what went away when they died. Suffice it to say that neither Clement nor Ignatius placed themselves (or their “authority”) anywhere near where the Apostles were. Roman Catholicism (the Roman Catholic Hermeneutic) has a way of “reading back” current doctrines into activities and actions 2000 years ago, that the people living through those events had no idea about.
I’m at work and I don’t have time to get into this, but “most Catholic scholars” now accept that “succession” as formulated by Irenaeus (and as I so humorously recounted in my Kruger-vs-Ratzinger series) was a way of countering the gnostics on their own terms. Irenaeus et. al. were able to look back; they had names in memory. But how the “mechanism” of “succession” worked was an after-thought. You don’t see Irenaeus saying, “and all of my successors in the future will have this exact same power,” do you?
He would look at your current doctrine of “succession”, as applied to the heinous and appalling “successors”, and say absolutely no way. He is the one who said “it would be the greatest catastrophe” if these so-called “successors” failed to live holy lives. And of course, they failed in a major way, at many points. So, the Roman succession really is a catastrophe.
Augustine didn’t have the perspective to see how this worked.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:50 pm
“If RC and EO can reunite, would you guys take a look at getting together? ”
If the RC reunites with the EO by repenting of her popery, we will be well on the path toward getting the RC to reform her errors on justification.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:56 pm
684 bugay, so augustine, the founder of western thinking, didn’t have the perspective. You do.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:57 pm
684 bugay, okay so if succession ended, what was the end point? pick a year, there are plenty to choose from.
jsm52 said,
August 2, 2012 at 3:58 pm
TFan –
“If RC and EO can reunite, would you guys take a look at getting together? ”
If the RC reunites with the EO by repenting of her popery, we will be well on the path toward getting the RC to reform her errors on justification.
Nicely played…
johnbugay said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Arnold 687, I’m relying on the scholarly work of both Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars who largely agree on the historical details that I’m talking about. The Roman Catholic scholars that I’m referring to seem to be significantly more honest to me than the pop-apologists you’re relying on to give you with an “interpretive paradigm” that enables themselves and you to hide behind, without having to deal with uncomfortable facts. Check the “Minnerath” links up above here (I forget what comment number, but do a search on this page; there are quotes and links). There are lots of Roman Catholics who are articulating the same exact conclusions on the historical facts.
The difference is, the Roman Catholics are committed to maintaining the Roman Catholic system. We Protestants (I am a former cradle Catholic) are able to look at the historical data and say, “the Reformers were precisely right about this”.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:09 pm
689 bugay, uncomfortable fact is that apostolic succession was universally accepted in the Church for 1500 years. Do you deny this?
johnbugay said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Arnold 690, whether it was practiced or not is far different from saying it was God’s preferred method for doing things. And before you go there, he permitted the fall; he permitted Rome to be dominant for a long time, too.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:17 pm
back to papacy on this thread, Jesus changed Peter’s name. His name was Simon but Jesus called him Rock. Why did he do this? He is always called Rock after this point. 67AD Peter martyred at Rome. 96 AD Clement, as Bishop of Rome, answers a question and speaks authoritatively to Corinth. Ignatius 107AD Rome is the church that “presides in charity.” Iranaeus around 180 AD Rome, this is the church with which the others must agree. Seeing anything yet? Don’t forget this is a church under persecution and in an oral based culture so the fact that we have even this is a lot.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:19 pm
691 bugay, so God abandoned the Church? You will strain to find this viewpoint expressed in the first 1500 years of Church history. So they all lacked perspective?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:26 pm
No one touching my 627?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:26 pm
BTW on 627 when I was Prot I ignored that verse. I didn’t know what it meant and didn’t care.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:28 pm
“689 bugay, uncomfortable fact is that apostolic succession was universally accepted in the Church for 1500 years”
Classic anachronism, at best.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:28 pm
691 bugay, this is a revealing comment. Fundamentally, your belief is that the Church Jesus started is corrupt and you are a fantastic Scriptural exegete all by yourself while Augustine, Clement and the rest are dopes. Okay.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:29 pm
696 Turretin, okay if an anachronism, show who invented it. Does it date from 500AD? Show who made it up and convinced the worldwide church to accept it?
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Arnold:
Jesus breathed on the Apostles. He didn’t breath on Benedict XVI.
-TurretinFan
jsm52 said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Arnold,
693 – 691 bugay, so God abandoned the Church? You will strain to find this viewpoint expressed in the first 1500 years of Church history. So they all lacked perspective?
Debating and answering questions would be a little more tolerable if you wouldn’t put words into others’ mouths.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Arnold:
What is at best an anachronism is using the word-concept fallacy. The term “apostolic succession” goes way back. The meaning assigned to it in Roman theology does not.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:32 pm
“Fundamentally, your belief is that the Church Jesus started is corrupt and you are a fantastic Scriptural exegete all by yourself while Augustine, Clement and the rest are dopes.”
That isn’t what anyone on the Reformed side of the table has been telling you, Arnold. It’s a little hard to tell if the problem is a reading comprehension one, or something else.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:37 pm
702 Turretin, bugay dismissed Clement and Augustine above. He didn’t even bother to reckon with their statements. If you don’t bother to reckon with what they say, I think it is fair to classify them as ‘dopes.’
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:38 pm
“Jesus changed Peter’s name. His name was Simon but Jesus called him Rock. Why did he do this? He is always called Rock after this point. ”
This one of those oft-repeated Roman myths. He surnamed Simon bar-Jonah, with the additional name Peter. But he continued to call him by his original name. Thus we see:
John 21:15
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:39 pm
and you better think you’re a fantastic Scriptural exegete all by yourself since that is what you are relying upon.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Arnold:
re: dopes, that’s not sound reasoning.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Turretin, when someone is a student of Peter and Paul, I think dismissing them out of hand is not sound reasoning.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Arnold:
Any chance of getting you to try to make a positive presentation in favor of the papacy?
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:47 pm
re: Students of Peter and Paul
We have two epistles of the former and a dozen or so of the latter. We can all be students of Peter and Paul. It’s not quite the same thing as actually hanging out with the apostles – but hanging out with the apostles doesn’t make one an apostle.
Look at Simon Magus, the first heretic (in many ancient lists).
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:48 pm
isnt 692 a positive start?
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Being a personal student of somebody, you can ask questions and get feedback. I think Clement’s experience there is valuable.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:53 pm
quartodeciman controversy, pope victor threatened excommunication of Easterners over this. No one questioned his authority to do so. That’s around 180AD. They appealed to Rome on the question. He laid down the law. The exercise of the papacy has developed, but the concept itself has been in place since Peter is listed as foremost amongst the apostles repeatedly in the NT. The book of Acts begins in Jerusalem and ends in Rome, not a coincidence.
Arnold said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:54 pm
also Clement is revered by later Christians such as Irenaeus so he is hardly a Simon Magus type.
dgh said,
August 2, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Arnold, you wrote, “Cat says the Church is the authority (Council of Jerusalem, it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us). Cat is using reason to come to his conclusion.” I don’t think that is what Bryan Cross says.
When the Roman Catholic uses his reason to determine that Rome is the church and has infallible authority, aside from the leaps of logic and history required for such a deduction, how is this use of reason any different from a Protestant’s? When the RC uses his reason, does he have the chance of coming to a different conclusion? Or is his decision reasonably only if he comes to the right conclusion?
At some point, you have defined reason and infallibility beyond recognition.
dgh said,
August 2, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Arnold, on your point about a lack of consensus among Protestants, have you heard of the lack of consensus among RC’s on Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors – another document that provides lots of hoops for RCs to go through when embracing Vatican 2?
Here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
“The binding power of the Syllabus of Pius IX is differently explained by Catholic theologians. All are of the opinion that many of the propositions are condemned if not in the Syllabus, then certainly in other final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, for instance in the Encyclical “Quanta Cura”. There is no agreement, however, on the question whether each thesis condemned in the Syllabus is infallibly false, merely because it is condemned in the Syllabus. Many theologians are of the opinion that to the Syllabus as such an infallible teaching authority is to be ascribed, whether due to an ex-cathedra decision by the pope or to the subsequent acceptance by the Church. Others question this. So long as Rome has not decided the question, everyone is free to follow the opinion he chooses. Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess that unchangeableness peculiar to infallible decisions, nevertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly.”
Not only are RC’s confused about the teaching of the Syllabus of an infallible pope, but they’re not sure if an encyclical by an infallible pope is binding. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 5:06 pm
“For the record, I think there are plenty of awesome Protestant believers in Christ. There’s just no reason they shouldn’t be awesome believers within the Church that Christ instituted.”
FYI, Pius IX had a slightly different take:
I realize that Vatican II has a very different spirit – one of “separated brethren,” and one which seems to suggest that unconverted Muslims can be saved.
But the faith of Pius IX is not my faith. His teachings were and are contrary to Scripture. Therefore, even if there were great arguments for his authority in general (which there are not), I would still have to submit to the higher authority of God himself.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 5:08 pm
For what it’s worth, I picked the confession of Pius IX before seeing brother DGH’s post. Not trying to pile on that one particular pontiff.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 5:09 pm
692 was shown to be false at 704.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 5:16 pm
“also Clement is revered by later Christians such as Irenaeus so he is hardly a Simon Magus type.”
I didn’t say he was a Simon Magus type. I’m just pointing out that there’s nothing magical about personally knowing the apostles. What we have in Scripture is more reliable than a second-hand report from someone who personally knew them.
That doesn’t mean that second-hand reports are worthless – but helps to put them in their proper place.
-TurretinFan
Reed Here said,
August 2, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Respectfully RCC friends, your insistence that we are our own authority, while you submit to the revealed authority of the Church, is rather silly. Y’all are very much like the sycophants around the naked emperor. Of course, those proverbial folks actually are better off than y’all, They are as imaginary as the emperor’s duds. Y’all, however, are very real. After 700+ comments (again, not the first time we’ve ringed these roses) y’all have my sympathy and prayers.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 5:30 pm
“quartodeciman controversy, pope victor threatened excommunication of Easterners over this. No one questioned his authority to do so.”
Polycrates wrote to him (and others): “I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’”
It was in response to that Eusebius tells us not that Victor threatened excommunication, but that “Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.”
Notice that he says “attempted.” Why was this only an attempt?
a) “But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.”
Victor couldn’t get support for his attempt among the western bishops. Note …
b) “Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom … ”
So, Victor’s attempt was opposed (and successfully opposed). You can try to say that they didn’t challenge his authority, but he declared the churches “excommunicate” and the bishops didn’t jump at his command.
But, of course, I’m not denying that various bishops cut off communion with other bishops in ancient times, each thinking he had the right to cut off communion with others.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 5:38 pm
“The exercise of the papacy has developed, but the concept itself has been in place since Peter is listed as foremost amongst the apostles repeatedly in the NT.”
Paul declares himself to be Peter’s equal.
“The book of Acts begins in Jerusalem and ends in Rome, not a coincidence.”
The eisegesis here is thick. Why not suppose that the lesson is that Jerusalem has priority over Rome – or that Rome was the place that most needed the gospel of all wicked cities on earth? It’s a totally arbitrary imposition on the text.
-TurretinFan
johnbugay said,
August 2, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Arnold:
I interacted quite extensively with Clement, and Augustine was late enough that his opinion (a) was as I said, shaped by fictional accounts, (b) favorable to our side anyway, and (c) not relevant to a discussion of the foundation of the papacy.
I interacted quite extensively with Clement.
Irenaeus questioned him and the Quartodecimans largely ignored him.
“first” means temporally, not in terms of power or jurisdiction.
Rome just happened to be the capital, not a coincidence, and Peter is not mentioned there, also not a coincidence.
I interacted quite extensively with Clement.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 6:38 pm
“Being a personal student of somebody, you can ask questions and get feedback. I think Clement’s experience there is valuable.”
The light of the moon at night has some use and value – but it’s not really competitive with the sun.
-TurretinFan
Don said,
August 2, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Let’s pause here in the mid-700’s and compare debating styles, via the time-honored technique of blatant stereotyping:
1) Protestants are jerks.
2) Catholic debating technique consists solely of accusing the other side of begging the question.
(Of course I’m not referring to you personally, just the other commenters here.)
But seriously, perhaps we could recognize that this blog posting won’t lead to anyone converting anyone, but could lead to someone actually understanding the other side and no longer arguing against straw-man caricatures. For instance, I as a Protestant am genuinely interested in what Catholics would present as actual historical evidence for the early bishops of Rome having Peter’s authority. I should add, flattering letters from other bishops who want a favor, is fairly lightweight evidence. And Protestants, if they feel compelled to treat the Catholics as, e.g., tax collectors (per Matt. 18:17), could consider how Christ treated them in his ministry.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Arnold:
a) Vincent is the first to enunciate his rule of universality;
b) Vincent, in the process, affirms that Scripture is sufficient and more than sufficient;
c) Vincent was writing against Augustine (just so you have some context);
d) If we apply Vincent’s rule to Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism fails. Just as it cannot stand up to Sola Scriptura, it also cannot stand up to Vincent’s approach; and
e) Most amusingly, if we apply Vincent’s rule to Vincent’s rule – it fails as well.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Don: I too would like to see what evidence they think exists for anyone believing that there was an office of the papacy having universal jurisidiction.
-TurretinFan
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 2, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Here’re CTC’s arguments for succession and the papacy:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/papacy-roundup/
jsm52 said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:02 pm
Jason,
Here’re CTC’s arguments for succession and the papacy:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/papacy-roundup/
How about just summing it up? With all the links, it seems more than a semester of seminary credits. One would think it could be explained concisely in order that the least of Christ’s followers could comprehend.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:18 pm
I appreciate that ADA took the time to organize the posts that are at CTC on the subject. They don’t really form a deductive argument (and they are fluffed out with a section of “The witness of history against key Protestant doctrines”) but let’s look at what is offered:
Section 1 is “Christ founded a visible Church and Magisterium”
Section 2 is “The Papacy in Scripture and History”
Section 3 is the irrelevant point I noted above.
Section 4 is “Philosophy and the Papacy”
Given this arrangement, it looks as though the CtC folks think that their strongest argument is Section 1. Indeed, that section itself starts with a post alleging “That Christ founded a visible Church.”
Then, within that post, the following structure is presented:
I. The Body of Christ is a Visible Unity
II. Why Visible Unity is a Mark of the Church: Discipline & Schism
III. Denial of Visibility is Ecclesial Docetism
IV. What the Catholic Church Teaches About the Visibility of the Church
V. Reformed positions, and critique
VI. Implications
VII. Conclusion
The key section, as should be apparent is section I. Within that section, the CtC folks need to actually demonstrate that the “Body of Christ is a Visible Unity.”
They attempt to do so through the following points:
A. The Church Is the Body of Christ; He Is the Head of His Mystical Body
B. The Three Ways in Which a Body Is Unified
C. Visibility and Unified Hierarchy of the Mystical Body
We’ve now drilled down through about 5 layers of argument. The title of A is certainly true. But if A is true, there is an immediate and obvious objection to the attempt to use this to prove that “the Body of Christ is a Visible Unity.”
After all, the Mystical Body includes those whose bodies were consumed by fire. People who are not, themselves, any longer visible.
There is also a second obvious objection. Christ is not visible at the moment. If the head is not visible, the unity provided by that head cannot itself be visible.
The argument hinges on, “Because the Church is a Body, “it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses.”” But this does not follow any more than “Because Christ is the Head, He must be something definite and perceptible to the senses.”
This comment is long enough – but suffice to say that the argument for the papacy stumbles from the first moment out of the gate.
JJS: perhaps you could ask one of your friends from CtC to try to rehabilitate this first argument as an argument for the papacy.
-Turretinfan
jsm52 said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:28 pm
TFan,
Thanks for concisely summarizing the links….
;-)
Jack
dgh said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:31 pm
Jason, the link only has links to other CTC posts. Is CTC the pope? Do you guys read other blogs or RC material?
Sean said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:43 pm
TurretinFan.
You could not have possibly read the material linked in less than an hour. You dismiss everything provided with the wave of a hand on a loose argument that only engages the outline.
It is called the incarnation. It is a doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church. The Word was made flesh. He became man and was so perceptible to the senses that the apostles washed His feet. So truly visible that He was nailed to a cross. So physically present that He rose from the dead and visibly ascended into heaven in front of 500 witnesses.
If you deny that Christ the Lord has a visible body than I don’t know what to tell you.
If you are so confident, ‘TurretinFan’, that you can so cavalierly dismiss the arguments put forth that Jason linked nothing is stopping you from making your case to the people who framed those arguments.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Sean:
I see you are up to your ad hominem style of argumentation again. Do you have any other cards in your hand? If not, go fish.
Most of these posts have been up for quite a while. I didn’t have to cram all my reading into an hour.
And, no – I didn’t just wave a hand. I drilled down through the layers and identified multiple fatal flaws in the opening argument.
As for your incarnational argument:
a) Just because Jesus has a physical body doesn’t mean you can see him. You can’t see him. His physical body is in heaven. It’s invisible to you, just as it was sometimes invisible to Jesus’ enemies during his earthly time here.
b) Even according to Rome’s absurd fiction of transubstantiation, you can’t see (or otherwise perceive with the senses) Jesus, but instead you see and perceive the accidents of bread and wine.
So, no dice. That cannot rehabilitate the argument.
It actually makes it worse. Jesus has two natures – one human, and another divine. The divine nature is intrinsically invisible. The human nature is, for the moment, only accidentally invisible. But Christ is personally head of the church, not merely head according to his human nature. But this is objection is unnecessarily complex – the original two objections (that there are disembodied believers in the Church and that Christ cannot be seen for the time being).
-TurretinFan
Sean said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:11 pm
# 734.
Why didn’t you correct your team-members earlier in the thread when they were flatly calling people names? I mean, if you are going to start patrolling people for ‘ad hominems’ and such now.
If you actually read the article you would know that the argument for the visibility of the Church does not rely on our ability to see the risen Lord in the flesh at this very moment.
So, you played an ‘ad hom’, I raise you a straw man.
Dismissing material by ‘drilling down’ into the sub-headings is ridiculous.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Darryl,
I know it can be confusing. Just think of it kind of like a book: when you open one you may be tempted to say, “Wait a minute, this first page just has page numbers and chapter titles! Where’s the actual material?”
The page with the links is not unlike a table of contents in that respect. If you click on a link, the interweb will direct you right to the page you were looking for.
Or, you can just read TF’s dismissal of it all that he labored for ten minutes to write. Either way, the Dude abides.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:24 pm
Sean:
Your #735 is a great example of handwaving (but with an extra dose of your characteristic ad hominem).
You assert that the objections are a straw man, but they aren’t. They quote the very argument used and explain why the argument undermines the desired conclusion.
To spool out the objection a bit more, in parallel to your comment, the fact that the mystical body (the church) is now invisible does not entail it being always invisible. It will one day be visible, just as Christ will one day be visible to us.
In fact, Jesus speaks about the division that will be made on the great day between the sheep and the goats.
Will you be with the popes or with Christ on that day?
-TurreitnFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:28 pm
JJS: On an effort theory of value, it’s a weak argument. But that’s not really the way to judge the strength of an argument. You know that.
-TurretinFan
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:32 pm
Sorry, TF, I read the first six letters of your comment and decided it was wrong….
Sean said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:40 pm
‘Turretinfan’
OK, I re-read your # 730 again and get what you are saying.
At first reading I thought that you claimed that the article presents an idea that the church is visible because Christ’s body is visible to us at this very moment.
So, if I was premature in labeling your answer a ‘straw man’, my apologies.
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:43 pm
Mr. Holter:
Sorry to leave you hanging for so long, I wanted to seek the wisdom of Augustine in understanding Galatians before getting back to you. Augustine suggests that “lest I am running or had run in vain” refers to the idea his conferences with the apostles were not for Paul’s benefit, but for the Galatians’ benefit. The truth that he was preaching is now confirmed by additional witnesses, which should give the Galatians greater assurance. The fact that Paul uses the multiple “should run or had run …” formulation does seem to support Augustine’s take. I would want to do more study before being dogmatic about it, but what do you think* – is Augustine’s take reasonable to you too?
Incidentally, I want to praise you for your very cordial demeanor, notwithstanding the real and eternally significant difference between us.
– TurretinFan
(It’s not like the argument that “because the Church is a Body, it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses.” That’s one to which objections quickly arise.)
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:47 pm
“Sorry, TF, I read the first six letters of your comment and decided it was wrong….”
It’s almost as though you have forgotten that I’ve been reading and responding to the CtC blog for years. But joke away – it’s only your soul that’s in the balance.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 2, 2012 at 11:48 pm
Sean #740 – fair enough. Yes, I was responding to the specific argument, “because the Church is a Body, it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses.”
Andrew McCallum said,
August 3, 2012 at 12:27 am
Jason (re 728),
As someone else above requested, it would be nice if you could give a summary of all of the posts that David Anders links to. I’ve read most of these posts in the past and I bet I could summarize them given the time to do so, but I think it would be nice to get something abbreviated from the Catholic side (which I assume you to be now representing). What is the essence of the Catholic argument for the papacy?
Cheers,,,,
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 3, 2012 at 12:39 am
I’m not sure that’s a reasonable request, Andrew. Thus far, all the mini-arguments from the Catholic side have been brushed off and dismissed, with people wondering, “When are they going to make their case for reals?”
Well, strong or weak, acceptable or not, the case is a handful of clicks away. Given the way this discussion has gone, I would rather let the full argument stand or fall as written, than subject myself to more mockery.
If you’re going to mock, at least mock your opponents’ best efforts, is what I’m saying.
TurretinFan said,
August 3, 2012 at 1:06 am
JJS:
And again, you know it’s about rebutting, not mocking. Why mischaracterize things? You don’t need to answer here, but ask yourself why you are putting things that way. We sincerely care about your soul and don’t want to see you serve the Antichrist instead of Christ. We see that arguments like the very first argument you linked to are full of holes. We’d love to help you see that too.
We could provide exhaustive treatments of the entirety of each post on the list and present them all at once, but can’t we get the conversation started at the first point on the list? (Particularly when, without that argument, quite a lot of the pages are moot.)
I mean – my response above is not even the full extent of the objections to the argument that because the church is a body, therefore it must perceptible in the here and now.
– TurretinFan
Don said,
August 3, 2012 at 1:41 am
OK, so I checked out Jason’s recommended CTC link and I have to say that Catholics win on account of their hats.
It seemed to me that the article “The witness of history on Petrine/Roman primacy” would be relevant to my question of #725. The first few (earliest) quotes were not too convincing:
The Muratorian Fragment quote seems to show that there was a bishop in Rome at this time (180-200). Which doesn’t have anything to do with Peter and doesn’t show what sort of authority the bishop has. (Incidentally, relating to some of the tangents on this thread, this quote claims that the Canon is already known and closed.) Some of the quotes from later centuries explain what authority the pope has, especially quotes from popes who are claiming authority for themselves.
The first Tertullian quote is a strange choice for this context, since it clearly states that there was nothing special about the Roman chair, compared to that of Corinth, Philippi, or Ephesus; if you want answers about your faith, just go to whichever city (whichever throne) is nearby.
The second Tertullian quote claims that Christ would never set an immoral man upon his own chair. (We see how well that turned out.) Again, nothing about Peter, Rome, or authority, except that it was a teaching position.
And the first Cyprian quote from 251 states “There is … one Chair founded on the Rock by the voice of the Lord.” This isn’t history. This is assertion. Perhaps elsewhere, Cyprian explained why Matthew forgot to record anything about any chairs. More importantly and less snarkily, perhaps someone can explain how a bishop exerting authority from a chair/throne is not in direct conflict with Luke 22:25-26.
Mike said,
August 3, 2012 at 1:46 am
To a non philosophical onlooker it seems just as much private interpretation, at least initially, is involved in swimming the Tiber, as is involved residing in Geneva.
The NT canon is here. Regardless of how, it’s here and we are agreed as to it’s contents, despite Luther’s cavils. Is the bestowal of an authority to receive, protect and interpret that canon place it above or subservient to that canon; and if that authority contradicts the deposit of faith in the canon, despite its claims of being unable to, where does the authority reside, in the canon or the contradiction?
If it can be demonstrated by sound exegesis and the laws of logic there is a contradiction, does the claim no such contradiction is possible retain credibility? Is there a precedent in the scriptures of God giving and then subsequently removing a similar authority because it no longer was faithful to the deposit of revelation? It seems as though Adam,prophets,priests, kings, as well as the whole nation had keys that were handed off to another when apostasy and heresy from the deposit of faith were evident. Yet God always was faithful preserve his truth and a faithful remnant throughout redemptive history, not allowing the gates of hell prevail against the Israel of God. I would be bold to say the authority resides in the deposit, and ultimately the depositor. We thank the early church for recognizing and receiving that deposit and we implore you with all humility as fellow wild branches ourselves to repent and return to Christ. Your claims will not save you ichabod. Soli Deo Gloria.
Don said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:26 am
Jason,
I wrote my #747 before seeing your #745. I looked closely at the earliest quotes, and found little or nothing to answer my question. No mocking. I also ask without mocking: Do these quotes represent the “best efforts,” is this all the historical evidence that the RCC can provide?
I thought that maybe the article “That Christ established a Magisterium in the Church” might be something. But all that shows is that the church was given (some sort of) authority. No indication that the authority was apostolic, infallible, or based in an ecclesiastic hierarchy. The author seems to claim that the authority of the apostles’ teaching is contained in the church, rather than in the written record of what the apostles taught. But more to my immediate point, no scriptural or historical evidence is presented, that this authority should be concentrated to one particular bishop.
Bob S said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:10 am
515 Pete Holter
My concern here is that in the one case of creating division in the Body of Christ, I would be joining myself to something that is explicitly condemned by Scripture were I to follow after it; but in the other case of being subjected to an infallible hierarchy governed by a universal pastor, I would not be joining myself to something explicitly condemned by Scripture were I to follow after it. So my thought is, How could I choose to do the former as a way of objecting to the latter?
The chief way of creating division in the Body of Christ is preaching a false gospel. Any idea who might be doing that, in that the Reformers thought the pope was antiChrist because he denied justification by faith alone. As above, Luther would have put up with the pope if he preached the gospel. (Yeah, I know, that’s just my private interpretation. But the standard autopilot CtC accusation/assertion is not propaganda? Maybe Snow White could look in the mirror before she tells us that Cinderella wears army boots.)
Bob S. wrote, “Your position is that Christ approves of the Bishop of Rome of not only having universal jurisdiction, but also infallibility. That’s what needs to be proved. From Scripture alone if you want any ears here.”
What are your thoughts on the connections between Isaiah 22, Matthew 16, Revelation 1:18, and Revelation 3:7, and whatever other texts you may think are relevant? How do you put them all together?
Nope, all you got in your net is red herrings.
ADA could only find inspiration in 2 Tim. 3:15-17.
Sean could only add to that, profitability.
When they got called on it, ADA disappeared and Sean switched to the infallibility of history along with Bryan and JJS, all the while complaining ala Bryan in 469
(U)sing the “solo scriptura” paradigm to evaluate the papacy question presupposes the falsehood of the Catholic paradigm.
IOW this is the “It’s not fair” card. And so of course to be “fair”, we have had to drop the 2 Tim. 3:15-17 and the sufficiency of Scripture as the rule of faith and put up with, among other things, Sean and JJS chiding TF for taking all of ten minutes to dispose of ADA’s visible mystical body “argument”, which is sort of like arguing for a square circle. If Luther said Erasmus exegeted Scripture like a hog rooting for acorns, I dunno, but I think somebody wouldn’t know how to recognize a valid argument if it was hand delivered by little green men in a flying saucer.
Also, what do you think of Augustine’s thoughts on Peter as representative of all Christians in the universal church; and then of combining this with Peter’s role within the subset of the Apostles as Chief of the Apostles; and, finally, of what bearing this may have on our understanding of the hierarchy of the Church within the universal church? In other words, how might “Peter” manifest himself differently among the individual members of the Church, and, more specifically, among the individual members of the hierarchy?
This is to completely miss the point. Rome says that Peter is the Rock upon which the church is built. Augustine – the Early Church Father par excellente – not only explicitly denies that Peter is the Rock, but also explicitly affirms that Christ is the Rock upon which the church is built. Who are we going to believe? One cannot plead the name of Augustine and then suck a doctrine out of the pope’s thumb that denies what Augustine explicitly said. Unless you have a blind faith in holy mother Rome. Sermon XXVI, on Matt. xiv:25 and Homilies on John, Tract. CXXIV again below
But Romanism is a vicious, wicked and damnably blind fideism that glories in contradicting Scripture, reason and history.
With love in Christ,
Rather with love for the truth as it is in Christ and who is the truth in that without such a love and such a Christ, one cannot be saved.
Don said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:11 am
And finally, I also tried “That the New Testament ascribes primacy to Peter.” To claim that Peter is usually listed first and speaks the most among the apostles, at least up to the halfway point of Acts, is not really controversial or objectionable to noncatholics. The article readily admits that
but that’s supposed to be the sort of thing you’re trying to demonstrate, right?
dgh said,
August 3, 2012 at 6:29 am
Jason, my point was the one that others are making. Why not digest some of the arguments from CTC? And I also wonder why you are so dependent on CTC? When you were a 2ker you never relied so heavily on Horton, Clark, or me.
BTW, I get it that snark has been flying here. But you gotta understand that some of us are having a hard time believing that Roman Catholics still think the way that CTCers do. I have been around conservative Roman Catholics (who love the Latin rite) for the last decade and have never encountered the kind of closed system that Bryan and others promote. I also look at various RC websites and blogs, New Advent, Imaginative Conservative, Father Z, and I don’t see the kind of arguments about the magisterium, infallibility, etc., that I see at CTC. In other words, CTC seems like a fairly closed universe with a lot of arguments that would only make sense to guys who were once in Reformed circles. As one of my colleagues who is RC notes, Rome is not a confessional church and to expect it to be is to have the wrong expectation. It is a big tent theologically. What matters is the liturgy and the sacramental order.
I’m just saying.
johnbugay said,
August 3, 2012 at 6:38 am
DGH, this is their very own contribution to Roman Catholic dogma:
You won’t find that in unam sanctam or the documents of Trent. This is beauty of the system, the irrepressible logic that snared Jason Stellman and snared Jason Stellman and forced him to knuckle under.
It’s an irrepressible logic that permits you to dismiss any piece of evidence that your opponent presents as begging the question, and thus it enables you to avoid having to actually address evidence. It’s all quite air-tight.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 8:25 am
Morning, Gents!
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 8:30 am
dgh 714 (That is Babe Ruth’s HR total), I am not speaking for Bryan Cross or the Catholic Church. I am speaking as a lay Catholic. My view is that the Catholic convert does use his reason (as I did) but he uses it to reach a conclusive position on authority. From then on, he has the divine, living guidance of the Holy Spirit through Christ’s Church The Protestant uses his reason to reach a conclusion on any number of issues, but he also reserves the right to change his mind on any of these positions later. He is not using his reason to find an authority, he is acting as an authority himself.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 8:34 am
dgh 715 “lack of consensus” Anyone can disagree. When a Prot disagrees, he is just a Prot. When a Cat disagrees, he is not in harmony with Church teaching. It’s quite a different situation. As far as the clarity of Church teaching, I think it’s pretty clear and there is a living authority to answer any questions.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 8:35 am
Quick question for the Prots, who was the first Protestant? Wycliffe? Tertullian? Whoever you pick, why were there no Protestants between Jesus, the apostles and this person?
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 8:43 am
Also, if you like Christianity Today, take a look at Mark Galli’s piece called “The Confidence of the Evangelical.” I think the paradigm he describes there is clearly flawed, if for nothing else than the sole reason that he suggests that the Holy Spirit can lead the Church to constantly open and close various doctrinal issues throughout history. This makes no sense. See what I mean, if you have read it?
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 8:46 am
719 Turretin, when using something like Clement or Ignatious, you must ask yourself the question: Who is in a better position to know the true meaning of the apostles teaching, me reading a letter they wrote translated into English, or one of their personal disciples? That question was a big issue to me personally.
dgwired said,
August 3, 2012 at 8:52 am
Arnold, that’s easy. The first Protestant was Peter. He trusted in Christ not his office.
johnbugay said,
August 3, 2012 at 8:53 am
Arnold, don’t forget that the mere fact that you can read Clement and Ignatius (the real Ignatius, not the fake letters that seem to get quoted from time to time) is itself dependent upon a process of textual criticism.
I’m sure you would not appreciate living in a world where “pseudo”-anybody is taken for the true thing.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 8:53 am
727 Turretin papacy, yes the present papacy is clearly not obvious in the way it is exercised early on. Clement and Victor give some hints of it though. It’s a natural outgrowth from the seed of Peter’s blood at Rome and the need for a unifying point for the Church, as Christ prayed for unity. That is simply how the Church developed in real history, not our opinions. You do realize that all of this stuff really happened and the Catholic Church is here today as a witness to it?
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 8:58 am
730 Turretin, the visibility of the Church is a key to me. The early Church unambiguously saw itself as visible with a link to the apostles and catholic = universal, meaning NOT a sectarian group. The succession of bishops was visible history, not a hidden secret. No Christian could go start his own ‘communion’ and then be respected by the Church. That would be a joke.
Given that the Church is visible, it opens a pandora’s box and the Protestant is left with EO or Cat as options. The logic beyond that point is a bit more strained and complex. The visibility is a simple point that eliminates Prot as an option.
simpleelder said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:10 am
Arnold, 714
“From then on, he has the divine, living guidance of the Holy Spirit through Christ’s Church”
You see, that’s why you aren’t Trinitarian, but Quadrenian. The 4th member, the Holy Spirit, proceeds from your church. And where is your church in the Quadrenian? It is the 1st member of this 4 person deity.
Your priests pull the Son down from heaven all day long and sacrifice Him whenever they want. They have taken the Father’s place in the biblical Trinity.
Because you have a different god, you have a different religion than Christianity. This is why you cannot rely on the Scripture alone.
I would think the idolatry would smack you upside the head.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:11 am
dgh 751 I agree that CTC is presenting things in a different fashion than Catholics traditionally do. I think that’s fine. It’s for a certain audience who likes to read, obviously.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:12 am
As one of my colleagues who is RC notes, Rome is not a confessional church and to expect it to be is to have the wrong expectation. It is a big tent theologically. What matters is the liturgy and the sacramental order.
Daryl – That comment agrees with experiences I have had with a number of Catholics. I remember one RC telling me that whether a Roman Catholic is a fan of Hans Kung or Benedict XVI, every RC shares the same core assumptions on sacramental authority and liturgy. What this means to me is that when you become a Roman Catholic you have to decide what sort of Roman Catholic you want to be. The Roman Catholic world is very broad and you can believe all sorts of things as long as you hold to these core assumptions. One recent convert from Rome called Roman Catholicism “the Buddhism of the West” because of its ability to absorb such a great variety of beliefs and practices.
So the CtC folks have landed towards the conservative side of the very liberal to radical traditionalist RC continuum, but as you point out there is this curious philosophical bent at CtC that you don’t find with the average conservative leaning Roman Catholic. Bryan Cross is forever trying to find the philosophical silver bullet to kill the hideous Protestant beast, but I think that there are relatively few Protestants who will resonate with such arguments.
simpleelder said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:12 am
oops, Arnold, 754
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:14 am
752 bugay I think you’re being harsh on Jason. He made a very difficult, personal and public decision. I don’t see why you would bash him for being true to his conscience and attack his motives. He isn’t accusing you of being outside the Catholic communion because you have some psychological problem or something.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:17 am
763 simple I would have agreed at one time. But it occurred to me that the real presence was taught throughout the history of Christianity. Ignatius is clear in 107AD. It’s a shocker, but it’s the history of our Christian community.
johnbugay said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:19 am
Arnold 767, I am merely reiterating Jason’s own sentiment, to the effect that he fought the church, and the church won.
How is that bashing him?
When he makes such a public decision, he puts his motivations on the table and says, “discuss these”. I’m surprised he gets hurt feelings when people challenge him.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:19 am
759 dg, the first Protestant was Peter? What was he protesting at the time?
johnbugay said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:21 am
Arnold 768, you should check that Ignatius is actually talking about Docetism in 107 AD. It was the “real presence” of the actual man Jesus Christ who was crucified, resurrected and ascended that he is talking about; the Docetists were saying that the man who lived from 0 to 33 ad was not real.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:21 am
765 andrew, yes part of the Catholic Church in concept is that it draws together the Christian communion. This is what it has done through history and today. Catholic means universal. That is where the name came from, this is the Church that is not a narrow sect.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:23 am
The name Catholic came up when Christians needed to show they were different from the Gnostics. This happened in the first century. So they picked the name Catholic which means in Greek, OF THE WHOLE. Not a sect. The Catholic Church still stands. There is no discontinuity.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:25 am
771 bugay, good luck if you want to interpret the Church Fathers as not teaching the real presence. I really, really find it hard to do that.
johnbugay said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:28 am
good luck if you want to interpret the Church Fathers as not teaching the real presence.
This is absolutely not what I said. I do think you have a reading problem.
What I actually said was, Ignatius was talking about something different from what you claimed he was talking about.
simpleelder said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:28 am
Arnold, 762
“No Christian could go start his own ‘communion’ and then be respected by the Church.”
So not true.
Rome itself was started by believers other than apostles. How do we know this?
Men from Rome were saved on Pentecost (Acts 2:10). They did not die on the vine but went back to Rome and formed churches (i.e., Romans 16:3-5).
For Paul to have gone to Rome and build up those churches would have violated agreements previously made (Gal. 2:9). Paul refused to build on another man foundation, including another apostle (Romans 15:20; Romans 1:11). For Paul to write to the churches of Rome and not mention their founding apostle would have been incredibly rude and presumptuous. Why should the Romans fund his trip to Spain as the apostle Paul if they owe their allegiance to Peter? First, Paul would ask Peter’s permission and upon receiving it mention that first and foremost to the roman church. He wouldn’t go on his own without offending all. He would have cut off his nose to spite his face.
So your statement, “No Christian could go start his own ‘communion’ and then be respected by the Church” is proven wrong, in of all places, Rome.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:29 am
Don (747),
Some interesting thoughts. My observation is that THE one overarching argument for the papacy by the RC’s is based on sacramental succession. Once this is established the case is closed. I hope I’m not being unfair is this statement but I really don’t think I am. Once the Roman Catholic has come to the conviction that there is a God ordained apostolic link from Peter to the current Pope, the arguments as to what any given Father believed about the function and authority of the Bishop of Rome is, for all intents and purposes, of no consequence. That’s why all of the kinds of critiques you and other Protestants make here won’t have any resonance with the Catholics unless they are willing to question the base assumption about apostolic authority. Of course what we are trying to get them to question is something peculiar to Medieval and modern Roman Catholicism rather than something that was an evident presupposition of the ECF’s
Interesting observation on Tertullian’s assumption about the Roman See. That raises the question as to what exactly it means for the Church to be “holy.”
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:15 am
776 bugay, I know what you said. Ignatius is the first witness, but only one. Even if you are right in that case about docetism (I am sure scholars come down on both sides) I am just saying if you want to argue that nobody taught the real presence before 1500 then the Catholic Church and Orthodox made it up at that time, you have a tough case to make. Or you can try to say who made it up and when? Also a tough case. Or you can admit the Church Fathers believed the real presence but were all confused and you know better. Also a tough case. The easy case is to go with the flow of Christian history and presume that universal teachings through Christian history actually do come down from the apostles and ultimately from the Lord Jesus himself.
dghart said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:17 am
Arnold, oh, I don’t know, maybe Peter was objecting to the Jewish establishment that believed it had the visible representation of God’s covenant, though mind you the infallibility of the papacy got off to a rocky start with Peter who could never seem to get things right (despite flashes of brilliance).
As for CTC being for a select crowd, don’t let Bryan Cross know that. He thinks what he writes comes right from the charism of truth that hovers over the keyboard on the pope’s desk.
johnbugay said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:19 am
Arnold 779:
Not only did I not say this, but I also clarified in a second comment that I did not say this. And here you are warning me off of it again.
You have a reading problem. You should be careful to get your facts straight before warning someone off of a course of action.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:20 am
777 simple, you are not clear on what I mean by a communion. Yes, of course people started particular churches, that is the local manifestation of the universal (catholic) church. Obviously those came about in each city. But a different ‘communion’ such as the Lutheran Church, which is not in communion (does not share doctrines, administration, leadership, or the eucharist) is entirely another matter.
So I am saying the Church was visible in that no other communion could be established and be recognized by the Church as legit. Of course people could start particular Christian congregations within the catholic communion. They would do that and know they were subject to the apostles and would not disobey them. That is utterly different than another organization that would disobey them and even finds its identity in disobeying (protesting).
dghart said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:21 am
Andrew, agreed on the silver bullet, which means that CTC has appeal those Reformed Protestants of a philosophical bent who come to realize (contrary to expectations) that Protestants don’t agree and that we have no way to settle our disagreements.
The odd thing is that no communion has an effective means to settle their disagreements without that little lift provided by the magistrate’s sword. Since Rome and Willow Grove (OPC) both do not enjoy establishment status, we all have to live with a variety of opinions in our churches, discipline some, and see the disciplined walk to join another church down the street.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:21 am
In #747, Don asked if “perhaps someone can explain how a bishop exerting authority from a chair/throne is not in direct conflict with Luke 22:25-26.”
The episcopal thrones in Catholic dioceses around the world are not in direct conflict with Luke 22:25-26 because that passage does not mention thrones, it . However, a bishop exercising authority from a chair/throne is a fulfillment of what St. Luke wrote just a few verses latter, when he does mention thrones:
“And I dispose to you, as my Father has disposed to me, a kingdom; that you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
This promise is presently fulfilled in the celebration of the Eucharist in a Catholic diocese, whose pastor is the bishop.
Some here have asked for a summary of the case for the institution of the papacy, understood as the Petrine ministry perpetuated in the Church by means of an office established by Christ: The biblical basis for this understanding is quite clear: Our Lord’s words recorded in Matthew 16:18-19, like so much of his teaching, draws from the Scriptures of the Old Covenant, in this case Isaiah 22:15-25, in which a faithless minister is deposed, and a new steward is established as a “peg in a sure place.”
As others have noted, the binding and loosing referred to in Matthew 16 almost certainly refers to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the covenant community of God (though as still others have had occasion to note it is even more certain that the proper exercise of the keys is not limited to this). Understanding Isaiah 22 by Matthew 16 (the old being fulfilled in the new), the deposed Sobna corresponds to the Jewish hierarchy, while the power given to Eliakim (signified by vestments and the bestowing of the key of the house of David) corresponds to the establishment of the Christian hierarchy–the office of the papacy in particular.
The subsequent historical record demonstrates (after the manner of historical demonstration) that from Jerusalem and Antioch Peter went to Rome and fulfilled his ministry there, to the point of martyrdom. There is ample testimony in the early Church to this effect. The exercise of the specifically Petrine ministry in Rome (of course, since Peter was an apostle and a bishop, there is a sense in which all bishops, the successors of the apostles, exercise a kind of Petrine ministry in their respective sees) becomes more and more obvious over the course of time, though there are specific indicators of the peculiar nature of this See evident from the late 1st or early 2nd century (cf., the Petrine passage near the conclusion of John’s Gospel; Clement’s letter to the Corinthians).By the end of the second century, have have the witness of Irenaeus concerning the Roman Church and specifically the succession of bishops in the See of Rome.
From that point forward, before the growing estrangement of the Latin and Greek churches had become a definite schism, one finds manifold testimony in the Church Fathers concerning the unique authority of the Pope. Some of this evidence is presented in the aforementioned articles on CTC. But that is just a beginning point, as a meeting place between us (the CTC lot) and a particular subset of Reformed Christians (mainly those who represent, in one way or another, conservative micro-denominations in the US). More can be found in the books on the papacy listed on our Recommended Reading page.
The Church’s understanding and articulation of the nature and role of the Petrine office has of course developed over time. But the substance is there, from the beginning, when Christ established that ministry by giving the keys of the kingdom of heave (typified by the house of David) to St. Peter, backing up that gift with the promise: “whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
I don’t think that any of this is terribly difficult to perceive in Sacred Scripture, especially given the principle of historical fulfillment (discussed in one of our posts; i.e., that when Jesus makes a promise about what will happen, we can look to subsequent history, to what happened, to better understand the meaning of his promises; the life of the New Covenant is not hidden in a lock-box). It is, however, difficult to accept, as are all claims to authority, particularly divine authority. We, by nature children of wrath, prefer autonomy.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:39 am
Though if you visit a Catholic parish, you will find that there is a sense in which the New Covenant is hidden in a lock-box; i.e., the Blessed Sacrament reserved in the tabernacle. But I was referring to the visibility of the hierarchy by means of the tactile succession, and the growth of the Church as a fulfillment of the Parable of the Mustard Seed. Of course, there is an invisible grace at work in all of this, not by virtue of the worthiness of the visible ministers, but by the virtue and promise of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:40 am
780 dg of course CTC is a select crowd. I agree on that. I don’t think that has anything to do with the validity of the issues presented but the presentation style is not going to work for lots of people.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:42 am
also 780 dg, I think the definition of Protestant is protesting against the Christian establishment, not the Jewish establishment.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:44 am
781 bugay I didn’t say you said that, but I can only assume that you do not accept the doctrine of the real presence. You did attempt to say that Ignatius did not support the real presence.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:46 am
783 dg, you must admit there is a fundamental difference between a church leader who says “you should believe this but I could be wrong” versus one who says “I speak with the authority of Christ’s Church” quite similar to how Clement does in 96AD. People have free will, that isn’t relevant.
simpleelder said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:46 am
Andrew Preslar, 784
“And I dispose to you, as my Father has disposed to me, a kingdom; that you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel”
Let’s see. 12 apostles, 12 tribes of Israel. Yep, fits. Mat. 19:28 too.
Your version: 12 apostles = thousands of bishops. RCC = the 12 tribes of Israel. Doesn’t fit. Sorry. Language has meaning.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:48 am
784 andrew bravo
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:49 am
As an honest question, what do you guys think of these verses?
I can see how the Catholic and EO system would make sense of them with confession continuing since the apostles. How would a Protestant make sense of this? The gift of the Holy Spirit went away after John died and then no Church fathers commented on that fact?
John 20
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:52 am
anybody having chick fil a for lunch today?
TurretinFan said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:54 am
Arnold:
Ignatius did not teach (in any of his extant, authentic writings) the RC doctrine of the “real presence.” I’ve dealt with this position previously. You can listen to my Youtube clip on this, here:
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 11:16 am
see my 779 regarding real presence. You can have the Ignatius reference if you want, it still doesn’t help your case. nice job posting youtube, didn’t know you could do that.
TurretinFan said,
August 3, 2012 at 11:20 am
Arnold:
“You can have the Ignatius reference if you want, it still doesn’t help your case.”
Suppose that it turns out that there are zero fathers (from A.D. 33 – 325) whose writings actually teach the RC position on the real presence. Would that help my case?
-TurretinFan
simpleelder said,
August 3, 2012 at 11:23 am
Arnold 792
Arnold, did Jesus only breath on Peter? How many RCC priests were in the room when Jesus did this?
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 11:27 am
797 simple, interpret it however you want. I am asking for YOUR interpretation of that passage. Thank you.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 11:28 am
796 Turretin, what would really help your case is if you named the inventor of that doctrine and showed that prior to him the Fathers taught against the real presence. Ok?
simpleelder said,
August 3, 2012 at 11:29 am
Arnold 789
““I speak with the authority of Christ’s Church” quite similar to how Clement does in 96AD”
Prove it.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 11:31 am
Also, if you like Christianity Today, take a look at Mark Galli’s piece called “The Confidence of the Evangelical.” I think the paradigm he describes there is clearly flawed, if for nothing else than the sole reason that he suggests that the Holy Spirit can lead the Church to constantly open and close various doctrinal issues throughout history. This makes no sense. See what I mean, if you have read it?
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 11:34 am
800 simple, have you read it? in chapter 57 he says the dissenters are basically “outside the flock of Christ” and he says if you don’t listen to us you will be sorry later, in so many words. That is a lot different than saying “I could be wrong.”
TurretinFan said,
August 3, 2012 at 11:46 am
“796 Turretin, what would really help your case is if you named the inventor of that doctrine and showed that prior to him the Fathers taught against the real presence. Ok?”
How would you expect to find the Fathers teaching against a doctrine that hadn’t been invented yet? And why is it important to name and identify the inventor of the doctrine? Your expectations puzzle me.
Let me ask if we have common ground on this:
1. Rome today requires your “de fide” assent to doctrines about the Eucharist, including the doctrine that Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity are all present under each species after the consecration.
2. Not one Christian from the time of the apostles to A.D. 325 taught that the body, blood, soul, and divinity are all present under each species after the consecration.
Notice that (2) does not say that they all contradicted (1), just that they did not teach (1).
Do you agree with my (1) and (2)? Do those points help my case?
-TurretinFan
Nathan said,
August 3, 2012 at 11:54 am
Hello all,
Interesting discussion.
I’m the guy who thinks Jason should have seriously considered Lutheranism (http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/rc-convert-jason-stellmans-perception-of-lutheranism/), which Horton-Rosenbladt friendships notwithstanding, is a totally different animal. I confess Lutherans should probably should be challenging Reformed sacramental views in public more often, though when we do agree on some things, of course that is great.
Turretin fan @ 730:
“The argument hinges on, “Because the Church is a Body, “it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses.”” But this does not follow any more than “Because Christ is the Head, He must be something definite and perceptible to the senses.”
The first Lutherans did believe in a visible, indectable, and infallible church. Chemnitz and Gerhard spell this our clearly. Two of the keys are: size doesn’t matter, and those who are infallible don’t claim to be infallible. In a round of debate with Dave Armstrong (http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/round-2-with-rc-apologist-dave-armstrong-the-unattractive-body-of-christ/), I cover:
-history of old and new testament churches
-rule of faith
-justification
-nature of church
-indefectability
-infalliblilty
-”harmony” of tradition and scripture
-primary and secondary doctrines
Note also, that in the Lutheran Confessions, the Lutherans even concede that if the Papacy is what it claims to be by divine rite, it would not matter, since the papacy is wrong on justification (I pick up on this line of argument in a later round with: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/round-3-with-rc-apologist-dave-armstrong-a-few-good-pharisees/ )
Hope to check back here on Monday.
+Nathan
Andrew Preslar said,
August 3, 2012 at 11:59 am
In comment #790, simpleelder objected to my reading of Luke 22 (in #784) on the basis that “language has meaning” and that the thousands of Catholic bishops do not correspond numerically to the twelve apostles sitting on thrones judging the twelves tribes of Israel. I agree that language has meaning, but that meaning can extend beyond the literal to the spiritual sense of a text, as exemplified in standard Reformed readings of the OT promises to Israel. Numbers, in particular, often have a symbolic meaning. In this case, the meaning of “sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel,” to say nothing of the fact that the text does not refer to “twelve” thrones, cannot be restricted to the literal tribes of Israel, according to the flesh. Rather, the text is better understood as inclusive of the Church (“the Israel of God”), which is not restricted to Palestine, nor, in the course of history, is it restricted to twelve dioceses.
simpleelder said,
August 3, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Arnold 798: “simple, interpret it however you want. I am asking for YOUR interpretation of that passage [John 20:19-23]. Thank you.”
John 20:19-23 outlines how the resurrection is visible to three groups: To the Disciples, to the Church, and to the World. The Resurrection Was Made Visible to the Disciples in v. 19-22. Jesus tells them He’s sending them on a mission and that mission will be the same mission for which He came. Up until now he has been doing the mission and they’ve been tagging along But now he will personally pass on to them the continuation of His mission.
The only logical thought here is that since they will be continuing his mission, they too will probably die. How then will they show the resurrection? They will need help enablement power which is where v. 22 comes in. The breathing on them is to make visible something that’s invisible. In some special way Jesus is imparting to them His Spirit – the divine power that he always had to accomplish the Father’s mission to them. And they receive the Holy Spirit right there. They are not just now getting saved, nor is this the first baptism of the H.S. with a 2nd baptism in Acts 2 Pentecost. Nothing here says baptism, and the context is one of them doing ministry.
The RCC sees this as creating a priesthood who has the authority to forgive or retain sins. But there is nothing about a special class of Christians here. Cleopas and others were there. Probably even women were there serving the men, and Thomas is gone and he’s an apostle. What Jesus is doing is making visible the results of the cross and the meaning of the Resurrection.
The apostolic mission will be to make the results of the resurrection visible to the future Church (John 20:23a) If someone’s sins are forgiven they become a part of the church in this world And the promise here is that these sins stay forgiven “If you (all) forgive sins … they stand forgiven” – the idea being completely and permanently they are forgiven by God That’s the authority of the Church in the world The Church, and the church alone, has authority to forgive sins. But only inasmuch as it submits to the Word of God. God alone forgives a man or woman all their sins, right? But how is a man or woman to know that? Candles?, priests, religious clothes, Daily church services, Wearing a big crosses around the neck? Only the Word of God. For example: Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, It’s the church alone that believes that word that preaches that word These apostles will become the custodians of God’s Word after Christ is gone and some of them will used to write the Word of God and dealing with the most important issues that can face men and women: forgiveness of sin. This is what the church is all about: the Remission of Sins, The Forgiveness of sins based squarely on the resurrection.
Next is making the Resurrection Visible to the World (23b). Frankly, this is a word of judgment. It implies that the church is to make a clear distinction between those who are forgiven, and those who aren’t. The church is placed in the world to preach the good news of the forgiveness of sins But when the world rejects that message the church rejects the world.
Jesus doesn’t use the word, “FORGIVE” here, but the word for HOLD FAST HOLD TIGHTLY. It’s a picture of loosing and holding literally, of Jesus’ followers holding peoples sins up against them This makes the resurrection visible. Just a person who trusts in Christ receives the forgiveness of sins, and everything in life becomes new, and Christ’s words becomes the central part of all of life, so too a person who rejects the forgiveness of sins has nothing become new and Christ’s words have no more authority than any other words.
The church of Jesus Christ refuses such a person entrance to the church and bars him or her from God’s blessings, offers no hope of eternal life and forgiveness unless the person repents and trusts in Christ. That act in words and deeds, is judgment severe. And that’s the same as the mission of Christ in this world. To proclaim forgiveness of sins, and impending judgment.
In our church, we practice Mat. 18:15-20 in order to make the resurrection visible. Your church does not and thus the resurrection is not visible in the RCC church.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 12:12 pm
803 Turr, 1 is okay but 2 is not. We are facing a historical problem of a church under persecution and an oral culture. So the best we can do is look at what the universal beliefs of the church are as explicitly laid out later in time and then read them back into the early decades of the Church. For instance, if a belief is universal within Christendom in 150AD or 250AD, then it’s a fair bet that it was the apostles teaching. The bet that it was contrary to their teaching is a tougher case. That is the Protestant case.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 12:17 pm
805 simple I appreciate your interpretation. I do not see how you solve the issue of Jesus’ mission carrying on after the apostles die? Also, how did the Catholic Church and Orthodox and Anglicans come up with this doctrine of confession? Who made it up and when? Or is it just possible that it was actually practiced all the way back to the apostles?
Andrew McCallum said,
August 3, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Daryl said (783):
Andrew, agreed on the silver bullet, which means that CTC has appeal those Reformed Protestants of a philosophical bent who come to realize (contrary to expectations) that Protestants don’t agree and that we have no way to settle our disagreements.
Daryl – Here I think you get at two very important reasons why some of these Reformed guys move to Rome: 1) they become enamored with certain philosophical concepts of unity, and 2) they have some sort of crisis with respect to doctrinal disagreements either within their denomination or between theirs and another denomination. For 99+% of Reformed folks we are not troubled with divisions between the Reformed or even between Reformed and generic Evangelical. We appeal to the Scriptures with full knowledge that God can and does break down such divisions by His Spirit acting through His Word. And this is the philosophy that seems to me to predominate in the Early Church. These early theologians just hammered on God’s Word over and over and let God do his work through the churches. Sometimes unity was achieved and sometimes it was not. But such divisions seem to me more than what the Reformed turned Catholic friends can stand. It just bugs them incessantly to such an extent that they begin looking for alternatives.
And yes, it was just so convenient in the good ‘ole days of the Inquisition when ecclesiastical authorities did not have to worry about convincing heretics that they were heretics. But of course the Protestants did not always get it right either in this regards.
simpleelder said,
August 3, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Arnold 807
“805 simple I appreciate your interpretation. I do not see how you solve the issue of Jesus’ mission carrying on after the apostles die? Also, how did the Catholic Church and Orthodox and Anglicans come up with this doctrine of confession? Who made it up and when? Or is it just possible that it was actually practiced all the way back to the apostles?”
The apostles planted churches and taught them how to obey Mat. 18:15-20, something the RCC cannot do. See 1 Cor 5.
James, 1/2 brother of Jesus and apostle, taught Christians to confess their sins to “one another” – not to a special class of Christians, as you believe. (James 5:16).
The devil sows false doctrine at the same speed he sows false brethren.
sean said,
August 3, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Arnold (792)
There isn’t a protestant here, who knows his faith, who does NOT believe in apostolic authority. We all give elevated and particular, dogma determining and adjudicating deference to their infallible writings. What we don’t find warrant for in the canon is apostolic succession in the particular papal and magisterial form that Rome claims. We have an infallible canonical authority NOT an infallible magisterial authority.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 12:56 pm
809 simple, please don’t think the historical Church was unaware of the book of James. You did not posit any solution to the issue of how confession emerged or how Jesus’ mission was to carry on after the death of the apostles.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 12:58 pm
810 sean, please explain to me why you draw a hard and fast line around the 27 book NT canon? Thanks.
simpleelder said,
August 3, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Arnold 802
“800 simple, have you read it? in chapter 57 he says the dissenters are basically “outside the flock of Christ” and he says if you don’t listen to us you will be sorry later, in so many words. That is a lot different than saying “I could be wrong.”
You are making this up.
simpleelder said,
August 3, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Arnold 811
“809 simple, please don’t think the historical Church was unaware of the book of James. You did not posit any solution to the issue of how confession emerged or how Jesus’ mission was to carry on after the death of the apostles.”
Why should i trace out the source of the devil’s doctrines?
Go back and read 809 for how Jesus’ mission carries on today.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 3, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Andrew M. and DG,
Ya’ll’s psychoanalysis of “some of these Reformed guys” is a bit too smug and easy, not to mention reductive. All of the Reformed to Rome guys that I know were deeply immersed in the Bible during their inquiries into the Catholic claims. Those claims are, in fact, supported by Scripture, as can be understood on the basis of personal interpretation of the texts, particularly when these texts are read according to St. Augustine’s (I think it was he) principle that the New is hidden in the Old, and the Old is revealed in the New. Of course, your (Andrew M.’s or DG’s) personal interpretation of Scripture might differ significantly from my own as regards this matter (and other essential matters), and there might be small practical possibility of resolving these exegetical differences if we refuse to address other relevant differences (e.g., philosophical and hermeneutical). But please don’t mistake the effort to address the latter for some sort of despair over the possibility of becoming convinced of the Catholic position through personal study of Scripture. Of course, to delve into the pysche a bit on my grounds, many Reformed folk that I know are far too blinded by their own tradition, their love of autonomy, and their deep-seeded prejudice against the Catholic Church to honestly inquire into what Sacred Scripture might show us concerning the nature and identity of the Church. For these reasons, among other more benign reasons, we disagree about the meaning of Scripture as regards the Church (and a number of other essential matters). But this disagreement does not entail that the truth is not present (objectively) in the texts themselves. It only implies that we have other issues to work through, besides exegetical ones, before we can arrive at unity in the truth.
Best to you,
Andrew P.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 1:12 pm
813 simple I am not making anything up. Have you read it? If not, go get it online.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 1:17 pm
814 simple you must wonder how the CHRISTIAN Church universally held the doctrine and practice of confession, based on John 20 for century after century. Odd, isn’t it?
simpleelder said,
August 3, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Arnold 813
“813 simple I am not making anything up. Have you read it? If not, go get it online”
Not only have I read it, but I quoted relevant parts of it to you in post 638. I have also translated a fair part of it from the Koine into English.
Like I said, you’re making it up.
simpleelder said,
August 3, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Arnold 817
“814 simple you must wonder how the CHRISTIAN Church universally held the doctrine and practice of confession, based on John 20 for century after century. Odd, isn’t it?”
It isn’t odd at all.
The Apostle Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, instructed Timothy on how to interpret church history going forward….
“But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come:
For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.”
Paul’s point is that “such men” will mark church history as it’s leaders (2 Tim. 3:7). “Such men” profess faith in Christ and lead churches. “Such men” are unbelievers and destined for doom (1 Peter 2:8).
By AD 63 the churches on Crete were upwards of 30 years old (Acts 2:11). As such we might suspect they were somewhat mature. Yet the apostolic judgment is that their”many” leaders are completely corrupt (Titus 1:10).
By AD 95 the churches of Western Turkey were almost entirely apostate. The apostle John’s letter from Christ to 7 churches reveals on 2 of them were pleasing Him without reproach, or less than 30%. And these churches were under the oversight of apostles.
Given Crete’s need for total reformation, Paul’s inspired teaching on future apostasy, and John’s delineation of present apostasy, why would anyone expect a positive doctrinal trajectory through church history unless their goal was to reject Scripture and exalt the doctrines of men?
Constantine said,
August 3, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Andrew @ 784 writes, thusly:
“The biblical basis for this understanding is quite clear: Our Lord’s words recorded in Matthew 16:18-19, like so much of his teaching, draws from the Scriptures of the Old Covenant, in this case Isaiah 22:15-25, in which a faithless minister is deposed, and a new steward is established as a “peg in a sure place.”
Therein he falls into the trap set by his very own sect. And that trap is to rely on a private, individual interpretation of any Scripture.
The Tridentine Creed of Pope St. Pius IV says,
Constantine said,
August 3, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Oops. I fat fingered the blockquote marker in my previous post. Apologies.
sean said,
August 3, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Arnold (812)
I’m not even going to try to improve upon the ways and wherefores this has already been articulated in this thread. It’s there for the perusal as well as links and references to more lengthy treatments. I will give you this as a rule of thumb, if you will; The canon gave birth to the church, more specifically the God-breathed words(inspiration, beyond just being inspired) birthed the canon which gave form and prescription for the church. The canon is self-attesting to it’s authority and has a testator in the Incarnate Word, Jesus himself. The roman church, as form and magisterium, did not give us the canon and the better of their lights grant that all the church has done is receive/affirm their divine authority.
Constantine said,
August 3, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Arnold @ 621 writes,
” Can we name any educated Catholic scholars that have become Protestants at all?”
Sure. Richard Bennett (former Dominican priest); in fact Bennett has written a book chronicling the conversion of more than 50 Catholic priests; William Webster is another. And the list could be greatly expanded I’m sure.
But the more interesting question, given especially the “superior” “Interpretive Paradigm” of Rome, is why haven’t more educated scholars endorsed Rome?
Peace.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:15 pm
simple, here you go
1Clem 57:2
Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the arrogant and proud
stubbornness of your tongue. For it is better for you to be found
little in the flock of Christ and to have your name on God’s roll,
than to be had in exceeding honor and yet be cast out from the hope
of Him.
1Clem 58:2
Receive our counsel, and ye shall have no occasion of regret. For as
God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit,
who are the faith and the hope of the elect, so surely shall he, who
with lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness hath without
regretfulness performed the ordinances and commandments that are
given by God, be enrolled and have a name among the number of them
that are saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory unto
Him for ever and ever. Amen.
1Clem 59:1
But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken
by Him through us, let them understand that they will entangle
themselves in no slight transgression and danger;
1Clem 63:2
For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience
unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out
the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty
which we have made for peace and concord in this letter.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Andrew P (re 815),
I honestly am not trying to play psychologist with the Reformed turned Catholic folks. I don’t want to ascribe some sort of psychological condition to these converts. But I’m genuinely interested in why they convert. So I read the stories at CtC like the latest one from Joshua Lim. This seems to me to be representative of the kind of stories the converts to Rome tell. Joshua speaks of coming to the Reformed community and being concerned with “the in-fighting typical of Reformed denominations.” Such differences, says Joshua, lead him to have suspicions and doubts (think those are his exact terms) that eventually are resolved by coming to Rome. In the accounts of those like Joshua’s, it’s often the divisions within the Reformed community that create these doubts. But like I was saying, 99+% of the Reformed community live with these differences without the concerns that Joshua expresses. We are no less immersed in Scriptures and tradition than those who have the doubts. So why does this small group of folks convert? The answer is not obvious, at least not to me. My first observation as I related it to Daryl was to just note that these converts are perturbed by these divisions to the point of leaving for Rome. And then secondly I noted that oftentimes these converts become, or perhaps already were, drawn to certain philosophical concepts. This is quite clear from reading Joshua’s account. As they touch on matters of unity, I would call these Neoplatonic tendencies although I grant that this is a little simplistic.
My plea to those considering leaving for Rome is to consider the challenge of the very earliest of Christians who sought to determine orthodoxy without the help of any hierarchically organized ecclesiastical organization. They utilized the Scriptures to do the work that today Rome would look to the authority of the Magisterium to accomplish. This is not to say that conservative RC’s are not conversant with the Scriptures, only that Scriptures functioned in a different way for these early Christians.
jsm52 said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Addison Hart, brother of Anglican Robert Hart and Orthodox David Hart, has recently (2011) left the RCC and returned to the Anglican fold. Here are his words as to that decision. He was of the “Protestant” persuasion of Anglicanism and, like his brothers, theological well educated:
Second, as an Anglican priest who, with high ideals but considerably lower savvy, “poped” back in 1997, all I can say to those who may be thinking likewise is this: Unless you know in your heart you can believe in such super-added dogmas as papal supremacy and infallibility (very late inventions), that Jesus did not need to possess “faith” during his earthly years (to which I respond, was he or was he not fully human?), and that the bread and wine physically change into his body and blood during the Eucharist without any palpable evidence of it; unless you can believe in Mary’s “Immaculate Conception” (an unnecessary and unverifiable belief, if ever there was one), her bodily assumption, and so on, then I would urge you to stay put. You already have everything you need, and, what Rome would add to you, you not only do not need, but should positively avoid weighing yourselves down with. Anglicanism is doctrinally sound and blessed with great forms of worship. Rome is neither. As for Rome’s claims to a vastly superior moral authority — well, I would venture to say that after such revelations as clerical sexual abuse on an international scale and their bank’s money-laundering, the lie has been put to that.
No, don’t make my mistake. I wouldn’t make it again myself, and, as it is, I’m making my way out the Roman door. The Continuum
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:20 pm
simple 819, since you are convinced of the absolute corruption of Christ’s followers, what makes you so sure the New Testament is a faithful account at all, and was copied faithfully by evil men century after century?
Andrew Preslar said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Constantine (#820),
The injunction not to “interpret them (the Scriptures) otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers” does not preclude personal interpretation of Scripture. “Otherwise” does not mean that no exegetical insights, additional to the insights found in the Fathers’ interpretation of Scripture (these vary somewhat, it method, quality, and content) can be gleaned by Bible by post-patristic scholars or even folks like you and I. It simply means that where there is a unanimous consent of the Fathers on a point of doctrine, it is illicit to interpret the text in such a way that contradicts that doctrine. (This is a fundamental hermeneutical difference between Catholics and Protestants that needs to be addressed in its own right.)
The unanimous consent of the Fathers can be established on several points, including some that have direct, exegetical consequences for Catholics (e.g., the exception clause in one instance of Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce cannot be interpreted as permitting an absolute divorce, because this would go against the unanimous consent of the Fathers on the possibility of absolute divorce). But even on these points, where dogma has been established, the word of God remains unexhausted in its depth and significance. So we continue to read and interpret the Bible, with the Fathers and the Magisterium of all ages (up to and including today), to great profit, both personal and ecclesial. Pope Benedict XVI has recently taught on this matter, i.e., personal interpretation in relation to the Church’s teaching, at some length in the document Verbum Domini.
In any event, I was not a Catholic, and was largely uninformed by specifically Catholic hermeneutics (including the role of tradition in biblical interpretation), when my reading of Sacred Scripture convinced me that that text, taken as whole, pointed to the Catholic Church as the present, visible form of the Kingdom of God, the Israel of God, the Body of Christ. Those hermeneutical principles peculiar to Catholicism have only deepened, they have not replaced, my personal reading of Scripture. This is true in several respects, including: (1) now the doctrine that I hold is not ultimately dependent upon my own best exegetical efforts; (2) because of the nature, unity, and continuity of the Church of the New Covenant in her life through time, reading the Bible in the light of the Fathers, the Magisterium, and the other monuments of Tradition (e.g., the Liturgy) is actually to read it in its proper context; (3) I now have a greater sensitivity to, and appreciation of, biblical typology, which is not at the mercy of a free-for-all whimsy, not even my own best guesses, but is informed and guided by the Tradition of the Church, which leads to a greater understanding and appreciation of the spiritual sense of the text (per my second point).
So what you see as restrictive, re the Church Fathers and personal interpretation, apart from your deeply implausible understanding of the implications of the hermeneutical rule, is actually liberating–a step forward into the spacious and enlightened country that is the Catholic Tradition.
Andrew
Jeff Cagle said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Arnold (#757): Who was the first Protestant? Jesus, at least — who protested against being bound by traditions of men that nullified the Word of God.
The point of Protestantism is doctrinal continuity with the Scriptures. That’s why the door is open for revision of creeds subject to Scriptural argument.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:22 pm
822 sean okay so I view the Epistle of Barnabas as canon-worthy as I see it self-authenticating itself. And I am tossing out 3 John as I see that as a forgery. SO I have 27 book NT also. Is that okay with you? If not, why not?
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:26 pm
823 Const thank you. I now recall seeing Bennett on youtube once. He was ranting about how the Albigensiens kept a true line of Christianity all throughout history. Nice one!
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:29 pm
andrew 825 are you positing sola scriptura for the early church? If so, why do you think it got abandoned so soon, only to be rediscovered fifteen centuries later with the printing press? And why did it take several hundred years to draw lines around the NT canon? It would seem that would be of utmost importance for sola scriptura, given that it’s the basis of sola scriptura.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Andrew M. (re #825),
Your last paragraph assumes something that you have not demonstrated, nor even offered a persuasive argument based upon available data, about how the early Church established doctrinal orthodoxy. Not only that, what you propose flies in the face of evidence that we do have from the early Church, from the Jerusalem Council, to St. Irenaeus and his appeal to Rome (the succession in particular), to the First Council of Nicea.
Your first paragraph is curious. If you are wondering why folks such as the CTC folk left a particular Reformed micro-denomination, and/or the Protestant religion itself, for the Catholic Church, all you have to do is ask. I gave a summary of one of my reasons, in this case based upon personal interpretation of the Bible, in comment #784.
Andrew P.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:30 pm
i meant andrew 826
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:32 pm
827 anglicanism doctrinally sound? is that supposed to be a laugh line?
Jeff Cagle said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Arnold (#682): I think you have all your doctrinal eggs in one basket. The “infallibility” of the faith that you profess is only as good as the infallibility of your knowledge that you have found (a) the true Church, that (b) does indeed have infallible teaching.
If either of those propositions has uncertainty, that uncertainty propagates to all of your doctrine.
The Protestant, by contrast, has a mutually supporting web of Scripture that supports his beliefs. If one belief is shown to be wrong (and despite RC representations, Protestants do not believe themselves infallible. They are not “little popes.”) — if one belief is shown to be wrong, then his entire structure does not crumble. It needs merely to be refined and adjusted, or in the case of more foundational changes, rearranged.
Consider: What would happen if, hypothetically, you came to believe that the RC church is not the true Church that Christ founded; or that, even if it is, its claims of infallibility are overblown.
What happens now to your beliefs concerning Mary? Concerning the Eucharist? Concerning the Trinity?
None of those rest on your reading of Scripture, for you have already professed that you receive the Church’s reading of Scripture and not your own.
If the Church’s reading of Scripture is undermined in your eyes, the whole edifice is gone in one stroke — unless you can, quick, shore it up with “what the Bible teaches.” That is, unless you begin to accept the task of reading Scripture and understanding it, rather than delegating the task of understanding to the Magisterium.
It is for this precise reason that students are required to make arguments with multiple lines of support and not merely one. A single line of support (“because the Church says so”) becomes a single point of failure.
And since you don’t have an infallible case for the RC church being (a) true and (b) infallible, you must admit that failure is hypothetically possible.
jsm52 said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Arnold,
“827 anglicanism doctrinally sound? is that supposed to be a laugh line?”
You’re embarrassing yourself with your flippancy.
The Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are the doctrinal confession of the Church of England and also of many other Anglican jurisdictions. Those Articles are reformed in doctrine and were the original starting point (along with the more extensive Irish Articles) for the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:51 pm
830 Jeff, doctrinal continuity leaves an open question of doctrine. The best we have is REAL continuity through ordination and a unified communion centered at Rome. A doctrine you like may not be liked by your Prot neighbor while he agrees with you on everything else. So in that case who has doctrinal continuity?
sean said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Arnold (831)
Apostolic authority.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:58 pm
837 Jeff you are into general epistemology now which is not really relevant here. The Catholic Church has always had Scripture. Your church didn’t exist until some point over a millenium after Jesus (talk about a ‘late development’). There are thousands of churches claiming to have the one true interpretation of Scripture. One of them has been around since the time of Jesus, the others have not. That does help. If you want to list things that ALL Protestants agree upon, your list will be quite short. Then you may want another criterion instead like 90% of Protestants believe this…so that validates that it’s a biblical view? Well guess what, anything in that 90 or 80% group is going to be shared with the Catholic Church essentially.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 2:59 pm
840 sean, apostolic authority? What happened to self-authentication? Apostolic authority is the basis of the Catholic Church, did you forget?
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:01 pm
838 I couldn’t resist that one, sorry. I mean, have you noticed that Anglicans have been literally changing their doctrines openly in the last ten years or so?
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:02 pm
not to mention the 1930 lambeth conference
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:07 pm
here are a few things that will definitely NOT meet the 90% of Prots agree on this test: free will vs. predestination, many moral issues, literal resurrection, etc.
jsm52 said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Arnold
You might not want to start in with listing the failings of Anglicanism in light of Addison Hart’s list of the sins, unbiblical doctrines and practices of the Roman church.
It’s quite telling that even Anglicanism, with its weaknesses, looks good when compared to Romanism.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:14 pm
846 jsm, anglicanism is openly changing doctrines, repeatedly. That is something the Catholic Church has not ever done, if you want to talk about ‘sound doctrine.’ A doctrine cannot be sound if it might be changed next year. Of course Catholics have fallen short on a personal level.
jsm52 said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:19 pm
There are many faithful churches within Anglicanism that have not veered from its reformed roots, confession and practice. Again, you’re more interested in scoring points that being accurate.
Shall we list the many different beliefs and practices held within the Roman church? Your a big tent religion. Join us. Come under the umbrella of the Papal office and the Mass and we don’t much care what you believe or practice… except at CtC, the new voice of Rome.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Arnold (#841): Jesus did indeed found a church. Whether that church is, in fact, the RC church is the question on the table.
We agree that you must use your own reason to evaluate that question, correct?
And we further agree that your reason is not infallible, correct?
It therefore follows that your belief that the RC church *is* the church that Christ founded is not infallible.
And then the rest of my comment above comes into play.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:25 pm
jsm are there any anglican churches left who reject the changes from the 1930 Lambeth conference? I don’t think so.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:26 pm
849 Jeff, Jesus DID found a church? Oh okay, which one it is in your view?
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:28 pm
849 Jeff, let’s say it’s 66AD and you are in Rome. You can join the Church that Peter is running, or a startup gnostic group that is new. Do you have to use your reason to join Peter in that case? If so, then yes.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Arnold (#839): 830 Jeff, doctrinal continuity leaves an open question of doctrine. The best we have is REAL continuity through ordination and a unified communion centered at Rome.
It is interesting that you consider doctrinal continuity unreal, while continuity located in a person to be REAL.
And I don’t mean that flippantly — not “iiinnteresting”, but “interesting”, of note, opening a new dimension on the discussion. It caught my eye.
Could it be that one of the core heart assumptions of the Prot –> Catholic converts is that the invisible work of God is unreal, “Gnostic”; while visible and demonstrable is REAL?
Of course, Jason doesn’t quite fit that paradigm, if I read his book correctly. But still, what you wrote was very striking, Arnold.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Jeff, in general epistemology, we all admit we are not omniscient so yes, failure is possible. We are not really talking about that topic.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:31 pm
simple, no response about Clement?
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:34 pm
I still don’t have anyone giving me an alternative origin of the real presence or confession. If these are not apostolic doctrines, let’s see where they came from and how they swept across Christendom. Any takers?
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:37 pm
or apostolic succession for that matter, which is a totally logical doctrine unless you think John thought that his ministry was about to die out when he died.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Arnold (#851): 849 Jeff, Jesus DID found a church? Oh okay, which one it is in your view?
2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
3. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.
4. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
5. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.
6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
dghart said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Arnold, your wrote: “783 dg, you must admit there is a fundamental difference between a church leader who says “you should believe this but I could be wrong” versus one who says “I speak with the authority of Christ’s Church” quite similar to how Clement does in 96AD. People have free will, that isn’t relevant.”
You seem to think that authority to be authoritative must be without error. But fathers and husbands live without infallibility all the time and still expect submission from wives and children. So just because father’s aren’t infallible doesn’t mean they lack authority. Same goes for my church counsels.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Arnold (#854): The topic is whether or not it is reasonable for a Catholic to accept the claim that Church interpretation of Scripture is infallible.
My point is that it is *risky* for a Catholic to do so, because his doctrine — perhaps his soul — hangs on his judgment that the Catholic church is (a) the true Church, and (b) infallible. If there is a failure at either of these points, then his entire system is blown.
That seems quite on topic to me, so I’m confused about where you’re at.
jsm52 said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Arnold,
So, the use of birth control in limited circumstances (Lambeth 1930) is now the proof of a failed Christianity? Perhaps the doctrine of the celibacy of Roman priests and the sexual abuse scandals are the proof of a failed Roman Catholicism?
By the way, some surveys show that as high as 98 percent of sexually active American Catholic women practice birth control, and 78 percent of Catholics think a “good Catholic” can reject the bishops’ teaching on birth control. Even if the percentages are somewhat lower, does that indicate a failed church?
All this points to a Church that has set doctrines which are routinely ignored by most Roman Catholics, and too many priests.
But I’ll end here. This is way off topic.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:55 pm
860 Jeff you retain the possibility for error so I don’t see how you win on that one.
Arnold said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:56 pm
can we get to 1,000!? LET’S GO
sean said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Arnold (842)
Apostolic authority of the original apostles is a christian principle. Rome claims apostolic authority beyond the original apostles, through apostolic succession.
We(prot) deny
Sean Moore
Jeff Cagle said,
August 3, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Arnold (#852): Yes. And further, God expects of the believer that he will exercise reason in order to remain in obedience to His commands.
Consider Deut. 13.
“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. — Deut 13.1 – 5
The commands of God trump the authority of the prophet and his signs and wonders that authenticate that authority.
Paul indicates the same in Galatians: …even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Gal. 1.8 – 9.
The truth of the Gospel trumps the authority of Paul and of angels.
God expects the believer to adhere to His Word more closely than to prophet, apostle, or angel.
But His expectation is subverted if a man — say, Peter (though he did not) — were to say, “Regardless of what you believe Scripture says, I am the interpreter of Scripture. My interpretation is the correct one, and you must obey it even if you believe the Scripture says otherwise.”
Such a procedure is a clear usurpation of the authority of Scripture. It makes the words of Scripture to be of no effect.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 3, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Arnold (#862):
860 Jeff you retain the possibility for error so I don’t see how you win on that one.
It’s an asymmetric argument, so I don’t have to win on your terms (nor you on mine). I’m not particularly troubled by the possibility of error. In fact, I assume that I will have an imperfect understanding of Scripture.
And that’s where the rightful place of church authority comes into play. The decrees of the church are the collective wisdom of the presbyters making those decrees. To the extent that they are consonant with Scripture, they are to be received with reverence and submission.
simpleelder said,
August 3, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Arnold,
I accused you of making up Clement of Rome writing to the church of the Corinthians what you claim: any personal authority in ecclesiastical matters.
I still say you are making it up.
In 802 you write Clement “says if you don’t listen to us you will be sorry later, in so many words.”
Yet at the beginning of chapter 57 he calls on those who has previously cast out the elders in Corinth to go back and submit to them: “submit yourselves to the elders” (57:1). He never says or intimates in any way they are accountable in any ecclesiastical way to him, and this is the very heart of your claim. Clement stands as a proof document for eldership polity, the very kind commanded by Paul on Crete – Titus 1:5.
Actually, the closest thing he writes to what you said in 802 is 63:2: “if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” But his words have no difference in meaning than me writing to you to obey Scripture. And every time Clement does appeal to authority, it is Scripture. He was a sola Scriptura man.
So when you wrote that Clement “says if you don’t listen to us you will be sorry later, in so many words,” claiming to himself in any sense ecclesiastical authority.
You are, in fact, making it up.
Burton said,
August 3, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Turretinfan (#545, 449),
Long delay – life intervenes.
I want to try summarize several points you have made in our discussion in an effort to understand what seems to me to be obvious discordance in your line of reasoning. I may be misunderstanding you.
(a) the purpose of defining heresy and orthodoxy is, among other things, to remove heresy from the church, bring a straying church member back into the fold, educate the church regarding the difference between heresy and orthodoxy
(b) conciliar judgements regarding heresy and orthodoxy (and presumably the judgements of any General Assembly or session) define true doctrine rightly if they are judging wisely and not foolishly
(c) the “Berean principle” is used to determine which council or assembly or session has judged wisely and which has not
(d) it is the responsibility of each Christian to use the Berean principle to judge the wisdom of councils, etc, and therefore to determine the true definition of heresy and orthodoxy
If I have accurately summarized your argument, then how does a council or body of elders bring a straying sheep back into the fold if it is up to the sheep to decide if the elders have judged wisely or foolishly? If the elders or bishops in council are rightly charged with ridding the church of heresy, but each member can and should judge the elders’ or bishops’ definition according to their own understanding of Scripture, then how in practical terms that can be understood by the flock (and is binding on them) will the church rid herself of heretical doctrine?
Burton
Andrew McCallum said,
August 3, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Andrew P (834),
Your last paragraph assumes something that you have not demonstrated, nor even offered a persuasive argument based upon available data, about how the early Church established doctrinal orthodoxy. Not only that, what you propose flies in the face of evidence that we do have from the early Church, from the Jerusalem Council, to St. Irenaeus and his appeal to Rome (the succession in particular), to the First Council of Nicea.
I’m not trying to prove it here. I’ve spent many pages on CTC and elsewhere doing some of that, but not here. I’m trying to point to what I see as a central point of the debate over authority. As an infallible standard, the Early Church theologians do not point to a papacy, nor do they appeal an infallible ecclesiastical authority. They do appeal to Scripture. Again and again and again. So for example when Athanasius tries convince the Arians they are wrong he declares that they have twisted the plain meaning of Scripture. The appeal to an infallible Scripture (not an infallible Church) is characteristic of this area. That’s my point, but I’m hardly doing an exhaustive treatment of the subject. Hopefully the RC’s pick up on this and try to figure out if Athanasius’ approach here is typical.
Your first paragraph is curious. If you are wondering why folks such as the CTC folk left a particular Reformed micro-denomination, and/or the Protestant religion itself, for the Catholic Church, all you have to do is ask.
Well as you know I’ve done a lot of asking. But oftentimes behind the answers there are assumptions that just don’t come out easily. Joshua Lim for instance talked lots about his consternation over divisions within the Reformed communities, but he did not tell us why we Reformed should consider these to be problems. That’s the curious part. From our standpoint the divisions over doctrine in the Reformed communities are just the typical kind of thing that the Church has always dealt with. And IMO there is not that much difference in the Reformed confessions. This is why I often ask the Catholic turned Reformed folks exactly how much difference there is between WCF, Heidelberg, Canons of Dort, etc. And I never seem to get much of an answer when I ask.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 3, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Andrew M.,
Of the course the Fathers appealed to Sacred Scripture. So did their opponents. So do I. But the reason that we call the former “Fathers” and the latter “heretics” is that the former did not rest on their exegetical laurels, but convened councils, which defined orthodoxy and anathematized heresy. There is every indication that the councils that were recognized as ecumencial were also recognized as irreformable, which is to say, infallible in their dogmatic pronouncements. And the sine qua non of an ecumenical council was (and is) papal ratification, so there you have an early indication of the dogma of the primacy, defined by the First Vatican Ecumenical Council.
Regarding questions and answers: If you think that you discern latent assumptions in the answers you have been given, then the best thing to do is to ask if your interlocutor does in fact make those assumptions. That goes for Joshua and anyone else of whom you might inquire as to their reasons for judging that the Reformed faith is not the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, and that the Catholic faith is. For my part, the differences (or lack thereof) between Dort and Westminster are no more significant, as regards the identification of orthodoxy, than the differences (or lack thereof) between Michael Horton and Doug Wilson, for reasons that I gave in “Westminster in the Dock: Reflections on the Peter Leithart Trial.”
Andrew P.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 3, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Andrew M.,
I tend to get quickly caught up in argument and analysis. So much so, that I do not often enough pause to thank you for engaging in these exchanges with an irenic spirit. So thank you for setting a fine example, one that I hope to emulate.
Andrew P.
Brad B said,
August 4, 2012 at 1:22 am
Hi Jeff, I think it’s an important thought when you say
For rational creatures, where thought preceeds emotions/actions, resolve comes from understanding. The scriptures continually present the responsibility to know, learn, understand. This presupposes that the teaching presented in the Word of God are propositions meant to enlighten dark minds thereby making men doers of the word. It is most self evident that if one has doubts in their mind, the resolve to act on the thought is compromised. God says to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. He equips by revelation that shines light on darkness–understanding is everything to loving Him.
Brad B said,
August 4, 2012 at 1:50 am
Burton 868,
How? Pure Reason. It is not as if the force of logic is left out of these kinds of settlements. The member has equal footing with the councils, elders, and bishops by demonstrating that his exegesis rounds out the biblical revelation with more coherency than the competing view. Fortunately, ala Eph 4 God gives gifted men to illuminate the biblical revelation and the responsibility to shepherd the flock as a true shepherd engenders trust.
I realize that some are going to ignore the force of logic in lieu of an emotional attachment, but this in no way lessens the fact that an incoherent interpretation is impossible when it comes to biblical revelation.
BTW, I capitalized reason for a reason. ;~)
johnbugay said,
August 4, 2012 at 3:55 am
Andrew Presslar 784:
You cite all of this as if it were quite self-evident, but there are terrible flaws merely in this portion of what you cite.
You cite Isaiah 22:15-25, in which it is “quite clear” that Peter is the “peg in a sure place”, but you fail to mention the very important conclusion of that passage: “In that day, declares the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way, and it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken.”
If you want to suggest that Old Testament prophecies point to the Roman Catholic Church, your “Tradition” surely has an odd way of leaving out the most important things.
In reality, (and Luke recognizes this reality), Peter is “cut off”, and quite abruptly in Acts. He is never seen again after Acts 15.
But if you are looking for a more apt Old Testament parallel to Peter, see Reuben (Gen 49:2-3). The CCC says “Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him.”
This is no mere “typological” identification of Peter with Reuben. The parallel is very clear. The clear implication is that the 12 tribes of Israel were the “foundation” of Israel, and the twelve Apostles were the foundation of the Church. They are placed together in Rev 4:10, “the twenty-four elders”. These are clearly (and not merely implicitly) being equated.
But just as the “peg in the secure place” gives way, is cut down, and falls, so too, Reuben, according to Jacob, “my firstborn, my might, and the firstfruits of my strength, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power” he is “Unstable as water, you shall not have preeminence”.
These biblical prophecies, some of which you cite favorably, actually speak very strongly against any notions of “perpetuation” or “office” or “succession”, especially with respect to Peter.
johnbugay said,
August 4, 2012 at 4:27 am
Andrew Presslar 784
This expectation that “the power given to Eliakim (signified by vestments and the bestowing of the key of the house of David) corresponds to the establishment of the Christian hierarchy–the office of the papacy in particular” is hogwash, as I’ve shown both from this very passage you quote (“it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken”), and from Peter’s clearly analogous “first” in the 12 Tribes of Israel “Reuben … my firstborn, … the firstfruits of my strength, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power, you are unstable as water, you shall not have preeminence”
You rightly note that “the binding and loosing referred to in Matthew 16 almost certainly refers to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the covenant community of God”, but as you say, “it is even more certain that the proper exercise of the keys is not limited to this”.
Jesus himself notes what “the proper exercise of the keys” in the gospels:
Luke 11:52: Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”
Marshall notes of this verse: “The scribes have taken away the key of knowledge. They thus prevent other people entering in. The key consists of the knowledge of God and leads to knowledge of God”. In language that refers to “the key that leads to knowledge” of God or salvation, this parallels 1QH 4:11, “And they stopped the thirsty from drinking the liquor of knowledge’, in a context that makes it clear that Torah is meant’. …” Thus, “in and by God’s revelation he himself is known”.
In Matthew 23:13 the keys are “implicit” in a parallel verse: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.
Thus, Peter, in “the proper exercise of the keys”, is to enable “the thirsty” to “drink the liquor of knowledge”, of the knowledge of God “Torah”, – because “in and by God’s revelation he himself is known”.
By the very words of Christ we have what is “the proper exercise of the keys” – it is the very thing that Peter has done, in opening the Torah first to the Jews (Acts 2), then to the Gentiles (Acts 10-11).
Following that function, he is “cut off” in the book of Acts. This is “the proper exercise of the keys”, and the completion of it is shown, again, in “Scripture alone”. And it is fitting, because this represents the “completeness” of his mission. As Paul writes in Ephesians 2:
This is “church unity” spoken of by Christ. Here, “in himself, one new man in place of the two” (instead of “Jews and Gentiles”, there is “one new man”, the church), ontologically complete, reconciled in one body through the cross.
Don said,
August 4, 2012 at 4:28 am
Andrew Pressler #784,
I was thinking more of the way in which the Catholic bishops have (ab)used their “authority” for political, monetary, or territorial gains, the history of which we don’t need to review here.
Your exposition of Luke 22:28-30 is really quite incredible. As has been said before, there is no justification in identifying the “twelve tribes of Israel” with the RC church. Nowhere in the New Testament is the church equated with the “twelve tribes” (James 1:1 being an arguable exception, but it’s fairly likely that James was writing to Jewish believers). There’s no reason not to believe that Jesus is talking to the people whom he is talking to, i.e., the apostles, about an apparently eschatological event.
But I’m still hoping for some direct answers to my specific criticisms in #747 of what those quotes on the CTC webpage actually demonstrate.
The John passage doesn’t have to mean anything than Peter being the leader of the early church in Jerusalem, which Acts shows he clearly was. John makes absolutely no reference to any sort of See. If you want to claim that Clement calls Peter a “greatest and most righteous pillar[] of the church” then you must acknowledge that this phrase refers equally to Paul as well.
This sounds almost as if you’re admitting that the primacy and succession doctrines are back-projected into the very early church era from later times. I don’t think that the development of doctrine over time is in general a problem; sometimes it just takes time for a given doctrine to be formulated clearly, other times a doctrine is articulated in response to an outside challenge. But if you claim that “this doctrine which we are developing has been practiced from the very beginning,” then you should expect the self-consistency of your argument to be questioned.
Pete Holter said,
August 4, 2012 at 10:24 am
TurretinFan wrote, “Augustine suggests that ‘lest I am running or had run in vain’ refers to the idea his conferences with the apostles were not for Paul’s benefit, but for the Galatians’ benefit. The truth that he was preaching is now confirmed by additional witnesses, which should give the Galatians greater assurance. The fact that Paul uses the multiple ‘should run or had run …’ formulation does seem to support Augustine’s take. I would want to do more study before being dogmatic about it, but what do you think* – is Augustine’s take reasonable to you too?”
Good morning, TurretinFan!
Thank you for looking further into this with me. Paul does see “running in vain” to be a deficiency on the part of the recipients of his message where he exhorts the Philippians to hold “fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain” (Phil. 2:16). In this case, the “running in vain” has nothing to do with Paul. The Philippians simply need to hold fast to the word of life that Paul preached. But in Galatians 2, it seems to be the gospel proclamation itself, and not the way in which it is received, that decides for Paul whether he views himself to have run in vain. The point in dispute seems to be whether Gentiles need to become Jews in order to be Christians. And it seems to be that if James, John, and Peter had said that Titus needed to be circumcised in order to be saved, then Paul would have understood himself to have run in vain by holding that the Gentiles didn’t have to be circumcised.
Perhaps it is that Jesus had not yet revealed this particular point to Paul, but that Paul had simply arrived at his conclusion by reasoning from the Scriptures in light of his encounter with Christ (cf. Acts 13:46-47). This would avoid your valid concern of preserving the utter certainty and perfect knowledge that Paul had received from the direct revelation of Christ, when, as he says, God “was pleased to reveal his Son to me” (Galatians 1:16).
I have to admit that Augustine’s take is reasonable—since he is Augustine—and that your objections to me are reasonable and give me pause. I haven’t seen or don’t remember seeing Augustine’s take on this and would like to see more of his argument. He mentions the encounter in Tractate 109 on John, but without going into detail or explaining the words. I just don’t see how to fit it all together yet. For example, if the concern was to add witnesses solely for the sake of the Galatians, I’m not sure why Paul would draw attention to the fact that this was a private encounter that he had shared with the apostles. To draw attention to the privacy of it would then seem to be taking away from what he was trying to give.
I will continue to struggle with this and try to embrace the persuasion of any other objections you may raise. At this point I am sure that we are agreed that there could be no disagreement in doctrine between them.
TurretinFan wrote, “Incidentally, I want to praise you for your very cordial demeanor, notwithstanding the real and eternally significant difference between us.”
May God bless you for taking the time to encourage me, and may you receive the merciful gift of the Catholic faith.
With love in Christ,
Pete
“But we have still in reserve for the further solution of this question the blessed apostle […]. For the Apostle Paul tells us that he was made an apostle not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ: and speaking of his own gospel, he says, ‘For I neither received it of man, neither did I learn it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.’ How then was he among those of whom it is said, ‘They shall believe in me through their word’? […] [W]e must so understand the expression, ‘through their word,’ as to believe that it here signified the word of faith itself which they preached in the world, and that it was called their word because it was primarily and principally preached by them. For it was already in the course of being preached by them in the earth when Paul received that same word of theirs by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Whence also it came about that he compared the Gospel with them, lest by any means he had run, or should run, in vain; and they gave him their right hand because in him also they found, although not given him by them, their own word which they were already preaching, and in which they were now established” (Tractate 109.4, 5 on John).
Andrew Preslar said,
August 4, 2012 at 11:13 am
John (re #874)
It seems to me, based on the correlation with Matthew 16, that Isaiah 22:25 refers to the downfall of the house of Israel (according to the flesh). The rock upon which the Church is built cannot be broken and cast down, per Our Lord’s power and promise. The remainder of what you say in that comment depends upon an inadequate understanding of the New Covenant as the fulfillment of the Old.
Likewise, your depiction of Peter as being “cut off” in Luke’s narrative is contrary to both the sense of the text and the subsequent history of Peter as known by Tradition. Any careful reader can discern that the Lukan narrative sets the stage for Peter’s continuing ministry (which history reveals as being his mission to Rome), particularly if we pay attention to where Luke ends his account of Peter: A miraculous deliverance from prison, the presence of an angel, an appearance to the disciples, and a departure to “another place.” This account follows the pattern of the most significant event recorded in the NT.
(re #875)
The first part of this comment repeats the faulty analysis in your previous comment. The remainder of the comment repeats your faulty analysis regarding Peter’s being “cut off,” and overlooks the fact that the ongoing Petrine ministry of binding and loosing has precisely the effect of enabling the thirsty to drink the liquor of knowledge–the Petrine charism prominently features the charge and corresponding authority to confirm the faith of the brethren.
Andrew
Andrew Preslar said,
August 4, 2012 at 11:30 am
Don (re #876),
You wrote:
Regarding the Church’s understanding of the papacy, I am claiming development in the former sense that you specify above, not the latter.
Regarding the Church as the present fulfillment of the promises to Israel, this is covenant theology 101. This fulfillment does not preclude an eschatological fulfillment (far from it).
Regarding the special references to Peter in late first century Christian documents: Remember that these are written decades after Peter has established his ministry in Rome, and there suffered martyrdom. These are not throw-away references to promises that no longer have any application in the Church. And as history and Tradition show – the Peter narrative continuing and culminating at Rome – the Petrine texts in Sacred Scripture, along with Clement’s epistle, point to a peculiar authority vested in the Church at Rome. St. Paul is also, of course, a pillar of the Church, and an important figure in the Roman Church, second only to Peter. Both ministered and were martyred there. The Feast of both is celebrated to this day in the Roman Church on June 29. However, it would be contrary to the NT not to distinguish between the place of Peter in the Church, and that of Paul.
Andrew
Pete Holter said,
August 4, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Bob S. wrote, “This is to completely miss the point. Rome says that Peter is the Rock upon which the church is built. Augustine – the Early Church Father par excellente – not only explicitly denies that Peter is the Rock, but also explicitly affirms that Christ is the Rock upon which the church is built. Who are we going to believe? One cannot plead the name of Augustine and then suck a doctrine out of the pope’s thumb that denies what Augustine explicitly said. Unless you have a blind faith in holy mother Rome.”
Hi Bob!
Concerning Sermon 26 on the NT and Tractate 124 on John, I do not believe that Augustine’s points are lost on us. When Augustine says that Peter is not the foundation, he is referring to the foundation of our salvation as individual Christians: faith, hope, and love by the grace of God. And from this point of view, Peter represents all those who are being saved. For “[w]hat no one can do in Paul, no one in Peter, no one in any other of the Apostles, this can he do in the Lord” (Sermon 26.5). And “[f]or what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church” (Tractate 124.5 on John).
Throughout On baptism, Against the Donatists, Augustine identifies the rock upon which the Church is built as being the hearing and the doing of the words of Christ in Catholic unity. As an example:
And in using the line of reasoning provided by Bishop Fortunatus, Augustine says,
Likewise, Pope John Paul II does not identify Peter as the rock when making similar considerations:
But when the Catholic Church affirms that Peter is the rock, she is referring to the visible foundation of the historical manifestation of the visible Church, within which visible communion (and here comes Augustine’s point…) our salvation is found insofar as we are being built therein upon the foundation of Christ. Although Augustine’s point ends up getting wrapped up in all of this, how Peter is understood as the rock in the sense that the Catholic Church holds would largely be preliminary to the more specific point that Augustine is making, but not contradictory to it. In other words, we agree with Augustine that Peter is not the rock in the sense that he intends.
And Augustine would be easily persuaded to agree with our position that Peter is the rock in the sense that we intend. We know this because, even in the sense that Augustine intends, he is not opposed to others holding the contradictory position of identifying Peter as the rock (cf. Retractations, Bk. 1, Ch. 20). And we have approached the answer to this question through the very means that he chose for arriving at the answers to such questions, i.e., through the investigations conducted by bishops meeting in council (Book 2 of On Baptism is the best place to start in coming to appreciate this point).
With love in Christ,
Pete
johnbugay said,
August 4, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Andrew Presslar 878:
It seems to me, based on the correlation with Matthew 16, that if Isaiah 22:22 is talking about Peter, then what really is the conclusion of the prophecy in Isaiah 22 (that the peg is cut off) is also about Peter.
Christ, of course, is the Rock. God is the Rock throughout the Old Testament; Christ is the Rock in 1 Corinthians 10. Peter is not “Rocky” according to all the commentaries. Of a rocky substance, and perhaps the first rock in the foundation of the church.
If you were familiar with what New Testament commentaries were saying, you would know that Matthew works in various kinds of “parallelisms”. (See Dale Allison, “Studies in Matthew”, pg 210, for example).
Note that in Matthew 11:11 ff, Jesus says of John the Baptist, “among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he”. Jesus is preaching the Kingdom; given that the church is not the kingdom, but rather, “the church witnesses to the kingdom”, Peter’s position as “Rocky” and one of the foundation stones (Eph 2:20, the very concept “church”, “the one new man” you rejected from my comment 875 above), Matt 16:18 is really saying to Peter, “you are rocky, a foundation stone, along with the rest of the apostles and prophets, of the church I will build”.
In other words, while John the Baptist is the last and the greatest of the Old Covenant, Peter is the first among New Covenant.
Christ himself is the cornerstone, however, and Christ himself “builds”.
My “understanding of the New Covenant as fulfillment of the Old” has the advantage of corresponding with biblical understandings of the covenant since the Reformation. Of course, I reject your notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. But that seems to be your only criticism of what I’ve said. Aside from that, do you have any other reasons why my understanding is “inadequate”?
You are referring to Luke 22:32, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” There is nothing unique about Peter’s “authority” or “charism”. And you are at a loss to actually describe these using Biblical terms.
The Greek word “στήρισον” (“strengthen”) is used elsewhere in a number of places in the NT of the charge of other Christians to strengthen one another in their faith amid persecution and temptation (including 1 Thess 3:2, 3:13, 1 Peter 5:10, Acts 14:22, 15:32, 15:41).
Peter’s sin of denial is extremely serious. Jesus’s prayer for him is a rehabilitation and a restoration to the norm, it is no call to any higher “authority” or “charism”.
Again, the interpretation I have given here is consonant with the text. It does not “read back” later concepts which are not really there, as your Roman Catholic hermeneutic so often does. My “interpretation” relies on the text, and doesn’t try to make the text say something it doesn’t say.
In fact, you are so quick to use this verse to show somehow “the wonders of Peter”, that you completely miss the whole context of what is happening here, in this verse, and that is, the power of Satan is broken.
* * *
I doubt that too many people are watching, but if you are out there, Jason Stellman, what you see here is a very fine contrast between the “Scripture-as-wax-nose” effect of the “Catholic IP”, vs what an actual reading of the text, to understand what the text says, really looks like.
Don said,
August 4, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Andrew Pressler #879,
Exactly. But the Church is not identified as the Twelve Tribes, which I guess is what you claim.
That’s true. Peter was the apostle to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles. If you claim that Peter was more important than Paul, you’re not getting that from Clement.
So are you saying that the early bishops of Rome were unaware that they were successors to Peter? They had apostolic authority but didn’t know it? If you’re claiming an unbroken line of succession, don’t the successors have to know it?
Constantine said,
August 4, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Andrew Preslar @ 829 writes,
“It (the Catholic requirement of unanimous consent from the ECF’s) simply means that where there is a unanimous consent of the Fathers on a point of doctrine, it is illicit to interpret the text in such a way that contradicts that doctrine.”
Andrew you are simply at odds with historic Catholic teaching. Consider, for example, the matter of Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick of St. Louis. The archbishop had been a (Catholic) seminary professor for decades before his elevation to the episcopate. Yet, at the time of the First Vatican Council, he wrote a paper whose explanation of the “unanimous consent” doctrine is at direct odds to your own interpretation:
Had Kenrick interpreted the unanimous consent doctrine as you do, he would simply have demurred on the use of Matthew 16:18 by the Council. But his objection was that the five varying interpretations PRECLUDED the Vatican from relying on just one.
Peace.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 4, 2012 at 7:16 pm
John (re #881)
The first bit of your comment does not take into account the movement from anticipation to fulfillment in this bit of typology. Our Lord did not invoke the Isaiah passage by way of prophesying the eventual downfall of the Church–this is made abundantly clear in context.
In #880, Pete Holter has indicated the sense in which Christ is the rock, the chief cornerstone, and the sense in which Peter is the rock, the referent of that term in Matthew 16, on which the Church is built by Christ. So claiming that Christ is the rock in no way undermines the Petrine ministry; in fact, the latter depends upon the fact that Christ is the rock in the sense specified by St. Augustine (cited in Pete’s comment).
You go on to make some laudatory claims about “[your] interpretation,” which seems a tad self-serving. Best let the proof of your exegetical prowess be in the pudding. So far as that has been revealed, I don’t see much proof, or pudding for that matter. On the other hand, your interpretation of Acts 12 and the “cutting off” of Peter has gone some way towards undermining your claims about your own “actual reading of the text.”
Furthermore, you write as though knowledge of Church history and tradition subsequent to the NT, or not recorded in the NT, should have no bearing on one’s reading of the NT itself. But this has the effect of decontextualizing those documents, placing them in a kind of a-historical vacuum. Far from improving your interpretation, this move only further isolates you, as an interpreter, from the world of the NT, from the Body of Christ that produced, received, transmitted, and lived the life of the community, being itself the community, whose foundation and first generational history is depicted (directly or indirectly) in those its earliest (extant) documents. Far from counting as a mark against the Catholic hermeneutic, the practice of reading these documents in the light of tradition is actually more rational, as in more hermeneutically viable, than your historically isolated 21st Century reading.
Andrew
Andrew McCallum said,
August 4, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Andrew Presslar (re 870/1),
Of the course the Fathers appealed to Sacred Scripture. So did their opponents. So do I. But the reason that we call the former “Fathers” and the latter “heretics” is that the former did not rest on their exegetical laurels, but convened councils, which defined orthodoxy and anathematized heresy. There is every indication that the councils that were recognized as ecumencial were also recognized as irreformable, which is to say, infallible in their dogmatic pronouncements. And the sine qua non of an ecumenical council was (and is) papal ratification, so there you have an early indication of the dogma of the primacy, defined by the First Vatican Ecumenical Council.
Yes, everyone used Scripture, orthodox and otherwise, in early Christianity. But I’m looking at the difference between the way that the Fathers used Scripture from how they used tradition in the Early centuries of the Church. The EO scholar Georges Florovsy says that biblical exegesis was, “the main, and probably the only, theological method, and the authority of Scriptures was sovereign and supreme.” Scripture was the infallible Word of God and no human summary of Scriptures rose to the same level. That’s my assessment anyway. But of course you have to make your own judgment. You say that the ecumenical councils were considered by the Fathers to be irreformable. I would say that I don’t see the evidence for this, at least among the early council like Nicea. They believed that what was said at Nicea was irrefutably true but the basis of this conviction, as Athanasius so clearly states, is that the Scriptures say it to be so, not because the Church infallibly weighed in on the matter. Athanasius’ charge to the Arians was that they had twisted the plain meaning of Scripture, not that they had spurned the judgment of an ecumenical council (and Athansius said this decades after Nicea).
When Mike Liccione and I had last talked about this, he said that if any Father believed that the Church could not make infallible judgments then that Father was wrong. And I would say the same thing from the other side – If any Father believed that the Church could judge infallibly on any matter, other than just stating what is in Scripture, then that Father was wrong. As you may remember from some of the Keith Mathison debates, this is the crux of the debate that Cross/Judisch got into with Mathison. Mathison picks up on the argument from Heiko Oberman in his Dawn of the Reformation where Oberman analyzes the writings of the Fathers from the standpoint of the assumptions that the Fathers bring to the use of Scripture and tradition. I think Oberman and Mathison correctly assess the situation. In the early centuries of Christianity Scripture is the only infallible standard. Like Florovsky said, Scripture reigned supreme. But at some point in the evolution of the Medieval Church’s approach to doing theology, this assumption changes. The reason for why it changes is not readily evident. But if there is no evidence that the ECF’s ever used tradition as an infallible standard it would seem to me that one ought to have an exceedingly good reason for holding that the early Fathers were wrong or that their understanding of revelation was incomplete. And I just don’t see that you can draw the conclusion that the ECF’s believed that the Church could be infallible from the fact that the ECF’s believed that certain conciliar statements were irrefutably true. We Protestants believe that the same statements (i.e. those concerning the Trinity at Nicea) were irrefutably true. The reason why they were true in minds of the Reformers, and the ECF’s like Athanasius, was that Scripture proclaimed them to be true, not because God had granted some sort of charism of infallibility to Nicea. Again that’s my judgment, but like I said earlier, I’m not trying here to treat the matter exhaustively. I’m not sure you can do that in one of these blogs.
Regarding questions and answers: If you think that you discern latent assumptions in the answers you have been given, then the best thing to do is to ask if your interlocutor does in fact make those assumptions.
I think that Joshua would readily admit that he makes the assumption that I am pointing out. He assumes that the lack of agreement between the Reformed on whatever matter is a fatal flaw. But the rest of the 99+% of the Reformed see the same debate and are not that bothered by it. Why is this? What’s the problem? And I have asked just these questions and the answer from the Catholics side is that there is obviously a problem. The perhaps deeper assumption is that the Worldwide Church ought to have the means at her disposal to deal summarily with the disagreement between Christian churches. But why make this assumption? The Catholic mind seems to hold the answer as self evident.
Finally, sorry to take so long to get back to you. And as per your 871, I really appreciate you taking the time to hold out the olive branch. These discussions touch on issues which are close to our hearts and we have to be so careful about how we treat each other. The Good Lord knows how many times I have said something in haste and irritation and I need to follow your example here and take some time once in a while to express thanks to other side.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 4, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Don (re #882),
The Church is identified as the true Israel, and the twelves apostles correspond to the twelve tribes of Israel. On that basis, it is no stretch to understand a reference to the twelves tribes of Israel as inclusive of the Church, even if there is a further, perhaps eschatological referent intended as well.
I getting my understanding of the primacy of Peter from the New Testament itself, in which Peter is in several ways distinguished from the other Apostles, though of course they are related as well, as being Apostles and forming one “Apostolic college.”
It would not be reasonable to expect the early popes, nor the early Christians in general, to be able to articulate full and precise definitions of the doctrines that had been revealed by Christ to the Apostles, and through their written and spoken words to the early communities of Christians. That sort of understanding develops over time. We can only ascertain how much they did (explicitly) know by recourse to the extant data; principally, the writings of the Church fathers.
Andrew
Constantine said,
August 4, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Arnold @ 852 writes,
“let’s say it’s 66AD and you are in Rome. You can join the Church that Peter is running…”
Peter was never running any church at Rome.
Consider this writing from a Catholic priest who received his doctorate in Rome:
…and a little further…..
…and, of course, the Apostle Paul had no idea Pete was running his own gig.
Schatz, Klaus. Papal primacy: from its origins to the present. Trans. John A. Otto and Linda M. Maloney. Collegeville, Minnesota. The Liturgical Press, 1996. Trans. of Der Päpstliche Primat: Seine Geschichte von den Ursprungen bis zur Gegenwart. Germany, 1990. Pgs. 3, 11, 13 respectively.
Another Catholic priest and scholar, Fr. John P. Meier documents how the theological justification for the mono-episcopate came from Antioch, not Rome!
Brown, Raymond E. and Meier, John P. “Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity”. Paulist Press 2004; pgs. 85, 86.
Even using only Roman Catholic sources, there is no longer any justification for Pete being the bid dog at Rome.
Peace.
Constantine said,
August 4, 2012 at 7:43 pm
My friend, Pete Holter @ 199, writes:
“We’re doing well, thanks. But still waiting for you to become Catholic… :)”
But I AM Catholic, Pete. I’m just not Roman Catholic!
Continue to be well, friend!
Andrew Preslar said,
August 4, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Constantine (re #883),
The opinions of Archbishop Kenrick do not constitute “historic Catholic teaching.” What does constitute historic Catholic teaching are the deliverances of the ecumencial councils, the teachings of the popes, and the consensus of the Fathers. The fact is that Archbishop Kenrick’s position on this matter is contrary to the actions of the First Vatican Council itself, which both defined the dogma of papal infallibility and affirmed that Scripture was not to be interpreted except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
Andrew
Andrew Preslar said,
August 4, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Andrew M. (re #885),
From what I can tell, you and the Protestant scholars that you cite are inferring that the Fathers held a certain view of tradition from the way that they appealed to Scripture. But a high view of Sacred Scripture does not itself imply anything about one’s view of Holy Tradition and ecclesial authority. To understand what was the Fathers view of Tradition and Church authority, we would have to turn to their statements about the same. Do you have any such statements in mind?
Again, if you want to know what assumptions Joshua makes, and why he makes them, then you can just ask him. If you leave a comment in the thread under his CTC article, I am sure that he will at some point respond.
Andrew P.
Don said,
August 5, 2012 at 12:14 am
Andrew Pressler #886,
OK, where do you get your understanding of the succession of his primacy?
I think it would be pretty reasonable to expect these so-called popes would know that they were in fact popes and not just bishops of Rome. If these doctrines really were revealed by Christ, then you’d better hope that they were well-established in the existing “Tradition,” since they aren’t found written anywhere in Scripture.
Seriously, not mockingly: If you are claiming that Christ revealed to the apostles that the bishop of Rome was to be head of the church, then that needs to be very clear from “Tradition” from the very start. If the earliest church didn’t know this, if it wasn’t part of their “Tradition,” then where did this doctrine come from?
Constantine said,
August 5, 2012 at 2:02 am
Andrew @ 889
Archbishop Kenrick was far from offering his own opinions. What he was supporting was the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church as put forth by the irreformable Council of Trent. Said teaching was reinforced by Pope St. Pius IV in what is now called the Tridentine Creed. So Kenrick did exactly that of which you accuse him of not doing which was to support conciliar teachings which have papal support. I’m sorry you didn’t realize that.
And you are further correct when you state, “Archbishop Kenrick’s position on this matter is contrary to the actions of the First Vatican Council”, save for the fact that the “position” was Trent’s and not Kenrick’s.
Which rather brings us to the main point. And that is, today’s Roman Catholic is at liberty to dismiss “Tradition” when it is inconvenient to their modern private interpretation of Roman doctrine. It is very clear from these many posts that today’s Roman Catholics are either ignorant of Trent’s requirements or they simply choose to dismiss them and follow CTC or whatever sliver of Romanism catches their fancy. Whatever the case, it shows beyond doubt, that the “superior interpretive paradigm” of Rome to be the ruse that it truly is.
And one is forced to wonder if Catholics can be so wrong about something that happened in this millenium, how one could rely on them to be right about what happened at the beginning of the prior one?
Peace.
johnbugay said,
August 5, 2012 at 5:54 am
Andrew Preslar 884
There are a couple of things going on here.
The discussion was about your use of Isaiah 22 as somehow self-evidently being what is referred to in Matthew 16, as somehow being a proof for “Petrine primacy” in this verse. My point is that it is far from self-evident that that is what Jesus is referring to.
You said:
Such a thing – that Jesus was “drawing from Isaiah 22:15-25” – and you included the verse about the peg being cut off, not me – is absolutely not “quite clear”. You have to pick and choose and arbitrarily interrupt the flow of meaning of that verse if you are to arrive at your “interpretation.
You are very willing to deny the perspicuity of the Scriptures, but here you make quite a leap to assume that this is a self-evident thing. Your own use of these verses as a proof-text leaves quite a bit to be desired. Typology is a complex thing, and it is in no way “quite clear”, and yet, your willingness to press such an unclear thing into the “quite clear” service of your own cause is telling.
You said:
Your opinion really has nothing to do with the actual quality of what I’ve had to say. However, I applaud your ability to sense “self-serving” things where they exist. This ability must enable you to see the instances in which Roman teaching quite evidently aggrandizes itself.
You say, “you write as though knowledge of Church history and tradition subsequent to the NT, or not recorded in the NT, should have no bearing on one’s reading of the NT itself”. But what genuinely is clear is that this time period “church history subsequent to the NT” needs to be viewed with a critical eye. As one commenter here said, speaking of the “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, it is completely useless for sermon prep, noting that “A decent portion of the quotations in the ECF version were unorthodox and some were even outright heretical”.
The biblical texts, however, are their own best commentaries, and my use of Matthew 11:11 as a commentary on Matthew 16:17-19 is a perfect example of doing what the Reformers suggested and that is, enable Scripture to interpret Scripture.
Rather than, as you say, “decontextualizing those documents, placing them in a kind of a-historical vacuum”, it actually maintains the meaning of these documents in context. It is the later writers who “decontextualizing them” – the fact that this “tradition” that you speak of, is precisely what decontextualizes the NT by exchanging the first-century context for a later (often much later) historical context.
The New Testament itself is the context of the New Testament. When you bring in “knowledge of Church history and tradition subsequent to the NT”, you do so as if these were interchangeable settings, but nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact is that my “historically isolated 21st century reading” is actually able to better situate New Testament writings in their actual first century context, than much “tradition subsequent to the NT” has done.
And my friend Constantine is precisely correct to point out the shifting “interpretations” of Matthew 16:17-19 over time – even between such like-minded councils as Trent and Vatican I. It is rather Roman Catholicism that wrenches these things out of context in the service of its own “self-serving” interpretations.
Steve G said,
August 5, 2012 at 10:27 am
Andrew Presslar said:
“The Church’s understanding and articulation of the nature and role of the Petrine office has of course developed over time. But the substance is there, from the beginning, when Christ established that ministry by giving the keys of the kingdom of heave (typified by the house of David) to St. Peter”
Ok, I’ve seen this same basic argument made 3 times, once by Sean, once by Arnold, now by Andrew. But it makes no sense! The NT gives us a description of the offices and qualifications for elders and pastors. But Jesus gave Peter the office of the Pope and didn’t tell him everything he needed to know to carry out that job? The office had to “develop” over time? Why? Did Jesus leave Peter in the lurch? What did Jesus say, “Peter, you’re head of the entire church, but you and your successors will have to figure it out on your own what that really means. Oh, and by the way, this will take centuries to do – you won’t even figure out infallibility until 1870.” Is this how it went down between Jesus and Peter?
So the argument for establishment of the papacy comes down to saying Jesus named Peter as the first pope but didn’t tell him anything about being pope. This makes no sense whatsoever.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 5, 2012 at 10:34 am
Don (re #891),
My understanding of the succession likewise comes from Scripture (e.g., Paul’s ordination of Timothy by laying on of hands), along with Tradition (e.g., Irenaeus’ list of the Roman Succession).
Based upon the early testimony, it is reasonable to supposed that the bishop who followed St. Peter in the Roman See (St. Linus) and those who followed him (on down to the present day) knew that they were receiving the Petrine ministry, and that the Church in Rome therefore had a special responsibility for the universal Church. The implications of this would naturally be understood more fully over time, as permitted by occasion, action, and reflection.
Constantine (re #892),
Archbishop Kenrick interpreted and applied the dictum that “Scripture should not be interpreted otherwise than according to the consensus of the Fathers” in a way that was not accepted by the Council, as evidence by its decision. The Council did not oppose the unanimous consent of the Fathers in its definition of papal infallibility, because the diversity of the patristic readings of that text is, taken on the whole, consistent with the Council’s definition. Pete Holter has explained this, with reference to St. Augustine, in comment #880. Your restrictive understanding of the dictum, or your understanding of how the Catholic Church has historically understood and applied this dictum, is not established by the bare claim that Kenrick was supporting “the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church as put forth by the irreformable Council of Trent.” If you want to estblish this claim, then you will have to show, by evidence and argument, how Trent understood and applied the dictum, and how this differs from the modus operandi of Vatican I.
John B. (re #893),
I didn’t say that my reading, in any any aspect, was “self-evident.” I did say that the biblical basis for the papacy was “quite clear.” I’ll clarify what I meant: I meant that if one were confronted with the papacy, in its claims and contemporary and historical manifestations, and were to wonder “is there anything in the Bible that could provide any support for this sort of thing?” then he would naturally find Matthew 16, along with that passage’s resonance with Isaiah 22, as fitting the bill. The resonance with Isaiah 22 is undeniable (just compare for similarity), and is but an exercise of literary judgment to discern a typological connection between the passages. If you deny the connection, having compared the texts, then I can only conclude that you have poor literary judgment, or else that something is clouding your judgment in this case.
I expect everyone to view my claims with a critical eye. That is certainly the manner in which I view your claims. Thus, when you make the following claims: (1) the hermeneutic which recommends reading the NT in the light of Tradition exchanges one context for another, (2) “the New Testament itself is the context of the New Testament,” and (3) you are better able to “situate New Testament writings in their actual first century context, than much “tradition subsequent to the NT” has done,” my critical eye discerns several things, including: (1a) you have mistaken seeing a larger context for exchanging contexts, (2a) you don’t know what “context” means, and (3a) you operate at a level of abstraction such that 21st century “situating” of texts bring one closer to the context than does the writings of persons who actually lived and wrote during (Clement) or immediately after the time period depicted in the NT (Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus).
All of this indicates that what you are engaged in is not historical-critical exegesis, according to the literal meaning of those terms. Rather, your readings are a sophistic exercise in ideologically motivated deconstruction, employing a veneer of “shop-talk” (overheard in the conversations of others) in the masquerade.
Andrew
Andrew Preslar said,
August 5, 2012 at 10:42 am
Steve G (re #894)
You left out a few things:
But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall show you. (John 16:13)
But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. (John 21:25)
And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28:20)
Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Andrew
Steve G said,
August 5, 2012 at 11:06 am
Andrew Presslar quoted scripture:
But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall show you. (John 16:13)|”
And this is applicable to the doctrines of the papacy how? You’ll have to argue for this, not merely quote scripture. There are other exegesis of this scripture than what you assume it to be. But this still doesn’t explain why Jesus didn’t explain to Peter about being pope when he could talk to him face to face?
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. (John 21:25)”
The issue isn’t that there were things that Jesus said not recorded in scripture. The question is why didn’t Jesus tell Peter everything he needed to be pope, written down or not. Your argument is that Jesus didn’t, since the role of the papacy has developed over time. My question is why didn’t Jesus tell Peter everything he needed to be pope. It seem absurd that the NT tells the church what is required of elders/pastors but Jesus apparently didn’t tell Peter what were the roles and responsibilities of being pope (written or not). This scripture does nothing to support your argument.
“And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28:20)”
Again, nothing here about the papacy, and nothing about development of the understanding and role of the papacy. You’re going to have to argue this from this scripture, not merely quote scripture. But even if this is true, why didn’t Jesus explain to Peter about being pope when he could talk to him face to face ? Does anyone give someone a job without explaining it to them? “Yeah, I hired him but I didn’t tell him what to do, I’ll just let it ‘develop’ over time.” Does anyone seriously believe this make sense?
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)”
Again, you’ve already acknowledged development of papal doctrine so this scripture doesn’t help you. You’re presumably trying to use this to say that papal doctrines may not have been in scripture but a part of tradition, but that still doesn’t explain why Peter didn’t get a course in “Papacy 101” from Jesus. And you’d also have to argue that what Paul taught by word is any different than what he taught by epistle. I’ll also note that this is Paul talking, not Peter, so it is unclear how this helps explain why Peter didn’t get all that he needed to be pope from Jesus directly.
Steve G said,
August 5, 2012 at 11:12 am
Don said:
Andrew Pressler #886,
‘ I getting my understanding of the primacy of Peter from the New Testament itself, in which Peter is in several ways distinguished from the other Apostles,’
“OK, where do you get your understanding of the succession of his primacy?”
‘ It would not be reasonable to expect the early popes, nor the early Christians in general, to be able to articulate full and precise definitions of the doctrines that had been revealed by Christ to the Apostles’
“I think it would be pretty reasonable to expect these so-called popes would know that they were in fact popes and not just bishops of Rome. If these doctrines really were revealed by Christ, then you’d better hope that they were well-established in the existing “Tradition,” since they aren’t found written anywhere in Scripture.”
Exactly. Jesus gave Peter and his successors the most important job in Christendom but didn’t tell them how to do the job? Instead he let them flounder, and left the church without clear guidance about their role (mainly because they themselves didn’t know for sure what they were supposed to do)? Does this make any sense? Sounds absurd to me.
Steve G said,
August 5, 2012 at 11:28 am
Andrew Presslar said:
“Based upon the early testimony, it is reasonable to supposed that the bishop who followed St. Peter in the Roman See (St. Linus) and those who followed him (on down to the present day) knew that they were receiving the Petrine ministry, and that the Church in Rome therefore had a special responsibility for the universal Church. The implications of this would naturally be understood more fully over time, as permitted by occasion, action, and reflection.”
This sounds like special pleading. We know the qualifications and roles of elders, pastors, even deacons from scripture. But Jesus didn’t tell Peter what the qualification and duties of the papacy were, and how to carry out that role? And he didn’t tell the other apostles so that they could tell their successors so there would be no dispute or confusion about the role of the papacy in the future? All of this had to “develop”? You say this is “natural” but I say it is one of the most unnatural things I’ve heard.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 5, 2012 at 11:37 am
Steve G (re #897, 898),
Our Lord did give Peter a course in “papacy 101.” Here it is, as recorded in Sacred Scripture:
-Matthew: 16
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
-John 21
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
-Luke 22
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
Notice that in all three instances (most obviously in Matthew and Luke), this lesson is accompanied by a personal failure on the part of Peter. Thus, we are given to distinguished between the individual, as such, and Peter “in office,” so to speak, as the rock, the pope.
As for the passages previously cited, they show that we ought not to suppose that everything that Our Lord revealed to his Apostles was recorded in Scripture, or said during his lifetime.
Another thing that these verses (particularly Matthew 28:20) reveal is that Our Lord did not leave his Church to flounder. He remains with her. Furthermore, he gave her (particularly in the office of Peter) the authority to deal with matters as they arise. That is why Jesus did not need to leave thousands of pages of instructions concerning details of doctrine or matters of discipline.
Andrew
michael said,
August 5, 2012 at 12:46 pm
AP, responding to John B, you write: “…I didn’t say that my reading, in any any aspect, was “self-evident.” I did say that the biblical basis for the papacy was “quite clear.” I’ll clarify what I meant: I meant that if one were confronted with the papacy, in its claims and contemporary and historical manifestations, and were to wonder “is there anything in the Bible that could provide any support for this sort of thing?” then he would naturally find Matthew 16, along with that passage’s resonance with Isaiah 22, as fitting the bill. …”.
I have this problem with that in that you have not considered, have you, that when Jesus or the Prophet Isaiah was saying that none of the Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and even after being filled with the Holy Spirit their progress onto maturity was in process not yet mature?
There is no clear biblical basis for a papacy in the Bible!
What is clear is during the days when each of these men and women were being taught directly by Jesus Christ, Who was full of the Holy Spirit, they were not getting anything He taught them. Thankfully God does not turn out His Own, Whom Christ purchased out of the darkness and death of humanity when at first they don’t get it!
What is clear from Scripture is Peter wasn’t always “kosher” so to speak and when he got caught with bacon in his chops he ducked and covered. It was the Apostle Paul and some of his followers that helped Peter clean his teeth!
Another thing that seems to undermine your claim that there is a biblical basis for a RCC papacy is found in several scriptures put together to arrive at just the opposite conclusion.
Remember this in the Book of Acts?
Act 16:6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia.
Act 16:7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.
Act 16:8 So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas.
Now, consider how hard headed Paul must have been seeing both the Holy Spirit and Jesus Himself had to oppose Their great Apostle from going where “he” naturally felt he wanted to go?
Now do you see verse 7 and “where” it was Paul wanted to go? He wanted to go to Bithynia as well as into some parts of Asia but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow him to minister in those parts of the world.
Why do you suppose that is there, in the Scriptures for us to see and consider?
I have a simple minded answer which is found here:
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Do you see the “territory” Peter was assigned too? “Bithynia” is one of those places this guy was sent to exercise Apostolic Authority.
Even though Peter has a hand in a lot of the early Church coming into the Light of the Gospel of God, he wasn’t nearly as profound in scope as the RCC want’s everybody to believe about him. No, Peter was Peter and hard headed too. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly it is recorded that when Peter was old he would go where he didn’t want to go! :)
Another thing. Just a simple observation after reading and reading most of these comments in here. None of this really matters in the short view seeing God has not left His Throne and gone on a vacation to a far country leaving it up to the Church to finish the work at hand, bringing this Gospel of the Kingdom to every creature and then the end shall come. He uses members of the Church to be sure to bring the Gospel into all the world. No, God is still on His Throne as active as ever as is Jesus; and the River, bright as crystal, is still flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the City!
Jesus still has control of both the created heavens and earth.
The Holy Spirit is still forbidding some from entering into the territory of another.
The Roman Catholic Church is still doing what she does best, overreaching into the realms not hers to reach into.
And in spite of her best efforts (the RCC) the world grows darker and darker manifesting outright evil in many places as the bright Light of the Gospel reveals when shined in those places.
Anyway, AP, just thought I would throw my two cents onto the fire in here seeing I just don’t agree with you that there is any minutest sense of a biblical basis for the RCC doctrine of the papacy.
Peter was wet behind the ears when Jesus was teaching what Matthew records in Matthew’s Gospel record, chapter 16 and 18. And it was many years later after Acts 2 and some help from his friends and brothers and sisters, not the least of which were the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Jesus among those friends who were sharpening Peter’s and Paul’s senses to maturity to discern between good and evil, where to go and where not to go, teach what to teach and what not to teach and when just as well as there was sharpening going on upon all the Apostles as they, too, heading straight into the eyes of evil among men went about to established the Truth that so many have since those days have given up their lives for not bending to emotion or the tyranny of opposing beliefs about this Truth.
At the end of the day, these words will still be when it comes to Christ and His Church:
Eph 3:8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
Eph 3:10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
Eph 3:11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
Eph 3:12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.
Eph 3:13 So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering for you, which is your glory.
Eph 3:14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father,
Eph 3:15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named,
Eph 3:16 that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being,
Eph 3:17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith–that you, being rooted and grounded in love,
Eph 3:18 may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,
Eph 3:19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
Eph 3:20 Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us,
Eph 3:21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
No where in that great vision is there a place for a papacy, a magisterium, Mariology, purgatory, apostolic succession through Peterine doctrine or all the other things extra biblical the RCC adds to the teaching of Scripture!
Steve G said,
August 5, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Andrew Presslar said:
“Notice that in all three instances (most obviously in Matthew and Luke), this lesson is accompanied by a personal failure on the part of Peter. Thus, we are given to distinguished between the individual, as such, and Peter “in office,” so to speak, as the rock, the pope.”
None of these verses speak to the papacy and can be interpreted without resorting to a papacy. You’re reading your RC presuppositions into these verses, especially the latter two.
“As for the passages previously cited, they show that we ought not to suppose that everything that Our Lord revealed to his Apostles was recorded in Scripture, or said during his lifetime.”
Duh, how many times do I have to say this? The issue isn’t whether everything Jesus revealed to the apostles was recorded in scripture! Please read my posts above. I’ll say this again – since you say papal doctrine developed, the question is why didn’t Jesus tell Peter all he would need to know about being Pope? Why leave so much to question and doubt in the future? Why not tell Peter and the other apostles what Peter’s duties would be? The issue is what Peter was told, not what was or was not recorded in scripture.
“Another thing that these verses (particularly Matthew 28:20) reveal is that Our Lord did not leave his Church to flounder. He remains with her. Furthermore, he gave her (particularly in the office of Peter) the authority to deal with matters as they arise.”
Given that the role of the papacy has been an issue for centuries, this statement would appear to be disproved by the historical record.
“That is why Jesus did not need to leave thousands of pages of instructions concerning details of doctrine or matters of discipline.”
Strawman – are you being intentionally obtuse? No one has made this argument. Why not a brief outline as the one given for elders, pastors or deacons? Surely Jesus gave Peter that much. But we find no evidence of even such a basic outline in history.
Here’s let make this even simpler. Let’s pick one important papal doctrine – the doctrine of papal infallibility as pronounced by the pope in 1870. Did Jesus teach this to Peter? A simple “yes” or “no” will do.
If, “yes”, then why was this doctrine not pronounced by a pope until 1870? Did the popes forget this until then? If “no”, then why did Jesus not tell Peter such a crucial aspect of his job? Lastly, regardless of your answer, how do you know your answer to be true?
Don said,
August 5, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Andrew Pressler #895,
This is basically speculation, not evidence.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 5, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Andrew P (890),
But a high view of Sacred Scripture does not itself imply anything about one’s view of Holy Tradition and ecclesial authority.
Of course not, we are not doing this. We are providing a response to the Catholic claim that the Church has always held that she can speak infallibly and irreformable on matters of doctrine central to the Christian faith. Our case is that there is no evidence from the Early Church that would lead us to believe that any of the ECF’s believed in an infallible ecclesiastical authority beyond the Apostolic age. When we ask for proof from Roman Catholics we get statements that the Fathers believed that certain doctrines were irrefutably true. Athanasius for example said that the words of Nicea would never be refuted. Well, we Protestants agree with this statement. But the difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants here is our understanding of the basis of this conviction. From all I can read Athanasius was convinced of truths such as the eternality of the Son because the Scriptures proclaimed it to be true, but not because the Church had definitely spoken on the matter. Even after Nicea, in the Discourses to the Arians, after making numerous references to specific Scriptures Athanasius makes this kind of statement (#1, section 13): It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son’s eternity; it is equally plain. Athanasius makes comments like this all through his writings. His theological method involves listing many Scriptures and then making the conclusion that the Scriptures speak plainly and evidently on the matter at hand. He NEVER refers to some infallible pronouncement of the Church, even after Nicea. Athanasius’ method is characteristic of his age.
I’m obviously assuming that the burden of proof in on the Catholics to prove what they posit. I think that this is reasonable. It is the Catholics that are positing that there properly exists an extra-biblical infallible tradition in the history of the Church. I think it is reasonable to ask the Catholics to prove what they posit rather than us having to prove that this tradition does not exist. Sound reasonable?
Andrew Preslar said,
August 5, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Andrew M.,
It does indeed sound reasonable. Likewise, it is reasonable to expect those who attempt to draw conclusions about the Father’s views of the authority of the Church to appeal to their statements concerning the same. So let’s look at what the Fathers have to say about the authority of tradition and the magisterium.
Andrew P.
johnbugay said,
August 5, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Andrew Preslar 895
Your hermeneutic is not to try to learn, “what did Christ intend to say when he said …?”
Your hermeneutic is an “after-the-fact” hermeneutic. “confronted with the papacy, in its claims and contemporary and historical manifestations”, you look for some kind of “proof-text” that can provide some sort of “after-the-fact” support. For Roman Catholics, I’ve found, “what the text actually says” is far less important than what it came to mean.
I’ve written about this phenomenon extensively, in a series of posts I’ve tagged The Roman Catholic Hermeneutic. Here is the difference:
As I’ve said above, and I don’t by any stretch mean it flippantly, but here is how the Roman Catholic approaches the Bible. And with your comment here, you’ve given confirmation to what I’ve written.
I’m not sure if you see it, but this is historical revisionism of the most blatant form, and I’m surprised that you Called to Communion guys, especially with scholarly backgrounds, don’t find this to be just an absolutely illicit way of going about doing things.
You all talk about “evidence”, but what if a murder suspect could pick and choose just what counts as evidence in a trial, and what doesn’t? With this method, Rome has stacked the deck in its own favor.
Your question should rather be, “What is God saying?” After all, how else can we know about God, other than what He reveals about Himself?
Andrew Preslar said,
August 5, 2012 at 7:37 pm
John,
My question is exactly, “What is God saying?” Furthermore, I want to know “Where has he said it?” and “What does it mean?” I also want to know “What is God doing, and where, and through whom, and in what ways?” I cannot begin my inquiry into these question by exegesis, because I need first to know that there are sacred texts, which texts they are, where they come from, and where to find them. Otherwise, there will be nothing to interpret.
So, in essence, to get to “The Bible” I have to undertake that very process that you call an “after-the-fact hermeneutic,” where hermeneutics involves an activity broader than exegesis, a critical awareness of the context in which we receive the Bible, as “The Bible” today, in the here and now, and how it has come down to us. And once I undertake this inquiry, with care and thoroughness, I am bound to learn many things that (rightly) affect my reading of the texts that I eventually receive as sacred.
It would be foolish to pluck and bite into the fruit without considering the tree that produced it (the visible, human side of Scripture). In this case, it is a very old tree, and much grown from its seed-like origin. And of course the same God who breathed out the Bible gives life to the tree. The Word of God, being alive and powerful, gives us all things in their place, in union with him, with his Body, and because he is alive and powerful, his written word lives. Sacred Scripture is not a dead letter, but to know and appreciate this, we have to take it, to feed upon it, in context.
Otherwise, we are left with the option of willy-nilly deciding the God must have produced a book, and then just selecting whatever we like from the shelf, and digging in with exegesis of the text. But that would be neither critical nor historical.
Andrew
Pete Holter said,
August 5, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Hey everybody!
Perhaps some more discussion on Ignatius will help. I’ve posted these thoughts elsewhere but I wasn’t able to get any feedback.
As a preliminary thought, in Chapter 5 of his Letter to the Philadelphians, Ignatius says that he is going to “flee to the apostles as to the presbytery of the Church,” with no mention of bishops in this thought. This is the lone exception in his letters where Ignatius does not explicitly mention the bishop in immediate connection with the elders and as distinct from them. But imagine if we remove every other mention of bishops, and this anomaly were the only reference in Ignatius to the hierarchical structure of the Church; one might try to argue, based on this, that Ignatius must have seen bishops as equivalent to presbyters and presbyters as equivalent to bishops, without distinction. This is just something to keep in mind.
Ignatius tells us to yield the bishop “all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance [of their bishop], but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all” (Letter to the Magnesians, Ch. 3). He claims for himself oversight of, not just a local church within a city, as being one of many such local churches in that city, and not just the local church of an entire city: he claims for himself the oversight of the whole church of a capital city together with its entire province, referring to himself primarily as “the bishop of Syria” (Letter to the Romans, Ch. 2; cf. Letter to the Ephesians, Ch. 21, Letter to the Trallians, Ch. 13, Letter to the Magnesians Ch. 14, Letter to the Romans, Ch. 9, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 11).
He also tells the Smyrnaeans (Polycarp’s Church) that “your Church should elect some worthy delegate; [and] you should send some one of your number with an epistle” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 11). If we didn’t have explicit witness, we might be led to think that the congregation initiates the action. But Ignatius makes it clear that it will really be “Polycarp that sends him” (Letter to Polycarp, Ch. 8). The action of the bishop constitutes the action of the Church, and what is seemingly being said directly to “the Church,” is being said to the Church through the appointed authority for that Church, i.e., through the bishop. This is good to keep in mind when reading his letter to the Roman Church.
As to the ordination of bishops, Ignatius salutes the Philadelphians “in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit” (Letter to the Philadelphians, Greeting). The way for us to know that something is “established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit,” is by doing it with the approval of a bishop. Bishops are settled everywhere “by the will of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Ephesians, Ch. 3), and in order to “run together in accordance with the will of God,” you must “run together in accordance with the will of your bishop” (Letter to the Ephesians, Chs. 3 & 4). How are bishops selected in accordance with the mind of Christ and the will of God? It is my conclusion that other bishops step in to perform this duty.
The Eucharist (cf. Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 8), marriages (cf. Letter to Polycarp, Ch. 5), and baptisms (cf. Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 8) are not to be celebrated without the bishop. It would be highly incongruous to argue that, in spite of this, one can be ordained a bishop without another bishop being involved. We gain further support for this from his letter to the Magnesians. In this letter he tells them “not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth” (Chapter 3), which would only make sense to say if the ordination process did not depend on the approval of that same community. If youthfulness were a cause for irreverence, why would they have picked him in the first place? Presbyters known to Ignatius were likewise commended for submitting to youthful bishops in this same chapter. That the laypeople and presbyters would be placed in such situations only makes sense if the bishops were ordained by someone outside of the local community. The most plausible reason for why this would be necessary is that bishops are needed in order to ordain other bishops – otherwise, the local presbyters could have done so; and since there is only one bishop per community, we come to understand that successive bishops would need to be ordained by the bishops of neighboring communities. This “coming from the outside” also makes sense of the “sent” language of Ignatius’ exhortation to the Ephesians “to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself” (Chapter 6).
Ignatius repeatedly acknowledges the unique status of the bishop and explicitly states that “bishops [are] settled everywhere to the utmost bounds… by the will of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Ephesians, Ch. 3), and that “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 8). Is the Catholic Church present also in Rome? Is Rome somewhere outside of everywhere? :)
And this brings us to the Bishop of Rome. I suggest that both a superior teaching authority and an expansive jurisdictional privilege are acknowledged by Ignatius for the Roman Church. Peter and Paul are mentioned together in Chapter 4 to the Romans, and this suggests the East’s familiarity with their dual martyrdom in Rome and the significance that this event lends to Rome’s perceived importance. Ignatius also calls on the Romans to “sing praise to the Father, through Christ Jesus, that God has deemed me… worthy to be sent for from the east unto the west. It is good to set from the world unto God, that I may rise again to Him” (Letter to the Romans, Ch. 2). This gratitude of being deemed “worthy to be sent for from the east unto the west” may further indicate a recognition of the preference to be shown to the Western Church in what would later be distinguishable as the Western and Eastern Churches. Later writers see this preference to be on account of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul and this may be what we’re seeing come together in the thought of Ignatius as well (by comparing his east/west language with his own mention of Peter and Paul). That Ignatius feels a sense of worthiness in being brought “from the east unto the west” in order to rise from there, “set from the world unto God,” suggests a sort of spiritual ascent in this bodily traverse.
Ignatius tells the Romans that their Church “presides over love,” and that they have “never envied any one;” rather, “ye have taught others” through “instructions ye enjoin” (Letter to the Romans, Ch. 3). Does Ignatius think that mere presbyters of Rome are enjoining instructions upon bishops? To answer yes to this question flips Ignatius’ thought on church hierarchy upside down. He tells them that they have the ability to hinder him (Ch. 4) and that his “desire” for martyrdom “shall be fulfilled if ye consent” (Ch. 8; cf. Ch. 1: “if ye spare me”). Finally, he reminds them – in a throwback to his salutation that they “preside over love” – that, in his absence, the Church in Syria has Jesus Christ and their “love” to oversee it (Ch. 9). That their love will oversee the Syrian Church has significant implications for us in coming to understand what it means for the Roman Church to “preside over love” in the Church of Christ.
It is my conjecture that Ignatius was going to call upon the Roman Church to become involved in the appointment of the next bishop of Antioch. This would explain why Ignatius had other local Churches sending messengers, including even bishops, to Syria (cf. Letter to the Philadelphians, Ch. 10; Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 11; Letter to Polycarp, Chs. 7 & 8), but never called upon them to ordain the next bishop. It would also make clear what was intimated by Ignatius when he said that the “love” of the Romans would be overseeing the Church in Syria. All things considered, I think that Ignatius had the intention of requesting this pastoral care from the Roman Church upon his arrival in Rome.
With love in Christ,
Pete
bsuden said,
August 5, 2012 at 8:24 pm
880 Pete,
You may believe whatever you want regarding Augustine, but it is still private judgement, never mind proof of your opinion on Augustine. Meanwhile his statement that Christ is the rock upon which the church is founded dies the death of a thousand qualifications, even as does Rome’s regarding Matt. 16. Neither one of them said what they said according to you.
OK, but more to the point, even if they did, neither the testimony of Augustine, early church history or the Roman church is infallible, perspicuous or sufficient, which is what you and the rest of your team mates essentially insist upon even as we rotate through the CtC Allstars batting list.
Yes, we all know that the Roman church claims infallibility for itself – on the basis of an inconsistent appeal to infallible Scripture Matt. 16. But for one, Scripture cannot be broken Jn. 10:35.
Which among other things, means that 2 Tim. 3:15-17 on the sufficiency of Scripture needs to be addressed. And which most conspicuously, those that have preceded you, Bryan, JJS, ADA, Sean and Arnold, have not done. Instead the question has been begged, misrepresented and smeared. As in 2 Tim. 3 only teaches that Scripture is infallible and profitable or that appeal to Scripture alone is “circular reasoning”.
Yes, we realize the obvious, it is the Protestant IP, but regardless it is what it is and stands or falls on its own merits. And true to form, neither you or Andrew have addressed it, all the while you attempt an obscure, if not allegorical appeal to Is.22 to support the Roman take on Matt. 16.
Even as you ignore the context of Is. 22 – so much for the historical grammatical exegesis of Scripture. But as John B. pointed out, Is. 22:15 clearly refers to Shebna as the treasurer which can only foreshadow Judas, who Christ replaces? according to your line of “reasoning”.
But Brad nailed it in 872. We are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength even if Rome calls it private judgement. Further, in that we are made in the image of God, that means we have a reasonable soul – not a roman soul, though I would admit that the autonomy of Rome, in which she lords it over Scripture, reason and history appeals to the natural man.
Yet as a consequences of that image, Scripture does not have to be necessarily funneled through the Roman megaphone for anybody to understand the basics regardless if Rome would have us believe that all of Scripture is impossible to be understood contra Pope Peter who tells us that Paul writes some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction 2 Pet.3:16. Unlearned we dare say, in divine things, and not necessarily the academic sense. IOW Phds in philosophy did not exist when the NT was written.
But as Bryan essentially tells us in his Ecclesial Deism, if protestantism supposedly believes that while God started the church in the beginning and then leaves it all on its lonesome, so too the Roman view of Scripture. Scripture got written along side the oral traditions and makes for a good paper weight, but God cannot through his Holy Spirit directly speak to those who read it. It is a dead letter that only Tradition and the Magisterium can revive, interpret or mangle sufficiently that nobody can understand it.
Suffice it to say again, that Rome is a vicious wicked and idolatrous superstition that lords it over Scripture, reason and history. Which means that if any one from that communion offers you an olive branch, discretion is required. If they are truly ignorant and naive regarding the nature of the apostate communion to which they belong, that is one thing. If they actively promote and espouse it, another. IOW wormwood is not an olive branch.
Brad B said,
August 5, 2012 at 11:55 pm
Humm, somewhere someone asked whose lens are you using? didn’t they?
Pesky things…uninspected presuppositions.
Brad B said,
August 6, 2012 at 12:01 am
Hmm, somehow in my race to be clever, I messed up the link, :~( Whose Lens Are You Using? see if this remedies it.
johnbugay said,
August 6, 2012 at 2:51 am
Andrew Preslar 907
Even if we say, for the sake of argument, that the church precedes the Bible (or the New Testament), we’re not living in the first century. We don’t have direct access to the 1C church. Our access to the New Testament church is mediated by the New Testament itself. Even if the church were prior in the order of being, the New Testament is prior in the order of knowing.
I know this is where where you guys say you begin:
But my question to you is, when you say “start with the church in the first century”, how do you get there? Do you ride some magical telephone booth back to the first century? You talk about “a careful study of church history”, but your response shows very clearly the presuppositions you take with you back there:
You realize this paragraph is chock-full of assumptions that need to be examined.
How do you get to the first century, New Testament church?
And when you get there, what do you find there? What do you suppose (imagine, etc.) you find regarding the church’s leadership, authority structure, etc.
This too is attributing things to me that I don’t accept. I don’t “willy nilly decide that God must have produced a book”. This is a horrible assumption for you to make.
Pete Holter said,
August 6, 2012 at 3:02 am
Bob wrote, “Scripture cannot be broken Jn. 10:35.
“Which among other things, means that 2 Tim. 3:15-17 on the sufficiency of Scripture needs to be addressed. And which most conspicuously, those that have preceded you, Bryan, JJS, ADA, Sean and Arnold, have not done. Instead the question has been begged, misrepresented and smeared. As in 2 Tim. 3 only teaches that Scripture is infallible and profitable or that appeal to Scripture alone is ‘circular reasoning’.
“Yes, we realize the obvious, it is the Protestant IP, but regardless it is what it is and stands or falls on its own merits. And true to form, neither you or Andrew have addressed it…”
Hi Bob!
I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture and its perspicuity in doctrines necessary for salvation. But since God wrote the Bible for the Church, I believe that we lose our ability to rightly interpret the Bible in its own authentic sense when we interpret it outside communion with and against the unity of the Bride of Christ.
Bob wrote, “…all the while you attempt an obscure, if not allegorical appeal to Is.22 to support the Roman take on Matt. 16.
“Even as you ignore the context of Is. 22 – so much for the historical grammatical exegesis of Scripture. But as John B. pointed out, Is. 22:15 clearly refers to Shebna as the treasurer which can only foreshadow Judas, who Christ replaces? according to your line of ‘reasoning’.”
What if we look at the passages while focusing on the more basic connection of the significance of “the key of the house of David” in the Davidic kingdom being held by the person currently in office (Isaiah 22:22)? Jesus, then, is the Son of David, Who was sent to “rebuild the tent of David that has fallen” (Acts 15:16), and “Who has the key of David” and “the keys of Death and Hades” (Revelation 3:7; 1:18), and Who has also given “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” to Peter so that “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against” His Church (Matthew 16:18-19).
One way of connecting all of this together is to see that the person who is given the keys by the King is being given the keys because he is a person who is holding an office. And once we’ve established the association of the keys with an office, and make the further point that this office is being held by someone who is mortal, the notion of succession in this office is seen to be entailed. Our goal is to try and establish to everyone’s satisfaction that the office is an office of primacy among the pastors of Christ’s flock for the purpose of unity in the family of God in order to provide a credible proclamation of the Gospel (cf. John 17).
John Bugay has noted a temporal primacy for Peter. I am hoping that we can get behind this temporal primacy by asking why it is we see him being “first” even in a temporal sense.
Why is he the first of the apostles to see Jesus raised from the dead, the one to initiate the replacement of Judas, the first to preach Christ to the Jews, the first to preach Christ to the Gentiles, and the first to give a recorded statement at the Council of Jerusalem?
Also, why is it “go, tell his disciples and Peter” (Mark 16:7); why is it that Matthias is “numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26), and “Peter” is then described as “standing with the eleven” (Acts 2:14); why is it “Peter and the rest of the apostles” (Acts 2:37), and “Peter and the Apostles” (Acts 5:29), and “the other apostles … and Cephas” (1 Cor. 9:5); and, although I’ve already mentioned this, why is it that Jesus “appeared to Cephas, [and] then to the twelve” (1 Cor. 15:5)?
The grace of Christ be with you and your loved ones,
Pete
Pete Holter said,
August 6, 2012 at 3:12 am
Hi TurretinFan!
I took a look at Aquinas’ commentary and saw that he agrees with you and thinks that I am wrong. I thought I should pass it along.
May you always know and experience and rejoice in the love that God has for you in His Son.
Pete
johnbugay said,
August 6, 2012 at 3:15 am
Pete 913:
Pete, before you get your hopes up, I’ve already noted this, too. He preached first to the Jews, first to the Gentiles; having satisfied his ministry, the “Petrine ministry” was retired mid-way through the first century. There is no on-going “Petrine ministry”.
Bob S said,
August 6, 2012 at 3:34 am
Man, I’m losing it. Too many posts (though the number is artificially inflated ahem, due to Arnold’s efforts). Still, Andrew Preslar is the one appealing to the Matt.16, Is. 22 connection, not Pete Holter and while John B. didn’t agree with Andrew, he also didn’t mention the Shebna/Judas connection.
But maybe if I sign up with the CtC we can get this infallibility thing settled once and for all. And it would be nice if a cardinal’s hat came with the deal.
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:04 am
Dear Mr. Holter,
Thanks for your kind response, as well as for sharing Thomas’ insight with us.
-TurretinFan
Andrew Preslar said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:13 am
John,
I don’t start with the 1st century church. I started in 1974, and eventually accepted the Bible because everyone I knew told me to do so. They could have pulled another book off the shelf, and I would have accepted that instead. But at some point I started to work back to the sources (thus my “after-the-fact hermeneutic”), to figure out where my people got this idea about this book, and from whence they got the book and their interpretation of it (which interpretation, as it turns out, is ever deeply informed by pre-exegetical assumptions.)
Andrew
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:13 am
anybody here? “crickets”
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:19 am
864 sean, well how about apostolic authority for the book Hebrews? We don’t know the author.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:20 am
916 bob “arificially inflated?” I would prefer legitimately inflated.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:24 am
866 Jeff, you have made a self-contradictory statement. You say church councils can matter, but only if they agree with Scripture. Who decides if the church council agrees with Scripture? YOU! So, the council is of no effect. Therefore, there is no church authority in your paradigm.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:30 am
867 simple, I think my paraphrase is fair given 59:1. He is saying you better listen to us or you’ll be sorry. That is not the kind of think you would say without any authority. You would not say that to a peer. These are very, very forceful words.
1Clem 57:2
Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the arrogant and proud
stubbornness of your tongue. For it is better for you to be found
little in the flock of Christ and to have your name on God’s roll,
than to be had in exceeding honor and yet be cast out from the hope
of Him.
1Clem 58:2
Receive our counsel, and ye shall have no occasion of regret. For as
God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit,
who are the faith and the hope of the elect, so surely shall he, who
with lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness hath without
regretfulness performed the ordinances and commandments that are
given by God, be enrolled and have a name among the number of them
that are saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory unto
Him for ever and ever. Amen.
1Clem 59:1
But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken
by Him through us, let them understand that they will entangle
themselves in no slight transgression and danger;
1Clem 63:2
For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience
unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out
the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty
which we have made for peace and concord in this letter.
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:31 am
Arnold #922:
Your comment is an example of the fallacy of saying that a subordinate authority isn’t an authority, because it isn’t an ultimate authority. It’s one of the central points of the RC argument in this dialogue, sadly.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:32 am
“864 sean, well how about apostolic authority for the book Hebrews? We don’t know the author.”
a) I agree we don’t know who the author was.
b) But I’m surprised you think that, because Trent dogmatically (and wrongly) defined it to be an epistle of Paul.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:35 am
869 Andrew, you wonder why division is a problem? Are you serious? Are you proposing that thousands of denominations outside of communion with one another and with opposing doctrines is the model for the Church that Jesus intended?
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:39 am
874 bugay, let’s assume you are right in your exegesis. Do you find it curious that no Church Fathers agree with you on this topic?
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:44 am
876 Don, it’s not fair to assume the Church had a fully developed concept of apostolic succession WHILE the apostles were still alive! But there was a growing idea of succession starting from the NT (Paul to Timothy), to Clement, and beyond. It has seeds in apostolic times and grew through history, just like the Church herself. The ‘late development’ that you should wonder about is why it took fifteen centuries for Protestants to get any traction.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:58 am
887 Const, my original question stands. You would not join the gnostics. Were you aware that Eusebius says that the Cephas that Paul rebuked was another Cephas who was one of the 70, not Peter?
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:59 am
this is the thread that never ends, it goes on and on my friends….
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 10:02 am
891 Don, a great question. That was a major block for me, that the papal doctrine should have been obvious to all as the Gospel was spread if indeed it was so important. Eventually, I came around to accepting that it did develop and grow, but that growth was from a valid seed that the Lord did plant for the Church. The Church still stands today with continuity to Peter.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 10:07 am
892 const can you please outline how Trent and Vatican I are in opposition? I don’t know what you refer to.
Can you cite a book on that matter? If you are correct, I am sure someone in the last 140 years would have written about the conflict between the two.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 10:12 am
894 Steve, here is what does make sense. If you are right, we should be able to answer the question, who invented the papacy? But actually, when we try to come up with an answer, we pick a candidate and then we notice that, hmm, before him there was a seed of what he is saying but not the whole thing. So he didnt invent it from a blank slate. And so it goes all the way back to Peter. That is the more honest way to look at it.
And if I am wrong, then tell me, WHO invented the papacy!??!
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 10:20 am
Prots, think about this. Did Jesus intend that all Christians would have to read the Bible for themselves to find him in faith? Clearly not because some people are illiterate and that’s no sin. He intended people to be a flock following their shepherd. So who is their shepherd? Is it a Prot pastor? If so, which one? They are all out there with differing doctrines.
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 10:21 am
” If you are right, we should be able to answer the question, who invented the papacy? But actually, when we try to come up with an answer, we pick a candidate and then we notice that, hmm, before him there was a seed of what he is saying but not the whole thing. So he didnt invent it from a blank slate. And so it goes all the way back to Peter. That is the more honest way to look at it. And if I am wrong, then tell me, WHO invented the papacy!??!”
This is a methodology that would justify any heresy. Even the serpent’s lies to Eve had a “seed” in what God actually said to Adam and Eve. The heresy of the papacy is no different. It’s not what the apostles taught, even if it has some “seed” in the truth.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 10:22 am
“Did Jesus intend that all Christians would have to read the Bible for themselves to find him in faith?”
John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 10:25 am
915 bugay, wow the Petrine ministry was retired! Great! Now, can you quote ANYBODY who says that from before 1500AD? Thanks.
Bob S said,
August 6, 2012 at 10:29 am
913 Mr. Holter
I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture and its perspicuity in doctrines necessary for salvation. But since God wrote the Bible for the Church, I believe that we lose our ability to rightly interpret the Bible in its own authentic sense when we interpret it outside communion with and against the unity of the Bride of Christ.
That means one, you agree that Scripture alone is sufficient to establish the papacy. Yet two, God wrote the Bible for his church – all those that believe in Christ contra the persistent interpretation of any mention in Scripture of the word “church” to mean the Roman hierarchy.
That not to mention the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church is not by default Roman.
The One church or the the Latin Rite, Maironite, Melkite, Ukrainian, Sedevacanists, Tridentine, Liberation Theology church?
A Holy church or the Vatican state presided over by John Paul, which makes Papa Joe at PennState look like a piker; gross image, Mary, saint and little piece of bread worship; the accursed idolatry of the Mass which pretends to resacrifice Christ as confected by priests after the order of neither Aaron or Melchisedek?
The universal Catholic church or that presided over by the local figurehead bishop of Rome? (For the record, nobody denies that Keller in NY or Dever in DC are influential, but the reformers repudiated non resident and non preaching bishops, though both of these men live in their charge and preach.)
The Apostolic church or the church consumed and enamored by her supposed Petrine genealogy just as the Jews thought being the seed of Abraham in the flesh was sufficient; apostolic doctrine or apostolic succession and doctrine be damned?
So much for begging the question as they say.
But if you are not in communion with Christ, you can’t be in communion with his bride. Which is the problem. IOW we are not talking about repentant tax collectors, we are talking about Matt. 23 Pharisees and Gal. Judaizers when it comes to the Roman communion. At least the Judaizers had divine sanction for their rites and ceremonial laws which they idolized and refused to abandon when the Messiah who fulfilled them appeared. Rome has no sanction other than her apocryphal lost oral traditions. Which are unnecessary in light of Scripture.
Further just like Matthew 16:23 which always gets left out of the typical equation – “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men” – So too Isaiah 22:15: “Thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, Go, get thee unto this treasurer, even unto Shebna, which is over the house, and say..”.
IOW Pope Peter/Satan, Shebna/Judas, Eliakim/Christ. Works for me as well as any of the other far fetched harebrained, asinine and allegorical interpretations of Scripture over the plain statements in Scripture regarding the gospel or the doctrine of Scripture; the book of Romans or 2 Tim. 3:15-17.
Or Peter and his primacy. No one questions that Peter stood out among the twelve. That he was the pope as a married, fallible apostle to the Jews as compared to Paul, who was chosen with a spectacular vision out of time, ascended into the third heaven, corrected Peter in Galatians, was the apostle to the Gentiles and wrote half of the NT doesn’t wash. (See
51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy for the rest of Paul’s credentials contra Peter.)
Which is just the problem. Romanism is a gross, vicious and idolatrous eyewash of Scripture, reason and history/tradition. But we already knew that, regardless of the circular reasoning and cant that argues otherwise.
Thank you.
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 10:30 am
Arnold,
Re: Trent and Vatican I, the “Old Catholic” folks provided plenty of literature in support of their position.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 10:31 am
925 Turretin, the Hebrews issue just shows why it’s irrational for Prots to draw a bold line around the 27 NT books. “Apostolic authority” is not an answer. Prots draw the bold line in following the CHURCH in history and for no other reason. This is the key contradiction: Following the Church in defining the NT bounds, and then denying that the Church could ever draw the NT bounds.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 10:32 am
924 Turretin, you say “subordinate authority” so I ask what that phrase means.
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 10:45 am
Subordinate authority is an authority that is less than some higher authority.
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 10:48 am
“925 Turretin, the Hebrews issue just shows why it’s irrational for Prots to draw a bold line around the 27 NT books.”
Apparently you think all Christians were irrational before Trent came around in the 16th century and pretended to infallibly define the canon.
“Apostolic authority” is not an answer. Prots draw the bold line in following the CHURCH in history and for no other reason.”
Why not let us tell you why we draw the lines we draw?
“This is the key contradiction: Following the Church in defining the NT bounds, and then denying that the Church could ever draw the NT bounds.”
Considering that Luther died before Trent dogmatically defined the canon …
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 10:58 am
935 Turretin, okay then I have two questions for you:
1) Who DID in fact invent the papacy? Do you have a candidate?
2) It sounds like you are admitting it may have a seed in the early Church, and what would that be?
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 11:01 am
“Were you aware that Eusebius says that the Cephas that Paul rebuked was another Cephas who was one of the 70, not Peter?”
Suppose Eusebius made such a claim. Read Galatians 2. It seems pretty clear in context that Paul is referring to the famous Peter, not to some obscure one.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 11:04 am
Turretin, the Catholic is free to acknowledge bold lines around the NT since the 4th century due to Tradition. The Protestant needs another reason to draw his bold lines around the 27 books. So what is it?
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 11:09 am
“935 Turretin, okay then I have two questions for you:
1) Who DID in fact invent the papacy? Do you have a candidate?
2) It sounds like you are admitting it may have a seed in the early Church, and what would that be?”
Arnold:
I’m not offering a candidate.
Almost all heresies (including the papacy) have some “seed” in the truth. They proceed from a mixture of truth and error, or else no one (or hardly anyone) would ever believe them.
On top of that, “seed” is such a vague and undefined thing that you can find seeds practically anywhere. If you have ever dealt with atheists who try to claim that Christanity is just Mithraism, you’ve seen this same approach.
– TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 11:15 am
“Turretin, the Catholic is free to acknowledge bold lines around the NT since the 4th century due to Tradition. The Protestant needs another reason to draw his bold lines around the 27 books. So what is it?”
a) Why exactly do we need a different reason than fallible tradition?
b) As explained numerous times, we draw the bold line based on the persuasion of the Holy Spirit, who uses both the intrinsic and internal self-authentication and cross-authentication of the books, and also through various external aids, such as the churches.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 11:18 am
947 Turretin, I guess you just don’t believe in any growth or development as being from God. You don’t see the Church being led by the Holy Spirit. You see the Church as a stagnant entity that was quickly abandoned by the apostles’ successors in order to create a man-made takeover of the Christian Church which disappeared, then reappeared with your little denomination? Is that about right?
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 11:22 am
“947 Turretin, I guess you just don’t believe in any growth or development as being from God. You don’t see the Church being led by the Holy Spirit. You see the Church as a stagnant entity that was quickly abandoned by the apostles’ successors in order to create a man-made takeover of the Christian Church which disappeared, then reappeared with your little denomination? Is that about right?”
No, it’s wrong. Instead of guessing what we believe, you should actually read what we write.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 11:42 am
947 Turretin, when a seed grows within the confines of the Church that was established by Jesus, that can be valid growth. This is what happened in history. The Catholic (universal) Church has always been around. This really does mean something.
johnbugay said,
August 6, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Andrew Preslar 918
But eventually, in “becoming Catholic”, in the process of “finding the Church that Christ founded”, you have to, as Bryan said in his Tu Quoque article, “go back to that first century church”.
Your “after-the-fact” hermeneutic involves reading current doctrines back into first century activities. If instead, you had sought to understand “what the first century church knew, and when they knew it”, you would have had a very, very hard time finding “the Roman Catholic Church”.
I understand we need to know about the intervening years. But to make them “normative” should not be the standard way of making this investigation.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 12:43 pm
952 bugay, the first c. Church was not identical to the Catholic Church today obviously. The question is if today’s Catholic Church is a valid, continuous growth from the first c. Church. Jesus was a historical figure and his movement went on through human history. It developed and grew. Here we are. One of us is in continuity with that organic growth and one is content to sit outside and hold fast to individualistic interpretations of the book that came from within that organic visible institution called the Catholic Church that has carried on throughout history since the time of Jesus.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 12:46 pm
who invented the papacy? who invented confession? who invented apostolic succession? who invented the 27 book NT canon?
if an individual or small group in one place invented these doctrines that swept across Christendom, then they would have clearly been very influential and well known and recorded by history. So, who was it?
Or were these all organic developments of the Jesus movement, guided by the Holy Spirit, a movement that has carried on through the present day within a visible united institution based on the communion of the bishops, an in particular the Bishop of Rome?
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 12:49 pm
and, if the Catholic Church is in the business of making up things, don’t you find it astonishing that it has made up so FEW things over two thousand years!? That’s plenty of time to make up thousands of doctrines, but you are only picking at a couple dozen at most. So the Church only made up one doctrine per century, that’s not too impressive for an institution in the business of making stuff up!
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 1:21 pm
“947 Turretin, when a seed grows within the confines of the Church that was established by Jesus, that can be valid growth. This is what happened in history. The Catholic (universal) Church has always been around. This really does mean something.”
a) The Scriptures do not teach that.
b) The fathers do not teach that.
c) And if you will claim that the doctrine of the development of doctrine is itself a doctrinal development … do I need to explain the circularity?
d) Quite a large number of heresies have grown up “within the confines of the Church” (Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and I could go on and on). They are not valid by virtue of having grown up in those confines.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 6, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Arnold (#922):
866 Jeff, you have made a self-contradictory statement. You say church councils can matter, but only if they agree with Scripture. Who decides if the church council agrees with Scripture? YOU! So, the council is of no effect. Therefore, there is no church authority in your paradigm.
There are some important elements in your reasoning that need clearing up.
The first is that you are confusing ‘reasoning agent’ with ‘authority.’
Suppose I have you over for dinner and I’m showing you our butterfly garden. I point out the Black-Eyed Susans and say, “I love those yellow flowers.”
You reply, “They aren’t yellow — they’re pink!”
We walk closer, and I say, “No, not the zinnias, those, the yellow ones.”
You: “They’re pink!”
Me: “… well, we’re looking at them. They are clearly yellow.”
You: “That’s just your private interpretation of yellow.”
Me: “Well, OK, we can get out a spectrum analyzer, and you will see that there’s a strong spike right around 580nm and no spike near 700nm. It’s yellow and not pink.”
You: “But now you’re relying on your own authority! You need an interpreter who has the authority to declare colors!”
And of course, this is nonsense. Why? Because there is such thing as objective truth that is invariant with respect to observer. Objects have properties, and while observers might get them wrong (if, say, they are color-blind), nevertheless, the object doesn’t depend on the observer for those properties.
The meaning of texts is likewise independent of interpreter, because the meaning is whatever the author intended. No amount of authority can alter that meaning.
A reasoning agent can now seek to determine the meaning of a text. What factors go into his decision? One factor — for the RC, the primary factor — is the teaching of the church.
But in the end, whether Protestant or Catholic, the reasoning agent determines what the reasoning agent believes. You, Arnold, believe that Matt 16’s “rock” refers to Peter. Why? Because you, the reasoning agent, accept what you understand to be the Church teaching. The Church teaching is your sole factor.
But you are still the one who determines your beliefs. Your priest does not reach inside your head and believe on your behalf. You are the reasoning agent.
I don’t believe that Matt 16’s “rock” refers to Peter. Why not? Church tradition is certainly a factor in my thinking. But I observe that the tradition has a great diversity of opinion, so that the weight of tradition is greatly lessened for this text.
So what does it mean for a church council’s decision to be tested against Scripture? It does not mean that I am some kind of interpretative authority. I am only the reasoning agent, and I weigh the opinion of the council against the meaning of the text as determined by normal rules of evidence. If there’s a conflict, then there’s a conflict — and Scripture is the authority. Not my personal interpretation of Scripture, but Scripture itself.
So Church councils are indeed authoritative for the (Confessional) Protestant. Their opinion is a significant factor that the reasoning agent must take into account in determining the meaning of the text. But because they are not infallible, they cannot be the sole factor.
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 1:30 pm
“and, if the Catholic Church is in the business of making up things, don’t you find it astonishing that it has made up so FEW things over two thousand years!? That’s plenty of time to make up thousands of doctrines, but you are only picking at a couple dozen at most. So the Church only made up one doctrine per century, that’s not too impressive for an institution in the business of making stuff up!”
a) We don’t grant that your church is as old as you say. Benedict 16 has acknowledged, if I recall correctly, that Thomas Aquinas is to Roman Catholicism as John Calvin is to Presbyterianism. And even Aquinas did not hold to all the distinctly RC dogmas, like the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility. The RC as it stands today is a product of Vatican I, and perhaps of Vatican II (depending who you ask).
b) If you read a work like Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism,” the litany of innovations is actually quite lengthy.
c) The business of Roman Catholicism is not primarily one of doctrinal innovation, but rather primarily one of earthly power (they have their reward).
d) We keep getting told that one of the purposes of “the Church” is to authentically interpret Scripture. Yet the number of verses whose meaning has been “infallibly” proclaimed by Rome are exceedingly few. That should be more surprising to you, than the somewhat larger number of innovations is to us.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 1:32 pm
“who invented the papacy? who invented confession? who invented apostolic succession? who invented the 27 book NT canon? if an individual or small group in one place invented these doctrines that swept across Christendom, then they would have clearly been very influential and well known and recorded by history. So, who was it? Or were these all organic developments of the Jesus movement, guided by the Holy Spirit, a movement that has carried on through the present day within a visible united institution based on the communion of the bishops, an in particular the Bishop of Rome?”
Talk about false dichotomies! And the premise of “if these were innovations we would know who innovated them” hasn’t been established.
-TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 6, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Arnold (#922): The second element that needs clearing up is that RC’s and Protestants do not share the same view of ‘authority.’
For a Catholic, it appears that authority is hierarchical: A is an authority, and B is over him, and C is the highest of all.
In government, this is usually true (and when it’s not, trouble sometimes results).
But in many areas of life, especially in areas of knowledge, ‘authority’ is not hierarchical. Jeffrey Glassburg is an authority on butterflies, but so is Will Cook — and neither one is subordinate to the other.
Unless there happens to be a specific hierarchy, “authorities” do not constitute an ordered set.
This is one of the fundamental flaws in Bryan Cross’s reasoning, as I pointed out here. A premise in his argument is
(2) Either each individual is his own highest ecclesial authority such that there is no visible human having higher ecclesial authority than himself, or there is a visible human ecclesial authority higher in ecclesial authority than that of each individual. (Cross, Sacramentally Grounded Authority).
And the obvious flaw is that he assumes an ordering of authorities.
So when you write, Who decides if the church council agrees with Scripture? YOU! So, the council is of no effect. Therefore, there is no church authority in your paradigm.
You are implicitly assuming that unless the church authority is always higher than myself — that is, that unless I always defer to its judgment — then it is no authority at all.
This is a false assumption.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 1:44 pm
957 Jeff
If there’s a conflict, then there’s a conflict — and Scripture is the authority. Not my personal interpretation of Scripture, but Scripture itself.
Well, you have certainly used a lot of words. Again, it comes back to this, quoted above. Who decides when there is a ‘conflict’ between Scripture and a fallible church council, as you are describing?
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 1:46 pm
958 Turretin, okay so what was the predecessor to the Catholic Church today? Where is the discontinuity between the two, and where is that predecessor today?
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 1:48 pm
“869 Andrew, you wonder why division is a problem? Are you serious? Are you proposing that thousands of denominations outside of communion with one another and with opposing doctrines is the model for the Church that Jesus intended?”
It’s interesting how doctrinal development is defended on the grounds that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church through history. But if the Spirit can protect against unwanted doctrines, surely the Spirit can also protect against unwanted divisions. So the existing divisions are (using the same “development” logic) intended.
Moreover, yes – while the multi-denominational model is not the model for heaven, it has useful advantages over a centralized model in the here and now.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 1:53 pm
“958 Turretin, okay so what was the predecessor to the Catholic Church today? Where is the discontinuity between the two, and where is that predecessor today?”
Well, if you define Roman Catholicism by Vatican II, then the predecessor was the religion dogmatically defined by the collection of dogmas up to and including definition of the bodily assumption (Pius XII, 1950), and the discontinuity was the event of the council.
That predecessor exists today amongst a number of sedevacantists and “traditionalists,” who deny the validity of the council.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 2:01 pm
959 Turretin, so you find it plausible that a person was so influential that he invented a doctrine like confession and spread it across the Church and also remained anonymous?
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 2:16 pm
“959 Turretin, so you find it plausible that a person was so influential that he invented a doctrine like confession and spread it across the Church and also remained anonymous?”
Yes and no. “Confession” is actually a bundle of different things mixed together. Like a cancer, it didn’t just magically appear as a huge tumor over night – it slowly grew, bit by bit. Moreover, those changes spread from one place to another. Things like large councils tend to promote that kind of cross-pollination.
If it helps you, think about large councils as the facebook of the patristic era. There’s the possibility of anonymous people starting trends that catch on, without anyone remembering who exactly said “LOL” for the first time.
-TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 6, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Well, Arnold, let me ask you this question: Is it logically possible that the teaching of the RC church could conflict with Scripture?
Jeff Cagle said,
August 6, 2012 at 2:34 pm
#965: Actually, this is correct whether or not you agree with the doctrine of Confession. For it is self-evident that Confession was not practiced in the 1st century as it is now. Development happened somewhere along the line. In fact, we are certain of this, for the early church teaching on Penance was that it could be performed but once in a lifetime, like a “plank in the shipwreck of one’s faith.”
Likewise, the Donatist controversy arose because it was unknown whether or not there could be penance after worshiping the genius of the emperor. That issue is now resolved.
So yes, someone was influential enough to get the ball rolling with once-in-a-lifetime penance, and again with “no penance after worshiping the emperor.” Why not in reverse?
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 2:34 pm
966 Turretin, assuming you are correct, what would protect your particular denomination from the same evil human corruptions over time? Do you think any visible institution must necessarily be corrupted over time? This is certainly not the thought of the Church Fathers.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 2:38 pm
967 Jeff, no Church teaching and Scripture cannot be in conflict. Of course, by your paradigm, I can myself decide if there is a conflict. I decide not.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 6, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Arnold (#970): OK, I wasn’t expecting you to take that road.
So what chain of reasoning makes it logically impossible for Church teaching to conflict with Scripture? Lay out the argument as a syllogism.
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 2:46 pm
“966 Turretin, assuming you are correct, what would protect your particular denomination from the same evil human corruptions over time?”
God could, but He makes no promise to protect any particular denomination. That’s why I don’t put my trust in princes or the sons of men, but only in the Living God. He *alone* is my Rock.
“Do you think any visible institution must necessarily be corrupted over time? This is certainly not the thought of the Church Fathers.”
Obviously the heavenly kingdom will not be corrupted. But that is because in heaven we will not have a mixture of wheat and tares, nor will we any longer experience the war in the flesh that we presently experience.
I cannot recall the patristic teaching regarding the inevitability of error. We’ve had considerably longer to observe what happens to churches than they did.
-TurretinFan
johnbugay said,
August 6, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Jeff 971: I thought I’d give this a try:
P1: If the Roman Catholic Church teaches anything in conflict with Scripture, it is not infallible.
P2: The Roman Catholic Church is infallible.
C: Therefore the Roman Catholic Church does not teach anything that conflicts with Scripture.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 6, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Arnold, is that a fair rendering of your thoughts?
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 3:43 pm
“But since God wrote the Bible for the Church, I believe that we lose our ability to rightly interpret the Bible in its own authentic sense when we interpret it outside communion with and against the unity of the Bride of Christ.”
But Paul tells us …
1 Corinthians 10:15
I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
That seems like an explicit grant of authority to us to judge the authentic sense for ourselves. Moreover, there is never any teaching that we must only judge it in accordance with the teachings of any particular church.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 3:45 pm
who will have the honor of comment #1,000?
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 3:51 pm
As far as I can tell, the Protestant case is that when the apostle John died, the Church then became quickly infested with evil corruptions and ceased to be God’s Church at that time, in 100AD or so. If so, do you find it remarkable that NO Church Fathers comment upon this absolutely critical fact of Church history?
Jeff Cagle said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Not so. It’s pretty clear that the Church wrestled with large numbers of issues — trinitarian, Christological, soteriological.
The Protestant case is that the Church did a better job with some of these issues, a worse job with others.
Justification by faith is one of the issues that percolated along — receiving better treatment in some places, worse in others. It was not really until Trent that Rome repudiated justification by faith alone. And even there, the 6th session was passed by a slim margin (acc. to Schaff — I haven’t seen the vote count).
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:02 pm
971 Jeff, You are aware that the whole Catholic system rests upon the idea that the Church teaches without error, and this itself implies without conflicting with Scripture, which itself also is without flaw. You accept that part, though I am not aware of any rational reason to do so without the first part since Scripture came to be through the Church. If you doubt the Church’s authority and the value of Tradition, I don’t know how you draw a bold line around the 27 books.
Anyway, the Council of Jerusalem clearly intended to teach with authority. Clement intended to teach with authority. Scripture is not in conflict with the teachings of the Church and that has always been the Christian understanding throughout the first centuries of the Church, hence why the ecumenical councils remain normative. Did Christians dissent from the council of Nicea? No they did not, unless they were heretics. So, Nicea taught without error, and therefore it did not conflict with Scripture because Scripture is without error as well, which you accept. Don’t you think fourth century Christians saw Nicea as binding upon the Church?
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:04 pm
972 Turretin, you only trust in God alone? So are you in communion with anyone? Or are you a Christian religion all to yourself, just you and Jesus while everyone else is a heretic? Who are you in communion with?
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:10 pm
978 Jeff, when you say “the Church” did a better job, etc, what “Church” are you talking about?
It might be more accurate to say the Protestant caseS plural because Protestants won’t agree on which issues were handled well and which ones weren’t.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Arnold, the goal here is not to fence, but to clarify the reasoning. I aim to teach and to be taught. So: is #973 a clear and correct representation of your reasoning?
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:26 pm
982 Jeff my 979 is addressing that issue. Being guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church cannot teach in conflict with Scripture, just as God cannot contradict Himself.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Let’s look at three paradigms.
1. Protestant- Scripture is the only authority.
2. Orthodox- Scripture and Tradition are equal authorities.
3. Catholic- Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are equal authorities.
Within any of these, an adherent of that paradigm will of course claim that his paradigm is internally consistent and does not contradict itself.
The Protestant will struggle to describe how Scripture can be an authority all by itself yet it did not create itself, it came from somewhere else, so it is a created thing, just as we are created and not the Creator. It must have another source of authority along with it in order for it to rationally come into existence.
To say that “God is the only authority” is to simply avoid this topic altogether.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Alright, then I will take that as a Yes.
Now, we have previously agreed that P2, “The Roman Catholic Church is infallible”, is a proposition that is not itself infallible.
Rather, you looked at history and the teachings of the church fathers and decided that the best inference is that the RCC church is the church that Christ founded, and that it furthermore is infallible.
But *if* your interpretation of history and the teachings of the church fathers is incorrect, then P2 is also incorrect.
In which case, it is not logically impossible that church teaching would contradict Scripture. Rather, a (hypothetical) contradiction between church teaching and Scripture would simply mean that P2 is wrong.
And since your premise P2 is not infallible, there is a possibility, however remote, that this could occur.
Good so far?
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Jeff, what church would you have joined in 66AD? 150AD? 500AD? 1000AD? 1800AD? The present? What is your answer to each of these, how many churches do you pick, and why does your answer change from date to date here?
Brad B said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:40 pm
I’m sorry, I find Arnold to be disingenous, maybe even impish.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:40 pm
985 Jeff you state the tu quoque which has been dealt with at length.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:41 pm
987 Brad we are not here to impugn each other’s personal character or motives.
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:45 pm
978 Jeff, James 2:24 present any issue to you for Sola Fide?
Arnold said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:48 pm
How does a Prot deal with these verses???????????
I can see how the Catholic and EO system would make sense of them with confession continuing since the apostles. How would a Protestant make sense of this? The gift of the Holy Spirit went away after John died and then no Church fathers commented on that fact?
John 20
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
David Gadbois said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:51 pm
This thread has degenerated into Protestants answering every scattershot, unserious objection Arnold can throw in the air. Is this the best you Romanists can do in lieu of actually sustaining a historical, biblical, and theological argument that proves the proposition that Christ established an office of the papacy? I’m amazed by how mythological their faith is, they don’t want to deal with the concrete facts of history. They expect the Tradition Fairy or perhaps the Development Fairy to cover the gaps for them.
Brad B said,
August 6, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Well, Arnold, your 990 is an example of what I mean. You could and probably do actually know the Protestant position enough to realize this scripture presents no coherency issues with the reformed systematic. It also neither answers the OP nor furthers the discussion of the topic.
David Gadbois said,
August 6, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Arnold, we aren’t stupid. We know when someone is trying to score debate points in contrast to those who can actually stay on-topic, answer directly the challenges of interlocutors, and present a linear argument for their case.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 6, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Arnold (#988): Indeed I am. And I aim to to show specifically why one should not rely on Bryan’s analysis.
And the point is not necessarily that I am right, but to clarify for you, for me, for all readers, the issues at stake. Because where things stand right now is that Catholics believe that some great victory over the tu quoque argument has been won, while Protestants continue to believe that the tu quoque argument has great force.
This impasse will continue until it becomes more obvious to one side or the other exactly what the arguments mean.
So. We have established so far that it is *not* a logical contradiction to believe that a Church teaching might be in conflict with the Scriptures.
So now imagine that I present you with an apparent contradiction. The Scripture commands that we are not to make graven images, to bow down or to worship them (Ex. 20.4 – 5: ου ποιησεις σεαυτω ειδωλον … ου προσκυνησεις αυτοις ουδε μη λατρευσης αυτοις).
But you respond that the 2nd council of Nicea has already interpreted this text and has decreed,
…just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people.
… and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence ( aspasmon kai timhtikhn proskunh – sin ), not indeed that true worship of faith ( latreian >) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom.
And I say: Look, here’s the contradiction. The Bible says
Do not make images of things on earth or under earth and do not proskune them.
II Nicea says,
Make images of Mary, saints, and holy people, and proskune them.
Very clear.
And you respond, “It cannot be a contradiction, because the Church has infallibly declared that icondulism is not a violation of the 10 Commandments.”
And I ask, “How do you know that this is not the hypothetical contradiction that shows that P2 is wrong?”
And you say … ?
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Arnold:
We believe that the apostles had a unique authority to be the witnesses of Christ. Jesus did not repeat his John 20 breathing when Benedict XVI was appointed by the college of cardinals to serve on his throne in Rome. The unique authority of the apostles was attested by signs and wonders, none of which are possessed by Benedict XVI.
-TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 6, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Arnold (#990): It does indeed. Every Protestant needs to think through James 2 as they seek to understand what it means to be justified by faith.
Here are my own thoughts on the matter: link.
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 5:38 pm
“Jeff, what church would you have joined in 66AD? 150AD? 500AD? 1000AD? 1800AD? The present? What is your answer to each of these, how many churches do you pick, and why does your answer change from date to date here?”
Where in the world is Jeff at those dates? How much does he know? What options are available to him?
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 5:41 pm
“1. Protestant- Scripture is the only authority. 2. Orthodox- Scripture and Tradition are equal authorities. 3. Catholic- Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are equal authorities. ”
A) Reformed Christians say that Scripture is the supreme authority, not the only authority.
B) The EOs treat the 7 so-called ecumenical councils as having authority.
-TurretinFan
simpleelder said,
August 6, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Way back (764) I accused Arnold of not being Trinitarian but Quadrenian, with the infallible RCC holding the 1st and primary role in this idolatrous deity.
Once you read his comments through this lens, everything else lines up.
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 5:44 pm
“972 Turretin, you only trust in God alone? So are you in communion with anyone? Or are you a Christian religion all to yourself, just you and Jesus while everyone else is a heretic? Who are you in communion with?”
I’m in communion with the Evangelical churches (where “Reformed” is a subset of “Evangelical”).
-TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 6, 2012 at 5:48 pm
T-Fan (#998): Why do I keep getting images of Bill and Ted when I contemplate this question?
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 5:49 pm
“Don’t you think fourth century Christians saw Nicea as binding upon the Church?”
Augustine (354-430 AD):
John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J., Answer to Maximinus, Book II, XIV – On the Sameness of Substance in the Trinity, Section 3 (New York: New City Press, 1995), pp. 281-82.
And given that Athanasius was nearly alone in defending Nicaea for many years, I think it is safe to say that Augustine’s view was also the view of his 4th century predecessors.
-TurretinFan
johnbugay said,
August 6, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Jeff 1002:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/06/bryans-excellent-adventure.html
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 5:54 pm
LOL, Jeff, regarding the excellent adventure. My point is, of course, that if you were in an unevangelized part of the world in A.D. 66, you would probably form your own church, whereas in 1800 in America, you could easily pick the presbyterian church.
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 5:58 pm
“As far as I can tell, the Protestant case is that when the apostle John died, the Church then became quickly infested with evil corruptions and ceased to be God’s Church at that time, in 100AD or so. If so, do you find it remarkable that NO Church Fathers comment upon this absolutely critical fact of Church history?”
a) If that case were true, it wouldn’t be remarkable at all that “NO Church Fathers” comment on it, because they would be part of the problem.
b) That is not, however, “the Protestant case.” It sounds a little like the Mormon case or the Muslim case. The “Protestant case” does not actually depend on a particular view of church history. It depends on the sufficiency of Scripture.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 6:01 pm
“It would be foolish to pluck and bite into the fruit without considering the tree that produced it (the visible, human side of Scripture). In this case, it is a very old tree, and much grown from its seed-like origin. ”
This assertion seems to be based on a mistaken premise that “the church” is the human author of Scripture. “The church” is not. Various prophets, apostles, and evangelists were the human authors.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 6:10 pm
“Likewise, it is reasonable to expect those who attempt to draw conclusions about the Father’s views of the authority of the Church to appeal to their statements concerning the same. So let’s look at what the Fathers have to say about the authority of tradition and the magisterium.”
What is interesting is that we find the formal and material sufficiency of Scripture more or less explicitly taught both in Scripture and in the fathers. We don’t see the infallibility of councils or Roman bishops taught in Scripture or in the fathers.
By the time one gets to the schoolmen, one sees some distinctively Roman Catholic ideas being enunciated, but one doesn’t see things like Aquinas’ view of the Roman bishop (and that bishop’s relationship to the whole church) either in Scripture or in the authentic writings of the early church fathers.
It’s not simply a matter of the ECFs being as inconsistent or naive as some of the schoolmen. It’s that they didn’t have any conception of the bishop of Rome as infallible mouthpiece of the whole church.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Steve G.
You asked:
If there was an answer to this question, I didn’t see it. It seems like something that our RC friends should consider addressing.
-TurretinFan
Pete Holter said,
August 6, 2012 at 7:29 pm
John Bugay wrote, “Pete, before you get your hopes up, I’ve already noted this, too. He preached first to the Jews, first to the Gentiles; having satisfied his ministry, the ‘Petrine ministry’ was retired mid-way through the first century. There is no on-going ‘Petrine ministry.’ ”
Hi John! I have big hopes for you and your family.
Is it your conclusion, then, that the reason why Peter is temporally first is that he’s the leader of the apostles as stated in the quote you provided from Nolland (I’m also including a snippet from page 670)?
Going back to what you said, a few questions come to mind. Why should we see the inclusion of the Gentiles as the end of the Petrine Ministry? Why not rather see Peter’s hand in this as simply an example of similar such scenarios that have arisen and are still to arise for the faithful until the return of our Lord? If it was needful for the pastoral office to have such a leader in the time of the apostles, would it not follow: all the more would they need one after the time of the apostles? And couldn’t Peter’s saying, “I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things” (2 Peter 1:15), imply that the Church will continue to have need of his peculiar ministry after his departure?
With love in Christ,
Pete
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Andrew P. wrote:
Compare that to the class on eldership:
I Timothy 3:1-7
This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
The more you think about it, the more that supposedly “papacy 101” just looks like “intro to eldership,” if that.
That looks like an awfully cryptic way of conveying a message. Indeed, the things spoken to Peter about Peter seem to be personally to Peter, not to an office. The personal failings of Peter are more obviously a way of balancing out any excessively positive view of Peter that one might have. Indeed, these aren’t the only places where Peter’s personal failings are mentioned.
This, of course, we grant. What those other things were, though, the advocates of the papacy cannot tell us.
a) The verses don’t reveal that God ordained an office of the papacy. That idea has to be read into the verses.
b) It’s a false dichotomy to suppose that the choices are flounder or papacy. The NT Scriptures were provided so that we could know what Jesus revealed to the apostles.
c) The Scriptures do not say or hint that a papacy obviates the need for further writings. On the contrary, the Scriptures do indicate that the Scriptures obviate the need to write everything, indicating the sufficiency of Scripture:
John 20:30-31
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 6, 2012 at 9:07 pm
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15) ”
It doesn’t say “develop these traditions,” it says “stand fast and hold.” And since the apostles aren’t walking around preaching (and haven’t been for years), I’m pretty confident that there aren’t any folks in this conversation who have received traditions orally from the apostles.
That leaves those who received the traditions in writing. Stand fast and hold what you have.
-TurretinFan
Brad B said,
August 6, 2012 at 11:54 pm
Back at 752, dgh said
then, at 766 Andrew commented on Darryls post
Reminds me of Jesus’ words
Private interpretation or not, it’s hard to miss the plain meaning of this scripture. If the leadership of the Roman church has delivered an infallible interpretation, oughtn’t it to have shrunk the tent?
Don said,
August 7, 2012 at 1:46 am
Arnold #892,
OK, but the second generation better have had it! Otherwise, the “Tradition” did not have a historical basis; it was created later.
But “succession” does not mean “transfer of apostolic authority.” As you probably know, 1 Cor 15:8 is a strong argument that Paul was the last to be appointed apostle.
No, I don’t think this has ever really bothered me. It’s not like the Reformers were the first group to disagree with the Roman church. I think “Printing press spread their message faster than inquisition or crusade could kill them” is not too oversimplified.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 9:17 am
I would like to pose what I call “The 40AD Problem.” In the year 40AD, we can clearly say that the Church was not guided by Sola Scriptura. None of the New Testament existed. What was the authority of the Church at this time and exactly when/how did this authority cease to be such and give way to Scripture as the only authority for the Church?
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 9:20 am
Andrew P. wrote: “My understanding of the succession likewise comes from Scripture (e.g., Paul’s ordination of Timothy by laying on of hands), along with Tradition (e.g., Irenaeus’ list of the Roman Succession).”
But, as most people know, Benedict XVI was not made the “successor” of John Paul II by John Paul II. Instead, he was picked by his peers in the college of cardinals after John Paul II’s death. Papal succession, therefore, is distinct from the kind of succession that Timothy had with respect to Paul, at Ephesus.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 9:27 am
“The Council did not oppose the unanimous consent of the Fathers in its definition of papal infallibility, because the diversity of the patristic readings of that text is, taken on the whole, consistent with the Council’s definition.”
There are two different things – one is not interpreting Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent, another is not interpreting Scripture except according to the unanimous consent. The former rule is less restrictive than the latter rule.
However, the latter rule is the rule adopted by Pius IX at Vatican I: “Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.”
However, where there are a diversity of conflicting patristic interpretations, there is not unanimous consent. Moreover, on the issue of (for example) Matthew 16:18, there is not unanimous consent that the rock is Peter.
You cannot consistently hold to the confession of Pius IX and to the canons and decrees of Vatican I.
-TurretinFan
Pat Roach said,
August 7, 2012 at 9:32 am
Arnold – the “40 AD problem” goes away if you count the OT as Scripture. In fact, it is the OT Scriptures which are appealed to as the authority by the apostles and prophets in explaining Jesus Christ.
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 9:39 am
“I would like to pose what I call “The 40AD Problem.” In the year 40AD, we can clearly say that the Church was not guided by Sola Scriptura. None of the New Testament existed. What was the authority of the Church at this time and exactly when/how did this authority cease to be such and give way to Scripture as the only authority for the Church?”
a) The Church was guided by Scripture. Jesus quoted it as authoritative and all the apostles treated it as authoritative. We can see from Acts that Paul preached from the Scriptures to the Jews.
b) The Church was generally guided by the Word of God, including the teachings of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Even before Jesus’ teachings were inscripturated, they were authoritative.
c) In short, it was the Word of God (both the Old Testament Scripture and the new Word revealed by Jesus and the Holy Spirit) that formed and guided the church.
d) Around A.D. 33, Jesus ascended into heaven, and subsequently he appeared only to Paul (as far as we know). Likewise, the eyewitnesses of Christ’s ministry, including the apostles and others like Jesus’ family, died within the next 100 years (many sooner than that).
e) Before the apostles and eyewitnesses died, the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture that put the Word of God in writing. We are not promised that everything Jesus taught was put in writing, but we are told that what was provided in writing was provided so that we could believe and have eternal life.
f) These days, we don’t have Jesus himself, or the apostles, but we have the Scriptures. We call this situation “sola scriptura.” It was the situation that was already beginning to happen when Hebrews was written, and which seems to have happened shortly after the writing of Revelation.
– TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 10:17 am
“From what I can tell, you and the Protestant scholars that you cite are inferring that the Fathers held a certain view of tradition from the way that they appealed to Scripture. But a high view of Sacred Scripture does not itself imply anything about one’s view of Holy Tradition and ecclesial authority”
Of course, in some cases the Fathers did not simply say nice things about Scripture but actually went so far as to say things like:
– Cyril of Alexandria, “Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos,” Part 1, Section 2
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 11:05 am
Turretin 1018, a) are you suggesting that the 40AD Church had an understanding of Christianity just as good as you have based solely on the OT? Then why do we need the NT at all?
b) HOW could Jesus’ words be authoritative in 40AD without a New Testament and only by Scripture alone? That is totally illogical.
Bob S said,
August 7, 2012 at 11:34 am
1020 true to CtC form – whether he belongs to it officially or not – our attention deficit/craving disordered interlocutor fails to remember that he claims to be a former protestant without any acknowledgement whatsoever of the standard explanation in Scripture of these kinds of questions.
That is, God gave miraculous signs, wonders and miracles that accompanied new revelation. Whenever there was an addition made to the inspired record, there was always a question of how do we know this is genuine? What are the prophet’s credentials or how do we know God has approved this message?
To the law and the testimony Is. 8. It built on what went before and once one realizes for instance, how much and in what fashion the NT relies on and quotes the Old, the baptist scales falls from ones eyes.
For Rome not so much, obviously. The scales still remain and unless the Lord removes them, they wander oblivious as they so desire because they will not acknowledge the truth no matter how many times they are told.
But enough for now.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 12:13 pm
1021 bob, the question remains unanswered. How could the Church operate in 40AD with no NT written down? Who was the authority? What would a new Christian do to learn about Jesus in 40AD?
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 12:16 pm
What was the authority of the Church at this time and exactly when/how did this authority cease to be such and give way to Scripture as the only authority for the Church?
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 1:02 pm
“Turretin 1018, a) are you suggesting that the 40AD Church had an understanding of Christianity just as good as you have based solely on the OT? Then why do we need the NT at all?”
Your second question is a good one for people who think that Christians cannot just read the Bible and know what God says in it.
As for your first question, that’s not what I was suggesting. Jesus Christ brought greater revelation. The OT was enough for a time, but in the fullness of time (in the last days) Christ brought in what was previously lacking. He completed what began earlier.
“b) HOW could Jesus’ words be authoritative in 40AD without a New Testament and only by Scripture alone? That is totally illogical.”
a) Jesus is God. That’s why his words were authoritative.
b) Jesus himself invited people to examine his words and deeds by the rule of Scripture. “Search the Scriptures” he told the Pharisees, as you may recall. He appealed to the authority of Scripture, even when arguing with Satan during his temptation.
c) The Word of God is always authoritative. Scripture “alone” is all we have now, although at one time we had Jesus and the apostles as well.
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 1:02 pm
“What was the authority of the Church at this time and exactly when/how did this authority cease to be such and give way to Scripture as the only authority for the Church?”
What makes you think “the Church” ever had any authority?
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 1:08 pm
“1021 bob, the question remains unanswered. How could the Church operate in 40AD with no NT written down? Who was the authority? What would a new Christian do to learn about Jesus in 40AD?”
a) What makes you think “the Church” even existed in that age?
b) The churches (note the plural) operated by having teachers who taught. They taught authoritatively from the OT Scriptures. Moreover, some of the teachers – for example the apostles and Philip – were attested by God with signs and wonders.
c) And, of course, you don’t have to have “authority” in order to lead people to Jesus. A child can evangelize his parents by telling them the truth about Jesus.
d) In A.D. 40, there were people who were eyewitnesses of Jesus. They could report what Jesus said and did. That included the apostles, as well as others like Mary Magdalene.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Turretin, I don’t even know where to start with your posts.
on 1026, part d) how would you know who to trust as to the eyewitnesses? What if Simon Magus was one of them? How would you know who to trust???
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 1:54 pm
992 David, if you want to talk about history, you will have to wonder why your ecclesial communion did not exist for 1500+ years after Jesus was on earth.
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 1:56 pm
“Turretin, I don’t even know where to start with your posts. on 1026, part d) how would you know who to trust as to the eyewitnesses? What if Simon Magus was one of them? How would you know who to trust???”
a) Simon Magus couldn’t work miracles that were comparable to Philip’s wonders. That’s one reason that the people of Samaria, Simon Magus included, followed what Philip said.
b) They sure as can be didn’t check to see if Philip was certified by the (as yet non-existent) bishop of Rome.
c) So – yes – people trusted those who could raise the dead, cure blindness, and things like that. And they had the OT Scriptures that could confirm or deny the Apostles’ doctrine.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 1:57 pm
994 David, nobody needs to make personal comments here.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:03 pm
995 Jeff, you must ask yourself, why is this issue so clear to me but all the Church fathers at Nicea were such dolts? Think about that one for a while.
I actually have a friend who wrote a book about the Shroud and he believes that the Shroud led the early Church to make icons because of the image of Christ on the Shroud. The earliest icons are of Christ’s face. This is just a theory, but an interesting one.
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:04 pm
“The opinions of Archbishop Kenrick do not constitute “historic Catholic teaching.” What does constitute historic Catholic teaching are the deliverances of the ecumencial councils, the teachings of the popes, and the consensus of the Fathers. The fact is that Archbishop Kenrick’s position on this matter is contrary to the actions of the First Vatican Council itself, which both defined the dogma of papal infallibility and affirmed that Scripture was not to be interpreted except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. ”
It is interesting that our lay friends in the RC communion consider themselves qualified to judge whether an Archbishop is teaching correctly or incorrectly. They also seem to think we might be in a position to judge this matter with them – and to conclude that they have rightly determined that the Archbishop is “contrary” to Vatican I.
But there is no reason that same principle cannot be extended to judging the bishop of Rome and his teaching by the standard of Scripture.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:06 pm
996 Turretin, you must assume that this unique authority completely died out. The office of apostle did go away as one who was a personal witness of Christ, but did ALL apostolic authority die out?
To answer this question in the affirmative is simply to disagree with all Christians from the first fifteen centuries of Church history. Is that a comfortable position? It wasn’t for me.
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:08 pm
“995 Jeff, you must ask yourself, why is this issue so clear to me but all the Church fathers at Nicea were such dolts? Think about that one for a while.”
They weren’t “dolts,” they were idolaters. The council held about 30 years before them rightly judged the matter. They wrongly judged it. They wrongly judged it, because they loved their idols. Read the OT, you’ll see how unsurprising it is to find men who love their idols.
“I actually have a friend who wrote a book about the Shroud and he believes that the Shroud led the early Church to make icons because of the image of Christ on the Shroud. The earliest icons are of Christ’s face. This is just a theory, but an interesting one.”
Considering that the Shroud was made no earlier than the 13th century, the theory that it inspired icons is wrong.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Gentlemen, for the record I admire that you want to engage with these issues which most Protestants (and Catholics) are ignorant about. May our Lord be glorified.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:12 pm
1034 Turretin, they were idolators? Where was the true Christian Church at the time?
On the Shroud, we are unable to reproduce it, even today. The carbon dating from the 80s has been thoroughly discredited. If you are interested, it’s quite a fascinating topic.
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:15 pm
“996 Turretin, you must assume that this unique authority completely died out.”
Actually, you have assume that the unique authority wasn’t unique. The people who had the unique authority completely died out and the signs died with them.
“The office of apostle did go away as one who was a personal witness of Christ, but did ALL apostolic authority die out?”
No apostles, no apostolic authority.
“To answer this question in the affirmative is simply to disagree with all Christians from the first fifteen centuries of Church history. Is that a comfortable position? It wasn’t for me.”
It’s simply not true that “all Christians from the first fifteen centuries” had a single view of what authority the people who came after the apostles had.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:15 pm
999 Turretin, a) what are those other authorities?
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:18 pm
1037 Turretin, it is quite true that apostolic succession was operative and undisputed for the first fifteen centuries of the Church. Feel free to quote some Christians saying otherwise. I would like to see it. If you can’t, you have to concede the point because you have fifteen centuries to work with, that should be plenty of material.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Turretin, why did Irenaeus quote the succession list from Rome? Was that just academic? Was he just a heretic?
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Arnold: other authorities include parents, employers, masters, kings, deacons, and elders.
“1034 Turretin, they were idolators? Where was the true Christian Church at the time?”
a) Some of them were being persecuted by the idolaters.
b) In the West, actually, the decrees were met with resistance by the council of Frankfort, for example.
c) And just because people fall into a serious sin does not necessarily remove them from being Christians.
“On the Shroud, we are unable to reproduce it, even today. The carbon dating from the 80s has been thoroughly discredited. If you are interested, it’s quite a fascinating topic.”
Actually, it’s easily reproduced today. The carbon dating has been questioned by shroud fans, but the shroud fans’ arguments are based on theories that are themselves highly suspect. The original dating was done by multiple labs working apart from one another, and they all reached approximately the same conclusion.
– TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:22 pm
1001 Turretin, you are most definitely not in communion with all Evangelical churches. Communion means shared doctrines at the least. You do not share doctrines with All Evangelical churches because they don’t share doctrines with each other.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:27 pm
1041 Turretin, the Shroud has not been reproduced. It also has organic fibers in it from Israel from Jesus’ time. The carbon dating was done on a corner of the cloth that was likely handled by human hands quite a lot over time which can change the chemistry of the cloth and throw off the dating.
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:30 pm
“1037 Turretin, it is quite true that apostolic succession was operative and undisputed for the first fifteen centuries of the Church. Feel free to quote some Christians saying otherwise. I would like to see it. If you can’t, you have to concede the point because you have fifteen centuries to work with, that should be plenty of material.”
We’ve provided multiple examples already in this comment thread.
“Turretin, why did Irenaeus quote the succession list from Rome? Was that just academic? Was he just a heretic?”
Read the context of what he wrote. His point was not to assert apostolic authority, but rather to assert historical credibility. Was he a heretic? Just because someone makes an argument that is wrong or premised on mistaken information doesn’t make them a heretic.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:30 pm
1003 Turretin, I thought Augustine was dismissed out of hand by Protestants earlier in these posts?
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:30 pm
“1003 Turretin, I thought Augustine was dismissed out of hand by Protestants earlier in these posts?”
Perhaps you misunderstood the earlier exchange?
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:33 pm
1045 Turretin, are you conceding that ‘historical credibility’ can be gained through a succession from the apostles?
jsm52 said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Darryl Hart chimes in on early church fathers and the primacy of Peter:
http://oldlife.org/2012/08/the-primacy-of-james-or-the-ante-ante-nicene-fathers/
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:47 pm
1009 Turretin, happy to discuss this-
Let’s pick one important papal doctrine – the doctrine of papal infallibility as pronounced by the pope in 1870. Did Jesus teach this to Peter? A simple “yes” or “no” will do. If, “yes”, then why was this doctrine not pronounced by a pope until 1870? Did the popes forget this until then? If “no”, then why did Jesus not tell Peter such a crucial aspect of his job? Lastly, regardless of your answer, how do you know your answer to be true?
The answer is no in an explicit sense. Jesus did not need to explain to Peter a long lesson on future papal questions and issues. He simply said ‘Feed my sheep’ AND guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church. The HS led the Church to recognize the Trinity later, as well as the NT canon in the fourth century, and many other truths later. In 1870 the Church formally recognized that this gift of the keys to Peter included the special protection from error that a Pope has when speaking in the special case of ex-cathedra.
How do I know it is true is just a rehashing of the tu quoque and Church authority.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 2:54 pm
1014 Don, Paul was the last apostle, but that does not mean that all apostolic authority died with the apostles. That view would be unknown to Church history. A valid Eucharist had to be celebrated by a priest ordained in succession from the apostles. That has always been the case, East and West.
Let’s think about your view of Church history. Basically, the Church (remember this is the Church of Jesus Christ, from him in history) was evil and the real Christians just kept getting killed. Then the printing press allowed them to get their message out. If this is so, wouldn’t you view the printing press as a wonderful intervention of the Holy Spirit in Church history? I haven’t heard this view articulated before.
Don said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Arnold #1051,
And you sure didn’t hear anything you wrote in the second paragraph of this comment from me. Stop putting words into my mouth. Stop making stuff up. Seriously. Your invention of my view of church history is not worth responding to.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:11 pm
1013 Brad B, are you assuming Christianity is supposed to be a tiny religion? And also, as you know, Catholics believe that many ‘in the tent’ may not be saved (the assurance of salvation question) so you can still have your narrow gate within the Catholic Church if you want.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:14 pm
1018 Pat if the OT was sufficient for the Church, why did the Church add the NT on as a later accretion? Assuming the NT is a legit addition to Scripture, then exactly WHEN did it get added to the OT as Scripture? Did each book get added once it was written? This was clearly not the view of the early Church which had questions about Hebrews, etc and like Barnabas, etc and Luther wanted to excise James, etc.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Turretin, you replied to my question:
HOW could Jesus’ words be authoritative in 40AD without a New Testament and only by Scripture alone? That is totally illogical.”
a) Jesus is God. That’s why his words were authoritative.
b) Jesus himself invited people to examine his words and deeds by the rule of Scripture. “Search the Scriptures” he told the Pharisees, as you may recall. He appealed to the authority of Scripture, even when arguing with Satan during his temptation.
c) The Word of God is always authoritative. Scripture “alone” is all we have now, although at one time we had Jesus and the apostles as well.
here are my replies:
a) No kidding. That leaves the question of HOW a Christian in 40AD would KNOW what Jesus’ words ARE.
b) Ok.
c) at one time we had the apostles, so are you saying they were an authority? So did that apostolic authority die with John in 100AD? Please cite ANY Christian saying that within a millenium of the event.
johnbugay said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Arnold 1055 c: Apostolic authority died with John in 100 AD, and it was the wolves who began to say, “we have it”…
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:25 pm
1030 Turretin, are you making the case that the OT is sufficient by itself?
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:30 pm
1052 Don I think it makes sense according to your view that since the printing press allowed Protestants to thrive that you should view it as a miracle from God.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:32 pm
1056 bugay, does it trouble you that those wolves were 100% of Christian communions? Where were the sheep or doves of Christ’s Church?
johnbugay said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Arnold, if you were the devil, wouldn’t you want to be in a leadership position in the Christian church? I’m not saying it happened instantly. But according to Hermas, the presbyters at Rome fought over who was greatest, (135-150 AD). Victor wanting to excommunicate the east over Easter. Callistus allowing rich Roman women to keep their male consorts, even though Roman law prohibited it. Things like that.
Don said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Arnold #1058,
Please, please, respond to what people write. Not what you imagine they think.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:46 pm
1060 bugay, if you say the devil took hold of the Christian church, then you are acknowledging there was one Christian church. Are you ready to do this?
johnbugay said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Arnold 1060, I’ll define the Christian church in the same terms that Calvin did. And I am certain that the “authority structure” that you are reading back into those early days was not there.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:52 pm
1061 Don, I will do my best.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:55 pm
1056 bugay
So did that apostolic authority die with John in 100AD? Please cite ANY Christian saying that within a millenium of the event.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Turretin are you out to lunch?
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:57 pm
bugay please feel free to reply to my 1054 and 1055 too
Jeff Cagle said,
August 7, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Arnold (#1032 wow!): 995 Jeff, you must ask yourself, why is this issue so clear to me but all the Church fathers at Nicea were such dolts? Think about that one for a while.
I don’t believe the Church fathers were dolts. Nor do I believe the Westminster Assembly were dolts when they came to the opposite conclusion.
But your question doesn’t answer mine.
Confronted with what appears to be a contradiction between church teaching (you shall make images and bow to them) and Scripture (you shall not make images and bow to them), how do you know that this apparent contradiction is not an actual contradiction that falsifies your belief that church teaching is infallible?
There are several plausible answers here, but I don’t want to put words into your mouth.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 4:06 pm
1068 Jeff, I will bet that you have photos in your house of people. Do you worship them? No. The photos inspire you in one way or another. That is a fine use of photos, is it not? Religious art to inspire the believer is valid. This is what the Church decided in the end. This led to arguably the most beautiful art of all time (Caravaggio, etc) coming from devout believers. I don’t see how this is equivalent to the OT worship of false idols.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 4:09 pm
My 40AD question stands. How would a new believer in Jesus in 40AD KNOW what Jesus said and did and taught?
johnbugay said,
August 7, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Arnold, for info regarding 40 AD, read a couple of these:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/search?q=Hurtado
Hurtado notes (using primarily New Testament data) that there was an “explosion” of “Jesus-worship” — worshipping Jesus as God in a Jewish monotheistic environment. It’s a big expensive book, but you would learn a lot from it.
David Gadbois said,
August 7, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Arnold said So did that apostolic authority die with John in 100AD? Please cite ANY Christian saying that within a millenium of the event
I don’t know why Arnold keeps going back to these arguments from silence. That is not how we study history. He needs to justify these sorts of demands that he places on the historical record.
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 4:27 pm
“1030 Turretin, are you making the case that the OT is sufficient by itself?”
Jesus put it this way:
John 5:46
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
Thus, Moses (namely his writings) was a sufficient foundation for Jesus.
But even though, for a time, Moses’ writings were sufficient, Jesus has nevertheless graciously given us a greater revelation:
Hebrews 1:1-2
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
” a) No kidding. That leaves the question of HOW a Christian in 40AD would KNOW what Jesus’ words ARE. b) Ok. c) at one time we had the apostles, so are you saying they were an authority? So did that apostolic authority die with John in 100AD? Please cite ANY Christian saying that within a millenium of the event.”
a) They would know because the apostles and other eyewitnesses told them. And they would know they could trust the apostles because the apostles were given amazing signs and wonders to confirm their message (like Moses was given to confirm his message).
c) Of course the apostles had authority. Their authority remained associated with their writings and alleged oral traditions.
d) As for Christians who taught this, Paul declared himself
1 Corinthians 15:5-9
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Moreover, this was interpreted by the fathers to mean that Paul was the final apostle:
Augustine, Answer to Petilian the Donatist, Book II, Chapter 18
“1018 Pat if the OT was sufficient for the Church, why did the Church add the NT on as a later accretion? Assuming the NT is a legit addition to Scripture, then exactly WHEN did it get added to the OT as Scripture? Did each book get added once it was written? This was clearly not the view of the early Church which had questions about Hebrews, etc and like Barnabas, etc and Luther wanted to excise James, etc.”
“The Church” didn’t add the NT. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man. But men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. It was inspired Scripture from the moment it was written.
Different churches recognized the canonicity of different books more or less quickly. We see Paul quoting Luke as Scripture and we see Peter referring to Paul’s epistles as Scripture. So it did not take until the 4th century, as some misled people suggest.
“1068 Jeff, I will bet that you have photos in your house of people. Do you worship them? No. The photos inspire you in one way or another. That is a fine use of photos, is it not? Religious art to inspire the believer is valid. This is what the Church decided in the end. This led to arguably the most beautiful art of all time (Caravaggio, etc) coming from devout believers. I don’t see how this is equivalent to the OT worship of false idols.”
But Nicaea II taught that they were proper for worship, not just to have them around for general inspiration. That’s what is equivalent to the golden calf.
“1014 Don, Paul was the last apostle, but that does not mean that all apostolic authority died with the apostles. That view would be unknown to Church history.”
You are right only in the sense that their writings and oral teachings continued to have the same authority after their death.
But you are wrong if you are saying that they appointed people who had the same authority they themselves had. Except for Matthias, that never happened – and the requirements for Matthias were requirements no one could meet after the death of the apostles.
“A valid Eucharist had to be celebrated by a priest ordained in succession from the apostles.”
Where did you get this idea? What early church father says this?
“1009 Turretin, happy to discuss this- Let’s pick one important papal doctrine – the doctrine of papal infallibility as pronounced by the pope in 1870. Did Jesus teach this to Peter? A simple “yes” or “no” will do. If, “yes”, then why was this doctrine not pronounced by a pope until 1870? Did the popes forget this until then? If “no”, then why did Jesus not tell Peter such a crucial aspect of his job? Lastly, regardless of your answer, how do you know your answer to be true? The answer is no in an explicit sense. Jesus did not need to explain to Peter a long lesson on future papal questions and issues. He simply said ‘Feed my sheep’ AND guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church. The HS led the Church to recognize the Trinity later, as well as the NT canon in the fourth century, and many other truths later. In 1870 the Church formally recognized that this gift of the keys to Peter included the special protection from error that a Pope has when speaking in the special case of ex-cathedra. How do I know it is true is just a rehashing of the tu quoque and Church authority.”
But Peter isn’t the only one told to feed God’s sheep. On the contrary:
Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
1 Peter 5:2
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
If “feed my sheep” implies infallibility, then all elders are infallible. But such a result is obviously absurd.
The Trinity is taught in Scripture. Papal infallibility is not. That’s why we hold to the former but reject the latter.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 4:29 pm
1071 bugay, actually I have the book and Hurtado is one of my favorites. It’s a great rebuttal for Christian skeptics. But I don’t see how that relates to my question. Allow me to restate it.
Today you have Scripture as your authority. Ok.
In 40AD, there was no NT. A new believer in Jesus would have to TRUST who/what to grow in knowledge about Jesus, his deeds, teachings, etc?
Clearly he would not trust just anybody. He would TRUST the apostles who were with Jesus and directly commissioned by Him, or those who were familiar with the apostles. This is apostolic authority. Is this valid?
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 4:35 pm
1072 David, I am the one relying on an argument from silence? Alright, let’s recap.
Many, many Church Fathers refer to apostolic succession. The Catholic and EO both hold it goes back to the apostles.
The only silence here is in opposition to this universal and undisputed teaching from Church history for 1500 years.
If I am incorrect, please show me. If you think Fathers do not support apostolic succession or refer to it, then I would think you need to do some more reading.
In 381 when the Church was described as ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC, this final term was quite meaningful, not included on a whim. It did refer to apostolic succession. If it did not and referred only to the apostles teaching, another word like “true” could have been used.
So, I am giving you 1500 years to work with. Please share one quote about how apostolic succession doesn’t exist or how apostolic authority died with John in 100AD. Thank you and God bless you.
Arnold said,
August 7, 2012 at 4:45 pm
1073 Turretin, it did take until the 4th c. to close the NT canon. The gospels were recognized early on in the Churches of course, but not the NT canon. But you are saying each was equally inspired from the moment it hit the scroll or codex.
How about Ignatius, John’s student, in 107AD?
St. Ignatius, 3rd bishop of Antioch in his letter titled: “Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans” stated:
“The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him.”
you state
The Trinity is taught in Scripture. Papal infallibility is not. That’s why we hold to the former but reject the latter.
So you must be surprised at how everyone but you can be so confused. The Arians had Scripture and did not understand the Trinity. The Council of Nicea had to clarify it and the council itself is not Scripture. Catholics today (= most Christians today and throughout history) do see Papal infallibility taught in Scripture.
Your facile statement does not deal with the reality of these numbers. An Arian can take Scripture and find support for his position (Not my will, but thine be done). He can support himself the same way you can. That is an issue for you.
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 5:16 pm
“1045 Turretin, are you conceding that ‘historical credibility’ can be gained through a succession from the apostles?”
That credibility gets dilute the longer the chain is. Ignatius’ credibility as an alleged disciple of one of the apostles is relatively high (but with the caveat that (a) his works have obviously been tampered with and (b) even some of the people who heard Jesus himself didn’t understand him). Papias’ credibility as someone who allegedly interviewed people who met the apostles, is a step below that of Ignatius. Someone like Irenaeus who claims to be contemporary with the “12th from the apostles” is quite a bit less historically credible than they were — his views on history are not very trustworthy (consider his claim that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome, for example, or his claim that Jesus was 50 when he was crucified).
(Against Heresies, 2:22:5)
Still, as unreliable as he was, Irenaeus’ historical credibility is greater than that of the Gnostics who claimed to have secret knowledge from the apostles, but who couldn’t actually trace a chain of transmission back to the apostles.
“Many, many Church Fathers refer to apostolic succession.”
But what do they mean by the term? They don’t mean what Rome means today. I’m pretty sure this has already been pointed out above. The fact that people came after the apostles is not disputed. What is disputed is whether people after the apostles had the same authority as (or equal authority to) the apostles. The fact that someone used the term “apostolic succession,” doesn’t mean that they thought there were bishops who had the same authority as the apostles.
“1073 Turretin, it did take until the 4th c. to close the NT canon.”
All of the books were written before the end of the first century. They were inspired when they were written, not centuries later.
If you just mean that debate over the NT canon tended to die down around the 4th century in the Byzantine Empire, sure. But that’s of no great consequence.
Interestingly, debate over the OT canon continued longer than debate of the NT canon.
“The gospels were recognized early on in the Churches of course, but not the NT canon.”
The other books were also recognized early on. As I already mentioned, Peter’s epistle recognizes Paul’s letters as Scripture and one of Paul’s epistles recognizes Luke’s gospel as Scripture.
“But you are saying each was equally inspired from the moment it hit the scroll or codex.”
Yes, that is what I’m saying. In fact, your church happens to agree with me about this.
“How about Ignatius, John’s student, in 107AD? St. Ignatius, 3rd bishop of Antioch in his letter titled: “Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans” stated: “The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him.””
Nothing about “succession” there, that I can see. And it’s not like the Smyraneans were any further removed from the apostles (timewise) than he was.
“you state The Trinity is taught in Scripture. Papal infallibility is not. That’s why we hold to the former but reject the latter. So you must be surprised at how everyone but you can be so confused. The Arians had Scripture and did not understand the Trinity. The Council of Nicea had to clarify it and the council itself is not Scripture.”
a) The council’s decision did not immediately end the controversy.
b) The fathers who opposed the Arians all agreed that the Scriptures teach the Trinity.
c) So, your “everyone but you” comment seems rather misguided.
“Catholics today (= most Christians today and throughout history) do see Papal infallibility taught in Scripture.”
I don’t agree that being “Catholic” (in the sense you mean) makes one a Christian. On the contrary, following the bishop of Rome is strong evidence that one is not a Christian. A Christian would be expected to care what God’s Word says and to turn from the idolatry of the Roman Catholic religion.
But I will say this, “Catholics today” mostly don’t buy the anti-contraception propaganda that Rome puts out and mostly cannot distinguish between the feast of the Assumption and the feast of the Annunciation. Most don’t think that the pope is infallible.
You can turn around and tell me that, by definition, those people are not “Catholics” because they don’t hold to the teachings of the bishop of Rome. But they are in the communion, and they are the reason that the number of people in the Roman communion is so high.
Only a small percent of “Catholics today” actually go to confession regularly. That’s why the 1000/1 ratio of laity to priests works. Can you imagine if each priest had to hear 1000 confessions (assuming that people only went to confession weekly)?
These arguments from numbers aren’t legitimate arguments, but if they were – they would undercut your claims, because it is clear that “Catholics today” don’t believe what Rome teaches – they don’t even *know* what Rome teaches.
“Your facile statement does not deal with the reality of these numbers.”
The reality of the numbers in the time of Athanasius was that it was “Athanasius contra mundum” “Athanasius against the world.” Numbers are not what determine truth.
“An Arian can take Scripture and find support for his position (Not my will, but thine be done). He can support himself the same way you can. That is an issue for you.”
The fact that people don’t properly handle Scripture is an issue for them, not for me. Peter addresses this in one of his epistles.
“1001 Turretin, you are most definitely not in communion with all Evangelical churches. Communion means shared doctrines at the least. You do not share doctrines with All Evangelical churches because they don’t share doctrines with each other.”
They and I share one gospel. That’s why I can have communion with them.
– TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 7, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Arnold (#1069): Jeff, I will bet that you have photos in your house of people. Do you worship them? No. The photos inspire you in one way or another. That is a fine use of photos, is it not? Religious art to inspire the believer is valid.
OK, so your answer is that the bowing enjoined by II Nicea is not the same as the bowing forbidden by the 2nd (or 3rd) commandment. That’s fine, even if we might disagree.
Now here’s the point. In formulating your answer, you used your reason, as a reasoning agent, to evaluate the evidence and conclude that our apparent contradiction was not in fact a contradiction at all.
You did not appeal to the infallibility of Church teaching (which would have been obviously circular in this instance).
Instead, you used your reason to determine whether or not the Church had judged rightly, and you concluded Yes.
Now, if we were to use your standard articulated in #922,
Who decides if the church council agrees with Scripture? YOU! So, the council is of no effect. Therefore, there is no church authority in your paradigm.
You, Arnold, just decided that the church council agreed with Scripture — not on the basis of its infallibility (which would be circular reasoning), but on the basis of evidence.
That would mean, if your reasoning were correct, that there is no church authority in your paradigm either.
THIS is the force of the tu quoque argument. Even if you place yourself under church authority, still and all, every time that authority is challenged, you must use your reason to either (a) evaluate the challenge independently as you did, or (b) re-consider and re-affirm the arguments that, in your mind, demonstrate the infallibility of church authority.
You can’t escape this thought process because every man holds his own beliefs.
And if holding one’s own beliefs means “no authority structure”, then NO-ONE has any authority over himself.
Now, if that conclusion is ludicrous to you (as it is to me), then we must conclude that being a reasoning agent is different from being one’s own highest authority.
The Protestant who compares church teaching to Scripture is not acting as his own highest authority any more than the Catholic who defends church teaching from Scripture, or the Catholic who defends church authority by reasoning from Tradition and Scripture.
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 5:44 pm
“It would not be reasonable to expect the early popes, nor the early Christians in general, to be able to articulate full and precise definitions of the doctrines that had been revealed by Christ to the Apostles, and through their written and spoken words to the early communities of Christians. That sort of understanding develops over time. ”
Given the level of detail with which the offices of elder and deacon were enunciated, it is reasonable to expect the office of pope to be at least mentioned, if it were in existence. It’s not like the idea is especially complicated or hard to understand. It’s not – for example – like trying to understand economic subordination in the Trinity.
-TurretinFan
David Gadbois said,
August 7, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Arnold, you have a weasely way of multiplying the number of questions and demands you make on your interlocutors, in lieu of actually answering their points. I’m not going to fall for it. You said So did that apostolic authority die with John in 100AD? Please cite ANY Christian saying that within a millenium of the event
First, as Tfan pointed out, you are confusing apostolic succession with an ascription of apostolic authority to succeeding bishops.
Second, as you refused to address, your demand that some Christian writer would have had to explicitly report that apostolic authority ceased with the death of the apostles, otherwise we have no basis for believing such (or at least that such was believed in the early church) is fallacious. Framed this way, it is an argument from silence. Or perhaps you mean to frame it this way: there is positive evidence that the ECFs believed the bishops had this authority, therefore it must be true if there is no testimony to the contrary. That would be a better argument, but still does not rule out the logical possibility that it was an innovation even if the former, dubious premise was established.
Third, of what evidentiary value is the testimony of people “a millenium” from an event? Only the very earliest sources are of any historical value, and even those (excepting the New Testament) are not particularly early, on the order of decades in proximity.
Fourth, even if we ignored this, the testimonial of a historical witness is only as good as the basis for their ascription. If, for instance, someone in the 2nd century said they believed that bishops had apostolic authority, what would be the basis for their belief? That sort of thing is not a raw historical event that they can directly testify about as eyewitnesses, it is a theological ascription. It would only serve to document their own belief or the beliefs of their contemporaries.
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 7:37 pm
” Our Lord did not invoke the Isaiah passage by way of prophesying the eventual downfall of the Church–this is made abundantly clear in context.”
Jesus didn’t invoke the Isaiah passage at all.
“So claiming that Christ is the rock in no way undermines the Petrine ministry; in fact, the latter depends upon the fact that Christ is the rock in the sense specified by St. Augustine (cited in Pete’s comment).”
It undermines the rationale of Vatican I if they wrongly interpreted Matthew 16.
“Furthermore, you write as though knowledge of Church history and tradition subsequent to the NT, or not recorded in the NT, should have no bearing on one’s reading of the NT itself. But this has the effect of decontextualizing those documents, placing them in a kind of a-historical vacuum.”
The question is not whether it should have “no bearing,” but what the bearing should be. After all, the NT contains its own historical context (Gospel and Acts). While certain supplement to that historical context might have value, in general cutting off the historical context a century after the document is written is not really “decontextualizing” the document in any meaningful way.
Indeed, in general what comes after a text is written is not as useful in interpreting the text as what came before the text was written, because causality works in the old to new direction, not vice versa.
Thus, what the Nicene Fathers (and later) say about the NT may be interesting, but it is not the historical context of the text. There is some material that is closer (early second century, for example), but the preservation of that material leaves a lot to be desired. And that material generally confirms the “Protestant” view on things like the papacy (i.e. there was no papacy in the first half of the 2nd century).
– TurretinFan
Reed Here said,
August 7, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Jeff, no. 1078: well done. Bravo (sound of hands clapping,)
I am still amazed at how much these men DON”T seem to want to get this.
TurretinFan said,
August 7, 2012 at 9:40 pm
“Of the course the Fathers appealed to Sacred Scripture. So did their opponents. So do I.”
The only one of those that is surprising is yours. Are we in a position to judge whether you are rightly or wrongly using the Scriptures? On the views enunciated against Sola Scriptura, it seems we are not – but then why are you appealing to Scripture?
“But the reason that we call the former “Fathers” and the latter “heretics” is that the former did not rest on their exegetical laurels, but convened councils, which defined orthodoxy and anathematized heresy.”
There were “Fathers” before the first “ecumenical” council. There were fathers that never convened councils. And the first few “ecumenical” councils were not called by the fathers, but by the imperial government.
Moreover, the “heretics” likewise convened councils of similar aim.
“There is every indication that the councils that were recognized as ecumencial were also recognized as irreformable, which is to say, infallible in their dogmatic pronouncements.”
One would think that “every indication” might possibly include some one father actually saying this, and/or there not being conflicting councils held together and/or to overrule one another.
“And the sine qua non of an ecumenical council was (and is) papal ratification, so there you have an early indication of the dogma of the primacy, defined by the First Vatican Ecumenical Council.”
Except, of course, that what was really viewed as the sine qua non was Imperial ratification. Roman ratification was sometimes a means to that end, in view of the political/military importance of Rome to the Byzantine empire.
And again – try to find a father who says this – i.e. that approval of the Roman bishop is the sine qua non of ecumenical councils.
-TurretinFan
locirari said,
August 7, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Jeff, I will bet that you have photos in your house of people. Do you worship them? No. The photos inspire you in one way or another. That is a fine use of photos, is it not? Religious art to inspire the believer is valid. This is what the Church decided in the end. This led to arguably the most beautiful art of all time (Caravaggio, etc) coming from devout believers. I don’t see how this is equivalent to the OT worship of false idols.
What a sentimental journey! It really takes me back to the days when I was wasting time listening to a belligerent convert to EO badger me with the whole authority spiel, including this kind of sorry evasion of the Second Commandment. A match down to ad hominem bit about pictures of family in my house! Oh, I think he even went so far as to talk about pictures of my dog. So burned!
Too bad it matters little to zealous ex-Protestants that God never enjoined such false worship and even explicitly condemned it. You adherents of the Magisterium are ill served, seeing how the command of God is made null and void by the worship they have invented.
Bob S said,
August 8, 2012 at 2:19 am
1023 Arnold
the question remains unanswered. How could the Church operate in 40AD with no NT written down? Who was the authority? What would a new Christian do to learn about Jesus in 40AD?
At the risk of repeating what TF and others have said repeatedly, the apostles were left to go into the world and teach Christ’s gospel.
1028 I don’t even know where to start with your posts.
But that’s usually the reason d ‘etre for the ankle biting/shotgun/twenty questions approach to avoiding the question. IOW the fallacy of many questions. Flood the combox – no mention of likely suspects – and when people can’t keep up with answers, the not so acute thinkers might be prejudiced into thinking that the Roman church really can put protestantism on the ropes. The same strategy goes for the grossly obese and overweight word count for the articles over at CtC. Wear ‘em out with baloney. Granted Bryan has proved his proficiency as a modern graduate of academia, in pumping out the prose, but I am not sure that it is such a good thing. Besides ahem, mistaking quantity for quality is a category error. Sumpin philosofers are ‘spose to know.
1066 Turretin are you out to lunch?
No, somebody else is. (Man, you can’t make this stuff up.)
Oh, yeah. The shroud. Come on. This doesn’t pass the sniff test. Don’t tell me you respond to emails from Nigeria too.
John 20:5-7 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
The immediate inference is that Christ’s body was wrapped with a separate piece of cloth than his head. But the authentic carbon dated shroud is one piece. Therefore however authentic a shroud it is, it is not the shroud Christ was buried in. End of story.
And as DG points out in 1080
First, as Tfan pointed out, you are confusing apostolic succession with an ascription of apostolic authority to succeeding bishops.
Bryan was called on this way back when he first made his way over here and into the combox on a regular basis ‘bout ‘09 or so. The apostles are eyewitnesses of Christ and accompanied Christ on his mission I Cor. 15, Act.1, as well as being chosen by him and promised the Holy Spirit Jn.16 to accomplish their mission of teaching the world about everything Christ taught Matt. 28. Which culminated in the NT Jn.1. As for the presumption of apostolic succession, it is a fallacy of the undistributed middle term, the forte and fallacy par excellente of CTC, along with philosophical hypotheticals and negative arguments against protestantism as per JB 167.
Would also second Mr. Here here, Jeff nailed the PJ/tu quoque ploy/ruse hard. My comments were going to be on the order of every time the romanist gets the latest papal email encyclical, he has to at least put on his thinking cap for a micro split second to make sure that Mike Liccione isn’t dressing up in a clown suit for April Fool’s Day and funning with him. Not that Mike would do anything like that I am sure. Unfortunately what he does is far more unfunny, as egregiously pump for the Roman system which debases, if not destroys any genuine attempt to honor Scripture, reason or history in their proper places, never mind the Lord Jesus Christ.
But hey, before this deteriorates into a “Me too/What Bryan and Mike said”, like over at . . . TF 551 in response to JJS was great too.
That sounds like a concession that the papacy can’t be established from Scripture alone.
IOW like the song says ‘there will be no white flag of surrender over my head’. That’s fine, we’ll settle for JJS’s backhanded admission.
Again, you can’t make this stuff up, even from the latest CtC celebrity convert. Unfortunately the CTC is real and takes itself far too seriously, to seriously examine and answer the counter arguments from Scripture, reason and history here and elsewhere. When exposed they cut and run.
But they’ll be back. Like a moth to a flame.
If arguably, you become what you worship Ps.115:8, an infallible pope produces infallible papists and it is in their nature as infallible sinners to love lording it over those who are not. Dat’s us, folks. Besides as ex protestants who deny justification by faith alone, they have to justify themselves. It’s called works. Their gospel requires it and the preaching of it. Hence my private and fallible interpretation of future CtC participation in the combox.
TurretinFan said,
August 8, 2012 at 8:55 am
Burton:
You wrote: “Turretinfan (#545, 449), Long delay – life intervenes. I want to try summarize several points you have made in our discussion in an effort to understand what seems to me to be obvious discordance in your line of reasoning. I may be misunderstanding you.”
Ok
“(a) the purpose of defining heresy and orthodoxy is, among other things, to remove heresy from the church, bring a straying church member back into the fold, educate the church regarding the difference between heresy and orthodoxy”
Ok
“(b) conciliar judgements regarding heresy and orthodoxy (and presumably the judgements of any General Assembly or session) define true doctrine rightly if they are judging wisely and not foolishly”
Or perhaps it would be better to say that they judge wisely when they rightly declare orthodoxy to be orthodoxy and heresy to be heresy.
“(c) the “Berean principle” is used to determine which council or assembly or session has judged wisely and which has not”
Ok
“(d) it is the responsibility of each Christian to use the Berean principle to judge the wisdom of councils, etc, and therefore to determine the true definition of heresy and orthodoxy”
It is the responsibility of each Christian to attempt to follow the Word of God. That means that when Christians become aware of an apparent contradiction between Scripture and human authorities, they need to follow Scripture. That’s because they must obey God rather than man, when the two conflict.
“If I have accurately summarized your argument, then how does a council or body of elders bring a straying sheep back into the fold if it is up to the sheep to decide if the elders have judged wisely or foolishly?”
They do so by expounding the Word of God, not simply by appealing to their own authority. I’m glad you bring this up, because I think it is something that I’ve seen a lot of the CtC folks wonder about. They seem to think that the only way that a council can be effective is if they have a way of forcing submission by the sheep. That approach overlooks the work of the Holy Spirit in and through the Word.
“If the elders or bishops in council are rightly charged with ridding the church of heresy, but each member can and should judge the elders’ or bishops’ definition according to their own understanding of Scripture, then how in practical terms that can be understood by the flock (and is binding on them) will the church rid herself of heretical doctrine?”
It will do so through the mechanism of excommunication, if exhortation, admonition, and other lesser forms of discipline are unsuccessful.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 8, 2012 at 9:24 am
“I still don’t have anyone giving me an alternative origin of the real presence or confession. If these are not apostolic doctrines, let’s see where they came from and how they swept across Christendom. Any takers?”
The former came from a confusion between the sign and the thing signified. It’s easy to see how that came about, given that Jews made the same mistake about circumcision.
The latter was a matter of gradual corruption of a good practice of church discipline.
“or apostolic succession for that matter, which is a totally logical doctrine unless you think John thought that his ministry was about to die out when he died.”
a) Why wouldn’t he think that? Namely, given that there were elders and deacons to care for the church, and given that the Word of God had been inscripturated, what continuing need was there for the apostleship as such?
b) The modern Roman notion of “apostolic succession” is likewise a corruption of ancient concepts of traceable chains of ordination.
“849 Jeff, let’s say it’s 66AD and you are in Rome. You can join the Church that Peter is running, or a startup gnostic group that is new. Do you have to use your reason to join Peter in that case? If so, then yes.”
a) Others have already pointed out that Peter wasn’t “running” a church in Rome at that or any other date.
b) Gnostics made similar claims to those of modern Rome.
This post provides some important comparisons:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/07/gnosticism-hermeneutics-and-rome.html
“846 jsm, anglicanism is openly changing doctrines, repeatedly. That is something the Catholic Church has not ever done, if you want to talk about ‘sound doctrine.’ A doctrine cannot be sound if it might be changed next year. Of course Catholics have fallen short on a personal level.”
a) This argument seems absurd. Are you really saying that the soundness of the Apostles’ Creed depends on what church confesses it? It seems that this is clearly mistaken – the doctrine is sound as a matter of objective fact, whether or not the person or church that holds the doctrine is prone to change their mind.
b) A willingness to change one’s doctrines might be a good thing. The whole CtC website is based on the idea that it is a good idea to change one’s doctrines.
c) Whether Rome has been open about it or not, it seems pretty obvious that Rome used to teach an exclusivistic false gospel (no salvation outside the Roman church) but now teaches an inclusivisitic false gospel (salvation possible for unconverted atheists and Muslims). There are many more examples I could provide, such as modern Rome’s adoption of evolutionism as against the older tradition of special creation.
“here are a few things that will definitely NOT meet the 90% of Prots agree on this test: free will vs. predestination, many moral issues, literal resurrection, etc.”
Of course, Rome does not resolve those problems. Rome couldn’t tell the Molinists and Thomists which one was right, for example.
“Your church didn’t exist until some point over a millenium after Jesus (talk about a ‘late development’). There are thousands of churches claiming to have the one true interpretation of Scripture. One of them has been around since the time of Jesus, the others have not. That does help.”
Actually, most of the denominations (including all the Evangelical denominations) do not claim to be the “one true church.” They claim that there are many true churches, and that they are one of those. They, of course, claim to have a right interpretation of Scripture. If they thought their interpretation was wrong, why would they hold it?
The claimed age of Roman Catholicism doesn’t demonstrate the correctness of her views. Can you imagine if some man who was 150 years old tried to claim that we should all agree with his view of the Bible because he was the oldest man on earth? Surely we would just chuckle. Moreover, folks like Benedict XVI acknowledge that the earliest “fathers” of a distinctively Roman Catholic church are the scholastics – especially people like Thomas Aquinas (even though Thomas Aquinas is contrary to Rome on a few important points, including the immaculate conception).
“If you want to list things that ALL Protestants agree upon, your list will be quite short. Then you may want another criterion instead like 90% of Protestants believe this…so that validates that it’s a biblical view? Well guess what, anything in that 90 or 80% group is going to be shared with the Catholic Church essentially.”
Virtually all “Protestants” reject the ideas of
– papal infallibility,
– papal primacy,
– ecclesiastical/conciliar infallibility,
– indulgences,
– transubstantiation,
– purgatory,
– exactly seven sacraments,
and I’m sure we could provide more examples.
“830 Jeff, doctrinal continuity leaves an open question of doctrine. The best we have is REAL continuity through ordination and a unified communion centered at Rome. A doctrine you like may not be liked by your Prot neighbor while he agrees with you on everything else. So in that case who has doctrinal continuity?”
The best doctrinal continuity is what was written and remains unchanged for 1900 years, namely the Scriptures.
– TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 8, 2012 at 9:31 am
“andrew 825 are you positing sola scriptura for the early church? If so, why do you think it got abandoned so soon, only to be rediscovered fifteen centuries later with the printing press?”
It wasn’t abandoned soon.
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/search/label/Formal%20Sufficiency
At the moment, the bottom-most post on the first page is 5th century fathers, but if you click on the “older posts” link just below and to the right of that post, you should be able to see examples from even earlier.
TurretinFan said,
August 8, 2012 at 9:48 am
“The first Lutherans did believe in a visible, indectable [sic for indefectable?], and infallible church.”
:shrug:
The testimony of the early Lutherans themselves is little more than a historical curiosity to me. That said, there are works of folks like Chemnitz and Gerhard that are worthy of reading for the sake of the arguments they present — i.e. not because they happen to be early Lutherans, but because they present reasoned arguments backed by evidence. I cannot say how many times I’ve found something presented in a lucid way in Chemnitz’s examination of the council of trent.
– TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 8, 2012 at 9:56 am
Turretin,
Good day sir. Do you consider yourself to be a fundamentalist?
TurretinFan said,
August 8, 2012 at 10:00 am
“Turretin, Good day sir. Do you consider yourself to be a fundamentalist?”
My doctrinal views are well summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and the Westminster Larger and Shorter catechisms. I’m not sure if that would make me a “fundamentalist” in your book, though I suspect it might.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 8, 2012 at 10:22 am
Turretin,
Allow me to restate my question.
So, in 40AD there was no NT. A Christian had to rely on authoritative teachings from the apostles = The Church. Yes, there was the OT but the NT message is hardly go read the OT for yourself, it’s “listen to our teaching today.”
When did this paradigm change?
If it changed in 100AD, WHY do you think Christians were all unaware of this hugely important change?
Jeff Cagle said,
August 8, 2012 at 10:34 am
Arnold, are you aware of how tradition and Scripture worked in 1st century Judaism?
TurretinFan said,
August 8, 2012 at 10:35 am
“805 simple I appreciate your interpretation. I do not see how you solve the issue of Jesus’ mission carrying on after the apostles die?”
Churches (fallible) and the Bible (infallible).
“803 Turr, 1 is okay but 2 is not. We are facing a historical problem of a church under persecution and an oral culture. So the best we can do is look at what the universal beliefs of the church are as explicitly laid out later in time and then read them back into the early decades of the Church. For instance, if a belief is universal within Christendom in 150AD or 250AD, then it’s a fair bet that it was the apostles teaching. The bet that it was contrary to their teaching is a tougher case. That is the Protestant case.”
a) Things like transubstantiation, papal primacy, papal infallibility, indulgences, purgatory, the immaculate conception, the bodily assumption, and so forth (distinctively Roman Catholic dogmas) were not the universal teaching even as late as A.D. 250. They weren’t really even an existing teaching at that time.
b) Whether the culture was oral or not, the Scriptures preserve for us what the apostles taught. If something later gains widespread acceptance, but it is contrary to what the Scriptures say, it is a safe bet that the apostles did not teach it.
“796 Turretin, what would really help your case is if you named the inventor of that doctrine and showed that prior to him the Fathers taught against the real presence. Ok?”
It’s tough to pin down who invented Molinism (Molina is one of small handful of possible fathers of Molinism) – and that was invented after the Reformation. I really don’t see why you think that identifying who invented particular views is important.
There are a mixture of views amongst the fathers on the topic, including those of Augustine (who describes a divine/spiritual presence) and Eusebius (who describes it in merely symbolic terms). Moreover, there are a lot of statements that simply repeat the Biblical metaphor, often without explaining whether the metaphor is being understood metaphorically.
“The name Catholic came up when Christians needed to show they were different from the Gnostics. This happened in the first century. So they picked the name Catholic which means in Greek, OF THE WHOLE. Not a sect. The Catholic Church still stands. There is no discontinuity.”
Pastor King explained:
“765 andrew, yes part of the Catholic Church in concept is that it draws together the Christian communion. This is what it has done through history and today. Catholic means universal. That is where the name came from, this is the Church that is not a narrow sect.”
The Roman Catholic church, however, is a sect – one that claims to be the one true church, but a sect nonetheless.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 8, 2012 at 10:44 am
Arnold 1092…if I may:
“So, in 40AD there was no NT. A Christian had to rely on authoritative teachings from the apostles = The Church. Yes, there was the OT but the NT message is hardly go read the OT for yourself, it’s “listen to our teaching today.”
When did this paradigm change?
If it changed in 100AD, WHY do you think Christians were all unaware of this hugely important change?”
Why don’t you take your questions to TF via e-mail, and stop clogging the combox? Listen to yourself. Arnold, you’ve got 327 hits on this webpage (meaning, when I do a control find, “Arnold” is over 300 now). Can you help little ol’ newbies like me, just what you are doing with all these comments? I know when my time is up. But you are now addressing a blog writer on his own personal opinions and beliefs, and trying to find out if he is called a “fundamentalist.” Unless I really do need to read every single comment on this string, you have left the realm of trying to help us protestants understand the doctrine of an infallible pope, and instead, are revealing your desparation.
But to answer your question, from my point of view:
So you are saying that since an NT canon was not formed until well after Jesus death, I should go kiss the pontiff’s ring?
If you are really looking for help about the doctrine of the pope, go back to comment one. I’ve gotten to know the commenter in #1. There’s a lot of smart people who want to help you. But you appear ridiculous with all your comments.
I hope that doesn’t hurt, I’m just a little ol’ lonely lurker around these parts,
Andrew
TurretinFan said,
August 8, 2012 at 10:59 am
“Turretin, Allow me to restate my question.”
ok
“So, in 40AD there was no NT.”
Not every book of the NT was written by then. When exactly the gospels were written, no one really knows.
“A Christian had to rely on authoritative teachings from the apostles = The Church.”
a) I don’t accept your assertion that “the apostles = The Church.” The Church includes all believers.
b) I don’t accept that the Christians “had to” rely on such teachings. For example, Mary and Martha (the sisters of Lazarus) could personally remember Jesus’ teachings. Moreover, others could learn what they needed to know in a non-authoritative way from Mary and Martha. The apostles’ authority was real and valuable, but it wasn’t strictly necessary.
“Yes, there was the OT but the NT message is hardly go read the OT for yourself, it’s ‘listen to our teaching today.'”
a) Actually, it is “listen to and follow Jesus, who the OT prophesied.” That’s how Paul opens his epistle to the Romans:
Romans 1:1-2
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
b) There is a huge emphasis on the OT in the apostles’ teachings. For example:
Acts 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
c) The NT explicitly praises people for judging the apostles’ message by OT Scriptures:
Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
“When did this paradigm change?”
The paradigm of sola scriptura is not a paradigm change but simply a circumstance change. The apostles and other eyewitnesses of Jesus are not with us, but scripture remains.
“If it changed in 100AD, WHY do you think Christians were all unaware of this hugely important change?”
It is clear that Christians were aware that the apostles were gone but that the apostles had left Scripture to govern.
-Turretinfan
Arnold said,
August 8, 2012 at 12:10 pm
1095 Turretin, you are missing an important point.
When the apostles were gone in 100AD, the Church did not devolve into thousands of sects. Why did this not happen?
jsm52 said,
August 8, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Arnold,
Part of the problem here is that your questions show that you keep equating the Church with the Apostles. So the Roman argument ends up being that those who are in the true Church must be under or connected to the Papal office, i.e. a Papal-centric church. Logically then, the Church equals only those in proper relationship to the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, the church on earth doesn’t exist without the Pope. Amazing. Yet on the other hand…
Paul puts it differently and quite clearly:
1 Cor. 3: “11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ”
Eph. 1:22-23 – 22 “And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.”
Eph. 4: “4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift…. 11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[c] and teachers,[d] 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[e] to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ…”
A Christ-centric church.
Why no mention of Peter, the visible head? Why no mention of the papal office or Apostolic See of Rome and the necessary relationship of church with it? Paul is listing all the offices and gifts given through which the body is built up. And according to some RCC histories, Peter was in Rome by this time. Surely, in this passage, Paul would have at least given a nod to the preeminent authority and infallible teaching office of Peter given, according to Rome, it is essential to the point that there is no church without it. The reason is clear: there was, and is, no such office.
I know Paul’s silence on this matter is not definitive proof of no papal office. But the silence in these passages is deafening, and is convincing to all who aren’t arguing from their Roman conclusions.
TurretinFan said,
August 8, 2012 at 12:54 pm
“1095 Turretin, you are missing an important point. When the apostles were gone in 100AD, the Church did not devolve into thousands of sects. Why did this not happen?”
a) There was partisan churchmanship even during the time of the apostles. Recall Paul’s criticism of the Corinthian churches.
b) Persecution made establishment of denominations, as such, difficult and dangerous.
c) Under persecution, even de jure presbyterian churches become de facto congregational churches. There aren’t “thousands of sects” of congregational churches, for obvious reasons.
d) If you claim that the Protestant Reformation is the “devolution” of the Church into thousands of sects, this did happen, right?
e) One thing that limited the number of groups was the limited number of people involved. While there hundreds of millions (or more) professing Christians (not to mention the Muslims, who also claim to follow Jesus), there were substantially fewer then.
f) And, of course, the rise of monoepiscopacy (which one sees frequently even in the “Moses Model” of Calvary Chapel type churches) was one factor that limited number of competing local churches.
I don’t mean to suggest that the above is an exhaustive list.
-TurretinFan
Pete Holter said,
August 8, 2012 at 1:13 pm
TurretinFan wrote, “Thomas Aquinas is contrary to Rome on a few important points, including the immaculate conception”.
Hi TurretinFan!
Is this your full-time job? Ha ha.
For us, this is actually an insignificant deviation because of Thomas’ rationale behind his position. As I noted above, in arguing for the sanctification of Mary in the womb of her mother, Aquinas says that “The Church celebrates the feast of our Lady’s Nativity. […] Therefore even in her birth the Blessed Virgin was holy. Therefore she was sanctified in the womb.” Aquinas knows this to be true from the bare practice of the Church. He even goes on to admit that “Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb” (Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 27). And to explain why the opinion of some Catholics who held that Mary was sanctified at conception is to be tolerated, he said, “Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of certain churches that do keep that feast, wherefore this is not to be entirely reprobated” (Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 27). And again, speaking more generally, he says that “to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation” (Against the Errors of the Greeks, Chapter 38), and that “schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy” (Summa Theologica, Part 2:2, Question 39). Consequently, we know that if the Roman Church began celebrating the feast of the Immaculate Conception, Aquinas would learn to embrace this teaching from his heart.
In response to Arnold’s question—“Don’t you think fourth century Christians saw Nicea as binding upon the Church?”—you quoted Augustine where he says,
I think it is important to point out here that Augustine is saying that, whereas both parties recognize the authority of the Bible, only he, as a Catholic Christian, recognizes the authority of Nicaea. This is the same as to say that Christians are bound by Nicaea. The authority of Nicaea was also indicated in the Council of Carthage’s letter to Pope Boniface, where they asked him to “cause to be observed by us the acts and constitutions of our fathers at the Council of Nicaea.”
In speaking of ecumenical councils, Augustine said that “the most wholesome opinion [concerning rebaptism] was established, to the removal of all doubts, by a plenary Council of the whole world,” and that the “truth of this question had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council,” having brought “full illumination” with “authority and power” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Bk. 1, Ch. 7:9 & Bk. 2, Ch. 4:5, 9:14).
With love in Christ,
Pete
jsm52 said,
August 8, 2012 at 1:33 pm
And again, speaking more generally, he [Aquinas] says that “to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation” (Against the Errors of the Greeks, Chapter 38), and that “schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff…
Is Thomas out of sync with Vatican II and its Decree on Ecumenism?
Arnold said,
August 8, 2012 at 1:39 pm
1098 Turretin,
The Church was a united, visible Church. This is what you are not acknowledging, but what the Church Fathers spoke about, and why the Church could be described as ‘one’ in 381AD.
The fact is that using Sola Scriptura as a guide, Protestants have created thousands of denominations that are not in communion and do not share doctrines. This is not what happened in the early Church, however.
Protestantism has shown that Sola Scriptura necessarily devolves into thousands of sects. History makes this plain. History also makes plain that the early Church remained one and that Sola Scriptura was a foreign concept to them. This is not to say that Scripture wasn’t important, but rather that it was not the guiding principle for the early Church the way it is for Protestantism. This is clearly evident by the fact that the early Church remained one, in communion, with shared doctrines, with one bishop in each city, and with a primary bishop at Rome. These bishops were in a continuous line from the apostles. This is apostolic succession. This is the model of the early Church.
Today, any Protestants can start his own church, with no communion with any other church. This would be unheard of in the early Church and that person would not be considered to be in communion with the Church.
a) As I showed with Clement’s letter, the schismatics at Corinth were considered to be ‘outside the flock of Christ’ not another valid and competing ‘church.’
b) Actually, persecution made it MORE likely, not less, that the Church would have devolved into separate groups. It made it harder to communicate and harder to have an interchange between bishops and cities. It was an obstacle to the unity of the Church, though it could not stop it of course. Cyprian discusses the unity of the Church during persecution.
d) Yes it did happen, but not for centuries. That is my whole point. You are claiming this was the model of the Church since 100AD and it clearly was not.
The question comes back to what constitutes a valid church and a valid eucharist. The ECF are in harmony with the modern Catholic and EO positions, as would be expected since they are literally in a continuous historical line with the Catholic and EO. The Protestants, not immediately but gradually, had to create the notion that the Church was fundamentally invisible and that ANYBODY could validly start a church with any set of doctrines they wanted, within some vaguely undefined limits that vary from Protestant to Protestant.
The idea that anybody can start a new church and be in communion with the Church is a novelty and an irrational idea.
Jesus prayed for unity. Let us do the same.
Pete Holter said,
August 8, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Jsm52 asked, “Is Thomas out of sync with Vatican II and its Decree on Ecumenism?”
Greetings in the Lord of grace!
Thank you for the question. In the longer quotation that I provided above, Aquinas says:
According to Aquinas, schism as imputable sin is something that is “willfully and intentionally” chosen, and this does not apply to those who have not personally made this choice. The person born into a “schismatic group” shares in the result of the original schism “accidentally,” as Aquinas puts it, but is not guilty of this sin until he chooses it for himself by willfully and intentionally rejecting communion with the Catholic Church.
With love in Christ,
Pete
todd said,
August 8, 2012 at 3:18 pm
“Protestants have created thousands of denominations that are not in communion and do not share doctrines.”
Arnold, where do you guys come up thousands of Protestant denominations?
the 2006 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches listed 217 in the United States and the research i came up with listed about 400 in the world. Many of these these agree in doctrine but are separated by geography, ethnicity, etc…hardly thousands of denominations that do not share doctrine.
Arnold said,
August 8, 2012 at 3:37 pm
1103 todd are you evading the question by claiming that Protestantism is essentially united?
Recall that Luther and Calvin, the archtypes of Protestantism, disagreed on the real presence, Mary, and free will vs. predestination. Those are hardly trivial differences. It’s hard to call that unity and that was only the first two.
jsm52 said,
August 8, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Pete,
You didn’t answer my question regarding your words –
“And again, speaking more generally, he [Aquinas] says that “to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation” (Against the Errors of the Greeks, Chapter 38).”
So let me rephrase it this way: Being that I am intentionally not subject to the Roman Pontiff, am I outside of salvation, i.e. reprobate and removed from the grace of God? A simple yes or no is required of this question.
Gracie…
todd said,
August 8, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Arnold,
I wasn’t claming unity, I was questioning your numbers. So where do you come up with thousands of Protestant denominations?
jsm52 said,
August 8, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Arnold (1104),
No, todd isn’t evading your question. But you are evading his. I’ll answer it, though. The “thousands of denominations and sects born of Protestantism” charge is calumny and a myth and has been disproved.
Pete Holter said,
August 8, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Jsm52 wrote, “let me rephrase it this way: Being that I am intentionally not subject to the Roman Pontiff, am I outside of salvation, i.e. reprobate and removed from the grace of God? A simple yes or no is required of this question.”
The current Code of Canon law follows the thought of Aquinas and defines schism as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (751). If you see yourself reflected in this definition, then, other mitigating factors aside (all such factors I brush aside because I want security for you, not false assurances), yes, you are outside the Church. God is calling you to share in our “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). What Augustine said to the Donatists, I say to you and everyone else here: “Be at peace with us, brothers. We love you” (Letter 105). I know that we are ugly in your eyes, and I am sorry. Our disunity is a weight on my soul. Please let me know if there is anything I can do for you.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Arnold said,
August 8, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Here are a few denoms
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm
But even if there are 10 my question stands. My post 1101 establishes apostolic succession as an operating paradigm for the Church.
When resorting to Scripture alone, you get many denominations. Calvin and Luther disagreed to start with. But the Early Church did NOT go by Scripture alone. This should be sufficient to show that. If it did go by Scripture alone it would have splintered aplenty in 500 years, as Protestants have. But the Early Church did not splinter in this way. It did not go by Scripture alone. It also used apostolic succession.
Your real question to answer is why did apostolic succession stop being a valid constitutional element of the Church. To question whether apostolic succession was necessary to constitute a Church in the Early Church is an absurd question. Of course it was. If it wasn’t you would have had many, many denominations by 500AD. But you don’t. In 381AD, the Church is called ONE. That is our Lord’s prayer for the Church, unity.
Don said,
August 8, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Arnold #1109,
You realize that your link claims there are 242 Roman Catholic denominations, right? If you agree with this, then so much for your supposed unity. If you disagree, then why are you linking to it?
jsm52 said,
August 8, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Pete:
The relevant part of your answer:
If you see yourself reflected in this definition, then, other mitigating factors aside (all such factors I brush aside because I want security for you, not false assurances), yes, you are outside the Church.
It’s quite obvious I am outside of the the “Church” – i.e. The Roman Catholic Church. That being the case, am I outside of salvation? Is faith in Christ Jesus as one’s Lord and Savior, Who died for one’s sins, insufficient for salvation? Is salvation secured only if one believes, confesses, and is also in submission to the Supreme Pontiff?
And if so, then how does that square with Romans 10? —
9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Burton said,
August 8, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Turretinfan,
I may have missed your response, but I didn’t see an answer to my question at #868. If this question is too far afield from the topic, just let me know and I won’t pursue it further on this thread.
Burton
Constantine said,
August 8, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Andrew @ 895:
You wrote,
No, Kenrick had nothing to say in the referenced piece about “consensus”; that is your addition. Kenrick quoted from the Creed of Pope St. Pius IV that required the “unanimous consent” of the Fathers in support of any scriptural text used by a Catholic. The fact that Vatican I disagreed with Trent and Pius IV is the crux of the matter; not what one or the other did.
You’re carelessly interchanging “unanimous consent” with “on the whole”. They are two very different things. Trent required the former and did not discuss the latter.
Fair enough.
Here is the “evidence from Trent”:
No one is to interpret “contrary to the sense” of the Church or the “unanimous consent of the Fathers”.
This is emphatically reinforced by the Tridentine Creed, which is still binding on all Catholics today:
So Pope Pius’s intent was to bind each individual Catholic (Neither will I…) to not interpret the Scriptures “otherwise” than according to unanimous consent. What this shows conclusively, is that the opposite interpretation – that failing a unanimous interpretation any interpretation is acceptable– is invalid. The Roman Catholic must abide by the unanimous consent of the Fathers in the interpretation of Scripture.
Historically this is supported by the fact that Trent was a reaction against Protestantism and Trent’s misunderstanding of “private interpretation”. Trent wanted to stem the tide of Protestantism which is why it needed to create this barrier to private interpretation.
What happened at Vatican I was very different. The pope, having had the papal states stripped from his control, threw “Tradition” to the wind in order to buttress his fictitious claims to universal jurisdiction. Having lost his earthly clout, he sought to recreate it in the realm of the Roman Church errantly relying on interpretations of Matthew 16 and others that were inconsistent with Trent.
So Archbishop Kenrick, in an effort to uphold Catholic “Tradition” made it known to the Council that it’s use of scripture in ways other than as described by Trent was a violation of that tradition. It’s not that he was not a “Papalist” but rather recognized that the Roman church must abide by its own canons. Of course, he was overruled. The fact still remains that Vatican I relies on Scripture, absent the Tridentine requirements, to support its own claims.
And that’s the nub for Lane’s topic. There is no clearer example of one Pope capriciously throwing “Tradition” to the wind when it failed to serve his purpose.
Now Catholics are in a quandary. Do they follow Trent or Vatican I? Because they are mutually contradictory, they cannot both be followed.
I hope that helps.
Peace.
TurretinFan said,
August 8, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Burton: see #1086.
Pete Holter said,
August 8, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Hi, Jsm52! You asked, “how does that square with Romans 10?”
Here’s my stab at it…
It is my understanding that the profession of faith in Romans 10 is the one made when we are baptized (cf. Acts 22:16 & Romans 10:13). It is the faith that receives the love of God, shed abroad in “our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Romans 5:5). The faith that saves is the faith that works by love, and the sign of God’s love is communion with the brethren. Love “binds everything together in perfect harmony” (Colossians 3:14) “so that the world may believe that” the Father has sent the Son (John 17:21). And we know that we have received this love “because we love the brothers,” for “whoever loves God must also love his brother… in deed and in truth” (1 John 3:14; 4:21; 3:18). At the very least, this love entails that we join in a common worship of our Father “in Spirit and Truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship Him” John 4:23). This unified worship is manifested when “we all partake of the one bread” as prayed for by Jesus at the Last supper (1 Corinthians 10:17; cf. John 17); by our devoting ourselves “to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42); and by our refusal to set up any schisms in the body (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:10-13).
Furthermore, the faith that believes in Jesus, is the same faith that believes Jesus (cf. John 4:21, 5:46, 8:45-46, 10:37-38, 14:11). We believe that the body of Christ has been equipped by Christ Himself with a teaching office (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11), and that His Church is therefore found among the brethren who are submitted to this office (cf. Hebrews 13:17). We believe that this pastoral office has continued by the will of and in the promises of Christ, from the time of the apostles through the laying on of hands in succession from one generation to the next (cf. Acts 6:6, 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14, 5:22 ; 2 Timothy 1:6, 2:2; Titus 1:5). We also believe that Jesus appointed Peter as the leader of the pastoral office in the times of the apostles, and that He intended that this structure—of the Church’s pastoral office having a leader—would continue until His return for the safeguarding of His gospel. Because of this, we believe that the office of the papacy has been instituted by Jesus for the preservation of the gospel and as a visible marking-out of the brethren to whom the gospel has been entrusted for its proclamation throughout the world.
If we break unity with these brethren who are themselves submitted to the teaching office of Christ’s Church, then we are breaking the bond of love and have become, through our own refusal of submission, as “a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17).
With love in Christ,
Pete
David Gadbois said,
August 8, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Pete, as Westley told Vizzini in “The Princess Bride”, truly you have a dizzying intellect.
jsm52 said,
August 8, 2012 at 9:20 pm
David G. wrote:
Pete, as Westley told Vizzini in “The Princess Bride”, truly you have a dizzying intellect.
I wish I had said that. So many words and still not a direct answer.
TurretinFan said,
August 9, 2012 at 11:23 am
“Turretin, why think they appealed to Rome? Because the letter says so in the beginning. He says sorry it took so long to get back to you.”
Please quote me the text you have in mind.
“Turretin 642, apostles didn’t teach we had to rely on links to them? Here is where I use your line “they didn’t have to , it was so obvious!” Because what did they expect, the true church would be a schismatic one or that it would continue in their line of succession?”
That’s a false dichotomy. There are more options than just “line of succession” and “schism.” Indeed, the Gnostics are an example of a third option – but there is also a fourth option, such as the churches started in Rome by the early believers before any apostle showed up there.
“simple 638 it says “they appointed elders”…so if the apostles personally appointing people doesn’t scream succession to you, I don’t know what would.”
Our elders appoint elders too. Do you imagine we believe in “succession”? If so, then why all the fuss?
“again Turretin 614, what is the PRINCIPLED basis for separating? Is it because in 313AD the Church got legalized and then Bishops got rich and therefore the true Church disappeared? What is it?”
I’m not sure if I answered this above – but to be clear, the principled basis is this: it is better to obey God, rather than man. Fidelity to God is the principled basis.
“Turretin 614, “fidelity to God” by whose standard or authority or rule?”
By God’s standard, as laid out in his Holy Scriptures, which are acknowledged as authoritative not only by all the orthodox fathers, but also by nearly all the heretics as well.
“I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches contrary to Scripture. You can pick any doctrinal issue and analyze it all day long and have a decent case made from Scripture for or against the point.”
This was exactly the Gnostic argument that was rejected by the fathers. The Scriptures are not hopelessly ambiguous. God intended to communicate right doctrine in them, God did do so, and God did not stutter. The reason we don’t all agree is not because of any defect in Scripture, but only in us.
“Turretin 599, yes so you admit that a Protestant who disagrees with another Protestant has no court of appeal and no resolution. The disagreement is the final word. Each has the Scripture and disagrees. You can personally align yourself on each doctrinal issue. What makes one Protestant view more or less valid than another when both quote the Bible?”
I think I may also have already addressed this above, but just in case:
Yes, sometimes in this life people have to agree to disagree. Back when the pope was able to persecute Christians who disagreed with him, he tried to do that. But God broke the rule of the pope over Europe, and today there are no papal states, no papal armies, and no papal navy. In fact, today you find “modernists” (by pre-Vatican II standards) in the Vatican espousing the ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
People “can” align themselves with any idea they want – no matter how silly it is. That doesn’t make those silly ideas right, nor does it justify people for holding those silly ideas.
What makes a view valid or invalid is (1) procedurally it is valid it if it rightly derived from Scripture and (2) substantively it is valid if it corresponds to the truth (which is absolute).
“Here are a few denoms [link omitted] But even if there are 10 my question stands.”
Well, it’s easy to find cases of multiple competing churches in the same area in ancient times.
“My post 1101 establishes apostolic succession as an operating paradigm for the Church. When resorting to Scripture alone, you get many denominations.”
You can get many denominations from “succession,” because different successors don’t necessarily agree with one another.
“Calvin and Luther disagreed to start with.”
Actually, Paul and Barnabas disagreement and split (Paul went with Silas, Barnabas went with Mark) is the first one we see (long predating Luther and Calvin).
“But the Early Church did NOT go by Scripture alone.”
They were not always 100% consistent, but you will be hard pressed to find any statement of ecclesiastical infallibility amongst the fathers — and there are none that taught papal infallibility.
“This should be sufficient to show that. If it did go by Scripture alone it would have splintered aplenty in 500 years, as Protestants have.”
This is faulty reasoning – it ignores the political and social realities of that time period.
“To question whether apostolic succession was necessary to constitute a Church in the Early Church is an absurd question. Of course it was.”
It’s not so much an absurd question, as one that gets to the presuppositions behind your position. You simply assume that it was – but the historical record does not reflect that.
“If it wasn’t you would have had many, many denominations by 500AD. But you don’t. In 381AD, the Church is called ONE. That is our Lord’s prayer for the Church, unity.”
The reference to “one” in A.D. 381 was not to “one denomination.”
“1103 todd are you evading the question by claiming that Protestantism is essentially united? Recall that Luther and Calvin, the archtypes of Protestantism, disagreed on the real presence, Mary, and free will vs. predestination. Those are hardly trivial differences. It’s hard to call that unity and that was only the first two.”
They may not be trivial differences, but they are trivial *compared to* justification by faith (not works) and sola scriptura (not ecclesiastical and/or papal infallibility).
“1098 Turretin, The Church was a united, visible Church. This is what you are not acknowledging, but what the Church Fathers spoke about, and why the Church could be described as ‘one’ in 381AD.”
In A.D. 381 (centuries after the apostles), the term “one” still did not mean, “one denomination.” Do you really think that the fathers at that council thought that they had any denominational unity with the believers in Ethiopia and India?
“This is not to say that Scripture wasn’t important, but rather that it was not the guiding principle for the early Church the way it is for Protestantism.”
Let’s suppose this is true for a second. You must acknowledge that papalism was not the guiding principle of the early Church the way it is for Romanism. That is to say, today Roman canon law dominates the life of the Roman Catholic church. Before Nicaea, there was no widely binding canon law, and even after Nicaea the only canon law that supposedly bound all the churches was that agreed to by the churches in the “ecumenical” councils.
So, if the ancient church was not run like “Protestantism” and it was not run like “Papalism,” then neither of us is really arguing that the church should be run as it was then.
But, in fact, Sola Scriptura was the guiding doctrinal principle for the early Church. The absence of distinct denominations had more to do with the connection between church and state (first the Byzantine Empire and later the “Holy Roman Empire”) than with what doctrinal standard was used. And, of course, there were many times that there were distinct groups of professing Christians in the same area as one another.
“This is clearly evident by the fact that the early Church remained one, in communion, with shared doctrines, with one bishop in each city, and with a primary bishop at Rome.”
This assertion has already been repeatedly debunked.
“As I showed with Clement’s letter, the schismatics at Corinth were considered to be ‘outside the flock of Christ’ not another valid and competing ‘church.'”
You didn’t actually show that from the letter.
“Actually, persecution made it MORE likely, not less, that the Church would have devolved into separate groups.”
Not really. It limited communication from area to area, making the formulation of significant groups hard. As you acknowledge:
“It made it harder to communicate and harder to have an interchange between bishops and cities. It was an obstacle to the unity of the Church, though it could not stop it of course. Cyprian discusses the unity of the Church during persecution.”
It’s also easier to avoid quibblings over doctrines when you are all at risk of death from the persecutors because of your shared profession of faith in Christ.
“Yes it did happen, but not for centuries. That is my whole point. You are claiming this was the model of the Church since 100AD and it clearly was not.”
I’m not claiming that the Church since A.D. 100 had large numbers of denominations. You need to listen more clearly to what I’ve been saying.
“The question comes back to what constitutes a valid church and a valid eucharist. The ECF are in harmony with the modern Catholic and EO positions, as would be expected since they are literally in a continuous historical line with the Catholic and EO.”
The Roman Catholics and EOs are not even in harmony with one another on those things.
“The Protestants, not immediately but gradually, had to create the notion that the Church was fundamentally invisible and that ANYBODY could validly start a church with any set of doctrines they wanted, within some vaguely undefined limits that vary from Protestant to Protestant.”
When I read about the church invisible in the fathers, I wonder what you would tell me – is it that you just didn’t realize that the “Protestants” relied heavily on the doctrines of the fathers, or is it that you think that the Protestant Reformation started with people like Jerome?
“The idea that anybody can start a new church and be in communion with the Church is a novelty and an irrational idea. Jesus prayed for unity. Let us do the same.”
Jesus also said
Luke 12:51
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
Facile appeals to Jesus’ prayer for spiritual unity amongst believers are not very compelling to people who have learned more thoroughly what Jesus taught.
One is reminded of the frequent misuse of “judge not …” by people who do not like their sin pointed out.
The idea that “wherever two or three are gathered together in Jesus’ name” is a sufficient basis for a church is not “novel” or “irrational.” But it does require thinking outside the Roman Catholic box.
“730 Turretin, the visibility of the Church is a key to me. The early Church unambiguously saw itself as visible with a link to the apostles and catholic = universal, meaning NOT a sectarian group. The succession of bishops was visible history, not a hidden secret. No Christian could go start his own ‘communion’ and then be respected by the Church. That would be a joke. Given that the Church is visible, it opens a pandora’s box and the Protestant is left with EO or Cat as options. The logic beyond that point is a bit more strained and complex. The visibility is a simple point that eliminates Prot as an option.”
The question is not whether the church is visible or invisible – there is a visible church and an invisible church. The question is whether the church must intrinsically have a visible unity – something it did not have during the ante-nicaean era, and something that the Nicaean era didn’t really usher in (because of the existence of believers and churches outside of Constantine’s empire).
“727 Turretin papacy, yes the present papacy is clearly not obvious in the way it is exercised early on. Clement and Victor give some hints of it though. It’s a natural outgrowth from the seed of Peter’s blood at Rome and the need for a unifying point for the Church, as Christ prayed for unity. That is simply how the Church developed in real history, not our opinions. You do realize that all of this stuff really happened and the Catholic Church is here today as a witness to it?”
Christ himself is a sufficient unifying point for all believers. There is not a need for a mere human to occupy that role.
The stuff that really happened includes a lot of horrible stuff, like the Spanish Inquisition. Your appeal to the fact that Peter died in Rome is trumped by the fact that Jesus died in Jerusalem. Whose blood better serves to unify the church: Christ or Peter?
Of course, the answer is Christ. You’re just appealing to Peter’s place of execution as an after the fact justification.
“719 Turretin, when using something like Clement or Ignatious, you must ask yourself the question: Who is in a better position to know the true meaning of the apostles teaching, me reading a letter they wrote translated into English, or one of their personal disciples? That question was a big issue to me personally.”
Phrasing these questions differently can really change the outcome. Who is in a better position: them with a few years of study, or us, hundreds of billions of man-hours of study later? We have the aid of a lot of church fathers and other theologians that have had the time to carefully consider what the apostles taught.
“dgh 715 “lack of consensus” Anyone can disagree. When a Prot disagrees, he is just a Prot. When a Cat disagrees, he is not in harmony with Church teaching. It’s quite a different situation. As far as the clarity of Church teaching, I think it’s pretty clear and there is a living authority to answer any questions.”
One of the challenges of this dialog is that some of the advocates for the papacy don’t actually understand their own religion. In point of fact, Hans Kung is an easy example of someone who disagrees with what Benedict XVI teaches. In fact, the disagreement is so significant that Kung is forbidden to teach Catholic theology. However Kung is still in communion with Rome and still is a priest.
“dgh 714 (That is Babe Ruth’s HR total), I am not speaking for Bryan Cross or the Catholic Church. I am speaking as a lay Catholic. My view is that the Catholic convert does use his reason (as I did) but he uses it to reach a conclusive position on authority. From then on, he has the divine, living guidance of the Holy Spirit through Christ’s Church The Protestant uses his reason to reach a conclusion on any number of issues, but he also reserves the right to change his mind on any of these positions later. He is not using his reason to find an authority, he is acting as an authority himself.”
This is another of those false dichotomies. The choices are not “find a human authority” and “be your own authority,” there is also the choice of “rely on God’s word as the authority.”
-TurretinFan
simpleelder said,
August 9, 2012 at 11:59 am
TFan 1119 –
“Our elders appoint elders too. Do you imagine we believe in “succession”? If so, then why all the fuss?”
So very elenctic of you. Many thanks.
simpleelder said,
August 9, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Pete Holter, 1116
“We believe that this pastoral office has continued by the will of and in the promises of Christ, from the time of the apostles through the laying on of hands in succession from one generation to the next (cf. Acts 6:6, 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14, 5:22 ; 2 Timothy 1:6, 2:2; Titus 1:5).”
God is in the details. The verses you sight “do not mean what you think they mean” (to keep The Princess Bride sub-text going).
Acts 6:6 – men appointed to serve tables in one church, not lead churches.
Acts 14:23 – a group of men appointed, all with the same authority, to a jointly-held office of leadership. No bishoprics allowed in the Galatia.
1 Tim. 4:14 and 5:22, 2 Tim. 1:6 – no mention of succession in the texts; you read this in.
2 Timothy 2:2 – no mention of laying on of hands
Titus 1:5 – a group of men appointed, all with the same authority, to a jointly-held office of leadership. No bishopric allowed on Crete but just the opposite commanded – each church in each city having a group of men all with equal authority to lead the church as “God’s stewards” (1:7).
Pete, people can make Scripture mean whatever pet doctrine they want.
simpleelder said,
August 9, 2012 at 12:35 pm
When the glorious Lord Jesus Christ was among men, all men beheld on earth 2 perfect and infallible sources of authority, Himself, and the sacred text. As the Son of God incarnate, His teaching ministry was ever submissive and ever sensitive to the
As Scripture declares, He is the Word made flesh, not the church made flesh. As a direct and implicit truth, His infallible authority is now declared in that written word (whose name alone He deigns to share).
All through His ministry He showed the greatest sensitivity and trust in every jot and title of sacred writ, while ever upbraiding and rebuking the few sons of Adam, the apostles, whom He gathered to Himself.
And now with Him in heaven, still infallible, shall this church called Roman Catholic claim to be the infallible descendants of these ever rebuked apostles? It is a pretender to the throne.
The Christ of heaven does not rule infallibly except by that with which He shares both His intelligence and holiness: Scripture, the written word.
It is therefore the duty of all who honor Christ to reject and resist those who wish to pull Him down from heaven and take His glory for themselves. To sit passively by when He is so shamed and trampled upon is itself passive defection.
Arise, and hold fast your loyalty to Scripture, the written word of God.
Reed Here said,
August 9, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Lane: is this a record yet?
Grateful for WordPress’ adjustments making posting over 500 easier to load/scroll.
Reed Here said,
August 9, 2012 at 1:14 pm
TFan, so:
RCC: by the use of my own reason, I determine that the Papacy is God’s authority on earth.
Protestants: by the use of my reason, I determine that the Bible is God’s authority on earth.
Seems to me like a tie. Good thing there is a Tie Breaker. Oh wait, that’s just the opinion of my own reason. Oh shucks.
Arnold said,
August 9, 2012 at 1:34 pm
THE THREAD MUST GO ON
David Gadbois said,
August 9, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Reed (and Lane, if you’re out there), should we put this thread out of it’s misery.? It jumped the shark a long time ago. Very few posts have actually stayed on the topic of Lane’s post.
Arnold said,
August 9, 2012 at 3:00 pm
1126 David are you the moderator?
Arnold said,
August 9, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Turretin, most of your arguments reduce to “well, that’s clear from Scripture.”
You are simply left with that alone, your interpretation of Scripture.
You have no answer for WHEN Scripture became the authority. No Church Fathers comment on this, because it was not an actual event.
You have no answer for HOW Scripture became defined, other than to say it defined itself. Nice one. Again, it’s wonderful that you know so much better than the Christians of the second and third century who did not know the bounds of the canon.
You have to face the fact that private interpretation of Scripture leads inevitably, to a multiplicity of interpretations and denominations and that this is not how the Early Church operated because the Early Church remained united across space and time in doctrine and communion/Eucharist.
To suggest, as you do, that you know more about Christianity than Clement or Ignatius is laughable.
johnbugay said,
August 9, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Arnold, regarding “how” Scriptures became defined, you have to understand, everybody already knew what “Scriptures” were. The OT already functioned in a certain way (Luke 24:44), and the question of the “authority” of Scripture continued, unchanged.
If you want to know about the edges of the canon, it’s far more complex (but far more favorable to our understanding of this than yours), and you can pick through this work and tell us what’s wrong with it:
In reality, you have come here and asked every stupid Catholic Answers question that we’ve ever heard, and each one has been patiently answered for you — I think Turretinfan has a 100%+ response rate to you, having answered some questions several times — every single objection that you’ve had to Protestantism has been overcome and marginalized, and all you can do is huff in a rant and say “it’s laughable”.
Now THAT’s funny.
simpleelder said,
August 9, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Arnold, 1128
“You have no answer for WHEN Scripture became the authority. No Church Fathers comment on this, because it was not an actual event.”
In 1077 Turretin wrote: “The other books were also recognized early on. As I already mentioned, Peter’s epistle recognizes Paul’s letters as Scripture and one of Paul’s epistles recognizes Luke’s gospel as Scripture.”
You probably can’t hear what he was saying.
jsm52 said,
August 9, 2012 at 3:49 pm
#1126 – Reed (and Lane, if you’re out there), should we put this thread out of it’s misery.? It jumped the shark a long time ago.
They shoot horses, don’t they?
inclementnimbus said,
August 9, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Ok. This is my first time in a greenbaggins thread. I made it through 870 comments and then gave up. I just want to say thanks to TurretinFan, Jeff Cagle and John Bugay for their continued posting here. I am a “relatively” new reformed guy… I don’t have the knowledge you guys have but am learning as God provides.
I feel like a glutton for punishment after going through this all. It’s taken about 2 days.
Thoughts… the CTC guys mentioned “begging the question” so often that I thought it was either an inside joke or a drinking game. Right up there with that Andrew guy’s reference to golf. lol
CTC seems to ignore a lot of points made. TF might post a lengthy reply to which someone glosses over and then presents something different rarely taking into account what was actually said. It’s theological whack-a-mole.
I have jotted down Kroger’s book (i have listened to the lectures) and Websters 3 vol “pillar and ground”. I will be going through these as time permits.
Interesting reading so far!
Arnold said,
August 9, 2012 at 4:22 pm
1130 simple, today we recognize that Hebrews is equally as inspired as Paul’s letters and the Gospels and the OT.
There was a growing sense of the NT over time. It took centuries and some were recognized earlier than others.
During this time, the Church was not in crisis because it had no written NT canon. It had leadership and tradition. That is how it ran. It didn’t stop running.
Arnold said,
August 9, 2012 at 4:24 pm
1132 welcome inclement
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 9, 2012 at 4:28 pm
and in case you are all wondering…the pontiff has not returned my call for golf… yet :-)
Pete Holter said,
August 9, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Greetings in Christ, Simple Elder!
The references that I supplied were meant to be taken collectively as substantiating our understanding of the appointment to leadership positions within the Church.
I meant to show from Acts 6:6 that the appointment to the diaconate was made by the apostles (those already in authority) through the laying on of hands.
Acts 14:23 showed that the appointing of elders was made by Paul and Barnabas (those already in authority).
1 Timothy 4:14 indicates that Timothy’s gifting as an elder was in him through the laying on of hands by those who were already elders.
1 Timothy 5:22 indicates that Timothy, as an elder, is to appoint subsequent elders through the laying on of hands.
2 Timothy 1:6 again shows that Timothy’s gifting as an elder is in him through the laying on of hands, with Paul drawing attention this time to his own participation in the ordination.
2 Timothy 2:2 was meant to show that Timothy, as a teacher in the Church, is the one who will approve the teachers of the next generation.
Titus 1:5 also shows that elders appoint the next generation of elders.
Altogether, what we find is that those who are in positions of authority are the ones who appoint the next generation, and that this appointment takes place through the laying on of hands. These connections entail a sacramental succession from the time of the apostles forward.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Reed Here said,
August 9, 2012 at 4:39 pm
David: well, folks are being nice, and seem to want to keep whacking the shuttle-cock back and forth, so …
Unless one of ’em acts like a shark, I say let ’em rumble (ramble). What do ya think?
Reed Here said,
August 9, 2012 at 4:43 pm
RCC Guy: by the action of my own reason, I recognize/submit to the authority of the Pope. This is godly.
Pr Guys: by the action of my own reason, I recognize/submit to the authority of the Bible. This is godly.
RCC Guy: NO ITS NOT. YOU’RE ACTING AS YOUR OWN AUTHORITY!
Pr Guy: well, according to ——–
RCC Guy: (fingers in ears), BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, Self-worshiper!!
Seriously, you RCC guys have got to see how lame your arguments sound, someday, maybe??
TurretinFan said,
August 9, 2012 at 4:47 pm
“Turretin, most of your arguments reduce to ‘well, that’s clear from Scripture.'”
That doesn’t remind me of any of the arguments I’ve used in this thread, but it does remind me of what John Chrysostom wrote: “All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain”
You can find the context and more similar comments from the fathers here:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/12/formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-fifth.html
“You are simply left with that alone, your interpretation of Scripture.”
Scripture is a pretty big and strong something to have with one. Scripture itself declares:
Psalm 119:105
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Proverbs 8:8-9
All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
Proverbs 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.
2 Timothy 3:15
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.
That’s a pretty powerful something. You can try the rhetorical game of saying its all just “your interpretation,” but everyone who is not a postmodernist can see through that.
“You have no answer for WHEN Scripture became the authority.”
I’m pretty sure I’ve answered this before. The answer is – it was an authority when Moses began writing it about 3000 years ago. Moses was attested with signs and wonders to confirm the revelation he received. God even manifested himself. It was completed by the apostles and other eyewitnesses of God’s last open manifestation of himself in the person of Christ. Those apostles were likewise attested with signs and wonders, even greater than those Moses worked.
Because the Scriptures are the Word of God they were always authoritative from the instant they were written.
When Jesus ascended, we had the Scriptures and the apostles. When the apostles departed, we were left with the Scriptures.
“No Church Fathers comment on this, because it was not an actual event.”
I suppose one could say that they don’t comment on it, because it’s a straw man. They do acknowledge that there are no more apostles – that Paul was the last apostle.
“You have no answer for HOW Scripture became defined, other than to say it defined itself. Nice one.”
I deny that Scripture was authoritatively defined by men. In fact, as your own church teaches, the bounds of the canon were merely recognized by the churches (your church would say “the church”).
“Again, it’s wonderful that you know so much better than the Christians of the second and third century who did not know the bounds of the canon.”
ROFL
a) You think you know the bounds of the canon, right? So, you think you know better than them (by your standard).
b) The second and third century Christians did think that they knew the bounds of the canon. Look at Origen as an example.
“You have to face the fact that private interpretation of Scripture leads inevitably, to a multiplicity of interpretations and denominations and that this is not how the Early Church operated because the Early Church remained united across space and time in doctrine and communion/Eucharist.”
I already explained that this argument ignores social and political factors. Here’s an easy counter-example: how many denominations existed in Calvin’s Geneva? How many denominations existed in England under Elizabeth I? How many denominations were in the Bay Colony? Look at any place where you have Sola Scriptura and a close church-state relationship, and you’ll see (shocking surprise) fewer denominations than in places where there is separation of church and state.
“To suggest, as you do, that you know more about Christianity than Clement or Ignatius is laughable.”
But you think you know more than they do. Your co-religionists actually think it’s not fair for us to expect people like Ignatius and Clement to have developed concepts of any of the distinctively Roman Catholic dogmas. Yet Rome now demands that everyone accept those dogmas de fide.
There is an aspect of their objection that is correct – we cannot expect that the early generations, focused on surviving persecution, came up with extensive systematic theologies.
On the other hand, things like purgatory, papal infallibility and the bodily assumption of Mary are not the result of concerted exegetical work over centuries. They are not complex theological topics that had to be worked out over time. Perhaps someone would claim that about Transubstantiation, but certainly not about the existence of Purgatory, the idea that the bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction, or the historical end of Mary.
-TurretinFan
Arnold said,
August 9, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Turretin clearly has a lot of time. He has replied to my questions. Most of his replies are brief and are simply picking around the edges, not at the core of the issue.
I used to be Protestant. I picked at the edges. I thought Galatians 2 showed that Peter couldn’t have been the leader of the Church.
The Catholic Biblical answers on each issue (they are all online) are at least as good as the Protestant ones – and have the advantage of history. The Protestant side has the disadvantage of novelty and is also not a united “side” but rather whatever set of doctrines you want to select.
A chapter like John 20 does not lend itself well to Protestant interpretation. Retain or remit sins? That sounds serious! Neither does Matthew 16. The Keys to the Kingdom! That sounds serious! Peter’s primacy is again and again affirmed by the NT and Church history. It’s not an accident. There is no case for the primacy of Paul, John, or James, or anybody else. (More for James, but that’s another issue).
Apostolic succession, confession, the real presence in the Eucharist, a high view of Mary as the Mother of God, all these things have been practiced and affirmed over and over through Christian history. You can’t name the inventor of the doctrine and they have roots in apostolic times. If that’s not good enough for you, then you are content to separate yourself from the historical Church, put yourself on an island with your own mind. I think it makes more sense to join in the great Christian tradition that we have in communion and through space and time back to the apostles. The Church is visible through apostolic succession.
It’s also no coincidence that the Anglicans and some Lutherans claim apostolic succession. They recognize it as a constitutional element of a Church, as it has been since the apostles’ successors. These are the earliest Protestants, but they claimed apostolic succession. Only with time did Protestantism develop into strictly Bible-based sects.
For a developing person in the womb, the moment of conception is the only good answer to “when does life begin?” Any other answer is problematic and begs the question of exactly what was the being right before that point? Before conception, the being did not exist.
The same goes for the Church. Your faith may be individualistic, but the Church is not. The Church is a communion and a group and it is global. You can’t pick a point in Church history and say “oh, that’s when MY communion started.” You have to go all the way back to Jesus. The Catholic Church traces all the way back and retains the name Catholic = universal = of the whole. The Church cannot be a sect, by definition. The retention of the Catholic name is quite meaningful.
The Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. These four marks have been affirmed throughout Christian history. To claim these marks while outside of communion with the Catholic or EO makes little sense. To disclaim them is even less sensible as that cuts you off from the great body of Christian believers.
Pete Holter said,
August 9, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Jsm52 said, “So many words and still not a direct answer.”
Hi Jsm52,
I’m not sure how to answer more directly. The faith of Christ is to believe everything that God has revealed and to entrust ourselves entirely to Him. Believing that God has given His Church a senior pastor here on earth is not in addition to my faith and trust in Christ, but part of it, part of trusting in His promises and His word.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Arnold said,
August 9, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Also, Acts. Chapter 1. What is the first thing the Church does? Is it writing things down?
No. It’s setting up visible leadership and rebuilding the 12. Visible leadership in the Church is important. They appointed successors. The Church did not stop.
TurretinFan said,
August 9, 2012 at 5:18 pm
“Also, Acts. Chapter 1. What is the first thing the Church does? Is it writing things down? No. It’s setting up visible leadership and rebuilding the 12. Visible leadership in the Church is important. They appointed successors. The Church did not stop.”
Acts 1:15-16, 20-22
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, … Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. … For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
The first thing that Peter does (after praying) is goes to the Scriptures for authoritative guidance for the church.
The prophesy about Judas is not applicable to Peter himself, or to any of the other apostles. Moreover, the requirements for Judas’ replacement were such as cannot possibly be fulfilled now.
-TurretinFan
jsm52 said,
August 9, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Pete (1140),
The faith of Christ is to believe everything that God has revealed and to entrust ourselves entirely to Him. Believing that God has given His Church a senior pastor here on earth is not in addition to my faith and trust in Christ, but part of it, part of trusting in His promises and His word.
Must one believe everything included in “everything that God has revealed” as you mentioned above in order to be saved? Is that even possible for one individual to do? It is more than difficult to conceive of an individual who can know rightly everything revealed of God, believe it rightly, and live rightly in conformity to it. And if we say, along with Jesus, that “with man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible,” then aren’t we saying what is necessary for salvation is ultimately something more along the lines of trusting in Christ’s blood and righteousness alone? For with man it is impossible…
As to my question earlier – It’s quite obvious I am outside of the the “Church” – i.e. The Roman Catholic Church. That being the case, am I outside of salvation? Is faith in Christ Jesus as one’s Lord and Savior, Who died for one’s sins, insufficient for salvation? Is salvation secured only if one believes, confesses, and is also in submission to the Supreme Pontiff? –
I asked for a yes or no. I suspect your answer is yes, yet despite your two responses I don’t know that for certain. If yes, then any number of Bible passages, creeds, confessions, church fathers, and theologians would indicate that that is adding to the gospel. I do know that you’ll take issue with that last statement. But, then again, it is the debate over the nature of the gospel that is at the core of the Protestant / Roman divide.
Pete Holter said,
August 9, 2012 at 8:30 pm
jsm52 asked, “Must one believe everything included in “everything that God has revealed” as you mentioned above in order to be saved? Is that even possible for one individual to do?”
Hi again!
We think that this is fulfilled in those who believe what they know, and who have the willingness to believe what they don’t know. By the gifts and grace of God in the washing of Christ’s blood, as you noted. :)
If Jesus is my Lord and Savior, but I refuse to believe something that He has revealed for the sake of my salvation, then is He really my Lord and Savior? And if we do refuse to believe, do we even have faith at all? For example, it is by faith that “we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible” (Hebrews 11:3). If I refuse to believe that “what is seen was not made out of things that are visible,” do I have faith? We think that refusing to believe such things with obstinacy destroys faith and leaves us with nothing but our own opinion.
You also said, “It seems that a sense of humor is sorely lacking?”
Have you seen this one? Ha ha!
With love in Christ,
Pete
jsm52 said,
August 9, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Pete,
Your quote
“Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing” (City of God, Bk. 14, Ch. 24).
You’ve convinced me. I love your self-deprecating humor!
;)
TurretinFan said,
August 10, 2012 at 1:43 am
“Turretin clearly has a lot of time. He has replied to my questions. Most of his replies are brief and are simply picking around the edges, not at the core of the issue.”
It’s hard to tell what you think that “core of the issue” is, based on your scattered comments and the absence of any clearly structured argument. Of late, it seems that for you the core of the issue is something like this:
1) Although the Scriptures don’t actually teach the papacy; and
2) Although the ECFs don’t actually teach the papacy; still
3) Eventually a papacy emerged, which is definitive proof (or at least strong evidence) that God intended for it to emerge; and
4) Although after further time the Protestant Reformation emerged, because it came later, that is definitive proof (or at least strong evidence) that God did not intend for it to emerge.
But this is just muddled and arbitrary thinking. While God is a God of Providence, and so God had a purpose both in the papacy and in the Protestant Reformation, neither of those historical realities demonstrates itself to be in accordance with the revealed will of God, simply by virtue of its existence.
After all, God had a purpose with respect to Pharoah, but that was to show God’s power in his destruction. The divinely ordained rise of Pharoah didn’t justify the Pharoah’s treatment of the Israelites, just as the rise of the papacy in the West didn’t justify the Spanish Inquisition (or the crusade against the Albigensians, or any of the other atrocities).
If “development” can justify the papacy vis-a-vis the papacy-free early church, much more so it can justify the Protestant Reformation vis-a-vis the papacy. But arbitrarily the gnat of the Protestant Reformation is screened out while the camel of the papacy is swallowed.
The core of the issue from our side is that there is no real positive case for the papacy that holds water. (We saw how fast the CtC ship sprung a leak, and all hands seem to have abandoned ship on their “because it’s a body, it must be visibly one” argument.) The way to determine the revealed will of God is to go to the Scriptures, but if we do that, we won’t have a papacy.
– TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 10, 2012 at 2:03 am
“There is no case for the primacy of Paul, John, or James, or anybody else. (More for James, but that’s another issue).”
Actually, using the same flawed reasoning as Roman Catholic apologists, Jason Engwar has provided a tongue-in-cheek argument for Pauline primacy.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/08/51-biblical-proofs-of-pauline-papacy.html
The problem for both the Pauline case and the Petrine case is that Paul teaches his equality with the “chiefest” apostles and does so clearly:
2 Corinthians 11:5
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
And if you are wondering which ones he saw as “chiefest,” it seems like this is a safe bet:
Galatians 2:9
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
That division of primary missions also strongly undermines the idea that Peter’s mission was to head up the entire church of Jew and Gentile.
So, you see, it’s not just that there is no positive case for the papacy, but also that there is a strong negative case against it, not only from those passages, but also from the passage that clearly states that church has one head, Christ.
Colossians 1:18
And he 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.
I realize that the bishop of Rome wants preeminence, but that is reserved for Christ.
-TurretinFan
Burton said,
August 10, 2012 at 9:34 am
Turretinfan (#1086),
So the elders help a straying sheep return to the fold by expounding the Word, but both the elders and the sheep have equal authority in determining true doctrine (by reading the Word), and it is quite possible that the “straying sheep” is not really straying and that the elders themselves are the ones who are heretical?
The elders can excommunicate a brother who persists in what they perceive to be heresy, but the supposed heretic has the responsibility (and the right) to decide for themselves if the elders have judged rightly in excommunicating him? Maybe the layman has correctly ascertained true doctrine from the Word and the elders have not.
I have the feeling we are talking past each other. I don’t see how the above can actually work to define true doctrine in a meaningful way that can return straying sheep to the fold and remove heresy from the church.
Maybe the key to this discussion is the issue of perpiscuity. Those who read the word with a heart open to the Spirit will arrive at true doctrine on those things essential to salvation. This seems to render the decisions of councils and assemblies superfluous and the process of excommunication meaningless.
Burton
Jeff Cagle said,
August 10, 2012 at 10:23 am
Burton (#1149): “…and it is quite possible that the “straying sheep” is not really straying and that the elders themselves are the ones who are heretical?”
Jesus already anticipated this possibility.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. — Matt 7.15 – 20.
Notice that if we drill down to it, the false prophet could just as easily turn around and accuse a disciple of being in the sin of schism because the disciple is rejecting the prophet’s teaching.
So who decides then? What process gives us certainty? Cue Edvard Munch.
But the anchor is Scripture, and that’s where you arrive in your last paragraph. You say,
Maybe the key to this discussion is the issue of perpiscuity. Those who read the word with a heart open to the Spirit will arrive at true doctrine on those things essential to salvation.
And this is spot-on.
This seems to render the decisions of councils and assemblies superfluous and the process of excommunication meaningless.
Not if you think in terms of “weight of evidence.” I don’t know your specialty, but suppose you run some tests for Lyme’s on a patient. You run a blood test that comes back negative, and a CSF test that comes back positive. What does the weight of evidence tell you?
Now consider two different heresy situations. On the one hand, you have Arianism. Athanasius presents arguments from Scripture showing that if Jesus is not fully God, our salvation cannot be secured. The Council of Nicea agrees, leading to (eventually) the Nicene Creed. The entire church since has agreed.
If Joe Arian now comes and disputes this, then his argument has to pass a high bar of strict scrutiny because of the weight of the Council added to the weight of Athanasius’ arguments from Scripture.
In the end, Joe can and should be refuted by arguments from Scripture, but the Council adds weight to those arguments.
Contrast: The Council of Ephesus, IIRC, declared that Mary was ever-virgin and that denial of this is denial of the Gospel.
Joe Protestant now comes and disputes this on the grounds that what Mary did after Jesus’ birth cannot possibly affect our salvation, and that Scripture does not teach perpetual virginity anywhere.
His argument must also pass strict scrutiny, and it does. The RC rebuttals to Joe are 100% from tradition, 0% from Scripture (that is, the positive arguments for PV, not the defensive attempts at harmonization). Conclusion: Joe Protestant is on solid ground, and PV is a doctrine grounded on empty human philosophy and the traditions of men.
Does that make sense?
Burton said,
August 10, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Jeff,
Thanks for your reply. Your description makes sense based on the examples you provided, but these examples are in a certain sense outliers and the scenarios you present are influenced by presupposition. They therefore may not get to the heart of the issue.
Let me provide another medical example. Suppose a test is developed that evaluates serum levels of vitamin D. This new test claims to be far more accurate than previous tests, and family physicians begin using it as a screening tool. Many new diagnoses of hypovitaminosis D are made. But a large percentage of physicians are very skeptical. They note that the physician researchers who developed the test are paid consultants for the very pharmaceutical company that makes money every time Vit D is prescribed. They also note that there is no compelling evidence that what this new test calls “low levels” in any way corresponds to negative health outcomes. Controversy rages.
My point? A test must be shown to do what it claims to do before it can be assumed to provide valid data. Sola Scriptura (and the perpiscuity it implies) is the very test (or principled means) that I am questioning, and large cohorts of Christians have rejected its validity.
Your example of perpetual virginity assumes from the outset the validity of your test. Arianism is non-controversial and also your description assumes that the principled means used by Athanasius and the Council of Nicea was the very test whose validity is in question.
Let me try two other heresy situations and see how the “weight of evidence”/perpiscuity paradigm works.
Suppose Joe-Reformed Elder comes to the conclusion through careful exegesis of Scripture and study of the church Fathers that works play a role in salvation in ways rejected by the WCF. He shares his belief with some fellow elders who agree with him. They are called before the General Assembly and convicted of heresy. These elders reject the man-made authority of the Assembly and start their own church. Joe-Christian in the pew is confused. He doesn’t know who is heretical and who is orthodox. He reads the Scriptures that both sides cite and the weight of evidence is truly a toss-up. How can he know whose teaching is heretical?
Another example. Suppose an atheist with no knowledge of Christianity is sitting at a coffee shop and overhears two men at the next table discussing the faith. He wants to learn more, talks and prays with them, and becomes a Christian. Each of the men offer him their Bible. He takes them both and turns to the table of contents. He is surprised to find a discrepancy. One Bible lists more books than the other. He questions the two men and each give excellent historical arguments for why their list is the right one. He engages in his own extensive historical study and reads experts from both sides. Both have some data in their favor, and some against. How does he know which list is orthodox, and which is heretical? The weight of evidence is mixed.
Any thoughts?
Burton
Jeff Cagle said,
August 10, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Burton (#1151):
Good questions. What you are really doing is asking meta-questions about methods, in which case we would need to stand outside the method and apply some kind of objective standard, if at all possible.
In your vitamin D example, the objective standard is really to apply the “real standards”, which are to examine false negative and positive rates and health outcomes — peer reviewed studies, IOW.
Sadly, as you know, the peer-review process itself is subject to gaming (see: Andrew Wakefield), so that the meta-method of peer-review now needs a meta-meta-method (“consensus”?), and … ack! Who’s a parent to trust about MMR?
But at some point, the actual data themselves stand. When a parent comes in and balks at the MMR vaccine, a physician can do no better than to lay out (a concise presentation of) the data and the argument, and the parent has to make his or her own choices.
So it is here. In the first case, Joe-Christian is best served by being presented with the relevant Scriptural data and (a concise summary of) the arguments. From there, we have to trust the Holy Spirit.
What’s his alternative? To latch on to an ‘authority’ because it claims to be teaching the (apparently secret) apostolic traditions that they didn’t write down, and Oh-By-The-Way, We’re Never Wrong?
That’s a perilous proposition.
In the second case, the ex-atheist is best served by being presented with the arguments for why these books and not those are actually Scripture. And …
The point of my method is to always direct the inquirer’s mind towards the Word of God and away from the word of man.
I believe that’s the best that we can do in this fallen world. Just as the actual objects in the world reflect infallibly the work of God’s providence, so also the actual words of Scripture reflect infallibly God’s saving word to us. Anything else is a one-off.
Burton said,
August 10, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Jeff,
Don’t know if you are a fellow physician or scientist, but I appreciate the clarity and logic of your thought. Your answer highlights the “issues behind the issues” very admirably. Both sides come to the table with certain assumptions that are not clearly (to my mind) data driven, but philosophical. As I see it, the central assumption of the Reformed paradigm is perpiscuity. There is ultimately no need for any authority outside of Scripture because any person reading it can come to a correct understanding of orthodoxy and heresy. To elevate anyone or group to the status of “authoritative magisterium” leads to the perilous state of potentially calcified error. Based on this, I do think the honest Protestant has to at the foundational level embrace “Solo” and reject “Sola”, but I’m not insinuating that that is a negative.
The competing assumption (a la CtC) is that a living, breathing authority is necessary to define true doctrine, and that the truly perilous proposition is one in which each individual can ultimately define for themselves “true doctrine” based on their own interpretation of Scripture, and this leads to doctrinal anarchy.
So here is the question: is the Reformed “best we can do in a fallen world” sufficient to lead mankind to the Truth and Him who is Truth? Or are the deficiencies of this paradigm evident enough that the objective observer will conclude that it leads to an implicit doctrinal relativism or dangerous individualism? You seem to concede that the Reformed principled means for defining true doctrine is in some way deficient, but that the alternative is so obviously wrong that “deficient” is better than nothing.
I come to this issue with a basic question: what is necessary to provide an objective definition of true doctrine so that I can know the saving Truth and give my life to it (Him)? If the Reformed “test” fails, then I will look elsewhere, without beforehand ruling out any possibility of where that may lead.
I truly appreciate your thoughts.
Burton
Jeff Cagle said,
August 10, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Thanks, Burton. I teach science and math by trade, and grew up surrounded by the medical world.
I would add only one thing: The difference between “sola” and “solo” is the difference between individual publishing and peer-review.
A ‘solo-‘ist relishes in the lack of peer-review and submits to no authority, even in the corner cases. A ‘sola-‘ strives to learn from what has gone before, and in cases of doubt gives weight to the voice of the Church.
Joe Elder from your example can argue from Scripture, but he cannot claim anything like rigorous peer-review. If anyone asks, he was booted for teaching heresy.
Obviously, the best situation would be the Eph 4 situation: if the Church were truly in unity in the faith, then peer-review would be a mighty tool. As it is, it is better than ‘solo’, but not as good as it might be.
Take Luther’s situation. In his understanding, he was caught between two poles.
The one pole included the words of Scripture, the teachings of the early Church Fathers (who, despite Catholic protestations, do say some things remarkably like sola fide in some places.), the methods of the early Church Fathers (frequent appeals to Scripture, few appeals to tradition, no appeals whatsoever to ‘papal teachings.’). Methodologically, the ECFs acted suspiciously like ‘sola’s.
On the other hand were the claims of the Pope and his sub-sub-sub-representatives, the acknowledged scandals of the Roman papal court, and the clear abuses of relics and indulgences.
Ancient tradition was at odds with current ‘tradition.’ So what to do when tradition contradicts itself? Luther went to the gold standard, the words of Scripture, whom EVERYONE acknowledges to be inerrant. The rest followed.
Peace,
Jeff
(By the way, notice in passing the fallacy of ‘heretics always appeal to the Scriptures.’ So do the orthodox. Try replacing it with, ‘heretics always breath oxygen’ to see the problem.)
Burton said,
August 10, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Jeff,
My only quibble with your “solo = individual publish, sola = peer review” is that so much depends upon the peers to which you submit your paper. In this case, we have two (or more) competing “journals” with differing baseline assumptions. For instance, if Joe Elder who has rejected the WCF view on works submits his belief to the Reformed “journal” he will be met with charges of heresy. If, on the other hand, he decides to submit his work to a journal more favorable to his new belief, say the Arminian or Orthodox or Catholic “journal”, he will be met with a very different response. If he, by reading Scriptures, can decide beforehand which peers to join (because they line up with his interpretation of Scripture, then Sola is functionally equivalent to Solo.
I am no expert in church history, but I suspect the experts at the other “journal” may have a few well-thought-out things to say about the methods of the early church being of the “sola” variety, but if your assessment of history vis-a-vis the RCC is correct, then it doesn’t help support the Reformed view, only helps to undermine the RCC view.
Thanks,
Burton
johnbugay said,
August 10, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Burton 1155: From Sherlock Holmes, “The Sign of Four” (more recently repeated by the young Spock):
If the Roman Catholic position is undermined (and thus not the correct “paradigm” — that is, it’s not “divinely instituted”), then however improbably you find the Protestant paradigm(s), that’s what you’re left with. Because with Rome, it’s all or nothing. An “undermined” paradigm just isn’t what they’ll let you have.
Simple Elder said,
August 10, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Pete Holder, 1136
“The references that I supplied were meant to be taken collectively as substantiating our understanding of the appointment to leadership positions within the Church…..
These connections entail a sacramental succession from the time of the apostles forward.”
Pete, a sacramental connection fails for the following reason. 1) it is no where explicitly taught in Scripture, and you have only produced scattered references that you claim exemplify the process.
2) Your examples fall short of anything sacramental. The best reference to build your case is 2 Tim. 1:6 where the ministry of the Holy Spirit is connected to Paul’s laying on of hands.
But from here you insert the Holy Spirit into all these other occasions of laying on of hands. This insertion is not explicit in the text, so you are likely reading it into the text to suit your previous theological goals.
Jesus laid hands on children, but we shouldn’t call it a sacrament. He also ate fish and even wept. The practice of laying on of hands is from the OT where it has no sacramental sense at all and so we should expect explicit teaching from the apostles on it if it were sacramental.
A better understanding of the laying on of hands comes in a sense of commissioning (ordaining) and association, just without the magic whiffle dust supposedly being wafted about.
But there is a larger matter here.
Scripture, written by the Holy Spirit, is explicit about who may serve Him in leadership. Between 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 there are 26 character and ministry qualifications given. Some of them relate specifically to a man’s married life and raising of children. Others relate to his sexual purity. None of those items are passed along by the laying on of hands.
If the RCC would abide by those then not only would you guys be able to put the right men in leadership and do away with this sacramental stuff, but you wouldn’t have to protect your little boys from your not-so-celibate church leaders.
Arnold said,
August 10, 2012 at 8:02 pm
1143 Turretin,
You have established that Peter cited Scripture. The Catholic Church believes in Sacred Scripture. So, your case is not to show that Peter cited Scripture, but rather that his establishment of visible Church leadership is meaningless. You attempted this briefly at the end of your post by saying that no one could fulfill the role of eyewitness of Jesus today. We already know that and so did everyone in Church history. You fail to devalue the very important action of Peter establishing visible Church leadership.
Arnold said,
August 10, 2012 at 8:16 pm
1147 Turretin, the core of the issue is, What is the Church? The Catholic case is made, as this thread focuses on, with a visible head (the Bishop of Rome) and the support of Christian history. What is your positive vision of what the Church is, without visible leadership? If you do want visible leadership, who authorizes it? A seminary degree?
The Scriptures and ECF do not need to explicitly teach the developed form of the Papacy we have now. They simply need to establish its basis and the path of its growth. They do this exceedingly well.
You seem to suggest that God had a purpose for the papacy? What was it? I thought you were saying the Pope was the anti Christ? Are you acknowledging that the Catholic Church, united with the Bishop of Rome, has a Christian basis?
A valid development must come from an NT basis and grow from there. It can’t pop up in the 1500s.
Arnold said,
August 10, 2012 at 8:30 pm
1148 Turretin,
You are aware that Gal 2:9 is the ONLY NT verse that does not list Peter first?
It’s like you see 500 white swans, then a black swan comes along and suddenly you assume that you have no clue which color most swans are in the pond.
Peter is listed first every single time, except Gal 2:9. Do you think that is an accident?
The division of mission doesn’t present an issue. That was for a temporal reason, not an eternal one. Peter went on to Rome, the center of the pagan (gentile) empire.
Arnold said,
August 10, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Sometimes a name can be so charged with personal meaning or such a loaded term that don’ bother to look into where it actually comes from. For some people today, this may be the case with the name “Catholic” relating to the Catholic Church.
This word comes from the Greek “katholikos” which means universal or, more literally, of the whole.
Consider what Augustine wrote in his epistle against the heretic Manichaeus about why he remains in the Catholic Church:
‘The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.’
In addition to its practical use noted by Augustine, the name holds a more profound meaning. To say that your church was the “catholic” church was to say that it is not the Gnostic sect, it is not the Ebionites, it is not the Docetists, it is not the Arians, it is the church that is “of the whole.” It is the church that is from the apostles who went to the ends of the earth, holds the true deposit of faith for all time, and is found all over the world.
In fact, this is often how heresy was recognized because it could not claim these features. Heretics were either not in a line of succession from the apostles or held to doctrines that were not held universally throughout Christendom. Lacking these features showed that the heretical teachings were novel and not a part of the authentic deposit of faith.
Arnold said,
August 10, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Turretin, was the Catholic Church ever valid? If so, when did it stop being valid? If not, who invented it and when?
Burton said,
August 10, 2012 at 8:45 pm
John,
I agree 100%. I have not yet concluded that the RCC position is untenable, but I can’t find argument with your assessment of the choice.
Burton
Brad B said,
August 10, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Hi Burton, have you considered Rom. 9 in your paradigm? It’s true that no particular bit of information is by itself so brute [to fallen man] that it cannot be misinterpreted. An unregenerate will not / can not understand rightly any of the things that are spiritually discerned. Does this negate the perspiscuity of the biblcal revelation? Not at all, nor does it blurr the logical coherency of the biblical revelation in which it is impossible for God to lie or err. In other words, the logic of it is never blurred or hidden, it is brute obvious for any to see who can shed the evil intents of their hearts. And more proof of this comes as even the creation bears a bare naked witness before men who suppress the truth that is in their DNA. Truth is propositional, but not negotiable just because men discern it so fallibly.
The Lords purposes will be done, in and through fallen creatures, but He hasn’t left the saints without an internal witness. If two who profess faith cannot/will not agree on interpretation, logical coherency will prove the one or the other–or neither! I think the sniff test will always be and has been ordained to be logic, afterall, in the beginning was the Logos.
Brad B said,
August 10, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Hi Burton, maybe the words attributed to Luther when he said:
will make sense of what I wrote previously concerning the internal witness–this while working out our salvation with fear and trembling depending on word and sacrament to strenghen and illuminate what the Spirit of God is intending.
johnbugay said,
August 11, 2012 at 3:17 am
Burton 1158, I’m just sayin’. Jeff is doing a wonderful job of laying it all out from the Reformed side. And when I tried to tell you just how impractical the Roman paradigm has been over time, you were dismissive of it. You said, “give me the positive articulation of the Reformed side. Jeff is doing that wonderfully well, and if you don’t mind my saying so, you play a wonderfully tortured Hamlet.
God has never in time provided the neat, tidy paradigm you are looking for. The only infallible statement of God’s doctrine is in the Bible. Everything else fails at some point. Rome’s “deposit of faith” has edges that are far more indiscernable than “the canon”. They will tell you they can give you the “infallible interpretation” at any given point, but how really does the Magisterium function? The truth is far more convoluted than Roman apologists let on.
I’m convinced Rome is not what it says it is. I’ve not been shy about saying that in any perspective. And if it is not, then we are left with making the best of the alternatives.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 11, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Burton (#1155): My only quibble with your “solo = individual publish, sola = peer review” is that so much depends upon the peers to which you submit your paper.
Hi again. This conversation, along with the larger issues raised by CtC, have been consuming most of my background cycles today.
You are correct that choice of peers will greatly influence outcomes.
However, that question is distinct from the sola/solo question in this way. The solo/sola question refers to one’s stance towards authority and one’s exegetical method.
The soloist deliberately ignores his peers and heaps contempt on the peer-review process itself. The voice of the Church is predominantly ignored or discounted.
The solaist, by contrast, must necessarily choose a peer group (a Church) and then agrees to work the process. The voice of the Church is given great weight.
That *is* a significant difference.
Now, the CtC crowd would have us conflate the two, arguing that choosing one’s peer group is itself a ‘solo’ move.
Here’s why they are wrong. They, themselves, have also chosen a peer group, the Roman Catholic Church, based on their own private interpretations of history and tradition.
And, if ever they read a Scripture passage that seems to contradict what the church teaches, they must either use their own reason to harmonize the passage, or else use their own reason to re-affirm to themselves the authority of the church.
So for example, an RC reads
“But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1.19). The good RC immediately says, ‘that means half-brother or cousin’. How do you know? Because the church teaches it. How do you know that this is not a passage that demonstrates the fallibility of church teaching? Because … X.
And whatever X is, it will be an argument from reason and evidence that the good RC has, indeed, chosen the right peer group.
So choice of peer group, and choice to remain with that peer group, are not choices that comes in ‘solo’ and ‘hypo-exousias” flavors. The individual must of necessity make those choices based on available evidence.
Pete Holter said,
August 11, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Good day, Simple Elder!
Thank you for the exchange.
You wrote, “Your examples fall short of anything sacramental. The best reference to build your case is 2 Tim. 1:6 where the ministry of the Holy Spirit is connected to Paul’s laying on of hands. […] The practice of laying on of hands is from the OT where it has no sacramental sense at all and so we should expect explicit teaching from the apostles on it if it were sacramental. A better understanding of the laying on of hands comes in a sense of commissioning (ordaining) and association, just without the magic whiffle dust supposedly being wafted about.”
In addition to 2 Timothy 1:6, I’d like to draw attention once again to 1 Timothy 4:14, where Paul also tells Timothy to “not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.” Timothy received the gift when the council of elders laid their hands on him, and Paul’s reminder of the gift is inserted right in the middle of an exhortation to Timothy to fulfill his ministry:
To insert this reminder in the middle of this train of thought is the same as to say, “Oh, and by the way, you’re going to be doing all of this by the grace that is in you by the gifting of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Now back to what I was saying…” The gift that was given was given through the laying on of hands, and it can either be neglected (cf. 1 Timothy 4:14) or fanned into flame (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6); but the gift is nonetheless the gift, and a source of grace for Timothy’s ministry (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:10; 2 Corinthians 6:1).
We see something similar to this happening in the Old Testament, as when Moses “laid his hands on” Joshua in order to “invest him with some of [Moses’] authority” so that the people of God would “not be as sheep that have no shepherd” (cf. Numbers 27:15-23). And when David was consecrated with oil by Samuel, it was “from that day forward” that “the Spirit of the LORD rushed upon” because it was God Himself who had so anointed him (1 Samuel 16:13; cf. 2 Kings 9:3-6; Psalm 89:20). Jesus is the new Moses and the new David, and it is into His priesthood that the leaders of the Church are ordained in the gifting that is bestowed through the laying on of hands for the carrying out of their ministry.
You also wrote, “But from here you insert the Holy Spirit into all these other occasions of laying on of hands. This insertion is not explicit in the text, so you are likely reading it into the text to suit your previous theological goals.”
There are several points that we try to make, and I think that they are all derived from Scripture, and that they can be seen by allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.
Paul and Barnabas were “sent out by the Holy Spirit” when they were “set apart” by the Church for their missionary journey through the laying on of hands (cf. Acts 13:2-4). The Samaritans “received the Holy Spirit” when Peter and John “laid their hands on them” (Acts 8:17). And the “Holy Spirit came on” the disciples “when Paul had laid his hands on them” (Acts 19:6).
We see from these examples, the Holy Spirit condescending to connect Himself with the laying on of hands performed either by the Apostles (Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6; 2 Timothy 1:6), or by the Church (Acts 13:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:14); and we see that this gifting happens in the process of becoming a Christian (cf. Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6), when being set apart for a specific mission (cf. Acts 13:2-4), and when being set apart to hold an office (1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6).
Based on these observations, when we see the deacons being appointed by the apostles through the laying on of hands, and we at the same time appreciate the complementary role that deacons play in the ministry of the apostles/elders (cf. Acts 6, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3), we come thereby to believe that the Holy Spirit is being given in their ordination by the imposition of hands to help them fulfill their ministry, just as in the explicit case of Timothy. Similarly, when we see that the deacons were set apart for the diaconate through the laying on of hands, and that Timothy was appointed to be an elder through the laying on of hands, we believe from these explicit examples that the elders that Paul and Barnabas appointed in Acts 14:23 were similarly appointed through the laying on of hands, and that Timothy and Titus would be doing the same in their appointing of elders and deacons.
You wrote, “Scripture, written by the Holy Spirit, is explicit about who may serve Him in leadership. Between 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 there are 26 character and ministry qualifications given. Some of them relate specifically to a man’s married life and raising of children. Others relate to his sexual purity. None of those items are passed along by the laying on of hands.”
We believe that the sacraments are the Christian life celebrated in sacramental form. Going back to 1 Timothy 4:11-16, I think that Paul is reaffirming for Timothy that, whatever gifting Timothy had prior to his ordination, and whatever qualifications he had for being ordained in the first place, these were all sealed and strengthened by the sacrament which then provided for Timothy a new source of grace in the powerful working of God, and a new promise for him that God would complete the new work that He had begun.
Finally, you wrote, “If the RCC would abide by those then not only would you guys be able to put the right men in leadership and do away with this sacramental stuff, but you wouldn’t have to protect your little boys from your not-so-celibate church leaders.”
There is an article found on the Vatican website called, “The Biblical Foundation of Priestly Celibacy,” wherein the author tries to give a suitable interpretation of the “one-woman man” qualification. You might appreciate some of the points that are made. Celibacy for the sake of the kingdom is a gift of God, so we would not want to connect it with leading people into sin. “Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means!” Rather, “it was sin, producing death in me through what is good” (Romans 7:13).
May God bless you.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Pete Holter said,
August 11, 2012 at 11:57 pm
Jeff Cagle wrote,
Greetings in Christ, Jeff!
The virginity of Mary is a great opportunity for us to illustrate how the leading of the Bishops of Rome helps to guide the faith of Catholics. Augustine identified Jovinian as a heretic who, among other things, “destroyed the virginity of Mary, saying that it was lost by her parturition” (Of Heresies, 82; cf. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk. 1, Ch. 2:4). Augustine also held that the “[h]eretics called Antidicomarites” were heretics for the sole reason that they “are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary, and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Of Heresies, 56).
He wrote,
And he said that…
So Augustine said that Mary’s virginity continued even in giving birth to Christ, that this was “believed and declared by the whole Church” by the profession of “[t]he Creed of most holy martyrdom [which] contains the truths upon which the faith of Mother Church is solidly established as on a firm foundation, which is Christ the Lord […,] our faith and our rule of salvation” (Sermon 215), and that those who didn’t believe were “unbelievers.” But how did he know that they were unbelievers?
He showed that her perpetual virginity was consonant with the Scriptures:
And he showed that her perpetual virginity needed to be deduced from the Scriptures:
If we read the words of Augustine, all we see is Scripture and reason. But from where did he get the confidence to maintain that those who did not so believe were in fact heretics?
Pope Siricius, “to whom,” as he says of himself, “especially [and] ceaselessly falls the daily concern and solicitude of all churches,” affirmed that “the blessed apostle Peter, who in all things protects and preserves us, the heirs, as we trust, of his administration, bears [the burdens of all who are oppressed] in us”; and, concerning rebaptism, asserted that “[a]ll priests who do not wish to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock, upon which Christ built the universal Church, should now hold the aforementioned rule”; and, concerning something else, had said that “what henceforth should be followed by all churches, what should be avoided, we decree by general pronouncement”; and had finally said to the Bishop of Tarragona that he [this bishop] had written “to the Roman Church, just as to the head of your body” (Letter to Bishop Himerius). Ok, sorry, this introduction was written so terribly, I don’t know how to fix it.
Well, this pope had written to Milan to let them know that Jovinian and his cohorts “were preaching another Gospel than that which we received,” and that the clergy of Rome had “excommunicated them.” He had written to apprise the Church of Milan of the situation, “Nothing doubting that your Holinesses will observe the aforesaid decree” (Letter to the Church of Milan). Milan responded by presenting the Scriptural basis for their agreement with several points of the condemnation, and, in particular, for their faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity, and then added, “why need we say more to our master and teacher?” They then closed their letter by saying that those “whom your Holiness has condemned, have also, in accordance with your judgment, been condemned by ourselves” (Ambrose, Letter 42).
Being aware of the history of this condemnation and exchange between Churches helps us to appreciate the connection between the role of the Bishop of Rome and the comfortableness that Augustine had in laying charges of heresy against those whom he called “unbelievers.” It helps us to see why Catholics had the confidence to scorn “even the most ingenious arguments brought forward by Jovinian,” and to instead believe “that holy Mary was not corrupted in giving birth, and that the Lord was not a phantasm, but that she remained a virgin after giving birth, although the true body of Christ came from her” (Against Julian, Bk. 1, Ch. 2:4). And it helps us to appreciate why “the holy bishop [Ambrose]” was willing to endure charges of Manichaeism and to maintain “the permanent virginity of the blessed Mary even after child-bearing, in opposition to [Jovinian’s] impiety” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Bk. 2, Ch. 5:15).
We believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity because our predecessors in the faith have so understood the Scriptures; and we know that the opposite opinion is not open to Christians because the Church, with the Bishop of Rome leading the way, has so decreed, making known “the manifold wisdom of God” (Ephesians 3:10).
With love in Christ,
Pete
Burton said,
August 12, 2012 at 8:13 am
Jeff,
I agree that solo vs sola as you present them (#1167) are significantly different, but I disagree that this difference has any bearing on the formal principle question at hand: on what principled basis does the Christian distinguish orthodoxy from heresy. The difference you present is relevant to the important character issue of how one in general responds to authority, but it does not change the fact that the final authority in deciding true doctrine from heresy rests with the individual. The Christian still retains the authority to decide whether or not his local church body is expounding the Word rightly, and most importantly, this locus of final authority in inherent to the Protestant principled means of defining orthodoxy. Sola does equal solo at the formal principle level.
You also point out that the RCC has no epistemologic advantage. Two thoughts. First, in one sense, whether or not this is true is irrelevant to our discussion. The original question was, “does the Reformed Christian have a principled means for distinguishing orthodoxy from heresy”, and I stated my request for a positive argument, as opposed to arguing from a negative. However, if we share the assumption that one of the two must be correct, then it is relevant. I don’t know if you have been following the back and forth between Keith Mathison and the guys at CtC over the issue of Sola vs Solo, but it is worth a read. Having followed both sides of the argument, I have come to the conclusion that once an individual, based on available evidence, decides to whom they will submit, the epistemologic situation does change fundamentally. I’ll be happy to flesh this out further, but now I’m pressed for time.
Thanks for the discussion.
Burton
Burton said,
August 12, 2012 at 8:26 am
John,
Tortured Hamlet, indeed! Couldn’t have said it better myself. I agree that Jeff has clearly laid out the Reformed rule of faith. As a result of our discussion, I am further convinced that it boils down to Solo Scriptura. I understand your complaint that I seem to be dismissive of the arguments against the RCC. That is not my intent. I am rather trying to focus the discussion on the positive argument from the Reformed perspective, because I have observed that many Reformed apologists spend considerable effort attempting to discredit the RCC position, and comparatively little defending or clearly explaining their own basic presuppositions.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 12, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Pete,
The chief reason that I engage you and other Catholics on this topic is that I am concerned that one not become Catholic on shaky grounds, for bad reasons.
It would be one thing if one became convinced of the Catholic doctrines by study of Scripture and sound argument from Scripture. Then I might disagree, but I would keep silent. Who can complain about such a method?
But here, because you are constrained to believe whatsoever the church teaches, you also are constrained to praise bad arguments as if they were good. I don’t say that to insult you, but to alarm you.
Look again at Augustine’s argument.
When the angel made this announcement to her, she said: ‘How shall this happen, since I do not know man?’ If she were planning to know man, she would not wonder. That wonderment is witness of her vow”
Where is the reason in this? She asks a straightforward question: “How can I have a child, when I am a virgin?”
Augustine says, “A-ha! Therefore, she must have made a vow of virginity!”
The argument is weak because he fails to consider the other possible options. And there are many. We don’t know when her marriage to Joseph was supposed to take place. If it was to be in the indefinite future, then the angel’s announcement would require some explanation.
OR,
If she understood the angel’s words (correctly, as it turns out) to mean that she would immediately conceive and soon give birth, then again an explanation would be necessary.
Both of these are reasonable possibilities that have nothing to do with a vow of virginity.
But worse, Augustine’s argument ignores falsifying considerations. The most obvious is, “Why would Mary have taken a vow of virginity and also become engaged to be married?” This consideration alone makes Augustine’s argument very unlikely.
You cannot defend Augustine’s argument as sound, except by appealing to “the infallibility of church tradition.”
Further, there are historical reasons that Augustine’s exegesis on this point would be colored. He was mentored by Ambrose, who extolled virginity as superior to marriage.
Pete, it concerns me greatly that some Catholics use the infallibility of church teaching to support sub-par methods of drawing inferences. It reminds me of students who look in the back of the book for the right answers, but who are then unable to provide valid reasons for those answers.
Pete Holter said,
August 12, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Jeff wrote,
Hi Jeff!
I’d like to wait for permission from the Greenbagginses before I pursue this further. :)
May I pursue this, please?
And please also enjoy a great song courtesy of Bob Kauflin and Sovereign Grace Ministries:
May the Lord be with us in His mercy.
In Christ,
Pete
Simple Elder said,
August 13, 2012 at 10:41 am
Pete Holder, 1168
Thank you for taking the time to write back to me, and to include 1 Timothy 4:14 in your response.
I’ll interact with your comments more below, but my major point to you was not responded to: that while there is the example of Timothy with a “laying-on-of-hands” and “gift of the Holy Spirit” connection, there is neither command/instruction from apostles to churches calling them to do (and therefore being disobedient if they don’t), nor is there any other example in the NT that might display this specific “laying-on-of-hands” and “gift of the Holy Spirit” connection.
IOW, a single example isn’t enough to warrant a practice for the church of Jesus Christ that is built on apostolic teaching. The fact is Paul’s laying on of hands were the very hands of an apostle and thus can’t be duplicated by others any more than his other apostolic miraculous powers can be. When Simon Magus assumed this power was available to others he was rather severely rebuked.
For analogy purposes, with communion and baptism we have both command and example. The same is true of preaching. For these rather obvious reasons any group claiming to be a church that relies on apostolic teaching for authority will not include “laying of hands” in any sense as sacramental.
Re: 1 Timothy 4:14. Thank you for including that Scripture: You wrote:
“To insert this reminder in the middle of this train of thought is the same as to say, “Oh, and by the way, you’re going to be doing all of this by the grace that is in you by the gifting of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Now back to what I was saying…” The gift that was given was given through the laying on of hands, and it can either be neglected (cf. 1 Timothy 4:14) or fanned into flame (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6); but the gift is nonetheless the gift, and a source of grace for Timothy’s ministry (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:10; 2 Corinthians 6:1)
I agree in the main with your conclusions, but please consider this. The demonstration of the Holy Spirit in Timothy’s ministry will be evidenced in an intense devotion to the teaching of Scripture (4:14). Nothing else is connected to the power of the Holy Spirit in this passage, such as the power to perform a mass, communicate grace to others, or anything. Instead, it is all Scripture. Timothy’s reliance on Scripture in ministry was performed in him by the Holy Spirit. What he is commanded is to not neglect that reliance but to devote himself to these things.
Now more to the RCC claim, please note the verse claims that they laying on of hands came from a group, not an individual (a group of elders, not a single bishop). Therefore it can’t be used an example of RCC practice.
You also wrote, “There are several points that we try to make, and I think that they are all derived from Scripture, and that they can be seen by allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. Paul and Barnabas were “sent out by the Holy Spirit” when they were “set apart” by the Church for their missionary journey through the laying on of hands (cf. Acts 13:2-4). The Samaritans “received the Holy Spirit” when Peter and John “laid their hands on them” (Acts 8:17). And the “Holy Spirit came on” the disciples “when Paul had laid his hands on them” (Acts 19:6). We see from these examples, the Holy Spirit condescending to connect Himself with the laying on of hands performed either by the Apostles (Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6; 2 Timothy 1:6), or by the Church (Acts 13:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:14); and we see that this gifting happens in the process of becoming a Christian (cf. Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6), when being set apart for a specific mission (cf. Acts 13:2-4), and when being set apart to hold an office (1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6).”
Your method of argument is no different than those who claim speaking in tongues is the de facto proof of being saved: it is, they claim, the evidence of the book of Acts and a few other Scriptures; therefore it is normative for the church today. The Lord would have you instead go to those explicit passages He has written for the church on leadership selection and appointment, namely 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, even as a person claiming tongues should read those passages specifically dealing with the fruit of salvation.
You wrote: “Based on these observations, when we see the deacons being appointed by the apostles through the laying on of hands, and we at the same time appreciate the complementary role that deacons play in the ministry of the apostles/elders (cf. Acts 6, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3), we come thereby to believe that the Holy Spirit is being given in their ordination by the imposition of hands to help them fulfill their ministry, just as in the explicit case of Timothy.”
There is quite simply no mention of a deacon office in the Acts 6 text. Read instead at what the 12 do say, “whom we will appoint to this need” (not “office”) (6:3). You then call this an “explicit example” that justifies your practice. It isn’t.
You wrote “We believe that the sacraments are the Christian life celebrated in sacramental form. Going back to 1 Timothy 4:11-16, I think that Paul is reaffirming for Timothy that, whatever gifting Timothy had prior to his ordination, and whatever qualifications he had for being ordained in the first place, these were all sealed and strengthened by the sacrament which then provided for Timothy a new source of grace in the powerful working of God, and a new promise for him that God would complete the new work that He had begun.”
In Timothy’s case, yes, he received something new at the time of the laying on of hands, but when he was called to appoint others into the office of an elder, he was commanded to only appoint men who have been tested and proven to meet all the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3. His appointment of them in Ephesus would not add something new to them, for they were already qualified to serve based on meeting the criteria of Scripture.
Finally, you wrote, There is an article found on the Vatican website called, “The Biblical Foundation of Priestly Celibacy,” wherein the author tries to give a suitable interpretation of the “one-woman man” qualification. You might appreciate some of the points that are made. Celibacy for the sake of the kingdom is a gift of God, so we would not want to connect it with leading people into sin. “Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means!” Rather, “it was sin, producing death in me through what is good” (Romans 7:13).”
I found and read the article. For starters the author never interacts with the Greek language Paul wrote but only the Latin translation. His article is woefully inadequate on many levels. Had he even once interacted with the actual text he would learned 1 Tim. 3:2 reads, “a one-woman man” which would have nullified his own interpretation, which was essentially, what Paul really meant was that the priest be wedded to the church. One can only wonder how he would treat 1 Tim 3:4: “He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity.” How can a text written to speak of marriage end up meaning non-marriage?
These are the people you submit yourself to, Pete. Do you obey Jesus Christ above all others? He said (while speaking of spiritual leaders): “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven” (Mat. 23:9). Will you allow your church alter that command to actually mean, “Do call men on earth your father?” Then if you will, you will pay the penalty of deliberately disobeying Jesus Christ.
Burton said,
August 13, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Jeff,
One more point I want to address from your comments at (#1152). When I presented two scenarios to test the Reformed principled means for distinguishing heresy from orthodoxy, you responded by stating that the answer is (in the first case) to present the confused layman with the best evidence from scripture, and the Holy Spirit will lead him to the truth and away from heresy. In the second case, you suggested that the new Christian who is unsure about which books make up the Bible should be presented with the evidence and …. just lead them back to the Word.
I hope you see the problems with this. Even well trained exegetes disagree about the role of works in salvation, and from my own (admittedly incomplete) reading of primary sources, a large percentage of the ECF’s had a decidedly non-Reformed soteriology.
And on the issue of canon, the historical evidence is mixed enough that in no way can you legitimately claim that history clearly and obviously will point the layman toward the Protestant list. Add to this the fact that only a tiny percentage of Christians throughout history have had the education and resources to study the matter.
On these two issues, and others, the argument that individual Christians can determine orthodox doctrine by simply being “led to the Word” strains the bounds of credibility. I would suggest the moral doctrines regarding human sexuality as another example of this.
Thanks again for the interaction.
Burton
Jeff Cagle said,
August 13, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Burton,
Good thoughts as always. The defense of the Protestant canon is simply this: It consists of the intersection of all of the accepted canons, and thus consists of the books that with highest degree of certainty are Scripture.
Is it possible that Maccabees should be canonical? There’s no agreement.
Is it possible that James is non-canonical? Strong agreement: No, it’s definitely canonical.
Pete Holter said,
August 13, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Hi Simple Elder!
Greetings in Christ to you and your loved ones.
You wrote, “When Simon Magus assumed this power was available to others he was rather severely rebuked.”
It is helpful to point out that he was rebuked, not simply for thinking that he could obtain the gift of God, but for thinking that he “could obtain the gift of God with money!” (Acts 8:20)
You pointed out, “Your method of argument is no different than those who claim speaking in tongues is the de facto proof of being saved: it is, they claim, the evidence of the book of Acts and a few other Scriptures; therefore it is normative for the church today.”
One big difference between the arguments is that Paul expects us to answer “no” when he asks, “Do all speak with tongues?” (1 Corinthians 12:30) We don’t have this “no” in the case of the laying on of hands.
You pointed out that “…there is neither command/instruction from apostles to churches calling them to do (and therefore being disobedient if they don’t)…”
We think that Calvin made a good point when he noted that
And you pointed out, “There is quite simply no mention of a deacon office in the Acts 6 text.”
Here, I am relying on the inference that those who will be “serving” in this capacity are the same group of people mentioned in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3. For just as the Christians in Acts 6 were appointed as assistants to the apostles in their ministry, so it seems that this must be what the deacons are doing for the elders when they are mentioned together in Philippians 1:1. And when the apostles said that they had to be of “good repute,” so it seems that this must be Luke’s way of summarizing the list of qualifications that Paul specifies for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. These parallels help us to make the connection. Furthermore, the need that they were to fill is an ever present need of the Church. But to prevent this from becoming a point of division between us, I also point out that this was Calvin’s understanding of Acts 6 as well (cf. Institutes, 4.3.9 and Commentary on Acts 6).
You wrote, “His appointment of them in Ephesus would not add something new to them, for they were already qualified to serve based on meeting the criteria of Scripture.”
The force of this argument relies on believing either that Paul appointed Timothy while he was insufficiently qualified and out of accordance with what Paul himself held should be witnessed in the lives of those being ordained, or perhaps that the elders that Timothy appointed would need less help than what he needed for carrying out their respective ministries. But even prior to Timothy’s ordination, he “was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium” (Acts 16:2), and I think that this is enough to show that “Timothy’s proven worth” among the Philippians was well established prior to his ordination (Philippians 2:22). Timothy’s impeachable character seems to take away the grounding for either of these possibilities.
This argument also ties in with the viewpoint that the laying on of hands is either largely or merely ceremonial and symbolical as indicated up above by TurretinFan, and by Calvin. But Paul both times repeats that the gift was in Timothy “by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on” him, and “through the laying on of my hands” (1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6). It seems to me that the sacramental view relies on a much more straightforward reading of the texts.
But if we conceded, for sake of argument, that there is no gift bestowed through the laying on of hands, we are still left with the established pattern of the New Testament: those appointed to leadership positions within the church are appointed by those already holding leadership positions. And this favors the Catholics. May you be Catholic, someday soon, by the grace of God!
You wrote, “Now more to the RCC claim, please note the verse claims that they laying on of hands came from a group, not an individual (a group of elders, not a single bishop). Therefore it can’t be used an example of RCC practice.”
Our current Code of Canon law says that “the principal bishop consecrator in an episcopal consecration is to be joined by at least two consecrating bishops; it is especially appropriate, however, that all the bishops present consecrate the elect together with the bishops mentioned” (1014). So we do have multiple bishops involved, at least in an episcopal ordination. And Calvin tries to make the point that it was probably only Paul who actually laid hands on Timothy (cf. Institutes, 4.3.16). I don’t say this because I think he has a convincing argument, but only to show that the Reformed tradition is not necessarily averse to thinking that the laying on of hands could be performed by only one minister without offence. As Calvin said, “I am more inclined to the conjecture, that it was only one person who laid on his hands” (Commentary on 2 Timothy 1:6).
You asked, “How can a text written to speak of marriage end up meaning non-marriage?”
Since Paul and others were not married with children, we view the “married with children” qualifications in a different way. Some of our difference in this regard rests on our differences of appreciation concerning marriage and celibacy. From the aspect of curbing sexual immorality (cf. 1 Corinthians 7), marriage is seen as being on the same trajectory as celibacy albeit in a manner accommodated to our weakness. Appreciated from this angle, the one-woman man is someone who has more self-mastery when compared with another, whom we might call a two-woman man, and this evidence of self-mastery is the real character trait that Paul is after. Also, we’re not sure that married elders continued in sexual relations with their wives after ordination based on New Testament data alone. The two observations that (1) elders are called to be self-controlled, and (2) husbands and wives coming together is in part for the sake of a lack of mastery over sexual appetite, come together to suggest that a life of celibacy is the unspoken calling to which elders are called. For example, when Paul mentions other apostles having women with them, it is for providing monetary support, not for fulfilling sexual desire, and we also see no mention of children (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:5-6; see also Luke 8:2-3). And Jesus’ response to Peter suggests that the apostles left even their wives for the sake of the kingdom (cf. Luke 18:29). But when we see the husbands and wives travelling together in 1 Corinthians 9, and the apostles being no less itinerant than they were when travelling with Jesus, we are left thinking that there is another way in which the apostles had “left them,” and had “made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12).
That said, we don’t absolutely exclude married priests, and perhaps the Church may change her disciplinary stance on this.
You wrote,
Yes, yes, I want to obey Jesus and be pleasing to Him and be friends with Him forever. From your asking me these final questions I can tell that you do too! Based on other passages, we understand Jesus to be intending to teach in a mode similar to when He spoke of oath-taking as being of evil. It’s not the oath-taking per se, but some underlying evil. In the case of calling no man father, we believe that He is prohibiting self-exaltation and lording it over the brethren, etc., particularly in self-satisfying, hypocritical, and hurtful ways.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Don said,
August 14, 2012 at 12:16 am
@Pete Holder #1177,
Actually, I Corinthians 7:5 is quite clear that permanent abstinence is entirely NOT the pattern to be followed. Let alone your, um, creative interpretations of 1 Cor 9 and Luke 18.
Are you serious? They were called via an unspoken calling? Like, text messaging? Maybe you were just getting tired after composing a long, generally well-reasoned response to simple elder, but I mean…come on. Do you realize just how ridiculous this sounds? On the other hand, if this is what you really meant to say, then maybe it’s the perfect example of Catholic Tradition. Just like: “Pope” is the unspoken office that the bishops of an unspoken city, who were the unspoken successors of Peter, are supposed to hold.
TurretinFan said,
August 14, 2012 at 7:34 am
“So the elders help a straying sheep return to the fold by expounding the Word, but both the elders and the sheep have equal authority in determining true doctrine (by reading the Word), and it is quite possible that the “straying sheep” is not really straying and that the elders themselves are the ones who are heretical?”
I didn’t say that they had equal authority. Elders are over the flock. However, there is an authority higher than the elders, and it may be that a believer will have to follow that higher authority, rather than the elders.
Try to consider this within your own communion. If a bishop tells you to believe that Mary was conceived with stain of original sin, but that Mary was purified before she was born, and you happen to be aware of the definition of the Immaculate Conception, what do you do?
There may be a variety of canonical answers to that question, but fundamentally you would (within Roman Catholicism) hold to what the pope said “ex cathedra” over what your local bishop insists.
Does that mean that you and the bishop have equal authority? Of course not.
The same thing is happening here, except that instead of a papal bull, Scripture is the higher authority.
“The elders can excommunicate a brother who persists in what they perceive to be heresy, but the supposed heretic has the responsibility (and the right) to decide for themselves if the elders have judged rightly in excommunicating him? Maybe the layman has correctly ascertained true doctrine from the Word and the elders have not.”
Sometimes people in authority make mistakes, yes.
“I have the feeling we are talking past each other. I don’t see how the above can actually work to define true doctrine in a meaningful way that can return straying sheep to the fold and remove heresy from the church.”
Don’t you think the elders have ever persuaded someone to turn back? Don’t you think that the elders have excommunicated a heretic?
“Maybe the key to this discussion is the issue of perpiscuity. Those who read the word with a heart open to the Spirit will arrive at true doctrine on those things essential to salvation. This seems to render the decisions of councils and assemblies superfluous and the process of excommunication meaningless.”
The doctrine of perspicuity relates to the things necessary for salvation (not all doctrine) and does not deny the value of secondary means.
-TurretinFan
Pete Holter said,
August 14, 2012 at 8:04 am
Don wrote, “Are you serious? They were called via an unspoken calling? Like, text messaging? Maybe you were just getting tired after composing a long, generally well-reasoned response to simple elder, but I mean…come on. Do you realize just how ridiculous this sounds? On the other hand, if this is what you really meant to say, then maybe it’s the perfect example of Catholic Tradition.”
Hey Don!
Ha ha. Greetings in Christ!
Whoops. What I should have said is that this seems to be implicit in the text. This situation reminds me of how it is when Jesus tells us that we need to hate people in order to be His disciple, and what we end up doing is loving them more than we would have been able to otherwise. You end up with the opposite of first appearances. It seems at first like Paul is saying that you must be married with kids. I think that we are agreed that this is not a must, but only a must if the situation fits. But even if the situation doesn’t fit, he still needs to be that kind of a man. Once all things have been considered, in terms of the “one-woman man” part, I think that the kind of man we’re looking for is the one striving for sexual purity in celibacy, in imitation of our Virgin King.
With love in Christ,
Pete
TurretinFan said,
August 14, 2012 at 9:49 am
“Turretin, was the Catholic Church ever valid? If so, when did it stop being valid? If not, who invented it and when?”
That depends, of course, on what one means by “the Catholic Church.” If you define “the Catholic Church” by Vatican II and that Vatican II era radical transformation in terms of canon law, then no. It has never (since its creation in the 1960’s) been a gospel-preaching church. It was not, therefore, one of the true churches.
“1148 Turretin, You are aware that Gal 2:9 is the ONLY NT verse that does not list Peter first? It’s like you see 500 white swans, then a black swan comes along and suddenly you assume that you have no clue which color most swans are in the pond. Peter is listed first every single time, except Gal 2:9. Do you think that is an accident? The division of mission doesn’t present an issue. That was for a temporal reason, not an eternal one. Peter went on to Rome, the center of the pagan (gentile) empire.”
Arnold, sadly I see you are again perpetuating myth. Consider:
John 1:44
Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
John 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
Acts 12:2-3
And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
1 Corinthians 1:12
Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:22
Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your’s;
Peter, James, and John were all prominent amongst the apostles. They were the inner circle of the twelve. Yet Paul, by God’s grace, eclipsed them all. Thus, Paul declares:
2 Corinthians 12:11
I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
Yet you would have us believe that Paul was something behind Cephas. Shall I believe you or believe Paul? Paul does not deny that there were “chiefest” apostles, and there is no doubt that Peter was one of those.
Your swans analogy is good, but misapplied. If you only saw 500 white swans, you might think that all swans are white. If you only saw Peter first in the list of the twelve, you might think that Peter was greater than the others. But when you see one black swan, you realize that the 500 white swans weren’t the whole population. When you see Paul assert that he was not less than the chiefest apostles, you realize that Peter was not a pope over Paul (or you should – instead you just ignore the black swan, and treat it as though it doesn’t exist).
“1147 Turretin, the core of the issue is, What is the Church?”
The definition of the church is one of professed faith in Christ, not one of walls of stone.
“The Catholic case is made, as this thread focuses on, with a visible head (the Bishop of Rome) and the support of Christian history.”
History rejects the claim that the bishop of Rome was, from the earliest time, viewed as head of all Christian churches.
“What is your positive vision of what the Church is, without visible leadership?”
There is visible leadership in the churches. There are elders and deacons.
“If you do want visible leadership, who authorizes it?”
Either earlier elders or the congregation of the faithful (preferably both).
“A seminary degree?”
This seems like the kind of question someone who doesn’t know what we believe would ask. Perhaps you should actually take the time to learn what believe.
“The Scriptures and ECF do not need to explicitly teach the developed form of the Papacy we have now.”
Because you said so?
“They simply need to establish its basis and the path of its growth. They do this exceedingly well.”
a) They explicitly teach that Paul was not less than Peter in anything. That doesn’t establish the basis or path of growth of the papacy.
b) Amusingly, you are inconsistent on this point. You won’t let this principle apply to overthrow the papacy with the Reformation. But if a non-papacy can develop into a papacy, there is no principled basis upon which you can say that the papacy cannot develop into a non-papacy again. Somehow, the dark ages lock in the papacy, but the apostolic church doesn’t lock it out.
“You seem to suggest that God had a purpose for the papacy? What was it? I thought you were saying the Pope was the anti Christ? Are you acknowledging that the Catholic Church, united with the Bishop of Rome, has a Christian basis?”
God has a purpose for the Antichrist, yes. He had a purpose for Judas too.
“A valid development must come from an NT basis and grow from there. It can’t pop up in the 1500s.”
a) Says who?
b) If you are using the seeds analogy, surely you are aware that some seeds lie dormant until the right conditions arise for them to sprout. If doctrines can really spring up like seeds, the passage of time is not a legitimate objection.
c) And the distinction between something popping up after A.D. 150 and something popping up after A.D. 1500 is not one that is based in principle. It’s arbitrary.
d) Contrary to these arbitrary principles, the Apostolic faith is one that is once for all delivered by the apostles. That rules out the papacy, which was not delivered by the apostles. It rules out the Reformation too – IF the Reformation departs from the teachings of the apostles. But if the Reformation holds to the teachings of the apostles, then this principle supports the Reformation, regardless of whether God preserved his church through the dark ages (and we believe God did preserve his church during that period).
“1143 Turretin, You have established that Peter cited Scripture. The Catholic Church believes in Sacred Scripture. So, your case is not to show that Peter cited Scripture, but rather that his establishment of visible Church leadership is meaningless. You attempted this briefly at the end of your post by saying that no one could fulfill the role of eyewitness of Jesus today. We already know that and so did everyone in Church history. You fail to devalue the very important action of Peter establishing visible Church leadership.”
My point was to illustrate that the church proceeded from the Word of God and not vice versa. Your church claims to believe Sacred Scripture, but she does not follow them. Let the reader judge whether she believes them, from how well she follows their teachings regarding the qualifications of elders, for example.
My point was to illustrate that your denigration of Scripture in favor or “leadership” and “tradition” as evidenced not only in the comment to which I was responding, but also this one:
“1130 simple, today we recognize that Hebrews is equally as inspired as Paul’s letters and the Gospels and the OT. There was a growing sense of the NT over time. It took centuries and some were recognized earlier than others. During this time, the Church was not in crisis because it had no written NT canon. It had leadership and tradition. That is how it ran. It didn’t stop running.”
is a big mistake. The churches relied on the Word of God, and particularly the Scriptures, constantly as authoritative, from the very beginning.
-TurretinFan
Don said,
August 14, 2012 at 10:52 am
Pete Holder #1180,
Yeah, I’m glad it was partially just an unfortunate choice in wording. But still, “seems to be implicit in the text” is a shaky basis to establish rules for your ecclesiology, when history and the text disagree with what’s argued to be implicit. But still,
of course he does not lay down that rule. It’s much more straightforward that he simply assumes that the elder candidates are already married and fathers. The gymnastics to end up at the opposite conclusion are not necessary.
Augustine is an interesting choice in a role model for celibacy. My pastor (former RC) once said that a lot of problems in the RC Church would be solved if Augustine had just married his girlfriend. Regardless, history does not bear out your Augustine quote, at least in regard to the church. The Shakers were a fairly successful, completely celibate, sect in the Northeast, until the State took away their orphanages. Now there’s about three Shakers left.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 14, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Hey Pete,
I really like Augustine. In fact, I had occasion to use Augustine once in a pastoral situation to help correct a manifestly semi-Pelagian teaching.
But I have to say, your quote in #1180 sounds like Augustine channeling the Shakers. :-)
Peace,
Jeff
Pete Holter said,
August 14, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Don, wrote:
Hi Don!
I agree that many of the potential elders would be married with children. But on the more specific question of whether these elders would continue in sexual relations with their wives, I think that there is at least some warrant for thinking that Paul has the goal of celibacy in mind. And this takes us back to the Corinthian passage that you mentioned in your previous comment. Hopefully the following line of reasoning will help to draw out the implications of the text…
Paul says that elders need to be “self-controlled” (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8). In Titus 1:8, he says this by using the word “ἐγκρατῆ.” This “self-control” or “ἐγκρατῆ” that is required of elders is exactly what the Corinthians don’t have, and it is precisely this deficiency among the Corinthians that prompts for Paul’s “permission” or “concession” to “come together” (1 Corinthians 7:5-6) “so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (Greek: διὰ τὴν ἀκρασίαν ὑμῶν) (1 Corinthians 7:5). In 1 Corinthians 7, the implication is that if you do not feel this lack of self-control, then by all means continue in your devotion to prayer (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:5), continue in your “undivided devotion to the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:35). And even if the Corinthians do start to perceive the lure of Satan, it’s not that they need to have recourse to their wives to gain the mastery over him (“…not a command…” – 1 Corinthians 7:6). This recourse to our wives should be understood, I think, as being conceded to them as one among several options that are available. They too can receive the strength that they need to win the battle against this “messenger of Satan” by receiving for themselves the power of Christ’s assurance: “My grace is sufficient for you” (2 Corinthians 12:7-9). But if they do take recourse to their wives, this is conceded.
The lack of self-control or “ἀκρασίαν” as exhibited by the Corinthians is opposite to the presence of self-control or “ἐγκρατῆ” in the elders-elect. And this leads us to think that the special grace/gift that Paul wished to find in everyone (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:7), he expected to find in elders (cf. Titus 1:8) whether already married or not.
Thanks for the info on the Shakers. Only three left? Surely we can persuade them to become Catholic! :)
If Augustine had married her, he wouldn’t have become a priest, and perhaps not even a Christian. Wow, that would be a different Christian world! That part of his story is sad though.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Pete Holter said,
August 14, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Jeff wrote, “I really like Augustine. In fact, I had occasion to use Augustine once in a pastoral situation to help correct a manifestly semi-Pelagian teaching.”
That’s great! Augustine is my special guide in Christ. I love him. I don’t think I’d be Catholic without him and his great love for unity in Christ.
There is, however, one teaching of the Holy Office that I think must be in error. They condemned the following proposition:
Can you believe it?! I just can’t believe it! Ha ha.
In Christ,
Pete
Don said,
August 14, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Pete Holter #1184,
I Cor 7:5 says
What are the verb phrases here? “Do not deprive” and “come together again.” Grammatically, these are commands, whether you want to attach vs. 6 to vs. 5 or vs. 7 (the latter seems to be more common). This is reinforced by vs. 10-11. How you get “Deprive one another” and “don’t come together again” out of this, I truly don’t understand.
I think our dear TurretinFan is more likely to become a Catholic than a classical Shaker, so don’t get your hopes up. (Of course, I can’t speak for the remaining few.)
And sure a married Augustine could have become a priest. Why not? It’d just be a different tradition he’d have established.
Pete Holter said,
August 14, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Don asked,
Greetings in Christ!
I basically follow Jerome (cf. Against Jovinian, Bk. 1, 7-13) and Augustine (cf. On the Good of Marriage, 4-6, 10-15) in my understanding of 1 Corinthians 7. I don’t think that we should deprive one another, but I think that this is written for the sake of the partner with the lack of self-control. The spouse who does have self-control shouldn’t deprive the one who doesn’t have self-control lest they fall into sexual immorality (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:2). This is why the opposite partner has the authority over the body: if one spouse becomes vulnerable on account of their lack of self-control, we need to make ourselves available to that spouse as to the one who has authority over our body “so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs” (2 Corinthians 2:11).
I will leave it at this because I don’t want to get too far off topic, and this is the reason why I wanted to wait for permission before talking more about Momma Mary.
Well then, I’ll be placing greater hope in TurretinFan’s direction. Thanks for the tip! :) And if anyone ends up coming to the MD area, look me up so we can worship together.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Simple Elder said,
August 15, 2012 at 9:25 am
Pete Holder, 1177
Regarding Simon Magus, I [Simple Elder] wrote, “he assumed this power [the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands] was available to others he was rather severely rebuked.”
You replied “It is helpful to point out that he was rebuked, not simply for thinking that he could obtain the gift of God, but for thinking that he “could obtain the gift of God with money!” (Acts 8:20)
And then you went on to another topic. Pete, it’s hard to imagine a worse response. Are you saying that if Simon Magus’ took a vow of poverty he just might have received the laying on of hands [apostolic authority to bestow the Holy Spirit]? Peter’s call to him was not to repent of greed but from “the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity.” Church history says he ended up doing what Peter forbade. I contend so too does the RCC, and is really the church of Simon Magus, not the apostles.
You wrote, “But to prevent this [apostles appointing alleged deacons in Acts 6] from becoming a point of division between us, I also point out that this was Calvin’s understanding of Acts 6 as well (cf. Institutes, 4.3.9 and Commentary on Acts 6).”
Indeed it was, and a great many others too. But it is simply not in the text. As you say, it is “inferred.” You see Pete, as a simple man created in the image of God but viciously broken by sin, I’m obligated to follow Scripture, not men’s interpretations. Nor is it proper to say “the need that they were to fill is an ever present need of the Church.” Few churches feed only ½ of their widows, if any. The 7 were not appointed to an office, but to meet a “chreia” – a “need” (Acts 6:3).
You wrote, “Timothy’s impeachable character seems to take away the grounding for either of these possibilities.”
You really lost me in your argument of possibilities. You might be assuming something from your RC perspective that is unstated and therefore lost on me. Are you saying that since Timothy was ordained before the Paul wrote 1 Tim. 3, that Timothy was therefore unqualified in those qualfications? If so, that’s too easy to dismiss, for why would Paul violate the truth of Scripture before it was written down in ink and papyrus?
You wrote, “we do have multiple bishops involved, at least in an episcopal ordination”.
It was not a collection of bishops who were in different churches week after week who laid hands on Timothy, but the elders of the single church of Ephesus (c.f., Act 20:17). They all came from a shared leadership environment where all had equal authority. That’s apostolic.
You wrote, concerning 1 Tim. 3:2 “husband of one-wife”: “this evidence of self-mastery is the real character trait that Paul is after.”
Again, you make the Scripture, written by the Holy Spirit, mean the opposite of what is plainly written in order to justify your RC doctrine. The point of the text is sexual purity, something your RC priests most notoriously lack. Only a willfully blind man could pretend it otherwise.
Then you wrote, “we’re not sure that married elders continued in sexual relations with their wives after ordination based on New Testament data alone.”
As Don said in 1178, “Actually, I Corinthians 7:5 is quite clear that permanent abstinence is entirely NOT the pattern to be followed.” IOW, Pete, you advocate disobedience to the command of God Almighty to uphold your RC doctrines.
Now it’s a pattern. You justify the breaking with full knowledge the commands of Jesus Christ in Mat. 23:9, and the apostle Paul 1 Tim. 3:2, and 1 Cor. 7:5.
Pete, nobody reads Scripture and by it becomes a Catholic. One must accept your traditions as well. I have many friends who grew up Catholic (and I have a minor in RC theology from a Jesuit college) and left because they read Scripture, brought what they were reading to the priest, only to discover the priest was of a different faith altogether.
And blessedly, this continues today.
Don said,
August 15, 2012 at 10:26 am
Pete Holter 1187,
Actually, this is pretty on-topic, a parallel to the original post. You’re following Tradition to end up with an understanding that is directly contrary to the text.
David Waltz said,
August 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm
TurrentinFan posted:
#1181:>> “Turretin, was the Catholic Church ever valid? If so, when did it stop being valid? If not, who invented it and when?”
That depends, of course, on what one means by “the Catholic Church.” If you define “the Catholic Church” by Vatican II and that Vatican II era radical transformation in terms of canon law, then no. It has never (since its creation in the 1960′s) been a gospel-preaching church. It was not, therefore, one of the true churches.>>
I sincerely doubt, apart from radical liberals and/or hard-core ‘traditionalists’ in the RCC, that you will find knowledgable Catholics who would argue that the gospel proclaimed within the current official, non-reformable documents of the RCC is ‘another gospel’ than that delineated by Trent and/or Vatican I.
As for the “gospel”, I sure would be very interested to know what YOU believe one must believe to be ‘saved’.
Further, since you claim to be Reformed, I would also be interested in your take on the “Reformed civil war” that is taking place within the current Reformed community, as referenced in the following two threads:
A “Reformed civil war”
“Reformed civil war”: the continuing conflict
Grace and peace,
David
David Waltz said,
August 15, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Ooops…typo in my #1190 post–should read: “TurretinFan” not “TurrentinFan”
Pete Holter said,
August 15, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Don pointed out… “Actually, this is pretty on-topic, a parallel to the original post. You’re following Tradition to end up with an understanding that is directly contrary to the text.”
Hi Don!
As long as I’m not being offensive…
Let me try again. The concession made to the Corinthians is for them to come together as often as they need to in order to not be tempted by Satan into sexual immorality because of their lack of self-control. Paul makes this concession to them while at the same time wishing that all had the same gifting of self-control that he himself had. When the concession is made to sexual desire within marriage on account of a lack of self-control, the question then becomes, How does this line of reasoning play out in the case of those who don’t lack self-control? Using Paul as an example, we would conclude that they will be ready to refrain from marital relations in order to devote themselves more fully to prayer, more fully to the advance of the kingdom.
So when we carry this over to the qualifications for elders, and we see that the elders have this self-control that the Corinthians don’t have, this leads us to think that Satan does not have this weakness to exploit in them, they do not therefore need this concession, and they are instead desirous of being fully devoted to prayer and to the Lord, and of making themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God.
We can also appreciate the fact that the wives of leaders need to have character traits that are similar to those of their husbands. The wife of a deacon needs to be “dignified,” as do deacons themselves, she needs to be “sober-minded,” as do elders, she needs to have a singular gifting of faithfulness (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:9), as do elders and deacons. These parallels lead us to conclude that the wives of married elders will similarly have the gifting of self-control and will be ready to embrace, or already have embraced, the gift of celibacy.
We can also consider the expected age of elders and what implications this might have (cf. 1 Timothy 5:11-15). Although married at a younger age, having now gained mastery over their passions, “self-controlled” elder-candidates are no longer needful of the concession and pardon that marriage provides to sexual desire.
These considerations, among others, lead us to think that Paul was expecting elders to be celibate.
I should also say that required celibacy for the vast majority of those who feel called to the priesthood is a long-standing rule of the house, but not part of Sacred Tradition.
With love in Christ,
Pete
TurretinFan said,
August 15, 2012 at 1:45 pm
“I sincerely doubt, apart from radical liberals and/or hard-core ‘traditionalists’ in the RCC, that you will find knowledgable Catholics who would argue that the gospel proclaimed within the current official, non-reformable documents of the RCC is ‘another gospel’ than that delineated by Trent and/or Vatican I.”
Thanks for sharing your doubts with us. Generally those traditionalists who reject Vatican II also reject the idea that the documents of Vatican II are non-reformable, and the liberals generally didn’t like Vatican I era papalism, but don’t care to define it in terms of gospel vs. another gospel.
“As for the “gospel”, I sure would be very interested to know what YOU believe one must believe to be ‘saved’.”
In very brief summary, to be saved one must trust in God alone, and that trust must be premised (in this administration of the covenant of grace) on a belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. What this entails is spelled out more fully in the one-in-four gospel and the other 23 books of the NT.
The topic, of course, is arguments concerning the papacy. So, I’ll leave it at that.
-TurretinFan
Todd said,
August 15, 2012 at 1:57 pm
As to the notion that Peter being listed first supports the papacy, Calvin writes on Acts 1:13&14:
“Too, too ridiculous are the Papists, which go about to prove Peter his supremacy 50 hereby, because he is reckoned up first of all the apostles. Although we do grant that he was the chiefest of the apostles, yet it doth not follow hereupon that he was the chiefest ruler of all the world. But if he be, therefore, the chief of all the apostles, because his name is first in the catalogue of the apostles’ names, I will again conclude, that the mother of Christ was inferior unto all the rest of the women, because she is [here] reckoned the last; which they will in no case admit, as indeed it were a thing too absurd.”
David Waltz said,
August 15, 2012 at 4:01 pm
#1193:>> The topic, of course, is arguments concerning the papacy. So, I’ll leave it at that.>>
Yes it is, so I am left wondering why you allow yourself the luxury of commenting on the validitiy of the Catholic Church as a “valid” Christian church, and whether or not it is/was “a gospel-preaching church”.
If YOU are going to share your opinions with us on matters which deviate from “The topic”, then I think YOU should be a bit more open to questions directed to YOU which seek to explore/examine those shared opinions.
Grace and peace,
David
Don said,
August 15, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Pete Holter #1192,
Ya know, Paul had multiple opportunities to make this conjecture of yours explicit. And didn’t.
OK, I’m giving up on trying to show you that this is still in direct contrast to the command (not concession) of 1 Cor 7:5. So I’ll just ask: Do you actually know any married older people? Do you honestly think what you’re describing applies to, well, hardly anyone?
I’m not sure what the difference is between “Tradition” (which I’ve been capitalizing, perhaps erroneously but for emphasis) and Sacred Tradition. But I suppose this means it will be easier to change the rules? I sort of expect this will have to happen if/when Latin America, Africa, and Asia can no longer supply priests to North America and Europe, at which point our conversation will be moot.
TurretinFan said,
August 15, 2012 at 5:06 pm
“If YOU are going to share your opinions with us on matters which deviate from “The topic”, then I think YOU should be a bit more open to questions directed to YOU which seek to explore/examine those shared opinions.”
I’m flattered that you value my opinion so highly that you want to see me express it in ever more off-topic areas. What I said above still holds, though.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 15, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Todd: Excellent counter-point from Calvin on the list argument!
Pete Holter said,
August 16, 2012 at 11:23 am
TurretinFan wrote,
Greetings in Christ, TurretinFan!
Don said you’re on the edge of embracing the Catholic faith. Is that right? Heh heh. Well, I really do hope so.
I don’t think that this is a fair use of Paul’s derisive sarcasm in 2 Corinthians 11 and 12. The “chiefest apostles” in these chapters are in fact “false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ,” who come preaching “a different gospel from the one you accepted” (2 Corinthians 11:13, 4).
But when Paul compares himself with true apostles, he puts it in these terms:
What Paul lacked in timing of calling, he made up for in effort. And God’s grace and word of salvation worked through all of them just the same, as stated here and in Galatians 2:7-8. When Paul says “for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles” (Galatians 2:8), this is a parenthetical explanation of the apostolic approbation he received when the apostles extended “the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” (Galatians 2:9). Why did the apostles decide that Paul and Barnabas “should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised”? Because they recognized Paul’s gospel as God’s gospel, his zeal as God’s zeal, and the energy with which he worked as the very power of God. And as God had Peter at that time focusing his efforts on the evangelization of the Jews, and Paul focusing his efforts on the evangelization of the Gentiles, the apostles recognized the effectiveness of and providential guidance over these respective emphases of ministry, and gave their decision that things should continue, at that time, just the same and without any alteration. But all of this needs to be appreciated in light of Paul’s self-appraisal as being “the least of the apostles” and “unworthy to be called an apostle,” acknowledging at the same time that this is being spoken from humility and with particular concern as to the timing of his calling and his past life of sin.
As to rank and position within the circle of the apostles, we need to make additional considerations. Calvin conceded that “there would be no absurdity, were we to confess that the apostles had conferred such a primacy on Peter” (Institutes, 4.6.8). Are you willing to grant the same?
Thank you for your time.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Pete Holter said,
August 16, 2012 at 11:27 am
Don wrote, “OK, I’m giving up on trying to show you that this is still in direct contrast to the command (not concession) of 1 Cor 7:5.”
Is there an online commentary of 1 Corinthians 7 that you’d recommend?
Don wrote, “So I’ll just ask: Do you actually know any married older people? Do you honestly think what you’re describing applies to, well, hardly anyone?”
I’m hoping that I’ll be able to experience this grace in my own marriage one day. When I mention it to my wife, she gets annoyed with me and just thinks I’m weird. But we’ll see what God does! :)
With love in Christ,
Pete
Pete Holter said,
August 16, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Hi Simple Elder!
Good day, brother!
You wrote,
Acts 13:3 and 1 Timothy 4:14 show us, I think, that elders in the Church can lay hands on people and convey the gift and consecration of the Holy Spirit.
I think that Simon Magus was rebuked most specifically for thinking he could buy the gift. Luke mentions that “he offered them money” (Acts 8:18) and Peter begins his rebuke by saying, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!” (Acts 8:20) We also know that “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils” (1 Timothy 6:10) and that covetousness “is idolatry” (Colossians 3:5). Trying to buy this gift with money, I would say, was the specific manifestation of his underlying evil condition, all of which he needed to repent of (e.g., greed, envy, desire for personal fame, etc.).
I would say that helping to care for the widows of the Hellenists should be seen more simply as a particular example of the more general category of practical acts of charity, which category manifests itself differently as mandated by the particular cultural circumstances within which we find ourselves. This more general need of performing practical acts of charity to meet the needs of our brothers and sisters in Christ will always be with the Church. Deacons provide a relief to the duties of our bishops and priests so that the latter can devote themselves more fully “to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4).
Your evidence for asserting that these people are not deacons is to show that they were appointed to meet a need. But to have hands laid upon you in order to meet a need does not necessarily mean that you are not at the same time being ordained to an office in order to meet this need. It would not be necessary to explicitly call them deacons when the office was just then coming into existence unless we require that Luke provide explanatory notes in every case. We may surmise that the actual name of the office didn’t come until later, and I think that we have good reason to think that deacons take their name from the very service for which they came into existence in order to provide, with Acts 6 providing the first instance and example of such service (cf. Acts 6:1: τῇ διακονίᾳ; Acts 6:2: διακονεῖν; 1 Timothy 3:8: διακόνους).
Here’s another way to think about it. You say that the fact that they are deacons is “simply not in the text.” But we can turn this back around and say that from the connections that can be made in support of the opposite conclusion, one could say with even more force that the fact that they are not deacons is also “simply not in the text.” I tried to provide my case for why we would be led to think that they are deacons here and in my previous comment.
I was saying that I think that Timothy met the list of qualifications before he was ordained by Paul. And yet, as you noted, “he received something new at the time of the laying on of hands.” So I was trying to show that if Timothy was already qualified, and yet received something new at ordination, then we wouldn’t want to argue that those whom he would appoint—similarly already qualified—would not likewise receive something new. My argument is that if he needed this addition of grace, they need it all the more! :)
You wrote of…
As for equality among all of the elders, I think that Peter, as a “fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1), was of greater authority when compared with all of the other elders in Christ’s Church. And that James was of greater authority than all of the elders in Jerusalem. And that Timothy and Titus were of greater authority than those whom they would appoint—Titus, for example, putting all of Crete into order by appointing elders “in every town” (Titus 1:5). And that John was exercising a regional authority over the seven local Churches in Revelation. And that the angels of the Churches in Revelation are individual leaders exercising a singular authority over their respective local Churches. All of these assertions would need to be justified in greater detail, but I believe that we can begin to see from these Scriptures that the apostolic structure of the Church is more hierarchical than simply having elders all of equal authority.
We need to hold “fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God” (Colossians 2:19). “For the body does not consist of one member but of many,” and “God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as He chose” (1 Corinthians 12:14, 18). And “the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love” (Ephesians 4:16). This sounds like a lot of different joints and ligaments, and I think that there is enough in the Scriptures to enable us to distinguish the kneecap of elders from the elbow of elders. :)
I have to go for now, but I hope to continue with you all at a later date. Maybe the weekend! If the LORD wills. If I don’t respond to any further comments, please know that I will read what you all have to say and take it to heart in prayer before God. Thank you for the exchanges I’ve had!
With love in Christ,
Pete
Burton said,
August 16, 2012 at 4:19 pm
TurretinFan (#1179),
You said:
“I didn’t say that they had equal authority. Elders are over the flock. However, there is an authority higher than the elders, and it may be that a believer will have to follow that higher authority, rather than the elders.”
Ah, but there’s the rub. We aren’t talking about matters of church discipline, but rather the authority to define true doctrine. If the elders can and do err when defining orthodoxy and heresy, and if each member of the flock has the responsibility and authority to recognize this error and define true doctrine themselves (and rightly defy the elders’ authority), then ipso facto the individual has greater authority than the elders on the matter of defining doctrine.
“The same thing is happening here, except that instead of a papal bull, Scripture is the higher authority.”
Your example is very instructive, as it highlights the fact that the same thing is not happening. If an RCC bishop begins teaching doctrine contrary to defined dogma, he would be called to account by the established authority structure and corrected. This would be visible to all and understood as binding. The layman would still be bound to submit to the teaching of the Church. Contrast this with the Protestant situation. The elder puts forth an interpretation of Scripture. Some members of his flock are convinced, by their own reading of Scripture, that the elder’s teaching is heretical. The GA sides with the elder, but the laymen rightly appeal to the higher authority of Scripture and start their own church. They are bound to submit only to their own interpretation of Scripture – thus perpiscuity implies, even requires, the irrelevance of secondary authority structures as they apply to the definition of orthodoxy versus heresy.
“Don’t you think the elders have ever persuaded someone to turn back? Don’t you think that the elders have excommunicated a heretic?”
Yes, but the elders have also erred and led members of their flock into heresy. The problem at hand is how we can know the difference, and by what authority this distinction is defined.
Burton
Simple Elder said,
August 16, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Thank you again Pete for your interaction over the interpretation of Scripture. Since our exchanges our growing in length I will simply pick out a few things.
You wrote:
“I think that we have good reason to think that deacons take their name from the very service for which they came into existence in order to provide, with Acts 6 providing the first instance and example of such service (cf. Acts 6:1:τῇ διακονίᾳ; Acts 6:2:διακονεῖν; 1 Timothy 3:8:διακόνους).”
Then they allegedly named the office, which was created to meet an umet need, on that very need already being met, which is confusing. But as Acts 6:1 shows, the very word διακονίᾳ refers to “waiting on tables.” Furthermore, Luke places it in an attributive relationship with the word “daily” thus emphasizing its adjectival function rather than any substantival meaning as you insist.
The apostles make the point even further by connecting the next use of “serving (Acts 6:2:διακονεῖν) with the word “tables.” They were limiting the object of the verb to specifically waiting on tables.
Then, you missed another use of this word here. In Acts 6:4 the apostles say, “we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The word ministry is “διακονίᾳ”. In other words, they refer to their leadership ministry as “serving.” According to your interpretation they would necessarily be placing themselves in the office of deacons. But their own application of “diakonia” to describe their apostolic ministry ensures that they weren’t intending to use this word to describe an office under them.
You wrote, “one could say with even more force that the fact that they are not deacons is also “simply not in the text””
And one could say with yet even more force that they are not apostles is not in the text. Or giraffes, or baboons. But Scripture is not a word game. God writes for understanding, not to confuse.
You wrote, “My argument is that if he needed this addition of grace, they [the elders Timothy appointed] need it all the more!”
This goes back to my original criticism that the church requires more than a single example of Scripture to establish practice by. We want both example, and precept. We only have an example of Timothy receiving grace from the Holy Spirit in the laying of hands, but not in the elders he appointed. Nor have we precept that brings us a promise from God that all who receive holy orders receive additional grace. As I said, your argument carries the same weight as those who claim speaking in tongues is the true test of having the Holy Spirit. Except in their case, they have multiple examples so they are actually stronger in argument than you.
Furthermore, the elders Timothy appointed did not shepherd various churches (as in RC priests who receive laying on of hands) but stayed in the single church of Ephesus. So even your suggestion that this example in Timothy suffices for the whole practice is in error ecclesiastically.
You wrote, “but I believe that we can begin to see from these Scriptures that the apostolic structure of the Church is more hierarchical than simply having elders all of equal authority.”
I have written a book on this called The Titus Mandate. It is available on Amazon. In it I discuss all the claims of Scripture for episcopal governance in local churches. To wit, there isn’t a single church in all the NT that exhibits a single elder. Not one. How then can RC be the church that carries on the apostolic succession when they (apostles) always appointed multiple elders in each church (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5, for instance). They never once did what your church does.
You wrote, “and I think that there is enough in the Scriptures to enable us to distinguish the kneecap of elders from the elbow of elders. :)”
I’m lost on that one. The text you refer is speaking not about office but individual members of the body of Christ.
TurretinFan said,
August 16, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Pete Holter:
His reference to “chief apostles” is a reference back to his earlier comment about chief apostles, which comes before his comment about false apostles. On that first use, John Chrysostom wrote:
And then on the second instance Chrysostom again wrote:
Ambrosiaster teaches the same thing:
And again:
In fact, even Thomas Aquinas wrote:
And again
When it comes to trying to respond to Beza making the same argument I did above, Conelius a Lapide acknowledges: “Moreover, although by the phrase the very chiefest Apostles, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Œcumenius, understand Peter, James, and John, and this interpretation seems more simple and true, yet very many later writers understand it to refer to the false apostles, who boasted of their greatness. In this case S. Paul is speaking ironically.” (I haven’t checked Theophylact, and I suspect that Œcumenius is actually pseudo-Oecumenius here, but have not checked.)
It seems that your analysis would require us to adopt an understanding of the text that accords with a variety of unnamed later writers against St. Thomas and the unanimous consent of the fathers. Perhaps I can convince you to see the text my way and the way of Chrysostom, Ambriosiaster, and Thomas.
-TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 16, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Hi Burton,
Hope you don’t mind the interjection. You wrote,
We aren’t talking about matters of church discipline, but rather the authority to define true doctrine.
Stop and consider for a moment that in using RC terminology, you may have already assumed the RC position without realizing it.
Consider this argument:
(1) P is an authority
(2) P says X
(3) Therefore X is true.
We call this an “argument from authority”, and it is a logical fallacy. There is nothing in the nature of authority that necessitates the conclusion.
For this reason, no person on earth has the authority to define true doctrine. Yes, the RC church claims this authority — but it rests on a logical fallacy.
Now in many matters, we accept the word of authorities as a probabilistic, or inductive, argument:
(1) P is an authority,
(2) P says X
(3) P’s authority increases the probability that X is true.
But here, the term ‘authority’ does not mean moral authority, such as the church has, but means rather ‘a demonstrated competence in the field.’
In the inductive argument from authority, P’s authority rests on his demonstrated competence, and can be diminished by acts of incompetence. There is no such thing as an authority that is above verification.
So what about Scripture? The authority of Scripture fits the second model as well:
(1) God is an (the!) authority because of His omniscience.
(2) God says X
(3) Therefore X is certainly true.
The only question then is about (2), whether Scripture is what God has said.
—
My point is that the RC claim to be able to ‘define’ doctrine rests on a misunderstanding of the relationship of authority to epistemology. Upon that misunderstanding is built an entire edifice that is (somewhat) self-coherent, and therefore attractive — but its base is unsound.
Bob S said,
August 17, 2012 at 12:07 am
Come on, Burton. Play fair. In yours above, you are assuming that the Roman church cannot err, but that the protestant GA can.
IOW you are starting with a stacked deck.
I know, I know, Rome is the church Christ founded, but for the record, this discussion is all about the arguments for the papacy. When the romanists appealed to tradition, the reformed said, wait a minute, what about, not only the perspicuity of Scripture, but also its sufficiency as per 2 Tim. 3:15-17. (After all, Rome claims to believe in the Scripture also.) Bryan and JJS came back with this assumes Protestantism to be true and ADA and Sean could only come up with the text teaching the inspiration and profitability of Scripture.
But if the Scripture is profiitable that the man of God may be equipped unto every good work – even that of discerning Rome’s claim to authority and infallibility – the supposed juggernaut of the magisterium that hovers over the shoulder of your arguments and which is presumed to legitimate is an unfounded presupposition.
IOW there’s some issues more basic than your questions, which affect the answers and I am not seeing an honest acknowledgement of that.
Thank you.
(It’s perspicuity.)
Burton said,
August 17, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Jeff,
Thanks for jumping back in. What RC terminology am I using? I’m not seeing where I succumbed to the “appeal to authority” fallacy. It may be helpful to go back and read the back and forth between me and TurretinFan. The question at hand was how does the Reformed rule of faith accomplish the purging of heresy from the church and the calling back of wandering heretical sheep. If the sheep have the responsibility and authority to judge for themselves whether or not the elders have rightly interpreted the Word, and the responsibility to reject the elders authority if, in their estimation, Scripture shows the elders to have erred then it seems obvious that the secondary authority of the elders is inconsequential as it relates to defining true doctrine.
Was your concern over the use of the phrase “the authority to define true doctrine”? I wasn’t aware that this entails a RCC presupposition. Maybe this ties directly to your statement regarding the relationship between authority and epistemology. I think we may have differing presuppositions regarding this relationship, and I am more than willing to be corrected if my presuppositions are false.
Burton
Burton said,
August 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Bob S.
Thanks for the spelling correction – never was my strong suit.
I recognize that the topic at hand is the papacy. The moderators have thus far been gracious in allowing me to continue on this thread – I did offer many posts ago to move to a more directly salient thread if they so desired.
I hope I am playing fair, but I am certainly not immune from the influence of bias. As with Jeff above, let me remind you of the flow of the conversation between myself and TF. The paragraph that you quoted was written in the context of the following:
1. I asked for a positive argument regarding the principled means by which the Reformed rule of faith defines heresy versus orthodoxy such that it accomplishes this stated purpose: purge heresy from the church and bring back the straying heretical sheep
2. I suggested that if the individual members of the flock and the elders have equal authority in using the Scripture to define true doctrine, that this purpose can not be accomplished. If the elders or the GA accuse the individual of heresy, the individual has the authority and responsibility to judge for themselves whether or not the elders have ruled wisely or foolishly, and act accordingly.
3. TF responded by stating that their authority is not equal – the elders do have authority over the flock, but sometimes (when defining doctrine) the elders get it wrong, in which case the flock should defy their authority by appealing to Scripture.
4. To which I responded – the secondary authority of the elders is inconsequential if it is always judged by and at times (determined by the individual) trumped by the judgement of the individual member of the flock.
5. TF then came back to the negative argument approach – “yeah, but the RCC layperson is in the same boat, except that they appeal to a papal bull, while we appeal to Scripture.”
So, I am not, in that paragraph, assuming that the GA can err but the RCC magisterium cannot. (I am first trying to understand the best Reformed minds’ positive explanation of the Reformed rule of faith vis a vis defining heresy/orthodoxy/schism, but the negative argument contra RCC keeps popping up.) I am taking the claims of each paradigm, assuming them hypothetically to be true, and testing their capability to define orthodoxy, heresy, and schism in a way that accomplishes the above stated purpose. Do I think that, epistemologically speaking, we would be better off if, in fact, God had provided a living magisterium endowed with His authority to define doctrine? So far, yes, because I haven’t been convinced otherwise by a good positive argument for the Reformed position. This is, of course, an entirely different question from whether or not God actually did leave us just such a teaching authority.
We are all subject to the influence of subconscious bias. If I have some issues more basic than my questions, they are not at the conscious level. I hope it is apparent that I am questioning my Protestant presuppositions and interested in the claims of the RCC. My prayer (daily) is to be open to the leading of the Holy Spirit and to follow my Lord wherever He leads. I have not ruled out either endpoint.
Burton
Bob S said,
August 18, 2012 at 1:07 pm
1208 Burton,
The Scripture is either perspicuous and sufficient to determine every good work – even that of determining whether the infallible magisterium actually is infallible – or Scripture is not perspicuous and sufficient.
That’s what the debate boiled down to in this thread before it derailed.
If you care to deal in hypotheticals, fine, but just because you can’t make sense of how protestantism determines orthodoxy and reclaims heretics is no justification that the magisterium is legitimate, unless one’s appeal to scripture is nominal and hypocritical and a popish pragmaticism is the bottom line.
IOW yes, Scripture really is perspicuous and sufficient as per 2 Tim.3:15-17 whatever the complaints Bryan and Jason wanted to make about it and the magisterium is not infallible. (Of course hypocritically, they now in the other thread, are appealing to the not so clear passages of Scripture in order to overthrow the clearer on imputation.) At times we might like the magisterium to be so when things are messy, but still the concept of deus ex machina comes from Greek drama, not Scripture, neither is it agreeable to Scripture regardless of its origin.
Further, protestantism, at least with the P&R, appeal to the multitude of counselors in general assemblies and synods to determine authoritatively questions of faith (Act.15). But contra Rome, protestantism knows something about liberty of conscience. Appeal is made to Scripture in order to persuade someone by the sword of the spirit.
On the other hand, Rome’s “infallible” authoritative and dogmatic approach in principle always ends up in the auto – da – fes of the Inquisition, if not the previous example of Peter cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant Malchus.
Rome of course, is not so heavy handed these days, but good luck with that whore. Generally whenever I asked any questions, I was essentially patted on the head and told to believe – to have faith in faith, (in that when I first came to some kind of faith in Christ, I returned to where I had first heard the name of Jesus, the Roman Church. Needless to say, that didn’t last long.)
Of course the ex prot celebrity CtC prima donnas might get more attention than yrs. truly ever did, but whatever. Rome is still a vicious, wicked and deceitful fideism. Its profession of love for the truth and respect for Scripture, reason and history is tantamount to that of Joab, who with one hand kissed Amasa and with the other stabbed him to death. Of Judas, we need not mention.
Thanks,
Burton said,
August 19, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Bob S.
Actually, the debate on this thread is about the ability of the Reformed principled means of defining heresy and orthodoxy to actually purge heresy from the church and call back the straying sheep. The issue of perspicuity is certainly relevant. One of my questions to TF was: if the Scriptures are equally perspicuous to both elders and laity, and if the elders can and do err in doctrinal judgements, then isn’t the very notion of the elders purging heresy and calling back the straying sheep implausible, if not nonsensical? It is one thing to assert the perspicuity of Scripture. It is another to show how that works as a principled means for defining orthodoxy and correcting heretics.
Bob, your posts come across more as foaming at the mouth than rational discourse. You really shouldn’t use this forum as a means of venting your bile (assuming, of course, that the Green Baggins posting guidelines mean what they say).
Burton
Jeff Cagle said,
August 19, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Hi Burton,
Was your concern over the use of the phrase “the authority to define true doctrine”? I wasn’t aware that this entails a RCC presupposition.
Yes, that was my concern. Pardon me if I was reading more into your word choice than was warranted, but here I would like to suggest a distinction.
If we understand the church as defining true doctrine, then two things follow. First, the church in her act of defining creates truth. This is what happens when mathematicians (or philosophers) define terms. If we define a vector is “any object that satisfies the axioms of a linear space”, then for the purposes of further discussion, this definition has just been created.
Further, any appeal to the definition is now a matter of analytic certainty. For if I exhibit an object and show that it has the properties of a vector, then it is a vector “by definition.”
So if we conceive of the church as defining doctrine, we are thinking of them as having the power to create definitions and for those definitions to apply analytically.
This is the authority that the RC church claims; and it is the reason that, for instance, that they do not condemn Thomas Aquinas though he taught against Mary’s Immaculate Conception in Summa Theologica III-I Qn 27. Given that this teaching is contrary to the current teaching of the church, it ought to disqualify Summa from being the teaching of the Church.
But … because Thomas wrote it before the doctrine was defined, he is cleared.
This is also the reason that individuals joining the Church must affirm, “I believe whatsoever the Church teaches.” Ironically, this phrase is found also in Summa Theologica. Watch Thomas’s argument:
— Summa, II-II 5.3.
The time-shifting irony here is — odd. But that’s a side point. The main point is that Catholics teach that the authority of the Church is analytic:
(1) The Church teaches X
(2) The Church is the authority that defines truth.
(3) Therefore X.
This is a fallacious argument from authority. It also, by way of side-effect, permits the Church to take the place of God, who alone is the author of truth.
(cont.)
Jeff Cagle said,
August 19, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Now consider a different way to wield and think of authority. If we consider the authority of the Church to be the authority to discover that which is already true — that is, to determine truth synthetically, then we have this situation:
(1) The Church teaches X
(2) The Church has been authorized to ‘to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience.’
(3) The Church’s ground is good and necessary inference from Scripture; therefore
(4) Unless it can be shown that the Church has failed to form good and necessary inference, their judgement should be received that X is probably true.
And here by ‘probably’, I mean a strong probability, as in 2-sigma or higher.
This is a non-fallacious inductive reasoning from authority; the authority of the Church is established by (1) Its demonstrated expertise, and (2) our faith that the Holy Spirit guides the Church — not infallibly, since we are creatures and are hindered by sin.
Bob S said,
August 19, 2012 at 4:13 pm
No, Burton, you still don’t get it.
This thread began regarding arguments for the papacy.
When the reformed asked the romanists to justify their papacy, if not the magisterium from Scripture alone, they balked, whined and crybabied about protestant presuppositions and begging the question.
IOW in the Roman world an immediate inference from 2 Tim.3:15-17 that Scripture is inspired, perspicuous and sufficient to determine every good work – even that of whether the papacy an infallible and lawful office in Christ’s church – is seen as question begging and presupposing protestantism. No presentation of an alternative argument or explanation, just rote accusation.
Then you said OK, where’s the positive presentation of the reformed church on what the papacy/magisterium purports to do – which is off topic somewhat, but what else is new around? – much more is a legitimate question that might follow up a discussion of the papacy.
My most recent comment of 1209 was only to re iterate that since it is a given that the papacy is not scriptural, any hypothetical preference of the magisterium, in the absence of lock tight presentation of the protestant alternative to your satisfaction, is still hypocritical/unfaithful to the Scripture.
Scripture is adequate to the reproof and correction of error in Christ’s church. Further more the P&R see govt. by elders and the broader/wider assemblies of the church to be not only adequate, but commanded in Scripture. Yes, sometimes it’s messy – as if Rome knows an absolute practical perfection on the ground and in the trenches – but for one, NAPARC individually, yet as one voice, did condemn the FV. Granted, the followup and implementation has not been so great. Regardless, the grand principles have been stated.
Further, protestantism recognizes the rights of private conscience. If the elders err and pervert the truth, one can peaceably move on. The keys to bind and loose only do exactly that when they are faithful to Scripture. There is no arbitrary carte blanche power such as Rome declares.
Of course, you may call all of this whatever you will – froth, foam or filth – but time will tell and if the next prima donna celebrity P&R convert and cause celebre that graces the CtC website is a doctor, I won’t have to say I told you so, because I already did here, right now.
cordially
Burton said,
August 19, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Bob S.
I don’t have time to fully respond to your last post (about to board a plane), but I do want to apologize for my “foam and bile” comments. If we were sitting face to face over a good ale this sort of conversation would likely go much better. I am afraid that in complaining about your lack of adherence to the posting guidelines I crossed over them myself.
Burton
TurretinFan said,
August 20, 2012 at 9:24 am
Burton:
You wrote:
The churches are supposed to pick men who are not novices and who are “apt to teach” to be elders. It’s not our contention that all of Scripture is equally clear to all.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 20, 2012 at 9:58 am
Burton:
The contention of the Reformed is not that Sola Scriptura is the epistemically ultimate position. It’s just that Sola Scriptura is what we have right now: Jesus is ascended and the Apostles are deceased.
The rejection of Rome’s claims is a negative argument. That’s why we are asking for the positive case for the papacy from the advocates of the papacy. I think you may have seen how thin that case is from the comments above.
On the hypothesis that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and the apostles of the LDS church really possess the apostolic authority they claim, are they in a better epistemic position than the Reformed churches? Your reasoning seems to suggest that they are.
You may call it a negative argument, but if you have simply established that a hypothetical epistemic position of Mormons and Papalists is equivalent, it seems that the thought experiment doesn’t have any particular value.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 20, 2012 at 11:40 am
Burton:
You wrote:
I thought that the question was about church discipline. I still think that was the question.
But now you are asking about having the “authority to define true doctrine.” Neither the individual nor the elders possess that authority. Both are required by God to submit to the revelation God has given in his Word.
You wrote:
That is not how, in practice, the RCC works. Moreover, even when the gristmill of the CDF is grinding, the process takes time. It took six years for the CDF to get around to condemn “Sister” Farley’s book, “Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethic.” Oh, and as soon as they condemned it, it went from 142,982 on Amazon to 15. That is to say, their condemnation of the book by a nun of their church took years and years and actually ended up making the book more popular.
There’s another rub, and we’ll get to that in just a second.
You wrote:
I don’t know if Miss Farley has already pointed this out (I heard another one point it out recently), but her situation is not distinguishable from “the Protestant situation.” She feels herself to obliged to follow what “the church” has infallibly taught, over against he fallible teachings of the church.
And there is nothing in RCC dogma that promises that disciplinary actions, such as the CDF condemning one’s book, are infallible. If discipline in the RCC were supposedly infallible, they would still have the same view of Galilleo they once did.
And what’s good for Gallileo is good for the gals. If the Vatican can be wrong about geocentrism, they can be wrong about sexuality as well.
The difference that you describe about the people “starting their own church,” is one point of difference – but it is not one that distinguishes as to the question of submission. Whether one starts one’s own church is a distinct issue from whether one submits to the discipline provided. It is a question of one’s response to the discipline, rather than a question of whether one submits to it.
You wrote:
Yes, but again your question has moved. You originally asked whether they can perform those tasks. Now you are asking for a way to discern the proper exercise from the improper exercise. That’s a different question.
As for how one can tell, one can only use the tools one has. Suppose that the answer is one can only fallibly determine, in this life, which cases were proper and which cases were improper. What of it?
-TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 20, 2012 at 11:50 am
I would echo TF’s #1216. Rome wants to fill a vacuum left by Jesus’ ascension to the Father: since Jesus is gone, he must have an earthly representative who will teach us all things, who will administer remission of sins, who will administer definitive discipline.
But of course, Jesus promised that His Spirit would do this. Does the Spirit work through secondary means? Certainly, which is why we have pastors (to assist in clarifying Scripture), and the sacraments (to proclaim the promises of God in symbol form), and church government (to outwardly discipline the flock).
But these secondary means are not perfectly equivalent to the work of the Spirit. If it were, then the kingdom would have come already in its fulness.
The central objection to Rome is that it inserts itself always and everywhere between the believer and Christ, and appropriates the work of the Spirit to itself.
In that respect, it acts much like the steward Denethor in the Lord of the Rings, who cannot relinquish control to the true King.
Pete Holter said,
August 22, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Greetings in Christ, TurretinFan!
Seeing that you have Chrysostom and Aquinas, among others, as witnesses for your interpretation, I certainly can’t deny it to you. I’m sorry for having said that you were making an unfair use of Paul. I take it back. I was surprised to see your interpretation because the ESV has “these” instead of “the” as in the Greek. But now that I see that “these” is not in the text, I see that I was wrong in charging you with this.
I see that Theodoret commented on this verse, but I don’t have access to what he said. I’m assuming he follows Chrysostom. In Against the Pelagians, Bk. 3, 9, Jerome says,
Based on the flow of Jerome’s argument, I would say that he also sees “the very chiefest Apostles” as true apostles. But I’d like to see more Fathers on this before I feel bound by a claim to unanimity. There don’t seem to be enough contributors to the interpretation of these verses to constitute what most people would consider necessary for a “unanimous consent.”
You had mentioned that “His reference to ‘chief apostles’ is a reference back to his earlier comment about chief apostles, which comes before his comment about false apostles.”
However, this first instance of “chiefest apostles” follows immediately after his mention of a false gospel, which is the “no gospel” preached by the false apostles (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:1-4). To see “the chiefest apostles” as Peter, James, and John doesn’t seem to fit the context. For if these were the ones he had in view, we would expect him to be comparing himself with them throughout these two chapters. But in these two chapters Paul seems to be comparing himself entirely with those who treat him as an impostor (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:8); who do not consider him to be a true apostle (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:2; 2 Corinthians 12:12); who say, “ ‘His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account’ ” (2 Corinthians 10:10); who “measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another” and are therefore “without understanding” (2 Corinthians 10:12); who are skilled in speaking but lack knowledge (11:6); and who “boast according to the flesh” (11:18). He is comparing himself with another who—as he says to the Corinthians—“makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face” (11:20); and he wants “to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do” (11:12) so that the Corinthians will follow him [Paul] and not these others (cf. 11:2, 12:14).
This is different from the way he speaks with the Corinthians when true apostles are in view. For when true adherents to the gospel are in view, he says that “all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (1 Corinthians 3:21-23); and he is “one untimely born… the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle” (1 Corinthians 15:8, 9)
If “the chiefest apostles” are the true apostles, then we would expect Paul to at some point add a clause to the effect of, “much less these false apostles,” so that the text would read, “I was not at all inferior even to the chiefest apostles, much less these false apostles.” Or perhaps this is the unstated implication that I just don’t see yet. But without this transition of thought from the one group to the other, his “super-apostles” comment seems disjointed within the flow of his comparisons.
However, if you do happen to persuade me that “the chiefest apostles” are Peter, James, and John in this context (because you might!), I would still understand Paul as referring to his unsurpassable effort in carrying out his mission as an apostle, but not necessarily to a ranking of authority within the group of the apostles. For example, one might say that a sergeant outstripped his general in all things pertaining to soldiery—discipline, dexterity, marksmanship, strength, intelligence, cool-under-fire, foresight in strategy and quickness of decision making—without in anyway implying that he was now of higher rank than or even of equal rank with his general. We may even rightly say that he is even more of a general than his general, all the while understanding that he remains in subordination of rank.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Pete Holter said,
August 23, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Simple Elder wrote,
Greetings in Christ, Simple Elder!
I’m sorry my writing isn’t clear. It’s clear in my mind, I promise! :) It’s the kids.
I’m not sure that my argument depends on distinctions of phrases so as to require either adjectival or substantival force. I also didn’t intend to suggest that the verb for service has a one-to-one correspondence with the office of deacon, so that it can only be used to describe what deacons do.
I only mean to suggest that the office of deacon seems to have taken its name from the verb in its particular usage in Acts 6:1 and 6:2. And I think that “serve tables” is an example of the broader category of charitable service, whether the phrase is taken idiomatically or literally. We think that deacons also share in the “ministry” of the word as indicated by 1 Timothy 3:9 and demonstrated by Stephen (cf. Acts 6:10; Ch. 7), albeit in a supportive role.
That they are not apostles can be gained from the observations that (1) the apostles appointed these people to fill this particular role so that they themselves—the twelve apostles—could devote themselves to the other role of preaching the word; (2) they were not being “sent” as was Barnabas (cf. Acts 13:3-4 & 14:14); and (3) apostles in the strict sense are not appointed through the laying on of hands but directly by Jesus.
To read giraffes and baboons in the text would be very creative and be right up there on par with my other fanciful interpretations (as David Gadbois noted; heh, heh); but it wouldn’t come from allowing Scripture to interpret itself by reading this text in light of other relevant texts. To see them as deacons, however, agrees with the several parallels and reasoning that I’ve already supplied.
If I withdraw my assertion that they were being appointed to the office of the diaconate through the laying on of hands, this would still not weaken the more general case for the necessity of the laying on of hands; it would simply shift Acts 6 over to the same category as Acts 13:1-4 and serve as an instance of being set apart for a specific mission rather than for filling a permanent office in order to carry out that mission.
As I pointed out previously, the speaking in tongues case fails because we have the “no” text in 1 Corinthians 12:29 (with μὴ indicating that Paul expects us to answer with a no in response to each of his questions).
You say that “we want both example, and precept.” But we could also point out that Paul says to “Be imitators of me” (1 Corinthians 4:16), and to “join in imitating me, and [to] keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us” (Philippians 3:17). We are to practice, not only “[w]hat you have learned and received and heard,” but also what you have “seen in me” (Philippians 4:9). And Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of His own accord, but only what He sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows Him all that He Himself is doing” (John 5:19-20). These are instances of following example. And we can go even further and say that it is by precept that we follow example. I agree that we need to be careful in how this applies, but this takes us back to one of my fundamental points: those appointed to leadership positions within the church are appointed by those already holding leadership positions.
Thanks for letting me know. Congratulations on your publication! And on leading believers to deeper relationship with Christ up at Grace Church. I hate to take up too much of your time. I noticed that your sermons are available. Do you have one in particular that you’d recommend I begin with to help me better understand your position? Do you have any that speak to the authority that James held in Jerusalem, or how Timothy and Titus might be understood in terms of authority when compared with the elders they were commissioned to appoint? Or that handle the angels of the Churches in Revelation?
These texts about the body of Christ speak of a great variety of body parts (“there are many parts” – 1 Cor. 12:20), and some of those “parts” are offices. For example, “He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-12). “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues” (1 Corinthians 12:28). When we combine the notion of there being “varieties of gifts,” “varieties of service,” and “varieties of activities,” (1 Corinthians 12: 4-6), on the one hand, with the examples we find of one leader in the Church holding an office of authority over other leaders—such as we have with the example of James in Jerusalem and the angels of the Churches in Revelation (one angel per Church)—on the other hand, a picture emerges of internal varieties within the apostleship and within the eldership of the Church as the Spirit “apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Corinthians 12:11). And, again, feel free to point me to a sermon.
Thank you and have a blessed day!
With love in Christ,
Pete
Pete Holter said,
August 23, 2012 at 5:06 pm
I’d like to again draw attention to something said in the background article:
When we see Peter, James, and John pointed out by Paul as “seeming to be influential,” I think it’s helpful for us to compare the three to help us understand Peter’s preeminence among the apostles. I’m going to focus on Peter and John…
With John, we see him and Peter together at the last supper, both of them being sent by Jesus (cf. Luke 22:8ff), and Peter motioning to John “to ask Jesus of whom He was speaking” (John 13:24). We see Peter and John following Jesus to the trial and John gaining access for Peter into the courtyard of the high priest (cf. John 18:15-16). We see that Mary Magdalene went specifically to Peter and John to tell them of the resurrection (cf. John 20:2). We see that Peter and John run to the tomb and that John gets there first, but waits for Peter to enter before entering himself (cf. John 20:3-8). And we see John directing Peter to Jesus on the beach (cf. John 21:7), but following behind Peter and Jesus as Peter and Jesus walk into the sunset of salvation history (cf. John 21:20).
We see them together again in Acts 3 with Peter playing the more prominent role (cf. Acts 3:4-7), and Peter alone speaking to the people in the name of the two (cf. Acts 3:12-26). And when the two of them were brought before the family of the high-priest and the rulers and elders and scribes, Peter is the one who again speaks for the both of them (cf. Acts 4:8-12), followed by the two of them announcing together, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20). Peter and John are then sent to Samaria, and when Simon Magus approaches them, Peter again is the one who speaks for the two (Acts 8:20-24). In every case, it is either the two speaking together, or Peter speaking for the two; but we never see John speaking for Peter.
It is after Peter spoke that the Christians fell silent (cf. Acts 11:18 & 15:12; cf. Luke 20:26). And I also find it interesting that when Herod killed John’s brother James, he didn’t proceed to arrest John, but only Peter (cf. Acts 12:1-3).
And of course John is included in the larger group of the apostles when it is said, as I’ve already pointed out, “go, tell his disciples and Peter” (Mark 16:7); and when Matthias is “numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26), and “Peter” is then described as “standing with the eleven” (Acts 2:14); and we hear of “Peter and the rest of the apostles” (Acts 2:37), and “Peter and the Apostles” (Acts 5:29), and “the other apostles … and Cephas” (1 Corinthians 9:5); and Jesus appearing “to Cephas, [and] then to the twelve” (1 Corinthians 15:5).
When we see Jesus having greater intimacy with Peter and the Zebedees; and we then proceed to appreciate that, among the Zebedees, John is the one who was especially loved; and we finally see Peter clearly distinguished even from John as spokesman for all and as holding a more prominent position within both the inner- and outer-circle of the apostles—it makes it easy for us to understand why Herod proceeded to arrest only Peter in Acts 12:3 in order to most please the Jews, and why Paul went to see Peter alone in his visit to Jerusalem: “I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas” (Galatians 1:18): both insiders and outsiders recognized the preeminent leadership role that Peter held in the Church of Christ.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Pete Holter said,
August 23, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Appreciating Peter’s role among the Twelve helps us to understand how James the Lord’s brother fits in with this established “hierarchy”…
He is especially visited by Jesus (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:7); he is present with the Twelve at the election of Judas’ replacement; Paul sees him while he is visiting with Peter (Galatians 1:19); he’s singled out by Peter, who wishes him to be apprised of what had happened to him in prison (cf. Acts 12:17); he gives his judgment at the council of Jerusalem after hearing from Peter and Paul (Acts 15:13-21); and he is visited by Paul when he comes to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 21:18).
And perhaps there are other places for us to enter into discussion.
For a comparison between Peter and James, I think it is helpful to draw attention to the fact that, although he ends up meeting with James while he’s there, Paul came to visit Peter alone when he first visited Jerusalem. With James being the regional authority in Jerusalem, it seems strange for Paul to specifically intend to visit Peter instead of James when going to Jerusalem. Since we’ve already seen that Peter held a preeminence among the apostles, I think that this preeminence is the best explanation for this.
As for the council of Jerusalem, John Paul II wrote,
And I think that this is sufficient to say.
This is all I really have to say on this point unless someone thinks that James held the highest authority in the apostolic Church. Then we could discuss more. :)
With love in Christ,
Pete
Burton said,
August 24, 2012 at 5:50 pm
TurretinFan (#1217),
I can see why you think that I have moved the question. Let me explain why I don’t think that is the case. The question that I answered “yes” to (as I understood it) was whether or not it is possible that in at least some cases the elders of Reformed churches have correctly identified heresy and called the wayward sheep back to the flock. This is very different from the more salient question: do the Reformed elders have a principled means by which they can cleanse the church of heresy and lead the wayward home? If, in any given doctrinal controversy, there is always the possibility that the elders are leading the flock into heresy, and if in every instance it is up to the individual members of the flock to determine whether or not this is so, then asking how one can know the difference is exactly the same as asking whether or not the elders are capable of performing those tasks. “Do they sometimes get it right” – is very different from – “are they, on a principled basis, able to perform the task.”
Burton
Simple Elder said,
August 27, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Thanks Pete (1220),
I’d just like to reiterate a question that is at the bottom of all our debate:
That’s the heart of the issue. Not only did they never appoint a single elder (bishop) over any single church (parish) but the apostles by their own writings, under inspiration of the Holy spirit, never reveal they appointed any one man over multiple churches. Instead, positively, they always appointed multiple elders in individual churches (parishes).
You see, the RCC system and the system witnessed in the writing of the apostles are 2 different systems that can’t co-exist.
Pete Holter said,
August 27, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Greetings in Christ and blessings for your loved ones!
How do you understand James’ role in Jerusalem and his relationship to the local churches of Judea? Paul mentions “the churches of Judea” (Galatians 1:22 & 1 Thessalonians 2:14), and James seems to be the one who ultimately rules this collection of churches from Jerusalem. The men who “came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers” (Acts 15:1) were erroneously understood to have been sent by the elders centered in Jerusalem under the authority of James (cf. Acts 15:24). To come “from Judea” (Acts 28:21) seems to be another way of saying that you’ve come “from James” (Galatians 2:12), and this would make sense if he was viewed as the one holding regional authority over all of these local Churches.
When Paul goes to Jerusalem in Acts 21, he goes to see James specifically—all of the elders are present and they all speak with the voice of one man (cf. Acts 21:20); but the focus, again, is on James.
James is the one who gives judgment at the council in Acts 15 and decides to issue the letter of decision to the churches of Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. But this judgment is also expressed later as having come from all of the elders in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 21:25). However, these elders did not issue this judgment together with James as equals. Rather, it is better understood, in keeping with the narrative of Acts 15, that he alone pronounced judgment as the one who had the authority and jurisdiction to make such a pronouncement—following the lead of the apostles—and that the elders subsequently submitted themselves to this authoritative judgment, thereby making it their own. We gather this from the fact that the elders themselves were in “much debate” prior to the giving of this judgment (Acts 15:6).
In short, the decisions and actions of James, as the regional authority of Judea, are the decisions and actions of all Judea.
With love in Christ,
Pete
jsm52 said,
August 27, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Pete,
On a side note:
Another question (following the quote below), possibly more interesting: after Paul and his associates went in to see James and all of the elders in Acts 20, the following transpired:
20Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law:
21 and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs.
22 What is it therefore? They will certainly hear that thou art come.
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men that have a vow on them;
24 these take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges for them, that they may shave their heads: and all shall know that there is no truth in the things whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law.
25 But as touching the Gentiles that have believed, we wrote, giving judgment that they should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication.
Had the Jerusalem/Judean churches fallen into a compromised bifurcated gospel, i.e. one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles? If so, it seems quite possible, that the Judeaizers’ teaching was, at least, implicitly sanctioned or condoned in Jerusalem. Isn’t it possible then, that the teaching/practice in Jerusalem among the Jewish believers had fallen into a Christ plus Mosaic Law gospel, i.e. grace plus works? If so, then this is something to consider when it comes to understanding the Galatian letter of Paul.
Pete Holter said,
August 27, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Hi jsm52!
I think that if Paul thought that he was giving the impression to anyone that the keeping of the Jewish Law was necessary to salvation for anyone, then he would not have agreed to the request of the elders. But since the question was only about whether the Jews were required “to forsake Moses,” and whether Paul was “telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs” (Acts 21:21), he agreed to their request. In harmony with what I suppose the elders in Jerusalem to have been desirous of, Paul had similarly circumcised Timothy out of the same concern, and had “done nothing against… the customs of our fathers” (Acts 16:3; 28:17).
Basically, I follow Augustine’s view expressed in Letter 82.
With the love of Christ,
Pete
Simple Elder said,
August 28, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Hello again Pete,
Thank you for your interaction on this critical point! I appreciate you very much pointing out the words and actions of James, especially in Acts 15. I hope to shed some light on your episcopal position’s inconsistency with Scripture.
I’ll start with the mention of the “the churches of Judea” (Gal. 1:22, etc). In itself this is a non-episcopate phrase, as you must admit inasmuch as the Holy Spirit recognizes each of these churches as a distinct ecclesia. The episcopate phrase would always be “the church of Judea” (sg). In itself this does not tell us the structure polity-wise of each church, but it distinctly points away from any episcopal polity. BTW, there is good reason to understand the phrase, “the churches of Judea which were in Christ” (Gal. 1:22) to show a distinction from churches that were not “in Christ” – churches of apostasy. This would make sense given the men who claimed to be from the church in Jerusalem and yet taught circumcision. In an episcopal understanding such a distinction has no traction for all those churches would have been under James. In an episcopal understanding Paul’s phrase in Gal. 1:22 would have been a slam against James, an exceedingly unlikely event given Paul was seeking fellowship with the pillars.
This is all the more important in determining James’ role in Acts 15. The Holy Spirit describes the church in Antioch as a singular church in 15:3, and again indicates Paul and Barnabas came to the “church” (singular) in Jerusalem in 15:4. So now you have “churches of Judea” and church in Jerusalem, using the exact same Greek word, but only in the plural/sg. Episcopalian polity swerves from such a simple understanding by introducing terms like “parish.”
Further, James is only ever described as being a leader in this singular church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13, 21:17-25) and yet never of the “churches of Judea.” Along the same reality is the fact that Paul claims to have seen James only in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:17-19 and Gal. 2:9). So you see, James is never described as being a leader over the churches of Judea.
Which brings us to:
James admits in the cyclical letter, written by the Holy Spirit, only “Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying…” In every opportunity he can he uses the plural “we” since the letter is sent by both apostles and Jerusalem’s elders. It could only be special pleading to make the “we” mean only James.
Your connection of Acts 28:21 (They said to him, “We have neither received letters from Judea concerning you, nor have any of the brethren come here and reported or spoken anything bad about you) and Gal. 2:12 cannot hold water; Acts 28:21 is spoken by unregenerate Jews still in Judaism and therefore not speaking in ecclesiastical terms, while Gal. 2:12 refers to men specifically from James sent to help out the church in Antioch. This does not entail episcopal authority any more than Barnabas being “sent by the church” in Jerusalem (Acts 11:22) entails congregational rule.
You yourself say, “all of the elders are present and they all speak with the voice of one man.” That’s the beauty of biblical eldership. Sure, the focus is on one man. But you are missing the forest for a single tree.
You say, “However, these elders did not issue this judgment together with James as equals.” Then the Holy Spirit lies to the churches when He says, “they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe” (Acts 16:4). I refuse to believe that for the sake of establishing the RCC.
Have you considered the fact that James is not only an elder but an apostle (Gal. 1:19)? This explains his prominence among his co-elders in Jerusalem, and prominence in the Jerusalem, for the words he spoke were nothing less than prophecy by the authority of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28).
Pete Holter said,
August 29, 2012 at 7:49 am
Simple Elder wrote, “Acts 28:21 is spoken by unregenerate Jews still in Judaism and therefore not speaking in ecclesiastical terms…”
I should have reread the context before using this verse in the way that I did. I was wrong and I am sorry to have made such a sloppy misuse of this verse to the hurt of Christian unity.
Thank you for the other points that you’ve made. I hope to come back to them later.
http://sovereigngracemusic.bandcamp.com/track/high-above-all-things
With love in Christ,
Pete
CD-Host said,
August 29, 2012 at 7:05 pm
I saw this thread a few weeks ago and decided it was too active. But I’d like to go back to the original question raised
The main point I wish to raise here is the methodological one: on what basis do we evaluate the claims of the Papacy? [to a line of succession]…So, the question then becomes this: is it historically plausible to claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome? W
I think the easiest thing is to make these questions highly material. On the Catholic we have a claim that a meaningful institution existed with genuinely hierarchical structures that were well understood, believed and followed. That there were churches which answered to Bishops and these Bishops answered to a Bishop of Rome.
OK lets make the claim specific. The kinds of questions that one can ask about a real institution If Peter was running a church in 50 CE:
A: Lets stat with a financial hierarchy:
a1) Which churches existed? Who owned the land for each of them? Did they have any expenses and if so who was covering them?
a2) The the list of people above. Do they show any evidence of acknowledging a level above them, Bishops which extend beyond a single church? If so which owners, showed what deference on matters of finance to which Bishops? Which owners collected money from their Bishop? Did any of these cross Bishops tax these churches and pass money between them without the land owner’s consent? Was there any property held directly by these bishops for use by multiple churches?
a3) What money passed from these bishops to Peter? Which monies passed from Peter to these Bishops? If these Bishops were able to exercise financial control is there any evidence of Peter over riding them? Do we have any evidence of property held by Peter for use b the other bishops. Do we have evidence of Peter transferring assets between bishops?
etc… with evidence for all.
b: Or lets move on to appointment authority:
b1) Taking the list of churches who were the ministers and priests? In any of the churches were they appointed by a bishop outside their congregation? Did they acknowledge a bishop as having direct authority over them?
b2) In cases where the bishop and minister / priest were in conflict what evidence do we have of the bishops being able to successfully resolve disputes by firing the minister or priest?
b3) Who appointed the various bishops? Do we have evidence of these bishops reporting in to Peter for instruction? Do we have evidence when there were conflicts between bishops of Peter giving orders? Do we have evidence of Peter appointing a bishop? Do we have evidence of Peter firing a bishop?
etc… Then repeat these questions at 75 CE for Linus. Or 85 CE and Anacletus. Once we start asking the sorts of questions that are true of institutions which are hierarchical, the kinds of evidence to look for becomes clear.
This issue is only vague when we start allowing Peter to be the head of a non institution in a non institutional way. “Was Peter widely respected among Christians in 50 CE” is a far different question than “did Peter have authority over an institutional church?”
There is no question if I ask these sorts of institutional questions about Benedict XVI I’ll get answers in the affirmative. I’m pretty sure I can get answers in the affirmative all the way back to Damasus I. Guys like Callixtus I, at least I can obvious evidence of the kinds of griping and criticism that comes with binding orders. I’m not even sure he ran an institutional church, and it reasonable to call him a Pope but at least I can rather confident he was an important bishop.
Go back much before that though and all I see is silence and a few scattered legends.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 11:32 am
CD-Host 1230:
Great name, by the way. Can I call you CDH? :-)
Yo, bro, that’s looking like some interesting com-box stuff you’ve revealed with us here on planet earth. Definately tickling my accountant funnybone (that’s what I do for a living).
It also reminds me of the lecture about Karl Marx in RC Sproul’s, “consequences of ideas” CD set, and book. It’s a goodie. Basically, Sproul talks about the “Marxist theory of History.” Basic idea, I think, was follow the money…
But see here’s the rub. We reformed Christians, while finding all that fun and interested, are actually in a kind of “protest” against this very office of the pope that is discussed in this pious and intellectually stimulating comment thread of 1231 comments now (I will personally send a bag of coal to whomever gets the 1234 comment – so consider this the challenge for the day…kind of like being the 11th caller, and you win tickets to the local rock concert in your community).
There’s a really good discussion that the office of Pope, instituted by the Roman Catholic Church, is not part of God’s design for how His church should be. Reason being, that Christ is the one true head of the church. No man can fill the role that the RCC currently has.
I will say, though, as upset as I am about the fact that the RCC still has a pope after 500 years of trying to reform those dudes, I do appreciate that the Vatican has a twitter feed. I just wish he’d update it more. I understand, updating a twitter feed requires really lifting a hand (really, it’s just an e-mail to the undersecretary of the vatican, and he/she can write it, probably without the Pope’s approval), but the way things are going, we Reformed Christians just aren’t feeling the love from those RCC fellows.
Again, intellectually stimulating post and discussions here, folks. Hurry – you could be the proud owner of a lump of coal! You’ll make no progess just sitting there, without coming up with some witty quip in the combox.
Seriously, Lane, and mods, you need to do something. Write another blog post, Lane, if you must. Help us understand what on earth all this madness means. Maybe this is just how PCA mininsters roll….
Sorry folks, but this blogging stuff really rankles me,
Andrew
CD-Host said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Andrew —
I notice you’ve been objecting to this entire thread and discussion with anyone else. So I’m not going to take it personally you just seem to be urging PCA people to act like a cult and completely disengage from the wider society, only talking to those people who more or less already agree with them on everything. Which would fine except for the fact that the entire bible from Moses to Paul is a long documentary history of people doing exactly the opposite. And then there is whole thing about the very last thing Jesus said before departing the earth. Or when the church was founded at Pentecost that the gift was one of tongues to allow communication. All these things seem to go against your vision of the church.
And while it would genuinely never occur to me to accuse the PCA of being too open minded or broad, since you have I should mention that one of the better traits about the PCA is that they aim to be well read. So generally they would have paid better attention to Sproul’s lectures on Marx. Marx’s theory of historical materialism was a belief that the cause of sociological changes are mostly economic. What I was assuming is that sociological change results in corresponding economic structures being built, which is a vastly weaker and entirely uncorrelated theory. I’m just doing plain old boring history, if effectual thing X happened, then X left behind a trail.
The question I’m responding to is the one in the post about whether the office of Pope did exist. This is a question of about what happened as a historical reality, not a theological question. The question fo whether it should or not, is it “God’s design” is not something I’m going to argue about. And the entire point of my post was that by conjoining the two questions what should be a simple question becomes a complex one.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 5:33 pm
CD-Host:
You provide a much needed corrective. I want to apologize for how I conducted myself in the comment above.
Truth be told, the question of “why a papacy” to begin with, is indeed as complex a question as could be had. We could talk psychology, economics, politics, the list goes on.
I don’t think anyone’s going to say the office of the pope, as historical reality, didn’t happen. So we’re all on the same page.
Yes, the theological question is another one, and by connecting with the historical, indeed the question becomes not just more complex, but, I dare say, infinitely so.
I think they are interesting questions. I tend, instead of posting comments, to look for good books. If there’s one thing I have enjoyed in all my back and forth here, it’s finding both like minded and otherwise who are able tell me the kinds of books I should read, for further study.
As for your comments about how I view the church, I accept your criticism, and further questions about my theological leanings are best left to my e-mail address (andrew(dot)d(dot)buckingham(at)gmail(dot)com).
You make assumptions about me that might be true – you are clearly articulate. I would enjoy hearing more of your thoughts about my vision, etc.
My point is more broadly to get theology off the blogs. But I understand people have reasons for being out here. I’m in protest, I suppose, of these forums, and am going about it by joining in. I have avenues to pursue what may become action, and I want you to understand this is meant with all seriousness. I understand maybe “theology isn’t your thing,” but I am left wondering a bit, if that’s true, why you would post a comment on the blog of a minister of Christ’s church.
Just a general curiosity, I mean no offense,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 5:41 pm
PS my point about the historical/theological and infinitely complex, makes no sense as typed. I meant that as a historical question, it’s able to be analyzed. But when you add the theological question to the historical, you end up asking what could become an infinitely complex question. Because yes, that question is, “Does God intend for their to be a supreme leader of His church, embodied in a human being?” I understand this question doesn’t mean much to you, but to the 1200 or so comments above, it’s a question being addressed. Many of us around here feel that God does not intend that. I am not being very careful with my words. But I think you get the idea. Like you say, though, no more of that talk…Peace. -AB
Jed Paschall said,
August 31, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Andrew,
I am not sure how your approach of protesting theological discourse on the internet by involving yourself in the discussions is going to accomplish much. If you see it as being a significant threat to the church and your denomination in particular, there are avenues through your presbytery where these matters can be investigated. Otherwise this is just a one man crusade.
There is certainly much to be criticized about theology being done on the blogosphere, and I am sure you have some valid concerns and even corrective opinions to share. But, I think you are neglecting the sociological ground swell that the internet represents. In many ways it has replaced the public square as the place where ideas are shared and debated, and if the internet was the medium on which social revolutions such as the Arab Spring have been very recently launched, which have effected entire regions of the globe, I doubt that there is much you can do to stem the tide. The fact of the matter is, as I see it at least, the internet will continue to shape the transaction of ideas, theological or otherwise for a long time to come. And as long as you have fallen humans attached to this medium you are going to get all the good and all of the bad that comes with humanity. There will be times when you will note intelligent, informed, and irenic debate, and there will be times when it will drop to the lowest common denominator.
I have really enjoyed reading many of your comments here at GB, and would hate to see you become embittered by the process. Whether matters that divide Reformed and Roman Catholic, or creation and science, or hot theological issues in the Reformed camp are being discussed here, these are matters of deeply held beliefs and there is bound to be sharp, and sometimes deeply personal disagreements over these matters. And, there are times when one must decide whether being “nice” is as important as articulating the truth as one believes it. . I can remember when I was first exposed to some of the Reformed blogs how shocking some of the rhetoric was. But over time, I have realized that this is due to the fact that many of the people commenting here are doing so from a place of deeply, firmly held belief – which sometimes leads to explosive dialogue. Maybe we all could be better about this, but the only way I see it to diminish some of the fiery language on Reformed blogs is to ask participants to be less convinced of their beliefs, which isn’t a good thing to me.
You’ll get a lot more out of the blogosphere if you accept its inherent limitations and weaknesses instead of trying to fight it. And if you feel like someone on the web is giving you more headache than its worth (which I am sure you felt on some of the creationism debates), you can always disengage the conversation and realize that meaningful debate might elude you on that particular subject or with certain participants. You’d have a better chance of having your putter, driver, long irons, and wedges working in unison for 18 holes than you will on changing the contours of debate on the internet. Both exercises can be equally frustrating, but also rewarding, and there are times where you might be better off heading to the clubhouse for a cold one than trying to fix what can’t be changed.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Thank you, Jed. I know I am the pot calling the kettle black. Take care.
jsm52 said,
August 31, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Jed, Andrew…
That settles it! It’s late Friday afternoon. Everyone, off to the clubhouse for a cold one. Andrew is buying…
Jed Paschall said,
August 31, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Jack,
I don’t know if I would put that on Andrew, I tend toward top shelf bourbons. Especially in a nice tasty Presbyterian – hard to beat on a hot So. Cal. afternoon (underscoring after noon).
CD-Host said,
September 1, 2012 at 12:18 am
Hi Andrew. And let me provide myself as an example
I understand maybe “theology isn’t your thing,” but I am left wondering a bit, if that’s true, why you would post a comment on the blog of a minister of Christ’s church.
Just a general curiosity, I mean no offense,
No offense taken. My reason for being interested in this topic is that while I have quite a bit of interest in history of religions. I also am interested in Christian apologetics and have written on how the RCC argument is easily torn apart by a Baptist (arminian) approach the Presbyterian / Reformed approach creates needless headaches, and in my opinion contradictions. I thought it might be interesting to raise the point directly and see what this group would say since they are currently having this debate.
That’s it. And while I’ve known about Green Baggins for years, I don’t post here much, I never clicked on the “about flag” to even know Lane’s name prior to you asking this question. I’ve never considered this to be a church blog but rather a para-church blog. That is I (from my position of limited exposure and ignorance) see a blog that aims for discussion of interest to all conservative reformed not support for any particular church or denomination.
Andrew Buckingham said,
September 2, 2012 at 10:29 am
To outlaw’s point in comment #1, it appears the Schaff book is available for free here.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc1
I saw the “read online free” link, here, at GB’s “top clicks.”
Thanks GB,
Andrew
Jeff Cagle said,
September 2, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Andrew B.: Great name, by the way. Can I call you CDH? :-)
Call him /dev/cd-host1231/
But seriously, I hear your headaches about blogging. The question is whether to ignore ’em or to join ’em. The internet is out of the barn already.
bsuden said,
September 2, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Somewhat off topic, I know, but this?
I also am interested in Christian apologetics and have written on how the RCC argument is easily torn apart by a Baptist (arminian) approach the Presbyterian / Reformed approach creates needless headaches, and in my opinion contradictions.
Arminianism is romanism in principle with out all the doodads, frosting and window dressing.
While it might be heresy to the ears of modern evangelicals, at the Reformation, to affirm free will meant one was a papist. To a man, Luther, Calvin, Knox and the English reformers all repudiated free will which is the idea that the sinful will dead in its sins and trespasses could do any spiritual good, whether in preparation, co-operation or in actually choosing Christ. Rather the sovereign, pre-destinating grace of God in regeneration is efficacious and irresistable. Further, those for whom Christ dies, will be saved; they cannot finally and ultimately fall away.
For Rome or arminianism the “pope” of man’s free will ultimately chooses and determines whether one will be saved.
There, back on topic.
jsm52 said,
September 2, 2012 at 5:32 pm
bsuden @ 1242,
Amen, brother…
Bob S said,
September 2, 2012 at 6:43 pm
1243 Thanks Jack.
Not to stir the pot, but I take it you do not agree with what somebody said about the Anglican church, that it had a ‘Calvinist creed, Arminian clergy and Romish ritual’?
To put down my big spoon though, I will say this. I owe a lot to JI Packer’s Intro to his and Johnstone’s translation of Luther’s Bondage of the Will for what I said above.
Yet what makes the reformed churches “reformed” is that on the basis of Scripture alone they reformed from the deformed Roman church in doctrine, worship and government. Not so, Lutheranism and Anglicanism which are only reformed on doctrine.
That is not to say obviously, that the reformed don’t swim the Tiber, but hopefully they wouldn’t be as prone too if all the bases are covered. Much more it would seem quite clear that with the rise of the CtC, the P&R are not teaching the historic protestant answers to the Roman interpretative paradigms.
Dat is not good and I think we can agree on that.
cheers
CD-Host said,
September 2, 2012 at 7:52 pm
@bsuden —
Yeah this is a change of a topic.
to affirm free will meant one was a papist. To a man, Luther, Calvin, Knox and the English reformers all repudiated free wil
Repudiating and saying a doctrine is “papist” are two entirely different things. I’m sure they all repudiated the doctrine demon summoning that didn’t make it a Catholic doctrine. At the same time there were lots of groups known to the reformers like: Jews, Muslims and the people practicing traditional religions who rejected total depravity.
But ignoring that, I still don’t think the Reformation was nearly that uniform. When I consider the English Reformers:
Henry VIII
Elizabeth I
Thomas Cromwell
Anne Boleyn
William Tyndale (Believer’s baptism)
John Wycliffe (Soul Sleep)
Even Oliver Cromwell was friendly with Henry Downhall (an Arminian) and consider him a brother in Christ and spiritual advisor.
So, who are you talking about? Where is the evidence for this great consensus?
Arminianism is romanism in principle with out all the doodads, frosting and window dressing.
As long as I exclude:
the entire doctrine of a priesthood
paleobaptism
sacramental theology
congregationalism and ecclesiology in general
the binding nature of creeds
theology of the state
liturgy
etc…
they still seem to have lots of differences.
So my question is how far away does a denomination have to move before the differences are more than just doodads and window dressing?
Pete Holter said,
September 3, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Hey Pastor Bigelow!
Greetings in Christ, once again!
I wanted more time to make this more succinct and carefully worded, but I’m pressed to say something before amnesia sets in…
Firstly, I think that I should say, that to speak of “parishes” and “particular churches” provides a convenience to us when trying to speak of these collections of larger or smaller units of the Body of Christ.
I am sorry again for my misuse of Acts 28. Please allow me to re-present my case without this misuse because I think that the overall presentation remains unaffected. The men who “came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers” (Acts 15:1) were erroneously understood to have been sent by the elders centered in Jerusalem under the authority of James (cf. Acts 15:24). To come “down from Judea” (Acts 15: 1) seems to be another way of saying that you’ve come “from James” (Galatians 2:12), and this would make sense if he was viewed as the one holding regional authority over all of the local Churches in Judea. The people who “came down from Judea” were described as having “gone out from us… although we gave them no instructions” (Acts 15:24). The elders mentioned in Acts 15 and Acts 21 are either restricted to Jerusalem or come from throughout Judea to meet in Jerusalem. If the elders are restricted to Jerusalem, we are still left with the impression—after comparing Acts 15:1 with 15:24—that anyone going out from Judea ultimately takes their instruction from Jerusalem’s lead. And if the elders are from throughout Judea, who come to meet with James in Jerusalem from time to time, then we see even more clearly the direct oversight that James provided to all of the local Churches of Judea. In either case, James is at the head of this body of elders and they ultimately take direction from him.
Your response of saying that “Gal. 2:12 refers to men specifically from James sent to help out the church in Antioch” is not necessarily deduced.
The letter from the council asserted that “we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions” (Acts 15:24). Evidently the word coming back to Jerusalem from outside of Judea was that false teachers coming out of Judea were being sent by the Church of Jerusalem, and ultimately from James. As far as the Gentile believers were able to determine, these Judaizers “from Judea” had “gone out from” the elders and apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1; 15:24). Jerusalem responds by saying that although they are physically coming out from our area of jurisdiction, they are not doing so with our sanction or instruction (although it must be the case that some of the elders present at the council also believed that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to be saved; otherwise, there would have been no debate).
So for Paul to say that certain Judaizers had come “from James” could also be understood as just another way of narrating a similar scenario. They come “from James” because he is the one who is ultimately responsible for what they do.
I am sorry for the verbose redundancies in the preceding material.
I do not think that the “we” means only James at this point. The “we” is all the apostles and elders. But before we get to the “we” of the elders and to the “letter with our judgment” (Acts 21:25), the elders had “much debate,” and it was James who followed the lead of the apostles and gave the “judgment” of the council in Acts 15:19, which judgment was the catalyst for the subsequent writing of the letter: “my judgment is that we […] should write to them”. It is at this point that the elders of the contrary position submitted themselves to the judgment of James—having “come to one accord” (Acts 15:25)—and made James’ judgment their judgment.
The Holy Spirit also guided the elders to join in with this final proclamation. These elders are part of the “us” of 15:28. It would be difficult to maintain that the guidance here being spoken of ended with the apostles. If James is an apostle per Galatians 1:19, this would still not decide whether the jurisdictional authority he exercised from Jerusalem would end when he died. This is at the heart of our difference: what is exclusive to the apostles as apostles and what is not? John also seems to be providing this jurisdictional oversight in Revelation, prompting him to write to the seven Churches. You wrote on Called to Communion that…
But I think that this misses the overarching role that John is playing in writing letters to each of these seven churches in the first place: “John to the seven churches that are in Asia” (Revelation 1:4). Going beyond apostles…
Perhaps you will not concede this to me, but Eusebius tells us that Timothy became the bishop of Ephesus, placing him as a single leader over the other elders/bishops (EH, 3.4; cf. Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Timothy 1:3, 4:12). In agreement with this, Titus also appears to be exercising a superior role over the elders of the island of Crete, being the one appointed by Paul to “put what remained into order” (Titus 1:5). From these considerations it begins to appear that the structure of having a central figure or “senior pastor” over a local Church or collection of local Churches is not limited to the role of apostles.
Another point to consider is that John wrote “to the angel of the church in Laodicea” (Revelation 3:14). And this “church of the Laodiceans” (Colossians 4:16) with a single angel over it seems to include both “the brothers at Laodicea” as well as the smaller group of “Nympha and the church in her house” (Colossians 4:15). And this gives the impression of house-church units being subset churches within the larger set of a city/town church. But perhaps the church in her house and other such house churches are in fact distinct.
Even without this final point, what we seem to be seeing are the first outlines of churches within churches all under the leadership of groups of elders and a single leader either above or at each level, such as with James in Jerusalem over the elders in Jerusalem and Judea; as with John over an area of Asia Minor, and with each Church under him having its own angel, and with these angels having elders to assist each one of them; as with Timothy over the elders of Ephesus; and as with Titus over the elders of the towns of Crete. And finally, of course, Peter having care over them all. :)
With love in Christ,
Pete
CD-Host said,
September 3, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Pete H —
. then we see even more clearly the direct oversight that James provided to all of the local Churches of Judea.
Where do we get this universality from? Even assuming one grants the oversight how do you know that this oversight applied to “all of the local Churches”, rather than some of them or a few of them? I don’t see any evidence for this jump.
Moreover, the question is not oversight but hierarchical control. The SBC churches would recognize Fred Luter Jr. as having some degree of oversight, as they would para-church organizations like their bible translator (ex. Biblica for the NIV). Those sorts of relationships exist today in all forms of Protestantism, in Judaism, in Islam, in Hinduism which are non hierarchical faiths. What the Catholic church is claiming is something much stronger than some vague ability to make a suggestion. They are arguing for full blown hierarchical control. Not the relational Fred Luter Jr has with the 45k congregations in the SBC but rather the relationship he has with Lifeway, property under his direct control. If Pastor Luter. tomorrow decides Lifeway needs to publish a book about the theology of earthworm seta, there is going to be an author assigned and budget set aside and by 2013 we’ll be reading about theology of earthworms.
No one is doubting that James was well respected in 1st century Christianity. No one is doubting Peter was well known and respected by some in 1st century Christianity. The question is was their a full blown hierarchy in place in the 1st century. When we look at Christian leadership in the New Testament era were we looking at a bunch of more or less peers fighting with each other, or were we looking at a bunch of Peter’s employees discussing how best to implement Peter’s directives. I think the tone of the NT makes the answer rather obvious.
Simple elder said,
September 3, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Hi Again Pete,
I was wondering when you might be back. Thank you for carefully reading Scripture. I appreciate your questions, but we usually get in trouble when we go to the Bible to prove our own doctrines.
Yes, you and a great many for many generations do think that way. But not Jesus, for in His revelation He never uses those terms. He never veers from individual churches unless speaking of the universal church. Iow, you are putting words in His mouth when you say “these collections of larger or smaller units of the Body of Christ.”
It would be the same as me saying that Christ sees in His body both oblasts and provinces. You would be just to say, “don’t put words in His mouth” (Prov. 30:5-6).
What advantage is it to use concepts not evidenced in His infallible word when talking about something that belongs to Him?
There are 2 jumps in logic; from Acts to Galatians (2 entirely different contexts, and neither clearly specify what you want them to say so they are the very best inferential), and 2, that Judea couldn’t mean they were from the church in Jerusalem.
Pete, you appear to go back to something I already showed you is incorrect. You wrote,
I answered this in 1228: “Then the Holy Spirit lies to the churches when He says, “they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe” (Acts 16:4). I refuse to believe that for the sake of establishing the RCC”
But you continue:
There is nothing in the text that says any elders at any time held a contrary position to James: you are inserting that into the text. Acts 15:25 refers to the elders being of one mind about sending chosen men (Paul, Silas) to the churches.
On Bryan Cross’ Ecclesial Deism I answered: “John is an apostle, not a bishop. You are presuming that because he wrote to these churches he is their bishop, but this is Scripture being written here, my friend.” (261). You wish to diminish His call from Christ to assert the episcopacy.
Titus has the mandate to appoint elders in each town from Paul, who has it from Christ. As well, he moves from town to town, and then is soon gone (Titus 3:12). His ministry is personally mandated by an apostle. I wish we an army of Tituses today. It would make my book superfluous.
You need to read Titus 1:5 again. Who is appointed over the Christians in each town, a group of men, or a single man?
Both Rev. 3:14 and Col. 4:15 recognize but one church in the city. You translation of Col. 4:15 is simply not what is in the Scripture.
Pete Holter said,
September 7, 2012 at 8:57 pm
“As well, he moves from town to town, and then is soon gone (Titus 3:12).”
Greetings in Christ!
This is a good point to make and it would then be similar to what took place in Acts 14:23 and also explain why he ends up going to Dalmatia (cf. 2 Timothy 4:10). However, we concede the fact that the “bishoprics” in apostolic times were a lot more mobile than in later history, and that the Catholic Church ended up following the more stationary model provided by James rather than that provided by others. But in terms of prerogative, were Paul and Barnabas appointing their equals or elders of a subordinate stature? They and Titus seem to be a step above those whom they are appointing. I think it helps to make the mental shift of affixing the “bishopric” to the persons, rather than to geographical areas as we are accustomed to do. But even if we do this it seems that you would view the greater stature of someone like Titus or Timothy as linked with their immediate connection to an apostle. Hmmm.
You wrote,
You pointed out that John wrote the seven letters and said that “John is indeed the pen, but not the bishop.” However, the writing of these letters could also be one of many instances of his pastoral care over them as bishop in that area. And to acknowledge that John is a bishop is not to diminish his role as an apostle or as author of the inerrant word of God. All of the apostles were also bishops, we would say.
But how can we decide whether offices of greater or lesser stature were meant to continue after the first generation of leadership within the Church? John Paul II wrote that “At a certain point the Church needed new leaders, successors of the apostles”:
Pope Benedict also spoke of “the fullness of their unique and unrepeatable experience” (Audience, 5/3/2006), and noted that “the act of Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle” (Address to the PBC, 4/18/12). Furthermore, No. 22 of Lumen Gentium was also specifically worded so as not to “imply the transmission of the Apostles’ extraordinary power to their successors.”
So we definitely want to make a distinction between apostles and all others on several fronts. But Peter also says that he is a “fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1), and this may perhaps suggest that the role that is played by elders who fill in behind the apostles is open to being carried out in each succeeding generation with the same level of prominence as the apostles had in theirs: only now the role of shepherd in these varying degrees is no longer being carried out by apostles, but by successors to them. Unless, that is, we attach all of the prominence of the apostles solely to their apostleship. But again, the role that someone like a Titus or a Timothy played seems to run against this notion of total exclusivity. And when I speak of these elders having “the same level of prominence as the apostles,” I mean this only in the absence of apostles, not in their presence. And from this it follows that all elders are subject to the apostolic witness found in Sacred Scripture. We can at least all agree on this last point, right? :)
I see your case. I think it is very well thought out.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Pete Holter said,
September 7, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Greetings in Christ, CD-Host!
I try to make this huge, unsubstantiated jump from the mention of someone going out from Judea, and the way that this ultimately connects back on James in Jerusalem. The implication seems to be that if they had gone out from anywhere in Judea, they would be understood as being subject to James.
With the love of Christ,
Pete
CD-Host said,
September 8, 2012 at 1:04 am
@Pete-H
I try to make this huge, unsubstantiated jump from the mention of someone going out from Judea, and the way that this ultimately connects back on James in Jerusalem. The implication seems to be that if they had gone out from anywhere in Judea, they would be understood as being subject to James.
Do you see how question begging this is? You are answering the question about James scope by drawing an implication. The text if anything leans in the opposite direction. Galations 2 makes likely reference to the Acts 15, in which case these people who came down from Judea more or less told James to go pound sand and continued to preach a doctrine of circumcision. So they didn’t see themselves as subject to James even though they were Judean.
So assuming we try and tease out an implication we see the opposite of what you would need to prove your case. You have a form of Ebionite Christianity in Judea, James gives an opinion. If they answered to him, a direct order. And the Judaizers blow him off.
What is even strong counter evidence is that Paul in Galatians has to make a biblical argument, for the policy of James to the Galatians, There is no appeal to James’ authority beyond a claim that James is witness to Paul being the minister to the gentiles. Paul’s audience evidently expects to hear biblical evidence and weigh it themselves.
So I’d say that if the text hints at anything what it hints at that James, a man we know to be well respected even outside the Christian community, did not have the kind of authority you are attributing to him and much more importantly was not viewed as having that degree of authority.
Pete Holter said,
September 8, 2012 at 10:20 am
Hi CD-Host!
What I would say to this is that we don’t expect the heretics themselves to view themselves as subject to the authority of the Church.
I like this too, but I don’t see it as a strike against the pastoral authority of James. The Jesus Mythicists expect Paul to make appeals to Jesus where we don’t find them as well. Paul is at pains to press home to the Galatians that the gospel is not man’s gospel, and to draw their attention away from who this or that person might be and to affix it solely upon the gospel that has now been revealed to the saints by the Spirit in accordance with the Scriptures.
What do you expect? He’s just one of Peter’s employees, right? :) By the way, did you see the recent court case that decided that American priests are not Peter’s employees?
I hope you have a blessed weekend!
With love in Christ,
Pete
CD-Host said,
September 8, 2012 at 11:54 am
Pete —
I hope you have a good weekend…
This is a copout. Heretic to a Catholic doesn’t mean anymore then “someone who doesn’t agree with Catholic doctrine”. So claiming that James was in authority over all the non heretics, makes James an authority over all the people who already agree with him. And even that more limited scope isn’t supported as Galatians shows.
Your orignal claim was that James controlled all the churches in Jerusalem. That’s what we were debating. From Paul and from church history and from writings left behind we know these “heretics” were throughout the empire and lasted for centuries, that is they aren’t isolated people they are counter institutions. So you now have a bunch of churches in Jerusalem that James doesn’t control preaching a theology very different form his and not acknowledging him as an authority.
Ted, whom you are arguing with has that same level of control. He has authority over people who accept his authority. If they come to believe he’s gravely mistaken on a matter of faith and morals they tell him to go pound sand and join another church. Your claim, to be meaningful at all, is that this was not the situation for James. Your claim was that the bible and Acts 15 in particular demonstrated a unified hierarchy. While in fact the bible demonstrates a bunch of peers, some cooperating and others competing with vague and nebulous alliances making ad-hoc judgements about what degree of theological diversity they considered “within bounds”. So at best that makes James like an official in a Presbytery, with other denominations co-existing.
By the way, did you see the recent court case that decided that American priests are not Peter’s employees?
Yes and they are ruled correctly. American law doesn’t recognize symbolic / religious corporate structures as overruling written structures. It is even more complex for non profits to have chains of ownership and without strong explicit registration I think it makes sense to just assert that the Catholic Church as a single global entity doesn’t exist from a corporate ownership standpoint. On the other hand, America law on non profits is essentially Baptist doctrine detailed, so I wouldn’t read much into that.
The Jesus Mythicists expect Paul to make appeals to Jesus where we don’t find them as well.
Finally, I agree with your analogy. But it doesn’t help it weakens your case. Paul’s writings first get widely propagated via. Marcion’s Apostolicon, get brought into Catholicism by Valentinus and then widely accepted over the next few generations. Marcion was not an incarnationalist:
He[Jesus] made himself visible in only the phantasm of a body,
and it is the soul only that he will save, for the flesh is both in-
capable and unworthy of salvation. His purpose here was to re-
veal himself, the unknown God, the God From Outside, repudiating
all that was past, and reversing the moral values implied in the
Creator’s words and works, while rescuing those who accepted
him from the Creator’s censures, impositions, and torments.
So the history of the Pauline writings is they enter the Catholic consciousness via. a docetic sect. That’s precisely the sort of thing that shouldn’t be happening if your history of one big happy family all agreed on theology, all working in unison with one Pope were even remotely true.
Simple Elder said,
September 8, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Hi Pete,
A couple brief responses. I’m sorry, but I’m finding your rejoinders less helpful. They feel strained. Do they to you?
Well, the Mormon’s say Jesus is Lucifer’s brother. But saying so, doesn’t make it so. The apostles did not sell down their authority to the level of a bishop because the One who gave them that authority didn’t knock it down to that level. Your assumption that John writes as a bishop is an inference that defies the Bible and requires the apostles to defy Christ.
Now we’re getting somewhere, Pete. In the local church, since the apostles passed from the scene, nobody but biblically qualified elders, working in a plurality as equals, has authority to rule the church. 1 Peter 5:1=4 was written to hundreds of churches. All had a plurality of elders or else this passage makes no sense.
Simple Elder said,
September 8, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Hi CDH,
You wrote,
Umm, not according to Paul’s contemporary, Peter. He said this (2 Peter 3:15-16):
Peter regarded Paul’s letter as the very measure of Christian of truth, comparing them favorably to his own regard for “Scripture” – which means of course Peter regarded Paul’s letters as pure and holy and without error as Jesus’ own words.
So had the early Christians rejected Paul’s letters at any time they would have been of a vastly differing opinion than Peter. And now we’ve got a problem.
The 2 greatest apostles, Paul and Peter, were on the outside of mainstream 1st C Christianity looking in.
So who was on the inside?
Pete Holter said,
September 8, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Hi again!
Yes, this is still my claim. I don’t see the competing-denomination model or “a bunch of more or less peers fighting with each other” that you mention. I do see some personal failures, such as with Peter at Antioch and with the dispute between Paul and Barnabas. But as to the type of divisions you seem to be referring to, I think that this only existed among the carnal (such as at Corinth) and heretical who “went out from us.” In terms of faith and morals and worship and the whole Christian life, I see an apostolic Church of one mind, devoted “to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” and “of one heart and soul” (Acts 2:42; 4:32). And I see apostles who added nothing to each other, who were united by the right hand of fellowship (cf. Galatians 2), and who were all fools for the love of Jesus (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:10). “All the churches of Christ” greeted each other, and we will be forever reminded: “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God” (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 11:16).
I think that Paul’s letters were gathered and circulated and accepted throughout the Church as authoritative much earlier than this (within his lifetime).
You mentioned that “the RCC argument is easily torn apart by a Baptist (arminian) approach.” I take it you’re Baptist? I’m curious to know more about your walk with our Lord.
In Christ,
Pete
Pete Holter said,
September 8, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Hi Simple Elder!
I know that you’re aware that Acts 1:20 said that Judas’ replacement would be taking “his bishopric” (τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ). To acknowledge the apostles as “fellow elder(s)” (1 Peter 5:1), is not to “sell down their authority to the level of a bishop.”
The Mormons are late on the scene, and, unfortunately, when presented with the scandal of the schisms of the Reformation, Joseph Smith founded a schism of his own. :(
I agree that each local Church should have a plurality of elders where this is possible. But I don’t see where the Bible says that they are all “working in a plurality as equals.”
I did have a hard time trying to figure out how to best respond to you in my last comment. And I was not entirely satisfied with what I had to say. I’m sorry that it wasn’t helpful.
With love in Christ,
Pete
CD-Host said,
September 8, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Hi Ted —
As a matter of church history the Muratorian Canon did not contain 2Peter and we don’t see any mention of it in 2nd century literature until 190 in the writings of the Bishop Serapion who encounters the entire Petrine corpus: 1Peter, 2 Peter, 3Peter, 4Peter, Gospel of Peter, Preaching of Peter, Apoc of Peter, in Rhossus (near Antioch in Syria). The church quickly in the 3rd century settles on 1Pet and 2Pet as being authentic but it was still a matter of active debate (see Origin). So as a matter of history 2Peter doesn’t do you any good for getting a 1st century date for the acceptance of Paul; Paul is accepted and widely distributed almost a century before 2Peter is accepted and widely distributed as far as we can tell.
Now as a matter of faith, i.e. for the purposes of this debate: absolutely I’ll grant 2Peter was written by Peter, Acts is true history and Paul was widely accepted long before Marcion. Pete H is addressing a point of history from the perspective of people who reject all these positions and when showing how their arguments don’t support the Catholic case, I feel free to make use of secular history they do accept.
_____
As for Pete, just a few notes here about this whole incident with 2Peter. Note what happened here:
a) Serapion uses the historical records of the local docetic church believing their records on documents are better (more accurate) than the ones of the local Catholic church in ruling that 1Pet and 2Pet are authentic and the rest later. Which means he has the authority to overrule the locals and conduct an independent investigation.
b) According to the subtext of his letters the docetic Christians seem to unquestionably see Serapion as the Catholic authority. In other words his authority as a Catholic leader is known and understood even outside the Catholic church. They treat him as the leader of a cousin religion.
c) Serapion is able to make authoritative rulings they are evidently supported by the hierarchy and become church wide doctrine within a century.
d) Serapion writes Victor I to pass on his findings.
1) That’s what a hierarchical church looks like. A guy in charge who can give orders and passes information up and instructions down the line. Do you see the difference between this and the situation with James?
2) Serapion sees his scope as over Catholics. He agrees docetic Christians exist as a separate Christianity. Which is strong counter evidence to the idea of a unique church, i.e. a unique form of Christianity.
3) We can infer from his use of earlier records he thinks the docetic church was in Rhodes first or more continuously. Which is strong counter evidence to claims about the Catholic church being the root branch everywhere and essentially the only form of Christianity that existed.
Simple Elder said,
September 8, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Thanks, CDH,
Yep, absolutely – 2 Peter was a disputed book and not widely accepted by many. Truth is, we don’t know all the reasons why – certainly distribution was real issue back then – nor do we have a broad sampling of church history to tell us why. It’s more like snippets from a few.
But back to my point, which i think escaped you (or not) –
You wrote:
Let’s go with that. Assuming that’s true: who was on the inside of 1st C Xtntny, living out Xtntny and NOT accepting Paul and Peter?
That’s sounds tricksy, perhaps – not meant to be :)
CD-Host said,
September 8, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Pete H —
“carnal”, “heretical” (the way you are using it), and “schismatic” is just name calling. I get it, you don’t like these other groups, so what? For your claims of unity to be true they have to not exist, it doesn’t suffice for them to be “doo-doo heads” or whatever other names you want to call them.
So far your claim seems to be boil down to something like There was a unique type of Christian church as long as you exclude all the other ones. This church taught a unique theology, as long as you exclude all but one of the theologies it taught. The leaders within it were subject to a binding leadership, as long as they didn’t suffer from “personal failings” and do something this leadership didn’t approve. And the fact that they are all acting as if this binding structure teaching a unique theology to a unified church doesn’t exist, and in fact frequently indicate the opposite shouldn’t be counted as any evidence against this position because in context there is some good reason.
The central pillar of your apologetic is this claim to being a unique church that God founded. It can’t possibly come down to saying we just ignore the existence of “doo-doo heards” and read things into the literature that’s aren’t present in it.
OK I can do that too. I believe the unique original Christian Church taught the doctrine of salvation by drinking Coca-cola. All the Christian leaders who taught some other doctrine of salvation are heretics so we can ignore them. We can ignore the John Pemberton’s claim to invent coca-cola because he was just a latter day schismatic. We know of this unified teaching of salvation from coca-cola based on complete lack of evidence in the Christian record.
What you are doing is insanity, its not even plausible as history.
Your assertion about Paul’s writings being circulated early, is yet another of the countless examples of where the real record of divergent sects. Your own church father’s who consider them disputed in the 2nd century. Some welcoming them, some seeing Paul as, “apostle to the heretics”. No one saying they were widely distributed prior to the Apostolicon. Athenagoras spends 5 chapters having to prove Christians don’t encourage sexual immorality, the very kinds of themes that are are in 1Cor. He cites Matthew extensively and doesn’t once mention Paul. If Paul is widely circulated and universally accepted by his time (remember we are talking 177 here) why? And if we are going to include the pastoral epistles the Apostolicon itself is pretty good counter evidence since it doesn’t include them and again this goes without comment in the earlier anti-Marcionic writings.
I don’t know why these guys spend 3000 posts trying to argue the subtle questions about justification, when there are such unsubtle questions about the lack of basic evidence for your core claims to having been the unique church or even weaker the dominant church or frankly (though this requires more argument than I’ve provided yet) even an existent church in the 1st century.
Simple Elder said,
September 8, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Hi Pete,
It most certainly is.
Acts 1:20 is quote of the Septuagint version of Psalm 109:8 [108:8 in Hebrew versions]. If you want to claim Psalm 109 is prophetic of the bishopric you’re more than welcome, but a quick reading of that Psalm won’t give you any help that way because you’ll also need to show that Psalm 109:8 refers specifically in some way to the church office of bishop in order for anyone to accept you point.
What’s more, the office being replaced is not a bishop’s office, but the apostolic office (Acts 1:26). And who would argue that the apostolic office didn’t include oversight of churches?
But more to the point you should ask yourself why Peter is quoting the OT at this point. Hint – with Jesus ascended, what is Peter’s source of authority?
Acts 20:17-32, 1 Peter 5:1-4, Acts 15, Acts 16:4, Acts 14:23, 1 Thess 5:12-13, Phil 1:1, Heb 13:17, Titus 1:5, 1 Timothy 3:5, 1 Timothy 5:17. And I probably missed a few.
You will never, ever, not once, see an instance where one elder rules over other elders. You will never see the churches being instructed to submit to some elders above others, nor will you ever see elders being instructed to submit to other elders. Elders all are always addressed as equals when written to by apostles. The evidence is so plain it can be missed by those certain on another form of church leadership.
CD-Host said,
September 8, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Let’s go with that. Assuming that’s true: who was on the inside of 1st C Xtntny, living out Xtntny and NOT accepting Paul and Peter?
That’s sounds tricksy, perhaps – not meant to be :)
Funny you wrote this just as I made my comment to Pete H about not having yet shown anything about 1st century Christianity. That’s a completely valid question and totally fair. Its also going to completely divert this thread. This thread is about the Catholic argument, which is a negative case.
To make the positive case, for what 1st century Christianity looked like I can’t continue to make the kinds of assumptions that are only fair in this debate. This is meant to be a debate about a Conservative Reformed response to Catholicism. So as I mentioned I have to treat the Acts story as written by Luke, a follower of a Paul to teach about his ministry in the mid 1st century. To really have that discussion I need to be able to be quite a bit more skeptical.
If you want to go there: http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2012/01/sects-to-reformation.html
is a good breakdown of Christian evolution from my point of view.
We can talk there. Like I said, totally fair question.
Simple Elder said,
September 8, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Hey CDH – I’m a heretic, because I chill with the doctor. Pepper that is.
Pete Holter said,
September 8, 2012 at 10:43 pm
CD-Host wrote,
Greetings in Christ!
This again strikes me as the Jesus Myth argument: Theophilus doesn’t mention the historical Jesus when he should have; therefore he did not view Jesus as a historical figure. Athenagoras doesn’t quote Paul, and so he is therefore either unfamiliar with Paul, or he is familiar with him, but doesn’t consider him to be an authority.
The problem is that this is an argument from silence, so that even if we thought that Jesus was quoted when quoting Paul may have been the better move—when considering one aspect or another—there are many considerations that come into play that make such claims indecisive. Perhaps if we had a larger corpus of writings from Athenagoras…
The real comparison is not Matthew with Paul, but Jesus with Paul. If I can make a point using Jesus Himself, then why bring in Paul? And if Jesus’ argument is stronger on the point that I’m trying to make, why, again, bring in Paul when he doesn’t say something as strong or as on-point? Nothing is stronger to deflect the charge of sexual immorality than to quote our Lord saying that to even look at a woman with lustful intent is to commit adultery with her in our heart.
I think you are misunderstanding Tertullian here. The effect of what he is saying is actually the opposite of your suggestion. Not only do the Catholics receive Paul, but the heretics do too (after having put their “pruning-knife” to his letters, of course; heh, heh)!
I don’t think I have the time for the preliminary discussions that would be needed for us to better communicate with each other.
May God bless you and your loved ones, CD-Host!
In Christ,
Pete
CD-Host said,
September 9, 2012 at 9:18 am
Pete —
I get the impression your dropping out because after all it would take a lot of time to explain to me preliminaries for evaluating evidence that’s supposed to be absolutely clear. I’m not going to keep pounding if you want to quit but I think you may want to consider, none of the questions you were faced with should have been remotely difficult.
As for the use of negative evidence. Negative evidence is used all the time. Things don’t have to be definitive to reduce the probability of something being true. If I want to test whether something happened I look for confirmation. I have no idea if a 9.0 earthquake hit California while I was asleep. But when I go to my daily news feed, the top story is about Paul Ryan criticizing Obama about gas prices. That’s the sort of story the media tends to run when they don’t have news. I have no problem making the negative inference that the media’s choice of the Ryan critique drastically reduces the probability that anything catastrophic happened while I was asleep. It’s not definitive but it is absolutely strong counter evidence.
So for example the key point is that for Athenagoras we have reason to strongly suspect that he didn’t think the Matthew quote did a good job addressing his points because he had to spend 5 chapters constructing a complex argument deriving doctrine from it. Definitive no, highly likely yes.
That’s all counter evidence does. And when you start compiling one after another after another after another of these examples you have a massive weight that your version of history never happened. At some point the probability becomes so vanishingly small that we can comfortably dismiss it as simply false. The same way I comfortably dismiss the very real probability, but vanishingly small probability that the earth is one second away from being swallowed by a quantum bubble and destroyed.
The Jesus Mythicists did not invent negative inferences, and their use is not unique to them.
Pete Holter said,
September 9, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Happy Lord’s Day, Simple Elder!
Although the elders are addressed collectively, the texts do not say that they are all equal. I’d like to revisit a couple of points to see if they are helpful. You take the angels of the churches in Revelation to be messengers:
Pete Holter said,
September 9, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Wow, that was a mess. This comment fixes the quotes of comment 1266:
Happy Lord’s Day, Simple Elder!
Although the elders are addressed collectively, the texts do not say that they are all equal. I’d like to revisit a couple of points to see if they are helpful. You take the angels of the churches in Revelation to be messengers:
But these angels hold such a prominent and integral part of the Churches themselves, the idea that they are messengers does not seem to fit. The “seven stars are the angels of the seven churches” and they are being held in the right hand of Jesus (Revelation 1:20; cf. 1:16). Jesus reminds the Church of Ephesus that He is the One “Who holds the seven stars in his right hand [and] Who walks among the seven golden lampstands” (Revelation 2:1); and again to Sardis, that He has “the seven stars” (Revelation 3:1). This is a lot of focus on a messenger. Rather, the letters of sacred scripture are written to Churches through amanuenses: “Through Silvanus (διὰ Σιλουανοῦ), a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you” (1 Peter 5:12). The immediacy/intimacy of being held in the hand of Jesus should strike the elders of the straying congregations with the same kind of fear as when the Baptist reminded us that the axe is laid to the root of the tree. It also suggests—they being in His hand—that Jesus directs control throughout the Churches by means of these angels as He walks among them. As stars, the angels appear to me to be the lamps of the lampstands, again suggesting the significance of the role that they play in leading and enlightening the Church. Augustine surmises that these angels are “those invested with authority in the Church,” and this seems to be the best interpretation (Letter 43, Ch. 8:22). This leaves us with one angel per Church, one elder singled out among elders as having ultimate accountability for his flock.
You use the example of Jesus laying hands on children in order to inform your view that the laying on of hands in the case of instituting elders is non-sacramental and that it does not empower the recipient for his ministry. However, when Jesus laid hands on children, it is better seen to be a foreshadowing of the laying on of hands in confirmation as happened in Acts 8 and 19. Jesus mentions that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these in connection with this event, i.e., we are dealing with an initiatory rite with reference to salvation. To say that the Spirit is not given through the laying on of hands at ordination by comparison with this passage fails because (1) they are two separate contexts, (2) the Spirit had not been given prior to Jesus’ glorification, and (3) Acts 13:3 and 1 Timothy 4:14 give explicit witness to the fact that elders in the Church do convey the consecration or gifting of the Holy Spirit when they lay hands on people for ministry or office.
Anything helpful here?
In Christ,
Pete
Simple Elder said,
September 9, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Hi Pete,
Thanks – good stuff here!
You wrote: “the idea that they are messengers does not seem to fit” – I agree, if you mean, “the idea that they are merely messengers does not seem to fit”
When you say, “This is a lot of focus on a messenger. Rather, the letters of sacred scripture are written to Churches through amanuenses”, what is your meaning behind the contrastive: “Rather”?
Do you mean here angelic beings, or “human angels”?
Can you give any specific quotes from the 7 churches that teach the stars held authority, ultimate or otherwise?
Can you point to others texts in Scripture that refer to human authority as “stars?”
You know, the following quote would cancel out the episcopacy due to the word “ultimate”:
It fits a Baptist model almost, but not a biblical model.
Umm, yeah, both passages have laying on of hands. But apart from that, the context and entire situations are so vastly different, even between Acts 8 and Acts 19, that there’s a whole lot of jumps that are special pleading. That stuff can’t work except through someone already in your camp.
Pete, you are dismissing my proof of the equality in eldership too quickly.
So just answer my question from this verse written to Timothy vis-a-vis the elders in a single church, Ephesus:
“The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.”
Are there any elders who don’t rule? Of course, there may be elders who don’t rule “well” – but are there any elders who don’t rule?
CD-Host said,
September 10, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Ted —
It appears Pete is permanently dropping out so now I can freely just discuss what really happened without feeling limited by the terms of the debate:
Hellenistic Judaism:
When Alexander invades Judea, Judaism starts to fragment. When the Maccabees come to power they institute religious persecution and send fringe jewish movements all over the Roman Empire. After the Romans gain control these fringe movements roll back into Palestine along with being scattered throughout the empire.
Gnostic Judaism: As (from Jewish perspectives) the promises of Yahweh in terms of national salvation failed to be fulfilled many of these fringe movements begin to spiritualize or eschatologize these promises and begin experimenting with different ways of conceptualizing the Jewish scriptures. We can call this Their are aspect of what will later become Christianity in their theology but they still mostly Jewish. We can call this Gnostic Judaism but there are non Gnostic sects like Hermetic Jews that are also part of these groups.
Jewish Christianity: These sects begin to interact with one another and try and unify their theologies. They are at this point starting to diverge from Judaism heavily become a full blown schismatic religion. These schismatic forms of Judaism are much more attractive to non-Jews, especially “god fearers” which were quite often the products of intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews or marginal Jews. These Jewish-Christians sects grow to become the dominant forms of Christianity. (this in answer to the earlier question is where Paul comes in). As an aside the defining characteristic of Jewish Christianity is a strong degree of emotion tied to the Jewish God, some Jewish Christian sects will over the next two centuries become increasing negative about his role, considering him a liar that tricked them into destructive wars and a false religion.
Catholicism and Manichaeism Judaism is almost entirely annihilated in the 3 Jewish Roman wars between 66 and 134 CE. Christianity begins to appeal to slaves and the lower classes even among people with little Jewish association. It becomes a religion loosely based on Jewish Christianity which lays claim to the entire deposit of faith calling itself “Catholicism”. Meanwhile the Jewish Christian sects come into contact with other faith traditions like Persian Buddhism that allow them to reconceptualize their faith and evolve into a few non-Christian Gnostic forms the most popular being Manichaeism.
Roman Catholicism: The Catholic church offers a system for unifying religion having just recently pulled together the different strands of Christianity into a single whole. It is first fought against and then adopted by the Roman state. It fails to unify the people’s fast enough to benefit the Roman empire, but is able to unify then during the next 400 years becoming one of the main the vehicle by which Western Culture survived the Dark Ages. It overcomes most other forms of Christianity completely overturning Arianism in the north and leaving remaining pockets of alternative Christianities which preserved different traditions existing only in fragments of the Byzantine empire.
proto-Protestantism As the Byzantine empire falls to Islam these alternative Christianities and early writings are rediscovered in the West and start to change people’s outlook on their relationship with God. Western forms of Christianity which are theologically closer to Jewish Gnosticism start to emerge and hybrids of those “European Gnostic sects” and Catholicism form…
And the rest of the story you are familiar with.
And now in answer to your question about Peter and Paul. These fragmented sects of the 1st century and earlier didn’t know that much about each other early on and thus didn’t share all their stories. Peter and Paul seemed to have known each other and formed separate sects that rejected one another. We have 2nd century Christian writings that don’t seem to be heavily influenced by either Peter or Paul’s sects and the theology is Jewish Gnostic, Jewish Christian or Christian Gnostic.
Simple Elder said,
September 10, 2012 at 1:24 pm
CDH – that is a breath-taking summary of the histories of Judaism!
But one question – what do you do with evidence, written in the 1st Century, that not contradicts the above summary, but blows it apart?
Still waiting for you to join me on the Dr. Pepper fringe-cult….. ;)
CD-Host said,
September 10, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Ted —
Glad you liked it. Let me just point out this was meant to be the history of Christianity. Judaism as it exists today, Rabbinic Judaism, came from the Pharisees, who came from the Maccabees party. They were the ones doing the pushing out earlier and in the competition for those marginally Jewish god fearers they mostly lost out to Christianity. The Sadducees die out in by 73 CE. Essene Judaism has little or no lasting influence on the Pharisees. Judaism as it exists today has a different family branch of the tree that forked around 160 BCE from the tree from branches on which Christianity grew.
Rabbinic Judaism offered a different solution to the national aspiration model. Jews should stop being a nation and instead by a religion / ethnicity. That’s why the rebirth of Israel is causing the Jewish religion to start mutating so rapidly.
what do you do with evidence, written in the 1st Century, that not contradicts the above summary, but blows it apart?
I’m not sure what evidence you mean. I’d argue all the evidence I know of is in conformity with that timeline, other than I’ve oversimplified it here quite a bit.
Simple Elder said,
September 11, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Hi CDH,
For contradictory evidence I would present 3 lines: the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ contradicts your synthesized explanation for 1st Century Xtntny; the preached message of the apostles and the summons to believe in Christ defies your rational(istic) explanation for those who trust in that message today;and the words of the Christian Scriptures, written by 1st Century witnesses, are both rational (explaining the origins of Xtntny as possessing a supernatural origin) – and superior to your 21st C explanation both historically and comprehensively.
Ultimately, I trust in the Bible as the word of God and superior than my judgments which are all too often tainted with self-love and naivete. So if you’ll allow me to engage with you on that basis, and on the basis of love for you, then I would enjoy a discussion.
CD-Host said,
September 11, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Lane —
Feel free to kick us to the curb here. This may go in a direction you don’t want not sure.
____
Ted —
Sure happy to discuss. Remember the thesis though, “what do you do with evidence, written in the 1st Century, that not contradicts the above summary, but blows it apart?” Your list isn’t really 1st century evidence.
So for example my read of the 1st and for that matter 2nd century is that there is no agreement as to whether there were apostles, who they were and what they taught. Mostly when I look at the Christian record I see appeals to apostolic authority being 2nd century not 1st century. In first century literature mainly we see discourses on how Jesus speaks to us through scripture. So in my book it is meaningless to talk about what “the apostle’s taught” but rather what various sects believed about various apostles. Anything more than this will IMHO be assuming facts not in evidence.
And we are going to run into the same problem with “the scriptures”. For the first few centuries of Christianity they don’t exist as a unit. They exist individually and not always in exactly their current form. Which is important because my whole theory is based on theologies having evolved semi separately and then being pulled together later. Granting “the scriptures” as a first century entity kills the whole theory right there.
And since we’ve moved from “for the purpose of Conservative Reformed vs. Conservative Catholic debate” to my opinions I’m going to date most of them later than you. Though I’d grant Revelations, 7 Pauls (passages not organization, but unlikely to matter for this discussion), Hebrews, Jude, Mark (to 16:8) , Q, Signs … (standard lists) as first century.
Finally in terms of the resurrection. The development I outlined my theory doesn’t date the origins of Christianity to the resurrection but in some senses before it and in some senses after it. What we see in proto-Christian literature of the 1st century BCE is contiguous with what we see after. There is heavy debate about the resurrection. Who was resurrected? Did it happen? What does it mean? Is it an eternal or an earthly event? Development of the understanding of the resurrection doesn’t appear to be something that happened suddenly. There is no sharp sudden break around 30 CE in the literature. Whether the resurrection did or didn’t happen seems to have had no influence on how Christianity developed. No question in the 2nd century the earthly resurrection becomes a key defining feature of the emerging Christian Orthodoxy but the focus of 1st century Christianity is on the heavenly Christ.
Think of your own dialogue in this thread and on CTC. You quote the 1st century literature with Christ as a spiritual entity ruling over a spiritual church represented on earth by physical churches vs. the late 2nd century Christ as a physical entity establishing a physical governing hierarchy to rule a purely earthly church. There is a real meaningful doctrinal shift there. You weren’t wrong about that. And it applied more generally to the proto-Catholics and Catholics in the 2nd and 3rd century as they sought to establish orthodoxy.
Simple Elder said,
September 12, 2012 at 7:34 am
Hi CDH –
When you write, “There is heavy debate about the resurrection. Who was resurrected? Did it happen? What does it mean?,”
we can both only answer that question based on those who reported it since neither you, I, nor those who debate it, were there. And their answers are unambiguous: it was Jesus of Nazareth, 3 days after burial, in full accordance with His own prophecies and those in the Hebrew Scriptures. It was not the orthodoxy test arising in the 2nd C but the burden of the sermons of the early church (Acts 2, 3, 4, 5, 13).
The resurrection was a stunning miracle that launched something never seen before in the world’s history – the church. And since those who report it say it did happen, it takes a special agenda for us living all these years later to say it didn’t. And according to Romans 1, that agenda is the power of sin. Our only escape is regeneration by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14) which God freely gives to all who will confess His Son’s Lordship and trust in His righteousness.
And so the subtle shift in argument becomes not what happened in the 1st C as reported by eyewitnesses, but what we think happened, and the debate becomes about self, since we develop arguments as to why we are more intellectually honest than the resurrection’s witnesses.
The only way to argue the resurrection is to take it on its own merits as reported in the Christian Scriptures.
CD-Host said,
September 12, 2012 at 11:29 am
Hi Ted —
I’m a little unclear what you are proposing here. Your first paragraph looks like you want to dismiss the gospels and use the sermons from Acts. The problem with using the sermons from Acts, is Acts is also 2nd century. So it doesn’t help.
Further Act 1:1-1:11 has a version of events wholly different from what we see in 1st century accounts like Mark. And we see this was understood at the time, via. the textual development of Mark. The early version end at 16:8, later versions experiment with a single verse and finally the text settles down after a few centuries to the 16:9-20. Mark itself shows you a few steps in the evolution of the theology of the resurrection during.
Further we know there wasn’t “a church” that emerged but rather a multiplicity of churches with drastically different theologies. They didn’t launch “after” the resurrection because we have writings from “before” the resurrection.
I will say that Acts however does, if we read it as 2nd century Catholic propaganda designed to unify diverse sects, give us some terrific insights into the 1st century churches. It is a very valuable source, but not one to be taken at face value.
Now rather than pull out some early Jewish stuff to go to a more primitive vision of Jesus’ resurrection… I know you a careful student of Revelations; lets look at John of Patmos’ theology of the resurrection. Something I’d assert represents the kinds of theology that Paul was transforming when he wrote his epistles.
1) First of all note the means of communication that Jesus employes with JohnP. He learns about Jesus through a revelation given to him by an angel. And what he learns seems to be from study of scripture i.e. he studies scripture, thinks about what it means has visions and interprets these as prophecy. There is no claim of him being an eye witness to the resurrection or anything remotely that material. This is very similar to Joseph Smith’s revelation given to him by an angel via. golden plates that could only be seen by eyes of faith, the knowledge of their contents came to him by prophecy and through the study of Scripture (in his case the King James, hence the similar language between the King James and The Book of Mormon).
2) With the exception of Rev 3:3 everything this Jesus says is different from what he says in the gospels. This Jesus doesn’t even have the same attitudes towards the world as the Jesus of Acts. Jesus of Acts wants to make disciples of the world, an expanding church. Jesus of Revelations has come to avenge Israel against the world, “The day of retribution has come”.
3) The characterization of titles which later accrete to a unified Jesus don’t seem to be unified in Revelations. Jesus has died and risen, but this happens before his visitation to earth. Moreover he seems to be not identified with The Lamb. The “One Like the Son of Man” is just another angel among a host of angels. The child who is going to rule is born and immediately taken up to heaven. We have the pieces of the resurrection theology here, but they aren’t assembled yet into the configuration you see in those Acts sermons.
Once you make those identifications of these pieces obviously you do get a 2nd century theology. 2nd century theology is contiguous with 1st century theology. But let me just point out if however you don’t make those identification and instead read Revelations on its own terms, I could point you to very similar books form the same time period where the resurrected savior character is Sophia or Melchizedek. Who was resurrected was still very much up in the air. And this BTW is not unique to JohnP. As Pete mentioned above, Paul in places like 1Cor 2:10 and Romans 1:2-3 says he learned of Jesus the same way.
So even if I wanted to accept to the testimony of the witnesses on faith, their own testimony is not that they actually witnessed anything in the sense you meant it. Though they certainly with eyes of faith bore witnesses to what the scriptures had testified about Jesus Christ who had died and been resurrected.
Simple Elder said,
September 12, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Hi CDH,
Now you’re a smart guy. Really smart.
And you know that a lot of other smart people have answered all your points above (affirmed the bodily resurrection of Jesus in 30 Ad, 1st C church built on that res., etc.)
So what makes your answers correct, and theirs wrong?
CD-Host said,
September 12, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Hi Ted —
Hard question. I would disagree that they have been successfully answered. There are evangelical apologists that address this type of historical analysis, but in general they make a rather weak case against the History of Religions style of argument. I can point you to them, but in general the flaw in their arguments is that they are massively circular. They end up assuming something that subtle contradicts History of Religions thinking (like you did above with talking about “the scriptures” as a unified body of theology) and from there disproves the theory. Large complex versions of the logical axiom “A implies A”.
The more effective argument was made by the Victorian Moralism and later Mainline Christianity which was able to adopt History of Religions type thinking. Evolution (both biological and social) were positive. They believed in Dialectical Theology. They agree that Christianity as it exists today has little to do with the Christian religion of 1st century. For them Christianity is an onion, the layers of tradition which accredited are the Christian faith. The core of the onion cannot and should not be asked to stand as a 19th/20th/21st century religion. They wouldn’t expect it to anymore than they would expect to be able to have this conversation int the Germanic dialects that existed 2000 years ago.
So for that sort of Christianity it is religiously meaningless and pointless to ask what Paul, or even the Pauline writings, meant to his contemporary audience what’s important is what Pauling writings means to modern Christians practicing modern Christianity. They might have an amused interest in say a detailed study of Paul’s use of Astrological Theology but a claim that he used such a system wouldn’t be religiously threatening. Their religion wasn’t tied up strictly in the bible using a Historical-Critical means of interpretation.
So getting back to the theme here. The CTC of 100 or 50 years ago would be focusing much more heavily on the argument that because of a living magisterium Catholicism is more able to adopt to the changing conditions of humanity. Catholicism is better able to evolve than Protestantism which can only respond to progress by mutating randomly while Catholicism can imply reason to religious evolution.
So then you might ask, “OK but why don’t liberal Christians have these historical views? History of Religions went out of favor with them as well.” And the answer would be that these sorts of views were popular until the 2nd world war. Development theology was the rage. But… the theology was mainly developed in Germany from the Tübingen school to Bultmann. This theology which argues that Christianity evolved out of sects that rejected Judaism and branched off very early, that Christianity is not a continuation of Judaism at all but an entirely new faith at odds with Judaism leant itself very well to the Aryan Christ movement, and later to the Christianity of the Nazis / Axis (both Catholic and Protestant).
So confronting a Christianity that no longer was terrible interested in making historical claims about itself, and noxious associations the History of Religions school disappeared from divinity schools. The ideas still existed in the secular academy but since the overwhelming majority of funding for history of Christianity comes from people associated with religion, the ideas mostly died out until the early 1970s.
Then of course in the USA there was the 4th Great Awakening, a fundamentalist revolt against mainline Christianity and the rebirth of traditionalist claims. Because this Christianity is ultimately supernatural the primary counter apologetics come in the area of biblical errancy particularly with respect to science. But at a much lower volume Evangelical Protestantism developed a bible approach which was more or less a conservative version of Adolf von Harnick, which left itself more open to a critique from lower criticism than higher criticism. And so we’ve had a rebirth of History of Religions type authors but attacking from below, this time with a focus on lower criticism:
Elaine Pagels popularizes the understanding that our Gnostic literature are alternative Christianities and that there were critical choices made along the way in Christian evolution that can and should be examined. In particular the canon was political.
Bart Ehrman proves that the textual variants we see in the documentary record are not random but rather are a theological harmonization process. Orthodox theology doesn’t come from the bible, but rather after the selection process Pagels documents, the bible text was altered to support Orthodox theology.
Birger Pearson proves that Gnostic Christianity could not have evolved from Orthodox Christianity. The traditional timeline, the Acts based history of the early church fathers, is simply false.
John Turner documents the first Christian sect over a period of centuries. He gives us the evolution of the Sethians from 100 BCE to about 300 CE. So we now have at least one fully working example of how a Christianity did evolve.
The evidence is simply overwhelming.
Simple Elder said,
September 13, 2012 at 7:33 am
Hi CDH –
That list of experts is impressive. But they have been refuted by other experts. (i.e., Ehrman has been refuted by Wallace). And these experts will claim, and other educated people will say their evidence is overwhelming. The History of Religions approach has been tried and found wanting by highly educated people, and continues to be, in spite of Pagel’s impressive credentials. And other highly educated people agree with them, while others don’t.
To boot, they claim what you claim – the arguments are utterly circular.
Would you agree that how one interprets evidence depends upon one’s system of interpreting evidence? No fact stands on its own. I, as much as anyone, fit evidence to my system. As do you, or Bart Ehrman. This is what all people do – protesters in Libya or Cairo, or elite intellectuals at Ivy league schools. We all are attracted to evidence that fits our system and minimize, reinterpret, expose as fallacious, or ignore the evidence that doesn’t.
Please don’t misread me into saying evidence is unimportant or that we can’t make valid judgments on evidence, because I’m not (blind fideism).
What I am saying is that I completely rely upon the Christian Scriptures to define the world I live in, and submit my mind to it’s description of all facts in the world I live – both those I can explain and those I can’t as well. I live by faith in the Canon, iow. Which as you would know, is faith in my Creator’s power to reveal himself clearly, charitably, and convincingly.
What might your system be, by which all evidence is fitted?
CD-Host said,
September 13, 2012 at 9:17 am
Morning Ted —
I must say I always find it amusing that conservative Reformed people who most vigorously opposed Post-Modernism when the Emerging Church was a viable option are genuinely Post-Modernist in their own approach. In any case let me grant: I like all humans am subject to confirmation bias. I’m going to react emotionally against an argument I find threatening to my identity and am going to tend to overweigh conflicting evidence, and underweigh supporting evidence So we agree there. But it is confirmation bias, not an absolute unwillingness. People change their minds even on deeply held beliefs. Reality can present counter evidence so strong their opinions change. I’d say the debate on homosexuality is an example where we are seeing major shifts in attitude happen to a few percent of the population per year, every year for a few decades running.
Now Wallace, whom I understand you meant as a side point, is a terrific direction for me to go. I happen to be very familiar with Wallace. I’ve talked about him a lot, I’ve read a lot of his arguments, the NET is my trusted evangelical bible and in fact the bible I carry on phone is the NET with text notes. The reason I carry the NET, and read Wallace is that he tends to be aware of the the breadth of counter arguments to his positions and mentions them.
In terms of his own arguments my opinion is that he tends to mischaracterize the opposing arguments and argue against a straw man. That opinion of Wallace has stayed true:
a) When I disagree with him, am ignorant on the topic and am studying expert opinion.
b) When I disagree with him and am knowledgeable on the topic due to having done my own base research.
c) When I agree with him and am knowledgeable on the topic.
d) When I am indifferent but know the positions of various groups.
And not only that this characterization of Wallace seems shared by right wing critics, egalitarian evangelicals and feminist critics. So I don’t believe ultimately my opinion of Wallace on the arguments I do care about is driven by confirmation bias. Ultimately though the person who has to judge between various conflicting experts is me.
I should mention that when I first started believing in History of Religions type thinking I was Christian. At every step along the way I wanted the opposite of what I was finding to be true.
* When I came to believe that evangelical commentaries were dishonest I was an evangelical who daily used only used evangelical commentaries (at that time easy ones like the NIV study bible). I tried everything possible to limit the scope, oh well they are bad about Ezekiel but I’m sure it doesn’t go any further. Oh well they are bad about the Old Testament but the focus is really the New Testament…
* When I came to believe that the Old Testament was irreconcilable with the New Testament (a belief I don’t hold today), that is I became a modern Marcionite (though I didn’t know the term), I knew that no longer believing “in the bible” was a cardinal sin. My reward for this belief would be emotional isolation from my fellows evangelicals and the church forever.
* When I came to believe that the Gnostics were right in their interpretation of the New Testament I knew this made me not even meaningfully Christian at all. I was not happy.
* Once I no longer had to wrestle with the church but could just sit-back and be with God content in the fact that I was no longer meaningfully Christian, I was having the best spiritual experiences I’d ever had in church. My last year was a spiritual high point. I was not happy when my unbelief became so strong that I lost that, thinking I might as well be praying to the pew while I could be feeling the comfort of the liturgy.
What might your system be, by which all evidence is fitted?
I’d say positivism. The best arguments are those supportable by deductive modeling, inductive inference and repeatable experiment.
Simple Elder said,
September 13, 2012 at 9:36 am
CDH – as always, amazing!
May I ask how you came to embrace positivism as the system by which truth is known?
CD-Host said,
September 13, 2012 at 11:33 am
Ted —
A brain is nothing more than a network of axons with weighting mechanisms. So the overwhelming majority of our thoughts will inevitably be simple sensory observations correlated we quite literally have no choice biologically. So the only question left for a human is what to do with those areas were this built in mechanism won’t work?What to do with
a) Areas that require complex observation
b) Areas where correlations aren’t immediately “obvious”, i.e. not detectable by something on the order of an insect’s brain
And we have a higher brain center which is capable of
1) using tools to enhance observation
2) construct models
3) generalize from similar situations in which observations or correlations are more obvious
4) communicate with others and lean how they have chosen to do (1)-(3)
(Note this is mostly the Wesleyan Quadrilateral:
scripture/tradition = communication
reason = induction / deduction
experience
)
And I’d say any human system of epistemology is going to have elements 1-4. And since most things that are complex are only accessible through one of 1-3 most of the time our epistemology won’t affect our conclusions.
The only question of a human epistemology is what to when there is possible overlap. That is something that can be studied by at least 2 of:
i) Deductive modeling
ii) Inductive modeling
iii) Observation / Experimentation
iv) Communication
the area of intersection.
I’ll stop here, since I’m claiming this is true of all human in society under all conditions. You tell me if you agree this far.
Simple Elder said,
September 13, 2012 at 12:56 pm
CDH – I totally agree, except to quibble with the 1st sentence, but that wouldn’t be too germane. It doesn’t differentiate you, a marvelous and wonderful creation, from my dog, who is rather dull ;).
Now, given that explanation of how you know something is true, how consistent are you (in your self-judgment) with your system – 100%, 25%, ??% How true are you to your truth system, iow?
CD-Host said,
September 13, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Hi Ted —
Let me just comment that in 1281 I wasn’t anywhere near building up to full on positivism yet. But certainly another round or two along the same vein and I get there.
It doesn’t differentiate you, a marvelous and wonderful creation, from my dog, who is rather dull ;).
And you are absolutely right. Your dog is capable of all those things too:
a) The green thing in the corner is a ball, balls are fun to play fetch with, so that green thing in the corner will be fun to play fetch with (deductive reasoning)
b) Generally when I wimper I get the human’s attention. So if I hold the green ball in my mouth and wimper there is a good chance they’ll play fetch with me (inductive)
c) [You hold up a yellow ball, “This ball is better for fetch, let’s play with this one] and your dog understands that you go outside with another ball after he’s requested indicates your agreement to the game but not the choice of ball (communication).
d) As he is playing outside he lands in a plant that is really prickly. He smells at the plant carefully so as to make sure that doesn’t happen again (observation / experimentation).
There is no qualitative difference. There is however a quantitative difference.
Your dog has a much larger and a much more developed olfactory system in his brain than I have. My brain simply could not handle the amount of information his nose takes in, nor can I make the subtle calculations he’s doing with those large quantities of data. I could not in a deep and fundamental sense operate his nose even if were surgically attached to my olfactory nerves.
Similarly if you were to attach human eyes in place of your dogs eyes. Its just that my eyes are far better but the sheer quantity of information would overwhelm the optic system in his brain.
And in particular when we talk about the reasoning system I dedicate about 60% of my brain to higher brain function, your dog dedicates about 8% of his. Because of that extra volume I can have very high connections / low efficiency systems he simply can’t afford. The result is I’m able to capture easy correlations much more often and am able to bundle those easy correlations into more complex ones in ways your dog simple can’t. But it is all just quantity not quality.
Now, given that explanation of how you know something is true, how consistent are you (in your self-judgment) with your system – 100%, 25%, ??% How true are you to your truth system, iow?
Well of course like most people the overwhelming majority of my opinions and judgements are made socially with no consideration on my part. I hear something, don’t consider it, retain it and then act on it without every consciously going through an evaluation process. That’s why for example advertising works on me. I have this intuitive notion that Pledge does a good job on cleaning wood without really ever having learned what separates a good wood cleaner from a bad wood cleaner. Most likely these sorts of opinions this poorly thought out are 99% of the opinions I hold. But my society has quite a lot of positivism in them, so lets say about 80% of those opinions gained through almost unconscious absorption are close to what I would arrive at with careful consideration.
Where I have gone through an evaluation process, I try very hard to be consistent. The evidence simply overwhelms my biases as time spent considering a problem increases. so for the remaining 1%, I’d say at least 80%.
So lets go with 80%.
Simple Elder said,
September 13, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Hi –
OK! Let’s go with 80%. Of the things that you are able to positively verify you operate at a self-confessed 4/5ths consistency rate. (I hate to admit mine).
Of those 80%, how much of that percent are you able to 100% verify as utterly true – that there is no possibility you are wrong?
CD-Host said,
September 13, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Of those 80%, how much of that percent are you able to 100% verify as utterly true – that there is no possibility you are wrong?
For deductive truths it may be possible. Positivism doesn’t even allow for things to be true at the 100% level. Reasoning is highly culturally dependent, inferences are based on limited experience, experimentation is limited by the technology of experimental design. Even if deductive truths can be known with certainty, 2+2=4 their application cannot be.
What it does offer is two strong claims:
a) Non falsified — a non falsified claim is one that is consistent with all available evidence. The more evidence accumulated the stronger this becomes.
b) Experimentally verified — an experimental verified claim from which predictions were made, those were tested and those claims non falsified implies a greater probably of “truth”.
Its also important to understand that this system defines true as experimentally verifiable.
I’m typing to you an a machine whose very existence depends on quantum mechanics and relativity. A person in 1850 confronted with relativity over newtonian mechanics, or quantum mechanics ove 19th century chemistry would have most likely rejected both theories. But because there was no experiment they could conduct to test between them, from the standpoint of positivism both newtonian mechanics and relativity were true i.e. both were non-falsified. One only became false when experiments existed that were able to distinguish between them.
There is no claim to absolute metaphysical certainty. The system simple doesn’t allow for it.
Simple Elder said,
September 13, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Thanks.
See if you agree with this, then.
Up until now, when you have used your system to evaluate truth, you have yet to know that anything is true. For example, there could be some place in the universe where 2+2=22. Your system is limited to the confines of your existence, is it not?
Then, isn’t it true that you really don’t know anything?
CD-Host said,
September 13, 2012 at 5:49 pm
you have yet to know that anything is true.
No I disagree. I would agree I have yet to know if anything is true with metaphysical certainty. But being fallible I’m permanently incapable of that kind of knowledge in any system. There are things however which are: experimental verified and non-falsified that I know.
there could be some place in the universe where 2+2=22.
Assuming I can’t as of yet conduct an experiment that would detect that place, then yes there could be. But it is (by the definition above) irrelevant to 2+2=4. 2+2 only ceases being 4 once this becomes falsified.
Your system is limited to the confines of your existence, is it not?
It does allow for communication. But if you are including that, yes.
Simple Elder said,
September 14, 2012 at 9:13 am
Hi CDH,
Consider what you wrote here, allowing me to separate your sentences:
1) “I would agree I have yet to know if anything is true with metaphysical certainty.”
2) “But being fallible I’m permanently incapable of that kind of knowledge in any system.”
But, dear friend, since you have yet to know anything with certainty, how can you say you are “permanently incapable of that kind of knowledge in any system”?
Isn’t it in fact true that you don’t know enough to say that?
CD-Host said,
September 14, 2012 at 9:48 am
Hi Ted —
That’s a good one :) Remember again the definition of “true” NF-EV:
non falsified and experimentally verified: both of those claims meet the NF-EV criteria. So if a system came along which allowed me to know things with metaphysical certainty then that would disprove (i.e. falsify) the statement that I’m permanently incapable of that kind of knowledge in any system. But until such a system comes along (1) is “true” under the NF-EV system.
Conversely “there exists a system of metaphysical certainty” doesn’t meet the EV criteria, so I wouldn’t be justified in considering it true. There is no claim in positivism to metaphysical truth.
This seems to be a sticking point. Assume you were a pharmaceutical researcher. I handed you 3 envelopes. 2 contained facts about biology helpful in the making of drugs which could easily be experimental verified and would remain non-falsified until technology that would only exist in the year 3000 CE is invented. 1 contained a biological truth that will not be disproven for the entire existence of humanity, also helpful for making drugs. I don’t tell you which type of truth is one which envelope.
How would you tell them apart? And more importantly what difference would it make?
Simple Elder said,
September 14, 2012 at 11:01 am
Hi CDH –
I would test and verify the envelopes, soon to discover I don’t have 3000 CE technology. This is what we do with matter because we know that the criteria of non-falsification and verification works.
How could it not in a universe sustained by Omnipotence rather than, say, the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
You see, a “system” that disproves your “permanently incapability” statement has been with us all along: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.”
For you to claim this “system” isn’t true is is to make a truth claim that can’t be verified by your knowledge and belies your system that only grants probabilities. In other words, your system of knowing the true depends upon another “system” you deny.
Like I said, you don’t know enough to say that. But yet you do. You borrow God’s capital to spend against him.
And in this you show yourself a son of Adam (as am I).
Adam and Eve succumbed to a knowing that rejected the fear of the Lord as the beginning of knowledge and rested on their own validation about His truth claims regarding the tree (their own knowing). Hence “the Fall.” Hence the world we live in. Hence death.
All your knowing is dependent knowing. Nothing derives from you. You can make observations and draw conclusions, but you can’t create with your knowledge, nor can you declare what is true. You don’t truly know anything apart from the fear of the Lord. Your’s is a very different knowledge than the Creator’s, whose knowledge does not come by verification.
To judge His truth claims by your derived knowledge (that rejects the fear of the Lord) is simply something you are incapable of based on your system.
A man named Job did this, too, and when God showed up, this is what he said: “Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.”
CD-Host said,
September 14, 2012 at 12:26 pm
For you to claim this “system” isn’t true is is to make a truth claim that can’t be verified by your knowledge and belies your system that only grants probabilities. In other words, your system of knowing the true depends upon another “system” you deny….To judge His truth claims by your derived knowledge (that rejects the fear of the Lord) is simply something you are incapable of based on your system.
You are jumping the gun with the Francis Schaeffer type argument. The first thing the system says is that statements which don’t lend themselves to any sort of experimental verification are incapable of being true. As written the statement “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” is untestable and thus can’t possibly be true. It is a statement like “chocolate is a good ice cream flavor” it needs to be reformulated into less poetic and more testable language and then tested. No sweat, no mess, statement gets rejected a priori.
Second, so then the statement gets rewritten to something testable like “People who fear the Lord are substantially more capable of learning new subjects” and that is testable. And when it gets tested it is found false, rejected a posteriori. No mess, no fuss.
Now, if you want to make the weaker claim that epistemologies can either be compatible or incompatible with one another sure. And then you are left with a meta-epistemology problem of how to pick between them. But once you step outside the world of epistemologies no one has access to truth, it doesn’t exist. Truth is a product of the epistemology not the reverse. In the meta-epistemology I think it is reasonable (i.e. “feels right” because in a meta-epistemology I can’t go beyond that) to assert that you would want to build an epistemology up from the simplest statements which are relative to you a priori true, “I experience sense impressions” and that’s precisely what empirical epistemologies do.
I’m not sure how God helps here. Any of those types of statements aren’t self evident as shown by the multiplicity of theologies that have flourished. We have never had a human culture that disagrees with ours about what eyes do, we most certainly can point to human cultures that disagree with our culture about the quantity, nature, means of interaction… of the god(s).
_____
Anyway let me start climbing back up the ladder.
a) Truth is defined by NF-EV criteria.
b) Under the NF-EV criteria we can test the historical claims of Acts vs. the historical claims of the History of Religions School (something like the outline in post 1269).
The History of Religions school has been able to successfully predict the sorts of literature we have found over the last two centuries as our archeology has uncovered documents from early Christianity. Conversely the Acts based theories are falsified even by a careful examination of scripture itself.
c) Under a historical based approach Catholicism is a 2nd century sect which emerged from dynamics between various proto-Christian / early Christian sects. The historical record is unambiguous about the fact that there were multiple churches, the converged rather than a single church that experienced schisms. In particular when it comes to the 1st century Catholicism is laying claims to leaders which had non-Catholic theologies.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 14, 2012 at 2:19 pm
CD-Host: The first thing the system says is that statements which don’t lend themselves to any sort of experimental verification are incapable of being true.
Which itself is a statement that does not lend itself to empirical verification.
This is precisely why positivism was rejected as a philosophical method in the early 20th century: it refutes itself.
Simple Elder said,
September 14, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Hi CDH –
Thank you for crisply stating the starting point of your system for knowing truth. Mine is “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.”
What you might notice is how circular both are; one defines all truth as being testable by human reason; the other claims truth can only be rightly known in a fear relationship with a personal Creator. One establishes a principle that depends upon a universe in which all events are predictable (if only you have the understanding). Mine allows for the supernatural and claims all events are ordained by the Creator.
Here’s the thing. Your system is an upside down castle in the air. It depends on my system of a universe governed by a personal and triune God for probability, predictability and order. All these depend upon an intelligence large enough to sustain them all and make them personally knowable. As you say these things, you prove you are made in the image of God and rely upon him at all times for knowledge.
Iow, your knowledge rests on order and predictability at all places and at all times, and to boot, you show that all knowledge is personal and ethical. But you are unwilling to acknowledge that, in order for your system to take you from A to B logically, you must rely upon the borrowed capital from the “fear of the Lord” system.
Again, dear friend, you don’t know enough to say that, see 1288. Your system only gives you probabilities that always leave room for error of all sorts.
CD-Host said,
September 14, 2012 at 6:45 pm
This is precisely why positivism was rejected as a philosophical method in the early 20th century: it refutes itself.
I think that’s a category error on the part of philosophers. The rule book for chess is not written in chess notation. Instructions for operating a door do not to seal a room. And the construction of an epistemology does not need to follow the rules of the epistemology.
What I gave is a definition. Definitions are self verifiable. They are a priori true.
CD-Host said,
September 14, 2012 at 6:56 pm
@Ted —
Here’s the thing. Your system is an upside down castle in the air. It depends on my system of a universe governed by a personal and triune God for probability, predictability and order.
Where? Lets just assume there was a binary God that was personal, predictable and orderly. Or there was an infinite number of God’s all impersonal granting probability and order. Or no God’s at all but there was predictability and order. I don’t see where the system makes any of those sorts of assumptions.
Mostly both order and predictability meet the NF-EV test. I can make simple predictions, I can verify those prediction by sense observation. Similarly I can compute probabilities. I can conduct experiments to verify those probabilities.
I don’t see where I’m making those assumptions or need them.
Again, dear friend, you don’t know enough to say that, see 1288. Your system only gives you probabilities that always leave room for error of all sorts.
I see. The epistemology has NF-EV statements. To be a decidable statement it must be capable of falsification and capable of experimental verification. That’s the definition of a statement.
Statements about statements exist in the meta-epistemology, those are true by definition a priori. Now as applied they may be in error so pushing it down a level I might have to say something like:
I can’t see how it possible to conduct an experiment to verify whether the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge. So I’m going to assert it is not. Until I hear of such an experiment that would verify it, then it remains an NF-EV statement that “Fear of the Lord” is not a decidable statement.
They way to prove that “Fear of the Lord” is decidable is to construct experiments.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 14, 2012 at 7:20 pm
CD-Host: Definitions are self verifiable. They are a priori true.
I understand. But in this particular case, the definition you give is a priori true and also false.
It is in the category of “This sentence is false.”
Here’s how:
P: Statements which don’t lend themselves to any sort of experimental verification are incapable of being true.
Does P lend itself to experimental verification? No. Therefore, P is incapable of being true.
This makes P simultaneously true (by definition) and false (because P is true … which makes it false), and the world explodes.
Here’s the consequence in the real world. Because P is simultaneously true and false, the Naturalist (whether methodological or otherwise) will employ P on statements he wishes to discard, and ignore P concerning his own beliefs that are not experimentally verifiable, such as moral claims.
In other words, P becomes the source of epistemological inconsistency: Empirical verification for you, but not for me.
For example: Richard Dawkins, a Strong Atheist, claims that there is no god. His claim is grounded in the fact that the statement “there is a god” is empirically unverified.
Of course, a moment’s reflection shows that “there is no god” is also empirically unverified, and is in fact unverifiable — how would one calibrate a God-o-meter? Dawkins is committing a type II error.
But because P is both true and not true at the same time, Dawkins shifts the burden of proof entirely over to the theist. He feels no need to empirically verify his own belief; it is enough to bash theists with P, and ignore the fact that P demolishes Strong Atheism equally.
CD-Host said,
September 14, 2012 at 8:51 pm
@Jeff
Does P lend itself to experimental verification? No.
This is the core of our disagreement. I believe the answer is yes. Now lets be clear what experimental verification means (as I’ve defined it here):
a) The statement makes testable predictions
b) At least one prediction has been tested.
And combined with non-falsified
c) All predictions that have been tested were tested successfully
That’s it. So lets verify P. If P were true then when I constructed statements that don’t lend themselves to experimental verification they won’t satisfy the NF-EV criteria.
So I construct one: “Blue is”. OK I can’t think of an experiment to test that since it is missing a verb and not a complete sentence. So
Let’s construct another one. “The people living on Mars like to eat ice cream”. There are no people living on Mars thus I can test that one either.
That’s two experiments that P passed. At this point P is true until it fails an experiment.
____
Now lets handle a more complex case.
“there is no god” is also empirically unverified, and is in fact unverifiable — how would one calibrate a God-o-meter?
Absolutely correct. But your criteria for Dawkins is wrong.
“There is a God”
a) This is non falsified
b) As written this is untestable.
Therefore the statement cannot be true. It is an undecidable statement like the two examples I gave above.
Now a testable version does exist:
“An effectual God who acts in a way consistent with how most Christians claim he acts does not exist”
And that’s the discussion we were having on OldLife. There I can construct experiments and many of those do fail.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 14, 2012 at 9:53 pm
CD-Host, neither of your examples is particularly good for your case.
The first example, “blue is”, is not a proposition, and therefore is not a test of P.
The second example, “The people living on Mars like ice cream” is actually trivially true from a mathematical (Aristotelian logic) point of view:
M: for all x, if x lives on Mars, x likes ice cream.
Since there are no x who live on Mars, there are no situations in which x lives on Mars and x does not like ice cream. Working out the truth table, we see that M is always true in all situations that arise.
But in any event, M is not a genuine test of P. Here’s one:
G: There is a being who can interact arbitrarily with the rest of the universe.
Is this statement testable? No. Is it capable of being true? Yes.
Here’s another:
W: Murder is wrong.
Is this statement testable? No. Is it capable of being true? Yes.
Before you object that W is a matter of opinion, consider that the question is not, “is W true or is it false?”, but “could W be true?” — is it possible that W is, in fact, a universal truth, or could be if properly qualified?
Clearly, the answer is Yes. In certain logically possible worlds, W is true.
Simple Elder said,
September 15, 2012 at 8:12 am
Hi again CDH –
You wrote,
“The way to prove that “Fear of the Lord” is decidable is to construct experiments.”
I’m sorry. I thought we had already established that your system of learning truth, in this case that process of “conducting experiments, can’t. That your system can only makes probability statements based on subjective and fallible human thinking. Did I miss something? If so I apologise.
Now, you already know the Lord, my friend, and you keep on proving it in every succeeding comm box. How is this? You keep making truth claims (even the claim on how to discover truth) by leaving your “system” and leaning on the only one anyone can live by – knowledge dependent on an Omnipotent Creator.
Why, every new CDH comm box proves you are intrinsically an amazing and intelligent creature who relies entirely upon predication and reception. Every new communication from you exhibit the image of your Creator, who communicates with His creatures as well.
Iow, to even express yourself requires the borrowed capital of the Creator, and your implicit confidence that others will receive your meaning is the spending of the same.
Pete Holter said,
September 15, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Hey guys!
Simple Elder wrote,
I mean that rather than writing to messengers of the Churches, the New Testament model for letters is for them to be written to the Churches themselves. And when a Church is being written to, I take it that the letter is actually being addressed to the elders of that Church, and that it is upon them to then read the letter to their congregation, and to teach them from it; and that in this way the letter is written to everyone in the Church. Whenever associates to the letter writing process are named, they come from the side of the letter writer, either in the form of the one taking dictation, or others who are carriers of the letter—but the letters are not written to these associates (as far as I recollect).
I mean here the bishops. That they are stars, I think, shows that they hold authority. God Incarnate, the head of the Church Who has all authority in heaven and on earth is called “the bright morning star… come out of Jacob” (Revelation 22:16; Numbers 24:17). The King of the Babylonians is hyperbolically referred to as the “Day Star” (Isaiah 14:12). The heads of the tribes of Israel were seen as “eleven stars” in Joseph’s dream (Genesis 37:9), and John picks up on this imagery in Revelation 12:1. Finally, “the saints in light” shall “shine like the brightness of the sky above… like the stars forever and ever” (Colossians 1:12; Daniel 12:3). This notion, when combined with the verse that you just quoted about elders who rule well being “considered worthy of double honor” (1 Timothy 5:17)—and when considering that “star differs from star in glory” (1 Corinthians 15:41)—come together to show the “star” quality that begins here and now for those in leadership positions.
Sorry. My use of ultimate here was intended to be taken only within the scope of the members of that local Church.
All elders, I would say, share in the rule of the Church for the equipping of the saints.
That’s my stab at it. Have a blessed day!
With love in Christ,
Pete
Pete Holter said,
September 15, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Hello again!
I forgot to include a reminder about the need for elders to be “above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6) when discussing the “star” quality of leaders in the Church.
In Christ,
Pete
CD-Host said,
September 15, 2012 at 8:31 pm
@Jeff
CD-Host, neither of your examples is particularly good for your case. The first example, “blue is”, is not a proposition, and therefore is not a test of P.
Yes it isn’t testable because it isn’t definable. “Blue is” needs more information to be testable. This is exactly what you did with your W below.
W: Murder is wrong.
Is this statement testable? No. Is it capable of being true? Yes.
Before you object that W is a matter of opinion, consider that the question is not, “is W true or is it false?”, but “could W be true?” — is it possible that W is, in fact, a universal truth, or could be if properly qualified?
You have two different statements here.
W and W’ where W is unqualified and W’ is W properly qualified. W’ is testable, W is not. Just like “blue is”
The second example, “The people living on Mars like ice cream” is actually trivially true from a mathematical (Aristotelian logic) point of view:
I wasn’t allowing a priori inside the system (remember Ted started this with 2+2=23). If you want to add a priori then you then have an experiment (mathematical proof) and the claims moves to being NF-EV.
G: There is a being who can interact arbitrarily with the rest of the universe.
Is this statement testable? No. Is it capable of being true? Yes.
NF-EV is what is playing the role of true. “capable of being true” is using another epistemology, one that is alien to the NF-EV. The definition of true is NF-EV. You can’t disagree with a definition. You are just proposing another epistemology that has some notion of truth alien to NF-EV. There exist infinitely many epistemologies.
Since you know logic lets take this up a notch.
function f and g sharing a domain are unequal if and only if there exists x in the domain such that
f(x) != g(x)
Similarly two axiom systems f and g are unequal if and only if there exists theorem x such that x is true in f and false in g. That’s the definition being used here. Theorems are the results of experiments. No experiment means I just have two different names for the same thing.
Aristotle’s logic in and of itself is contentless about anything other than logic / math. To apply it in terms of physics you need a world to model i.e. you need axioms about the world. Similarly with NF-EV. If you add moral content NF-EV can allow you to take simple moral statements and build on them. But there are infinitely many moral systems which can be run through it.
CD-Host said,
September 15, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Ted —
I’m sorry. I thought we had already established that your system of learning truth, in this case that process of “conducting experiments, can’t. That your system can only makes probability statements based on subjective and fallible human thinking. Did I miss something? If so I apologise.
Other than me asserting that all systems have this problem. Are you going to really claim that people who fear the lord make perfect statements based on infallible divine thinking? If not, then I’m not sure what difference it makes. If there were an all knowing being applying NF-EV then NF-EV would be infallible. If there were infallible epistemology (call it IE) being used by a fallible being then it becomes fallible. Fallibility is a permanent incurable part of being human. It is inescapable and thus irrelevant.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 15, 2012 at 8:48 pm
CD-Host: You can’t disagree with a definition.
Bingo. And that’s why P is not testable.
Let’s talk through the logic. To test P (to make “a risky prediction”, as the current lingo goes), one would have to propose a proposition X that is (a) untestable, and (b) can be demonstrated by an independent means to be “capable of being true.”
Without those two ingredients, one has not performed a scientifically valid test.
Now, here’s how your proposed testing method just worked for G:
First, pick a non-EV-NF proposition like G.
Then, declare G to be not capable of being true according to P.
It’s pretty clear that this is not a test of P, because your outcome evaluation is not independent of P.
Think of instrument calibration, and consider what it would mean to use an instrument to calibrate itself. That’s exactly what you’ve done in the testing of P.
So, unless you can produce some other way to test P, it remains untestable — and therefore incapable of being true by its own criterion.
I’m not trying to play logic games here, but to demonstrate why philosophers got it right in rejecting positivism. The key problem lies in holding a principle that is simultaneously true and false.
CD-Host said,
September 15, 2012 at 9:38 pm
I think this is a category error. Since you are comfortable with logic let me clarify what I mean.
1) A logic is a set of rules for manipulating symbols. As it is a completely artificial formal structures, a logic cannot be false or true. A sequence of statements (an argument) is valid with respect to a particular logic if it follows the rules of that logic. There is no such thing as a valid argument outside a particular logic.
The study of logics (in the plural) and their comparison is meta-logic. The meta-logic used to study a logic is not necessarily related to the logic itself and if it uses a logic does not have to use the logic it is studying.
2) An axiom system is a collection of statements asserted to be true in a logic. A statement is said to be true for that axiom system if it can be derived from that axiom system. There is no such thing as a true statement outside an axiom system. And an axiom cannot be true or false.
3) There exists a partial ordering on axiom systems. Given any two axioms systems A and B. A < B if
i) All valid forms in A are valid in B
ii) All true statements in A are true in B
4) Sense experience (SE) acts as a base axiom system.
SE < NF-EV by construction.
That is NF-EV claims to be model of how human's perceive reality. It does not make claims to universal truth outside the human mind nor does it make claims to prove itself, because axioms systems cannot be proven.
You cannot challenge 1-4 in NF-EV those are statements in the meta-logic.
_____
Now let me take your G and P further. I'll assert:
(*) Given any possible statement p, there exists infinitely many axiom systems such that p is true.
The mistake that philosophers made in the 20th century with respect to positivism was the categorical error that mathematicians made up until the 17th century with axiom system and up until the 19th century with respect to logic systems. They expected uniqueness and thus frequently confused where they were making choices.
I will agree that early 20th century positivists made philosophical claims about positivism which were unsupportable that is they wanted to assert that something like NF-EV was a unique extension of SE and that is provably false. But I'm not doing that here. I was asserting that NF-EV is self verifying, merely that it is an (not the) extension of SE. SE is pragmatically self verifying but I can’t go beyond a pragmatic argument for SE.
In other words the pragmatic thing I’m doing is allowing for a shift:
I experience reality as if T were true
to
T is true.
That leap cannot be supported. However, once I decided (and that decision can’t be within NF-EV) that untroubled by that leap NF-EV becomes a natural choice.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 15, 2012 at 10:45 pm
CD-Host, I’m OK with 1), 2), and 3). I don’t accept 4) because I don’t believe that sense experience consists of propositions.
Rather, I agree with Rorty that people create propositions about our sense experiences (and that’s about as far as I *do* agree with Rorty…).
But I think you misunderstand (maybe?) the nature of my challenge to EV-NF as constructed. I’m not saying that P requires justification.
Rather, I’m saying that an axiom like P that leads to contradiction is a bad axiom and should be rejected a priori.
Or put another way, a-priori contradiction is a more serious problem than non-falsifiability!
—
EV has an axiom system about what constitutes the testing of propositions. Unless your version of EV-NF is idiosyncratic, this usually runs:
(1) Testing axiom: The proposition “if X then Y” has been tested under a circumstance where X is true, and Y could hypothetically be false.
Now, EV-NF as you have stipulated contains as an axiom the proposition
(2) P: If a proposition is untestable, it cannot be true
Here,
X: “a proposition is untestable”
Y: “that proposition cannot be true”
To test P, you would have to construct a situation where X is true and Y could hypothetically be false.
But as it turns out, if X is true, then P makes Y automatically true by definition. Y can never hypothetically be false.
As a result, P cannot be tested. In a way, you admit this, because you declare P to be an axiom of your system. That is as much to say, “P is above testing.”
But the problem is that P is still a proposition. And P states clearly that “any proposition that cannot be tested cannot possibly be true.”
Axioms are still propositions — and P is therefore self-defeating.
Your only recourses are to abandon (1) (which you seem to have done in #1305), or to abandon P, or to abandon logic altogether (which you do not seem to have done).
But to abandon (1) is also to give up the game, for now no propositions can be tested, and … well …
So: P is an untestable (axiomatic) proposition; and P applied to itself makes P not capable of being true. EV-NF as you articulate it is still self-defeating.
The consequence is that EV-NF leads to tightly circular reasoning wrt the “God question.” Now, God’s (non)existence is no longer a function of observation, but of axiom.
The truly nice feature of EV-NF as tool, rather than as an axiomatic system, is that it helps us check our reasoning independently against reality.
EV-NF as an axiomatic system loses that feature. The jump from “I experience reality as if T were true” to “T is true” causes one to abandon the spirit of EV-NF.
—
The reason I mistrust the results of History-of-Religion (e.g., Ehrman) is that I suspect them of smuggling the EV-NF axiom into the discussion, coloring their results.
—
CD-Host: In other words the pragmatic thing I’m doing is allowing for a shift:
I experience reality as if T were true
to
T is true.
That leap cannot be supported. However, once I decided (and that decision can’t be within NF-EV) that untroubled by that leap NF-EV becomes a natural choice.
Bryan Cross: For example, once one discovers that Jesus is the Son of God, and submits to Him, then one’s epistemic condition is not the same as those who have not yet discovered who Jesus is. After discovering and submitting to Jesus, one is no longer one’s own highest authority. There is one higher, to whom one submits, even when one does not understand why He says what He says.
There’s something remarkably Kierkegaardian about both of these methods.
CD-Host said,
September 16, 2012 at 9:28 am
@Jeff then that round represented progress.
Let me give you the propositions in SE
20120916084137: 2nd finger on left hand felt keyboard press
20120916084137: saw j appear on screen
20120916084138: sound of air conditioner clicking on
20120916084137: 3rd finger on right hand felt keyboard press
Billions and billions of theorems having to do with information. SE may or may contain any rules of inference. It might say have something like:
When I think of moving my hand in x fashion I see my hand move in x fashion.
But it might not even have those. Clearly I experience those though. The problem of epistemology is that at it’s core while we experience the world in the SE system when we focus generally our minds filter the information into much bigger groupings
201209160835-201209160838 talked to my wife about picking up my daughter’s skates
and into bigger groups:
my wife is taking care of my daughter’s start of year stuff
And we need a system of rules of inference which correspond to this division between how we experience the world at the most naive level and how we think of the world.
That is why 4 is so vital. Without 4 it is easy to construct axiom systems but they aren’t functional epistemologies because they have nothing to do with the universe we live in.
And btw all those billions of SE axioms are in NF-EV they are what make it possible to conduct experiments.
______
Let me give you a system the PE system. Here are the rules
1) all statements consisten of x dashes followed by a P then y dashes followed by E then Z dashes.
2) x-P-Ex is a statement for all collections of x dashes.
3) xPyEz is a statement if and only if yPxEz is a statement
3) if xPyEz is a statement then xPy-Ez- is a statement
So in this system
——P—E——- is a statement. The fact that it is not a statement in the parent logic is irrelevant. You cannot never jump between levels when defining true.
The truth of EV-NF is not a proposition in NF-EV. It isn’t operating at the same level.
I think you are getting caught up between levels attaching meaning to “true” between axiom systems. Notation is arbitrary so let’s stop using the word “true” and inside NF-EV and just use “evnf = Experimentally Verified, Not Fallsified”
Then your P becomes a tautology a restatement of the definition:
P: If a proposition is untestable, it cannot be evnf.
Successfully passing at least one experiment is one of the requirements for evnf. It follows immediately from the definition that untestable propositions aren’t evnf. Now that’s at the meta-logic level. Lets drop to NF-EV and talk about P in the system:
P is some absolute statement and thus is not a statement in NF-EV anymore than it is a statement in the PE system. It can’t be true because it is not a statement at all.
Now I could do something like
P1: All propositions which are determined to be untestable, have been eventually declared not true
And P1 is a testable statement in EV-NF and tests evnf (i.e. the equivalent of true) in it. There is no contradiction here. The thing you are defining as contradictory is a tautology it is part of the definition of NF-EV.
CD-Host said,
September 16, 2012 at 10:25 am
OK with all that in place lets move on.
The consequence is that NF-EV leads to tightly circular reasoning wrt the “God question.” Now, God’s (non)existence is no longer a function of observation, but of axiom.
Sort of, what EV-NF says is that given:
G1: There exists an omniscient, omnipotent being that does not act
G2: There does not exists an omniscient, omnipotent being
G1 = G2. They both either evnf (NF-EV “true”) or not.
For the Christian God though that’s not a problem. Christians do not claim that God fulfills the G1 property. Rather Christians make strong claims of frequent regular particular divine intervention.
On any given day he is based upon prayer intervening in diseases.
On any given day he is based upon prayer effecting the outcome of sporting events.
On any given day he is pouring out divine wrath on the ungodly making their lives materially worse.
etc…
That is a very testable being.
____
As for Bryan’s system of Scholasticism vs. NF-EV my claim is simple: Byan lives his life based on NF-EV. When he loses his car keys and wants to determine where they are he comes up with hypothesis for where and looks, he conducts experiments. He doesn’t start with the assumption of Jesus and work backwards from where Jesus would have wanted his car keys to be on September 13th 2012. He wants to lay claim to NF-EV because it is how every human responds to their environment all day long.
So we aren’t starting at the same place. There is a deeper asymmetry. He wants to claim that Scholasticism is an extension of sense experience. He wants to claim that the Nicene creed is in a deep and fundamental sense different than Star Wars getting together and writing a description of Darth Vader. And that claim is based on the SE reality of God. And that means that he needs Scholasticism to be an extension of NF-EV.
NF-EV < Scholasticism then it needs those two properties from 1305 in particular everything evnf must be true in Scholasticism. And that's where he gets hung up, because the historical evidence contradicts Scholasticism.
The key difference between the Star Wars encyclopedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia is that God claims to have influence about the material universe, without that influence the clams do boil down to tautologies.
Pete Holter said,
September 16, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Hey John Bugay!
The Google Books view of Minnerath’s essay seems to have shifted. When I put your view and Google Books’ view together, I’m still missing pages 37 and 44. Anyway, thank you for making the other pages available. I don’t want to ask you to make 37 and 44 available, unless it wouldn’t be a copyright infringement. Then it would be great! So thank you for doing this for me, if you have the time and it wouldn’t be considered stealing. Otherwise, we should drive and meet halfway so you can let me borrow some books. :)
With love in Christ,
Pete
Jeff Cagle said,
September 16, 2012 at 12:52 pm
CD-Host, I understand what you are saying, but I respectfully dissent. I think there’s too much distance between us to get anywhere without turning this into a 3000-comment thread.
Just to give the lay of the land:
* In your view, our senses provide us with propositions. In my view, we learn to attach certain propositions to our sense experiences. These propositions are not axiomatically true; the evidence for this consists of the myriad of “illusion” experiments, as well as child development studies. In my view, ‘propositions’ require ‘language.’
* In your view, P is isolated from testing because it is a meta-proposition, an axiom about how we will proceed. In my view, the first job of a philosopher is to test a proposed method on itself. If that method leads to an a priori contradiction, it should be rejected. In electrical terms, if we turn the machine on and it immediately feeds back, then we should turn it off.
Your unwillingness to apply P to itself looks, in my view, to be special pleading; in your view, it looks like keeping one’s categories straight. That’s going to be a tough gulf to bridge.
* In your view, we all live as EV-NFists. But I don’t. Rather, I live with the following axiom set:
— There is a God; among His attributes is the ability to arbitrarily interact with the universe.
— That God actively maintains the universe according to regular laws (of a statistical nature).
— That we in His image are capable through experiment and reason of approximating those laws, and
— That those laws are always and only models.
— God doesn’t care about sports. (Just kidding, sort of)
I would argue that my view is an “almost superset” of your EV-NF, with the sole exception that I do not accept P as a true axiom, or meta-axiom.
In other words, when I lose my keys, I assume that the law of conservation of mass applies, and that they have to be somewhere. The reason is that I have no particular word from God that He has *poof* transported my keys elsewhere. So I proceed on the assumption of regularity.
But now, when I consider the possibility that Jesus was raised from the dead in accordance with His promise, I don’t rule it out.
And there it is. Best wishes, and thanks for the interactions.
CD-Host said,
September 16, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Hi Jeff good conversation. Thanks for it. I understand better the Van Til type objection. I agree with your summary of the dispute mostly. A few addendums:
1) On the SE paradigm I think there is a categorical error in considering sense propositions “true”. Consider I’m driving and see a car which 30 feet behind me in a “objects are closer than they appear” mirror. There are 3 descriptions:
C1: I see an image which my brain corresponds to a car 1 inch large
C2: I see a car 30 feet behind me
C3: There is a car 20 feet behind me
SE may only contain statements of the type C1. NF-EV may be required to live C1 to C2 and C3. Note that both C1 and C2 are “false” in the sense of corresponding to objective reality, they are properties of perception not independent of it. They are however all true statements as written because I prefaced C1 and C2 with “I see”. That’s critical for statements in SE and is very much like the issue we faced on NF-EV.
2) I agree, I am allowing for non verbal propositions. I’d rather not allow this as it complicated the axiom system but sense perception and how much processing goes on in non-verbal / preverbal ways demand it. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that I think Ted’s dog is an NF-EVist.
3) I think the PE axiom system provides a good counter example to the assertion that the propositions that define a system should be able to be fed back into the system. This is the core of the categorical argument. I agree that we are getting to a rather complex topic about what is a logic and what is an epistemology. But, I think if anyone reads this after the fact that would be a far better place to start than something much more complex with quintillions of propositions generation by the senses like the NF-EV system.
4) NF-EV is perfectly consistent with an active supernatural being, or Jesus being raised from the dead. It certainly doesn’t include such things as axioms it just tests for them in ways that are more sophisticated versions of how you find your keys.
In any case I’m happy to get away from epistemology and back to the basic historical issue.
Simple Elder said,
September 17, 2012 at 9:31 am
Hi CDH – back in the loop here, Monday morning –
I understand your desire to leave the thorny issues of epistemology (1311) – which is “how do we know anything” and get back to historical issues.
Well, as i said in 1274 regarding the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, “we can both only answer that question based on those who reported it since neither you, I, nor those who debate it, were there. ”
It’s a historical question of course, but one that doesn’t fit your epistemological system, so you have ruled it out – not for its historicity, but for its lack of coherence to your empirical system.
But in doing so you have overruled eyewitness testimony (thus breaking the rules of historical empiricism) and you have contradicted your own system, which cannot make categorical statements since it only deals in fallible empirical perceptions.
Of course, in reality your system is based entirely on faith, faith that the universe yields valid empirical data, which presupposes order and control – the fingerprint of God.
How hard it must be – how much energy it must take – to keep relying on God in order to deny Him. Are you tired yet, my friend?
When you are, let’s talk about Him, and His mercy to tired men and women who need rescue from themselves.
In His great love, Ted
CD-Host said,
September 17, 2012 at 10:28 am
Ted —
But in doing so you have overruled eyewitness testimony
See #1275. I accepted eyewitness testimony. It is you my friend who are overruling it based on their testimony not fitting what you would like it to say. And this was from your holy book, your witnesses so to speak. I’m the one being perfectly willing to take what the “witnesses” say about their experience at face value.
I can read John of Patmos on his own terms, freely considering his beliefs faithful to his words. I can read Paul on his own terms, and not have to warp what he writes so that he says the opposite. I can read Hebrews on its own terms. Far from tired it is a joy to no longer have to twist my mind around self contradictory beliefs. To have to pay lip service to sola scriptura while desperately avoiding hearing what the biblical authors have to say on just about anything for fear of it pushing me to far outside tradition.
(thus breaking the rules of historical empiricism)
Good lets get back on topic to the history of the papacy. What rules are those that you are proposing exist for studying history and which do you believe I’m breaking?
Simple Elder said,
September 17, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Hi CDH,
Concerning the resurrection, you wrote,
I wish you were! Our conversation could be so very different! But you dismiss Acts 1:1-11 as being an completely accurate account of Jesus’ own words spoken prior to His ascension in 30AD, do you not? Nor do you accept Peter’s sermon on the resurrection in Acts 2 as preached by Peter in 30AD (or 33AD), or am I wrong?
CD-Host said,
September 17, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Ted —
That ones doesn’t even claim to be an eyewitness account, 1:1 Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 1:2 like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. 1:3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.
Luke/Acts claims to be an apologetic book meant to be a synthesis of various strands of teaching that already exist in other documents. And again I’m willing to saying that “Luke” is telling the truth. I’m agreeing that he is attempting to write an apologetic synthesis. Your the one who is denying that and instead claiming that this is direct source. It is you not I disbelieving the witnesses.
1Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, 2Clement and Papias all have phrasing directly out of Acts yet betray no knowledge of Acts. Similarly there are quotes from secular sources (Josephus 93-94 CE). Again I can take Luke at his word that’s he’s citing other sources and take these father’s who fail to cite Luke/Acts for their source at their word. And that places it into the 2nd century. I’m the one who gets to say these people are all telling the truth. For the traditional early dating to hold up you must argue they are lying and secretly quoting Luke/Acts.
Then in 117 we have Polycarp’s letter to the Phillipians where does seem aware of Marcion or at the very least some sort of proto Marcionic teaching and feels the need to respond. so if you want to date Luke/Acts to the early 2nd century, that’s possible but the window is narrow. That variant is worth discussing. Otherwise Acts is after Marcion and Luke/Acts as a Catholic response to Marcion is fully consistent with Luke’s stated intentions and fully consistent with testimony of the church fathers as “witnesses”.
And before you jump off here onto a tangent. I’d like you to go through the exercise in putting together a defensible timeline. What you actually believe happened. When “Luke” authored Luke/Acts? Why it has the structure it has (i.e. like Q material or the extensive quotes from Mark? Why the infancy narrative doesn’t seem to fit?
I do take the witnesses at their word.
Simple Elder said,
September 17, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Hi CDH –
Acts 1:8 records Jesus saying to the apostles: “you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.””
Witness, a legal word for one who has 1st hand information, is granted to these men in their own commissioning from the One who is risen from the dead. Now, you can say that Luke isn’t isn’t first hand witness, but he faithfully records the words and assertions of these witnesses. So historically, he tells us his sources, and their words.
Historically, it is what it is – a record of events and historical facts that call people to follow One who is risen from the dead and now in heaven.
Luke was written during Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea – about 58 to 59 AD, and is not to be dated by your methods of Q and lack of quotable sources. They are simply too subjective and betray an agenda that refuses to take the document at face value. Your reconstruction makes Luke a liar – that he was not with Paul on Crete, for example (Acts 27:8).
But so many have done the work far better than I, and if you wanted to truly know these things you wouldn’t ask for time lines in comm boxes. You would ask for good resources and study them.
But you are looking for something else, which is why perhaps you haven’t answered my two questions in 1314?
What are you after?
CD-Host said,
September 18, 2012 at 12:09 pm
But you are looking for something else, which is why perhaps you haven’t answered my two questions in 1314?
I did answer your two questions in 1314. I think Luke is a 2nd century propagandist. He’s an accurate witness to what 2nd century Christianity looked like.
Given how much he disagrees with first century works I see no reason to believe his stories should be taken as “witness testimony” and certainly not in preference to 1st century authors.
But you were before accusing me of disagreeing with the witnesses. Which I deny. I don’t think Luke is a faithful recorder or anything.
So for example where he disagrees with Paul I believe Paul’s versions of events. Lets take an example:
Paul collecting money for the saints mentioned in the epistles: Gal 2:9-10, 1 Cor 16:1-4 , 2 Cor 8:1-4, 2 Cor 9:1-2, Romans 15:25-31. In Gal 2:1-10 we see a theological dispute and in Gal 2:11-21 (particularly Gal 2:13) we have the Jewish community breaking with Paul over it.
We have an entirely different version in Acts where there is no break but rather reconciliation. In Acts 24:17 Paul indicates his reason for coming to Jerusalem was to give a collection to the saints in Jerusalem, but in this story the theological dispute in Acts 21 got in the way. There are hints of trouble in Acts 15:1-29 the unstable compromise; Acts 21:18-27 and the purification ritual as well as more dispute in Acts 15:22-41.
One of those 2 isn’t telling the whole truth. I’m trusting the witness not the propagandist. The witness’ version of events is consistent with other information we know. Your version has the gapping hole, that if Luke wrote Acts in the 50’s why does no one for about 90 years seem aware of its existence?
Simple Elder said,
September 18, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Hi CDH – the following is from The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar NT series, Eerdmanns, 2009) by David Peterson, from his introduction. He places the date of Luke-Acts in the 70s, I myself earlier due to internal considerations.
“Early Christian tradition identifies the author of the Third Gospel and Acts as Luke, ‘the beloved physician’ mentioned in Colossians 4:14 (TNIV ‘our dear friend Luke, the doctor’), who was an occasional participant in the Pauline mission and was with Paul during his imprisonment in Rome (cf. Phlm. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11). The earliest extant manuscript of the Gospel (Papyrus 75), which is dated between AD 175 and 225, has at its end the as-cription ‘Gospel according to Luke’ (Euangelion kata Loukan). The Mura-torian Canon, which lists the books recognised as Scripture in the Roman Church in about AD 170-180, describes the author of the Gospel and Acts as ‘Luke the physician’ and companion of Paul, who ‘wrote in his own name but in accordance with [Paul’s] opinion’.1 Luke’s authorship of both the Gospel and Acts is also confirmed by the so-called Anti-Marcionite Pro-logue to the Third Gospel, which is of uncertain date, but possibly belongs to the end of the second century. This document describes Luke as ‘an Antiochene of Syria, a physician by profession’.2 About this time also, Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1.1; 3.14.1) mentions Luke ‘the follower of Paul’ as the author of both works and attaches Paul’s authority to Luke’s writ¬ing.3 Witherington observes that the unanimity of this external evidence is striking when it is considered that ‘no one was contending that Luke was either an apostle or an eyewitness of much of what he records’.4
From the preface in Luke 1:1-4 it appears that the author was a second-generation Christian who was not personally involved in the ministry of Je¬sus, but who had contact with ‘those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word’. His native tongue was Hellenistic Greek, and he seems to have progressed ‘to the higher levels of Greco-Roman education’.5 At the same time, from the beginning of his narrative he betrays a great inter¬est in Judaism, a knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures in their Greek transla¬tion (the so-called LXX), and some Semitisms in his Greek writing. When he refers to ‘the things that have been fulfilled among us’ (1:1) and the handing down of the testimony ‘to us’ (1:2), the implied author claims membership ol the believing community formed around these events. When he describes himself as having ‘carefully investigated everything from the beginning’ (1:3), he could be claiming something more — at least some personal involvement in the events recorded in his second volume.6 The most important internal evidence in this connection is the use of the first-person plural at signifi¬cant points in the narrative of Acts (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16), Although some scholars have questioned whether these were actually the author’s firsthand account, the style, grammar, and vocabulary of the ‘we’ passages are very much the same as that found elsewhere in Luke-Acts. ‘Their most natural explanation is that the author himself was present during those phases of his story which he records in the ist pers. — that the “we” of those sections includes the “I” of i:i.’8 The ‘we’ passages reveal the occasions on which the author was the companion of Paul in his missionary activity and in the period of his imprisonment and trials.
Other characters are named in the text of Acts as travel companions of Paul at various stages of his ministry (Silas, Timothy, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, Trophimus). All except Silas and Timothy ap¬pear to have joined Paul after the period covered by the first ‘we’ passage (16:10-17). Significantly, Luke is not named in the text of Acts, even though the letters identify him among those present with Paul in the period of his imprisonment (Col. 4:14; Phlm. 24; cf. 2 Tim. 4:11). This lack of reference in Acts to one of the serious candidates for authorship is actually a strong pointer to Luke. Although reticent about naming himself, the author of the ‘we’ passages was with Paul on his final journey to Rome (Acts 27:1-28:16) and then presumably during his captivity there (28:17-31). However, since scholars are divided about whether the ‘captivity letters’ were actually written from Ephesus, Caesarea, or Rome, the argument linking Luke with Paul’s Roman imprisonment in this way is disputed.
It has sometimes been argued that there is distinctive medical lan¬guage in Luke-Acts that supports the case for authorship by ‘the beloved physician’. However, Cadbury’s careful study concluded that the medical element in the language of these volumes is no greater than that which is found in the writings of educated first-century Greeks more generally.9 On the negative side, some commentators have argued that the differences be¬tween Acts and the letters of Paul are such that the author of Acts can hardly have been a regular Pauline travel companion.10 This issue is ad¬dressed below under the heading ‘Sources’.
Looking more broadly at what can be gleaned from Luke-Acts about the author’s social location, Witherington concludes:
Our author is a well-traveled retainer of the social elite, well educated, deeply concerned about religious matters, knowledgeable about Juda¬ism, but no prisoner of any subculture in the Empire. Rather, he is a cos¬mopolitan person with a more universalistic vision of the potential scope of impact of his faith, both up and down the social ladder, an also across geographical, ethnic, and other social boundaries.11
Considering the strong, early Christian evidence for Luke as the ai thor of the Third Gospel and Acts, and the appropriateness of this traditic with reference to the internal data of the NT itself, there are good reasor for concluding that the traditional solution is reliable and true.
B. Date
Although Acts cannot be proved by quotation or allusion in other writings t have existed before about AD 150, ‘its circulation in the churches from the se< ond half of the second century onward is amply attested'.12 Moreover, a firs century date for its composition can be argued from the evidence of the wor itself. For example, Barrett observes that the book appears to have been wri ten 'at a time of both inward and outward peace, and there is evidence in r< marks about Roman provincial administration and provincial officers th; suggests a date within the first century'.13 He then follows a fairly standar line, dating Luke's two volumes in the late 8os or early gos. However, thei are two problems associated with this conclusion. First, if the 'we' passage were written by a travel companion of Paul, Luke-Acts could not have bee composed much later than the early 8os, unless the author was quite your at the time when he first met Paul. Secondly, it is difficult to explain the en of Acts, which describes only Paul's two-year imprisonment and ministry i Rome (28:30-31), if a late date is proposed. Why does the author not take tr story up to the point of Paul's trial or death? The longer the time gap, tr more the need to fill in the details for the next generation of believers.
Barrett acknowledges that the simplest solution is to insist that tr work was written earlier and that it tells no more of Paul because there we no more for Luke to tell. Like many scholars, however, Barrett considei this to be an unconvincing argument. He contends that Luke used Mark i a source for his Gospel and that Mark was written about AD 70. Furthe more, Luke 21:20-24 ls said to imply the fall of Jerusalem, which took plac in that year.14 But even if these presuppositions are accepted, it is not diff
1. Translation of F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leicester: Apollos, 1990), i. Bruce takes this last expression to mean that Luke's writings are 'endowed with apostolic authority although they do not appear under the apostle's name' (p. 2).
2. Translation of Bruce 1990, 8, who notes that Luke's Antiochene origin is also mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome. C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, ICC, Vol. i (Edinburgh: Clark, 1994), 31-32, gives a full translation of the relevant lines from Eusebius and Jerome. Bruce 1990, 9, observes that the Western text of Acts 11:28 appears to reflect this tradition, which means that it must date from 'not later than the middle of the second century'.
3. Bruce 1990, 2-3, details the evidence also from other writers at the end of the second century, showing how consistent was the testimony by that time. R. Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: Clark, 1982), 7, observes that it is possible that this is a reliable tradition, but it is also possible that ancient scholars worked from the 'we' passages in Acts and settled on Luke as the most likely contender. Maddox offers a third possibility, 'that there was indeed a sound tradition which named the author as "Luke", but that it was only later supposition which identified him with "the beloved physician"'.
4. B. Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 56.
5. Witherington 1998, 52. He notes the author's acquaintance with Greco-Roman rhetorical practices and historical conventions.
6. The participle parakolouthekoti in Lk. 1:3 could mean 'follow, accompany, attend', 'follow with the mind, understand, make one's own' or 'follow a thing, trace or investigate a thing' (BAGD). Maddox, Purpose, 4-5, argues that this verb cannot be taken to mean historical research from some distance. However, J. Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, Word Biblical Commentary 35A (Dallas: Word, 1989), 9, notes that the meaning 'investigated' can be argued by Bruce 1990, 4. Lk. 1:3 (kamoi, 'I myself [TNIV]).
8. H. J. Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke, Vol. i: The Diction of Luke and Acts, HTS 6 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1920). Cf. Bruce 1990,6-7. Note, however, that L. C. A. Alexander, The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Conventions and Social Context in
Luke 1:1-4 ana Acts 1:1, SNTSMS 78 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1993), argues that the author of Luke-Acts was familiar with some ancient scientific writings and the conventions for writing prefaces to such works.
10. Cf. C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, ICC, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Clark, 1998), xliv-xlv. Witherington 1998,58-60, and D. L. Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 16-19, offer cautious responses to this criti¬
cal line of argument.
11. Witherington 1998, 56. Witherington, 63-65, evaluates the presumed audience Acts by considering Theophilus as Luke's patron, who might publish the work from a similar background. Theophilus is regarded as a fairly recent convert to Christian! from a synagogue context. At the same time, Luke's method of writing suggests 'an audience with a Hellenistic education in at least some rhetoric and Greek history prior to comii to Christian faith, and surely prior to becoming a synagogue adherent as well'.
12. Bruce 1990, 11-12. Like Bruce, Barrett 1994, 34-38, lists traces of the knowledj and use of Acts in various early sources.
13. Barrett 1994, xlii. Cf. Bruce 1990,17-18; R. I. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2006).
14. Barrett 1998, xliii. However, J. A. T. Robinson, Reflating the New Testament (Lo
Forgive the OCR mistakes, but as i said, it's not as if you are looking for evidence to break your beliefs from a comm box. So if you want to pursue what world class scholars write, here is an excellent commentary to buy, along with many footnoted authorities.
You never answered my questions:
1) "you dismiss Acts 1:1-11 as being an completely accurate account of Jesus’ own words spoken prior to His ascension in 30AD, do you not"
2) "do you accept Peter’s sermon on the resurrection in Acts 2 as preached by Peter in 30AD (or 33AD)"
3) What are you after?
CD-Host said,
September 20, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Ted —
1) Yes
2) No
As for the details, while I disagree with the analysis I agree with the facts presented. Mostly the analysis says:
a) Lots of evidence for late 2nd century
b) tradition says it is earlier
c) internal content doesn’t mention materials outside the 1st century, as long as we dont’ consider the entire theme.
Pete Holter said,
September 22, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Greetings in Christ, CD-Host!
Yes, I’m dropping out. But if you’d like to email, feel invited. You can reach me on Gmail at papist dot pete dot for dot Jesus.
Have a blessed weekend!
In Christ,
Pete
TurretinFan said,
October 5, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Regarding the “Papacy Roundup” linked to above, I’ve provided a more lengthy response to the “One Visible Church” argument, here:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-one-visible-church-argument.html
– TurretinFan
Old Life Theological Society | Development of Doctrine — Protestant-Style said,
January 3, 2013 at 2:28 pm
[…] Dust-ups trickling down from recent Protestant conversions to Rome have revealed contrasting views of history. The Called To Communion view seems to involve a church in place — bulletins, pews, and all — just after Christ ascended to heaven. According to Bryan Cross: […]