453 thoughts on “Obsessive Confession Disorder”

1. Just wanted to post this link in support of the arguments of those who may take issue with DGH’s post:

   LikeLike

2. Darryl:

   (1) Let some OCD-action and OCD-focus on one element or aspect of the Italians.

   (2) There was a 600-year blackout on the vernacular Bible in the synagogues of Rome. Since the 1380s to the 1970s amongst English speakers under the Italians. That is 35ish % of church history since Christ. Put some OCD-action on that for a while.

   (3) Wycliff had his day and followers. He died 31 Dec 1384ish, as memory serves me. That Italian-controlled Parliament passed the Act of 1401, De Haeretico Comburendo, the burning of heretic Lollards. It was backed up by specifics to 9000 parishes in England by the Italian-controlled Archbishop of Canterbury, Mr. Arundel. A ruthless 130-year campaign resulted against anything, including even having a page, from an English Bible. FACT. Let some OCD-action go there. Throw in some more Italian-controlled bishops too in the early 16th century: think ABC Warham, Bps. Stokesely and Tunstall. God and Tyndale unleased the Bible in England, turning it from a ruthlessly Italian-controlled country (throw in some Marian martyrs) to a powerful Protestant, Reformed (including the Table and Christology, and (until Laud) Calvinistic country. 500,000 English Bibles were in the homes of 6 million Brits during Elizabeth’s times. Let some OCD-action concentrate on that one.

   (4) As previously noted, this BIBLE BLACKOUT CONTINUED in the US of A until the 1970s. Again, a 600-year Bible blackout by Italian decrees.

   Let some OCD-action be put on the devilish activity. I realize the scholars were allowed to read the Bible, but not the millions of those in the blackout shackles and guerilla grip. I really recall that Romanist Devil “stealing” my English Bible and, technically speaking using NC statutory law, “assaulting” me as a lad…jerking my arm and wrist to steal my Bible. Yes, in my life time. Put some OCD action on that. I have OCD about the 600-year blackout. As Canterbury Arundel put it, the “Gospel was given to the doctors and ecclesiastics” and not the laity whom he called “swine” who would “trample it underfoot.” Yeah, tell it to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or Aedrith, the Lindisfarne Gospellers and Aldred.

   Posted with one theme: OCD-action on the 600-year blackout.

   LikeLike

3. Donald,

   That there were no vernacular translations before Wycliffe or the Reformation, or that the faithful were not encouraged to read Scripture are both simply not true. At certain times/controversies, there were precautions made, yes, in order to minimize heretical translations/commentaries but it was not some multi-century systematic “blackout”.

   I don’t doubt your experience as a lad, but that priest was out of line – the hierarchy was certainly encouraging reading early last century:
   “An indulgence of 300 days for reading the Holy Gospels is granted to all the Faithful who read these Holy Scriptures for at least a quarter of an hour, with reverence due to the Divine Word and as spiritual reading…. A Plenary indulgence under the usual conditions is granted once a month for the daily reading.”
   (Pope Leo XIII. December, 1898, Enchiridion Indulgentiarum)

   “Our thoughts naturally turn just now to the Society of St. Jerome, which we ourselves were instrumental in founding; its success has gladdened us, and we trust that the future will see a great impulse given to it. The object of this Society is to put into the hands of as many people as possible the Gospels and Acts, so that every Christian family may have them and become accustomed to reading them. This we have much at heart, for we have seen how useful it is. We earnestly hope, then, that similar Societies will be founded in your dioceses and affiliated to the parent Society here. Commendation, too, is due to Catholics in other countries who have published the entire New Testament, as well as selected portions of the Old, in neat and simple form so as to popularize their use.”
   (Benedict XV, September 1920, Spiritus Paraclitus)

   LikeLike

4. Donald, it’s fascinating to hear your experience. Life-long protestant here, it was me and my stubborness fighting against wanting to read God’s Word, for it’s offense alone. To have your church barring you from it..I mean, wow. Offense of the Gospel, indeed. Take care.

   LikeLike

5. Cletus, you’re just a propagandist.

   ‘We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.’ (Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.)

   ‘Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.’ (Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564).

   LikeLike

6. Darryl, I don’t get Jason’s approach either. He (like the callers, of which he is one officially, now, though we will see what his first article at CtC is like…) says he appreciates the teaching of his past, out of one side of his mouth. And then he seems to make arguments against his former tradition using such broad brushes, and to me, at least, trite argumentation. Scratching my head, I simply turn off and go to better websites. Not sure what Jack is getting at, above, but he may be on to something..

   LikeLike

7. Clete, here is your route to respectability:

   1) admit suppression of the scriptures
   2) admit a change so that possession of the Bible is no longer punished
   3) if you wish, argue that your church was correct to suppress and is now correct to change.

   We have Protestants who seem to have a need for heroes, hence adored celebrity-pastors and hero history. Are there Catholics who need the hero-church?

   LikeLike

8. M&M, it is odd what you see from Clete and JATC. John Paul II was willing to apologize and did, though no one really knows what it meant. But the apologists are out of synch with the very church officer they are so adamant to defend. Of course, once you start admitting the church needs to apologize, you have to say the Protestants had a point. Can’t go there.

   LikeLike

9. DGH: Of course, once you start admitting the church needs to apologize, you have to say the Protestants had a point. Can’t go there.

   Exactly. The unreligious would simply state “that was way before I was born, I don’t know that stuff, keeping it real”

   But the RCs are binding themselves to history that most won’t even crack a book to bother learning about. Amazing reading, almost as vicious a set of characters as you find in the history books of Scripture.

   So it looks like they hit that wall of dissonance they flip a switch mentally and keep repeating “kitty kitty kitty kitty” to themselves until all the confusion goes away.

   LikeLike

10. DGHART,

    do you agree with these two gentlemen that the RCC promulgated a total blackout of the scriptures for 600 years? I’m sure that you don’t but just wanted to make sure…. I don’t read CtC ot CCC as obnoxious or rude. They are convinced that the RCC is the very Church established by Christ to the exclusion of all others. They are formally reformed…. So they are calling their reformed brothers home to mother church! Why is that weird or out of line?

    LikeLike

11. KENLOST, “They are convinced that the RCC is the very Church established by Christ to the exclusion of all others.”

    But that’s not what Vatican 2 said. So isn’t it odd that you have people insisting on an understanding of the church that the very church no longer insists upon?

    That’s weird. Their idea of the church is more real than the magisterium itself.

    LikeLike

12. Page and line Dr. Hart. The concilliar documents do not teach that your sect was founded by Jesus Christ. Only that you *may* be in the Church if we were to assume you have been validly baptized and remain invincibly ignorant of the claims made by the RCC. Jason and Bryan are completely faithful to the magesterium and you know that.

    LikeLike

13. Btw, we all noticed how you refuse to correct the wacky peanut gallery on their history.

    LikeLike

14. Ken says: “do you agree with these two gentlemen that the RCC promulgated a total blackout of the scriptures for 600 years?”

    So, if the topic was whether Lincoln was shot, Ken might say something like “do you agree that he was shot six times?” as if that materially affected the discussion. But, slipperyKen, it is not necessary that there was a “total” blackout for exactly 600 years. It is enough that your church had a religious conviction that Bible ownership & reading should be suppressed, that such were suppressed, and then your church changed its religious conviction and practice on this matter.

    And if you can’t admit this, the “peanut gallery” is substantially correct and you are not even credible.

    LikeLike

15. LOSTKEN, I’ve quoted the Second Vatican Council here. Separated brothers is not the language of remaining invicibly ignorant.

    Which is it? Are we supposed to listen to the magisterium that Protestantism doesn’t have to its utter woe? Or are we supposed to listen to you on what you think the magisterium used to teach but wish it didn’t any more?

    You really are like the “evangelicals” in the mainline Protestant denominations, acting like the truth still abides.

    LikeLike

16. mikelmann,

    Rather than call me a propagandist, you might read what I actually write:
    “At certain times/controversies, there were precautions made, yes, in order to minimize heretical translations/commentaries but it was not some multi-century systematic “blackout”.”

    Donald asserted a 600-year universal blackout on reading and vernacular translation (up until 1970). That’s simply false, as you agree in your backpedaling with Kenneth. The issue of regional suppression at certain times is a different question, one of which I noted in my statement about precautions being made.

    1) admit suppression of the scriptures
    – I will admit regional and time-bound suppression in RCC’s prudential judgment to protect against heresy. I will not admit universal 600-year blackouts.
    2) admit a change so that possession of the Bible is no longer punished
    – I will not admit that possession of the Bible was at all times in all places punished.
    3) if you wish, argue that your church was correct to suppress and is now correct to change.
    – I don’t have any real desire to argue the wisdom of the RCC’s various acts of suppression at various times in various regions in response to various heresies. I do have a desire to see history reported accurately.

    From Catholic Encyclopedia:
    “(2) The next five hundred [1000-1500] years show only local regulations concerning the use of the Bible in the vernacular. On 2 January, 1080, Gregory VII wrote to the Duke of Bohemia that he could not allow the publication of the Scriptures in the language of the country. The letter was written chiefly to refuse the petition of the Bohemians for permission to conduct Divine service in the Slavic language. The pontiff feared that the reading of the Bible in the vernacular would lead to irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text (St. Gregory VII, “Epist.”, vii, xi). The second document belongs to the time of the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned (“Epist., II, cxli; Hurter, “Gesch. des. Papstes Innocent III”, Hamburg, 1842, IV, 501 sqq.). After the death of Innocent III, the Synod of Toulouse directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the misuse of Sacred Scripture on the part of the Cathari: “prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere” (Hefele, “Concilgesch”, Freiburg, 1863, V, 875). In 1233 the Synod of Tarragona issued a similar prohibition in its second canon, but both these laws are intended only for the countries subject to the jurisdiction of the respective synods (Hefele, ibid., 918). The Third Synod of Oxford, in 1408, owing to the disorders of the Lollards, who in addition to their crimes of violence and anarchy had introduced virulent interpolations into the vernacular sacred text, issued a law in virtue of which only the versions approved by the local ordinary or the provincial council were allowed to be read by the laity (Hefele, op. cit., VI, 817).

    (3) It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, “Dominici gregis”, the Index of Prohibited Books. According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate. The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice. Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix. Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it. This doubt was not removed by the next three documents: the condemnation of certain errors of the Jansenist Quesnel as to the necessity of reading the Bible, by the Bull “Unigenitus” issued by Clement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf. Denzinger, “Enchir.”, nn. 1294-1300); the condemnation of the same teaching maintained in the Synod of Pistoia, by the Bull “Auctorem fidei” issued on 28 Aug., 1794, by Pius VI; the warning against allowing the laity indiscriminately to read the Scriptures in the vernacular, addressed to the Bishop of Mohileff by Pius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816. But the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844. In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm”

    A Protestant historian, James Gairdner, echoed same in 1908 in his work “Lollardy and the Reformation in England”:
    “The truth is, the Church of Rome was not at all opposed to the making of translations of Scripture or to placing them in the hands of the laity under what were deemed proper precautions. It was only judged necessary to see that no unauthorized or corrupt translations got abroad; and even in this matter it would seem that the authorities were not roused to special vigilance till they took alarm at the diffusion of Wycliffite translations in the generation after his death…To the possession by worthy lay men of licensed translations the Church was never opposed; but to place such a weapon as an English Bible in the hands of men who had no regard for authority, and who would use it without being instructed how to use it properly, was dangerous not only to the souls of those who read, but to the peace and order of the Church.”

    And that crypto-papist Alister McGrath writes in Reformation Thought:
    “During the Middle Ages a number of vernacular versions of Scripture were produced. Although it was once thought that the medieval church condemned this process of translation, it is now known that neither the production of such translations nor their use by clergy or laity was ever explicitly forbidden.”

    And lest we think this is just evil papacy mentality, McGrath writes in same work:
    “The magisterial Reformation initially seems to have allowed that every individual had the right to interpret Scripture; but subsequently it became anxious concerning the social and political consequences of this idea. The Peasant’s Revolt of 1525 appears to have convinced some, such as Luther, that individual believers (especially German peasants) were simply not capable of interpreting Scripture. It is one of the ironies of the Lutheran Reformation that a movement which laid such stress upon the importance of Scripture should subsequently deny its less educated members direct access to that same Scripture, for fear that they might misinterpret it (in other words, reach a different interpretation from that of the magisterial reformers). For example, the school regulations of the duchy of Württemberg laid down that only the most able schoolchildren were to be allowed to study the New Testament in their final years – and even then, only if they studied in Greek or Latin. The remainder – presumably the vast bulk – were required to read Luther’s Lesser Catechism instead. The direct interpretation of Scripture was thus effectively reserved for a small, privileged group of people. To put it crudely, it became a question of whether you looked to the pope, to Luther or to Calvin as an interpreter of Scripture. The principle of the ‘clarity of Scripture’ appears to have been quietly marginalized, in the light of the use made of the Bible by the more radical elements of the Reformation. Similarly, the idea that everyone had the right and the ability to interpret Scripture faithfully became the sole possession of the radicals.”

    Who is the propagandist again?

    LikeLike

17. Loser Ken, your question is like do you still beat your wife. But the historical record of the magisterium keeping a tight reign on the Bible, it’s publication, and related materials is there for anyone to see. You don’t remember the Index of Books (or the Inquisition)? Yes, the bishops were a liberty loving bunch.

    If you can comfort yourself that this was not a “total blackout,” have at it.

    LikeLike

18. Clete, you are. With the exception of Lost Ken when he goes off the reservation about modernism rampant in the Roman Catholic Church, you have not conceded that Rome has erred or that its infallible magisterium has shown remarkable folly in presiding over God’s flock.

    LikeLike

19. “It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”

    Makes one wonder why Jason and the Callers don’t give up the pious nonsense that is Called to Communion.

    LikeLike

20. Darryl,

    I’ve said (quite a few times) Rome’s been wrong in its actions before. I haven’t conceded Rome has erred on infallible matters, given its own criteria for infallibility it set out for itself. Saying “Crusades!” or “Jews!” does not interact with vat1 criteria, and also assumes the vat1 fathers were just imbeciles ignorant of history – when the debates/revisions on infallibility during the council show that not to be the case – Rome’s history informed their crafting of the decree.

    LikeLike

21. Kenneth – Jason and Bryan are completely faithful to the magesterium and you know that.

    Yeah, maybe this year, but who knows where they’ll be next year. This is version 3.0 or 4.0 for each of them.

    I prefer to be preached to by cradle Catholics, not you newbies.

    LikeLike

22. One more for you:

    Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned…”

    Fine tune away if cut ‘n paste brings you a measure of comfort. As for me, I’m glad the Catholics I personally know are not like the online agitators.

    LikeLike

23. mikelmann,

    And that citation contradicts my last post how? I’ve already said there was regional/temporal suppression of unauthorized and/or doctored translations and associated notes/commentaries at various times in response to various heretical movements. I doubt you even read my citations – Tarragona was covered in the Catholic Encyclopedia citation along with Toulouse – both were regional and in response to Albigensian/Cathari heresy that was infecting parts of western europe at that time.

    I suppose cut-n-paste is cool when it suits your needs, but not for others. How am I an “agitator”? I’m presenting facts and analysis by scholars in response to assertions. That isn’t “agitation”. Do the RCs you personally know sit around and nod sheepishly when you accuse the RCC of universally banning vernacular translations and reading by the laity and that’s why you like them?

    LikeLike

24. CvD,

    You wrote:

    I haven’t conceded Rome has erred on infallible matters

    Which are these, exactly? My position is that Rome’s belief in its infallibility means it’s incapable of reform. I understand an infallible church declaring its fallibility would be quite the pickle indeed, since how could it declare such infallibly, if she is indeed fallible? Thus, the wheels on the bus go round and round..

    Anyway, I don’t really see anything changing about all this anytime in the near future, so yeah: semper reformanda. Indeed.

    LikeLike

25. Clete, all that effort is for what? The RC still doesn’t center on the Bible and it never will. Any move towards the Bible is more of concession than anything. The average toothless Baptist knows more Bible than a Catholic with a graduate degree. (apologies to all toothless Baptist readers)

    What would my RC acquaintances say? Well, a particular colleague – who probably couldn’t find his Bible – would say something like “you’re damn right we persecuted the Bible. What are you, Presbyterian? Yeah, we should persecute them, too.” And then I’d come back with my best one-liner and we’d laugh.

    Then the guy across the street would probably say “yeah, we probably did that, and we probably shouldn’t have.” He’s way more pious than my colleague, with the admission being honesty and the “probably” reflecting a bit of reverence for his church.

    But neither one buries his head as deeply as the onliners.

    LikeLike

26. Andrew,

    RCC is infallible only in certain matters, so reform is quite possible in many areas as history shows, but in other areas it is not, otherwise any claims of divine revelation would be self-contradictory (if something’s divine revelation or necessarily tied to such, it’s infallible by its nature). There is no exhaustive list of such teachings partly because doctrine continues to develop, though many examples could be offered (as you said, papal/ecclesiastical infallibility is one such example).

    LikeLike

27. mikelmann,

    I said:
    “I don’t have any real desire to argue the wisdom of the RCC’s various acts of suppression at various times in various regions in response to various heresies.”

    That doesn’t mean I agree and endorse every action to suppress the bible in history or think every act was wise. I can understand the rationale though, so I am not so quick to jump to and judge culpability for the context/time in which those actions happened. And your Protestant forebears had similar misgivings in just giving the laity free-reign. You probably can understand their rationale as well, even though you may or may not agree with it.

    “The RC still doesn’t center on the Bible and it never will. Any move towards the Bible is more of concession than anything.”

    Right – no propaganda here.

    LikeLike

28. CvD, seems silly (and smells fishy) if you can’t tell me what’s infallible and what’s not. I mean, what’s the point of that, then?

    My assurance of salvation as a reformed Christian suits me fine, despite what onliners tell me about the effect my converting to RCism would have on my happines quotient. We’re also accused of psychological projection and all the rest around here, at oldlife. To me, it’s all wheels on the bus kind of stuff. But as long as what we say is getting to you, keep posting. Better yet, check out one of our churches. We’re all propagandists, don’t play “holier than thou.”

    Enjoy your day.

    LikeLike

29. DGHART,

    check this out

    http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/news-flash-jesus-of-nazareth-tolerant-of-adulterers

    I think you are guilty of viewing the Church in the flesh and not through the eyes of faith. You are spinning current events to meet your whims. Taking infallible Church pronouncements in isolation instead of reading them in the context of previous declarations etc.Its all very “Fox News”ish. Seriously. You call out “JATC” for not being “fair and balanced” and then push propaganda and half informed arguments like they are going out of style. One of the things I really think is cool about Aquinas is that he would always present his opponents ideas *better than they even could* before ripping them to shreds and exposing the errors and fallacies. You aren’t even attempting to do this. For the better part of a month you have been presenting liberal catholic spin on current events a la the CA blog I linked and then sitting back all smug playing the selective skepticism card. You claim those on the other side don’t interact with “real true really really authentic” reformed ideas either but what’s that got to do with you? Its really nit that hard to reconcile V2 teaching with previous infallible pronouncements. Give it a try. Your a smart guy in sure you are up to the task. I just think you can do better

    LikeLike

30. LikeLike

31. I think you are guilty of viewing Christ’s the Church in the flesh and not through the eyes of faith. You are spinning current events to meet your whims. Taking infallible biblical Church pronouncements in isolation instead of reading them in the context of previous declarations etc. Its all very Vatican 2“Fox News”ish.

    Took the words right out of my mouth, Ken.

    LikeLike

32. mikelmann,

    Fine tune away if cut ‘n paste brings you a measure of comfort. As for me, I’m glad the Catholics I personally know are not like the online agitators.

    My boss is a devout Italian cradle Catholic. He attends Mass every morning. We have conversations and disagreements that are respectful and enjoyable. He seems to have little problem acknowledging some of the dissonance of V2 with what preceded in V1 and Trent. He has promoted Scott Hahn to me not as an indictment of Protestantism (of course with a jab or two), but rather as a bridge of sorts. He seems to have little time for defending the inconsistencies that exist in the history of the RCC. An example of his V2 mindset… he eagerly watched Billy Graham’s recent video that Tullian and others promoted. Why? He considers him to be a man of God who preaches the Word who has brought people to Christ! I consider him to be a believer. Yet he is immovably a Roman Catholic who believes in the Catholic Church and her teachings. Go figure…

    LikeLike

33. Kenneth,

    I think you are guilty of viewing the Church in the flesh and not through the eyes of faith.

    Where does Scripture enjoin believers to view the Church “through eyes of faith?” I thought Scripture teaches that the object of our faith was Christ Jesus??

    LikeLike

34. Jack,

    is not the Church the body of Christ? Did you read the article by CA spinning the gospel stories and sayings of Christ to be scandalous? Fascinating parallel to what’s been going on over here

    LikeLike

35. Andrew,

    I can tell you some things that are infallible – I can’t tell you everything that’s infallible. If you know *one* infallible teaching/doctrine, is that better than not knowing any infallible teaching/doctrine?

    Are there some teachings in the bible that were temporal/reformable? And some that are not? Can you tell me all the ones that are not? If not, what’s the point?

    I have checked out PCA and LCMS churches – great folks – immediately talked to me and welcomed me and even gave me a mug – warmer than some RC churches for sure. I don’t run around throwing catechisms at people’s heads – and I’m not playing holier than thou – I agree we’re all obviously going to promote our own perspectives, but some arguments have more justification/weight than others.

    LikeLike

36. CvD, my “infallibility” and your “infallibilty” are an apples and oranges comparison. You can read WCF chapter 1 for my views on that, as well as the book I pointed you to on the infallible Word, earlier. The point is, to guys push the same old arguments, and those of us with smartphones just keep answering away. I want to talk to you guys to find out how you think. I’m so thankful for where I landed theologically, I can’t help but speak up. Gotta run..

    LikeLike

37. Actually, Cletus, I’ll give you credit for some of what you have said above. You seem more forthcoming than some others who have passed this way.

    But back to the conversation, I found the following from you to be intriguing:

    RCC is infallible only in certain matters, so reform is quite possible in many areas as history shows, but in other areas it is not, otherwise any claims of divine revelation would be self-contradictory (if something’s divine revelation or necessarily tied to such, it’s infallible by its nature). There is no exhaustive list of such teachings partly because doctrine continues to develop, though many examples could be offered (as you said, papal/ecclesiastical infallibility is one such example).

    Can you see how this appears to be designed to escape the clutches of verifiability? Infallible in certain matters, but we can’t really say what those matters are? If something changes then we know in retrospect that it wasn’t an infallible matter? This kind of thing is why “sophistry” pops up in my head when I read it. I guess you would say these are statements borne of faith?

    In contrast, I’m now reading Seeking a Better Country by John Muether and his sidekick. http://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Better-Country-American-Presbyterianism/dp/0875525741
    We look at the Presbyterian church with open eyes. We can see grace and we have hope but we also criticize and admit flaws. This is one reason I can’t admit that it’s one man’s propaganda against another’s.

    LikeLike

38. “….but some arguments have more justification/weight than others.”

    Among the ones that don’t over here Clete, is the infallibility and supremacy of the pope, contra Scripture, history/tradition and reason.

    And the point is that the Bible is infallible. You want to sidestep that by saying “teachings”, but not everything taught in Scripture is by good and necessary consequence.

    But since papists are the ones that keep touting the infallibility of the pope, it would behoove them to come up with a list of infallible papal teachings upon which the faithful are to stake their souls.
    Oops, that’s right. Implicit faith answers all.

    But then maybe all the papal apologists could realize that it is protestantism that is logocentric and they could more consistently just keep inviting us to attend the abominable idolatry of the mass and tell us they are saying rosaries for us.

    If even that. After all Vat.2 Decree on Unity Unitatis Redintegratio says no?

    (T)he separated Churches and Communities as such . . . . For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

    To paraphrase Jerry Reed, “when you’re in, you’re in and when you’re not, you’re not”.
    Works for prots and the modernist RC however badly the Called To Communion Society in the Philosophical Sense of Pius X are in denial.

    LikeLike

39. Kenneth,

    is not the Church the body of Christ?

    Is the Church the same as Christ himself? Is the Church equal to Jesus Christ in his power to save? Again, Scripture is clear that Christ is the object of the believer’s faith. Where in Scripture is it taught that the Church is the object of faith?

    LikeLike

40. Just when you thought online apologetics couldn’t get any funnier, the RCs pop in and tout the magnanimity of the Magisterium in only limiting access to Scripture in certain cases throughout history. I mean, when I think of Wycliffe’s posthumous digging up and being burned at the stake, Luther hiding at Wartburg, and centuries of the Vulgate being the approved translation, the first thing I think of is Rome’s desire for the laity to have the Scriptures.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    LikeLike

41. mikelmann,

    “Can you see how this appears to be designed to escape the clutches of verifiability? Infallible in certain matters, but we can’t really say what those matters are? If something changes then we know in retrospect that it wasn’t an infallible matter? This kind of thing is why “sophistry” pops up in my head when I read it. I guess you would say these are statements borne of faith?”

    Yes, I can understand this. This is similar to what cd-host said to me in the other thread where we’re talking about doctrine and practice and religious liberty. I’ll make some similar points I made over there.

    – Just because we don’t have an exhaustive list of infallible teachings, does not mean we don’t have a list of *some* such teaching. It’s not hard to offer examples of that. So if tomorrow the RCC issued a universal teaching saying “Mary sinned/wasn’t assumed” or “James is not inspired” or “Fornication is fine” or “The Trinity is wrong” it would’ve falsified itself. So RCC is falsifiable.

    – But it’s falsifiable *according to the criteria its set for itself*. What is that criteria? It’s in Vat1 decree. There are 4 criteria but basically it boils down to it must be a *universal* teaching to the whole faithful (so both geographical and anthropological) and it must be a *doctrine* of faith and morals – a doctrine is an unchanging principle, not some specific act/practice conditioned by circumstances/time (those are prudential applications of doctrine). As I’ve said before, it is true that sometimes the doctrine and practice are interwoven so tightly that only time permits the difference/separation – that’s part of development – and Ratzinger states so in Donum Veritatis which was addressed to theologians. But just because there may be a mix at times, does not mean therefore the distinction does not actually exist in reality – discernment comes with development and time.

    – And just because it may not always be clear-cut what exactly is infallible/irreformable principles versus contingent/reformable teaching or practice at times in certain topics, it does not mean the faithful are just floating in the wind. The faithful are to give submission and respectful obedience even to non-infallible teaching of the universal hierarchy (and theologians can raise questions/discussions in an obedient/respectful way – if discussion could not happen, doctrine would never develop). This is taught in many documents (Lumen Gentium 25, Donum Veritatis, CDF commentary on Professio Fidei, Canon 752, Vat1 itself, etc). So what happens if they are obeying some reformable practice/teaching that changes? If it was indifferent or good, doesn’t really matter. If it was considered imprudent or mistaken in hindsight, the extent of culpability of course is tied to circumstances and context and so we shouldn’t be too quick to judge culpability from our historical vantage point – it’s tempting to do so, but we need to be careful. Furthermore, the shepherds are more accountable than the flock.

    – Lastly, there is an element of faith here to be sure. To have to have this exhaustive list of propositions before I would consider assenting to RCC is reducing faith to rationalism and basically eviscerating it (and I note that I doubt Protestants examine every book of their canon for evidence of inspiration before assenting to it). There’s an element of trust here – and of course there has to be since doctrine is always developing and infallible doctrines will likely be defined in the future at some point – which was CS Lewis’ problem in converting (that he couldn’t trust what the Church might dogmatize in the future). As Brian Harrison, a well-regarded RC theologian, has written summing up both the universality and faith aspect: “we can be sure the Holy Spirit is never going to allow Peter’s Successor to command, or even authorize, the Church as a whole – the great bulk of the faithful round the world – to commit sin, or to do something that will cause grave harm. For that would be contrary to the ’note’ of sanctity (“One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic”) which is a revealed attribute of the Church.”

    Thus endeth the propaganda.

    LikeLike

42. Clete, you have to explain infallibility in so many ways that at a certain point you really do explain it away. And the funny thing is, the magisterium doesn’t seem to be at all concerned to issue these explanations. All of these converts have to explain for them. Don’t the converts know who the interpreters are?

    LikeLike

43. LoserKen, psshaw Jason and the callers are faithful to the magisterium. Francis wants to feel my pain. JATC want me to feel pain. In the peace of Christ, of course.

    LikeLike

44. Robert,

    I didn’t offer multiple citations for nothing. Facts are stubborn things.

    LikeLike

45. LoserKen, news flash, JATC keep telling me I don’t have the right paradigm. So how in hades am I supposed to see the church through the eyes of faith?

    Oh, but then when I present what RC’s do say about the church, I am guilty of not being fair and balanced. Why don’t JATC ever mention reports from National Catholic Reporter? If they want potential converts to know the true state of affairs, they present themselves as the mainstream? This is like calling the OPC the Reformed Protestant mainstream.

    You have actually proved my point. More than JATC’s view of Rome exists and the one that is skeptical about the church as conservative is not a Protestant view. It is the liberal catholic spin on Rome that I have been presenting. If Rome is so conservative and has such a divinely wonderful mechanism for preventing error, why won’t one of those bishops do something about NCR?

    You only dig your hole deeper. Good day to you sir.

    LikeLike

46. Clete, so given Vat 1’s criteria, what is a RC bishop or lay person to do with an encyclical, or an apostolic exhortation. As all the discussion of Evangelii Gaudium makes clear, Francis issued something less authoritative than an encyclical. But now you seem to be saying that encyclicals, considered the highest instances of papal authority, are not infallible. So what’s the point of the pope making so many statements? And what is he to do with statements of previous popes.

    In case you haven’t noticed, this seems a lot like what the U.S. Supreme Court does. Precedents, rulings, and changes with historical contexts, all under the guise of the highest judicial authority in the land. If you want some advice, tell your Bishop of Rome to talk less and make it count when he does. Otherwise, what are we supposed to do with his fallible opinions?

    LikeLike

47. Darryl,

    Writings of the pope, both past and present, are infallible if they meet the 4 criteria of vat1. Do you think EG meets the 4 criteria?

    The pope is not just some divine oracle issuing laws. He’s a pastor – that’s part of his role – so the faithful listen to whatever he says respectfully, even if they may disagree at points. So he has a duty to speak to the flock, especially in current age when information and news change so quickly.

    LikeLike

48. Robert,

    get at me on the other post on predestination I just caught up with your last comment over there…..

    Jack,

    The doctrine may be summarized as follows:
    •The members of the Church are bound together by a supernatural life communicated to them by Christ through the sacraments (John 15:5). Christ is the centre and source of life to Whom all are united, and Who endows each one with gifts fitting him for his position in the body (John 15:7-12). These graces, through which each is equipped for his work, form it into an organized whole, whose parts are knit together as though by a system of ligaments and joints (John 15:16; Colossians 2:19).
    •Through them, too, the Church has its growth and increase, growing in extension as it spreads through the world, and intensively as the individual Christian develops in himself the likeness of Christ (John 15:13-15).
    •In virtue of this union the Church is the fulness or complement (pleroma) of Christ (Ephesians 1:23). It forms one whole with Him; and the Apostle even speaks of the Church as “Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:12).
    •This union between head and members is conserved and nourished by the Holy Eucharist. Through this sacrament our incorporation into the Body of Christ is alike outwardly symbolized and inwardly actualized; “We being many are one bread, one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17).

    The bible does not teach that the Church is the object of faith. Obviously. However, I would argue that you read the bible with eyes of faith and not of skepticism. You read your confession similarly. I am asking that DGHART attempt to view the Church in like manner.

    LikeLike

49. Bob,

    “You want to sidestep that by saying “teachings”, but not everything taught in Scripture is by good and necessary consequence.”

    Okay – can you give me the list of all teachings derived by good and necessary consequence? Otherwise, what’s the point of saying Scripture is infallible?
    Are true teachings that are not derived by good and necessary consequence infallible too? If so, why distinguish between the two types?

    LikeLike

50. Robert,

    hit me up on the thread discussing predestination. I just caught up with your last comments.

    jack,

    The doctrine may be summarized as follows:
    •The members of the Church are bound together by a supernatural life communicated to them by Christ through the sacraments (John 15:5). Christ is the centre and source of life to Whom all are united, and Who endows each one with gifts fitting him for his position in the body (John 15:7-12). These graces, through which each is equipped for his work, form it into an organized whole, whose parts are knit together as though by a system of ligaments and joints (John 15:16; Colossians 2:19).
    •Through them, too, the Church has its growth and increase, growing in extension as it spreads through the world, and intensively as the individual Christian develops in himself the likeness of Christ (John 15:13-15).
    •In virtue of this union the Church is the fulness or complement (pleroma) of Christ (Ephesians 1:23). It forms one whole with Him; and the Apostle even speaks of the Church as “Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:12).
    •This union between head and members is conserved and nourished by the Holy Eucharist. Through this sacrament our incorporation into the Body of Christ is alike outwardly symbolized and inwardly actualized; “We being many are one bread, one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17).

    the bible doesn’t teach that the church is the object of our faith. However, I would argue that you read scripture through the eyes of faith and not of skepticism. You read your confession in a similar, though not identical, way. I am asking Dr. Hart to try and view the Church in the same way. He is to focused in the human aspects, the politics, the sin, etc.

    LikeLike

51. CvD, jumping in, but what is behind Scripture’s infallibility is that it is the Word of God written. If you know anything about what that means, and the discussion about Barth’s view etc, these are not throw away words. There’s a reason why members of the OPC have affirmed the Bible as the Word of God in our ordination vow. There’s a reason why WCF 1.5 was written the way it was, and says what it says. It’s what we believe and hold to, and the more you study what we have to say and consider the Scripture references thay support WCF chapter 1, the more traction you will get out here. It’s a wonderul document, I would hope Catholics who have a high view of Scripture can appreciate the beautiful language of WCF chapter 1, even if looking it up on Google seems like the furthest thing that a Catholic should do. I could go on, but you really should consider our standards as you spend time online here. That’s all.

    LikeLike

52. *membership vow

    LikeLike

53. Kenneth,
    The bible does not teach that the Church is the object of faith. Obviously. However, I would argue that you read the bible with eyes of faith and not of skepticism. You read your confession similarly. I am asking that DGHART attempt to view the Church in like manner.

    The Bible is the Word of God, i.e. the written record of Christ revealed. So, to read it with eyes of faith is entirely a different animal than to view the Church, i.e. sinners chosen and redeemed of God, through eyes of faith. And no, I don’t read the confession with eyes of faith. I read it as a trustworthy presentation of that system of doctrine found in Scripture and thus a dependable (not infalliable) aid to bolster faith in the Spirit-breathed Word of God which proclaims Christ as our salvation.

    So, neither DGH or any other Reformed Christian will view the Church “in like manner” (through the eyes of faith).

    LikeLike

54. CvD, better to my point, we are told by Paul that Scripture is God breathed. We believe the Bible is the Word of God because of what it says about itself. The point in saying the Scriptures are infallible is that we are agreeing with Scripture.

    LikeLike

55. Andrew,

    Right, but not all teachings of the bible are irreformable/eternal right? Some passed away, or were meant for a certain context/time or were just practice that was later changed/abrogated. So my point is when I say the RCC has infallible doctrines, but not all of its teachings/practices are, and the response is “well, what good is that then” or “where’s the exhaustive list” I don’t understand why the same criticism does not apply to your view of Scripture and its teachings.

    LikeLike

56. The faithful are to give submission and respectful obedience even to non-infallible teaching of the universal hierarchy . . .

    thus endeth the propagandeth

    Nope, we still doesn’t getteth the objectioneth Cletus Von Damneth.
    The faithful don’t know an infallible teaching is fallible until it’s not.
    IOW that’s what’s called dirty pool.
    The rules keep changing.
    Further, for an alternative approved, i.e. infallible example, Acts 15 is an infallible (again) record of a synod making a binding temporary judgement on the church, in which the pope Peter was hardly the principal infallible decider. Rather James summarized the proceedings and the apostles and the rest of the elders concurred.
    But again, the Book of Hebrews ahem, tells us that the temple sacrifices have passed away with sacrifice of Christ, who is a priest after the order of Melchizedek and yet there are some who have the audacity to revive a Levitical priesthood that presides at the “sacrifice” of the mass.

    Re. the infallibility of the Bible, again you miss the point. The Bible is inspired and infallible. The utterances of the pope, however qualified, while they may be true and correct, are not inspired and infallible.
    And Mohammed, Joseph Smith and the Magisterium to the contrary we have an exhaustive list/table of contents for the Bible.
    But then you admit – contra the Magisterium it seems – that Roman teaching is falsifiable. And this as soon as enough time passes and one’s private judgement can distinguish between faith and morals, doctrine and discipline.
    Even as Vatican I your preferred document, disciplines the future separated brotheren by way of anathema/curse unto damnation.
    All well and good we suppose, under the philosophical auspices of the Roman bubble/paradigm, but thank you very much, we is reformed and teetotalers when it comes to that particular noxious strain of koolaid.

    Yet if the pope is a pastor, he is a non resident and two, only preaches sporadically/intermittently.
    As to whether he knows the sheep by name, well let’s not get to technical about what a pastor really is and does.

    cheers,

    DGH, the pain thing is overrated.
    Likewise reasonable consistency.
    IOW quit beating your head against your screen and relax. The invincible ignorance of implicit faith resolves all paradoxes and confusion to the level of a low roar in the background. Once you realize you need a roman soul, not a reasonable one, everything comes into a blurred focus like it is supposed to.

    Or as my lay English teacher used to say at the Jesuit prep school I attended, “Ale man, ale’s the stuff to drink for them whom it hurts to think”.
    Either that or altar wine on the sly though it’s pretty weak stuff compared to Mickey’s Malt.

    I’d say say “bottoms up”, but in light of the homosexual pedophilia scandal maybe some of our readers might get the wrong infallible idea about lack of discipline.

    LikeLike

57. Bob,

    “The faithful don’t know an infallible teaching is fallible until it’s not.”

    I’ve already offered well-known by RCs and non-RCS alike examples of infallible teaching. I can offer more if you like.

    “we have an exhaustive list/table of contents for the Bible.”

    On what grounds? And the list of contents is not the same thing as the list of infallible teachings (or as you want to say, teachings deduced by good and necessary consequence). So my question remains unanswered.

    LikeLike

58. CvD

    this has driven me nuts for over a year now. Selective skepticism. Outside of ones own paradigm no nuance allowed.

    Jack,

    How do you look at the canon? Through what eyes are those books in your New Testament viewed? How did you come to learn that the Bible was the word of God? When you look at the evidence for the resurrection of Christ do you not do so with the eyes of faith? When you see someone get baptized you could look at the situation as a couple of men dunking each other under water or you could look at baptism through the eyes of faith for what is really happening. Same story at communion and wedding ceremonies. You use the eyes of faith (in the sense that I am trying to convey) all the time. I invite you and Dr. Hart to consider the claims of the RCC with those same lenses. Not focusing on the human aspect but instead on what lies beneath that layer of reality.

    LikeLike

59. Bob,

    yet there are some who have the audacity to revive a Levitical priesthood that presides at the “sacrifice” of the mass.

    Oh I’m glad you brought that up! There are just “some” who think the mass is a sacrifice? Hmmm how about “all of Christianity for the first fifteen centuries”

    Phillip Schaff says

    The Catholic church, both Greek and Latin, sees in the Eucharist not only a sacramentum, in which God communicates a grace to believers, but at the same time, and in fact mainly, a sacrificium, in which believers really offer to God that which is represented by the sensible elements. For this view also the church fathers laid the foundation, and it must be conceded they stand in general far more on the Greek and Roman Catholic than on the Protestant side of this question.

    The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:

    It was also widely held from the first that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice, here again definition was gradual. The suggestion of sacrifice is contained in much of the NT language . . . the words of institution, ‘covenant,’ ‘memorial,’ ‘poured out,’ all have sacrificial associations. In early post-NT times the constant repudiation of carnal sacrifice and emphasis on life and prayer at Christian worship did not hinder the Eucharist from being described as a sacrifice from the first . . .

    From early times the Eucharistic offering was called a sacrifice in virtue of its immediate relation to the sacrifice of Christ.

    (Cross, F. L. and E. A. Livingstone, editors; 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 1983, 476, 1221)

    Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelly:

    [T]he Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi’s prediction (1:10 f.) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have ‘a pure offering’ made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized [did. 14,3; Justin, dial. 41,2 f.; Irenaeus, haer. 4,17,5] upon by Christians as a prophecy of the eucharist.

    LikeLike

60. Clete, have you heard of subsidiarity? Like I’m supposed to listen to a pastor who lives in mild luxury in Rome and has never been to the Hunt Club in Hillsdale?

    Are you really saying that infallibility comes down to the Protestant-like matter of whether I opine that it meets the four criteria? Wouldn’t it be pastoral to tell me that the exhortation is infallible?

    LikeLike

61. Loser Ken, I am noticing and bringing attention to the politics and the sin because the Callers never do. Put together CTC and Old Life and you get fair and balanced. You also get people being called to communion scratching their heads. What do Jason and Bryan ignore that the rest of the world of Roman Catholics clearly sees?

    LikeLike

62. Clete, your point about the Bible’s teachings not being eternal is curious. The only way that really applies is with the OT. And the reason why our view of the OT changed was because Paul taught us what Christ meant in the light of Israel. Now we do have a similar development in Roman CAtholicism. The church was authoritarian and disciplined, not it is therapeutic and squishy. The reason for the change is Vatican 2. So is Vatican 2 to Roman CAtholicism what Jesus is to biblical religion? If so, why don’t your infallible pastors tell the world about the epoch-making meaning of Vat 2? The apostles were not timid about saying teachings changed. Their successors in Rome are with all that development of doctrine jazz, not to mention the gross silence of papal teaching on personal sin, guilt, punishment, the death of Christ, forgiveness of sins, penance, and the sacraments. I mean, for guys who are supposed to be pastoral, why not talk up all the means of grace that the church has — as opposed to opinions about matters on which popes have no expertise? Pre-Vat 2 popes really did believe in personal salvation and going to heaven. Post Vat 2 popes talk about the dignity of the human person and human flourishing. It is all so this worldly.

    LikeLike

63. Loser Ken, you don’t like selective skepticism. I don’t like old fashioned gullibility.

    LikeLike

64. KENLOSES, do you really want to cite sources other than your team? Schaff also wrote: “The power of the papacy, which had asserted infallibility of judgment and dominion over all departments of human life, was undermined by the mistakes, pretensions, and worldliness of the papacy itself, as exhibited in the policy of Boniface VIII., the removal of the papal residence to Avignon, and the disastrous schism which, for nearly half a century, gave to Europe the spectacle of two, and at times three, popes reigning at the same time and all professing to be the vicegerents of God on earth.”

    LikeLike

65. Jack, I know someone like that as well. He’s RC and would never consider anything else but he quotes evangelicals. I’m calling these evangelical Catholics. Then there’s a woman who is very devoted to RC and is likely very intense in her worship, yet is actually quite vulgar in her life, paralell to some black Baptists. There’s as much RC variety as there is Protestant variety.

    LikeLike

66. Cletus said:
    There are 4 criteria but basically it boils down to it must be a *universal* teaching to the whole faithful (so both geographical and anthropological) and it must be a *doctrine* of faith and morals – a doctrine is an unchanging principle, not some specific act/practice conditioned by circumstances/time (those are prudential applications of doctrine). As I’ve said before, it is true that sometimes the doctrine and practice are interwoven so tightly that only time permits the difference/separation – that’s part of development – and Ratzinger states so in Donum Veritatis which was addressed to theologians. But just because there may be a mix at times, does not mean therefore the distinction does not actually exist in reality – discernment comes with development and time.

    mm:
    In other words, the church is still talking in Latin rather than the vulgar tongue. What I mean is, how da heck can an average pewsitter comprehend this? What percentage of RC’s are actually aware of this test? This is a pretty important thing to be so abstract and elusive. And, let’s get real – you know the test but you don’t have much for concrete results. It’s a formula that’s intended to terminate in no clear answers. And then some RC’s use papal infallibility as the cornerstone of their apologetic, which is to say they point to an amorphous blob to show their superior certainty.

    LikeLike

67. MM, most priests don’t know the test nor if they executed the test would arrive at a consensus. Furthermore, this isn’t even how Francis talks or would consider pastoral. Instead, there would be an encouragement toward devotional piety, availing oneself of the sacraments of the church(maybe, just as likely you’d be drawn into a therapeutic session) and direct and indirect reference to implicit faith.

    There is not a lot of direction to the laity to engage themselves doctrinally in the Thomism of the catechism nor to engage in a pedantic structuring of their faith. Instead, the pastoral direction, when not heavily invested in works of mercy, the sacraments and personal piety, is one of entrusting your soul to the nebulous but holy spirit inspired supervision of the church. If you insist on pressing into the ‘mysteries’ of the church, you’d likely be recommended to consideration of religious orders and/or the vocations.

    LikeLike

68. When popes take their new names, do they also keep their original names? If they believed in two kingdoms, perhaps they would. As an elder in the OPC does not talk about money and the economy as an elder but as a private citizen, couldn’t a pope as private citizen (of the world) have a public opinion about the way things need to go?

    “Attempting to live vicariously through his son Octavian, Alberic forced his cronies to swear they would elect his son to the papacy as he lay on his deathbed. To give their oath more legitimacy, Alberic had his nobles swear on St. Peter’s bones.

    “A year later, Pope Agapitus II died. The nobles voted Octavian into the papacy. Octavian then changed his name to John XII, being only “the third pope in history to change his name…upon election.” As both Pope and Prince were “combined into once person,”

    http://voices.yahoo.com/pope-john-xii-product-wickedness-immaturity-1516571.html

    Now I need to find out if those other two name-changers wanted to participate in two kingdoms at one time, with a different name for each kingdom.

    LikeLike

69. CvD, I simply do not believe our religious tradition gives Christians warrant to ascribe infallibility to a human church leader. I understand this issue divides over a billion Christians on each side of the aisle, like the doctrine of Justification, so it is interest to combox about. Having formed my view of what infallibility means amongst the liberals in my own camp, I think you are on weak epistimolegical ground, but of course, as stated, this is indeed where we part ways, and parting is sweet sorrow. Enjoy your day.

    LikeLike

70. Forgive me for being an American pragmatist, but since the the Bible is filled with wisdom literature regarding the kind of life and thought that “works,” perhaps I can be excused. One of the biggest problem with ecclesiastical infallibility a la Rome is that no one knows what is truly infallible. One can have an infallible statement, but our understanding of it is fallible.

    As many have pointed out, it is all ultimately a shell game. RC is never truly wrong because one only knows what is infallible after the fact. It doesn’t matter if the church teaches something as if it were infallible for centuries and that people make significant errors in acting as if it is such. It’s their fault for thinking that God’s voice on earth is infallible when it speaks because everyone should know when God’s voice is infallible even though there is no infallible way to determine this until centuries after the fact.

    And this gives you more confidence why?

    LikeLike

71. DGHART,

    I just want your anti-synagogue-of-Satan commentators to nod their heads and accept the historical fact that the things they find most disgusting about the RCC just was a fundamental part of Christianity until the reformed novelties sprung into existence. Its a modest goal…. Just own what you sell

    LikeLike

72. Yup Kenny, whatever the infallible DGH Schaff tells us, we believe with all our hearts and souls, shunning at the same time all the pomp and circumstance of the papacy devil.

    FTM what do you make of Jeremiah 32:30,31

     For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD.  For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face,

    Or Stephen’s speech where he said Acts 7:51  Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

    IOW the church in the Bible can backslide for a long time, but not the one perched on the banks of the Tiber. Must be something in the water.
    Indeed.

    Clete, for the umpteenth time.
    We have an infallible revelation in Scripture. You have the Bible plus ta da, big fanfare: Tradition. When you get the table of contents nailed down for the latter, minus the pope’s infallible sayings – which you tell us is not only impossible, but unnecessary – get back to us and not until. That’s the point.

    LikeLike

73. KENLOSES, but your claim about what was fundamental rests on a view of history that his false. Rome was not as unified or as coherent as you say — can you say, 1054? Sure you can. Until roughly the 13th century, Roman Catholicism was largely fluid and it did not gain coherence until the papacy asserted its power (and then — surprise — became amazingly corrupt).

    But the even greater irony here is that you want us to acknowledge our break with “tradition” but you never acknowledge when Vatican 2 did the same thing.

    LikeLike

74. Kenneth,

    Of course we acknowledge abuses in the church prior to the reformation. That is why a reformation was needed. We would not say that such errors were a fundamental part of Christianity — we don’t call evil good. We would say that the church was impure, very impure.

    Remember, we are the ones who want change; you are the ones who cling to popes and tradition.

    LikeLike

75. And as much as I hate to tack self-servingly, from when I started reading out here in blogdom, I actually don’t think it’s us who is picking a fight. We’re sinners all the same, but the interwebs do have a revealing quality about them, I must admit. As if many people actually read this stuff, or will in the future (emoticon). Who knows. Fun times, we press on..

    LikeLike

76. “Clete, for the umpteenth time.”

    you must REALLY enjoy this waste of time and torture…

    LikeLike

77. Darryl,

    Sure I’ve heard of subsidiarity – so has the RCC (Rerum Novarum and so on). I’m not saying the pope is the *only* pastor – that’s silly – faithful have priests and bishops. But you and I both know there are Calvinist rockstar megapastors who have satellite churches as well – you think the satellites don’t perk up their ears a bit when rockstar pastor writes a book or gives some message?

    “Are you really saying that infallibility comes down to the Protestant-like matter of whether I opine that it meets the four criteria? Wouldn’t it be pastoral to tell me that the exhortation is infallible?”

    Sure, after vat1’s development and in today’s age the popes know language matters – I was just saying historically as well. I wasn’t sure if you were getting at the whole “how do i know if EG is infallible” thing – I agree the pope would be using different language for EG if it was meant to be infallible – but it’s still part of the authentic/ordinary magisterium – it needs to be acknowledged, not just dismissed out of hand. If you thought otherwise and that it met the 4 marks, I was asking you to present why is all.

    I thought my point about Biblical teaching that has changed might be taken that way. I’m not limiting it to just OT – do you currently obey every teaching and practice of the NT as well? If not, on what grounds?

    LikeLike

78. Clete, when I don’t obey the Bible it’s because I sin.

    You really want to compare the pope to a celebrity pastor? That’s a good thing? Talk about dignity of the human person.

    LikeLike

79. MM,

    “In other words, the church is still talking in Latin rather than the vulgar tongue. What I mean is, how da heck can an average pewsitter comprehend this? What percentage of RC’s are actually aware of this test? This is a pretty important thing to be so abstract and elusive. And, let’s get real – you know the test but you don’t have much for concrete results. It’s a formula that’s intended to terminate in no clear answers. And then some RC’s use papal infallibility as the cornerstone of their apologetic, which is to say they point to an amorphous blob to show their superior certainty.”

    When someone is wondering about what infallibility means, they’d probably go to the document that defines it. When they went to the document that defined it, they’d see 4 marks and they could look at other magisterial documents that expound upon it (I’ve listed some). Then they’d also see some examples (aka concrete results) – I’ve already listed many – to see how those marks apply in history. Do you want more? It’s really not hard to come up with examples of infallible doctrines. As I’ve said repeatedly, just become we can’t list *all* infallible doctrines, does not mean we cannot list *some* or even *many*.

    Now as to the hopeless despair of the average RC. This is why I had a whole point in my post to you on how the faithful are to respectfully obey/submit even to *non-infallible* universal teaching. Many magisterial documents teach this – technically there are various levels of assent, but faithful should not be dissenting left and right on teaching they don’t disagree with just because they don’t think it’s infallilble. That’s an error of minimism which was condemned in 19th century. So yes Sean is correct in how he says most faithful just obey what they know their faith to be and engage in devotions and such – an illiterate Catholic in the third world doesn’t care about theological precision like a theologian in academia does – there’s a spectrum.

    It’s a cornerstone because a system that is not divinely authorized to issue binding infallible/divinely revealed doctrine, and indeed actively shuns such an attribute, does not offer any reason to put supernatural faith into it (accepting an opinion that may or may not be “of faith” is not the same as accepting a teaching “by faith” – which all supernatural revelation must be by its very nature).

    LikeLike

80. Darryl,

    No – not sinning. Let’s take an obvious example – women’s head coverings or eating blood. Why isn’t such teaching irreformable and ongoing?

    No, I am saying that the system of hierarchy in the church does not mean the church is the sole pastor. You were saying because I said the pope was a pastor, I must reject subsidiarity. No, I don’t. Neither does Protestantism’s Calvinist rockstars.

    LikeLike

81. kent,

    Maybe you can answer my questions to Bob since he refuses to do so. Forget RCism for a while – make a positive apologetic.

    LikeLike

82. Did the schism of 1054 involve the number of sacraments? Apostolic succession? Sacrifice of the mass? Baptismal regeneration? Mortal sin? Penance? Confession? Absolution of sins? Extreme Unction? Praying to saints? No? Then my view of history is not false. But you can still prove me wrong!

    1. Is it your professional opinion that the early Church did not universally view the mass as sacrifice?

    2. In your professional opinion is there good evidence to suggest that sola fide was ever taught in the first 15 centuries? Forensic imputation perhaps?

    3. Did any early church father to your knowledge view the Church as a fallible detectable entity who ecumenical councils were not binding on the faithful?

    LikeLike

83. DGHART,

    BTW I don’t have a problem admitting things changed at Vatican 2…. As long as you aren’t talking about the concilliar documents and are using the council as a kind of historical bookmark. IMO the concilliar documents are easily reconciled with Tradition…. The actions of numerous bishops and popes afterwards…. Not so easily reconciled….Hence, Church crises… The point is I definitely will admit this. Your cronies seem ready to admit their religion is as novel and unhistorical as Mormonism and JWs…. Are you willing to climb on board with Bob and mad Hungarian and argue the same? You’ve got some splaining to do

    LikeLike

84. Kenneth,

    K – How do you look at the canon? Through what eyes are those books in your New Testament viewed? How did you come to learn that the Bible was the word of God? When you look at the evidence for the resurrection of Christ do you not do so with the eyes of faith?

    I already answered this in my last comment. Since the Bible is the self-authenticating word of God I read it “through eyes of faith.” It is from the “mouth” of God.

    K – When you see someone get baptized you could look at the situation as a couple of men dunking each other under water or you could look at baptism through the eyes of faith for what is really happening. Same story at communion …

    In baptism my eyes of faith look to the underlying faithful promise of God found in his word which is signed and sealed in baptism. Same for the Lord’s Supper. These two sacraments are visible proclamations of God’s sure gospel promises found in Scripture and audibly declared in the preaching of his word. So faith looks to those gospel promises inherent in each.

    and wedding ceremonies.

    People get married, believers and unbelievers. This involves no gospel promise and so involves no need to look with eyes of faith, unless you want to so water down what a true and lively faith means as to mean practically nothing. I hope and pray for those who marry. But I don’t look at their weddings with faith any more than I surely believe that once the minister or official says “I pronounce you man and wife,” they are indeed married. It is a God-given creational institution, not a redemptive one.

    You use the eyes of faith (in the sense that I am trying to convey) all the time. I invite you and Dr. Hart to consider the claims of the RCC with those same lenses. Not focusing on the human aspect but instead on what lies beneath that layer of reality.

    You want to consider faith in the Catholic church in the same way that believer’s have faith in Christ. 404 Error Alert And then apparently apply it to all kinds of other things.

    I have a feeling that the word faith doesn’t mean what you think it means…

    LikeLike

85. MAd Hungarian and Bob,

    Of course we acknowledge abuses in the church prior to the reformation. That is why a reformation was needed. We would not say that such errors were a fundamental part of Christianity — we don’t call evil good. We would say that the church was impure, very impure.

    IOW the church in the Bible can backslide for a long time, but not the one perched on the banks of the Tiber. Must be something in the water.
    Indeed.

    If the church was so deeply and fundamentally corrupt and impure from the earliest times how can you have confidence in the canon? Sure, the early Church, more or less, agreed upon the bulk of the New testament….. but so what? They were in even more unanimous agreement that the apostles taught baptismal regeneration. They were even more sure that the eucharist was a sacrifice. How are you gonna cherry pick the trinity and the canon etc and dump all the rest? Either the early church is trustworthy or it was entirely and fundamentally corrupt. choose.

    LikeLike

86. Jack,

    Really? The table of contents page of your bible is inspired? Who was the author? Peter? Paul? Luke?

    In baptism my eyes of faith look to the underlying faithful promise of God found in his word

    OK well as long as we are begging the question I could just as easily say that RCs look at the Church through Christs promises to the Church that are found in Gods word. You’re just playing semantics bud. The easily recognizable point that I was trying to make was that DG was focused on two sinner dunking each other in water and not on the theological implications viewed through the eyes of faith. I’m obviously not saying that the Church died on the cross for our sins or that the Church is the trinity. Don’t miss the Forrest for the trees

    LikeLike

87. Bob,

    Let’s stay on point. Here’s how your criticism earlier in this discussion broke down:
    “There’s no exhaustive list of infallible teachings in RCism so claims to infallibility are completely useless”

    I reply:
    “Here are some examples of infallible teaching, but not an exhaustive list”

    You basically don’t care about that and reiterate:
    “There’s no exhaustive list of infallible teachings in RCism so claims to infallibility are completely useless”

    I reply:
    “There’s no exhaustive list of infallible teachings (or essential or derived by good and necessary consequence or however you want to qualify) of Scripture”

    You reply:
    “Here’s an exhaustive table of contents”

    What?

    LikeLike

88. Kenneth,

    You are creating a false choice based upon a false premise. We believe that the Word created the church, not the other way around.

    Therefore, the church may be quite impure and that does not shake our confidence in scripture. This is Protestantism 101.

    LikeLike

89. Clete, we still believe women should show submission to men. Eating blood is waved off by Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8. What do you do with the teaching about Jews and gold stars? Just ignore it, or is there a principle you need to follow?

    My point about subsidiarity is that the papacy violates the very notion of lesser or more local authorities should provide for local affairs. I know the pope is not the sole pastor. But he’s the only one that people pay attention to universally. That’s not very subsidiaristic.

    LikeLike

90. Darryl,

    Absolutely there’s a principle. This takes us back to our earlier discussion where you said the distinction between unchanging doctrine and practice was based in the “interpretive community”. My point in all this was simply that because the RCC teaches distinctions between infallible doctrine and reformable teaching/practice, that is no more unwarranted or sketchy or duplicitous than Scripture doing the exact same thing. And yet that same type of criticism keeps resurfacing here.

    Um, catholics pay (well should) attention to their priests and to their bishops. That’s subsidiaristic. They also pay attention to the pope. It’s not some zero-sum game. How can everyone around the world universally pay attention to a priest in Chicago? What you’re proposing doesn’t even make sense in subsidiarism.

    LikeLike

91. KENLOSES, my “professional” opinion is that I don’t study the early church. It is also that Philip Schaff is not the most reliable guide to church history. And when I look at J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, I see a lot more qualification of the idea of eucharist as sacrifice that you let on. For instance, Chrysostom argued that the sacrifice of the mass was identical to the one Christ offered at the Last Supper. He did this to protect the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross (p. 451). You also will read this in Kelly, “the Eastern churches never treated Rome as the constitutional centre and head of the Church, much less as an infallible oracle of faith and morals, and on occasion had not the least compunction about resisting its express will” (407).

    LikeLike

92. Mad,

    I would like for you to please clarify what you mean. The scriptures created the Church? I always though Jesus did with 12 men. Explain.

    LikeLike

93. KENLOSES, but you’ve already admitted that modernism is on the loose in the church. You don’t think that has anything to do with a church that went from telling Christians how they should live to telling them we want to engage the modern world?

    LikeLike

94. http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=472

    LikeLike

95. Andrew,

    “In the process of all this, various church leaders are looking at different manuscripts, meeting in council, and debating what bears the marks of inspiration. All of this is involved in addressing the question of canon and the receiving of the divine word of the Lord.”

    Ridderbos:
    “For no New Testament writing is there a certificate issued either by Christ or by the apostles that guarantees its canonicity, and we know nothing of a special revelation or voice from heaven that gave divine approval to the collection of the twenty-seven books in question. Every attempt to find an a posteriori element to justify the canon, whether in the doctrinal authority or in the gradually developing consensus of the church, goes beyond the canon itself, posits a canon above the canon, and thereby comes into conflict with the order of redemptive history and the nature of the canon itself”

    This is why Calvin goes the way of self-attestation and internal witness. That’s the only consistent position to take. But that is subject to its own failings in resolving the question – one of which is that one cannot defend the canon with arguments which had no role in its original formation – that’s the a posteriori element Ridderbos mentions above.

    Secondly the OPC claims Synod/Carthage as witness, but only to the NT not the OT canon which again is ad hoc.

    LikeLike

96. Didn’t say it wasn’t a complex topic..

    LikeLike

97. No, Clete. That’s not the breakdown.
    Rather if you want to insist that the pope is capable of infallible statements, but neither that office nor you can provide us a list of the same, then what’s the point? Rome claims to have a better map than protestants even though part of it is permanently missing, much more what we do have in Scripture denies their additions. (Which means we will never see a substantive review of King and Webster on Scripture and the early church fathers over at the Pious Papal Philosopher’s Society.)

    IOW there’s a reason why the WCF 1:1 says that while God revealed himself and his will to his church in various ways in the past, for the better preservation and propagation of the truth, and the establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, the malice of Satan and of the world, he has committed the same “wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased”.

    Yet Rome, like Mohammed and Joseph Smith, has added her oral lost apostolic traditions and what all to Scripture by redefining Scripture to include “Tradition”, but she still can’t/won’t give us an objective hard copy list of that “Tradition” which is equally binding on the consciences of believers, until/unless implicit, i.e. ignorant faith kicks in. “Just trust mother Magisterium”.
    Guess that’s what “presenting every man perfect in Christ Jesus ” (Col. 1:28) means to the papal impostor pastor.

    Kenneth, speaking of hierarchies, the same goes for truths or doctrine.
    The doctrine of Scripture precedes the doctrines found therein, such as the Trinity etc.
    Neither can one hold long to the orthodox doctrines of Christianity when the doctrine of Scripture is corrupted. Vide the Roman church which adds unto it, much more is confused as to what that addition actually entails.

    LikeLike

98. Bob,

    “Rather if you want to insist that the pope is capable of infallible statements, but neither that office nor you can provide us a list of the same, then what’s the point? ”

    So actually the breakdown was entirely accurate.

    LikeLike

99. Secondly the OPC claims Synod/Carthage as witness, but only to the NT not the OT canon which
    again is ad hoc.

    Nothing like trading in non sequiturs.
    Just like if the example of Christ and the apostles for the change from the seventh to the first day of the week for worship is not good enough for Seventh Day Adventists, so too that Christ never criticized the Jews on their handling of the OT, while he had much to say on their perversion of the OT teaching, implies that the Jewish OT canon had the stamp of Christ’s approval on it.

    And of course Rome doesn’t like self attestation and inner witness. That means she doesn’t get to lord it over consciences of men the way she does, if she’s got a lock on the Holy Spirit as per her sarcedotalism.

    LikeLike

100. No, Clete.
     It just means you can’t follow through and fulfill the good and necessary consequences of your argument.
     The gnostic name it, claim it doesn’t work for prots, nor does it agree with Scripture – as Scripture defines itself and not the Roman perversion of it through uninspired addition of traditions.

     LikeLike

101. Kenneth,

     How does Christ build the church? Through the preaching of the Word (you know, because faith comes by hearing…).

     Like I said, this is basic to Protestantism. The early church did not create the canon, they recognized the texts that were canonical.

     Sorry I don’t have time to go into more detail (I have finals coming up). There are others here just as capable of explaining this if you want to learn.

     LikeLike

102. Bob,

     The acceptance of synod of rome/carthage by OPC, but just for NT and not OT, is ad hoc. There is no consistent principle being applied.

     “as Scripture defines itself and not the Roman perversion of it through uninspired addition of traditions.”

     As for naming it and claiming it, I’ll ask you to own your argument for self-attestation and inner witness – I asked you this before but no reply:

     – Do other writings/collections of writings besides the ones in your canon claim inspiration?
     – Does every book in your canon claim inspiration for itself?
     – If no, but some do, does every book that does claim it, claim it for all of the other books that do not?
     – If other books that do not claim inspiration are claimed by other books that do claim inspiration via quotation/reference, do some canonical books quote/reference other books/sources that are excluded from the canon? If so, why are those excluded given the shared criteria?
     – Do the books in your canon identify all other books that are not inspired to rule those out and close the canon?
     – Are the various disputed/added passages in the books of your canon inspired? If not, why didn’t people recognize that early on from inner witness? Is it possible more passages will be disputed in the future that may be considered authentic now?
     – If the bible obviously claims inspiration for itself so that recognition of the canon comes via self-attestation and inner witness, was the process of recognizing the canon, including disputes and controversies, a long and bumpy one because everyone was ignorant or spiritually blind and lacked inner witness?
     – Note the last question does not apply just to the first 400 years of christianity, but also to the Reformation itself – Luther doubting certain NT books at times, and other Reformers believing disputed passages to be authentic.

     LikeLike

103. CvD, one clarification, the “OPC position” on matters is not the Q&A of our website. It’s our constitution that should matter to you, so the discussion around that is what is most likely to be fruitful. I only posted because I had found that particular piece helpful. Maybe once we talk through chapter one of the confession, we can get to the other 32 chapters as well. Lots of ground to cover, and all in due time, of course.

     LikeLike

104. It’s a combox, Clete.
     You haven’t demonstrated that much comprehension prior to this and I am not going to go on at length to your many questions. Arbitrary I know, but NB your previous arguments have been pretty much silenced.

     You can start with the Westminster Confession – not the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy – and go from there. I am not sure of all what Andrew has linked to.
     Michael Kruger’s got a recent book The Question of the Canon which is pretty good. Whitaker’s Disputations on Holy Scripture in answer to Bellarmine is the prot classic in english. The general outlines of the canon showed up pretty early. The canon also attests to itself and is inter related, quoting other books and vice versa.
     Yes, the testimony of the early church is what it is, but it is a non sequitur to assume/assert the same is necessarily Roman. (Remember, Rome needs to prove the universal consent of the fathers to the temporal and spiritual supremacy and infallibility of the pope. Byran begged off, so go figure.)
     Neither did Rome t weigh in on the question of the canon or justification until Trent.
     Neither do individual reformers speak for protestantism per se.

     Long story short, I’ll take relative certainty over the Roman alternative of uncertainty; that despite the papal claims to infallibility, on the ground and when it counts, Rome can’t come up with an objective hard copy of her Scripture/Tradition version of Scripture so that anybody can be on the same page.

     You claim that the pope’s infallibility precludes any kind of error or confusion that is endemic to protestantism. That, all the while Rome has not authoritatively pronounced on any Scriptural passage. IOW she claims infallible teaching authority and refuses to use it. (Talk about stingy.) But then again, Rome can only justify any of her many claims by waving Newman’s magic wand of development contra Scripture, history and reason. No thanks.

     LikeLike

105. Cletus, I have nothing bad to say about your helpful and clear comment at 1:49 today. Did I say something bad about you before? If so, I should feel guilty. But, you know, I’m a Protestant soo…

     You said “Now as to the hopeless despair of the average RC. This is why I had a whole point in my post to you on how the faithful are to respectfully obey/submit even to *non-infallible* universal teaching. Many magisterial documents teach this – technically there are various levels of assent, but faithful should not be dissenting left and right on teaching they don’t disagree with just because they don’t think it’s infallilble.”

     Of course, this is a key difference between Presbyterianism – at least in principle – and RC. Yes, there are some Protestants that allow themselves to be bound, perhaps to a celebrity pastor, or perhaps blindly in the current of a “happening” movement. But the biblical and confessional doctrine of liberty of conscience rejects that kind of thing and I don’t need to tell you about sola scriptura. I’m just not “all in” for implicit faith in the various political, social, and economic theories of a man. Of course, even less so for matters that redemption and sanctification.

     LikeLike

106. I just don’t have time to go tit for tat in the combox world these days but, somebody HAS to explain to me what is recent or novel about reconciling to inscripturated apostolic tradition. Prots, RC’s, EO, JW’s, even Mormons make the claim after a fashion. Then somebody needs to reconcile for me epistemological certainty over and above apostolic authority, i.e. papal infallibility/mechanism/opportunity, with logocentric FAITH in the inscripturated apostolic testimony which is contrasted with sight and recommended above doubting Thomas. I’m not up to the canonical discussion(just not enough time) but there’s a rough outline of one somewhere back in a post on ‘superiority-Top shelf’.

     It gets particularly befuddling when the supposed demand is for epistemological-mechanism-certainty(until I get the infallible commentary from the extraordinary magisterium on Sacred scripture much less Sacred Tradition, I’m not giving any ground here for hypotheticals and potentiality) in order to GROUND supernatural faith. What? The incarnation was superfluous much less the resurrection and historical documents(apostolic letters) confirming such? How about just the promise of the Holy Spirit?

     And if Paul and Peter can’t ‘pastorally’ keep their church plants toeing the line, or John for that matter, what’s the oddity/unfaithfulness, religiously speaking, of vetting ECF with, again, didactic apostolic letters and finding them wanting?

     LikeLike

107. Bob,

     Part of the point is that if Kruger and Whitaker fall into the “canon above a canon” trap and use a posteriori evidence, it’s not useful, as Ridderbos noted. I don’t see how self-attestation + inner witness (which I admit is the consistent approach) method can possibly make sense in light of history, but maybe they offer a magic bullet.

     The objective copy of Scripture/Tradition is Scripture interpreted in the light of Tradition, reflected in the common teaching, worship, and life of church. Not hard.

     “That, all the while Rome has not authoritatively pronounced on any Scriptural passage. IOW she claims infallible teaching authority and refuses to use it.”

     For the umpteenth time, I’ve already given examples of infallible teaching. Would you like more? Is there a magic number of examples where you’ll give up this line of argument?

     Rome has given infallible interpretations of the entire bible – I know you’re going to jump on that – what I mean is that when an infallible doctrine is issued, interpretation of the whole of Scripture must be consonant with infallible teaching – Scripture/tradition/magisterium cannot be opposed to each other – that’s the whole point. Certain verses are more prominent yes, but you I hope are aware the RCC does not teach GHM is the only sense of a verse – there are multiple senses to scripture and given it is God’s word, is it by it’s very nature inexhaustible so a final infallible interpretation that rejects any further reflections subverts that. Setting boundaries/parameters is a different thing.

     LikeLike

108. CvD, if you ran a blog, and I had time, I’d probably read it from time to time. I might even share my views at your site, in such a hypothetical.

     Enjoy the rest of your day.

     LikeLike

109. Kenneth,
     How did the Jewish church know that their canon was the Word of God? Was there a RCC in O.T. times creating their canon? And last time I checked Paul said, that the Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” (Ephesians 2:20).

     I know you don’t buy this but – Calvin: “If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter began to exist… For if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself could never have existed. Nothing therefore can be more absurd than the fiction that the power of judging [authenticating canon] Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted but, acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bounds shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent.”

     And you wrote: OK well as long as we are begging the question I could just as easily say that RCs look at the Church through Christs promises to the Church that are found in Gods word. You’re just playing semantics bud. The easily recognizable point that I was trying to make was that DG was focused on two sinner dunking each other in water and not on the theological implications viewed through the eyes of faith. I’m obviously not saying that the Church died on the cross for our sins or that the Church is the trinity. Don’t miss the Forrest for the trees

     I have no idea about your discussion with Darryl visa-vis dunking. As enthralling as your many comments are, I haven’t read that interchange. I’m just evaluating your words to me concerning faith that I quoted back to you. Now if you want to say there are different kinds of faith, fine. Then make the necessary distinctions. And where did I say that you were claiming the Church died on the cross or that the Church is the trinity?? Can you say red, as in herring…

     K – However, I would argue that you read the bible with eyes of faith and not of skepticism… I am asking that DGHART attempt to view the Church in like manner.

     So again, a “no” concerning your appeal to view the Church though eyes of faith in the same manner as Scripture. One is infallible. One is not.

     LikeLike

110. MM,

     “Of course, this is a key difference between Presbyterianism – at least in principle – and RC. Yes, there are some Protestants that allow themselves to be bound, perhaps to a celebrity pastor, or perhaps blindly in the current of a “happening” movement. But the biblical and confessional doctrine of liberty of conscience rejects that kind of thing and I don’t need to tell you about sola scriptura. I’m just not “all in” for implicit faith in the various political, social, and economic theories of a man. Of course, even less so for matters that redemption and sanctification.”

     This is a fair point – where is the line between virtuous obedience despite your misgivings versus virtuous disobedience? This is why I’ve said in the past how culpability is context-variable and person-variable in terms of obedience/disobedience and shepherds give a higher account. It’s also important to note that the faithful are bound to submit to non-infallible *universal* teaching of *faith and morals* (so by universal, I don’t mean some local priest’s remarks that contradict such teaching – i.e. you would not continue blindly following some celebrity pastor who went off contradicting WCF – nor are faithful blindly bound to some heretical priest teaching contrary to the universal magisterium or his thought on secular matters).

     A pope offering his ideas of politics or economics or science or whatever secular area does not require strict submission – if it was straight submission to every word there would never be any discussion or conversations to develop thought or theology (but again, for theologians, there are proper ways to engage in discussions/questions on theological or doctrinal issues – not outright dissent – as Donum Veritatis states). The pope doesn’t just sit delivering divine laws. If a pope offering economic thought is basically saying “hey don’t be selfish and help people” or “provide a just wage” but then he also says “here are ways I think this might best be achieved” he’s not saying you have to be some robot and follow his suggestion because he’s obviously an expert on economics and politics, he is saying you need to follow the former principle (which obviously is nothing new) and respectfully consider his thought on prudentially achieving that goal – doctrinal principles vs prudential judgment/application in social circumstances distinction again.

     LikeLike

111. Jack,

     Not to interrupt really but “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” does not necessitate Calvin’s insertion of “built on the foundation of the doctrine of the apostles and prophets”. RCC/EO believe the church is built on the apostles themselves by their divine authority (hence apostolic succession), not just their teaching. He also makes a similar (unwarranted imo) judgment when he says
     “that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself could never have existed.” – relegating all authority to teaching rather than persons.

     LikeLike

112. Cletus…

     relegating all authority to teaching rather than persons.

     Exactly. Ultimate authority is grounded in the Word of God, the highest court. Man (the Church) exercises an authority that is ministerial, i.e. it is authoritative inasmuch as it finds its warrant in Scripture. And what do we have left of the prophets and the apostles except their teachings? And what did Paul and Peter have except the teachings of the prophets? And Paul didn’t say “on the foundations of the prophets and apostles and the bishops that would follow.” And which bishops would that be? Some weren’t all that reliable, whereas the Word is. But then again Cletus, I said that you guys wouldn’t agree…

     LikeLike

113. DGHART,

     KENLOSES, my “professional” opinion is that I don’t study the early church. It is also that Philip Schaff is not the most reliable guide to church history. And when I look at J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, I see a lot more qualification of the idea of eucharist as sacrifice that you let on. For instance, Chrysostom argued that the sacrifice of the mass was identical to the one Christ offered at the Last Supper. He did this to protect the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross (p. 451). You also will read this in Kelly, “the Eastern churches never treated Rome as the constitutional centre and head of the Church, much less as an infallible oracle of faith and morals, and on occasion had not the least compunction about resisting its express will” (407).

     Sure there may have been a range of opinions concerning what “sacrifice” meant. But there can be no doubt that the ECF thought of the Eucharist as the actual body and blood of Christ and the mass as a sacrifice in some sense. Jaroslav Pelikans name can be added to the list of reformed who agree with my assessment. He writes that

     the date of the Didache [anywhere from about 60 to 160, depending on the scholar]. . . the application of the term ‘sacrifice’ to the Eucharist seems to have been quite natural, together with the identification of the Christian Eucharist as the ‘pure offering’ commanded in Malachi 1:11 . . .

     The Christian liturgies were already using similar language about the offering of the prayers, the gifts, and the lives of the worshipers, and probably also about the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, so that the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ never lacked a liturgical frame of reference . . .

     Perhaps you are right about the papacy. Maybe I should join an E.O. Communion? (throws up in mouth) but either way the fact is that Calvinism is more aptly described as a deformation than it is a reformation. No matter how attractive certain aspects of reformed theology may be it still represents a fundamental retardation of historical Christianity. You may be OK with that I don’t know. But if you are you need to be willing to man up and condemn Aquinas, Augustine, Athanasius, the whole lot, as the pagan idolatrous heretical apostates they must have been. You want bible alone right? Why not cast off from the shores of history and give up the field to us all together? Why cling to the testimony of fallible humans after the apostles? I think deep down you know that would be an enormous problem. Protestantism needs to have some kind of connection to the early church no matter how you all may deny it.

     LikeLike

114. Part of the point is that if Kruger and Whitaker fall into the “canon above a canon” trap and use a posteriori evidence, it’s not useful, as Ridderbos noted. I don’t see how self-attestation + inner witness (which I admit is the consistent approach) method can possibly make sense in light of history, but maybe they offer a magic bullet.

     Clete, you tell me what Ridderbos is saying, if you can and I’ll put in with you.

     The objective copy of Scripture/Tradition is Scripture interpreted in the light of Tradition, reflected in the common teaching, worship, and life of church. Not hard.

     Exactly, only what you mean when you say “church” is the “Roman church” or the “Roman teaching on the common teaching, worship and life of the church”. Big diff there.

     “That, all the while Rome has not authoritatively pronounced on any Scriptural passage. IOW she claims infallible teaching authority and refuses to use it.”

     For the umpteenth time, I’ve already given examples of infallible teaching. Would you like more? Is there a magic number of examples where you’ll give up this line of argument?

     Pay attention, please. Rome has not spoken specifically in regard to verses of Scripture, all the while it grandly waves its hand as it appeals to Scripture/Tradition for the mass etc. much more Rome doesn’t appeal to Scripture as per se protestantism does, to support any of her traditions/teachings. Why not? She doesn’t need to, she’s infallible. Duh. Yeah, there’s a drive by to Matt. 16, but then she’s off and running. The Book of Hebrews be damned, the early Christian liturgies trump all and the mass is legit.

     Rome has given infallible interpretations of the entire bible – I know you’re going to jump on that – what I mean is that when an infallible doctrine is issued, interpretation of the whole of Scripture must be consonant with infallible teaching – Scripture/tradition/magisterium cannot be opposed to each other – that’s the whole point.

     Exactly. Rome sets herself over Scripture, reason and history, which is why prots dissent.

     .. . . but I hope you are aware the RCC does not teach GHM is the only sense of a verse – there are multiple senses to scripture and given it is God’s word, is it by it’s very nature inexhaustible so a final infallible interpretation that rejects any further reflections subverts that. Setting boundaries/parameters is a different thing.

     Yes, the reformed are only too familiar with the Roman/medieval four senses meaning of Scripture contra WCF 1:9. Scripture becomes a nose of wax and the pope outdoes Pinocchio in pontificating about what Scripture teaches. First and foremost that Scripture includes “Tradition”, the last as defined by Rome in its redefinition of Scripture, contra Scripture.

     LikeLike

115. And Kenny’s still beating his wife I see.
     The invisible and universal consent of the fathers to the supremacy and infallibility of the Roman bishop is still AWOL, but we’re supposed to buy into the contradiction of Rome to its own standards on his say so. Make that development.
     But us prots are easy with Vat2’s Decree on Ecumenicism. We’re in what ever stick Kenny wants to beat his wife with, the poor thing.

     LikeLike

116. “Jaroslav Pelikans name can be added to the list of reformed who agree with my assessment.”

     Pelikans was LCMS and converted East, so his agreement wasn’t Reformed (Reformed =/ Lutheran, although we all pray for reconciliation.) Also, real bodily presence =/ sacrifice, in Lutheran theology.

     “Because a particular answer was in harmony with Scripture and tradition and therefore orthodox, Rome [i.e., in the days of the early church] supported it. Invert this and you have the foundation of papal infallibility. Because Rome supported an answer, it was in harmony with Scripture and tradition and therefore orthodox.” —Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism, p. 40.

     LikeLike

117. Kenneth,

     You still don’t get that we can both claim the medieval and early church and at the same time be critical of it.

     Criticism doesn’t equal excommunication, as you suggest, but rather an impure church. Again, we allow for the possibility of error in the church — that is precisely why the reformation was required.

     The turning point for Rome, in my view, was Trent. Before Trent you still have the church. Afterward you still have the church, but it is a Protestant church, a Reformed and Lutheran church, if you will. The medieval theologians and early church fathers are all ours, warts and all.

     It is Rome that is compelled to do fairy-tale history because Rome elevates tradition to an equally authoritative place with Scripture. Rome must have an unbroken apostolic tradition, Rome must have an unblemished early church, Rome must have their medieval theologians as saints and doctors.

     Protestants know how to criticize and keep. Rome must either criticize or keep — by nature it does not do both (as you illustrate so well).

     LikeLike

118. Mad Hungarian (angry or crazy? I’m good with either),

     Entire comment – Well said!

     Great summation – “Protestants know how to criticize and keep. Rome must either criticize or keep — by nature it does not do both (as you illustrate so well).”

     LikeLike

119. “The medieval theologians and early church fathers are all ours, warts and all. ”

     Amen!

     LikeLike

120. Yup, the rabid Magyar nails Kenny’s false dichotomy and either/or PARADIGM.
     There, I feel much better now.
     Kenny’s wife? Ah, she’s still doin’ poorly.

     LikeLike

121. Oh lord. Lets take them in order.

     Bob S,

     can you explain the beat your wife thing? I don’t know what you are saying… Spell it out for me please.

     Katy,

     Hi there. I don’t think I’ve interacted with you just yet. I grew up in the LCMS and attended Concordia University in Austin. I can assure you that Lutherans do not equate the real presence with a sacrifice. However, I will happily accept the correction that Pelikan was not reformed. I have to admit that I am becoming rather annoyed that the interlocutors here continually bring up the fact that the papacy was not universally accepted in the early Church. Its like if the topic was football and my Texans weren’t doing so well and so I just decided to start discussing the Rockets lol The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that we can only believe things that were universally agreed upon. The Church teaches that we may not *disagree* in matters that the early Church was unanimous on. You know, the basic fundamentals of historical Christianity such as the real presence, baptismal regeneration, mass as a sacrifice, apostolic succession, Sacred Tradition, intercession of the saints, Mary, an authoritative Church, etc, etc. You claim that all of those things are corruptions. This is what I mean when I say that your religion is fundamentally incompatible with historical Christianity. If you don’t see a problem with that then wonderful. I just want someone to own up to what they are peddling. A religion that is just as novel and late to Christianity as Mormonism or the JWs.

     LikeLike

122. Mad,

     You still don’t get that we can both claim the medieval and early church and at the same time be critical of it.

     you are right. I don’t get it. How can you claim a group of people whose beliefs you know associate with the “synagogue of Satan?!?!”

     Criticism doesn’t equal excommunication, as you suggest, but rather an impure church. Again, we allow for the possibility of error in the church — that is precisely why the reformation was required.

     When ones criticism of a church is to call it the synagogue of Satan how such criticism not entail excommunication? The reformation didn’t just trim the edges off some rough patches. It didn’t just slightly alter the doctrines of grace and justification. The reformation represents a radical fundamental retardation of Christianity. I can see how the Eastern schismstics might be able to claim the early church while criticizing part of it…. But the reformed have no claim to history what-so-ever. Fundamentally a different animal.

     The turning point for Rome, in my view, was Trent. Before Trent you still have the church. Afterward you still have the church, but it is a Protestant church, a Reformed and Lutheran church, if you will. The medieval theologians and early church fathers are all ours, warts and all.

     Again, this argument rests on the *naive belief* that the early Church taught sola fide. Or something close enough to sola fide. Or something that might maybe could be sola fide if you looked at it just right. They did not. not one church father for the first fifteen centuries taught that. We have already done this dance with definitive results. We already saw Bob and Buchanan go down in flames. Show us where schaff and Kelly and McGrath missed it. I’m game.

     It is Rome that is compelled to do fairy-tale history because Rome elevates tradition to an equally authoritative place with Scripture. Rome must have an unbroken apostolic tradition, Rome must have an unblemished early church, Rome must have their medieval theologians as saints and doctors.

     Nothing of substance to respond to here.

     Protestants know how to criticize and keep. Rome must either criticize or keep — by nature it does not do both (as you illustrate so well).

     I don’t even know what this means. Rome has definitive dogma that doesn’t fluctuate 33,000 times every 500 years? Lol yes, that is the nature of an authoritative church. We can make authoritative pronouncements.

     LikeLike

123. KENLOSES, you’re not following your holy father. “Deformation” and “fundamental retardation” are not “separated brothers.” I know if only you were pope.

     But while you have this man crush on the Roman pontiff, I’m still paying attention to the Word of God, which you can’t do and still believe what you believe.

     LikeLike

124. Kenneth,

     The Church teaches that we may not *disagree* in matters that the early Church was unanimous on. You know, the basic fundamentals of historical Christianity such as the real presence, baptismal regeneration, mass as a sacrifice, apostolic succession, Sacred Tradition, intercession of the saints, Mary, an authoritative Church, etc, etc. You claim that all of those things are corruptions. This is what I mean when I say that your religion is fundamentally incompatible with historical Christianity. If you don’t see a problem with that then wonderful. I just want someone to own up to what they are peddling. A religion that is just as novel and late to Christianity as Mormonism or the JWs.

     So we can disagree on the papacy? There goes the Roman apologetic.

     For your information,

     The Reformed affirm the real presence, the reality of an authoritative church, apostolic succession in doctrinal terms (which was the primary emphasis of fathers such as Athanasius, else he would have not railed against the Arian bishops), sacred tradition in terms of the New Testament (which a Father like Athanasius appealed to as primary). Heck, we could even affirm the Eucharist as a sacrifice as long as it is a sacrifice of thanksgiving and not propitiation.

     The EO scholar John Meyendorff once remarked that the “errors” of Protestantism are rooted in its adherence to Augustine’s thought. On a more conciliatory note, he also noted that the Reformers were informed by the spirit of the early church even if they did not accept all of its conclusions.

     So, in other words, Protestantism is not late to the party. It’s certainly no later than Tridentine Roman Catholicism.

     LikeLike

125. Kenneth,

     The Synagogue of Satan came into existence at Trent, not before. Prior to Trent it was the church.

     Trent was momentous because it rejected the possibility of JBFA and by anathematizing the gospel, thereby unchurched itself. We can debate about whether or to what degree the concept, if not the phrase, of JBFA was present in the church prior to the reformation (it is certainly in the Bible!), but it was an allowed doctrine. Until Trent.

     Again, we claim the history, but we also claim that it was in error regarding certain beliefs and practices.

     LikeLike

126. What’s the over/under on a date when Kenneth finally runs out of steam or comes to realize hard facts around here?

     I want January 3rd.

     LikeLike

127. Kent, I haven’t been reading long enough to know fully the rise and fall of Doug Sowers, but if history is any guide, only 1 month more of this is likely wishful thinking. But I’ll bite, Feb. 3 for me. But I’m feeling that too is wishful thinking..

     LikeLike

128. In many ways, one has to feel sorry for the RC apologists. There they were all happy about being the one true church until V2 said God’s grace is available even in small Presbyterian churches. The dissonance must be incredible, I mean, now they’re even rejecting the principled difference that Rome makes between Protestants and Mormons/JWs. So much for the Magisterium giving them certainty. They can’t agree with the Magisterium that all dogs go to heaven, but somehow they don’t think they are in the same boat as Protestants who evaluate their own church leaders by a higher standard.

     Moving on.

     LikeLike

129. Jason, Pope Francis, and their Leftist friends in Venezuela:

     http://literatecomments.com/2013/12/03/the-pope-the-state-and-venezuela/

     LikeLike

130. Andrew and Kent, I’m hoping Ken stays around longer. You know — iron sharpening iron. Actually, I hate that phrase. But I am curious to see what converts to Rome think and since Jason and Bryan no longer want to play, Ken and CvD are good substitutes. I need something to keep me awake.

     LikeLike

131. Erik, worthy of highlighting here (from your post):

     No Christian can doubt the love expressed in the pope’s message, which aims to shepherd the flock away from materialism. But the charge that grinding poverty in the world is the outgrowth of “the absolute autonomy of the marketplace” ignores reality. To be sure, even prosperous economies regulate markets. But those that have a lighter touch do better. Human history clearly demonstrates that when men and women, employing their free will and God-given talents, are able to innovate, produce, accumulate capital and trade even the weakest and most vulnerable are better off.

     Instead the pope trusts the state, “charged with vigilance for the common good.” Why is it then that the world’s most desperate poor are concentrated in places where the state has gained an outsize role in the economy specifically on just such grounds?

     Exhibit A is Venezuela. It is an instruction manual on how to increase human misery. Without competition, the Venezuelan oil monopoly is a nest of corruption and a source of untold environmental damage. An unchecked chavista spending binge produced a fiscal deficit of 15% of gross domestic product last year, and the impulse to print money in order to pay for it. Among the unintended consequences of price controls are shortages, which drive hoarding for barter. An accumulated supply of toilet paper, for example, can be traded for cooking oil when none can be found.

     LikeLike

132. It’s not like another 3 are not out there waiting to be “tagged it” to come on here and hit us with their best shot.

     LikeLike

133. Kenneth, I try to keep my comments at a minimum here, since I’m not Reformed (and a girl :emoticon:) . I was using =/ as “not equal,” so we understand each other. You seemed to suggest Pelikan held a Reformed view of the Supper, and I just wanted to correct that.

     “The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that we can only believe things that were universally agreed upon.”

     Yes, I know that and agree.

     “You know, the basic fundamentals of historical Christianity such as the real presence, baptismal regeneration, mass as a sacrifice, apostolic succession, Sacred Tradition, intercession of the saints, Mary, an authoritative Church, etc, etc. You claim that all of those things are corruptions.”

     I don’t think you were catechized well as a Lutheran, since you should know we do not claim those as corruptions, especially the first two (and like to say “bodily presence,” since “real presence” has caused semantic problems in our history), except maybe intercession of the faithful departed. We just interpret all those doctrines through Christ’s completed work on the cross. So apostolic succession is fine, but we don’t hang our assurance on it, it’s more of a practice (like priestly celibacy in your tradition), someone else here addressed sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving versus sacrifice of propitiation, etc.

     I don’t have time to dialog more, but conflating Lutheran and Reformed (although we like each other), and then throwing in Mormons and JWs is a little much. It makes me think you learned most of your Protestant theology from Rome.

     LikeLike

134. DGHART,

     You can still be a separated brother (validly baptized) and hold to a heretical deformed theology.

     Robert,

     Im still awaiting your comments on Gods “secret will”. Are you throwing up the white flag? Once you guys stop hiding behind liberal interpretations of Vatican 2 you start falling short on substance real quick. Of course, pitting Saint Thomas against Calvin was a mismatch from the start….

     Mad,

     So on your view, even though no one believed or taught sola fide before the reformation thats OK because it was metaphysically possible that sola fide might be taught one day. So even though everyone believed in baptismal regeneration, penance, confession, mortal sin, prayer to saints, relics, mariology, works + faith, etc…… still all good because it was *possible* that one day they would stop doing those things? lol come on.

     Kent and Andrew,

     Oh, come on now, i was just making myself at home! My wife will be giving birth to my third son *any time now* so I imagine I will be to busy to post very much shortly….. but then again…. meh…. I could probably find some time.

     LikeLike

135. Ken-papa, congrats to you during this exciting time. Father of three little ones myself, over here. Do yourself a favor and stay off the internet for a few weeks or so. Later.

     LikeLike

136. Katy,

     Sorry I misread your comments! I didn’t understand the “does not equal” sign. Pelikan was not reformed but he was a very talented historian…. and his name can be added along with schaff and kelly and those protestant historians who don’t seem to have any problem admitting…. grudgingly…. that the early church viewed mass as a sacrifice.

     you should know we do not claim those as corruptions, especially the first two (and like to say “bodily presence,” since “real presence” has caused semantic problems in our history), except maybe intercession of the faithful departed. We just interpret all those doctrines through Christ’s completed work on the cross. So apostolic succession is fine, but we don’t hang our assurance on it, it’s more of a practice (like priestly celibacy in your tradition), someone else here addressed sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving versus sacrifice of propitiation, etc.

     You may not view the “words” as corruptions but you certainly view the concepts as corruptions if understood in the context of the early church. You could pick any age, any early father you like and we can see whats what. In my experience this is the point where all the reformed interlocutors fall short. Even Robert who is among the most capable on this cite. Specifics. Page and line. Lets get past the rhetoric, step out of the spin zone, and dig into the facts.

     I don’t have time to dialog more, but conflating Lutheran and Reformed (although we like each other), and then throwing in Mormons and JWs is a little much. It makes me think you learned most of your Protestant theology from Rome.

     Lets see… the protestant religion was invented out of thin air 1500 years after christ…. mormonism in the 1800s…. i guess they missed the 1500 year cut off? Mormons have their own books…. protestants cut out whatever books they don’t like. I’ll grant that some flavors of protestantism enjoy a valid baptism…. but such a baptism is only fruitful as long as the person in question does not formally adhere to the heretical community to which one belongs. Invincible ignorance. Thats the only hope a protestant has for salvation……. it also happens to be the only hope a Mormon has of salvation. Hence, you are really in the same boat. (all the ecumenical patty cakers gasp in horror)

     LikeLike

137. Thanks Andrew! Its a lot of sleepless nights for us daddys of 3…. worse for the mommas though! I could probably stretch and take a break for a while. Not for a couple weeks though thats just unreasonable! You would leave me cooped up in here with a pregnant wife? Parish the thought! I need these escapes man lol!

     LikeLike

138. Kenneth,

     No, that’s not what I said. I never said no one believed or taught sola fide.

     I just don’t think that you and I are going to agree on the extent to which the pre-reformation church believed in justification apart from works.

     I’m offering to you the Protestant view of the church prior to the reformation — you don’t have to like it..

     LikeLike

139. Kenloses, speaking from experience over here, is all.

     As for your theological attack strategy, I’m seeing more of your tactics, even with real live Catholics I sit and have coffee with, for example. Darryl wants you around, so don’t listen to my attempts to shoo you away. Horror of horrors, you may learn soemthing the longer you stay.

     I’m out.

     LikeLike

140. Kenneth,

     Lets see… the protestant religion was invented out of thin air 1500 years after christ….

     Said no one ever except Kenneth.

     I’ll grant that some flavors of protestantism enjoy a valid baptism…. but such a baptism is only fruitful as long as the person in question does not formally adhere to the heretical community to which one belongs.

     I don’t even know what this means. So, a Presbyterian or Lutheran baptized in those communions does not have a fruitful baptism as long as he remains in those communions. Doesn’t sound very V2 ecumenical to me. Maybe you should read more Schillebeeckx:

     It is difficult to disagree with Roman Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx when he concludes that the Council of Florence and Vatican II “are diametrically opposed” on this issue (though he wryly notes that “there are always theologians who are able to reconcile the two statements in the abstract in an unhistorical way with some so-called hermeneutical acrobatics”). Catholic apologists in our own day appeal to the certainty and unchanging character of their own church’s teaching, and their arguments often seem compelling to Protestants who are weary of ecclesiastical divisions. But this area of theology provides one example (among others) of how Roman doctrine has indeed changed over the years. Rome used to have a very exclusive doctrine of salvation, but it has become quite inclusive in recent generations.

     http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=722

     As far as the secret will of God, I just responded to you. Sorry for the delay, but I do have other things to do believe it or not. Rest assured that it had nothing to do with Aquinas’ superiority. Brilliant though he was, he’s got some problems.

     LikeLike

141. Mad,

     can you substantiate your claim that someone taught sola fide with some historical evidence? I have already quoted schaff, geisler, McKenzie, and others admitting this was not the case. What do you know that they are missing?

     A baptism can be valid but not fruitful (not giving the grace usually associated with the sacrament). A formal acceptance of schism is considered an impediment to grace. So, if someone is aware if the claims of the RCC reads up on both sides of the argument and decides to join the OPC for example. He may be really baptized but would not receive the grace that baptism usually brings. As I say, you share the *hopefully invincibly ignorant* cruise ship with all other denominations. That’s not to say that God hasn’t used your communities or that Gods grace can’t be found in them. The vast majority of the protestant world is ignorant of its own beliefs much less those of the RCC. But you will nit be saved because of your theology… A protestant will only be saved if one can escape from his or her community at least implicitly. Also, I want you to understand that I’m not saying this to be mean or offensive. I think its important for everyone here to realize where they stand. If you think my church is the synagogue of Satan then I WANT someone to tell me that for goodness sake so I van look into the claims and take them seriously. As MacArthur would say the most living thing you can do for someone is tell them the truth.

     Perhaps some have a hard time harmonizing the councils. I would imagine that some have a hard time reconciling the book of Romans and the book of James. I don’t think its very difficult to accomplish and neither do traditionalist as a while think so. We are still working things out (Vatican 2 only happened 50 years ago after all) but I don’t think the problems are irreconcilable. I really don’t. If you even gave a half hearted effort you would see what I mean. Anyone who can make the book of James teach sola fide and read Augustine as a proto-Prot should have a SUPER easy time reconciling the texts.

     Talk to you soon Robert!

     LikeLike

142. Oops… The second paragraph on is addressed to Robert

     LikeLike

143. Jack,

     “And what do we have left of the prophets and the apostles except their teachings?”
     The church they founded and was operating before the last word of scripture was recorded.

     “And what did Paul and Peter have except the teachings of the prophets?”
     Their experiences with Christ and their apostolic charism.

     “And which bishops would that be?”
     The ones in communion with the bishop of Rome.

     LikeLike

144. JBFA… I came across this a while back. Pretty interesting. Many more quotes from the ECFs explicitly using the phrase faith alone or not by works when talking about justification:
     http://deovivendiperchristum.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/the-early-church-fathers-on-sola-fide/

     Clement:
     And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen”. – First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32

     Hilary:
     “This was forgiven by Christ through faith, because the Law could not yield, for faith alone justifies.”
     The Latin says “fides enim sola justificat.” – In Evangelium Matthaei Commentarius, Caput VIII

     Basil:
     “[As the Apostle says,] Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, [I say that] Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, [and] redemption, that, as it is written, ‘he who boasts, let him boast in the Lord.’ [For] this is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and has been justified solely by faith in Christ.” The Greek says: “πίστει δὲ μόνῃ τῇ εἰς Χριστὸν δεδικαιωμένον.” – Homilia XX, Homilia De Humilitate, §3, PG 31:529.

     Chrysostom:
     “God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.”
     – Homily on Ephesians 4.2.9.

     LikeLike

145. CvD,

     The church they founded and was operating before the last word of scripture was recorded.

     You mean the same church that is founded on the apostolic gospel. Tell me again where Rome has said I can find that again besides Scripture. Here I am asking for an infallible definition of tradition again.

     LikeLike

146. KENLOSES, “out of thin air?” That’s good. No problems in the church. No indulgences. No Renaissance popes. And of course, no Erasmus Greek NT that Rome banned from church use.

     LikeLike

147. Bob,

     “Clete, you tell me what Ridderbos is saying, if you can and I’ll put in with you.”

     I cited Ridderbos earlier to Andrew:
     “For no New Testament writing is there a certificate issued either by Christ or by the apostles that guarantees its canonicity, and we know nothing of a special revelation or voice from heaven that gave divine approval to the collection of the twenty-seven books in question. Every attempt to find an a posteriori element to justify the canon, whether in the doctrinal authority or in the gradually developing consensus of the church, goes beyond the canon itself, posits a canon above the canon, and thereby comes into conflict with the order of redemptive history and the nature of the canon itself.”

     Basically the point being any a posteriori, after-the-fact, evidence or any evidence outside the canon used in confirming the canon is extra-canonical and creates the “canon above the canon” and is not legitimate. Two such criteria would be church consensus or what hebrew-speaking jews were using. From snippets I’ve read of Kruger, part of his argument is the church consensus one, which falls into the canon above a canon trap and this of course just presupposes what comprises the “church”, who gets to count in the “consensus”, and creates an ad hoc distinction accepting consensus on the canon, but not on other doctrinal matters. Although he does focus primarily on self-attestation via various divine qualities/attributes of the texts which as I’ve said is consistent, but I don’t think can get you the whole canon, nor close it (and I’m not sure he even engages disputed passages at all which is a big issue). But again this is just going off excerpts I’ve read – I don’t want to judge it – maybe he does give the magic bullet. The a posteriori criticism also impacts the second fork of recognition – private inner witness – arguments that weren’t used in the original formation of the canon cannot be used after the fact to justify it – councils were the basis of affirming/finalizing the canon, not variable private individualistic inner witness.

     To a broader point, even if Kruger and Whitaker are just awesome and somehow escape everything, it really doesn’t mean all that much. It’s just scholarship – all those academic conclusions are always provisional – they necessarily rely both on incomplete historical data and limited theological perspectives (hello textual criticism). If ecclesiastical infallibility is abandoned, scholarship cannot rule out change in light of further, still undiscovered data or more clarifying perspectives – essentially it is by its nature arguing from ignorance and reduces to plausible opinion which cannot be a basis for divinely revealed knowledge.

     “The objective copy of Scripture/Tradition is Scripture interpreted in the light of Tradition, reflected in the common teaching, worship, and life of church. Not hard.”
     “Exactly, only what you mean when you say “church” is the “Roman church” or the “Roman teaching on the common teaching, worship and life of the church”. Big diff there.”

     Well, yes we have to define what the church is. So an RC would say the Roman church.

     “For the umpteenth time, I’ve already given examples of infallible teaching. Would you like more? Is there a magic number of examples where you’ll give up this line of argument?”
     “Pay attention, please. Rome has not spoken specifically in regard to verses of Scripture, all the while it grandly waves its hand as it appeals to Scripture/Tradition for the mass etc. much more Rome doesn’t appeal to Scripture as per se protestantism does, to support any of her traditions/teachings. Why not? She doesn’t need to, she’s infallible.”

     Presupposes authoritative teaching of magisterium is opposed to Scripture. Your main point which you’ve raised a million times is that Rome never exercised infallible teaching (or teaching we can know) – which is clearly false as I’ve shown with examples – and many of its infallible decrees cite verses in support – just because it’s giving a primary interpretation, does not mean it is therefore limiting all interpretation of that verse – it is just circumscribing the bounds. Furthermore I think it’s obvious there was tons of medieval exegesis going on leading up to Trent. There is exegesis going on even now among theologians all over the world – shocking I know – most RC scholars must just use bibles as doorstops.

     “Exactly. Rome sets herself over Scripture, reason and history, which is why prots dissent.”

     No Rome sets herself over inauthentic/erroneous interpretations (which is why prots dissent), not over Scripture/Tradition as Dei Verbum states:
     “But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”

     “Yes, the reformed are only too familiar with the Roman/medieval four senses meaning of Scripture contra WCF 1:9. Scripture becomes a nose of wax and the pope outdoes Pinocchio in pontificating about what Scripture teaches.”

     If Scripture was a wax nose and Rome is so opposed to it, why did it even bother maintaining the canon? Just to put on a good show to pull in all the gullible people? If Rome can say whatever she wants, why does she bind herself to past decisions? No, Rome serves both Scripture/Tradition while retaining authority to authentically interpret both.

     LikeLike

148. Jack, I already linked to one of yours quoting Augustine and faith alone in the 29000 denomination dust up, but Kenny in all of his tantrums didn’t bother to read it or respond, so maybe you are also wasting your time now, in that regard.
     The rest of us – I think – are paying attention.

     He does like to ask the irrelevant question and deal with caricatures of the protestant PARADIGM though.

     (Don’t laugh, somewhere I heard if you use the P word often enough, you get a free hat. I haven’t checked the counter over at CtC yet, but as soon as I find it I am going to ask for mine.)

     LikeLike

149. Jack,

     See my response to Andrew and Bob earlier in this thread when they talked about Buchanan and cited similar statements from fathers. In short, those snippet citations don’t do the work you need them to do.

     LikeLike

150. Only chiming in here, because CvD is citing something him and I were discussing. The canon issue is massive. My own past was where I was hesitant with my position of affirming infallible Scripture, because to being God down to the “stuff” of man (our language) is unacceptable, to cite what I believe is some neo-orthodox thought. That’s just me and my history. I don’t think this blog should just be fire ant shots possible at protestant theology, but then again, it doesn’t bother the proprietor, so don’t listen to me. Just saying, coming to my conclusions took time ans much study,for the very reason that I believe human language eventually breaks down and our ability to understand is compromised (to say nothing of the noetic effects of sin). This is why our confession explains God’s condescension, I mean, I really could go on, but I’m really out now!

     LikeLike

151. Cletus:

     “And what did Paul and Peter have except the teachings of the prophets?”
     Their experiences with Christ and their apostolic charism.

     Yes, and what we have of their experiences with Christ and apostolic work is their sacred writings. And isn’t it interesting that again and again these apostles rooted and proved their teachings in the writings of the O.T. Law and the Prophets. They were introducing anything new. They were proclaiming and teaching what had been foretold, pointed to, and typed in the O.T. and had been fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.

     “And which bishops would that be?”
     The ones in communion with the bishop of Rome.

     So you are equating, in terms the foundation of Christ’s Church, the prophets and apostles with any and all bishops ordained of Rome?? Through the ages God’s people could totally trust the words that came from the preaching and writings of the prophets and apostles. They proclaimed God’s Word. You’re claiming that bishops in the Roman Church do the same?? Talk about implicit faith…

     LikeLike

152. Robert,

     Apostolic tradition is the lens through which to interpret the OT/NT. The NT grew out of and is a witness to that very tradition. It is reflected in the common life, worship, teaching of the church. Such thing by its very nature grows and develops over time. You claim a tradition in interpreting the NT. You claim a tradition in recognizing the canon. You do not claim it is infallible. That’s the point.

     LikeLike

153. *bring. *any.

     Languag failing…SEE?

     LikeLike

154. Regarding the apostles, the sentence in the above comment that reads: “They were introducing anything new” should read, “They weren’t introducing anything new.”

     LikeLike

155. Jack,

     “And isn’t it interesting that again and again these apostles rooted and proved their teachings in the writings of the O.T. Law and the Prophets. They were introducing anything new.”

     Yeah, the Jews definitely thought they weren’t introducing anything new. Their interpretation was just obvious. No, their interpretation was part of unfolding revelation.

     “You’re claiming that bishops in the Roman Church do the same??”

     I am not claiming the bishop of Rome nor the universal bishops in communion with him are inspired as the apostles and scriptures were. I am claiming they form the basis of ecclesiastical infallibility. I am claiming they are divinely authorized and assisted by the HS to safeguard the developing understanding of the deposit left by the apostles.

     LikeLike

156. Andrew,

     I’m not trying to fire as many shots at possible and I only brought up my earlier discussion with you since Bob indirectly referred to it. All of my initial comments have been in responses to assertions, and then those spawn further discussions. I’m not bombarding every thread I can – this is a Protestant blog – it’d be really a jerk move to constantly hijack threads. I will say I enjoy the interactions here, even with good ole Bob – opposing positions help clarify things. And Darryl is a fine moderator and discussion partner even with his snark which I enjoy, and if he ever has big problems with me or Kenneth I’m sure he could let us know to cool it. Nothing wrong with being passionate about one’s positions.

     LikeLike

157. CvD,

     So tradition is whatever the current Magisterium says it is. Got it. Sola Ecclesia.

     LikeLike

158. Right, CvD, the freedom we enjoy at this website is cool, not always afforded in other sites. Glad you like it here, too. Later.

     LikeLike

159. Robert,

     Nope – if it was sola ecclesia the church would not be bound in any way to Scripture or Tradition. It’s sola-Tradition,Magisterium,Scripture triad. The church can’t tomorrow declare Luke uninspired or infants are not to be baptized, nor can it doctor the past to say the “common life, worship, teaching” of the church declared Luke uninspired or infants weren’t baptized, nor can it say Scripture doesn’t teach such.

     LikeLike

160. CvD you cited again (in your comment to Jack) a convo you and I had, but it wasn’t this thread, it was the 29000/30000 denominations thread. You might try linking to actual comments. These are pretty weighty matters, it’s worth going slowly and citing appropriately, because this type of format gets way hairy, way fast. Just sayin..

     LikeLike

161. Andrew (and Jack),

     Thanks for the correction. Yep, Jack, you can see my reply to Buchanan at this comment and Andrew’s citations similar to yours at this comment in that thread.

     If there’s some particular example you’d like to discuss after reading that we can check it out.

     LikeLike

162. Cletus,

     Yeah, the Jews definitely thought they weren’t introducing anything new. Their interpretation was just obvious. No, their interpretation was part of unfolding revelation.

     You sure are good at leaving out the whole quote. The preceding sentence: “And isn’t it interesting that again and again these apostles rooted and proved their teachings in the writings of the O.T. Law and the Prophets.”

     Nothing new that isn’t grounded in the O.T., i.e. out of thin air. As in immaculate conception? Infallible Pope? Praying to Mary and the saints? Mary’s assumption? I bet I could come up with 95 of these! And none of them proven by Scripture.

     And your “interpretation” of your previous comment regarding the Church being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets is interesting. The bishops aren’t inspired as were the prophets and apostles yet they form the basis of ecclesiastical infallibility. Maybe that’s why you have so many teachings (see above) that are nowhere to be found in Scripture, of which many contradict Scripture.

     LikeLike

163. Jack, FWIW, I’ve found this Cletus character a different specie than I am used to, talking amongst the callers and so forth. It’s times like these, I remember Barth’s “the best Theology would need no advocates; it would prove itself,” as well as his quote about how all of his pages and pages were not worthy of the trash bin in heaven.

     Anyway, good response to CvD, and I do hope all is well at my favorite church on God’s green earth. Take care.

     LikeLike

164. DGHART,

     OK, geeze, not out of thin air. You will have to excuse a little hyperbole now and again.

     Bob S,

     I responded to your buchanon quotations….

     Jack,

     The game isnt won by finding the words “faith alone” or “not works”. We are looking for what the early church taught conceptually about salvation. Surely men like Kelly, Schaff and Mcgrath didnt just happen to overlook those quotations? Also, how is it that you guys keep double dipping into the same quotes! lol do you all read the same books or something? Is there some reformed online quoation club that I am not aware of? The quotes you cited are dealt with here

     http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/page5.html#A) Clement of Rome

     LikeLike

165. Lostken, try apologestics from this millenium, and your own words. No one is clicking in your website of many colors. But use us as your escape mechanism all you like, we aren’t going anywhere..

     LikeLike

166. Jack,

     Through the ages God’s people could totally trust the words that came from the preaching and writings of the prophets and apostles. They proclaimed God’s Word. You’re claiming that bishops in the Roman Church do the same?? Talk about implicit faith…

     The deposit of faith has once and for all been delivered to the saints. The bishops are no longer inspired in the same “God breathed” sense that the apostles were. However, the faithful can still completely and totally trust the bishops and look to them for infallible, irrevocable and authoritative teaching. Ecumenical Councils for exdample have always been viewed this way. Just another example of how you guys dont practice the faith of our fathers.

     Phillip Schaff writes

     The authority of these [ecumenical] councils in the decision of all points of controversy was supreme and final.

     Their doctrinal decisions were early invested with infallibility; the promises of the Lord respecting the indestructibleness of his church, his own perpetual presence with the ministry, and the guidance of the Spirit of truth, being applied in the full sense to those councils, as representing the whole church. After the example of the apostolic council, the usual formula for a decree was: Visum est Sprirtui Sancto et nobis. Constantine the Great, in a circular letter to the churches, styles the decrees of the Nicene council a divine command; a phrase, however, in reference to which the abuse of the word divine, in the language of the Byzantine despots, must not be forgotten. Athanasius says, with reference to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ: “What God has spoken by the council of Nice, abides forever.” The council of Chalcedon pronounced the decrees of the Nicene fathers unalterable statutes, since God himself had spoken through them. The council of Ephesus, in the sentence of deposition against Nestorius, uses the formula: “The Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, determines through this most holy council.” Pope Leo speaks of an “irretractabilis consensus” of the council of Chalcedon upon the doctrine of the person of Christ. Pope Gregory the Great even placed the first four councils, which refuted and destroyed respectively the heresies and impieties of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, on a level with the four canonical Gospels. In like manner Justinian puts the dogmas of the first four councils on the same footing with the Holy Scriptures, and their canons by the side of laws of the realm.

     (History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974, from the revised fifth edition of 1910, 340-342;

     LikeLike

167. Andrew,

     OK so when bob linked Buchanons work that was all good, up to date, and useful. When Jack uses the exact same quotations he does thats all good too….. but when I post a link that refutes those quotes line for line….. I need to find stuff from this milenium?!?! give me a break mopey. if you dont like my comments bug off… no one is making you respond.

     LikeLike

168. Jack,

     “And isn’t it interesting that again and again these apostles rooted and proved their teachings in the writings of the O.T. Law and the Prophets.”

     So the Apostles were OT sola scripturists or not? No, they weren’t. Did Acts 15 say “we agree with Amos” or did it say the “The words of the prophets are in agreement with this [the council]”. There is a difference.

     “Maybe that’s why you have so many teachings (see above) that are nowhere to be found in Scripture, of which many contradict Scripture.”

     According to you of course. And you’re presupposing something implicit later made explicit cannot be grounded in Scripture, not to mention what the scope of Scripture even is.

     Andrew,

     Nice quote by Barth. Aquinas made a similar statement when he had an ecstatic vision, comparing all his brilliant writing to straw.

     LikeLike

169. Kenneth, bug off to where? The caller’s don’t let my comments through, and this thread is about them.

     As you were.

     LikeLike

170. Got it. Snippets.
     Translation: Liar liar, pants on fire.
     Stick to changing diapers, pal if your only nuances are black/white, clean/dirty.
     Which is why we assert without apology that Rome is a stupefying and vicious superstition that lords it over Scripture, history and reason, with the consequence that its students can rise no higher than their teacher.
     cheers

     Augustine (354-430): “Not so our father Abraham. This passage of scripture is meant to draw our attention to the difference. We confess that the holy patriarch was pleasing to God; this is what our faith affirms about him. So true is it that we can declare and be certain that he did have grounds for pride before God, and this is what the apostle tells us. It is quite certain, he says, and we know it for sure, that Abraham has grounds for pride before God. But if he had been justified by works, he would have had grounds for pride, but not before God. However, since we know he does have grounds for pride before God, it follows that he was not justified on the basis of works. So if Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified?” The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification
     3. Now when you hear this statement, that justification comes not from works, but by faith, remember the abyss of which I spoke earlier. You see that Abraham was justified not by what he did, but by his faith: all right then, so I can do whatever I like, because even though I have no good works to show, but simply believe in God, that is reckoned to me as righteousness? Anyone who has said this and has decided on it as a policy has already fallen in and sunk; anyone who is still considering it and hesitating is in mortal danger. But God’s scripture, truly understood, not only safeguards an endangered person, but even hauls up a drowned one from the deep. My advice is, on the face of it, a contradiction of what the apostle says; what I have to say about Abraham is what we find in the letter of another apostle, who set out to correct people who had misunderstood Paul. James in his letter opposed those who would not act rightly but relied on faith alone; and so he reminded them of the good works of this same Abraham whose faith was commended by Paul. The two apostles are not contradicting each other. James dwells on an action performed by Abraham that we all know about: he offered his son to God as a sacrifice. That is a great work, but it proceeded from faith. I have nothing but praise for the superstructure of action, but I see the foundation of faith; I admire the good work as a fruit, but I recognize that it springs from the root of faith. If Abraham had done it without right faith it would have profited him nothing, however noble the work was. On the other hand, if Abraham had been so complacent in his faith that, on hearing God’s command to offer his son as a sacrificial victim, he had said to himself, “No, I won’t. But I believe that God will set me free, even if I ignore his orders,” his faith would have been a dead faith because it did not issue in right action, and it would have remained a barren, dried-up root that never produced fruit.” John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Part 3, Vol. 15, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 2-4 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), pp. 364-365.
     

     LikeLike

171. “So tradition is whatever the current Magisterium says it is. Got it. Sola Ecclesia.”

     Yup, just make it up as you go along.

     And then get people who don’t have a clue what that teaching is, to pretend they have a clue, or at least a faith that it is made up correctly, whatever it happens to be this week…

     LikeLike

172. Bob,

     Once again, that citation does not speak to the difference between infusion and imputation, or between a distinction in justification and sanctification vs a distinction in initial justification and growth in justification – it’s not very helpful to the question – it’s consonant with RC views. Other writings of Augustine do speak to those and related differences (that I outlined in my original response to you in the other thread) though, and should perhaps inform how he should be understood in the citation you offer. Of course notice in that citation he speaks of faith without action as a dead faith, not that it was not actual faith in the first place.

     LikeLike

173. Kenneth, I’m not upset thst Bryan deletes my comments on the Vat II article that YOU told me to read. It’s not the first time they deep six my thoughts. Glad they gave you a fair hearing on thst thread. Some of us, apparently, are too much a threat. But in case you care at all..

     From what I have read if the ECF’s, I have a very deep appreciation of them. I linked earlier with CvD (I can it later, it’s on the “development of doctrine, protestant style” blog post here at OLTS about Justification indeed coming late in the Western Church. So you want to call me, a Presbyterian, a Jehovah’s witness because of my admission? Go right ahead. I’ll simply find another website to hang out in if your comments are alllowed to stand unchallenged. We fight for these things because they matter and we all feel deeply convicted. I’m sorry if something I said got to you, but yes, I’ll leave this thread now.

     LikeLike

174. Clete, you’re doing better than the king of diapers, but that’s not saying much.

     Yeah, I know what you quoted to Andrew from Ridderbos.
     Problem is you just dynamited your own position. You deny the canon above the canon or the a posteriori approach. Fine, but instead of the witness of the Holy Spirit as per the WCF 1:4&5 you’re quick to shove in the Roman talking points: the apostolic witness of the Roman church, i.e. ecclesiastical infallibility.

     Hello. Anybody there capable of following their own argument even as they deny it?
     And we expect to get taken seriously here?

     Or as Robert put it as the ahem “paradigm” manifests itself in other places in the discussion, the papist says development for me, but not for thee.

     ciao.

     LikeLike

175. So, Clete. It doesn’t speak one way or another, but yet the prot position is not a development or in consonance with it?
     Right.

     LikeLike

176. kent,

     “Yup, just make it up as you go along.”

     Does doctrine develop in Protestantism? How do I know such developments aren’t making it up as you go along?

     LikeLike

177. What is stupifying Bob Is that I have quoted protestant historians exclusively to make my case for me. So much for Rome “lording over history and reason” eh? You have to stoop to the lowly buchanon, Webster and King to find anyone that agrees with your historical account and the Church is the one who can’t raise up good students? Puh-lease.

     LikeLike

178. Ah, yes the Assumption, if not the terminology of the “queen of heaven”.
     It is scriptural after all, as Clete assures us profusely.
     Jer. 44:17
     Make a note of that, Jack.

     Hey, we realize every ahem, paradigm has unfalsifiable axioms or principium, but it’s either Scripture or tradition, not both and; Scripture or the “Church”, not both and.

      Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.  For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition Mark 7:5-9.

     LikeLike

179. Bob, they couldn’t care less what you say, they keep childishly mocking everything we say on here, it never ends…

     LikeLike

180. Stick with the diapers, Kenny.
     Schaff is not the most reliable sort of prot historian, but Darryl already spoke to this.
     And of course DT King is lowly. You guys can’t and won’t answer his “snippets” from the ECFs on the doctrine of Scripture.
     IOW Dave Armstrong’s “answers” aren’t answers.
     And no, we’re not going to give you a pass for asking irrelevant questions just because you keep beating your wife.

     LikeLike

181. Bob,

     Nope – because a development should have kernels of the essence of the developed doctrine and should not contradict what came before – that’s the continuous part of development, the discontinuous part is the implicit being made explicit. What are some of the essentials of developed Protestant justification? Extra nos imputation, a distinction between righteousness in justification and righteousness in sanctification, no distinctions between mortal/venial sin, concupiscence is sin, and other such things. Does the above citation contradict those essentials? Not on a bare reading – but if you look at Augustine’s thought elsewhere and other writings to see what exactly he means by “faith” or “justification” not to mention what he thinks on other areas I just outlined, you find it does contradict those essentials.

     That’s why I said earlier you had 3 options – He was inconsistent and we just use what writings we find consistent with our view, he was consistent and we’re misreading what he means (which can be ascertained via his corpus of writings, as well as by other contemporary writers in his context/tradition) in writings we use to support our view, or he was consistent and just wrong (the “Augustine didn’t know greek” approach) so we will go to other witnesses.

     LikeLike

182. True dat Kent, but consider it an elementary exercise in polemical theology.
     And if we didn’t play whack a mole, it’d be the broken window syndrome all over and again. Next thing you know, Bryan and Jase would be over here with their spraycans tagging everything with paradigm and fullness jargon and I know you would like that even less.

     IOW you could have more to be thankful for than you are already are.

     cheers.

     LikeLike

183. Well duh, Clete.
     That’s why of the 3 options, we don’t hold the ECFs to be infallible and realize Augustine could be both right and wrong. And further more, wait for it . .. . we have a objective sufficient, perspicuous and infallible revelation and rule by which to tell, Sola Scriptura.
     When you find yours (which you won’t and can’t) get back to us.
     cheers,

     LikeLike

184. Bob,

     I think you misunderstood what I was saying with Ridderbos and afterwards – I was arguing assuming *Protestant* assumptions. I don’t share those assumptions obviously.

     LikeLike

185. Bob: “True dat Kent, but consider it an elementary exercise in polemical theology.”

     heh….

     it’s like the people who insisted that W was a horrible president, and that Obama would be perfect, and when you point to them the flaws of Obama, and they are forced to agree with these flaws, they excuse it with pointing out that W had flaws.

     and they don’t see the amusement that gives to me…

     LikeLike

186. Kenneth,

     Hold your horses, pilgrim. You seem to be the one playing a game. You guys are so quick to jump over the horse with glee in order to knock down claims no one is making. I didn’t offer those quotes as some kind of definitive proof that JBFA was taught clearly by the ECFs’ writings so as to “win.” Interesting quotes is what I wrote. Why? They show, as do many other such quotes, that the phrases sola fide and without works were not foreign to their explanations and discussions regarding justification. A number of these and other quotes are full paragraphs or more that present a context for how they use “faith only” or “not by works” and that in and of itself should give a little pause. Evidence that doesn’t fit neatly into the Roman box. But justification as a Church issue was off the radar screen at that time and the evidence is ambiguous at best. And I’ll agree there isn’t much direct evidence to support sola fide. One reason is that it wasn’t directly addressed by the Church until Trent. And based on Rome’s anathemas the likes of Clement, Hilary, Chrysostom and others might very well have been disciplined if not relegated to the status of “reformers” by Rome for these quotes had they lived in the late 16th century.

     LikeLike

187. They don’t have a clue about the real questions and issues that dog truly Reformed believers.

     And we aren’t going to volunteer them.

     LikeLike

188. Cletus, we still don’t getteth it.
     If you think Ridderbos is correct, his argument applies to your position just as it does to the prot position. If it does to the reformed position.
     But it doesn’t in that above and beyond all that, as per WCF 1:4&5 the testimony of the Holy Spirit tells us that the Word is inspired, whatever the auxiliary helps.
     But your position is not that the holy Roman church itself infallibly determines what the canon of Scripture is? I mean come on. You already tell us in our invincible ignorance that Rome infallibly interprets Scripture, so what gives? And that the bishops are inspired, just not as inspired as the apostles?
     Can we get our alibis straight, please. I realize you are not a charter member of Called To Confusion, but let’s keep the latter down to a low roar.

     LikeLike

189. Bob

     No one takes Webster and King with their self published books seriously. Kelly, Schaff, and Pelikan are renowned for their excellent scholarship. The problem is they don’t preach to the choir the way you would like them to.

     But I respect your opinion

     Kenneth

     LikeLike

190. kent,

     If I join OPC/PCA how long before I get to hear the secrets? Maybe we can start a cold war.

     Bob,

     If you eschew ecclesiastical infallibility, the approach to recognizing the canon is self-attestation + inner witness (to the exclusion of other approaches) as Ridderbos argues. If you don’t eschew ecclesiastical infallibility, the approach is not the same.

     LikeLike

191. A protestant will only be saved if one can escape from his or her community at least implicitly. Also, I want you to understand that I’m not saying this to be mean or offensive. I think its important for everyone here to realize where they stand. If you think my church is the synagogue of Satan then I WANT someone to tell me that for goodness sake so I van look into the claims and take them seriously. As MacArthur would say the most living thing you can do for someone is tell them the truth.

     Seeing as I already left this thread, I will make this brief.

     A Calvinist, to me, does not just sit on his high hill of assurance of salvation, and accept pure fatalism. As a fundamentalist by birth, there’s a part of me that appreciates CtC’s “stop and nothing” approach to apologetics. I can identify, at some level.

     The richness if what I’ve found, however, is that I never have to write statements like the one cited above. I have found the Truth, and I am indeed resting. We labor for more to find this truth as well. My assurance may indeed be scandalous to the Roman Catholic ears. But Jesus died for me and gave himself for me. Down the path we’ve gone down, there is no looking back. We write out of our deep gratitude and undertstanding of the God who spared no expense for us, His children. Thus, my sermon.

     LikeLike

192. Cletus,

     So the Apostles were OT sola scripturists or not? No, they weren’t. Did Acts 15 say “we agree with Amos” or did it say the “The words of the prophets are in agreement with this [the council]“. There is a difference.

     That’s evidence that the apostles were not concerned that their teachings were grounded in and in agreement with the teachings of the O.T.? A distinction without a difference…

     When Jesus opened the eyes of the the two disciples on the road to Emmaus did he not explain “to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” or did he “explain to them how all the Scriptures agree with what he says concerning himself?”

     Paul, again and again in Romans 2-4, in making his case for justification by faith alone by grace alone cites the O.T. writings… he was writing authoritatively as an Spirit inspired apostle and yet he didn’t elevate himself above Scripture. He showed that what he was teaching was in agreement with the Law and the Prophets. Not innovative, but showing Christ as the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets just as Jesus was showing those two disciples, just as the writer in Hebrews did.

     LikeLike

193. When the RCs around here take what the “scholarly patristic consensus” says about the papacy and other distinctive doctrines and reject them, it will be easier to take them seriously when they talk about the “scholarly patristic consensus” on justification.

     LikeLike

194. Clete, out of curiosity, are you a convert from Protestantism? If so, what stripe?

     LikeLike

195. KENLOSES, and when I quote Roman Catholic historians on discontinuity of Vat 2, what good does that do? Does it persuade you, put you back on your heels? Are you not reasonable?

     LikeLike

196. Jack, but you need to remember that Protestant converts to Rome are often more logocentric than Protestants. Plus, they have to prove their decision.

     LikeLike

197. Darryl,

     They are?! Well, hardly my faux pas…

     So, is this a Mars / Venus kind of thing?

     LikeLike

198. Robert,

     when have I ever stated that the papacy wad universally believed by all the early church? Never? OK cool so you won’t mind me saying that sola fide was unheard of before the reformation. Btw there is a rather large difference between a “fundamental discontinuity” and a “theological novum” (to use mcgraths terminology in his doctoral thesis) and something simply being controversial. Don’t you agree?

     DGHART,

     yes it does make me uncomfortable, put me on my heels, and it can be persuasive. I have spent so much time in rad read circles that I could provide you with much better arguments than you have already provided for discontinuity. However, no matter how challenging, I still am not persuaded that the Church has erred dogmatically. I will admit openly that there is a problem that needs to be discussed. If only I could get the same kind of honesty from the peanut gallery.

     LikeLike

199. Rad trad**** my auto correct keeps making me say rad reads lol!

     LikeLike

200. Jack,

     “That’s evidence that the apostles were not concerned that their teachings were grounded in and in agreement with the teachings of the O.T.? A distinction without a difference…”

     Yes their teachings were in agreement with OT – that does not mean they were generated solely from OT exegesis. If it had been, they would not be giving the divine revelation/authoritative interpretation that was unfolding during their mission – they would be OT sola scripturists.

     “Paul, again and again in Romans 2-4, in making his case for justification by faith alone by grace alone cites the O.T. writings… he was writing authoritatively as an Spirit inspired apostle and yet he didn’t elevate himself above Scripture.”

     And I cited Dei Verbum earlier saying the same thing about the RCC not elevating itself above Scripture. You’re presupposing it does. Yes, you’re correct – Paul certainly did write as one with *authority*.

     LikeLike

201. Kenneth,

     Yeah, and McGrath also notes that Augustine’s inability to read Greek led to his confusion on this matter and that Augustine was simply wrong to conflate justification and sanctification. So, discontinuity with error is a bad thing?

     No Protestant that I know of argues that there was a fully developed doctrine of justification in specifically Protestant terms before the Reformation. The seeds of it are all over the place, however, even in Augustine. Calvinism is the full realization of Augustine’s doctrines of grace and how they are incompatible with much of his sacramentology. Once you allow for unbaptized persons to be regenerate, as Augustine does, that pretty much destroys any meaningful notion of baptismal regeneration, and once you destroy that, you’re pretty much done with any concept of justification based on infusion.

     Calvinism is simply consistent Augustinianism.

     LikeLike

202. Darryl,

     Not a convert – cradle/raised (only on basics – didn’t get serious about faith issues until during college 10 years ago when I started to read/study on my own) – though I dug Calvinism a lot (presby all the way – ref baptists anti-baby ways never cut it with me) and to some extent Lutheranism for quite some time. So wishy-washy for a while but probably a “serious” RC last 2-3 years.

     LikeLike

203. Robert,

     If Augustine’s ignorance of Greek threw off his doctrine of justification, why didn’t it throw off his doctrine of grace?

     LikeLike

204. If Augustine’s ignorance of Greek threw off his doctrine of justification, why didn’t it throw off his doctrine of grace?

     boom!!!! Go the fireworks…. You can blame Augustine not agreeing with you on whatever you like but the fact is that he did not. I would like for you to tell me how the reformed are consistent with Augustine in the following

     1. Apostolic succession

     I]f you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all. (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 33:9; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 345)

     And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants. (On Baptism, 4, 24, 31; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 61)

     2. Church Authority

     For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 5, 6; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 131)

     3. Perseverence of every saint?

     But if someone already regenerate and justified should, of his own will, relapse into his evil life, certainly that man cannot say: “I have not received’; because he lost the grace he received from God and by his own free choice went to evil. (Admonition and Grace [c. 427], 6,9; Jurgens, III, 157)

     4. Mary

     We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? (A Treatise on Nature and Grace, chapter 42 [XXXVI]; NPNF 1, Vol. V)

     5. Prayers for the dead?

     It is not to be doubted that the dead are aided by prayers of the holy church, and by the salutary sacrifice, and by the alms, which are offered for their spirits . . . For this, which has been handed down by the Fathers, the universal church observes. (Sermon 172, in Joseph Berington and John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, three volumes, London: Dolman, 1846; I: 439)

     I could go on and on and on friend.

     LikeLike

205. KENLOSES, don’t hold back. What is one of the best arguments for discontinuity that I’m missing?

     LikeLike

206. Clete, thanks. Too bad you didn’t sink into Calvinism.

     LikeLike

207. Cletus,

     If Augustine’s ignorance of Greek threw off his doctrine of justification, why didn’t it throw off his doctrine of grace?

     When you’re working from a translation, not all translations are going to lead to the same errors. Justificare had Latin connotations that were problematic for those who don’t know Greek but were Latin experts in a way that other words did not.

     That being said, even Augustine’s doctrine of grace wasn’t perfect. It was a huge advance, but Augustine wasn’t inerrant. Like the rest of us, his beliefs included a mixture of truth and error.

     Just as you don’t accept everything Augustine taught but filter it through a higher authority, in your case the church, we don’t accept everything Augustine taught but filter it through a higher authority, in our case, Scripture interpreted in its original context.

     LikeLike

208. Kenneth,
     The detestable Calvin (who, I presume, was at least as familiar with Augustine as you) would like to respond to your quote snippet on #2. Church Authority, adding the context:

     Ken, “I am aware it is usual to quote a sentence of Augustine in which he says that he would not believe the gospel, were he not moved by the authority of the Church, (Aug. Cont. Epist. Fundament.c. 5.) But it is easy to discover from the context, how inaccurate and unfair it is to give it such a meaning. He was reasoning against the Manichees, who insisted on being implicitly believed, alleging that they had the truth, though they did not show they had. But as they pretended to appeal to the gospel in support of Manes, he asks what they would do if they fell in with a man who did not even believe the gospel – what kind of argument they would use to bring him over to their opinion. He afterwards adds, “But I would not believe the gospel,” &c.; meaning, that were he a stranger to the faith, the only thing which could induce him to embrace the gospel would be the authority of the Church. And is it any thing wonderful,that one who does not know Christ should pay respect to men?

     Augustine, therefore, does not here say that the faith of the godly is founded on the authority of the Church; nor does he mean that the certainty of the gospel depends upon it; he merely says that unbelievers would have no certainty of the gospel, so as thereby to win Christ, were they not influenced by the consent of the Church. And he clearly shows this to be his meaning, by thus expressing himself a little before: “When I have praised my own creed, and ridiculed yours, who do you suppose is to judge between us; or what more is to be done than to quit those who, inviting us to certainty, afterwards command us to believe uncertainty, and follow those who invite us, in the first instance, to believe what we are not yet able to comprehend, that waxing stronger through faith itself, we may become able to understand what we believe – no longer men, but God himself internally strengthening and illuminating our minds?”

     These unquestionably are the words of Augustine, (August. Cont. Epist. Fundament. cap. 4;) and the obvious inference from them is, that this holy man had no intention to suspend our faith in Scripture on the nod or decision of the Church, but only to intimate (what we too admit to be true) that those who are not yet enlightened by the Spirit of God, become teachable by reverence for the Church, and thus submit to learn the faith of Christ from the gospel. In this way, though the authority of the Church leads us on, and prepares us to believe in the gospel, it is plain that Augustine would have the certainty of the godly to rest on a very different foundation. At the same time, I deny not that he often presses the Manichees with the consent of the whole Church, while arguing in support of the Scriptures, which they rejected. Hence he upbraids Faustus (lib. 32) for not submitting to evangelical truth – truth so well founded, so firmly established, so gloriously renowned, and handed down by sure succession from the days of the apostles. But he nowhere insinuates that the authority which we give to the Scriptures depends on the definitions or devices of men. He only brings forward the universal judgement of the Church, as a point most pertinent to the cause, and one, moreover, in which he had the advantage of his opponents. Any one who desires to see this morefully proved may read his short treatises De Utilitate Credendi,(The Advantages of Believing,) where it will be found that the only facility of believing which he recommends is that which affords an introduction, and forms a fit commencement to inquiry; while he declares that we ought not to be satisfied with opinion, but to strive after substantial truth. – Int. 1:7:3

     LikeLike

209. Kenneth,

     I never said the Reformed were consistent with everything Augustine taught. Like you, we filter him through a higher authority, in our case the infallible Scriptures, in your case, the purportedly infallible church.

     As far as some of the specific issues, since Augustine disagreed with Donatist bishops, he clearly did not think being able to trace some kind of line of succession was the infallible mark of the church. More was needed. And the fact that he had a more profound understanding of sin than even the greats who came before him, clearly he felt free to correct the doctrine of those with “apostolic authority” via a line of succession.

     Church authority—we believe that one of the reasons we believe the gospel is the testimony and witness of the church. Like Augustine, we deny that it is the exclusive reason.

     Perseverance—insofar as Augustine denied the perseverance of all who received grace, he was being inconsistent. In any case, when you give one type of grace to all but persevering grace only to the elect, you are basically saying that God does not want all professing Christians to persevere. Welcome to Calvinism. We just think Augustine was wrong to posit one type of grace that was truly salvific and one that wasn’t. Back to that whole filtering thing.

     Further, it is a bit disingenuous for you to claim that Rome believes what Augustine believed on this matter. Perhaps you as an individual RC do, but until Rome officially declares a system like Molinism as a heresy, Rome doesn’t follow Augustine either. At best, his view of predestination is one possible orthodox opinion. What’s to stop Rome from declaring Molinism the orthodox position? Nothing. Not that I think she will. Typically, you all come down on debatable matters that have no foundation in Scripture or early tradition—like the Assumption—

     Mary–At the very best Augustine is putting forth a pious opinion in that quote. He certainly didn’t think Mary’s sinlessness was something that one had to believe upon pain of eternal damnation, so he didn’t hold the RC belief either. Even certain Roman apologists believe that Augustine thought Mary was free only from personal sin and not the Immaculate Conception. Further, elsewhere (Sermon 2 on Psalm 35) Augustine says that Mary, like Adam, died for sin. Fit that in with Rome’s Mariolatry.

     Prayers for the Dead—Again, I have no problem admitting that Augustine was wrong and that I don’t follow him on every point. That is no different from Rome, who just chooses different points at which to follow him.

     So, Augustine believed lots of things that Rome doesn’t. He believed lots of things that the Reformed don’t. Your point?

     LikeLike

210. And Ken, FYI, the below is from the “about” section at this website here. There’s no denying this. All I ask is you try to use different arguments than those you read at CCC or other places. I hope you enjoy your time amongst us, here. Have a nice day.

     The Reformed faith may not be as old as Rome or Constantinople, but its most reliable guideposts are—to put it bluntly—old. At the same time, many Reformed Protestants consider themselves conservative, a disposition that is also oriented to the past and conserving as much of it as possible. Old life indicates that the old things are actually valuable and capable of sustaining authentic Christian faith, and that historic Reformed Protestantism specifically embodies a piety as vigorous and alive as any of its rivals.

     LikeLike

211. Jack,

     thank you for that! I had never read Calvins commentary on the matter and enjoyed it! I’m not sure if I agree with him on what Augustine was “merely” saying. Augustines view of Church authority is well known and documented. Are you of the opinion that he did not believe in an infallible Church? JND Kelly writes that

     “According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments….but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]….It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome….By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms….The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)

     Also, this teaching from Augustine would seem to support the idea that he would not believe the gospel apart from the authority of the church

     This religion can be defended against loquacious persons and expounded to seekers in many ways. Omnipotent God may himself show the truth, or he may use good angels or men to assist men of good will to behold and grasp the truth. Everyone uses the method which he sees to be suitable to those with whom he has to do. I have given much consideration for a long time to the nature of the people I have met with either as carping critics or as genuine seekers of the truth. I have also considered my own case both when I was a critic and when I was a seeker; and I have come to the conclusion that this is the method I must use. Hold fast whatever truth you have been able to grasp, and attribute it to the Catholic Church. Reject what is false and pardon me who am but a man. What is doubtful believe until either reason teaches or authority lays down that it is to be rejected or that it is true, or that it has to be believed always. Listen to what follows as diligently and as piously as you can. For God helps men like that. [Of True Religion 20, in Augustine: Earlier Writings, p. 235; emphasis added]

     what is your personal opinion on the matter?

     LikeLike

212. Robert,

     , he clearly did not think being able to trace some kind of line of succession was the infallible mark of the church. More was needed

     The fact that Augustine recognized heresy forming within the hierarchy of the church does not mean that he did not believe in apostolic succession. Which is obvious. Also, didn’t the Donotists break from the catholic Church and set themselves up as the “true church”? As soon as they broke communion with the bishop of Rome it would be easy for Augustine to see them as outside the church. You know, “Rome has spoken the matter is settled”.

     Do you agree with Augustine that the Church is infallible? Or do you think that Augustine did not believe this?

     Also, you mentioned Augustine had other authorities other than the Church. Obviously scripture must be included. But what of tradition?

     Tradition (Infallible and Authoritative)?

     I believe that this practice [of not rebaptizing heretics and schismatics] comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commanded and handed down by the Apostles themselves. (On Baptism, 2, 7, 12; Jurgens, III, 66; cf. NPNF 1, IV, 430)

     Tradition (Oral)?

     . . . the custom, which is opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings. (On Baptism, 5, 23:31; NPNF 1, IV, 475

     It is my opinion Robert that on a very fundamental level>/b> Augustine was a loyal son of the Roman Catholic Church. Its not just that “oh he believed a little of this and a little of that” but that he held to a whole host of doctrines that are distinctively catholic! The very core of his spiritual life is catholic. I find this trait shared by all the ECFs…. Are they off here and there…. Sure! But at their “core” the center of their “creed code and cult” is much closer to mine than yours.

     LikeLike

213. Kenneth,

     Generally, no big issues with your quotes except for the understanding of A.S.: The visible Church in Augustine’s day was the universal institutional Church, thus salvation came via the gospel through that Church. They had an episcopal polity, which developed into an accepted hierarchy. Though Rome was preeminent among the various bishoprics, that preeminece was considered more as the first among equals, especially inasmuch as Rome was the political, social, and economic center of the empire. In our view that “developed” into something very different by the late medieval period and what we see today.

     WCF 25.2. 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.

     I would say that since V2 Rome more or less should agree with that last phrase since we Prots are separated brethren. I doubt 25.2 would be controversial in Augustine’s day.

     The Augustine quote is fine. Only, once again, the definition one puts on his use of the term Catholic Church is at issue. As you know we would dispute that the Church of his day is the present RCC.

     LikeLike

214. Robert,

     All I mean is that it seems more than plausible to me that Augustine’s notions of grace and justification are quite compatible with each other rather than being at odds, and given his other writings affirming infused righteousness, growing in justification, mortal/venial sin, concupiscence is not sin proper, and so on, the canard of the Reformation being the victory of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over his doctrine of the church as Buchanan said and many have followed is simply unwarranted.

     LikeLike

215. Dudes, if reformed Christians admit we are a religion born in the 13th century, why not focus on the 13th onward? As far as I am concerned, let’s talk Avignon. For the sake of argument, we are all hunky dory until 12th or 13th century. But I am more of a vapor, don’t have time, so don’t mind my nonsense..

     LikeLike

216. Andrew,

     You and Reformed-dom are hunky dory with Aquinas? methinks not. Hence, ad fontes!

     LikeLike

217. CvD,

     But it seems more than plausible to me that all of us hold a web of beliefs, some of which are in error, some of which are not, and some of which are incompatible with one another when taken as a whole. Perhaps the clearest example I can think of in Augustine is his belief in baptismal regeneration and his belief that there are some who are regenerate and yet were never baptized (martyrs, for example). Those things just don’t go together. If regeneration is necessary for salvation and it is granted to people by the church via baptism, then to say it is available outside of baptism is to completely destroy any notion of salvation that is based on the sacraments.

     Just because someone has a large number of writings on various subjects that may be related to one another in some ways does not mean all these things hold together consistently. I would say the same thing about anyone in my own tradition. Calvin was not a perfectly consistent thinker, nor was Luther. Nor am I.

     RCs and Protestants both pick and choose from Augustine and from every other Christian in history, and they do so according to a higher standard, we just differ on what the standard is. Getting something right in one area is no guarantee that one will get it right in another, and getting something wrong in one area is no guarantee that one will get it wrong in another.

     LikeLike

218. Jack,

     would it be fair to say that by “catholic church” Augustine means the Church that is traced by a succession of bishops back to the apostles, is authoritative and binding on the faithful, believes in Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture, views the mass as (in some sense) a sacrifice, the real salvific presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, treated the deuterocanonical books as inspired, mortal and venial sins, relics, venerated and prayed to saints, venerated and prayed to Mary especially, prayed for the dead, didn’t teach sola fide and was largely in submission to and in communion with the bishop of Rome?

     LikeLike

219. Clete, Aquinas shares a lot more with Calvin and Luther than with most of post-Tridentine Roman Catholicism. Jansenism did not show Rome’s best foot forward.

     LikeLike

220. Kenneth,

     I think the whole “Rome has spoken” is largely an urban legend and that Augustine did not think the church was infallible. For the latter point, this is a good start:

     http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/church-authority-and-infallibility-part_25.html

     As far as some of your other points:

     1. I’m sure Augustine probably had a much higher view of church tradition than most Protestants. But then again, Augustine had only about 400 years to work with. We have more than 2,000 years of tradition, so its much easier to see where the church has been wrong. Augustine had more excuse than modern Rome, who has produced many fine exegetical scholars who will freely concede that so much of Rome’s historical argumentation and exegesis has been wrong and the Protestants have been essentially right. Somehow that never affects you all at the doctrinal level.

     2. There was no Roman Catholic Church in Augustine’s day, so to call him a loyal son of the RCC is misleading. The earliest possible date for the RCC is 1054 when East and West divided (though that traditional date is itself a bit misleading). For my part, I don’t think there was actually a RCC until Trent. Before that you have a Western church that was more or less unified depending on the era.

     3. But at their “core” the center of their “creed code and cult” is much closer to mine than yours. In some ways, certainly yes. In other ways, certainly no. Your statement is owning up to the fact that Rome has erred in its reading of history and doctrine. V1 certainly confessed that the whole church submitted to the pope from the earliest days and uses that as a key basis for infallibility of the papacy. Now it is just enough for the core to be present. That is a change of momentous proportions.

     LikeLike

221. Darryl,

     Post-Tridentine Thomists/Dominicans and people like Garrigou-Lagrange from last century would disagree with you, but I don’t want to sidetrack this into some discussion on that. The condemnation of Jansenism was due to similar errors with Calvinism for sure – that doesn’t mean Jansenists were more faithful to Aquinas or Augustine than Trent or the Tridentine Thomists or their heirs (Bossuet, Garrigou Lagrange, etc). In fact Calvinists, including some who were at Dordt, approvingly cited post-Tridentine Thomists (who were arguing against the Molinists and Jesuits) in some of their disputes. Doesn’t mean those Thomists were converting to Calvinism or those Calvinists were converting to RCism – there are still irreconciable differences between the two systems, however subtle they may be.

     LikeLike

222. FWIW some unfinished business w. Coherence Von Damned in that repetition is the mother of learning or something like that.

     We’ve been told by the wife/dead horse beater that :

     The deposit of faith has once and for all been delivered to the saints. The bishops are no longer inspired in the same “God breathed” sense that the apostles were.

     We have also been told by CVD:

     I am not claiming the bishop of Rome nor the universal bishops in communion with him are inspired as the apostles and scriptures were. I am claiming they form the basis of ecclesiastical infallibility. I am claiming they are divinely authorized and assisted by the HS to safeguard the developing understanding of the deposit left by the apostles.

     And

     The objective copy of Scripture/Tradition is Scripture interpreted in the light of Tradition, reflected in the common teaching, worship, and life of church. Not hard.

     Yet one – for those who have reasonable souls and eschew ecclesiastical gullibility – how can a deposit be delivered once for all, but still have additions made to it by those who are admitted to be less inspired than the apostles in the first place?
     Two, to define Scripture as Scripture and Tradition is to assume what needs to be proved.
     Unless begging the question is NOT a fallacy and implicit faith is eminently biblical.

     IOW can we say non sequitur? Sure we can. If we can’t, another whiff of ammonia from the diaper pail ought to suffice.
     It works for Ken, who can’t recognize anything that isn’t a snippet from the ECFs if it doesn’t have the proper academic papal imprimatur.

     Either that or we are being Called to Communion with Confusion.

     Apostolically inspired Scripture + less inspired Traditions of bishops ≠ Scripture and that according to Scripture’s own definition of being written by “the prophets and the apostles”, as admitted out of one side of the mouths of our two self appointed witnesses, even as they argue the opposite out of the other side.

     In all this there is no cognitive dissonance acknowledged by the papists. It cannot be.
     Rome is infallible and we have a plenary indulgence for purging protestants of any idea of the truth as it is sufficiently and plainly revealed in the Scripture under the pains of even more purgatory than we already got coming. Which is why the Scripture says those who worship idols become like them Ps. 115:8 – in this case a piece of altar bread.

     There’s more, but long story short, we’ll take relative certainty over the Roman alternative of uncertainty; that despite the papal claims to infallibility, on the ground and when it counts, Rome can’t come up with an objective coherent hard copy of her Scripture/Tradition version of Scripture so that everybody can be on the same page.

     Which is exactly the idea. Rome gets to lord it over the saints and keep pulling ad hoc rabbits out of the papal mitre. Rome can only justify any of her many claims by waving Newman’s magic wand of development contra Scripture, history and reason. Papists are welcome to their pig’s breakfast mish mash version of divine revelation, but the reformed still say no thanks.

     LikeLike

223. Bob,

     “how can a deposit be delivered once for all, but still have additions made to it by those who are admitted to be less inspired than the apostles in the first place?”

     Not additions. You presuppose making the implicit explicit is an “addition”. And again Protestantism claims developed doctrines – it obviously doesn’t claim those doctrines were “additions”. Yes the bishops are less “inspired” – if they were inspired as the Apostles they’d be adding new public revelation. You of course think that, but that’s a presupposition just like the one that thinks RCC issues “additions”.

     “Two, to define Scripture as Scripture and Tradition is to assume what needs to be proved.”

     Hmm? Scripture and Tradition both form the deposit as Dei Verbum states. What I meant is since an RC can hold to material sufficiency of Scripture, Scripture can in a sense be seen as reflecting the entire deposit, but that it only comes out through the lens of Tradition (“common life,teaching,worship” handed down through the centuries), safeguarded by the teaching Magisterium. Hence the scripture/tradition/magisterium triad.

     LikeLike

224. Two, to define Scripture as Scripture and Tradition is to assume what needs to be proved.”

     Hmm? Scripture and Tradition both form the deposit as Dei Verbum states. What I meant is since an RC can hold to material sufficiency of Scripture, Scripture can in a sense be seen as reflecting the entire deposit, but that it only comes out through the lens of Tradition (“common life,teaching,worship” handed down through the centuries), safeguarded by the teaching Magisterium. Hence the scripture/tradition/magisterium triad.

     Blah blah blah.
     Your traditions are inspired, but not as inspired as Scripture, but they are Scripture.
     When you can straighten out your tems CvD get back to us.
     Meanwhile Kenny needs help with the diapers.

     LikeLike

225. Kenneth,

     All that and world peace… Actually, in a word, no, I wouldn’t concede to all that. There’s a lot devil in the details. A couple examples:

     Regarding bishops and A.S. –
     Jerome: “When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself.” (Letter 146:1)…

     “A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.’” (Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:562-563)

     And regarding the deuterocanonical books, you like to quote JND Kelly –

     “Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha’, not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine.” [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), p. 55].

     and in his commentary on Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome states: “As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.”

     LikeLike

226. In the spirit of any stick will do, in order to beat the golden calf that is popery (here’s somebody’s favorite prot author/expert), Schaff in his Creeds of Christendom remarks regarding CVD’s first point above:

     § 3. Authority of Creeds.

     1. In the Protestant system, the authority of symbols, as of all human compositions, is relative and limited. It is not co-ordinate with, but always subordinate to, the Bible, as the only infallible rule of the Christian faith and practice. The value of creeds depends upon the measure of their agreement with the Scriptures. In the best case a human creed is only an approximate and relatively correct exposition of revealed truth, and may be improved by the progressive knowledge of the Church, while the Bible remains perfect and infallible. The Bible is of God; the Confession is man’s answer to God’s word. The Bible is the norma normans; the Confession the norma normata. The Bible is the rule of faith (regula fidei); the Confession the rule of doctrine (regula doctrinæ). The Bible has, therefore, a divine and absolute, the Confession only an ecclesiastical and relative authority. The Bible regulates the general religious belief and practice of the laity as well as the clergy; the symbols regulate the public teaching of the officers of the Church, as Constitutions and Canons regulate the government, Liturgies and Hymn-books the worship, of the Church.

     Any higher view of the authority of symbols is unprotestant and essentially Romanizing. Symbololatry is a species of idolatry, and substitutes the tyranny of a printed book for that of a living pope. It is apt to produce the opposite extreme of a rejection of all creeds, and to promote rationalism and infidelity.

     2. The Greek Church, and still more the Roman Church, regarding the Bible and tradition as two co-ordinate sources of truth and rules of faith, claim absolute and infallible authority for their confessions of faith.
     The Greek Church confines the claim of infallibility to the seven œcumenical Councils, from the first Council of Nicæa, 325, to the second of Nicæa, 787.
     The Roman Church extends the same claim to the Council of Trent and all the subsequent official Papal decisions on questions of faith down to the decree of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, and the dogma of Papal Infallibility proclaimed by the Vatican Council in 1870. Since that time the Pope is regarded by orthodox Romanists as the organ of infallibility, and all his official decisions on matters of faith and morals must be accepted as final, without needing the sanction of an œcumenical council.
     It is clear that either the Greek or the Roman Church, or both(?!), must be wrong in this claim of infallibility, since they contradict each other on some important points, especially the authority of the pope, which in the Roman Church is an articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ, and is expressly taught in the Creed of Pius V. and the Vatican Decrees. (it. added)

     cheers

     LikeLike

227. Darryl:

     A lesson for Cletis on the 600-year blackout of English services for English-speakers amongst those under Rome’s bishop. More surely can be said on this vital subject, but Cletis’ attempted defense was poor. In this post, the point is: “Canadian Navy, WW2: The English Bible Goes to Sea.”

     The English Bible went to sea in Elizabeth’s day with Drake and Raleigh. Two Sabbath services per day aboard Her Majesty’s ships. It also went to sea in WW2 with the Canadian Navy. But first, some background.

     Throughout the nation in the pre-Reformation period in England, the parishioner would hear a priest “murmuring in Latin at a distant altar [DPV: throw in a rood screen to keep the raffish swine enthralled and fenced out] with his back to the people” (121).

     By contrast, in post-Reformation England, the minister faced the congregation, addressed them in English, read 3ish lessons from the English Bible, said or sang English Psalms, and, in their close midst, delivered an English sermon about the English Bible just read to them—while the people prayed together in the English Collects, the English Lord’s Prayer, the English versicles and canticles, and confessed their common faith in the English Creeds. Oh yes, none of the 1928 (American) Anglo-Tractated stuff (from the synagogue of Newman) with the “altar” and priests with backs to the people. Cranmer would have none of that. The Table replaced an altar and was placed amongst the people. Imagine the simplicity and sincerity of that, to use two words that Paul used with the super-apostles [think Tractoes] of Corinth. Quite a contrast.

     Or, the poor chaps in the 9000 parishes of pre-Reformation England would hear their cleric say, “Petite et dabitur vobis; querite et invenetis; pulsate et aperiteur vobis.”

     (By way of brief digression, 150 Latin plays were done at Cambridge and Oxford between 1550 and 1650. Latin was certainly allowed, including Latin services for the collegiate and Cathedral churches. But, this was for scholars, not the rank-and-file who were Latin-illiterate. Rather, 9000 English parishes got the English Bible.)

     By contast, the 9000 parishes in post-Reformation England heard in a ringing, loud and clear voice: “Ask and it shall be given to you; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you.” Significant on a national, or, macroscopic, level. England would be awash with English Bibles. After Tyndale squeezed the toothpaste from the tube with his 1526 NT, Mary (1553-1558, mercifully short) and all her Queen’s men including the murderous Archbishop of Canterbury and persecuting bishop from Rome couldn’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. After Mary 1, the game was up.

     Even more remotely and afar off, but indicatively, ships in Her Majesty’s Royal Navy (Elizabeth’s Navy for Americans not knowing English history), during Raleigh’s and Drake’s travels…they had two divine services per Sabbath—with the old English BCP, English Bible lections and English Psalm-singing. Yet, many modern historians appear to not be concerned about these matters. And worse, Romanist apologists making their forlorn efforts to defend Latin services before Latin-illiterate throngs. What’s up with that?

     Causes me to reflect on Dad’s service with His Majesty’s Royal Canadian Navy, WW2, 42-46′, fighting German U-boats in the North Atlantic between Halifax, NS and Liverpool, UK. “I went to sea as a boy and came back a man.” HMCS New Waterford and HMCS ______, a corvette and frigate. Can’t remember the name of the frigate. Dad, as well as other men, thought very highly of their Anglican Chaplain. Again, all the divine services for the Canadians were in English and were in good, orderly and sober Anglican fashion. Furthermore, individuals possessed English Bibles. Imagine that! The English Bibles went to sea.

     NO MINOR ISSUE, BUT A MAJOR ONE although neglected and denied by revisionists. English Bibles, not Latin mumblings.

     While Romanists continued to mutter Latin to their parishioners until 1965ish and after, the English Bible went to sea with the Canadians in WW2. Ditto for the Sailors of the Royal Navy too. The same for Sailors and Marines not under the thumb of Italian Imperialists.

     Lest we forget!

     LikeLike

228. Donald,

     “A lesson for Cletis on the 600-year blackout of English services for English-speakers amongst those under Rome’s bishop.”

     Ah, so now we shift from the 600-year universal blackout on bible reading amongst the laity and vernacular translations, which just is false, to how services were said. Do you know why Latin was used in services all over? If it was to keep people in the dark, odd how approved bible vernacular translations existed – seems Rome undermined itself in a pretty obvious way.

     LikeLike

229. Cletus, “seems Rome undermined itself. . .” Well, there is Francis.

     LikeLike

230. Cletus,

     So, Rome has always widely encouraged the laity to read the Bible in their own language, held worship in the vernacular, and so forth? As soon as Erasmus published his Greek NT, they encouraged its wide dissemination? And they thoroughly supported the work of Wycliffe et al?

     LikeLike

231. Bob, Sean, and other former RCs,

     Why don’t you share some of the wonderful stories from your youth about how your local parish priest and bishop encouraged the study of Scripture in the church and at home. Apparently we’re all wrong that Rome had a near-universal blackout on Bible study for much of its history.

     LikeLike

232. Jack,

     So now you will say that St Jerome did not believe in an authoritative Church that was recognized by apostolic succession and communion with the bishop of Rome? I’m not sure what you sought to prove with that first quote… But lest you should think it proves to much….

     ‘But you say, the Church is founded upon Peter,’ and replies: “Although the same is done in another place upon all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church is made solid upon them all equally, yet one of them is elected among the twelve, that by the setting up of a head the occasion of schism may be removed. But why was not John, the virgin, elected? Deference was had to age, because Peter was older, in order that a young man — almost a mere lad — should not be preferred above men of advanced age, and that the good Master (whose duty it was to take away all cause of dispute from His disciples, and who had said to them: ‘My peace I give you, My peace I leave unto you,’ and Whoso among you wishes to be greater, let him be the least of all’) might not seem to afford a ground for jealousy in appointing the young man whom He had loved.” (C. Jovin. PL 23, vol II, 279[258])

     “We read in Isaias, ‘The fool will talk folly.’ I hear that someone has burst out into such madness as to prefer deacons before priests — that is, before bishops. When the Apostle clearly teaches that presbyters and bishops are the same, how can a server of tables and windows dare to exalt himself above those at whose prayer is made the Body and Blood of Christ? You ask my authority? Hear the proof.” [He then quotes Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 4:14; 1 Peter 5; 2 John 1; 3 John 1; with comments and continues:] As for the fact that one was afterwards elected to be set over the rest, this was done as a remedy for schism; lest each one should draw to himself the (net of the) Church of Christ, and so break it. Besides, at Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius, the priests always took one of their own number, whom they elected, and placing him in a higher rank, called him bishop, as though an army should make a general, or deacons should elect one of themselves, whom they know to be a practical man, and call him arch-deacon. For what does a bishop do that a priest does not, except ordain? Nor is the Church of the city of Rome one thing, and the Church of all the rest of the world another. Gaul and Britain, and Africia, and Persia, and India, and all barbarian nations, adore one Christ and observe one rule of charity. If authority is looked for, the world is greater than the city.

     “Wheresoever a bishop is — whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, or at Alexandria, or at Tanis, he is of the same worth, and also of the same priesthood (ejusdem est meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii). The power of riches and the lowliness of poverty do not make a bishop more exalted or more low. Besides, they are all the successors of the Apostles (ceterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt). But, you will say, how is it that at Rome a priest is ordained on the testimony of a deacon? Why do you produce the custom of one city [or of the city alone] ? Why do you put forward that small number from which pride has arisen against the laws of the Church? All rarities are more appreciated. Fleabane in India is more precious than pepper. The deacons are honored from their fewness, the priests are looked down upon because of their numbers. Besides, even in the Church of Rome the priests sit, and the deacons stand, although by gradual growth of abuses I have seen a deacon sit among the priests when the bishop was absent, and give his blessing to priests at private banquets. Let those who act thus learn that they do not rightly, and let them hear the Apostle,” etc. (Ep. 146 ad Evangelum, vol I, 1081[1193])

     it would appear that St Jerome would fit in great with “the callers”. He also sees the “mechanism” that resolves schism and controversy is found in the one who was placed as head of the Church. Maybe a couple more just to make sure we are on solid ground.

     “The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the High Priest. If to him is not given a certain independence and eminence of power (exsors et eminens potestas), there will be made in the Church as many schisms as there are priests This is the reason that without chrism and the command of a bishop neither a priest nor a deacon has the right to baptize.” (C. Lucif 9, vol II, 182[173]

     In a letter to Pope Damasus

     Therefore, though your greatness makes me fear, yet your kindness invites me. From the priest I ask the salvation of the victim; from the shepherd the safety of his sheep. Away with envy, away with all canvassing of the Roman power; it is but with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross that I speak. Following none in the first place but Christ, I am in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter. On that rock I know the Church is built. Whosoever shall eat the Lamb outside that house if profane. If any be not with Noah in the Ark, he shall perish beneath the sway of the deluge. And because for my sins I have migrated to this solitude, where Syria borders on the barbarians, and I cannot always at this great distance ask for the Holy One of the Lord from your holiness, therefore I follow here your colleagues the Egyptian confessors; and under these great ships my little vessel is unnoticed. Vitalis I know not, Meletius I reject; I know not Paulinus. Whoso gathereth not with thee scattereth; that is to say, whoso is not with Christ is of Antichrist.

     “Now, alas! After the creed of Nicaea, after the decree of Alexandria joined to the West, the new expression of three hypostases is required of me, a Roman, by that progeny of Arius, the Campenses [i.e. the followers of Meletius]. What new Paul, doctor of the nations, has taught this? ….

     “Decide so, I beseech you, if you will, and I will not fear to acknowledge three hypostases. If you order it, let a new creed be composed, after that of Nicaea, and we orthodox will confess our faith in the words of the Arians. But the whole literary faculty uses hypostasis in the sense of [Greek], etc…

     “Are we to be separated from Arius by walls [i.e. in different Churches], but united in heresy? As well might Ursicinus be joined to your beatitude, Auxentius to Ambrose! Far be this from the faith of Rome; may the religious hearts of the people drink no such impiety! Let three hypostases be no more mentioned, if you please, and let one be held….Or if you think fit that we should say three hypostases with the necessary explanations, we do not refuse But believe me, there is a poison hidden beneath the honey….Where I beseech your holiness by the crucified Salvation of the World, by the Trinity of one Substance, to say three hypostases. And lest perchance the obscurity of the place in which I dwell may escape the letter-carriers, please send your letters to the priest Evagrius, whom you well know. At the same time let me know with whom to communicate at Antioch; for the Campenses having joined the heretical Tharsenses desire nothing but to preach three hypostases in their old sense, supported by the authority of communion with you.” (Ep 15 (al 57), vol I, 38[355], c. AD 376)

     I don’t think it can be denied that if st Jerome were alive today he would most certainly be united with the bishop of Rome. That is to say, Pope Francis. You noted that Jerome argued against the Greek canon and for the Jewish. Fair enough. But he also submitted to the Church once the decision went against his scholarship. If only Luther and Calvin could have been so humble.

     LikeLike

233. Bob,

     Bob,

     I think Schaff is a great historian. A couple of points. The great majority of that quote is Schaffs own theology and not commentary on the ECFs beliefs. Also, point 2 merely furthers my case for Protestantism being out of touch with history. Schaff tacitly admits that for the first 800 years everyone agrees that Church councils are infallible and authoritative and that there is such a thing as Sacred Tradition. This is exactly what I mean when I say that on a very basic and fundamental level Protestantism represents a deformation of Christian thought.

     Donald,

     so are you now backpedaling from your previous “600 year total blackout” statements? Also, it really needs to be said….. Our salvation doesn’t actually depend upon the bible. It depends upon Christ. The Catholic faithful (9 out of 10 of which couldn’t read anyways) may not have been reading horribly translated revised editions of scripture but they were still receiving Christ in the Eucharist every mass. Something no protestant has done for over 500 years now.

     Robert,

     we could all tell tales of abuse. I’m sure RC converts could have “story time” just the same and tell of things that shouldn’t be happening on Sundays. Can’t we just save the personal testimonies for infomercials?

     LikeLike

234. Kenneth,

     You wrote:

     Schaff tacitly admits that for the first 800 years everyone agrees that Church councils are infallible and authoritative and that there is such a thing as Sacred Tradition. This is exactly what I mean when I say that on a very basic and fundamental level Protestantism represents a deformation of Christian thought.

     Does any development after the first 800 years indicate a deformation of the Christian Religion? If the church showed herself to be an impediment to the Gospel at the time of the reformation, how do you determine which strand is the deformation? You want to say apostolic succession? I can’t see why I should take the argument you put here, seriously. Again, I don’t see you interacting with the actual substance of what we have to say. Can you say: drive by?

     Regards,
     Andrew

     LikeLike

235. Andrew, let Kenloses score his point. If he needs a Protestant church historian to underwrite the infallibility of Rome, consider our point scored.

     LikeLike

236. Darryl, nice. Kenneth’s it is, indeed.

     PS was snooping around the archives here. You’ve been a busy these last four years. I don’t know how you some of you guys keep doing what you do, but I know something is driving each one of us, out here. Anyway, take care. I’ll prolly be lurking. Regards, Andrew

     LikeLike

237. Schaff tacitly admits that for the first 800 years everyone agrees that Church councils are infallible and authoritative and that there is such a thing as Sacred Tradition. This is exactly what I mean when I say that on a very basic and fundamental level Protestantism represents a deformation of Christian thought.

     So which is it, Ken? Worship of images is either lawful or it isn’t depending one which council you want to own.
     I will admit that Rome’s forte is walking by sight.
     Likewise you are enamored of your new toy and think it the greatest thing since sliced bread.
     Cool. Have at it.

     LikeLike

238. Besides Ken, Schaff’s comments are in regard to CVD’s equivocation regarding Scripture and Tradition, not anything you have to say.
     Even if the italicization is backwards.
     But then that’s part of being a newb.
     Nuance, such as priority/hierarchy of doctrines or lack of a stamp of an authority, prevents one from judging the merits of an argument on its own terms.
     King nailed it. The ECFs got the doctrine of Scripture right, whatever else they did however much Rome wants to ignore that and move on to all the other stuff they universally consented on.
     Such as the supremacy and infallibility of the pope.
     Oh wait. Bryan says they didn’t dissent to the same, so they must have agreed.

     LikeLike

239. Andrew,

     it is my.understanding that *development* takes something that was actually there previously and explains or builds upon that previous truth. What a protestant wants to do is not *develop* the core of historic Christianity but fundamentally alter it all together. It is not as if there are all of these bizaar competing strands of theology competing. Schaff, Kelly and others are happy to admit for the first 800 years there is no sign of sola fide or sola scriptura. Wouldn’t you agree with me that those things are pretty fundamental? If an acorn were planted and was growing into a tree you wouldn’t expect it to all of a sudden *develop* into a long horn or an elephant.

     LikeLike

240. Obnoxious Bob,

     No Roman Catholic worships images. If you would like to learn about veneration of and communion with the saints you could reference Augustine’s City if God. He addresses your concerns.

     Nuance, such as priority/hierarchy of doctrines or lack of a stamp of an authority, prevents one from judging the merits of an argument on its own terms.

     and who sets the hierarchy? You? We both bring presuppositions to the table sir. The difference is that mine can be traced back to the apostles… Yours to a guy named Calvin 1500 years later.

     I want you to realize that you rest your historical knowledge on self published history books coauthored by a gentleman with a business major. No thanks.

     LikeLike

241. Kenneth, it’s not as though I don’t understand my religion needs an apologetic. I know it does. If you listened to that church history thing I told you try, you hear Bray explaining why we certain things we and were not existent at periods in church history. Have you read or listened to anything on our side since you started our here? Like anything we present to you? You seem to think we are able to do discipline, as I recall. Anything about our doctrine you like? I do find the separation of just. and sanct. very helpful. Respond as you desire. Later.

     LikeLike

242. Sorry ken, many typos. Let me know, I’ll clear whatever up with you. My son is giving me a run for my money rifht now..gotta run.

     LikeLike

243. It is not as if there are all of these bizaar competing strands of theology competing.

     You are right it is not “as if” they were these strands competing, they were competing.

     Augustine was a loyal son of the Roman Catholic Church. Its not just that “oh he believed a little of this and a little of that” but that he held to a whole host of doctrines that are distinctively catholic! The very core of his spiritual life is catholic. I find this trait shared by all the ECFs…. Are they off here and there…. Sure! But at their “core” the center of their “creed code and cult” is much closer to mine than yours.

     A classic case of selection bias. You choose your church fathers by which ones identify most closely with your theology. If you applied any kind of neutral criteria like: all religious leaders who self identified as Christian things would be quite a bit murkier.

     LikeLike

244. @Andrew

     Dudes, if reformed Christians admit we are a religion born in the 13th century, why not focus on the 13th onward? As far as I am concerned, let’s talk Avignon. For the sake of argument, we are all hunky dory until 12th or 13th century. But I am more of a vapor, don’t have time, so don’t mind my nonsense..

     You give the Catholics everyone up to the 13th century you are toast. The Bogomils are explicitly denying ex opere operato sacramental theology. That’s condemned as heresy. Jan Hus is rejected by (anti-)Pope Alexander V, Both (anti-Pope) John XXIII and Pope Gregory XII explicitly approve of indulgences. And of course everyone is endorsing the very notion of an episcopal structure just arguing about who is in charge.

     You want to break off, break off much much earlier. I think 311 CE (the date I was raised on) is arguably too hard to defend, but the 13th century is hopeless.

     LikeLike

245. CDHOST,

     I do not include the gnostic followers of gigantic Jesus and his sister the Holy Spirit in my examination of early church fathers. If I did include all of the gnostic sects things would get much murkier. As it stands the reformed community and I would agree upon who counts as the “early church” and who doesn’t.

     LikeLike

246. CDH, fair. I’m not really one for debate. Means I shouldn’t be here.

     Later.

     LikeLike

247. Darryl:

     A word for Cletus, a postscript actually to a larger set of inquiries. But this comes to mind on an evening before Sabbath services.

     The Bible has 775, 000 words (fact). The head priests from Italy and Canterbury “railed” against the “heretical” manuscripts of Wyclif. (The Parliamentary Act of 1401 called De Haeretico Comburendo, the Oxford Provincial Council of 1407, the head priest’s “Constitutions of 1409 for the entire nation of 9000 English parishes, followed by honorable mention in the opening session and session 8 at the Council of Constance, 1414-1418, that is, Wyclif–they hated him, that foul heretic…they were still obsessing about him in 1428 when they exhumed and burned his corpse.) Then, they railed against Tyndale and others. The burned him too in 1536. There was a 130-year blackout, yes indeed, from Wyclif to Tyndale. Latin-saturation for the Latin-illiterate and dominated masses. But after Tyndale squeezed the toothpaste from tube, along with other men and factors, that wasn’t goin’ back in the tube. Poor Thomas More found a few hundred mistranslations (e.g. congregation v. church, repentance v. penance, etc.) If not mistaken, old More found 132 places that had, he felt, bad translations. Admittedly, we need more statistical reviews. Now, let’s experiment some. Let there be, arguendo, 1000 mistakes by Tyndale…simply, off-the-wall, blatant and gross mis-translations. Reckless, thoughtless, and worthless (never mind that he was a classics scholar). Let’s even “up-the-ante” to 10,000 mistakes to be wildcat-radicals. Let’s do the math.

     Situation 1 (the wild-cat radical version): 10 000 mistakes out of 775, 000 words. (Yes, the number of words is that and has been counted.) Do the math. The percentages. 0.0129, or a 1.3% error rate of a massive two-Testament volume. Simple solution, Italian and Canterbury head-priests. Fix the 1.3%. It’s just that simple or is it? Or, more positively, that’s 98.7% correct. Now this is the worst case and assumed scenario. Upshot, they don’t walk literate Englishmen asking questions. One simple insight. A poor English sheriff in a shire read 1 Cor. 9.5. “What? Married priests? The Bible is heresy.”

     Situation 2 (still perhaps radical): 1,000 mistakes out of 775, 000. The percentages again. 0.00129, or 0.129%, nearwise perfect. Oh no! That’s an “A” in a math class or one of Darryl’s courses. That means 99.871% accuracy. So, Italian and Canterburian head-priests whining about Slav editions, Cathars, Wycliffites, Tyndalites. Put out something better. (Yes, am aware there were vernaculars before Tyndale, so don’t deign to think that’s unknown.)

     Situation 3 (if we have More and Stokesley right): Now, 132 mistranslated words out of 775, 000. If not mistaken (and will re-check this and be on the lookout), if (non-Sir) Thomas More and the head priest in London, Stokesley, found 132 mistranslations, let’s do the math to flush their arguments down-the-well-where-you-know-where. The rude percentages again. 0.000170%. Oh oh! That’s 99.999870% accuracy. Professor, do I get an “A” in your course?

     Here’s the REAL bottomline: Stokesely, the head chap in London (doesn’t deserve the name bishop, Mr., Rev. or Dr.) wrote Tom Cranmer (the head chap in Canterbury). Stokesley. “The vernacular Bible infests the people with heresies.”

     That’s the real argument, to wit, “we’ll have the light shining in dark places.” They might read Samuel, Kings and Chronicles you know. They might start asking: “Bad kings here and good kings there….there, over here. We can’t have it.” Pre-Reformation/pre-Tyndale England (a region of 58,000 square miles the size of NC or MI) was Latin-services for Latin-illiterate throngs while Post-Tyndalian England from 1549 onwards was awash with English services, English Prayer Books, English Bibles (in many editions), with the on-growing industry and publication of Psalters (perhaps over 200 editions by the 1640s), aids to Bible study, atlases, concordances (in the original languages too), hymnals and more. Fortunately, Queen Bess with her Injunctions kept much of the Counter-Reformation efforts at bay in “one region” with an “excommunicated heretic” on the throne (was that 1570 or 1572, before St. Bartholomew Day Massacre?)

     Latin-services dominated the poor English folks in the US until the 1965ish era. Yes, that’s close. About a 600-year blackout for the rank-and-file folks under the imperialist thumb from Italy. If Darryl allows, will bring you further updates.

     I need to run more numbers, including the print runs on English Bibles between 1525-1640. One estimate has 2 million circulating the little island; had the Italians won, that would have been 0. Now, back to some evening reading. Perhaps a few pulls on a cigar, but we’ll see.

     LikeLike

248. As it stands the reformed community and I would agree upon who counts as the “early church” and who doesn’t.

     No, they don’t. The Reformed community has a bunch of early church fathers belong to Presbyteries who believe some version of Calvinist doctrine that slowly gets corrupted away over time. You don’t. You have a bunch of imaginary Catholics who somehow forget apostolic doctrine and have to reinvent it over the next few centuries. Once we get to the 2nd and 3rd century Reformed embrace the ECFs fairly consistently. You get really really vague about 2nd and 3rd century ECFs and their theology very quickly. You lay claim to them but don’t lay claim to what they wrote. The moment someone reads them carefully suddenly they stop being the accurate source of church tradition and are mistaken, mislead, ….

     So no. I’m pretty sure I could put together a list of say 50 ECFs give them to 100 Reformed and 100 Catholics and see agreement not much better than random yes/no.

     LikeLike

249. Darryl:

     A word for Kenneth who said:

     “Donald,

     “So are you now backpedaling from your previous “600 year total blackout” statements? Also, it really needs to be said….. Our salvation doesn’t actually depend upon the bible. It depends upon Christ. The Catholic faithful (9 out of 10 of which couldn’t read anyways) may not have been reading horribly translated revised editions of scripture but they were still receiving Christ in the Eucharist every mass. Something no protestant has done for over 500 years now.”

     A few notes: (1) No, not back-pedaling, but willing to downgrade the estimate from a 600-year blackout for the churches to maybe 580-years. I’ll consider it. No doubt the English-speaking parishes of the US, essentially, were getting Latin-services, the “Angel language” not the “Angle language as one opponent put it, until 1965ish and later. (2) As for their illiteracy, here’s an elaboration–paragraph below.

     Elaboration. The Bible was being read by individuals in homes, local gatherings and was “clearly and comprehensibly read in the services of the new Church of England.” One charming story: an illiterate father has a literate son; he enjoins his son to read the Bible to him in the evenings; the father grows with substantial literacy, thought, and analysis, a simple man, but one brought face-to-face with the Triune God by God’s Self-Disclosure. Stories could be replicated. Though not all could read, the NT was read “clearly and loudly” in the churches three times per year (later reduced to two times per year). The OT was read “loudly and clearly” once per year in the 9000 parishes of England (some, but few, dissenting). The Psalms were said or sung in English once per month. A few contrasts suggest the impact. Throughout the nation in the pre-Reformation period, the parishioner would hear a priest “murmuring in Latin at a distant altar [DPV: throw in a rood screen to keep the raffish lot enthralled and fenced out] with his back to the people” (121). By contrast, in post-Reformation England, the minister faced the congregation, addressed them in English, read 3ish lessons from the English Bible, said or sang English Psalms, and, in their close midst, delivered an English sermon—while the people prayed together in the English Collects, the English Lord’s Prayer, the English versicles and canticles, and confessed their common faith in the English Creeds. Quite a contrast. Or, the poor chaps in the parishes of pre-Reformation England would hear their cleric say, Petite et dabitur vobis; querite et invenetis; pulsate et aperiteur vobis. By contrast, the parishes in post-Reformation England heard in a ringing, loud and clear voice: “Ask and it shall be given to you; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you.” Significant on a national, or, macroscopic, level. England would be awash with English Bibles. Even more remotely, but indicatively, ships in Her Majesty’s Royal Navy, during Raleigh’s and Drake’s travels would have two divine services per Sabbath—with the old English BCP, Bible lections and Psalm-singing. Yet, many modern historians appear to not be concerned about these matters. What’s up with that?

     End of elaboration. Big contrast wouldn’t you say, Kenneth? BTW, are you arguing for “ignorance” based upon eating arms, bones, flesh, toes, toenails, hair, femurs, wristbones, fingernails? Or, swilling iron, hemoglobin and literal blood on the tongue, over the teeth, lips and, if not careful, down the chin? Based on we poor Protestant “not receiving Christ” for 500 years? Ah, back to Trent. We’re “anathematized”….er, oops, “separated brethren.” Which is it? “Christless Protestants for 500 years? Yawn, standard imperialism from Italy.

     I enjoy Christ now in the home. Looking forward to divine services with the Triune God present as we confess the faith, pray in English, hear the English word (like you chaps since 1965 before the full black-out on the Latin-illiterates, although some, like WF Buckley, Latin-trained, enjoyed the Latin, Tridentine Mass while the rank-and-file lacked that), and will enjoy His Majesty’s assurances and presence in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Of course, you’ve just claimed His risen Majesty isn’t with us. Hubris, Lad, hubris. If you’re going to shovel “it,” eat what you’ve shoveled. (I’ll spare the actually Marine-like word for “it.”)

     So, the take-way from Kenneth. The ignorance doesn’t matter. And, we’re Capernaitic cannibals.

     LikeLike

250. CDH,

     I have never met nor read a reformed theologian who held to different sets of ECFs than myself. I will let the reformed speak for themselves. I understand that you are some kind of avowed gnostic or whatever and so perhaps you see things differently.

     LikeLike

251. @Kenneth

     I have asked this question. So let’s pick the first from the 50 on my list. Marcus Minucius Felix. Your church, lays claim to him and the Octavius (his surviving work). You consider him part of your succession of Christian writers, with most Catholics now believing he came before Tertullian and influenced the Apologeticum.

     Felix denies the humanity of Christ specifically repudiating the idea that a mortal (someone capable of death in a material sense) can possible be an effective sin sacrifice, “that a mortal man could be able, to be believed in as God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on a mortal, for such hope ceases with his death” .

     So let’s ask the reformed here… Do you all consider Felix an orthodox ECF? Do you agree with Kenneth’s church?

     LikeLike

252. CDH,

     Well, to speak most broadly, you of course know that we read EVERYONE and attempt to filter them through Scripture, keeping what fits and discarding what doesn’t. While we are certainly unafraid to note where individual thinkers hold common views, we’re also not going to pretend when they don’t. After all, we’re not Rome.

     But as for your specific example, I know little of him. If indeed he denied the humanity of Christ, he would be a heretic.

     LikeLike

253. And speaking from the OPC’s perspective, I can’t see why we just don’t tell people to read questions 37-40 from this part of our constitution: http://www.opc.org/lc.html

     But hey, fun stuff to talk about, with friends. Robert certainly said all that needed to be, but just for me, read our constitution. Until then, we’re all just playing one another the fool..

     LikeLike

254. Kenneth, as much as I hate to chime in again, I really take exception to your post above about development. I mean, how did your church come to terms as it has with the claims of modern science? Can your church hold to evolution? Of course it can’t because you can’t find it in the ECFs…

     You see my snark, here, and how silly this becomes? Yes, JBFA is the hinge,dude. As far as I am concerned, you don’t care what we believe, and you peddle jack chick. Want to prove me wrong? Then do it soon. I’m kinda sick of all this, personally..

     LikeLike

255. Donald,

     No, not back-pedaling, but willing to downgrade the estimate from a 600-year blackout for the churches to maybe 580-years. I’ll consider it. No doubt the English-speaking parishes of the US, essentially, were getting Latin-services, the “Angel language” not the “Angle language as one opponent put it, until 1965ish and later

     Latin mass is awesome. I attend Latin mass every Sunday. Many people drive hours and hours out of their way to attend such beautiful events. It is the purest form of worship one can ever experience. You act like its a bad thing… Nuts….

     Stories could be replicated

     everyone’s got stories of personal experience. I heard a couple of Mormons at work just gushing about their faith and their coming face to face with god. Shoot charismatics have some really wild tales to tell. Save it for an infomercial.

     Throughout the nation in the pre-Reformation period, the parishioner would hear a priest “murmuring in Latin at a distant altar [DPV: throw in a rood screen to keep the raffish lot enthralled and fenced out] with his back to the people”

     are you sure it was with his “back to the people”? Or was he facing Christ? How odd would it be to have our Lord really present with us just to have the priest turn his back….

     By contrast, in post-Reformation England, the minister faced the congregation, addressed them in English, read 3ish lessons from the English Bible, said or sang English Psalms, and, in their close midst, delivered an English sermon—while the people prayed together in the English Collects, the English Lord’s Prayer, the English versicles and canticles, and confessed their common faith in the English Creeds.

     yes but throughout this whole process Christ was never present at their Sunday service. The congregations never received Christ body blood soul and divinity. They all heard the scriptures read without the advantage of having a teacher who was led by the holy spirit and thus split into 33000 denominations. This event was not glorious…. This was a tragedy. These men got their bible and lost Christ.

     you arguing for “ignorance” based upon eating arms, bones, flesh, toes, toenails, hair, femurs, wristbones, fingernails?

     I literally have no idea what this means. What does that mean, arguing for ignorance? As long as you are validly baptized you are a separated brother. If you are not invincibly ignorant you are a dead member of the body of Christ. Belonging to the Church by right, but having forfeited your inheritance in the kingdom.

     LikeLike

256. @Robert —

     Well, to speak most broadly, you of course know that we read EVERYONE and attempt to filter them through Scripture, keeping what fits and discarding what doesn’t. While we are certainly unafraid to note where individual thinkers hold common views, we’re also not going to pretend when they don’t. After all, we’re not Rome.

     I would agree with that. That’s not different from how I was raised. None of the ECF’s were authoritative but all of them could be read to learn more about the bible. The point was always to learn to be a better interpreter of scripture, no man was authoritative. Kenneth, was of course arguing that you two had a common ECF theology, I agree completely you don’t. Protestants draw a strict line between the apostles and everyone else, they don’t have any ECFs in the Catholic sense.

     But as for your specific example, I know little of him. If indeed he denied the humanity of Christ, he would be a heretic.

     Exactly! You don’t care that later writers made use of him. You look at his own views in isolation. Thank you for answering. I figured that one captured the distinction pretty cleanly.

     LikeLike

257. Darryl:

     I suppose we need to do some exegetical and historical work on Matthew 13, the Parable of the Sower, and the pro-active “stealing” of the Word of God from the soil, clearly the work of the Devil…perspicuous on it face, simple enough for a simple man like me and without a lot of elaboration. Although we could pursue the centuries-long expositions too in the history of exegesis. That’s always needed for exegesis. But, on its face, it’s simple. The Devil “steals” God’s Word.

     Ken just doesn’t care. 600 years, 580 years, whatever. 35% of church history for English speakers? Feed em’ Latin when they don’t know (except for aristocrats, government officials and those in the church while 90% don’t get it)? Talk about imperialism from the top.

     However, perhaps we need to develop the storyline of the English Bible and the Italian narrative…like Ken’s. They didn’t need it, they were eating flesh and blood, like cannibals. Creating Christ anew–Christ-cakes and Christ-wafers ubiquitously–on the Table and then sacrificing Him anew on the Table, over and over, everywhere. How many incarnations were there? Or Crosses? 1000s? The language was irrelevant Ken tells, Latin or England. The priests at their command and prayer….could creat and sacrifice Him anew. That was Ken’s oh-by-the-way, obscurantism at its best.

     Kenneth has just made an “argument for ignorance.” In fact, it’s an old, old, old argument. An old argument with new legs. It’s Stokesley’s argument. Warham’s too. It’s the argument of several head priests in Italy. The folks didn’t need the Bible: they had the Mystery Plays, the Latin services (that they didn’t understand), the calendar, the priest’s explanations, stained-glass windows and other instruments of social and intellectual subordination. They needed little more. As one of Wyclif’s opponents had it, Wyclif was putting the “Gospel pearls before the swine” [= people] to “be trodden underfoot.” Can ya’ feel the love from Italy and Canterbury? Or, more like it, from the Devil himself? Pure love. Straight and pure love…like the kind commanded in St. John’s First Epistle, wouldn’t ya’ say? Love for the sheep, but keep em’ ignorant.

     LikeLike

258. Darryl:

     A word for Ken, who summarized my view and offered his narcissistic view:

     “No, not back-pedaling, but willing to downgrade the estimate from a 600-year blackout for the churches to maybe 580-years. I’ll consider it. No doubt the English-speaking parishes of the US, essentially, were getting Latin-services, the “Angel language” not the “Angle language” as one opponent put it, until 1965ish and later”

     “Latin mass is awesome. I attend Latin mass every Sunday. Many people drive hours and hours out of their way to attend such beautiful events. It is the purest form of worship one can ever experience. You act like its a bad thing… Nuts…”:

     DPV:

     What narcissism. It’s all about me or you, isn’t it? I agree, a good Latin service would be awesome. Latin was continued for the truly Catholic (=Reformed) collegiate and Cathedral churches of England recognizing the literacy of the constituents. Alas, “I” (it’s all about me) could say the same thing. “I” (it’s all about me) attended one too. While we’re narcissizing, Kenneth, let me narcissize further. In my travels to Greece, Crete and Cyprus, “I” (it’s all about me) fully enjoyed the “Greek services” which “I” fully enjoyed and which I (it’s all about me) understood…enjoying as well as the meeting clerics and one Archbishop too.

     And then, with enormous condescension, you say, it’s the “purest form of worship…” Pity poor Greeks. Pity poor English-based services. You’ve got Italian imperialism imprinted on your (it’s all about you now) forehead.

     So, look–Kenneth as you have and your Anglo-Italian imperialist did for centuries–with contempt on the 1000s of 1000s who weren’t university trained or university men. The provincials, the hamlets, the towns and the farm folk (like my Anglican forbears in Canada back to 1810 who knew not a lick of Latin and were industrious farmers). Thankfully, they had the English services, Bible and Catholic (=Reformed) faith. They lack your “purest form of worship.” If you shovel, you eat “it.” Every last spadeful.

     What a hubristic argument and such condescension towards Christ’s sheep. Look at your argument again. It’s Anglo-Italian imperialism, On your model, St. Paul should have written in Aramaic to the Churches at Rome, Ephesus, Corinth and more. Understanding doesn’t matter, that was your (now it’s all about you) argument. So own it, or more like it, eat “it.”

     Ask the Queen to whom you attribute divine attributes to intercede with Her Son who my hate me for advocating His Word for the sheep. Perhaps He’ll listen to her. Or, perhaps call in some action from St. Michael to reign in this wayward scribe.

     Glad to see your (it’s all about you now) colors showing. The narcissism and hubris was on show.

     BTW, why did the Italians finally begin permitting vernacular services after the 600-year blackout for English-speaking subjects subordinated to the head priest in Rome? That needs exposition. Why the change? Change it was, a major one.

     LikeLike

259. Andrew,

     I mean, how did your church come to terms as it has with the claims of modern science? Can your church hold to evolution? Of course it can’t because you can’t find it in the ECFs…

     The Church doesn’t teach that we can only believe what the early church believed. It merely teaches that we can not disagree with them on matters that they were unanimous on…. I believe your understanding of Sacred Tradition is flawed.

     CDH,

     Your church, lays claim to him and the Octavius (his surviving work). You consider him part of your succession of Christian writers, with most Catholics now believing he came before Tertullian and influenced the Apologeticum.

     Felix denies the humanity of Christ specifically repudiating the idea that a mortal (someone capable of death in a material sense) can possible be an effective sin sacrifice, “that a mortal man could be able, to be believed in as God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on a mortal, for such hope ceases with his death” .

     Oh lord. You pick one of the earliest Christian writers ever whom we know nearly nothing about and then fault him for not having a precise formulation of the two natures of Christ? Your sophistry knows no bounds. Augustine had some thoughts that were out of line with current Church teaching too…. Everyone did…. What’s the point? You are lacking an understanding of what we mean by development of Christian doctrine and the intricacies involved. If you were a seeker of truth who was actually curious I would explain. Since you have already admitted that you are just an atheist who argues theology for fun I won’t waste my time.

     LikeLike

260. CDH and Andrew,

     if either of you would like to understand development of doctrine you may read here

     http://newmanreader.org/works/development/

     LikeLike

261. Donald,

     so many errors, so little charity, so much ignorance…. Where to start?

     After the invention of the printing press, prior to Luther’s Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation. The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes.

     The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV translators. The Old Testament was completed in 1610.

     The Latin Vulgate was always available to anyone who wanted to read it without restriction. Some Evangelicals have said that it would only have been usable by people who read Latin. But in the 16th Century there were no public schools and literacy was not that common, especially among the peasants. Those people who could read had been well educated and could read Latin.

     Latin was far from a dead language. It was the language of theology and science (the language of all educated peoples throughout Europe and beyond) well into the 17th and 18th Centuries. For example, when Isaac Newton published his works on physics, he published them in Latin so that all of Europe could read them. The same was true of all other scientific and scholarly advances.

     The reason that the Protestant reformers used vernacular languages was because a) most educated people did not take the reformers seriously and b) they used the masses to get power for their movement. The pamphlets published by Luther and Calvin were filled with all manner of crude and dirty language (lots of references to “shitting,” “pissing,” and “farting”), and this was done to capture the imagination of the common man and to create popular uprising against the social establishment.

     The Bible could very much be understood by people with the intelligence and ability to understand its theological content — most of whom spoke Latin. Most common people of the time, however, could understand neither the language nor the content …and most common people are still clueless about the content of the Bible today …which is why Protestants supply “ministers” to interpret it for them.

     LikeLike

262. Appreciate the response here, Kenneth.

     Later.

     LikeLike

263. @Kenneth —

     Your claim was that you and the Reformed have exactly the same list of ECFs. My claim was that this was false that your criteria wouldn’t be agreed to. What Felix proved, is that Protestants who reject the early Christians who were not part of your church are not going to accept the people who were part of your church. You and Robert have a different list of ECFs.

     The point is that your little argument that you have agreement was refuted, quickly, cleanly, easily.

     _____

     As for Newman, that one doesn’t hold up either. His 7 point test would be an terrific objective system were it used that way. The problem is that one applies Newman’s test to most Catholic “developments” they fail. Apple Newman’s test to many Protestant developments and they are successful. Development doesn’t mean anything to Catholic traditionalists more than just what the hierarchy classifies as development. And quite often less than that.

     ____

     In the end your apologetic depends on ignorance.

     LikeLike

264. CDH, appreciate your interactions here, too. I’m unwilling to relegate all Roman Catholic apologetics to one of ignorance. Maybe that’s because despite all our infighting, Kenneth and I AT LEAST share some common heritage until some point in the 4th century. Try as I may, I can’t see how an atheist gets to tell a Catholic his apologetic is based on ignorance, for I can only think of the cartoon of atheists with tracts that are completely blank (because they are atheists, of course)
     With Machen, I can agree RCism is a distortion of our religion, but it retains something in common with mine. As for your system, I can only point you to our liberals in hopes you might dig deeper, later. Again, I appreciate the time you spend here. Regards, Andrew

     LikeLike

265. CDH,

     your example was an epic fail! I have references to Felix in my “apologetics study bible” which a protestant publication. All knowledgeable protestants would count him as one of the earliest Christian apologists. You are claiming a clean refutation based off of Roberts “uhhhhh…. I don’t really know anything about this guy but it doesn’t sound good”. Whose argument depends on ignorance?

     LikeLike

266. Kenneth doesn’t realize he needs 500 internal and 1000 external stitches to close the wound that Donald put upon him…

     it’s just sad…

     he should be honoured to have been emasculated by someone like Donald….

     LikeLike

267. Kenneth,

     So, you do pick and choose what you want to believe from the early church fathers according to some other standard.

     I don’t know, sounds pretty Protestant to me…

     LikeLike

268. Kenny,
     Of course it is obnoxious to state the obvious to your average run of the mill Romanist who in the ignorant arrogance of his implicit faith, resents the intrusion of Scripture, history or reason into the narrative/bubble/paradigm.

     IOW would you prefer the Council of Constantinople of 754 or the (Second Nicean) Council of Nice in 786, which in turn condemned and approved the use and worship of images.
     And yeah, we know the “venerate” argument of redefinition, which essentially repeats the standard pagan apology for their idols: They just worship “through” them.
     Which is maybe the reason why the Second is swallowed, like Jonah the whale, by the First in the pope’s numbering of the law.

     Likewise the whole ‘development for me, but not for thee’ schtick. Neither Felix and Augustine could have something to learn about JBFA, all the while the Assumption/Immaculate Deception gets a royal pass. Right.

     As for the argument for Latin and the Douay Reims, what a hoot.
     Latin was not the vernacular (duh, it was English) and the DR came only after the prot translations of the English reformation made the Roman antipathy to translations too obvious to explain away.

     Neither can you point to any errors with King’s translations or selections of the ECF or anybody else who has done so substantively, so all you are left with is ad homs. It was pretty much the same over at the Green Baggins. But what else is new?

     About the only thing you got half right, was disagreeing with Robert about whether the experience of the cradle cats would be of any objective value over and against the subjective nature of testimonies, which are not the last word compared to the Word. OK whatever.

     Long story short, don’t give up your daytime job changing diapers.
     cheers,

     LikeLike

269. Robert,

     lol! “oh so you mean you aren’t bound by every thought any early Christian ever had?!? Only by the unanimous consent of the fathers? You mean you really aren’t claiming that the early church was a monolith and agree 100% on every theological mystery?!?!? I had no idea!”

     come now Robert lets be serious. Lets imagine 1000 years from today people are reading Presbyterian theologians. Lets say, for the sake of arguenent, that these historians had no idea about WCF…. No Christian creeds had yet to be discovered. Would they still be able to find on a fundamental level the core of your theology? Of course! Would they also be able to find some stray comments and thoughts here and there? Yes! The point is that when we follow the particular stream of Christian thought that became “the Church” (as opposed to becoming the gnostics, Arians, etc.) what we find is a core theology that is fundamentally incompatible with Protestantism. Protestants have ever felt it so. Whatever the early church was…. It definitely wasn’t protestant. The best any patristic scholar can do is muddy the waters and hope that you can make things confusing enough that NO ONE can lay claim to them. Its every protestants tried and true strategy time and time again. Really predictable at this point

     LikeLike

270. Bob,

     if you could point out the things that I have an incorrect understanding of and defend your thoughts with some form of argumentation I would be more inclined to take you seriously. I’ll go ahead and spend some time dealing with all your unsupported and unexplained allegations the best I can.

     IOW would you prefer the Council of Constantinople of 754 or the (Second Nicean) Council of Nice in 786, which in turn condemned and approved the use and worship of images.
     And yeah, we know the “venerate” argument of redefinition, which essentially repeats the standard pagan apology for their idols: They just worship “through” them.
     Which is maybe the reason why the Second is swallowed, like Jonah the whale, by the First in the pope’s numbering of the law.

     the west has never considered the fifth meeting of Constantinople to be ecumenical. The Second Council of Nicaea (787), which dealt largely with the question of the religious use of images and icons, said, “[T]he one who redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous insanity, Christ our God, when he took for his bride his holy Catholic Church . . . promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, ‘I am with you every day until the consummation of this age.’ . . . To this gracious offer some people paid no attention; being hoodwinked by the treacherous foe they abandoned the true line of reasoning . . . and they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane, asserting that the icons of our Lord and of his saints were no different from the wooden images of satanic idols.”

     The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) taught that idolatry is committed “by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them” (374).

     “Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who ‘transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God’” (CCC 2114).

     The Church absolutely recognizes and condemns the sin of idolatry. What anti-Catholics fail to recognize is the distinction between thinking a piece of stone or plaster is a god and desiring to visually remember Christ and the saints in heaven by making statues in their honor. The making and use of religious statues is a thoroughly biblical practice. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know his Bible.

     Likewise the whole ‘development for me, but not for thee’ schtick

     just go ahead and point out what is wrong with Newmans thesis. I provided a very helpful link on the subject if you need to refresh your memory.

     Neither can you point to any errors with King’s translations or selections of the ECF or anybody else who has done so substantively, so all you are left with is ad homs

     Webster and Kings self published works claim the JBFA was taught in every single age. They claim to have definitively proved this. They also claim to prove that even sola scriptura was believed in every single age before coming to fruition in the reformation. Such thoughts are so absurd they barely need refuting. One must wonder how actual real life patristic experts have missed such a thing for all this time? How could it be that Kelly and Schaff could miss something so obvious! My goodness gracious it was taught in every age and nobody realized it until recently. Puhlease.

     LikeLike

271. @Kenneth —

     The Apologetics Study Bible is arguably the single worst least accurate study bible in circulation. Nothing is well considered. I did a review five years back: http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/07/hcsb-apologetics-study-bible-review.html
     I guarantee you you don’t share a list of ECFs with Chuck Colson.

     As for Felix, Robert doesn’t know much about him, so what? How does that not provide further evidence that he and you unequally consider the ECFs important? What is key is that Robert isn’t willing to consider someone who explicitly rejected the humanity of Christ an orthodox Christian regardless of how highly later writers though of him. That’s not ignorance, that’s grasping the essential point. You don’t share criteria, and thus you don’t share a list of ECFs.

     LikeLike

272. @Andrew

     CDH, appreciate your interactions here, too. I’m unwilling to relegate all Roman Catholic apologetics to one of ignorance.

     Let me be more specific in context. The arguments from history tend to rely on ignorance. In particular the idea of a unified Christianity prior to the Reformation is poppycock. Total nonsense. And this dependence on ignorance pervades the CtC apologetic. Bryan’s “start with the church that Jesus founded and walk it forward through the generations” fails in the first generation. It fails in the 2nd generation. It fails in the 3rd generation. In the 4th maybe it would work. Then it falls apart depending on geography. Every single time you look at almost any detail of ancient Christianity it fundamentally contradicts their claims.

     I think I’m being perfectly fair. The only way one can believe their historical claims is via. ignorance.

     Maybe that’s because despite all our infighting, Kenneth and I AT LEAST share some common heritage until some point in the 4th century.

     Islam and Kenneth have some common heritage through the 4th century.

     Try as I may, I can’t see how an atheist gets to tell a Catholic his apologetic is based on ignorance, for I can only think of the cartoon of atheists with tracts that are completely blank (because they are atheists, of course)

     Well those are dumb cartoons. We have a rich intellectual, historical, moral and arguably theological (in the sense of religious truth)… heritage. There are all sorts of positive claims of atheism and active research. The idea that atheism leaves a void over ethics, morality, epistemology… is Van Til nihilism. Atheism has no problem refuting those claims.

     With Machen, I can agree RCism is a distortion of our religion, but it retains something in common with mine.

     I can say the same thing. Western atheism is western. RCism is embedded in all of western culture. You two probably share more in common. But I’m not sure how the fact changes what I wrote. I agree you all share more in common.

     LikeLike

273. CDH, thanks, and again, all fair. I don’t think that just because you are an atheist, you can’t clear up bad arguments, (Xian, Muslim, or any stripe) so apologies if that’s what it appeared I was saying. So far, your approach is what I experienced with other atheists in online chats like we are having. I’ll keep thinking about my experience in liberal Protestantism in seeing whether I can point you to writings you might like. I hope you don’t mind, it’s what I do. Later.

     LikeLike

274. Kenneth,

     The point is that when we follow the particular stream of Christian thought that became “the Church” (as opposed to becoming the gnostics, Arians, etc.) what we find is a core theology that is fundamentally incompatible with Protestantism.

     Really? How so? Which branch of Protestantism? Presbyterians are as conciliar as the early church. Anglicans have a notion of apostolic succession not unlike the majority view of the early church.

     Let’s see. Real presence in the Eucharist—Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans all agree Christ is really present. The how of the presence. We may differ on that, but hey, so do the fathers.

     Trinity—check.
     Deity of Christ—check.
     Sacraments as a means of grace—check.

     JFBA—well, we agree with Clement, Chrysostom, and many others on this. Since justification was not a point of controversy in the earliest fathers, it’s entirely spurious to read Tridentine doctrine back into them, but apparently that isn’t stopping you.

     Protestants have ever felt it so.

     Well, to start with, neither Luther, Calvin, nor the entire Anglican tradition would disagree with you here.

     Whatever the early church was…. It definitely wasn’t protestant.

     Sure. It wasn’t RC either. Just ask the EO. Course it wasn’t EO either. But you get the point.

     The best any patristic scholar can do is muddy the waters and hope that you can make things confusing enough that NO ONE can lay claim to them.

     Um, I for one would never say that no one can lay claim to them. Protestants, RCs, and EO call all legitimately lay claim to the fathers, but not one of the three can claim to be in line with everything they said.

     Its every protestants tried and true strategy time and time again. Really predictable at this point.

     What’s predictable is the absurd claims that Protestant beliefs were a 16th century invention and that Protestants have no legitimate claim on the church fathers. Protestants have been refuting that for centuries. Really predictable at this point.

     LikeLike

275. CDHOST,

     The Apologetics Study Bible is arguably the single worst least accurate study bible in circulation.

     is it accurate to say that you did a free preview on amazon and then reviewed those articles? Or do you actually own a copy of the work? There are several articles by william lane craig, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel and co that I thought was very well done. The point is that one would be hard pressed to find a patristics scholar who would not count felix. Can you name any actual patristics scholars who would not claim him as an ECF? Origen had some wacky ideas about heaven and hell but we all still count him… Your claim that protestant scholars study ECFs ABC and Catholics study ACD is off balance. I can read Schaff or Pelikan or Kelly or virtually any respectable expert and hear about the same stories over and over again. Even business major and self published reformed champion King and Webster quotemine from the same exact people we all read and know about. You are trying to drag the conversation back down into your gnostic giant jesus lair.

     What is key is that Robert isn’t willing to consider someone who explicitly rejected the humanity of Christ an orthodox Christian regardless of how highly later writers though of him. That’s not ignorance, that’s grasping the essential point.

     Well of course he would consider him unorthodox… He WAS actually wrong on this one issue. that doesnt change the fact that he is still an ECF. William Lane Craig denies several things that I consider very basic to orthodox christianity. Does that mean he is no longer a christian apologist? Nonsense.

     LikeLike

276. is it accurate to say that you did a free preview on amazon and then reviewed those articles?

     Not quite. I read through a few samples at a book store, was horrified and decided to use the free preview on Amazon to base my review on.

     Your claim that protestant scholars study ECFs ABC and Catholics study ACD is off balance.

     If you want the name of a a scholar with a very different list than yours W. A. Jarrel who for example included Montanus as an ECF since he was a credobaptist, while rejecting most of the Catholic ECFs for their paedobaptism. His theology and his attitude towards Montanus was influential on what is now the largest denomination of Protestants, Pentecostals who mostly revere Montanus.

     Another clear cut exception is Patrick. Obvious Catholics consider him an important ECF while Protestants, especially Irish Protestants, totally reject him.

     My claim is that most Protestants don’t obey any ECF or see any of them as binding. They don’t really share the same doctrine as Catholics regarding the ECFs. ECFs are seen as authoritative when they agree with the Protestant. As such they can and do freely include figures that Catholic church reject and then just reject some of their teachings. That tends to create a more inclusive list.

     OTOH if a Protestant is asked for ECFs that are orthodox, i.e. a writer who can be trusted more or less across the board they generally won’t give any. Some will do Augustine. But mostly all of them, especially the early ones are heretics from a Protestant perspective and most Protestants who study them have no problem acknowledging that.

     Well of course he would consider him unorthodox… He WAS actually wrong on this one issue. that doesnt change the fact that he is still an ECF.

     What is the definition of an ECF that you believe Robert holds? How would he determine which heretical Christians like Felix are still ECFs unlike other heretical Christians whom you believe he wouldn’t consider to be ECFs?

     William Lane Craig denies several things that I consider very basic to orthodox christianity. Does that mean he is no longer a christian apologist? Nonsense.

     I agree it is nonsense. But your apologetic crucially depends on just that sort of logic. Exclude the heresy defense in the case of Protestants or the “because my church said so” in the case of Catholics and Marcion is an ECF.

     LikeLike

277. The making and use of religious statues is a thoroughly biblical practice. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know his Bible.

     The making of religious statues that have the shape of gods is called a graven image. The bible discusses it many many times to unequivocally condemn the practice.

     LikeLike

278. Kenny, stick to the diapers, stand up comedy and on the cuff theologizing ain’t your trick.

     The making and use of religious statues is a thoroughly biblical practice. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know his Bible.

     Prove.
     And of course Rome doesn’t consider the Council of Constantinople ecumenical, just as it thinks Trent the epitome of the same, if not Vat. 1.

     Likewise the whole ‘development for me, but not for thee’ schtick

     just go ahead and point out what is wrong with Newmans thesis. I provided a very helpful link on the subject if you need to refresh your memory.

     The understanding of JBFA cannot develop or grow beyond the understanding of the early church is your position contra what you want to claim for Rome.

     JHN? This JHN?

     Here, however, we are concerned with the Romanists. For instance: if some passage from one of the Fathers contradicts their present doctrine, and it is then objected that what even one early writer directly contradicted in his day was not Catholic at the time he contradicted it, they unhesitatingly condemn the passage as unsound and mistaken. . . . They proceed in the same way, though a number of authorities may be produced; one is misinterpreted, another is put out of sight, a third is admitted but undervalued. This is not said by way of accusation here, though of course it is a heavy charge against the Romanists; nor with the admission that their attempts are successful, for, after all, words have a distinct meaning in spite of sophistry, and there is a true and a false in every matter. I am but showing how Romanists reconcile their abstract reverence for Antiquity with their Romanism,—with their creed, and their notion of the Church’s infallibility in declaring it; how small their success is, and how great their unfairness, is another question. Whatever judgment we form either of their conduct or its issue, such is the fact, that they extol the Fathers as a whole, and disparage them individually; they call them one by one Doctors of the Church, yet they explain away one by one their arguments, judgments, and testimony. They refuse to combine their separate and coincident statements; they take each by himself, and settle with the first before they go to the next. And thus their boasted reliance on the Fathers comes, at length, to this,—to identify Catholicity with the decrees of Councils, and to admit those Councils only which the Pope has confirmed. John Henry Newman, Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church: Viewed Relatively to Romanism and Popular Protestantism, 2nd ed. (London: Gilbert & Rivington, 1838), pp. 69-71.

     
     Webster and Kings self published works claim the JBFA was taught in every single age. . ..

     King is all about the ECFs on sola scriptura, NOT JBFA.
     His translations or selections of the ECFs have not been substantively criticized by anyone who didn’t have some skin in the game and was willing to resort to generalities. All that means is the romanists don’t like it. Well, we already knew that.
     And it’s not new. The post apostolic church rapidly fell into heresy as foretold in the NT and while there was a wide range of views, there was substantial consensus on authority and supremacy of Scripture.

     Augustine (354-430): Whoever dissents from the sacred Scriptures, even if they are found in all places in which the church is designated, are not the church. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput IV, §7, PL 43:395-396.

     cheers

     LikeLike

279. Augustine (354-430): Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking; don’t let’s look there for man going wrong. It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit. So if anybody reads my book, let him pass judgment on me. If I have said something reasonable, let him follow, not me, but reason itself; if I’ve proved it by the clearest divine testimony, let him not follow me, but the divine Scripture. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 162C.15 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.

     LikeLike

280. Bob,

     “Augustine (354-430): Whoever dissents from the sacred Scriptures, even if they are found in all places in which the church is designated, are not the church.”

     And? As usual, this presupposes RCC dissents from sacred Scripture. Elsewhere he writes
     “Those [religious usages] which we keep, not as being written, but as from tradition, if observed by the whole of Christendom, are thereby understood to be committed to us by the Apostles themselves or plenary Councils, and to be retained as instituted” Ep 118

     Oh lemme guess – Augustine was just being inconsistent again.

     “Augustine (354-430): Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking; don’t let’s look there for man going wrong. It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit. So if anybody reads my book, let him pass judgment on me. If I have said something reasonable, let him follow, not me, but reason itself; if I’ve proved it by the clearest divine testimony, let him not follow me, but the divine Scripture.”

     And? I’ve forgotten where Rome claims the ECFs are on par with Scripture or issuing forth new revelation. Augustine appeals to the authority of the church and tradition and scripture in many places, he does not appeal to his own private authority (as he says in above citation).

     LikeLike

281. Cletus,

     And? I’ve forgotten where Rome claims the ECFs are on par with Scripture or issuing forth new revelation. Augustine appeals to the authority of the church and tradition and scripture in many places, he does not appeal to his own private authority (as he says in above citation).

     Well, of course Rome doesn’t claim this explicitly. But it’s all over your use of history. Further, you don’t claim to be idolaters, to practice necromancy, to make Mary the fourth member of the Godhead, etc. That doesn’t mean you all cannot be legitimately charged with such errors. Praying to anyone other than God has the stench of idolatry even if you all call it a rose.

     And? As usual, this presupposes RCC dissents from sacred Scripture.

     A presupposition that is rather easy to prove. No one claims anymore, except for maybe some RC fundamentalists, that the apostles delivered the papacy in the form it now has along with the idea that the whole church affirmed it, although your church once did (see V1). So the dogma of deliverance was changed to the dogma of development. A church that actually cares about Scripture or even tradition would not have us believe in the papacy or the bodily assumption upon pain of damnation. Oh, wait. We don’t have to explicitly believe those things do we, we just have to not knowlingly deny them. Yet another instance of dogmatic change.

     Elsewhere he writes “Those [religious usages] which we keep, not as being written, but as from tradition, if observed by the whole of Christendom, are thereby understood to be committed to us by the Apostles themselves or plenary Councils, and to be retained as instituted”

     You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have development away from the things we know the apostles delivered either by Scripture or oral tradition and then cite Augustine who says in this quote that universal practice was delivered by the apostles. Where are these unwritten traditions. If they’re in the life of the church, the papacy by definition is false, because we just don’t find it. This isn’t even a matter of debate. The best anyone can say is that the papacy is a legitmate development of certain views of ecclesiastical authority. JBFA is a legitimate development both of Scripture and of many elements of patristic thought. Better to say it is a good and necessary consequence.

     Development for me but not for thee. When you guys admit that you are just as selective in your reading of church history as Protestants, people who actually know church history beyond what Rome spoons feeds its people will take your arguments seriously.

     LikeLike

282. Dang… its hard to keep up with you guys….

     CDH,

     Not quite. I read through a few samples at a book store, was horrified and decided to use the free preview on Amazon to base my review on.

     That does not qualifiy you as a competent critic of a work that has literally hundreds of contributions. There may be some “twisted scripture” sections that focus on bizaar things like Atlantas etc…. but by and large its a wonderful study bible. The Translation is solid and the actual articles by william lane craig and others are first class. BTW I have actually read all of the articles and own the bible itself…. Why would you write a review for a work that you have only previewed and then claim that its “one of the worst study bibles ever” lol!. Very bizaar.

     If you want the name of a a scholar with a very different list than yours W. A. Jarrel who for example included Montanus as an ECF since he was a credobaptist, while rejecting most of the Catholic ECFs for their paedobaptism. His theology and his attitude towards Montanus was influential on what is now the largest denomination of Protestants, Pentecostals who mostly revere Montanus.

     Ahhh OK I see what you are saying. Yes if we go off the range of classical protestantism and into the Pentacostal and no name quacky baptist historian realm I am sure we see all kinds of different ECFs. After talking for so long to the reformed I forget that there are other traditions carrying the protestant flag. With that concession I am still confident in my assertion that in the world of mainline protestant academia we are studying and reading from all the same people. With perhaps just a few exceptions here and there. I can read Kelly and Pelikan and Schaff and Mcgrath and Geisler and Samples and Bruce and they all cover the same exact stories and the same exact people. If there is a difference CD its not one that is significant enough for us to quibble over. Especially with the reformed.

     LikeLike

283. CDH,

     One more thing….. OTOH if a Protestant is asked for ECFs that are orthodox, i.e. a writer who can be trusted more or less across the board they generally won’t give any. Some will do Augustine. But mostly all of them, especially the early ones are heretics from a Protestant perspective and most Protestants who study them have no problem acknowledging that.

     This is essentially my point. The early church is definitey filled with heretics to the protestant reformed. The beef that I have is that none of them will ever stand up and admit this! Here is the standard reformed line that is driving me crazy

     “Oh, I dont really care either way I dont have a dog in this fight… we dont really care about history we just have the bible….”

     So do you think its fair to say that there was a massive apostacy for 1500 years after Christ since nearly everyone had a high view of Mary, prayed to and venerated saints, used relics, thought the eucharist was a sacrifice, didnt practice sola scriptura, didnt teach sola fide?

     “well….What about the bodily assumption of Mary! What about the 600 year total bible blackout! What about the Eastern Church how come they dont agree with the papacy! You see you are equally screwed”

     What?!? This is always the dance one is forced to do when talking to these guys.Whenever any particular train of thought leads to uncomfortable territory they have to unload their acme box of anticatholic arguments. If the “imperialist romanists” are damned heretics who worship idols and “chew on christs fingernails and drink his blood protient” etc then so is the rest of all christianity before the reformation ! I just want someone to own it.

     LikeLike

284. Robert,

     Really? How so? Which branch of Protestantism? Presbyterians are as conciliar as the early church. Anglicans have a notion of apostolic succession not unlike the majority view of the early church.

     Well, if McGrath, Schaff, Kelly, Geisler, etc are all ready to say that sola fide was never taught for 1500 years I think thats pretty significant fundamental disagreement. If Schaff, whose son was a Presbyterian minister, admits that the early Church believed ecumenical councils to be infallible it would appear that they are NOT as concilliar as RCs… I wonder why Kelly would say things like One has to wonder why it would be that your very best and brightest patristic scholars dont agree with your polemical arguments? Perhaps it is because they are doing history and not trying to prove Catholics wrong? I will content myself to finish this comment with one last giant swig from my old JND Kelly bottle. I wonder if CDH will say that his comments on Sacred Tradition are based on ignorance?

     . by tradition the fathers usually mean doctrine which the Lord or His apostles committed to the Church, irrespective of whether it was handed down orally or in documents … [t]he ancient meaning of the term is well illustrated by Athanasius’ reference [Ad Serapion, 1:28] to ‘the actual original tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church, which the Lord bestowed, the apostles proclaimed and the fathers safeguarded.’ (p. 31)

     It is much more plausible that [Christian teachers] were thinking generally of the common body of facts and doctrines, definite enough in outline thought with varying emphases, which found expression in the Church’s day-to-day preaching, liturgical action and catechetical instruction, just as much as in its formal documents. (p. 34)

     .. hints begin to appear of the theory that the Church’s ministers, in virtue of their endowment with the Spirit, were the divinely authorized custodians of the apostolic teaching. Clement, for example, though not explicit on the point, seems to imply [Letter to the Corinthians, 42] that the hierarchy which succeeded the apostles inherited the gospel message which they had been commissioned to preach. The immense stress which Ignatius placed on loyalty to the episcopate finds its explanation in the fact that he regarded the bishop as the appointed guarantor of purity of doctrine. In 2 Clement [par. 17] strict obedience to the presbyters is inculcated on the ground that their task is to preach the faith, and that their instructions are identical with those of Christ Himself. (p. 35)

     But where in practice was this apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? It was no longer possible to resort, as Papias and earlier writers had done, to personal reminiscences of the apostles. The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. Irenaeus believed that this was the case, stating [Against Heresies, Book V, pref.] that the Church preserved the tradition inherited from the apostles and passed it on to her children. It was, he thought, a living tradition which was, in principle, independent of written documents; and he pointed [ibid, Book III, cap. 4, 1 ff.] to barbarian tribes which ‘received this faith without letters.’ (p. 37)

     Irenaeus makes two further points. First, the identity of oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. [Against Heresies, Book III, cap. 2, 2; Book III, cap. 3, 3; Book III, cap. 4, 1] Secondly, an additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message was committed to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. [ibid, Book III, cap. 24, 1] Indeed, the Church’s bishops are on his view Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’ (charisma veritatis certum) [ibid., Book IV, cap. 26, 2; Book IV, cap. 26, 5] (p. 37)

     The difficulty was, of course, that heretics were liable to read a different meaning out of Scripture than the Church; but Irenaeus was satisfied [Against Heresies, Book II, cap. 27, 2] that, provided the Bible was taken as a whole, its teaching was self-evident … Scripture must be interpreted in light of its fundamental ground-plan, viz. the original revelation itself. For that reason correct exegesis was the prerogative of the Church, where the apostolic tradition or doctrine which was the key to Scripture had been kept intact. [ibid., Book IV, cap. 26, 5; Book IV, cap. 32, 1; Book V, cap. 20, 2] (p. 38)

     Like Irenaeus, Tertullian is convinced [Prescription Against Heretics, 9] that Scripture is consonant in all its parts, and that its meaning should be clear if it is read as a whole. But where controversy with heretics breaks out, the right interpretation can be found only where the true Christian faith and the discipline have been maintained, i.e. in the Church. [ibid., 19] The heretics, he complained [On Modesty, 8; Prescription, 12; Against Praxeas, 20], were able to make Scripture say what they liked because they disregarded the regula [fidei]. (p. 40)

     [Tertullian] was certainly profoundly convinced [Prescription, 15, 19, and 37] of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture … He was also satisfied, and made the point even more forcibly than Irenaeus, that the indispensable key to Scripture belonged exclusively to the Church, which in the regula had preserved the apostles’ testimony in its original shape. (p. 41)

     Learned and godly men, [Vicent of Lerins] states [Commonitory, 2], have often searched for a sure, universally applicable rule for distinguishing the truths of the Catholic faith from heretical falsehoods. What is necessary, he suggests, is a twofold bulwark, the authority of the divine law (i.e. the Bible) and the tradition of the Catholic Church. In itself, he concedes, Scripture ‘is sufficient, and more than sufficient’; but because it is susceptible of such a variety of interpretations, we must have recourse to tradition. This ‘norm of ecclesiastical and Catholic opinion,’ as he designates it, is to be identified with ‘what has been believed everywhere, always and by all’ (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). (p. 50)

     LikeLike

285. Obnoxious Bob,

     Do you not have any kids? You seem to be jealous of my diaper changing. I have been wondering lately as to how old you must be. My guess is 22 or under…. did I nail it? Anyways, let me strap you across my knee and put the young strapling in his place. You ready junior?

     prove

     The work has already been done by people more capable than myself. Lets just take the standard case from catholic answers

     “And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be” (Ex. 25:18–20).

     David gave Solomon the plan “for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan” (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was “by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all,” included statues of angels.

     Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, “On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim.”

     During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to “make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live” (Num. 21:8–9).

     One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.

     It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named “Nehushtan”), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).

     What About Bowing?

     Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning idols, “You shall not bow down to them.” Since many Catholics sometimes bow or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry.

     Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.

     The Form of God?

     Some anti-Catholics appeal to Deuteronomy 4:15–18 in their attack on religious statues: “[S]ince you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.”

     We’ve already shown that God doesn’t prohibit the making of statues or images of various creatures for religious purposes (cf. 1 Kgs. 6:29–32, 8:6–66; 2 Chr. 3:7–14). But what about statues or images that represent God? Many Protestants would say that’s wrong because Deuteronomy 4 says the Israelites did not see God under any form when he made the covenant with them, therefore we should not make symbolic representations of God either. But does Deuteronomy 4 forbid such representations?

     The Answer Is No

     Early in its history, Israel was forbidden to make any depictions of God because he had not revealed himself in a visible form. Given the pagan culture surrounding them, the Israelites might have been tempted to worship God in the form of an animal or some natural object (e.g., a bull or the sun).

     But later God did reveal himself under visible forms, such as in Daniel 7:9: “As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was Ancient of Days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire.” Protestants make depictions of the Father under this form when they do illustrations of Old Testament prophecies.

     The Holy Spirit revealed himself under at least two visible forms—that of a dove, at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32), and as tongues of fire, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). Protestants use these images when drawing or painting these biblical episodes and when they wear Holy Spirit lapel pins or place dove emblems on their cars.

     But, more important, in the Incarnation of Christ his Son, God showed mankind an icon of himself. Paul said, “He is the image (Greek: ikon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” Christ is the tangible, divine “icon” of the unseen, infinite God.

     We read that when the magi were “going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh” (Matt. 2:11). Though God did not reveal a form for himself on Mount Horeb, he did reveal one in the house in Bethlehem.

     The bottom line is, when God made the New Covenant with us, he did reveal himself under a visible form in Jesus Christ. For that reason, we can make representations of God in Christ. Even Protestants use all sorts of religious images: Pictures of Jesus and other biblical persons appear on a myriad of Bibles, picture books, T-shirts, jewelry, bumper stickers, greeting cards, compact discs, and manger scenes. Christ is even symbolically represented through the Icthus or “fish emblem.”

     Common sense tells us that, since God has revealed himself in various images, most especially in the incarnate Jesus Christ, it’s not wrong for us to use images of these forms to deepen our knowledge and love of God. That’s why God revealed himself in these visible forms, and that’s why statues and pictures are made of them.

     Next you say The understanding of JBFA cannot develop or grow beyond the understanding of the early church is your position contra what you want to claim for Rome. In order for something to “grow” baby Bob it first needs to actually be there. Development doesnt mean “pop into existence”. It means gradually developed theology. There are so many strands of theology that run contrary to sola fide in the early church it is nearly impossible to reconcile such a thing as development. For one, a wide spreasd belief in mortal and venial sins, purgatory, sacraments as a means of salvation and reconciliation, etc. The “seed” just isnt in place for such a development. Which is exactly what JHN found and is exactly why he converted after his tour de force through the ECFs…. to be steeped in history is to cease to be protestant after all.

     About that history lesson…. Baby Bob writes that

     King is all about the ECFs on sola scriptura, NOT JBFA.
     His translations or selections of the ECFs have not been substantively criticized by anyone who didn’t have some skin in the game and was willing to resort to generalities. All that means is the romanists don’t like it. Well, we already knew that.
     And it’s not new. The post apostolic church rapidly fell into heresy as foretold in the NT and while there was a wide range of views, there was substantial consensus on authority and supremacy of Scripture.

     The work doesnt NEED to be criticised. Its garbage. I dont even understand why you are looking for a Roman Catholic Response when I can give you three protestant responses

     Philip Schaff, Presbyterian/Reformed, History of the Christian Church

     “The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the oral tradition or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects — TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse.” (volume 3, page 606)

     JND Kelly, Anglican, Early Christian Doctrines

     “It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness.” (page 47-48)

     “Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] ‘guard the deposit’, i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church’s UNERRING tradition.” (page 51)

     Jaroslav Pelikan, Lutheran (now Orthodox), The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine

     “The catholic response to this claim [of the Gnostics], formulated more fully by Irenaeus than by any other Christian writer, was to appeal to ‘that tradition which is derived from the apostles.’ Unlike the Gnostic tradition, however, this apostolic tradition had been preserved publicly in the churches that stood in succession with the apostles….Together with the proper interpretation of the Old Testament and the proper canon of the New, this tradition of the church was a decisive criterion of apostolic continuity for the determination of doctrine in the church catholic. Clearly it is an anachronism to superimpose upon the discussions of the second and third centuries categories derived from the controversies over the relation of Scripture and tradition in the sixteenth century, for ‘in the ante-Nicene Church…THERE WAS NO NOTION OF SOLA SCRIPTURA, but neither was there a doctrine of traditio sola.’…So palpable was this apostolic tradition that even if the apostles had not left behind the Scriptures to serve as normative evidence of their doctrine, the church would still be in a position to follow ‘the structure of the tradition which they handed on to those to whom they committed the church.’ This was, in fact, what the church was doing in those barbarian territories where believers did not have access to the written deposit, but still carefully guarded the ancient tradition of the apostles, summarized in the creed — or, at least, in a very creedlike statement of the content of apostolic tradition….The term ‘rule of faith’ or ‘rule of truth’ did not always refer to such creeds and confessions, and seems sometimes to have meant the ‘tradition,’ sometimes the Scriptures, sometimes the message of the gospel.” (volume 1, page 115-117)

     “Fundamental to the orthodox consensus was an affirmation of the authority of tradition as that which had been believed ‘everywhere, always, by all [ubique, semper, ab omnibus].’ The criteria for what constituted the orthodox tradition were ‘universality, antiquity, and consensus.’ This definition of orthodox Catholic tradition was the work of Vincent of Lerins… To identify orthodox doctrine, one had to identify its locus, which was the catholic church, neither Eastern nor Western, neither Greek nor Latin, but universal throughout the civilized world (oikoumene). This church was the repository of truth, the dispenser of grace, the guarantee of salvation, the matrix of acceptable worship. Only here did God accept sacrifices, only here was there confident intercession for those who were in error, only here were good works fruitful, only here did the powerful bond of love hold men together and ‘only from the catholic church does truth shine forth.’…[It was] the tendency of heretics to teach doctrines that were not contained either in Scripture or in tradition. But the church of the four Gospels and the four councils [Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon] was faithful to Scripture and to tradition and was universal both in its outreach and in its authority.” (volume 1, page 334-335)

     Let’s summarize the conclusions of the Protestant scholars Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan —

     (A) For the early Church the divine Scriptures AND the oral tradition of the apostles or living apostolic Faith of the Catholic Church together formed the one infallible source and rule of faith for the Church; Church Tradition determined the canon of Scripture and furnished the key to the true interpretation of the Scriptures (Schaff);

     (B) Throughout the whole period of the Fathers, Scripture AND Tradition ranked as complementary authorities, although overlapping or coincident in content; and if Scripture was “sufficient” in principle, Tradition provided the surest clue to Scripture’s true interpretation, for in Tradition the Church received, as a legacy from the apostles, an unerring grasp of the real meaning of revelation that both Tradition AND Scripture enshrined and bore witness (Kelly);

     (C) There was no notion of Sola Scriptura in the ante-Nicene Church, neither was there a notion of Sola Traditio (Tradition alone); the one universal Catholic Church of the Fathers (neither Western/Catholic nor Eastern/Orthodox) was the repository of all revealed truth, the dispenser of all grace, and the only place where the true God accepted true worship, sacrifices, intercessions, good works, etc — only from this Church does the truth shine forth; heretics taught doctrines found neither in Scripture nor Tradition, while orthodox Catholics in the Church of the four Gospels and four Councils were faithful to both Scripture and Tradition (Pelikan).

     LikeLike

286. Kenneth,

     If you are going to quote Kelly, you need to quote his conclusions as well.

     Great as was the respect paid to the fathers, there was no question of their being regard as having access to truths other than those already contained, explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

     You and I both know that for centuries a large majority of Romanists have held to the partim-partim view of divine revelation. This is rejected by the fathers, according to Kelly. Further, Kelly concludes his chapter on Scripture and tradition with the opinions of Vincent, whose own views he says codify the essential patristic understanding:

     Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy, ‘guard the deposit,’ i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and correctly interpreted in the Church’s unerring tradition.

     You deny that God’s revelation is found in its completeness in Scripture, otherwise you’d have to give up the bodily Assumption, the papacy, and a host of other pagan doctrines that your church adheres to. To say revelation is found completely in Scripture is, essentially, the sola Scriptura position.

     Protestants affirm that revelation is found completely in Scripture and that it is correctly interpreted in the church’s unerring tradition. We believe there are many points at which the church DID NOT ERR. What we deny is:

     1. That it is impossible for the church to err.
     2. That everything that calls itself tradition is properly to be seen as tradition.
     3. The church has any authority apart from divine revelation, which is found only in Scripture.

     The Bible is correctly interpreted by the church’s unerring tradition. What does not follow from this is that tradition always gets it right. It also does not follow that we identify unerring tradition simply by the church telling us “this is unerring tradition.”

     The early church fathers were not restorationist Protestants. Neither were Calvin or Luther. You’ve missed Kelly’s point entirely.

     You want seeds of JBFA, go read Clement and the epistle to Diogenetus. Better yet, go read Paul.

     As in every era of church history, the theologians of the early church had inconsistencies within their own writings. Augustine was inconsistent to hold to some form of ex opere operate and then affirm that some are regenerate apart from the administration of the sacrament. You can hold to either of those, but not both. This isn’t just the early church. Calvin was inconsistent to stress the final authority of Scripture and then to sanction the execution of heretics. Modern Rome is inconsistent to stress the importance of the visible church in the particular Roman way and then to say that I am going to heaven as a Protestant because I believe in Christ, have been validly baptized, and do good works.

     Talk about missing the forest for the trees. The ECFs aren’t yours any more or any less than they are mine. Both of us pick and choose from them what we want to believe based on a higher criteria. Once you grant that, your arguments will be worth taking more seriously.

     LikeLike

287. Robert,

     “Well, of course Rome doesn’t claim this explicitly. But it’s all over your use of history. Further, you don’t claim to be idolaters, to practice necromancy, to make Mary the fourth member of the Godhead, etc. That doesn’t mean you all cannot be legitimately charged with such errors. Praying to anyone other than God has the stench of idolatry even if you all call it a rose.”

     Lovely, now getting back to point – the fathers ain’t infallible and Rome has never said they were. Rome uses them as witnesses to Tradition, not Tradition itself, as I’ve said before – Tradition is the common life, worship, teaching of the church handed down each generation – hence it has a historical component – that is why the ECFs are appealed as witnesses to that Tradition.

     “Yet another instance of dogmatic change.”

     Still presupposing authentic development is invalid development.

     “You can’t have it both ways.”

     This was in response to Bob’s quote peddling Augustine as some sola scripturist. Was Augustine having it both ways?

     “You can’t have development away from the things we know the apostles delivered either by Scripture or oral tradition and then cite Augustine who says in this quote that universal practice was delivered by the apostles. Where are these unwritten traditions. If they’re in the life of the church, the papacy by definition is false, because we just don’t find it.”

     Both the East and West agree on Petrine primacy and ecclesiastical authority. That was in the life of the church – the fully developed papal doctrine was implicit and developed from that. You know an example Augustine gives of unwritten tradition? Infant baptism. Does that mean it can’t be supported from Scripture? Of course not (although I’m sure Protestants would agree it is not a “good and necessary consequence”). Once again, tradition is a lens through which to interpret scripture – it is not some separate isolated stream divorced from Scriptural witness (how could it – Scripture came out of Tradition).

     “The best anyone can say is that the papacy is a legitmate development of certain views of ecclesiastical authority.”

     That’s the best one can do if one presupposes RCC’s claims are false. It’s more than just a legitimate development amongst a host of other competing “legitimate” developments. 2 developments that both contradict each other cannot both be considered legitimate.

     “JBFA is a legitimate development both of Scripture and of many elements of patristic thought. Better to say it is a good and necessary consequence.”

     JBF via infusion and not extra nos imputation is a legitimate development both of Scripture and of many elements of patristic thought. Better to say it is a good and necessary consequence.

     “Development for me but not for thee. When you guys admit that you are just as selective in your reading of church history as Protestants, people who actually know church history beyond what Rome spoons feeds its people will take your arguments seriously.”

     Cool – so you gonna take Bob’s argument that Augustine was a sola scripturist seriously? Authentic development should not contradict/negate what came before – that’s why the use of Augustine for JBFA is silly and why it always ends up being “he was inconsistent and didn’t know Greek”. There is certainly a judgment made on history by all branches (as Newman said, “The facts of antiquity are not too clear to dispense with the exercise of a judgment upon them” – which of course is reflected in conflicting interpretations amongst scholarship) – the difference is some groups think such judgment when tied to doctrine by their authorities is divinely protected, others think such judgment is just plausible opinion – always provisional and ever subject to change by new scholarship or heretofore unconsidered/undiscovered data.

     LikeLike

288. Cletus,

     I’m still waiting for you to point me to tradition. If it keeps developing, it wasn’t delivered once for all by the Apostles. You can’t have it both ways.

     East and West do not agree on Petrine primacy. East insists it is a primacy of honor. Rome says primacy of jurisdiction. The East is far closer to the actual words of the apostles on this. The modern papacy is an illegitimate development of both Scripture and patristic thought. This is not a criticism made exclusively by Protestants, BTW.

     There is no fully developed sola Scriptura position in the early church, and I’m unaware of any who says that there is. There is no fully developed sola ecclesia position in the early church either, but welcome to Rome.

     I was responding to Kenneth, who was (selectively) quoting JND Kelly. If you believe, as he says of Vincent as a summary of the so-called “patristic consensus,” that Apostolic revelation is found completely in Scripture, that is the sola Scriptura position in its essential form. The fact is that Rome denies this by elevating oral tradition to a position of divine revelation on par with Scripture, or at least that is true of the more historic partim-partim position. Once you all figured out that won’t fly, you went all Newman on us. Quite frankly, no one knows what in the heck Rome means by oral tradition anymore since you got both partim-partim people and materially sufficient people in the same church all hanging out. Again, so much for Roman unity.

     LikeLike

289. Robert,

     Protestantism claims doctrines develop. Protestants readily admit later christians had clearer understanding of what was only understood implicitly earlier. You do not therefore claim the deposit wasn’t delivered once and for all by the Apostles.

     “The modern papacy is an illegitimate development of both Scripture and patristic thought. This is not a criticism made exclusively by Protestants, BTW.”

     Yes I’m aware of the EO – that’s why I did not say petrine authority or papal infallibility, but petrine primacy along with ecclesiastical authority. PI developed from what was implicit in those 2 kernels, the East disagrees with it.

     “that Apostolic revelation is found completely in Scripture, that is the sola Scriptura position in its essential form.”

     Nope – that’s material sufficiency in its essential form. That is not formal sufficiency in its essential form – which is essential to SS. What webster/king/white et al try to promote the fathers as is believing in the latter – just showing MS will do no work in settling the dispute.

     “Quite frankly, no one knows what in the heck Rome means by oral tradition anymore since you got both partim-partim people and materially sufficient people in the same church all hanging out.”

     What does p-p and ms positions share in common? That Scripture is formally insufficient; that tradition is necessary to properly interpret Scripture. What does SS state – that Scripture is formally sufficient. That’s why it’s not critical which position an RC holds.

     LikeLike

290. Robert,

     it has become increasingly clear that you haven’t actually read Kelly. Even if you did I’m not sure it would do you any good considering the fact that you apparently can’t understand the snippets that you quote mine! Lol come on bud…. Lets read that quote you posted again.

     “Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] ‘guard the deposit’, i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church’s UNERRING tradition.” (page 51)

     Since the RC is permitted to believe in the material sufficiency of scripture this quote does no damage what so ever to my argument. what in the world is the Presbyterian unerring tradition?!?! This has absolutely nothing to do with sola scriptura. This is scripture PLUS Tradition. Exactly the Catholic position. Why in the world would you quote that and say this somehow supports your case? We can know what Kelly meant by unerring Tradition by the long portion I already quoted a few pages earlier.

     It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness.” (page 47-48)

     The context of the quote you quote mined to support your claim clearly argues that the early church did not hold to sola scriptura. They held to Sacred Scripture AND an unerring Tradition handed down orally by the apostles. Schaff concurs

     The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects — TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse.” (volume 3, page 606)

     I’ve already supplied these quotation to Bob but in case you missed them the first time…… I am not “selectively” quoting Kelly I am accurately portraying the ideas he expresses in his book.

     you say

     The Bible is correctly interpreted by the church’s unerring tradition. What does not follow from this is that tradition always gets it right

     if the tradition is unerring it actually does follow that tradition always gets it right .. .. That’s the point of being unerring lol

     As in every era of church history, the theologians of the early church had inconsistencies within their own writings. Augustine was inconsistent to hold to some form of ex opere operate and then affirm that some are regenerate apart from the administration of the sacrament. You can hold to either of those, but not both. This isn’t just the early church. Calvin was inconsistent to stress the final authority of Scripture and then to sanction the execution of heretics. Modern Rome is inconsistent to stress the importance of the visible church in the particular Roman way and then to say that I am going to heaven as a Protestant because I believe in Christ, have been validly baptized, and do good works.

     who says those are inconsistencies?!?!. Lol RCs today STILL teach baptism of desire. . There is no inconsistency. The Church does not say that you are going to heaven as long as you believe in Christ and do good works…. Just another example of you busting out the acme box of anticatholic arguments everytime you get uncomfortable…. Weak sauce

     LikeLike

291. Kenneth, do you think Pelagius is addressing JBFA alone here in his comments on Romans 3:28? “For we deem that a person is justified through faith without the works of the law…. “Some misuse this verse to do away with works of righteousness, asserting that faith by itself can suffice [for the one that has been baptized], although the same apostle says elsewhere: ‘And if I have complete faith, so that I move mountains, but do not have love, it profits me nothing’; and in another place declares that in this love is contained the fullness of the law, when he says: ‘The fullness of the law is love’. Now if these verses seem to contradict the sense of the other verses, what works should one suppose the apostle meant when he said that a person is justified through faith without the works [of the law]? Clearly, the works of circumcision or the sabbath and others of this sort, and not without the works of righteousness, about which the blessed James says: ‘Faith without works is dead’. But in the verse we are treating he is speaking about that person who in coming to Christ is saved, when he first believes, by faith alone. But by adding ‘the works of the law’ he indicates that there is [also] a [work] of grace [which those who have been baptized ought to perform].”

     LikeLike

292. @Kenneth —

     There may be some “twisted scripture” sections that focus on bizaar things like Atlantas etc…. but by and large its a wonderful study bible. The Translation is solid and the actual articles by william lane craig and others are first class.

     I noted it was an HCSB translation in the review, “The HCSB is a reasonable evangelical translation well covered on a dozen other blogs so I won’t bother critiquing that”. As for Craig I doubt the articles are good, maybe they are maybe they aren’t but I’ve read enough of his stuff not be impressed.

     Why would you write a review for a work that you have only previewed and then claim that its “one of the worst study bibles ever” lol!. Very bizaar.

     Because what I previewed and what I reviewed were massive falsification almost entirely fictional. I don’t think people should fabricate information. If they want to discuss the theology of Lilith they should get Lilith theology right. If they want to discuss Edgar Cayce they should get Edgar Cayce right. If they can’t do that they have no business writing a study bible.

     Any book containing those sorts of blatant factual errors deserves to get called on it. And my preview showed those weren’t restricted to early chapters in Genesis. I have yet to see a single apologetic in that book they got right. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist but statistically they have to be fairly rare.

     With that concession I am still confident in my assertion that in the world of mainline protestant academia we are studying and reading from all the same people.

     Pentecostals are larger than all the other groups combined. Baptists (evangelicals) excluding are larger than all the non-Pentecostal groups combined. They aren’t wacky, they are mainstream Protestants. Conservative Reformed is a niche. Those groups define Protestantism as it exists today.

     In any case you keep changing the criteria. I think after several rounds of refutation it is time for you to present some evidence for your theory. I can’t see any Protestant agreeing with someone like Ambrose on much of anything.

     What?!? This is always the dance one is forced to do when talking to these guys.Whenever any particular train of thought leads to uncomfortable territory they have to unload their acme box of anticatholic arguments. If the “imperialist romanists” are damned heretics who worship idols and “chew on christs fingernails and drink his blood protient” etc then so is the rest of all christianity before the reformation ! I just want someone to own it.

     The way most Protestant Reformed handle this is a they fabricate a mostly orthodox church, up until the near the Reformation. They just ignore what the church fathers say. I find you inconsistent making this complaint when this is precisely what you do with the (proto-)Christians of 200 BCE – 200 CE.

     Take your treatment of Felix and how casually you brush past the idea that this early Catholic father doesn’t believe that Jesus is human / mortal at all. He mocks doctrines like the hypostatic union. Read how you tried to excuse this. Why is hard for you to understand that what you do in the 1st and 2nd century is what Reformed guys do for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th…, 14th centuries. And they get a bonus because on many of the points of disagreement their theology is more consistent with the 1st and 2nd century Christianity.

     That being said, the more consistent view of the fathers is what you see in the radical reformation. You should read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs which was standard Anglican theology held second only to the bible by the Anglical church. It preaches the fall of the church and identifies true Christianity with the sects you like to mock me for including. Catholicism is then the enemy of Christianity and Christianity exists in the fringes of Christendom through the centuries. I was raised with the belief that all of the ECFs were a source of information but none of them were models, after all they were corrupted enough to be paedobaptists. Orthodoxy as we understood it existed briefly or on the fringes.

     Let me close with a bit of quoting from Desire of the Ages for a flavor of what most Protestants believe:

     The archdeceiver [Constantine] had not completed his work. He was resolved to gather the Christian world under his banner and to exercise his power through his vicegerent, the proud pontiff who claimed to be the representative of Christ. Through half-converted pagans, ambitious prelates, and world-loving churchmen he accomplished his purpose…
     In the sixth century the papacy had become firmly established. Its seat of power was fixed in the imperial city, and the bishop of Rome was declared to be the head over the entire church. Paganism had given place to the papacy. The dragon had given to the beast “his power, and his seat, and great authority.” Revelation 13:2. And now began the 1260 years of papal oppression foretold in the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. Daniel 7:25; Revelation 13:5-7. Christians were forced to choose either to yield their integrity and accept the papal ceremonies and worship, or to wear away their lives in dungeons or suffer death by the rack, the fagot, or the headsman’s ax. Now were fulfilled the words of Jesus: “Ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for My name’s sake.” Luke 21:16, 17. Persecution opened upon the faithful with greater fury than ever before,…
     The accession of the Roman Church to power marked the beginning of the Dark Ages. As her power increased, the darkness deepened. Faith was transferred from Christ, the true foundation, to the pope of Rome… Those were days of peril for the church of Christ. The faithful standard-bearers were few indeed. Though the truth was not left without witnesses, yet at times it seemed that error and superstition would wholly prevail, and true religion would be banished from the earth.

     The Reformed sort of 1/2 believe your fairytale of Jesus founding your church and 1/2 believe in the fall of the church. None of them believe that the church was orthodox until the last few centuries, the counter evidence is simply overwhelming. Which is why I disagree they have your theology of the ECFs. They, like Calvin, have to constantly oscillate between seeing the ECFs as nothing more than good historical sources for early Catholicism and thus non-authoritative and as authoritative voices that establish the regula fide. Their theology can’t exist without a regula fide, but the only possible early source for the regula fide disagree with them on too many key doctrines. But as they expand to other ECFs that Catholics reject they do find support for those doctrines…

     LikeLike

293. Kenneth: It has become increasingly clear that you haven’t actually read Kelly. Even if you did I’m not sure it would do you any good considering the fact that you apparently can’t understand the snippets that you quote mine! Lol come on bud…. Lets read that quote you posted again.
     No, Kenneth, what is clear is that you miss the point entirely.
     Kelly: “Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] ‘guard the deposit’, i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church’s UNERRING tradition.” (page 51)
     Kenneth: Since the RC is permitted to believe in the material sufficiency of scripture this quote does no damage what so ever to my argument.
     RCs are also allowed to believe in the partim-partim view. Both can’t be right, and Rome refuses to define one or the other. And yes, a true material sufficient understanding destroys Rome’s argument, which is why Rome doesn’t actually allow for it. Point me to that airtight biblical evidence for papal infallibility, the bodily Assumption, etc. Where are the building blocks for those doctrines again, ie, where does an interpretation of the biblical authors in their original context lead to such doctrines?? No respected exegetical RC scholar such as Fitzmyer or Brown would say that you could get such doctrines from the study of Scripture in context.
     what in the world is the Presbyterian unerring tradition?!?!
     It is whatever accurately reflects Scripture. Most Presbyterians would point to something like the Nicene Creed as embodying unerring tradition because I don’t know of anyone who would say the Nicene Creed has any errors in it. Let me say it again, the fact that we believe the church CAN err doesn’t mean that we believe it HAS erried at every point.
     This has absolutely nothing to do with sola scriptura

     It has everything to do with sola Scriptura. Confessional Protestants believe Scripture contains revelation en toto and that the surest clue to its interpretation is the church’s teaching authority. Believing such things, however, does not demand a belief that the Church CANNOT err.
     Kenneth: This is scripture PLUS Tradition. Exactly the Catholic position. Why in the world would you quote that and say this somehow supports your case? We can know what Kelly meant by unerring Tradition by the long portion I already quoted a few pages earlier.
     Kelly: It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness.” (page 47-48)
     Kenneth: The context of the quote you quote mined to support your claim clearly argues that the early church did not hold to sola scriptura. They held to Sacred Scripture AND an unerring Tradition handed down orally by the apostles.
     Let’s go over this again. If the Fathers believed that Scripture and tradition were coincident in content, that ain’t what Rome believes in any practical sense of the word. It is easy to demonstrate that so many of the beliefs of the Roman Church are nowhere to be found in Scripture. You have to finally appeal to an oral tradition that is different in content. Tell me where in Scripture the liturgy of the mass is given to us. What about papal infallibility. The perpetual virginity of Mary.

     I fully grant that it is misleading to speak of the fathers holding to sola Scriptura as defined in classical Protestantism. But that doesn’t mean they held to Rome’s view of tradition and Scripture, especially since when Fathers list what Apostolic tradition consists of, it is coincident with what Scripture teaches.
     Schaff concurs
     The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects — TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse.” (volume 3, page 606)
     The Fathers believed that Scripture and tradition were vehicles of the same substance. Rome allows for you to believe otherwise, hence the acceptability of the partim-partim view. So, no, Rome doesn’t hold to the patristic understanding.

     And this gets to the point that must be asked, what would the Fathers do if it can be shown that something they thought is taught in both Scripture and tradition is taught only in tradition and, in fact, contradicts Scripture? Rome’s response has always been to pretend it doesn’t contradict Scripture or to say that it doesn’t contradiction Scripture and isn’t revealed in Scripture but is given only in tradition but that’s okay…
     I’ve already supplied these quotation to Bob but in case you missed them the first time…… I am not “selectively” quoting Kelly I am accurately portraying the ideas he expresses in his book.
     No, you’re not, as I’ve noted. You’re reading Kelly as if he’s saying that the fathers were Roman Catholics. Wrong. I’m not reading Kelly as if he’s saying that the fathers were Protestants. What I’m saying is that the use of Scripture and tradition in the fathers is consistent with a sola Scriptura hermeneutic. I’m not saying they had a fully worked out theory of sola Scriptura. They didn’t, and like the rest of us, they were also inconsistent in their use of authorities.
     if the tradition is unerring it actually does follow that tradition always gets it right .. .. That’s the point of being unerring lol
     No it’s not. The surest clue to the right interpretation of the movement of the planets is found in the unerring tradition of astronomy. But not everything in the tradition of astronomy is unerring. It has, and will continue to make mistakes.
     As far as my reading of the patristics, the fathers believed that certain councils did not err. Where do they say that these councils could not err? I believe the Nicene Creed is free of error. That doesn’t mean I believe it had to be
     who says those are inconsistencies?!?!. Lol RCs today STILL teach baptism of desire. . There is no inconsistency.

     Baptism of desire is inconsistent with salvation mediated by the sacraments of the visible church. Salvation either comes through ex opere operato sacramentalism or it doesn’t. Baptism of desire means I can be saved apart from the sacraments, and if that is possible, Rome’s entire scheme of salvation doesn’t work.

     The Church does not say that you are going to heaven as long as you believe in Christ and do good works…. Just another example of you busting out the acme box of anticatholic arguments everytime you get uncomfortable…. Weak sauce.

     Sure the church teaches that I am going to heaven as long as I believe in Christ and do good works. My baptism is valid. Clearly I’m invincibly ignorant, because try as I might to read Rome sympathetically, I am unable to see it as anything but a mishmash of bad history, quasi-gnosticism, and warmed-over pagan theology with a veneer of Scripture on top. I’m golden my friend. If the Muslims are getting in, so am I. No Roman Catholic I have ever known personally has told me that I must be Roman Catholic to be saved, including several priests. If the priest is my mediator, I’ll go with his interpretation, especially when your pope is telling us that the most important thing is for us to follow our own notion of what is good.

     LikeLike

294. CDH, I know you’re just an atheist, but you really shouldn’t quote Ellen G. White as “a flavor of what most Protestants believe.”

     LikeLike

295. Coherence Ve Damned and da wife beater are ticked off. Damage control is essential.
     After all, Augustine doesn’t appeal to the magisterium or tradition, but to Scripture. Imagine that., No wonder we can’t have that, whatever Schaff or Kelly can be made to say or whether the doctrine is fully developed or whatever.

     Kenny then wants to argue at lengthhhhh (no kidding) that the commands for the temple worship – fulfilled and done away by Christ, a priest after the order of Melchizedek – are the excuse that Rome needs to justify in turn its uncommanded and less than Aaronical priesthood and image worship, the Council of Constantinople be damned.

     Yeah, the deposit was given once for all in the NT , which are the apostolic traditions inscripturated (written down) and church history is soup to nuts with all things tolerated until Trent narrowed it right down. It’s not that hard to figure out, if you stop drinking the kool aid and yelling with your mouth full.

     But the filibusters gotta have something to do and they get points for purgatory or something like that.
     But you would think that what’s his name, Mr. “in the peace of his phd.” could round up some more competent cannon fodder than these two.
     Oh well.

     cheers,

     LikeLike

296. Bob,

     “After all, Augustine doesn’t appeal to the magisterium or tradition, but to Scripture.”

     Wrong again Bob. My citation showed him appealing to tradition held by the universal church and attested to by councils. Appealing to Scripture is not the point – every RCC council has done that. Does he appeal solely to Scripture? Nope.

     “Yeah, the deposit was given once for all in the NT, which are the apostolic traditions inscripturated (written down) and church history is soup to nuts with all things tolerated until Trent narrowed it right down. It’s not that hard to figure out”

     Wonderful – so you don’t believe that because doctrines have developed which early christians did not explicitly believe, then that means the deposit is changing or not fixed. Good, that’s settled.

     LikeLike

297. CVD, it’s not a matter of appealing solely to Scripture. We prots don’t even do that. The ECF and our elders carry weight too, and we appeal to them.

     The issue is: what is the rule of faith?

     LikeLike

298. Daniel,

     Bob said “After all, Augustine doesn’t appeal to the magisterium or tradition, but to Scripture.” the implication being “but only to Scripture”. That’s false.

     I agree the issue is what is the rule of faith. Do you believe the authority placed in articles of faith “observed by the whole of Christendom” – even if explicit Scriptural witness is not brought forth for those articles – as an authority coming from the Apostles?

     LikeLike

299. “Best line” award goes to Robert: The fact is that Rome denies this by elevating oral tradition to a position of divine revelation on par with Scripture, or at least that is true of the more historic partim-partim position. Once you all figured out that won’t fly, you went all Newman on us. Quite frankly, no one knows what in the heck Rome means by oral tradition anymore since you got both partim-partim people and materially sufficient people in the same church all hanging out.

     LikeLike

300. @Wholesome

     CDH, I know you’re just an atheist, but you really shouldn’t quote Ellen G. White as “a flavor of what most Protestants believe.”

     I’m not sure why not. Sister White and Adventism in general represents the Baptist tradition on the fall of the church. I could have quoted Baptists writers or Pentecostal writers on the same theme. Obviously different subgroups have different specifics so the specifics like 536 CE starting the 1260 year rein of the anti-Christ are unique to descendants of the Millerite churches.

     And what does me being an atheist have to do with whether her view are or are not in the mainstream?

     LikeLike

301. CDH, those aren’t descendants of Protestants but of Anabaptists.

     LikeLike

302. John,

     Aww, thanks!

     LikeLike

303. Kenneth,

     Let me try and make it simple, if you are going to quote Kelly to the effect that the early fathers believed that Scripture and tradition were identical in content, then you need to deal with the ramifications of that view and not assume that they are giving some RC view of authority.

     If Scriptures are indeed materially sufficient, containing all the building blocks for doctrine, and if Scripture and tradition are coincident in content so that you are not going to find something taught in one that is not taught in the other, then you have to abandon RC. For it is quite clear that the tradition which you claim teaches many things that Scripture does not and, in fact, contradict Scripture. Papal infallibility and the Marian dogmas aside from the Virgin Birth (which is more about Jesus anyway) are easy places to start.

     You guys keep wanting to have things both ways. You want to tell me that Rome is the surest guide to orthodoxy, and then tell me it doesn’t matter when papal appointed biblical scholars tell us that we can’t be sure that the Bible teaches the Virgin Birth (Raymond Brown). If your Magisterium can appoint people to high levels of teaching authority who get things so obviously wrong, why should I trust it as a meaningful guide to orthodoxy? You want to affirm material sufficiency and then turn the other way when your own orthodox scholars can’t even admit that Scripture teaches the Virgin Birth, let alone all the other idolatrous Marian dogmas. Do you really think he’s going to affirm that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are taught materially in Scripture if he can’t get the Virgin Birth right? At the end of the day, Brown says he believes these things not because he can find them in Scripture but because that is what the church teaches. That is not material sufficiency in any meaningful sense. It is sola ecclesia.

     If Kelly is right that the Fathers taught that Scripture and tradition taught the same content, then honoring them is not slavishly believing everything they held. Honoring them means rejecting any teaching that cannot be found in Scripture, because if the content of the two streams are not identical, you should be able to find what is taught as “tradition” in Scripture. You cannot do that with so many of Rome’s dogmas. We have made so many exegetical advances over the past many centuries and have insight that was not possible for the church fathers. Rome admits this, else it wouldn’t have changed its view on biblical scholarship in the twentieth century.

     Now, I will readily admit that one cannot find many Protestant distinctives in “tradition” before the Reformation, at least not in their explicit Protestant confessional formulations. But the trajectories are definitely there, at least no less than in Rome.

     You guys are batting zero here. If material sufficiency is true, then make an exegetical defense of the Bodily Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. If you can’t do that—and you can’t—then material sufficiency is not true in any meaningful sense and you have to go back to the partim-partim view. But if you do that, stop quoting Kelly because he doesn’t agree that the fathers taught a partim-partim view. Then, give me a list of infallible traditions if my salvation depends on knowing what the Apostles taught. Don’t give me this nebulous “common witness” of the church. How do I know what that is? If this common witness is so sure and believable, why doesn’t Rome give it to us? There should be no fear if it is so certain.

     Rome is taking the big tent approach of not offending anyone. Partim-partim and material sufficiency views are irreconcilable. That Rome won’t come down on this is inexcusable for the institution that is supposed to tell us where truth is found. Your unerring church clears nothing up. It muddies the water so as to avoid offending people on the exclusivity of Christ, where we find sources of dogma, and so much more. And I’m supposed to trust that this institution is infallible? I’m far better off in a Protestant church that, like Athanasius, is willing to die for the deity of Christ than the mishmash of postmodern nonsense that is modern Rome. Your historic positions are more respectable, if not defensible.

     LikeLike

304. Robert,

     “If your Magisterium can appoint people to high levels of teaching authority who get things so obviously wrong, why should I trust it as a meaningful guide to orthodoxy?”

     This is silly. Theologians are not the teaching authority of the church. They are not the meaningful guide. I could just as easily cite highly regarded RC theologians that disagree with Brown – it doesn’t do any work. If you find Brown’s conclusions cited in councils or catechisms, then you have a point. But they aren’t, so it’s a red herring. Have Protestants ever disputed RCC teaches the virgin birth? Nope. You’re just throwing stuff at the wall.

     “Honoring them means rejecting any teaching that cannot be found in Scripture, because if the content of the two streams are not identical, you should be able to find what is taught as “tradition” in Scripture. You cannot do that with so many of Rome’s dogmas. ”

     Presupposes implicit doctrines are not found in Scripture and that honoring them means rejecting any teaching that cannot be found in Scripture, according to how me and my Protestant forebears determine what is really found in Scripture.

     “But the trajectories are definitely there, at least no less than in Rome.”

     Right. Because extra nos imputation and formal sufficiency is definitely anticipated by ECF thought rather than contradicting essential points of it.

     “If material sufficiency is true, then make an exegetical defense of the Bodily Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. If you can’t do that—and you can’t—then material sufficiency is not true in any meaningful sense and you have to go back to the partim-partim view.”

     No, material sufficiency is not bound to your view of what constitutes valid exegesis. Material sufficiency is not bound to “as exegeted by the GHM” and “according to what lines up with my Protestant forebears interpretation whom I agree with”. If exegesis reduced solely to GHM, any secular scholar could grasp all doctrines of the faith. Material sufficiency does not equate to formal sufficiency.

     “Partim-partim and material sufficiency views are irreconcilable”

     I’ve already responded both p-p and ms share something in common – the denial of formal sufficiency of scripture and the need for tradition as an interpretive lens. That’s why it is not critical for Rome to dogmatize one over the other, just as it’s not critical for it to dogmatize one view of grace (Thomism) over another (Molinism) since the essential truths are maintained by both.

     As for John cheerleading your earlier statement:
     “Once you all figured out [partim-partim] won’t fly, you went all Newman on us.”

     This might have weight if it could be shown that concepts of development of doctrine nor material sufficiency were not espoused anywhere before Newman. Both are false.

     LikeLike

305. @Zrim —

     Much at Baptists would like to be descendants of Anabaptists they aren’t really. The Famialists had a lot of anabaptist influence but they directly came out of the Anglicans. The Baptists came from the Familialists and the Separatists (i.e. your English speaking Reformed guys). Anyway, if one wants to reject credobaptists as Protestant that’s a whole different argument. But for American right Reformed that’s a huge problem given how freely people move in and out of credobaptists churches with say the PCA.

     LikeLike

306. Robert,

     the “whole point” was the your religious community represents a fundamental deformation of historical Christianity. Protestant scholars have been quoted at length to prove the point. You haven’t actually read any of their work and quote mined various little sentences without having any idea what the context was to try and bolster your position. Alas, those same very sentences actually condemn the view of sola scriptura in the early church and speak of the bible AND the churches unerring Tradition… Which Kelly previously described as a complimentary and separate authority, media different in form, two different vehicles of the same deposit of the saving gospel of Christ (schaff). No sola scriptura. No sola fide. Reformed=fundamental retardation of historical Christianity.

     And yes, a true material sufficient understanding destroys Rome’s argument, which is why Rome doesn’t actually allow it

     only if by material sufficiency you mean”sola scriptura”

     for it. Point me to that airtight biblical evidence for papal infallibility, the bodily Assumption

     BOOM! Out comes the acme box

     Let’s go over this again. If the Fathers believed that Scripture and tradition were coincident in content, that ain’t what Rome believes in any practical sense of the word. It is easy to demonstrate that so many of the beliefs of the Roman Church are nowhere to be found in Scripture. You have to finally appeal to an oral tradition that is different in content. Tell me where in Scripture the liturgy of the mass is given to us. What about papal infallibility. The perpetual virginity of Mary.

     that is exactly what we believe today. This is exactly what material sufficiency holds. All sacred teachings are found in the bible at least implicitly. If you disagree with the unerring tradition of the Church on what these passages mean then that’s on you.

     especially since when Fathers list what Apostolic tradition consists of, it is coincident with what Scripture teaches.

     coincident does not mean identical Robert. I’m not sure if you knew that or not but it seems to me that you are reading coincident with identical.

     And this gets to the point that must be asked, what would the Fathers do if it can be shown that something they thought is taught in both Scripture and tradition is taught only in tradition and, in fact, contradicts Scripture
     such has never been shown so it is really a mute question. Such can never be shown. In the same way that an error or contradiction can never be shown to exist in the bible. I can imagine how you must feel as we reconcile apparent contradiction after apparent contradiction between tradition and scripture…. Alot how Dan Barker must feel with his “Easter challenge” or like what CDH must feel like constantly arguing with Christians. Must be frustrating. I’m not a selective skeptic so I don’t know the feeling.

     The Fathers believed that Scripture and tradition were vehicles of the same substance. Rome allows for you to believe otherwise, hence the acceptability of the partim-partim view. So, no, Rome doesn’t hold to the patristic understanding.

     the same SUBSTANCE Robert not the same CONTENT. The early Church believed that both scripture and Tradition were of the same SUBSTANCE is divine revelation protected from error.

     No, you’re not, as I’ve noted. You’re reading Kelly as if he’s saying that the fathers were Roman Catholics. Wrong. I’m not reading Kelly as if he’s saying that the fathers were Protestants

     lets be honest… You aren’t reading Kelly at all. Your just quote mining and garbling together a half thought out argument that completely rests on the false premise that the one quote you pulled is compatible with sola scriptura…. It isn’t… Kelly and Schaff fully explain what “Tradition” is and its not the reinvented reformed vocabulary you try to place into the text.

     Baptism of desire is inconsistent with salvation mediated by the sacraments of the visible church. Salvation either comes through ex opere operato sacramentalism or it doesn’t. Baptism of desire means I can be saved apart from the sacraments, and if that is possible, Rome’s entire scheme of salvation doesn’t work.

     God is not bound by the sacraments even though they are normative for our salvation. He can work outside of them. There are many other factors such as invincible ignorance etc that come into play. You take a far to simplified view here. Either/Or syndrome. Classical protestant downfall.

     Sure the church teaches that I am going to heaven as long as I believe in Christ and do good works. My baptism is valid. Clearly I’m invincibly ignorant, because try as I might to read Rome sympathetically, I am unable to see it as anything but a mishmash of bad history, quasi-gnosticism, and warmed-over pagan theology with a veneer of Scripture on top. I’m golden my friend. If the Muslims are getting in, so am I. No Roman Catholic I have ever known personally has told me that I must be Roman Catholic to be saved, including several priests. If the priest is my mediator, I’ll go with his interpretation, especially when your pope is telling us that the most important thing is for us to follow our own notion of what is good.

     BOOM goes the acme box!!! You are not invincibly ignorant. You resist the Holy Spirit. Your intellect is tainted by sin and you can’t see what all the saints before you saw easily. I’ll pray for you.

     LikeLike

307. Bob,

     wow… ive never seen anyone fold so quickly. Your invited over for a game of Holdem any day. BTW…. are you really 22 years old? I was serious earlier… younger?

     LikeLike

308. CDH, I had more in mind the Pentecostals, Adventists, and Millerites than standard issue Baptists (which seem more like creatures of modernity than proper descendants of either Protestantism or Anabaptism). White only represents Protestantism if Protestantism is simply non-Catholicism. But there is more to being Protestant than not being Catholic. My point is that your comment does that all too common thing of conflating the Protestants and Anabaptists. So better to say that she represents “a flavor of what most Anabaptists believe.”

     Still, to the extent that many modern P&R have forgotten their history and make this same Munsterward confusion (while still maintaining the polemic against Rome), you have a point about the problem for American P&R who wink at credobaptism.

     LikeLike

309. CDH,

     Pentecostals are larger than all the other groups combined. Baptists (evangelicals) excluding are larger than all the non-Pentecostal groups combined. They aren’t wacky, they are mainstream Protestants. Conservative Reformed is a niche. Those groups define Protestantism as it exists today.

     In any case you keep changing the criteria. I think after several rounds of refutation it is time for you to present some evidence for your theory. I can’t see any Protestant agreeing with someone like Ambrose on much of anything.

     But pentacostals are poorly represented in the academic world. Calvinists, althought puny and bordering on insignificant in size enjoy a strong intellectual tradition. They are very influential. The same goes for Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists. The evidence that I would call to my defense is that I can read any mainstream academic history book and hear all about the same exact ECFs! For example, Kelly, Schaff and Pelikan all look to the exact same people as I would. Are there perhaps a few exceptions? I dont know maybe. By and large we all go to the same people. Even though they made not think them orthodox they are still considered the “flawed” early church that safe guarded scripture and carried the faith up until the reformation.

     LikeLike

310. Kenneth,

     Again, you miss the point. If coincide means what you say it means, then what we have is some things being taught in Scripture but not tradition and some things being taught in tradition but not Scripture. That’s a partim-partim view. That’s fine if you want to believe that. It might even be fine to say that such is what the Church fathers say. But it is what Kelly explicitly denies, just as he would say the fathers don’t hold to sola Scriptura in the Protestant sense.

     You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have material sufficiency and partim-partim at the same time.

     I’ll refrain from the Booming. Silent dissolution is a more apt metaphor. for you

     LikeLike

311. Cletus,

     I’ve already responded both p-p and ms share something in common – the denial of formal sufficiency of scripture and the need for tradition as an interpretive lens. That’s why it is not critical for Rome to dogmatize one over the other, just as it’s not critical for it to dogmatize one view of grace (Thomism) over another (Molinism) since the essential truths are maintained by both.

     Right. It doesn’t matter which one is correct, as long as that Luther guy is wrong. You are right that they share things in common, and that is the elevation of the Magisterium as the final infallible authority. Sola Ecclesia.

     No, material sufficiency is not bound to your view of what constitutes valid exegesis. Material sufficiency is not bound to “as exegeted by the GHM” and “according to what lines up with my Protestant forebears interpretation whom I agree with”. If exegesis reduced solely to GHM, any secular scholar could grasp all doctrines of the faith. Material sufficiency does not equate to formal sufficiency.

     If something is truly found implicitly in Scripture, one should be able to deduce it by reading it as one would read any other book. If not, then it takes some magic ju-ju interpretation that apparently only works if your wearing a miter and sitting in Rome. The Mormons have the magic ju-ju as well. Thus, you have no interpretative control. Who cares what the Apostle Paul or Peter actually thought, the Magisterium of today tells me what they think and I must believe it. There’s that implicit faith thing again.

     You’re trying to have a meaningful definition of material sufficiency and hold to a partim-partim view at the same time. Either everything necessary to build doctrine is in Scripture or it’s not. And as far as secular scholarship, the problem really isn’t so much that scholars disagree with historic Christianity as to what the views of the apostles were; it’s that they know what the views of the apostles were and just reject them. A radical skeptic such as Ehrmann, for example, will concede that the Gospel of John teaches the deity of Christ. He’ll just deny that John knew what He was talking about. So the GHM can give us a fairly good understanding of what the Apostles themselves actually taught and believed. Sharing the beliefs of the apostles is quite a different thing. If something is truly found implicitly in Scripture, one should be able to tease it out via GHM. Protestants do it all the time.

     The simple fact is that any reading of Scripture according to standard rules of communication won’t give you the Marian heresies. They aren’t implicit there. They aren’t there at all. And if it takes a miter to find them, then you have no possible interpretative control. The Bible means whatever the church says it means. Sola Ecclesia.

     And BTW, those scholars who see what the Apostles taught via GHM and reject it anyway are all too often scholars in good standing in the Roman Church. If you guys can’t kick out your public heretics, you ain’t offering anything better than what I have at my local Reformed church.

     This is silly. Theologians are not the teaching authority of the church. They are not the meaningful guide. I could just as easily cite highly regarded RC theologians that disagree with Brown – it doesn’t do any work. If you find Brown’s conclusions cited in councils or catechisms, then you have a point. But they aren’t, so it’s a red herring. Have Protestants ever disputed RCC teaches the virgin birth? Nope. You’re just throwing stuff at the wall.

     No it’s not silly. Not when Brown’s works all tell me that they don’t teach anything contrary to Roman Catholic faith and morals. There’s that pesky imprimatur thing. Brown basically says that Scripture does not teach the Virgin Birth. He bases his belief in it entirely on what the church says. Aside from creating doubts in the teaching of Scripture, this is not sola Ecclesia how. Got to give Brown credit for being a true RC and believing something for the sole reason that the church tells him to, but an institution that proffers someone like him as a model scholar is to be trusted on dogma why? Because the majic ju-ju was working at a council, but only on the third line of the statement of papal infallibility, ignore the fact that the council was wrong to say that the papacy was always a received doctrine.

     Look, it’s hard enough in this life to raise a family and earn a living. You all want to make all these distinctions between dogma and practice, between this line of a conciliar decree being infallible and this one not, etc. etc. Distinctions that people can’t keep up with, not to mention the vast amount of blather that comes from the pope, so that all they end up doing is either ignoring what they don’t like or understand or going all fundamentalist and believing whatever Rome says because Rome says it. And this is the voice of God on earth. Protestant division has nothing on all this incoherency.

     LikeLike

312. OOPs:

     “this is not sola ecclesia how?”

     LikeLike

313. CD-Host
     Posted December 8, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink
     is it accurate to say that you did a free preview on amazon and then reviewed those articles?

     Not quite. I read through a few samples at a book store, was horrified and decided to use the free preview on Amazon to base my review on.

     Heh. Busted. Nice work, Detective Kenneth.

     _______

     Bob S
     Posted December 10, 2013 at 1:21 am | Permalink
     Coherence Ve Damned and da wife beater are ticked off. Damage control is essential.

     Every cheap shot like this awards a point to the other side. Just not feeling the love of Jesus with this stuff, Jn 13:35, etc. Word up.

     ________

     As for “oral tradition,” in one of the first great debates with the Reformation [vs. Wm. Tyndale], Thomas More argues adequately that the first generations of Christians had no written Gospels to sola scriptura with. The Catholic claim is that the same Holy Spirit who held the Church together at first has always continued to do so.

     Click to access DCH_Fabiny.pdf

     More here discusses again Peter’s confession of faith in the divinity of
     Christ (Mt 16:15-17) and in the second edition of 1531 adds two sentences which emphasize that the church was guided by the “secrete inspyracion” of the Holy Spirit rather than by written scripture.

     His summary is that “The lawe or euer it was written in the boke, was written in mens hartes.”

     More calls this “the lawe of lyfe” (an allusion to Eccles.17:9) that words written on parchment are
     not no be compared to the words written in the living minds of men.

     And by theym in lyke maner / fyrste without wrytinge by onely wordes and prechynge / so was it
     spredde abrode in the worlde / that his fayth was by the mouthes of his holy messengers put in to
     mennes eres / & by his holy hande wrytten in mennes hartes or euer any worde therof almost was
     wrytten in the boke. And so was it convenient for the lawe of lyfe / rather to be written in the lyuely
     myndes of men / than in ye dede skynnes of bestes.

     More believes that “the substaunce of this faith neuer haue fallen out of crysten folks hartes /
     but the same sypryte that planted it / the sholde haue watered it / the same shold haue kepte it /
     ye have encreased it.”

     But so hathe it lyked our lorde / after his hye wysdome to prouyde / that some of his dyscyples haue
     wrytten many thynges of his holy lyfe / doctryne and faythe / and yet farre frome all / whiche (as
     saynt Iohan sayth) the worlde coulde not haue comprehended. These bokes are tempred by the secrete
     counsayle of the holy goost so playne and simple / that euery man may fynde in them that he maye perceyue.

     More is convinced that the evangelists and the apostles were “furste enformyd by worde”; he
     says that he would little doubt that the evangelists and the apostles “bothe / of many great and
     secrete mysteryes spake moce more openly / and moche more playnely by mouth amonge the
     people.”

     More believes that Scripture has much mystery still covered that will not be uncovered until the
     Day of Judgement when they will be fully disclosed. Until then God “temperyth his reuelacyons”
     so that by the secret inspiration of the Holy Spirit the church should consent unlike the heretics
     who rebel and refuse to be obedient to God and his church. Such heretics will be cut off from the
     lively tree of the vine and the withered branches will be kept for the fire. However, if they repent
     they will be grafted into the stock again. More is convinced that though the church might change,
     the Holy Spirit that God had promised to his church should abide in the church until the end of the
     world.

     LikeLike

314. Robert,

     “Right. It doesn’t matter which one is correct, as long as that Luther guy is wrong. You are right that they share things in common, and that is the elevation of the Magisterium as the final infallible authority. Sola Ecclesia.”

     No, it doesn’t matter which one is correct or which one the ecfs held since the larger point is what they have in common – denial of formal sufficiency and consequently, affirmation of necessary tradition and ecclesiastical authority to properly interpret scripture, contra the Protestant position. Not sola ecclesia – sola scriptura-tradition-magisterium triad – they intra-support and work in harmony. If what you said was true, Rome would not be bound to her past decisions. She could easily declare James to be uninspired or Christ wasn’t divine or Mary is eternal or infants aren’t to be baptized. She needn’t bother appealing to Scripture or the historical witnesses to tradition for support in any of her statements. Dei Verbum’s statement that the magisterium is a servant to scripture and tradition wasn’t an afterthought. Why did she even bother maintaining the canon in your view? Just to put on a good face?

     “If something is truly found implicitly in Scripture, one should be able to deduce it by reading it as one would read any other book.”

     Wrong – scripture is god-breathed – not “any other book”. Symptomatic of larger Protestant error of reducing supernatural revelation to the level of naturalism and plausible opinion.

     “The Mormons have the magic ju-ju as well.”

     Yeah, they at least make the claim they are divinely authorized to issue binding doctrine that warrants the assent of faith. Not just plausible ever-provisional opinion. That’s why they at least get out of the gate along with crazy guy on the street while Protestantism keeps falling over trying to get out.

     “Either everything necessary to build doctrine is in Scripture or it’s not.”

     Again this is characterizing material sufficiency as formal sufficiency. Scripture contains all necessary information (either implicitly or explicitly) – that does not therefore mean nothing else is needed in order to “build” doctrine. If nothing else was needed, that would be formal sufficiency.

     “So the GHM can give us a fairly good understanding of what the Apostles themselves actually taught and believed.”

     Really. So any secular scholar well-studied enough can come up with the WCF? Or whatever you want to limit to “essential” and “good and necessary” doctrines? So those scholars who don’t just aren’t intelligent or rational or studied enough? The apostles taught more than the Resurrection.

     “If something is truly found implicitly in Scripture, one should be able to tease it out via GHM. Protestants do it all the time.”

     Right. I forgot Protestants affirming GHM don’t differ on doctrine, especially implicit ones. Oh and those Protestants that go way off the deep-end – they’re not “real” Protestants. No true scotsman.

     “And BTW, those scholars who see what the Apostles taught via GHM and reject it anyway are all too often scholars in good standing in the Roman Church. If you guys can’t kick out your public heretics, you ain’t offering anything better than what I have at my local Reformed church.”

     This again. Get back to me when you have heretical teaching by scholars or Brown’s statements that the virgin birth has no scriptural warrant enshrined in official church teaching and councils, or when opposing conservative scholars are silenced.

     “ignore the fact that the council was wrong to say that the papacy was always a received doctrine.”

     Yes the same Vatican 1 and Pius IX that affirms development (we went over this earlier with Darryl over the modernist nonsense). It was a “received doctrine” in the same way the Trinity and Christological doctrines were “received doctrines” although they unfolded over centuries.

     “You all want to make all these distinctions between dogma and practice, between this line of a conciliar decree being infallible and this one not, etc. etc. Distinctions that people can’t keep up with, not to mention the vast amount of blather that comes from the pope, so that all they end up doing is either ignoring what they don’t like or understand or going all fundamentalist and believing whatever Rome says because Rome says it. And this is the voice of God on earth. Protestant division has nothing on all this incoherency.”

     You are falling right back into Kenneth’s trap again – this argument could be verbatim from an atheist or Erhman acolyte against Scriptural innerrancy.

     LikeLike

315. Cletus,

     Robert,

     If what you said was true, Rome would not be bound to her past decisions. She could easily declare James to be uninspired or Christ wasn’t divine or Mary is eternal or infants aren’t to be baptized. She needn’t bother appealing to Scripture or the historical witnesses to tradition for support in any of her statements. Dei Verbum’s statement that the magisterium is a servant to scripture and tradition wasn’t an afterthought. Why did she even bother maintaining the canon in your view? Just to put on a good face?

     But Rome isn’t bound to its past decisions. Which is why you believe that salvation no longer requires conscious salvation to the Roman pope. Look, I know what Rome claims. But you hold beliefs that contradict Scripture, such as, I don’t know, praying to dead people. So no, the Word is subservient to the church in Rome.

     Wrong – scripture is god-breathed – not “any other book”. Symptomatic of larger Protestant error of reducing supernatural revelation to the level of naturalism and plausible opinion.

     Of course Scripture isn’t “any other book.” That doesn’t mean rules of reading are thrown out the window, especially when Scripture calls on COMMON people with no education to teach its standards to their children.

     Yeah, they at least make the claim they are divinely authorized to issue binding doctrine that warrants the assent of faith. Not just plausible ever-provisional opinion. That’s why they at least get out of the gate along with crazy guy on the street while Protestantism keeps falling over trying to get out.

     Hey, as long as you admit that Rome is about equivalent to the crazy guy on the street with regards to credibility, we’re golden.

     Again this is characterizing material sufficiency as formal sufficiency. Scripture contains all necessary information (either implicitly or explicitly) – that does not therefore mean nothing else is needed in order to “build” doctrine. If nothing else was needed, that would be formal sufficiency.

     Of course everything necessary in an absolute sense isn’t found in Scripture, the book needs to be read if nothing else. I was speaking of information. Apparently you agree. Now, tell me where the sinlessness of Mary is implicitly taught according to the original intent of the people that actually wrote the Bible. Prayer to dead people. Veneration of icons. If all the information is there, I should be able to find it.

     Really. So any secular scholar well-studied enough can come up with the WCF? Or whatever you want to limit to “essential” and “good and necessary” doctrines? So those scholars who don’t just aren’t intelligent or rational or studied enough? The apostles taught more than the Resurrection.

     Right. I forgot Protestants affirming GHM don’t differ on doctrine, especially implicit ones. Oh and those Protestants that go way off the deep-end – they’re not “real” Protestants. No true scotsman.

     We actually differ on doctrine about as much as Roman Catholics do, so again, Rome has nothing better. And the problem of division isn’t the clarity of Scripture, it’s the receiver. Kinda like with Rome, only your broadcaster is different.

     This again. Get back to me when you have heretical teaching by scholars or Brown’s statements that the virgin birth has no scriptural warrant enshrined in official church teaching and councils, or when opposing conservative scholars are silenced.

     Get back to me when you can stop sticking your head in the sand and pretend it doesn’t matter one whit that Rome regularly fails to discipline heretics, gives the Eucharist to those who openly defy the Magisterium on dogma, and so forth.

     Yes the same Vatican 1 and Pius IX that affirms development (we went over this earlier with Darryl over the modernist nonsense). It was a “received doctrine” in the same way the Trinity and Christological doctrines were “received doctrines” although they unfolded over centuries.

     Well, Jonathan Prejean told me that the early church in fact was not united on the papacy and that the part of V1 that says that they were is wrong but that doesn’t matter because its just bombastic rhetoric common to the time. So who do I believe?

     You are falling right back into Kenneth’s trap again – this argument could be verbatim from an atheist or Erhman acolyte against Scriptural innerrancy.

     No it can’t and for one simple reason, we believe everything the apostles teach is infallible. You don’t believe everything the Magisterium teaches is infallible. We hold to different standards of inerrancy. The fact that both of us offer qualifications is irrelevant. You won’t say that everything a council opines on is infallible or that everything the pope says while he is teaching is infallible. The Bible is our council and our pope. Everything it teaches is infallible. Ehrman would reject that, of course, but its a more respectable position than the insanity of Roman infallibility that will freely admit that what the pope said wasn’t infallible when it clearly contradicts later teaching.

     LikeLike

316. Robert,

     “But Rome isn’t bound to its past decisions. Which is why you believe that salvation no longer requires conscious salvation to the Roman pope.”

     The doctrines of invincible ignorance, baptism by explicit/implicit desire, and no salvation outside the church all have witness long before vat 2. Rome is bound to her past decisions – that’s why no past decision said formal membership in the church was required for salvation.

     “Look, I know what Rome claims. But you hold beliefs that contradict Scripture, such as, I don’t know, praying to dead people. So no, the Word is subservient to the church in Rome.”

     I understand you think they contradict Scripture. That does not mean they objectively do, nor does it mean the magisterium does not serve the Word.

     “That doesn’t mean rules of reading are thrown out the window, especially when Scripture calls on COMMON people with no education to teach its standards to their children.”

     Why did Lutherans during the Reformation limit the reading and interpretation of Scripture by laity in that case? Why didn’t Jews with education understand the OT properly? The RCC doesn’t claim rules of reading are thrown out the window, or that words don’t have meaning.

     “Hey, as long as you admit that Rome is about equivalent to the crazy guy on the street with regards to credibility, we’re golden.”

     Ah, well I didn’t say all claimants to divine authority have the same credibility. But they do all at least get out of the gate and make themselves candidates for consideration.

     “Of course everything necessary in an absolute sense isn’t found in Scripture, the book needs to be read if nothing else. I was speaking of information. Apparently you agree. Now, tell me where the sinlessness of Mary is implicitly taught according to the original intent of the people that actually wrote the Bible. Prayer to dead people. Veneration of icons. If all the information is there, I should be able to find it.”

     I’m sure you’re aware of various Scriptural arguments and deductions/extrapolations for what is implicitly taught related to those doctrines. All the information is there, but again tradition and ecclesiastical authority are needed as interpretive lenses to understand it – that you abandon those necessary aides and still demand these things should be gathered by ghm exegesis alone again presupposes formal sufficiency, not material sufficiency. Another way to think of it, how would you rephrase your request if you were arguing for formal sufficiency of scripture instead of material sufficiency? That should zero in on the distinction.

     “And the problem of division isn’t the clarity of Scripture, it’s the receiver.”

     Okay, but GHM is neutral – if that is the only valid way to exegete Scripture, any secular person should be able to ascertain and exegete the same doctrines from Scripture as anyone else, much more so all faithful Protestants as well.

     “Get back to me when you can stop sticking your head in the sand and pretend it doesn’t matter one whit that Rome regularly fails to discipline heretics, gives the Eucharist to those who openly defy the Magisterium on dogma, and so forth.”

     It matters, but not to the points in this discussion.

     “Well, Jonathan Prejean told me that the early church in fact was not united on the papacy and that the part of V1 that says that they were is wrong but that doesn’t matter because its just bombastic rhetoric common to the time. So who do I believe?”

     What Prejean was saying I assume is that the definition of dogma is what matters in terms of irreformability, but what I’m saying is that the language of “always believed”, etc. does not negate development. Pius IX affirmed development in other statements, and Vatican 1 itself affirms development when citing Vincent.

     “The Bible is our council and our pope. Everything it teaches is infallible.”

     Yes, but when an atheist or non-christian offers up “contradictory” passages or passages that are no longer considered binding or passages that are to be interpreted allegorically and not literally or objections based on textual criticism and so forth and hear your explanations, they start viewing you the same way as you view Rome’s distinctions and qualifications. Rome’s position is only “insane” if you presuppose it cannot authentically interpret its own teachings.

     LikeLike

317. This might have weight if it could be shown that concepts of development of doctrine nor material sufficiency were not espoused anywhere before Newman. Both are false.

     Assertion/unproven. Translation in Roman speak: an argument.
     Then Kenny wants to say that prot theologians teach what he/Rome says, but there are opposing views to Brown (RC) according to CVD.
     Damned either way, eh?

     Well, we got news for the little grasshoppers. Double standards are exactly that and as our history teacher at the jesuit high school we went to put it, when it comes to doing history, there are primary sources and there are secondary sources.
     But CVD can explain away what Augustine says, so no problem there Jiminy Cricket.
     These guys are usefull tools/foils/examples as to the lengths Roman apologists will go.

     But it still all boils down to sola ecclesia.
     Yeah, Scripture is infallible, but so is history/tradition according to the way we read both H/T and Scripture, if not that history/tradition is also Scripture, much more we are the infallible church because we say so.
     Vicious. Circle. Much. Equivocation.
     Whatever.
     Have a nice day in your neighborhood.

     TVD. Word up. Somebody already did some sleuthing on your scholarship in this combox and it was found wanting.
     Two, It is the Romanist Pascal himself who says:

     Thus you see, fathers, that ridicule is, in some cases, a very appropriate means of reclaiming men from their errors, and that it is accordingly an act of justice, because, as Jeremiah says, “the actions of those that err are worthy of derision, because of their vanity — vana sunt es risu digna.” 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.”

     The rest is here:http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/pascal/blaise/p27pr/part12.html

     And now a word from our sponsor our mystery author, who is to be sure a ”Roman” Catholic, in that the Tiberian mafia claims the right of first refusal for anybody immediately after the Book of Acts up until Trent. (Hey, it’s a sweet gig.) He shall remain anonymous though in order that heads don’t explode and the usual triumphant shout of “But he didn’t say what he just said” rings in our deaf donkey ears.

     For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine.

     What? No mention of the magisterium? Grab the firewood for the stake and tweet Bry and Jase over at Called To Cognitive Dissonance immediately.

     More here:http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.LXXXII.html
     cheers,

     LikeLike

318. Robert: but only on the third line of the statement of papal infallibility, ignore the fact that the council was wrong to say that the papacy was always a received doctrine.

     I didn’t see where you were quoting this from, but I’ve seen this sort of explanation (and there are variations on it — proving, as you say the incoherency of the Roman system, despite the “neatness” it professes).

     I believe this is one of the reasons why Rome is officially backing off terminology like “papacy” and emphasizing things like “the primacy of the successor of Peter”.

     For a view of this, see Ratzinger’s statement “The Primacy of the Successor of Peter” (which may be found linked here: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/behold-i-shew-you-mystery.html )

     That is about Rome’s own “historical study” of the papacy in the first 1000 years — which came (interestingly enough) in 1989, right on the heels of the publication of Peter Lampe’s work “From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries”.

     It wasn’t long afterward that they came out with Ut Unum Sint and that search for a “new situation” for “the primacy”.

     You can believe that if they had found anything at all to crow about from those studies, they would have done it. Instead, they’re having to hang their heads and make believe that the intention all along was to move toward a Bergoglio-inspired decentralization (which we’re seeing before our eyes).

     LikeLike

319. Tom Van Dyke: As for “oral tradition,” in one of the first great debates with the Reformation [vs. Wm. Tyndale], Thomas More argues adequately that the first generations of Christians had no written Gospels to sola scriptura with.

     More was wrong. The first generations of Christians did have living apostles to whom they could have recourse; the writings began piling up in the 40s and 50s (and were in fact Scripture, as Michael Kruger convincingly argues in “Canon Revisited”– which you should read. And if you don’t want to purchase it, you can go to Triablogue and search both Kruger and “Canon Revisited” — there’s plenty of free stuff there.)

     What’s highly telling is that men like Clement and Ignatius don’t dare compare the authority they themselves had to the apostles — whereas later bishops clearly give themselves that role. I find that to be reprehensible.

     Especially when it is clear as a bell that Paul is putting “the message” ahead of any person or any other authority: 15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

     The important thing to note here is that no one was preaching Roman Catholicism for another 300 years.

     LikeLike

320. The Pope joins me (2006), Hitler(1938) and Stalin(1939) as time’s person of year. Speaking of Bry, did he, at CtC, beat me to this?

     http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year

     LikeLike

321. Bob,

     “Assertion/unproven. Translation in Roman speak: an argument.”

     Your citation of me this was in reply to was itself a response to an unproven assertion by Robert. But of course you didn’t pipe up then. If you’d like to engage in an actual discussion were evidence is presented on that point, we could do that, but somehow I doubt that’s gonna happen.

     “But CVD can explain away what Augustine says, so no problem there Jiminy Cricket…. He shall remain anonymous though in order that heads don’t explode and the usual triumphant shout of “But he didn’t say what he just said” rings in our deaf donkey ears.”

     It’s not explaining away anything. I simply cited another writing of his (more of similar vein could be adduced) that didn’t fit with the narrative you were presenting. I think both your and my citations can be harmonized into a consistent framework – perhaps that’s called “explaining away” in your world.

     LikeLike

322. John,

     “More was wrong. The first generations of Christians did have living apostles to whom they could have recourse; the writings began piling up in the 40s and 50s (and were in fact Scripture…”

     You here are not speaking of all of the NT writings I would presume. My question is can sola scriptura operate without the complete set of NT writings – given that a “canonical hermeneutic” can obviously impact interpretation if only a subset is available. If sola scriptura cannot operate in that context, then More was not wrong on that point, but perhaps you are focusing solely on his point that the written gospels weren’t available.

     LikeLike

323. Clete, this is a prot site. There is some favortism shown, as well I can’t/don’t keep up with everything.
     Besides we’ve already seen Ken prove idols/images are bibilical and you haven’t been too forthcoming on how Tradition isn’t Scripture, but it is and the bishops are not inspired like the apostles, but they are and the deposit is fixed, but nobody can even begin to give us a table of contents/index, never mind an inspired one. IOW your side ain’t doing great. We could also say something about lame arguments for Latin Bibles, but we’ll let that faux pas and sleeping dog lie for the moment.

     If Augustine plainly says something and then plainly says something completely opposite, then maybe just maybe the universal consent of the patristics ain’t worth a hoot. But that isn’t what you and Kenny tell us – or at least Rome used to – never mind we can find more about JBFA in the ECFs AND Scripture than you can the Assumption/Immaculate Deception, though the early church was soup to nuts in many ways. After all, the apostles in the inscripturated apostolic traditions, iow apostolic teachings, otherwise known as the New Testament, tell us to expect it.

     Including this,

     Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 2 Thess. 2:3,4

     cheers,

     LikeLike

324. CVD, first, the Old Testament canon was fixed in the time of Jesus (Luke 24:44) And second, even as the Apostolic writings started to pile up. you had living Apostles, with Apostolic Authority, who could be consulted. But after the Apostles started dying, you still had Apostolic Authority in the writings, while not having that same authority in any living persons. Hence, only Scripture has had Apostolic Authority since that time.

     See this link:

     http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/more-about-ignatius-and-apostolic.html

     “I do not command you as Peter and Paul: they [were] apostles. I [am] a condemned man; they [were] free, I (am) still a slave”.

     You will point to this as some example of what a “bishop” is; you will use this as some kind of affirmation of “succession” in Ignatius.

     You will say “this is not inconsistent” with what the Roman Catholic church says about the relationship of apostles and bishops today. Nevertheless, this is NOT a positive articulation of anything near to “the doctrine of succession” – and if you consider the level at which this statement locates bishops vis-à-vis the apostles, there is a huge gulf here, which you will not accept (and I will).

     LikeLike

325. See also this, for example:

     http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/irenaeus-confirms-michael-kruger-on.html

     To [the Apostles], the Lord said, “He who hears you hears me, and he who despises you despises Him who sent me”. For we have known the “economy” for our salvation only through those through whom the Gospel came to us [only through the Apostles]; and what they first preached they later, by God’s will transmitted to us in the Scriptures so that would be the foundation and pillar of our faith (Irenaeus, “Against Heresies, 3 Pr.).”

     LikeLike

326. Cletus,

     My question is can sola scriptura operate without the complete set of NT writings – given that a “canonical hermeneutic” can obviously impact interpretation if only a subset is available. If sola scriptura cannot operate in that context, then More was not wrong on that point, but perhaps you are focusing solely on his point that the written gospels weren’t available.

     No, sola Scriptura cannot operate without the complete set of NT writings, or better yet, apostolic tradition. But the church never lived under such a situation. The set of NT writings was complete at the moment the last book of the NT was written (presumably, Revelation), and that occurred before the last Apostle died.

     Now, it may have taken time to recognize the full scope and extent of apostolic writings but if the mere recognition of what was complete means sola Scriptura doesn’t work, then we have a tu quoque on the part of the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility, because the earliest point at which we can see anything resembling a universal recognition of the full scope and extent of apostolic tradition in the Roman paradigm is the Council of Nicea. Before that, there was no ecumenical council to issue binding dogma in any kind of universal way, and thus no way to know which teachings of the bishops were infallible.

     Not coincidentally, the generally universal recognition of the full scope of written apostolic tradition occurs in the same generation as Nicea, so if sola Scriptura doesn’t work until then, neither does Rome’s doctrine of authority. So we’re left in the same position, and Roman understandings of authority prove themselves, if not inferior, then at least no better than sola Scriptura.

     Even here, there is good reason to believe that the recognition of the full scope of apostolic tradition in written form, establishing unambiguously the necessary prerequisites for sola Scriptura, occurs even before Nicea. Michael Kruger has made a good argument that men such as Origen recognized the complete NT canon even before Athanasius’ festal letter.

     Basically, sola Scriptura isn’t possible without the complete body of apostolic teaching, but the church never operated without the complete body of apostolic teaching. It may have taken time for the church universal to recognize the full boundaries of the complete body of apostolic teaching, but this is true even under a Roman view of authority. So, tu quoque.

     LikeLike

327. John,

     Are you saying all Jewish sects immediately before, during, after Christ had a common fixed canon?

     “But after the Apostles started dying, you still had Apostolic Authority in the writings, while not having that same authority in any living persons.”

     If by same authority, you mean living persons inspired as the Apostles were, then of course.

     “Hence, only Scripture has had Apostolic Authority since that time.”

     That’s a jump.

     “by God’s will transmitted to us in the Scriptures so that would be the foundation and pillar of our faith”

     Saying scripture is the foundation and pillar of our faith does not get you to sola scriptura or formal sufficiency, nor a denial of tradition and ecclesiastical authority (unless you presuppose the latter two items are opposed to scripture).

     LikeLike

328. Robert,

     “The set of NT writings was complete at the moment the last book of the NT was written.”

     Why do you think the last book of the NT being written down means public revelation closed with that book?

     “Before that, there was no ecumenical council to issue binding dogma in any kind of universal way, and thus no way to know which teachings of the bishops were infallible.”

     Infallible and authoritative teaching does not come just from ecumenical councils. The church didn’t all of a sudden change in substance/teaching when the canon was recognized in councils.

     “Even here, there is good reason to believe that the recognition of the full scope of apostolic tradition in written form, establishing unambiguously the necessary prerequisites for sola Scriptura, occurs even before Nicea.Michael Kruger has made a good argument that men such as Origen recognized the complete NT canon even before Athanasius’ festal letter.”

     Well I notice the recognition of the OT is excluded here which I would presume would be essential to SS just as NT. Furthermore, NT disputes (not of all books obviously) went on for 4 centuries (and occurred at Reformation as well). It is not surprising some during those centuries will have very close approximations, the recognition of the canon was a process and the final recognition did not pop out of nowhere. It is suprising that if self-attestation and inner witness are the sole grounds for defining the canon, how it could be disputed by godly men for such a time.

     LikeLike

329. Cletus,

     Why do you think the last book of the NT being written down means public revelation closed with that book?

     I didn’t say public revelation ended. I said that the NT was complete at that point. Public revelation ends with the death of the last apostle, and if God intended for us to be bound for all time by anything they said that is not in the NT, you need to produce it in writing. Where is the list of apostolic traditions not found in Scripture. God has always governed His people by a written covenant document, not by some nebulous collection of traditions. Jesus in fact condemns those who elevate a nebulous collection of unwritten traditions to the status of written Scripture.

     Infallible and authoritative teaching does not come just from ecumenical councils. The church didn’t all of a sudden change in substance/teaching when the canon was recognized in councils.

     So, before the first ecumenical council was held, how do I know the “consensus” of the church? This is the tu quoque. If sola Scriptura doesn’t work until the canon is formally closed, ecclesiastical infallibility based on the consensus of the apostles doesn’t work until the first council.

     Well I notice the recognition of the OT is excluded here which I would presume would be essential to SS just as NT. Furthermore, NT disputes (not of all books obviously) went on for 4 centuries (and occurred at Reformation as well). It is not surprising some during those centuries will have very close approximations, the recognition of the canon was a process and the final recognition did not pop out of nowhere. It is suprising that if self-attestation and inner witness are the sole grounds for defining the canon, how it could be disputed by godly men for such a time.

     First, the canon was recognized in the time of Jesus. Tell me where a non-Protestant canonical work is quoted as Scripture by the apostles.

     Second, who said the final recognition popped out of nowhere.

     Third, inner witness and self-attestation are not the sole grounds for recognizing the canon. The canon is not defined by the church, it is recognized by the church, so the church has a role to play. But if the church defines the canon, the church is higher than the canon, and the church is not the servant of the Word as Dei Verbum purports to say that it is.

     LikeLike

330. CVD, another take on both the OT and even the NT, would be to tie the idea of canon and covenant. IOW, the canon is an development of the covenant administration-legal documents if you will. Thus, the very idea of ‘Testament’ and Christ being the testator. It certainly fits the OT writings, and because of the adamic representation and inauguration of a new and better covenant in Christ, has direct application to documents produced in representation of these distinct covenants. This idea would encapsulate authority; prophets and/or apostles, as messengers sent from God and an expectation and in fact historical testimony that these messengers were recognized as such; sent from God, and the covenant was/is administered according to their direction and by the authority uniquely bestowed upon them by God. All subsequent churchly authority is real but subordinate to these inscripturated directions for administration of said covenants. And ongoing legitimate churchly authority is deemed as such by compliance with this standard. It’s helpful and correct for the church to come in and recognize such authority, but they don’t therefore, or by means of their ecclesial office, establish that authority.

     Having said that, I’m not sure why discord and confusion would be a knock against rightful authority. Paul was convinced all of Asia had been lost by the time he was done and John was being overrun by the anti-Christs who denied that Jesus was God come in the flesh. So oral or written, the apostolic tradition, has always been beset by confusion and discord. That’s why the surety of a written word is deemed superior to a succession of persons, both historically considered; issues of legitimate antiquity, and for reasons of perspicuity.

     LikeLike

331. Robert,

     Your recent writing is so riddled with errors I thought my head would explode.

     I didn’t say public revelation ended. I said that the NT was complete at that point. Public revelation ends with the death of the last apostle, and if God intended for us to be bound for all time by anything they said that is not in the NT, you need to produce it in writing.Where is the list of apostolic traditions not found in Scripture.

     This is rich! So lets try and get this straight. You cant produce an infallible inerrent inspired table of contents page for the bible….. but we need to produce one for Tradition. You cant provide one single scripture that teaches sola scriptura (Bible ALONE) and yet we have to produce in *writing* verbatum instructions not only that there is oral tradition… but that it is different in content than the words written in the bible and that it will be binding forever. insane. Even though we can easily accommodate all those requests.

     “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

     “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

     “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15)

     if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

     God has always governed His people by a written document, not by some nebulous collection of traditions. Jesus in fact condemns those who elevate a nebulous collection of unwritten traditions to the status of written Scripture.

     Says who? Not the Jews! The only people who hold to that position are the people that HAVE to because they want to read sola scriptura into everything they see.

     So, before the first ecumenical council was held, how do I know the “consensus” of the church? This is the tu quoque. If sola Scriptura doesn’t work until the canon is formally closed, ecclesiastical infallibility based on the consensus of the apostles doesn’t work until the first council.

     The first ever church council was not held at Nicea. It was held in Jerusalem. Acts 15. Do you deny that this council was infallible in addresing matter of faith and morals and that it was binding on all christians even before Luke penned the book of Acts? If so, there ya go! wish granted. Now you have your first council.

     First, the canon was recognized in the time of Jesus. Tell me where a non-Protestant canonical work is quoted as Scripture by the apostles.

     This can be shown in spades unless you demand “for it is written” before every reference.

     LikeLike

332. Kenneth,

     Your recent writing is so riddled with errors I thought my head would explode.

     Now you know how we feel when we read you. At least now you can empathize with us, maybe.

     This is rich! So lets try and get this straight. You cant produce an infallible inerrent inspired table of contents page for the bible….. but we need to produce one for Tradition. You cant provide one single scripture that teaches sola scriptura (Bible ALONE) and yet we have to produce in *writing* verbatum instructions not only that there is oral tradition… but that it is different in content than the words written in the bible and that it will be binding forever. insane. Even though we can easily accommodate all those requests.

     I don’t care about a “table of contents.” I want Rome to tell me this letter from Augustine is tradition, but this isn’t. I want Rome to tell me which part of the Mass was given by the apostles and which wasn’t. Something. Not this nebulous “life and witness of the church” that is like nailing jello to a wall and effectively makes Rome into an ever-shifting blob.

     Wait-I thought you were a material sufficiency guy. Those quotes only work for you if there are things taught in oral tradition that are not taught in Scripture. And for us to even know what oral tradition says, we need someone to tell us where it is. Where is it Kenneth? Where? If you don’t give it, why should I think Rome is any different than a cult that claims to bind its members by the oral revelations given to its founder and successor but has no accountability because no one can find these revelations?

     Says who? Not the Jews! The only people who hold to that position are the people that HAVE to because they want to read sola scriptura into everything they see.

     Every time God gave revelation that he wanted His people to keep for all time it was WRITTEN DOWN. How about the law at Sinai, the prophetic period, and the apostolic period for starters.

     Says who? Not the Jews! The only people who hold to that position are the people that HAVE to because they want to read sola scriptura into everything they see.

     Sure, modern Jews don’t think they’re bound only by written tradition. But most of them are atheists, and the ones that aren’t deny Christ based on their oral traditions that, ironically, are now written in the Talmud. I should follow their example why?

     The first ever church council was not held at Nicea. It was held in Jerusalem. Acts 15. Do you deny that this council was infallible in addresing matter of faith and morals and that it was binding on all christians even before Luke penned the book of Acts? If so, there ya go! wish granted. Now you have your first council.

     Sorry, Kenneth. Apostles were present at that council. There weren’t any at Nicea or any later councils, and if you want to say that the bishops carry on in that infallible line, then everything that they said at those councils must be infallible, just as you would impute everything said in Acts 15 as infallible. But wait, you don’t think everything said at those councils was infallible do you?

     This can be shown in spades unless you demand “for it is written” before every reference.

     So, as long as the apostles just make reference to something, that makes it Scripture? I guess those pagan poets that Paul quotes at times must make the cut for you, too.

     LikeLike

333. Robert,

     “God has always governed His people by a written covenant document, not by some nebulous collection of traditions. Jesus in fact condemns those who elevate a nebulous collection of unwritten traditions to the status of written Scripture.”

     The apostles were not OT sola scripturists. Yes the OT was vital to the NT and they did not contradict it by their authentic and binding interpretation, but that does not reduce to God always governing His people by a written document. Prophets, apostles, Christ himself did not negate those writings, though those prophets/apostles/Christ obviously weren’t extraneous authority. So it is with tradition and ecclesiastial authority. Jesus condemns some traditions of the Jews, not all. Nor does he obviously condemn himself or the apostles for applying their interpretation to the OT writings.

     “First, the canon was recognized in the time of Jesus.”

     So did all Jewish sects share a common fixed canon before, during, and after Jesus?

     “Tell me where a non-Protestant canonical work is quoted as Scripture by the apostles.”

     If this is the sole criteria you use, then you should discard books of the protestant OT that are not quoted by the apostles.

     “Second, who said the final recognition popped out of nowhere.”

     Sure I’m not saying you said that. I’m just saying that church decisions and developments have witness in tradition – so it would be strange for a canon to be defined that had no historical basis. But the fact that there may be close approximations does not mean the canon is self-evident via self-attestation and inner witness.

     “But if the church defines the canon, the church is higher than the canon”

     The church recognized the canon and definitions were issued. If nothing was defined, how would we know the church recognized it. But no, the church did not confer divine authority on scripture by her recognition – that is why she is still the servant as DV says. You are touching on the point I brought up earlier with Bob and Ridderbos though – when you say “Third, inner witness and self-attestation are not the sole grounds for recognizing the canon” – anything else you introduce outside of those 2 criteria are by definition extra-canonical and thus becomes “higher than the canon” or as Ridderbos says, a “canon above the canon” – it is not legitimate criteria to use in recognizing the canon if one eschews divine authority of the church and tradition (unless you just make some ad hoc appeal – similar to appeals to church fathers for the NT canon recognition but not those same fathers’ appeals to the OT canon).

     LikeLike

334. CVD: John, Are you saying all Jewish sects immediately before, during, after Christ had a common fixed canon?

     No, I said “the Old Testament canon was fixed in the time of Jesus (Luke 24:44)”. In that verse, Jesus says:

     “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: …

     It is evident that he is not appealing to some external authority to have “fixed” the canon. It already was “fixed”. There were no fuzzy areas. He was not expecting them to say … “Wait, the Council of Jamnia …”

     He had a fixed body of work in mind with “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”. If you think that’s not the case, please tell me why you think so.

     * * *

     JB: “But after the Apostles started dying, you still had Apostolic Authority in the writings, while not having that same authority in any living persons.”

     CVD: If by same authority, you mean living persons inspired as the Apostles were, then of course.

     JB “Hence, only Scripture has had Apostolic Authority since that time.”

     CVD: That’s a jump.

     No it’s not. Ignatius, a Bishop, did not have Apostolic Authority in the early 2nd century. I cited him above: “I do not command you as Peter and Paul: they [were] apostles. I [am] a condemned man; they [were] free, I (am) still a slave”.

     Big gulf, then, between the Apostles and Ignatius in terms of authority. Where, then, did Apostolic Authority re-appear after Ignatius? (There’s where you’ll find your “jump”.)

     * * *

     CVD: Saying scripture is the foundation and pillar of our faith does not get you to sola scriptura or formal sufficiency, nor a denial of tradition and ecclesiastical authority (unless you presuppose the latter two items are opposed to scripture).

     Here’s what does get me Sola Scriptura:

     Apostles have Apostolic Authority

     The writings of the Apostles have Apostolic Authority

     After the Apostles die, their writings continue to have Apostolic Authority

     After the Apostles die, next generation leaders such as Ignatius recognize that they themselves don’t have Apostolic Authority.

     Therefore, the only source we have from the second century on with Apostolic Authority are the writings of the Apostles.

     LikeLike

335. Here is how Oscar Cullmann described the apparent unreliability of “oral tradition” in maintaining “the apostolic witness”, which was regarded to be unique and unrepeatable, in comparison with later “ecclesiastical” traditions, which were certainly not binding on the universal church (especially not the church of the Reformation or the church in our time):

     For a long time it has been noted that, apart from the letters of Ignatius, the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, who do not really belong to the Apostolic age but to the beginning of the second century—[1 Clement, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas]—despite their theological interest, are at a considerable distance from New Testament thought, and to a considerable extent relapse into a moralism which ignores the notion of grace, and of the redemptive death of Christ, so central to apostolic theology. [See Torrance’s “The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers,” 1948].

     It has also been noted that the Church Fathers who wrote after 150—Irenaeus and Tertullian—although chronologically more remote from the New Testament than the authors of the first half of the century, understood infinitely better the essence of the gospel. This seems paradoxical, but is explained perfectly by that most important act, the codification of the apostolic tradition in a canon [a “canonical core”], henceforward the superior norm of all tradition.

     The Fathers of the first half of the century wrote at a period when the writings of the New Testament already existed, but without being vested with canonical authority, and so set apart. Therefore they did not have any norm at their disposal, and, on the other hand, and on the other hand, they were already too far distant from the apostolic age to be able to draw directly on the testimony of eye-witnesses. The encounters of Polycarp and Papias with apostolic persons could no longer guarantee a pure transmission of authentic traditions, as is proved by the extant fragments of their writings.

     But after 150 contact with the apostolic age was re-established through the construction of the canon, which discarded all impure and deformed sources of information. Thus it is confirmed that, by subordinating all subsequent tradition to the canon, the Church once and for all saved its apostolic basis. It enabled its members to hear, thanks to this [“canonical core”], continually afresh and throughout all the centuries to come the authentic word of the apostles, a privilege which no oral tradition, passing through Polycarp or Papias, could have assured them (96).

     The writings of Irenaeus (c. 180), Tertullian (c. 200), and Cyprian (c. 250), came much later than this “canonical core” of Paul’s writings and the Gospels. Cullmann goes on to note that, of course “scripture needs to be interpreted” and “the church ought to feel responsible for this interpretation” (97).

     However, if the notion of “apostolic sees” was helpful in combating the Gnostic heresies of the day, it must be recognized that this was a still-later development (late second century), and the church at large ought in no way to be bound by what really was an “interpretive hermeneutic” of the second century. It was by no means a “structural component” of “the Church that Christ founded”. An apologetic tactic that worked in the context of Gnostic heresies by no means subjects the later church to that hermeneutic and tactic.

     http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/05/which-came-first-apostolic-succession.html

     LikeLike

336. Robert,

     I don’t care about a “table of contents.” I want Rome to tell me this letter from Augustine is tradition, but this isn’t

     Yes and that’s called a table of contents.

     Wait-I thought you were a material sufficiency guy. Those quotes only work for you if there are things taught in oral tradition that are not taught in Scripture

     nope those “quotes” (bible verses) still work for me. However, I am not sure that I am a material sufficiency guy. I haven’t studied the subject enough to form an educated opinion. From what I have read I’m not sure I would necessarily have to chose between the two. When I have the time I think I will develop a hybrid thesis.

     Every time God gave revelation that he wanted His people to keep for all time it was WRITTEN DOWN. How about the law at Sinai, the prophetic period, and the apostolic period for starters.

     all three of those ages included written as well as oral traditions that were binding. See the chair of Moses.

     Sure, modern Jews don’t think they’re bound only by written tradition. But most of them are atheists, and the ones that aren’t deny Christ based on their oral traditions that, ironically, are now written in the Talmud. I should follow their example why?

     that’s a good question! I notice you claim to follow their example on canon? Why is that? The point is not what those alleged Traditions contain but rather the admission by all Jewish Rabbis that the Law at Sinai and the prophetic age were NOT examples of sola scriptura in OT form.

     Sorry, Kenneth. Apostles were present at that council. There weren’t any at Nicea or any later councils, and if you want to say that the bishops carry on in that infallible line, then everything that they said at those councils must be infallible, just as you would impute everything said in Acts 15 as infallible. But wait, you don’t think everything said at those councils was infallible do you?

     So what if the apostles were there. Need I remind you what your claim to CvD was

     Now, it may have taken time to recognize the full scope and extent of apostolic writings but if the mere recognition of what was complete means sola Scriptura doesn’t work, then we have a tu quoque on the part of the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility, because the earliest point at which we can see anything resembling a universal recognition of the full scope and extent of apostolic tradition in the Roman paradigm is the Council of Nicea. that, there was no ecumenical council to issue binding dogma in any kind of universal way, and thus no way to know which teachings of the bishops were infallible.

     it doesn’t matter that the apostles were there. What matters is that it was a universal and binding ecumenical council. No tu quoque. The reason why I don’t think that everything at the following councils is infallible is because that’s not what those councils reveal. The following Councils introduced a thing you are selectively skeptical of called theological nuance

     LikeLike

337. John,

     “No, I said “the Old Testament canon was fixed in the time of Jesus…He had a fixed body of work in mind with “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”.”

     During Jesus’ time, did various Jewish sects have differing canons, or a single fixed common one?

     If not common, whenever Jesus addressed Jews, did he derive his instruction from the same canon regardless of the sect he was addressing?

     “No it’s not. Ignatius, a Bishop, did not have Apostolic Authority in the early 2nd century. I cited him above: “I do not command you as Peter and Paul: they [were] apostles. I [am] a condemned man; they [were] free, I (am) still a slave”….After the Apostles die, next generation leaders such as Ignatius recognize that they themselves don’t have Apostolic Authority.”

     Because Ignatius and next generation leaders do not consider themselves inspired apostles (nor have any past or present bishops), that does not mean they eschew church authority and tradition as necessary and part of the rule of faith.

     LikeLike

338. Jesus certainly did not care what the various sects thought. He expected his disciples to know “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”. And he certainly disagreed with the Saducees, who did not recognize that canon.

     In my comment citing Oscar Cullmann, it is described “church authority”, which was certainly far beneath what Apostolic authority was.

     LikeLike

339. John,

     Does the RCC also expect its faithful to know “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”?

     He disagreed with a lot of sects – did he also disagree with the sects that did recognize “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”? So disagreement doesn’t say anything about a fixed OT canon. As to the Saduccees, why did he not just tell them they have an incomplete canon which is why the erred on resurrection, instead of citing from the canon he knew they held?

     Did the Jews in Berea and Thessalonica have a different canon than the Saduccees and Pharisees?

     “In my comment citing Oscar Cullmann, it is described “church authority”, which was certainly far beneath what Apostolic authority was.”

     Tbh, all I see from your previous citation is presuppositions assuming your conclusion and assertions such as
     “despite their theological interest, are at a considerable distance from New Testament thought, and to a considerable extent relapse into a moralism which ignores the notion of grace, and of the redemptive death of Christ, so central to apostolic theology.”

     “although chronologically more remote from the New Testament than the authors of the first half of the century, understood infinitely better the essence of the gospel.. This seems paradoxical, but is explained perfectly by that most important act, the codification of the apostolic tradition in a canon [a “canonical core”], henceforward the superior norm of all tradition.”

     “But after 150 contact with the apostolic age was re-established through the construction of the canon, which discarded all impure and deformed sources of information. Thus it is confirmed that, by subordinating all subsequent tradition to the canon, the Church once and for all saved its apostolic basis. ”

     Just a note that your last statement saying implies the canon was established in 2nd century, but obviously there were disputes well into the 4th.

     You do cite Cullman saying:
     Cullmann goes on to note that, of course “scripture needs to be interpreted” and “the church ought to feel responsible for this interpretation”.

     And that is indeed true – hence tradition and ecclesiastical authority. Such a responsibility does not usurp the role of the Apostles or make bishops inspired as they were.

     LikeLike

340. John,

     I’m so sorry to jump in but if no one else will correct your usage of Igntius then I must.
     The passage is in St. Ignatius’s Epistle to the Romans. He was writing (around 105 A.D.) to several dioceses while in chains. He was being taken on a long journey to his martyrdom, from his own diocese of Antioch, where he was the bishop (perhaps ordained by St. Peter or a successor). St. Ignatius writes to the Romans:
     “I do not issue orders to you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, but I am one condemned. They indeed were free, but I am a slave …”

     Rome was not St. Ignatius’s diocese. Antioch was. Therefore he could not give commands to the Romans. He was not saying that he lacked all authority. He knew that he had the authority that every bishop has (as successor of an Apostle) — in his own local church, Antioch.
     St. Ignatius did not say that he “couldn’t” issue any orders at all. Instead, Ignatius said that he “did not” issue orders — “I do not issue orders” [i.e., to you Romans].
     And St. Ignatius did not say that he refrained from giving orders because he was not an apostle. A person who studies Christian history sees that St. Ignatius would not think of issuing orders to the Romans, because he was not a successor of St. Peter as bishop of Rome. Conversely, if Ignatius had been a pope (bishop of Rome), he most certainly would have issued orders to the Romans.

     I think that it would be helpful to look at some other things that St. Ignatius wrote concerning the authority of bishops, an authority which is passed on from one generation to another.

     (1) “Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to ‘see’ all of you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas, and in the persons of your worthy presbyters [elders/priests], Bassus and Apollonius, and in my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ”
     (2) “Now it becomes you also not to despise the [youthful] age of your bishop, but to yield him all reverence, according to the will of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not having regard to the manifest youth [of their bishop], but to his knowledge in God …”
     (3) “Indeed, you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore — and such is your practice — that you do nothing without the bishop and that you be subject also to the presbytery as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found if we live in….

     See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. […] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. […] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)
     “Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans

     LikeLike

341. For the entire context of the quote you pulled see here

     http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

     chapter 4

     LikeLike

342. “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15)

     Simply put, the exhortation to the Thessalonians is to hold fast the traditions or teachings of Paul, whether preached or penned on paper. After all, the word of mouth or writing clause modifies Paul’s manner of teaching, not the teaching or doctrine itself. Unless Paul can contradict himself or even add unto that which by itself equips one unto “all” good works i.e. Scripture, as per 2 Tim. 3:17.

     IOW the immediate inference for those not habitually given to jesuitical special pleading is that however those traditions came, for instance either by email or snail mail, they amount to the same thing. The main point rather is, to hold onto them. But they again, cannot contradict each other and if the one is already sufficient, the other has fallen away/is unneeded. Thus the penned teachings takes over for Paul’s preaching.

     Which leads to the next point our papal apologists can’t seem to get straight. In both the Old and New Testament, God reveals himself through the oral messages of his prophets and apostles before that same revelation gets written down. Which is why we are told in Eph. 2:20 that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets”.

     Much more that in 2:20 Christ Jesus himself is the “chief corner stone” , which Peter himself also confirms in 1 Pet. 2:6. Which is why many of the ECFs said either Christ himself, if not Peter’s confession of Christ in Matt. 16:18 is what the church is built upon, no the pope.

     But all this either escapes or is ignored by the usual suspects.

     LikeLike

343. See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8 c. A.D. 110)

     Briefly yet another logical fallacy from those that deny Christianity is pre-eminently Scriptural, as well as a reasonable and historical faith.
     The argument is an enthymeme where one of the premises is implied/left out.

     Follow the bishop.
     (As the bishop follows Christ.)
     As Christ follows the Father.

     But the bishop does not follow Christ.
     ∴ Do not follow the bishop.

     LikeLike

344. CVD: Does the RCC also expect its faithful to know “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”?

     If one takes seriously its claim that it is in the line of succession that “Whoever listens to you listens to me”. That is, it should but it doesn’t. In other words, it should not change the messaging, but it does.

     He disagreed with a lot of sects – did he also disagree with the sects that did recognize “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”? So disagreement doesn’t say anything about a fixed OT canon.

     But if Christ is Lord, then it doesn’t matter what the sects thought or recognized, right?

     all I see from your previous citation is presuppositions assuming your conclusion and assertions such as

     Cullmann wasn’t a presuppositionalist; he was a thorough exegete and a very fine student of Scripture and history. My point being, if you want to disagree with him, you have to analyze his arguments in order to disagree with his conclusions.

     I have read his analyses and I agree with him; I have put forward his conclusions because we are in a comments box here and there is not space to provide his whole analysis.

     ust a note that your last statement saying implies the canon was established in 2nd century, but obviously there were disputes well into the 4th.

     If you keep in mind that it is God who is providing the Scriptures, then the writings were “canon” as soon as they came off the pen. If you keep in mind that the writings of the Apostles were then kept by individuals who believed they were Scripture, then

     Michael Kruger argues at length that the Canon of the New Testament was formed as God inspired and as the Apostles wrote; after all, a God who is sovereign with respect to ontology is also sovereign with respect to epistemology. That is, he does not take chances with his Revelation. The 3rd and 4th century “disputes” were merely a lack of unity and knowledge among a not-unified church that didn’t know everything it thought it did. But God’s purpose in fixing the canon was accomplished.

     You do cite Cullman saying:
     Cullmann goes on to note that, of course “scripture needs to be interpreted” and “the church ought to feel responsible for this interpretation”.

     And that is indeed true – hence tradition and ecclesiastical authority. Such a responsibility does not usurp the role of the Apostles or make bishops inspired as they were.

     Well of course. while you could read the Scriptures through and come to an understanding of God’s purpose, he did appoint “pastors and teachers” whose job was to help people through that process. And of course, you don’t want someone who is not a believer trying to tell you what the Scriptures mean.

     On the other hand, Cullmann also separates “ecclesiastical authority” from “Apostolic authority”. The former is infinitely lesser than the latter.

     And “the interpretation” infinitely of less value than the original Revelation

     “Bishops” (as they came to be) were themselves a development later than the New Testament, and as such, were infintely lesser in “authority” than the Scriptures. (And it is the church’s great loss that they failed to understand Jesus’s teaching about teachers, and made themselves to be “authorities”, and eventually, the monstrosity that the Roman “Magisterium” became.

     LikeLike

345. Kenneth — your analysis of Ignatius is terribly uninformed. Or rather, it is informed from a terrible source.

     John Behr puts Ignatius’s understanding of “the bishop” into a perspective that does not include what Roman Catholic “bishops” became:

     The case of St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the first years of the second century, is especially revealing. He refers to the Epistles of the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 12:2), yet he never cites them. For Ignatius, it is Christ who is both the content and the ultimate source of our faith, as it has been laid down for us by the apostles. Ignatius goes far beyond the other writers of his period in exalting the role of the apostles. In the various typological parallels that he is fond of drawing between, on the one hand, the bishop, deacon and presbyters, and on the other, the Father, Christ and the apostles (e.g. Trallians 3), the apostles are always placed on the eternal, universal level, along with Christ and His Father. This eternal and universal level is then reflected in the Church, in her historically and geographically specific existence, in the threefold order of bishop, deacon and presbyters. Accordingly Ignatius repeatedly states that as a bishop he, unlike the apostles, is not in a position to give orders or to lay down the precepts or the teachings (δόγματα), which come from the Lord and the apostles alone (cf. Magnesians 13; Romans 4:3O; Ephesians 3:1O etc.)…

     Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection is, for Ignatius, the only complete revelation of God; this alone is salvific. Hence it is only through this door, Jesus Christ, that the prophets, apostles, and the whole Church enter to the Father. When Ignatius states that “To me the archives are Jesus Christ,” he is not implying that Jesus Christ is a different, higher authority than Scripture; rather, for Ignatius, the Old Testament simply is Jesus Christ—the Word made flesh. All Scripture pertaining to the revelation of God is identical with the revelation of God given in Christ as preached by the apostles; and, in reverse, all that the Gospel proclaims has already been written down as Scripture.

     http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/03/ignatius-did-not-believe-in-apostolic.html

     Bishops, while due respect and honor (as are any in leadership positions) are of infinitely less value than the original Revelation.

     LikeLike

346. Nothing that you wrote refutes my response in the slightest. You just shrugged off everything I said by calling it “terribly uninformed”. Do you deny that Ignatius was writing to men that were not in his diocese? Are you under the impression that any bishop can walk around and bark orders to another bishops flock? Do you deny that Ignatius repeatedly and constantly asks the faithful to obey their bishop as they would christ or the apostles themselves?

     If the Bishop of some other diocese were to demand that I stop writing on the internet I would be under no obligation to obey as long as I was in good standing in my own diocese. I am subject to my bishop not some other bishop from some foreign land (although all bishops deserve respect) It is not surprising at all to see Ignatius humbly making requests in his epistles rather than barking orders. He did not have any authority to order around those under the bishop of Rome. However, because he is a bishop and a successor to the apostles he is certainly welcome to send letters teaching and exhorting those under other bishops, which is exactly what he did. Ignatius has written so much on the authority of the Bishops that it is literally mind numbing that anyone could make this kind of argument. I would like for you to defend your use of the epistle to the Romans and exegete the passage in some meaningful sense rather than just quote mining and calling me uninformed. If you were so inclined, you could just respond to the first comment seeing as it still stands untouched.

     LikeLike

347. Kenneth,

     I guess that means the pope can’t bark orders to you either…

     LikeLike

348. John,

     Accordingly Ignatius repeatedly states that as a bishop he, unlike the apostles, is not in a position to give orders or to lay down the precepts or the teachings (δόγματα), which come from the Lord and the apostles alone (cf. Magnesians 13; Romans 4:3O; Ephesians 3:1O etc.)…

     An amazingly ignorant statement. I would invite anyone to read the epistles for themselves in context and tell me that they get any hint that Ignatius thinks that he is not in any position to give order or lay down teaching as a bishop. Here are the links containing the supposed proof texts.

     http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

     http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

     http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

     Magnesians 13 is especially stupefying

     Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever you do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.

     Does anyone read here that Ignatius is not in a position, as a bishop, to give orders or lay down teaching? Lets see what Ignatius ACTUALLY TAUGHT about the authority of the bishops. ironically we will be learning from the very same epistles that you try to use to undermine catholic teaching.

     “See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. […] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. […] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)

     “Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9)

     “It is becoming, therefore, that ye also should be obedient to your bishop, and contradict him in nothing; for it is a fearful thing to contradict any such person. For no one does [by such conduct] deceive him that is visible, but does [in reality] seek to mock Him that is invisible, who, however, cannot be mocked by any one. And every such act has respect not to man, but to God.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Magnesians; Ch 3)

     “Some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not stedfastly gathered together according to the commandment.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Magnesians; Ch 4)

     “Wherefore it is fitting that ye also should run together in accordance with the will of the bishop who by God’s appointment rules over you. Which thing ye indeed of yourselves do, being instructed by the Spirit. For your justly-renowned presbytery, being worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Thus, being joined together in concord and harmonious love, of which Jesus Christ is the Captain and Guardian, do ye, man by man, become but one choir; so that, agreeing together in concord, and obtaining a perfect unity with God, ye may indeed be one in harmonious feeling with God the Father, and His beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Ephesians; Ch 4)

     LikeLike

349. Kenneth: Ignatius has written so much on the authority of the Bishops that it is literally mind numbing that anyone could make this kind of argument.

     The person making that argument was the dean of St. Vladimir’s (Orthodox) Seminary.

     The reason I “shrugged off” everything you said was because I had seen it before. It just simply doesn’t comport with reality.

     Maybe you ought to read more of St Vladimir’s, and stay away from Catholic Answers.

     LikeLike

350. Careful John, if Kenneth reads too much from the EO, he might realize how far removed RC polity is not only from Scripture but also from those who embrace apostolic succession as the early church did.

     LikeLike

351. John,

     “But if Christ is Lord, then it doesn’t matter what the sects thought or recognized, right?”

     There are 2 issues here. We know Judaism at the time of Christ did not have a fixed recognized canon. So when you were saying earlier was there was a fixed canon at the time of Christ, you were basically saying objectively there exists a canon outside of any recognition. That’s trivially true – you could have just as easily said the OT canon was fixed when the last inspired OT book was written before Christ.

     Secondly, my point is Christ addressed sects according to their canon. He did not tell the Sadducees they erred on resurrection because they had an incomplete/wrong canon and that if they would open their eyes to those books they would easily see support, but rather cited from what he knew they held telling them they even misunderstood that. So him referring to the law, prophets, psalms does not say anything about that being the full extent of the canon (hence my question about the RCC teaching its faithful to heed those books) nor that he restricts himself to the hebrew or greek OTs – NT writers cite from both when quoting protestant OT. That’s why I asked about Berea and Thessalonica – if those Greek areas held to the lxx OT and Paul calls them Scripture, that’s affirmation of lxx.

     “Cullmann wasn’t a presuppositionalist; he was a thorough exegete and a very fine student of Scripture and history. My point being, if you want to disagree with him, you have to analyze his arguments in order to disagree with his conclusions.I have read his analyses and I agree with him; I have put forward his conclusions because we are in a comments box here and there is not space to provide his whole analysis.”

     I understand everyone cites scholars and isn’t going to throw text-walls up – all I’m saying is that it seems to me (only going by what you cite) his conclusions are based solely not on historical analysis but his theological presuppositions. For instance

     “although chronologically more remote from the New Testament than the authors of the first half of the century, understood infinitely better the essence of the gospel.. This seems paradoxical, but is explained perfectly by that most important act, the codification of the apostolic tradition in a canon [a “canonical core”], henceforward the superior norm of all tradition.”

     Again, the essence of the gospel is presumed to be the Protestant understanding and the “superior norm of all tradition” presupposes sola scriptura, both of which are precisely in dispute.

     “But after 150 contact with the apostolic age was re-established through the construction of the canon, which discarded all impure and deformed sources of information. Thus it is confirmed that, by subordinating all subsequent tradition to the canon, the Church once and for all saved its apostolic basis. ”

     Same as above – presupposes sola scriptura.

     “However, if the notion of “apostolic sees” was helpful in combating the Gnostic heresies of the day, it must be recognized that this was a still-later development (late second century), and the church at large ought in no way to be bound by what really was an “interpretive hermeneutic” of the second century”

     Presupposes development of doctrine cannot be valid and binding which is in dispute.

     “If you keep in mind that it is God who is providing the Scriptures, then the writings were “canon” as soon as they came off the pen.”

     Yes, I’m aware of this – you cited Cullman saying “But after 150 contact with the apostolic age was re-established through the construction of the canon” but did not offer any qualification on him saying “well, actually the canon wasn’t really ‘constructed’ it already objectively existed”. When talking about the canon, it’s tiresome to always qualify recognition/definition/construction with “oh but actually it was already objectively existing before” – all sides agree on that.

     “If you keep in mind that the writings of the Apostles were then kept by individuals who believed they were Scripture”

     And some individuals did not believe they were scripture, or believed other writings were scripture.

     “The 3rd and 4th century “disputes” were merely a lack of unity and knowledge among a not-unified church that didn’t know everything it thought it did. But God’s purpose in fixing the canon was accomplished.”

     Well we know it “didn’t know everything it thought it did” after the fact – you can’t use a posteriori knowledge in justifying/recognizing the canon since that wasn’t used in the process of its initial recognition. Yes, his purpose in fixing the canon and guiding his church to recognize it was accomplished. The fact remains it was not fixed in recognition in the 2nd century.

     “And of course, you don’t want someone who is not a believer trying to tell you what the Scriptures mean.”

     Presupposes RCC is not a believing church.

     “And “the interpretation” infinitely of less value than the original Revelation.”

     This is bizarre – writings need to be interpreted. An authentic interpretation that extracts the meaning from a source does not mean the interpretation is of “less value” than the source.

     ““Bishops” (as they came to be) were themselves a development later than the New Testament, and as such, were infintely lesser in “authority” than the Scriptures.”

     Protestants believe in developed doctrines. Just because something develops, does not make it “lesser”.

     LikeLike

352. John,

     I wrote a more substantive response but it is “awaiting moderation”…. Maybe I recommended to many links or something? John Behr does not deny apostolic succession and neither do the EO as a whole

     http://orthodoxbridge.com/response-to-robin-phillips-questions-about-st-irenaeus-and-apostolic-succession/

     we will have to wait and see if my other comment escapes Babylonian captivity

     LikeLike

353. Wow, this latest Cat-lick duo just won’t let up. Their displays of stamina means I’m frigthened if either if these blokes show up for my family’s festivus “feats of strength.” Fortunately, we are still at the “airing of grievances” phase. From the peanut gallery (and happy Frida, peeps), Andrew

     LikeLike

354. Sorry Robert, we can’t have that 🙂

     LikeLike

355. John,

     Perhaps you can clear something up for me I see with your discussion of Ignatius with Kenneth. You seem to be saying that Ignatius did not hold to the authority of bishops like EO and RCC do, rather than him just saying bishops are not inspired apostles issuing new revelation which EO and RCC agree to obviously (and how I would take Behr’s statement – I mean he’s EO for a reason).

     But let’s say you’re right about the former and Ignatius is opposed to RCC/EO notions of authority. You then cite Cullman approvingly about how the post-apostolic church before 150 was a total mess in its understanding “But after 150 contact with the apostolic age was re-established through the construction of the canon, which discarded all impure and deformed sources of information…If the notion of “apostolic sees” was helpful in combating the Gnostic heresies of the day, it must be recognized that this was a still-later development (late second century), and the church at large ought in no way to be bound by what really was an “interpretive hermeneutic” of the second century”

     So I have 2 questions. Ignatius was before 150 and in the midst of all this messed up understanding of tradition/gospel/ecclesiology, but you’re saying his notion of authority was actually proper and avoided this corruption?

     Secondly, if things improved after 150, why are you appealing to pre-150 sources for notions of church structure/authority? Shouldn’t you be looking to people post 2nd century since everything that was messed up by not having the canon constructed before 150 – assuming 150 for argument’s sake even though I addressed that above – was on the mend? Do sources post-200 consider bishops to have authority in the same way you characterize Ignatius as holding?

     LikeLike

356. I just want my comment out of the moderation stage! What the heck! How does one comment out of a million just get sniped off the boards

     LikeLike

357. Yo, Kennifer, repost without the links. If it’s lost or you didn’t save it, rewrite your pulitzer winner for we the readership. And if you can’t rekindle the flame that sparked it, don’t worry. We’re all pretty sure we know where you are coming from. I just hope you are enjoying this. Have a nice weekednnd, bud.

     LikeLike

358. Ah I see it has been set free! Excellent. John please review my earlier comment questioning John Behrs references to “Ignatius repeatedly denying that he as a bishop is in a position to lay down teaching or give orders”. The author simply can not mean what you think he does and be using those references. Ignatius definitely believed in AS

     LikeLike

359. Kenny G is Golf Digest’s number one golfing musician. Who knew.

     Speaking of Kens, this batman and robin duo should start a blog, they have a lot to share. I could see myself posting some riffs at their jam sessions.

     There I go again, for the birdie…

     LikeLike

360. Andrew,

     you are actually kind of funny when you aren’t moping around! God bless you and your schizophrenia

     LikeLike

361. Blame it on my better half, I married into all this. You guys crack me up, too (emoticon).

     LikeLike

362. We’ve already been told by both Kenny and CVD that bishops are not inspired like apostles, but then both keep quoting Irenaeus to the end that we all ought to obey our own bishops without question, but not anybody else’s bishop (or the universal bishop?). Hmmm. Whether the bishops are as perspicuous as the apostles remains to be admitted, though inconsistency is convenient who inconsistently have no authority to speak authoritatively on the patristics according to their own paradigm.

     But to return to the scene of a former thought crime, equivocation, anachronism and the word/concept fallacy (ask Bryan about the last) all come into play in reading 2 Thess. 2:15 as legitimizing the Roman paradime (sic) of two separate traditions, one written, one unwritten. Yet again, the ‘either preached or penned’ clause modifies Paul’s teaching method and not the traditions/teachings/doctrines themselves, regardless that the romanists want to latch on to “traditions” and make it apply to their definition of tradition.
     And neither can these two traditions contradict each other, since 2 Tim. 3:17 already declares Scripture sufficient; the oral is therefore either redundant, irrelevant or repeated/preserved in the written with the precedent for the last found in the OT. God spoke in the OT through his prophets, who fist preached the message and then put it down on paper themselves or somebody else did.

     Likewise prots believe in apostolic succession – of doctrine; succession of person without the doctrine is of the superficial and nominal, if not superstitious variety, which is the same category of Christianity that Rome’s falls under. But what else is to be expected from those who mistake the appearance of religion for its substance?
     cheers

     LikeLike

363. Bob,

     “And neither can these two traditions contradict each other”

     RCC would agree.

     “since 2 Tim. 3:17 already declares Scripture sufficient”

     Where does it say sufficient – I see useful, profitable, not sufficient. How could Paul be extolling sola scriptura when revelation was still unfolding?

     “the oral is therefore either redundant, irrelevant or repeated/preserved in the written with the precedent for the last found in the OT.”

     An RC who holds to material sufficiency would say Tradition and Scripture are two modes (not two sources like partim-partim) of the same revelation – so the classic slogan “All in Scripture, All in Tradition”. That does not mean if you have one, the other is redundant or superfluous – both are necessary. Just because Scripture came out of Tradition, does not mean it then all of a sudden negated or made irrelevant the context it came forth from.

     “God spoke in the OT through his prophets, who fist preached the message and then put it down on paper themselves or somebody else did.”

     So did Christ and the NT writers never make positive references coming from Jewish oral tradition? Everything they referenced explicitly came from OT scriptures?

     LikeLike

364. Cletus,

     If all is in Scripture and all is in tradition, then you better darned well tell us where Scripture teaches the Assumption of Mary either implicitly or explicitly. And if you can’t do that, then all is not found in both. We’re not talking about divorcing things from their context, we’re talking about where do we find the information that we need to build our doctrine. To say all is in both does make one redundant. This is why the partim-partim view, while creating all sorts of historical problems for you guys since we can clearly see where things are introduced de novo, is actually a better view. It’s a whole lot easier to defend the idea that perhaps the Apostles said some different things that didn’t get written down in Scripture than it is to find the information necessary for the Assumption in Scripture. Course then you’d still need to tell us what that tradition is and consists of beyond “the witness of the church,” otherwise we’ll just think you guys are a part of a cult that doesn’t care about accountability. We have our problems as Protestants, but at least we have a meaningful way to hold our leaders accountable.

     Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean you can’t refer to non-biblical tradition positively. It means that non-biblical tradition cannot be a source of doctrine or a means to bind the conscience.

     LikeLike

365. Robert,

     You asked me that before about Marian doctrines and ms/tradition redundancy but did not interact with my reply so I’ll just say it again:
     I’m sure you’re aware of various Scriptural arguments and deductions/extrapolations for what is implicitly taught related to those doctrines. All the information is there, but again tradition and ecclesiastical authority are needed as interpretive lenses to understand it – that you abandon those necessary aides and still demand these things should be gathered by ghm exegesis alone again presupposes formal sufficiency, not material sufficiency. Another way to think of it, how would you rephrase your request if you were arguing for formal sufficiency of scripture instead of material sufficiency? That should zero in on the distinction (that is, it seems to me you would be asking the exact same question).

     As for being some cult that doesn’t care about accountability, again from my previous reply, if that was true Rome would not be bound to her past decisions, nor would she care about scriptural or historical/traditional witness in supporting any of her statements. She wouldn’t have even bothered maintaining the canon or preserving any patristic/conciliar works.

     LikeLike

366. Bob,

     ready for your second lesson young man? Lets begin.

     . Yet again, the ‘either preached or penned’ clause modifies Paul’s teaching method and not the traditions/teachings/doctrines themselves, regardless that the romanists want to latch on to “traditions” and make it apply to their definition of tradition.
     

     What does that even mean their “definition” of tradition? Our “definition” is that not all of the gospel was written down. Some things were passed on orally and survive in the life and witness of the Church. This appears to be evidenced by this passage of sacred scripture. The faithful have received BOTH written AND oral instruction that needs to be held to. This passage would seem to suggest two different “places” or “containers” of divine instruction which would together form an organic whole.

     2 Tim. 3:17 already declares Scripture sufficient; the oral is therefore either redundant, irrelevant or repeated/preserved in the written with the precedent for the last found in the OT.

     hmmm you sure that says sufficient? Better read it again.

     16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

     I see the word useful…. Where did you read sufficient? I like Patrick Madrids analogy here. If a man signs up for the military he will be issued a uniform a grenade a gun a helmet and be fully equipped for every act of war…. But does that mean that he is “sufficient” in the art of war? Has he been “sufficiently” trained for combat? Nope. The Word of God is *helpful* in many things and can fully equip the man of God…. But that doesn’t make it sufficient.

     Likewise prots believe in apostolic succession – of doctrine

     we have already noted in exhaustive detail that there is no succession of sola fide or sola.scriptura that can be traced back to the apostles. You have no leg to stand on but the self published work of a business major. Your best and brightest patristic scholars load up the “Romanist” canons against you.

     LikeLike

367. Robert and CvD,

     you should both read this…

     http://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=sod_mat

     I have found it extremely helpful in explaining the difference between the partim partim and material sufficient views.

     Robert,

     If all is in Scripture and all is in tradition, then you better darned well tell us where Scripture teaches the Assumption of Mary either implicitly or explicitly. And if you can’t do that, then all is not found in both. We’re not talking about divorcing things from their context, we’re talking about where do we find the information that we need to build our doctrine

     I think that the “sufficiency” language can really get in the way. Unhelpful language for the sake of this dialog. What we should ask about is the completeness of scripture. Is scripture the complete gospel or not? The answer to that question is no. Tradition has content that is not found in the sacred scriptures. The Marian doctrines, the form of the sacraments, the canon, etc are all things with CONTENT that is not found in scripture. These things might be hinted at or alluded to in scripture…they may be implicitly taught… But the content is not found in scripture. So is there one source or two sources? Well the Gospel is the one source of divine revelation passed down through Christ and the apostles. The gospel is sent down to us by two different channels or containers or places…. Scripture and Trasition that form one organic whole of divine revelation.

     otherwise we’ll just think you guys are a part of a cult that doesn’t care about accountability

     I’ll try not to let that keep me up at night. 🙂

     LikeLike

368. Man, if you figure you might get a substantive response for a change, get ready to be disappointed.
     Who’s first?
     Who’s on second?
     Does it make any difference?
     Clete agrees and disagrees in the same post. If Scripture duplicates Tradition/Teachings then both are necessary. Well not really, one includes something the other doesn’t have. Then maybe they aren’t the same thing. But grammatically that’s what Paul is talking about in the subordinate prepositional phrase. IOW either “either/or” means what it means or it doesn’t.
     And forget about finding any apostolic lost oral traditions, that doesn’t come with the full meal deal at the Vatican drive thru.
     Uh huh. Next.
     Kenny continues to ask irrelevant questions/make irrelevant points/draw irrelevant conclusions.
     If Scripture equips the man of God for every good work, 2 Tim. 3:17 exactly which good work is left out?
     Would every good work possibly include the good work of determining the true church?

     Laurel and Hardy move over.
     You guys are pathetic.
     ciao

     LikeLike

369. Bob,

     “If Scripture duplicates Tradition/Teachings then both are necessary. Well not really, one includes something the other doesn’t have.”

     I’m not sure what’s so difficult about this – Material Suff – Scripture contains all doctrine, either implicitly or explicitly. Tradition – the necessary interpretive lens through which to ascertain those implicit and explicit doctrines, reflected in the common life, worship, teaching of the church. They are two modes, but still interdependent and related to each other – that’s why Dei Verbum says both form the rule of faith – an organic whole – not just one or the other. As I’ve basically said to Robert, if you cannot see how material sufficiency of scripture does not still necessitate Tradition or makes it superfluous, you are still equating material sufficiency with formal sufficiency.

     LikeLike

370. Kenneth,

     Good paper you linked to – you’re right it’s a nice analysis of the two positions with lots of needed nuance.

     LikeLike

371. CVD: Perhaps you can clear something up for me I see with your discussion of Ignatius with Kenneth. You seem to be saying that Ignatius did not hold to the authority of bishops like EO and RCC do, rather than him just saying bishops are not inspired apostles issuing new revelation which EO and RCC agree to obviously (and how I would take Behr’s statement – I mean he’s EO for a reason).

     It’s one thing “not to be inspired” and not to be “issuing new revelation”. But it’s another thing to ask (and answer) the question, “what positive statement is Ignatius making?” That’s where I’m heading.

     Is Ignatius really making statements that either are, or could legitimately be “developed into” the notion that Bishops are what they became, with the authority that they had, somewhere in the fourth century and beyond?

     Or is it the case that Rome is taking these words (in this case, “bishop”) and anachronistically “reading back” Roman concepts into something that legitimately meant something else to Ignatius?

     I’m inclined to believe it’s the latter, for a lot of reasons.

     In your comments, you tend to say a lot “this presupposes this”, or “this presupposes that”. Let’s talk about “presuppositions” a bit.

     In the first place, I allow that we all have presuppositions. However, I think the cry of “presuppositions” is in too many cases an “easy-out”; in too many cases, it becomes an excuse for not dealing honestly with something. I think, in the terms of CTC, that that is an excuse that’s repeated so frequently that it becomes nonsensical.

     (In fact, Bryan has explained somewhere that this is precisely what happens: when he’s presented with something that’s an “apparent contradiction” in Roman dogma or history, he simply assumes it’s “apparent” but not real. And sure enough, those clever Roman Catholics have – in my opinion – had time to “reflect” and to fabricate explanations. Have you looked at my link on “The Roman Catholic Hermeneutic”?)

     Here’s where I think we ought to start: “Somehow, we are here”. And maybe we can go that one further. “Even if we don’t know how we got here, there is some process that happened, and we are capable of understanding that process, even if we can’t fill in all the details right yet”.

     I’ll skip a few steps, because it seems to me that we both believe in God, and that God has spoken, has “Revealed Himself” somehow. It seems that we both agree on that. Let me know if I’m wrong. Further, we call this revealing of himself “Revelation”.

     Now, this “Revelation” is important, because, while there are some things that we can infer about God from simply looking at the world around us, there are some things that we can know about God only because He has Revealed them to us.

     I don’t think that you would disagree with that statement, either.

     I’m going to focus on Roman Catholicism here because I know it best. I know, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have different views of what constitutes “Revelation”. For the EOs, it becomes “Holy Tradition” and the Scriptures are a very important part of “Holy Tradition”, but still just a subset of it. I disagree with that, too, but I’d like to focus on the Roman Catholic view right now, because it seems as if we understand that one better. That’s a definition that we can find and summarize easily from the CCC. Let me summarize that here:

     In Roman Catholicism, God’s word, his revelation of himself, “the single deposit of faith” does not only consist of the Scriptures, but as well, to follow the chapter headings in the CCC, “revelation” consists of “The Apostolic Tradition … In the apostolic preaching … continued in apostolic succession … one common source … two distinct modes of transmission”. All of that encompasses “the Sacred deposit” of the faith (CCC 84). In addition, there is a “Magisterium” or “teaching authority” which exists in the present, comprised of “the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome”, the task of which is “giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God” [which is comprised of all the moving parts listed in the first part of this paragraph].

     There, in a summarized nutshell, is what I would consider to be a fair and true summary of what Roman Catholics (post-Vatican II) believe about “Revelation”. (You and I both know that there are “Traditional” Roman Catholics who would hold that that goes too far, and there are also the 95% of Roman Catholics “on-the-street” who practice artificial contraception, for example, and thus completely ignore such a summary).

     But, returning to that summary set of statements that I’ve taken from the CCC, how many “presuppositions” do you suppose exist in that set of statements. I realize that my summary is in effect a summary of a summary of a summary, given that the CCC is itself a summary of Rome’s actual dogmatic documents (as Ratzinger has said, the statements in the CCC are not authoritative in themselves; they point backward to the actual magisterial documents, which alone have the authority).

     However, if I may continue to summarize, the bottom line is that Rome views two things as equivalent in terms of being “Revelation”: “the apostolic preaching … continued in apostolic succession … one common source … two distinct modes of transmission”.

     Here’s where an important divergence occurs. “the apostolic preaching” certainly was given as “Revelation”. And as I’ve mentioned up above somewhere, the Apostolic writings were a distillation of “the apostolic preaching”, and these, too, are “Revelation”. (Nowadays, some people say they themselves “are” “Revelation”, others say they “contain” “Revelation” – I’m in the “are” category.)

     Meanwhile, “continued in apostolic succession” is a branch of that divergence where I don’t hold the same to be true. Expanding a bit on the summary from above, here’s what CCC 77 says in this paragraph:

     “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.”35 Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”36

     Those two citations:

     35 DV 7 § 2; St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3,3,1:PG 7/1,848; Harvey,2,9.
     36 DV 8 § 1.

     To be sure, each of those leads to other sets of “authoritative” statements (fully aware that there are going to be other more-or-less “authoritative” “sources”.

     Consider just one of these statements, however (DV 8):

     And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time.

     Where does that “end of time” business come in? Where does that “unending succession of preachers until the end of time” business come from?

     This is a presupposition that you make – that Rome has got buried somewhere, that needs to be tracked down. Roman “authority” – the authority that Roman Catholics hold to (or correspondingly, ignore) has its basis in this particular statement.

     What is the source for this? What is this based upon? If you are a devout Roman Catholic, this is a key statement in upholding what you believe.

     If, in fact, you want to persuade me (or any of us) to become Roman Catholics, you must persuade us that this is a true statement.

     How will you do that, without bringing your “presuppositions” into the discussion? Make your case.

     LikeLike

372. Clete, but with Tradition you have no transparency. The people with a vested interest in power also have the power to say what tradition teaches. That is a recipe for abuse.

     LikeLike

373. Clete, that view of tradition — the necessary interpretive lens — makes no sense of the Immaculate Conception, which is dogma, declared infallibly.

     LikeLike

374. Kenneth – you said: Lets see what Ignatius ACTUALLY TAUGHT about the authority of the bishops. ironically we will be learning from the very same epistles that you try to use to undermine catholic teaching.

     Well then, here we go. Let’s look at your first quote, with all the bold:

     “See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. […] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. […] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)

     None of this is “actual teaching” about “the authority of the bishops”. Let’s look at this phrase by phrase:

     “See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God.

     As you know, Ignatius wrote a number of letters, and this is one of them. A standard commentary on Ignatius’s letters says “The Smyrneans had provided a hospitable environment for the activity of Ignatius … and their bishop, Polycarp, had made their visitor’s cause his own. Ignatius appears more assured than usual [than in his other letters] that his audience will be responsive to him.”

     One of the things that commentators say about Ignatius is that he is describing a condition that he would like to see happen, not one that is actually happening now. Even the Roman Catholic commentator Boniface Ramsey, “Beginning to Read the Fathers,” (New York, Paulist Press, 1985, p.10), says, “Just because Ignatius of Antioch … emphasizes the role of the Bishop in the early 2nd century churches of Antioch and Asia Minor does not mean that anyone else felt the same way about the Bishop at that time, or even that Bishops existed in other churches at such an early period.”

     Note that this first sentence does not say “The authority of the bishop is…”. He is saying “All of you, you must follow …even as … even as…” The “following” is by analogy, and it is “the following” that is analogous. It is not the Bishop’s authority that is analogous to God’s authority.

     Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. […]

     More about “what the congregation should do” and nothing about “the authority of the Bishop”

     Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be;

     More about “what the congregation should do” and nothing about “the authority of the Bishop” Contrary to your claims, Ignatius has not ACTUALLY TAUGHT anything about the authority of the bishops.

     even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. […]

     This is an interesting statement. It is the first known use of the word “catholic” with respect to the church. Now, what do you think he meant by this word, “catholic”, and this statement, “the catholic church”.

     It would be anachronistic to assume that what he meant by “catholic” is the same thing that you mean when you say “the Catholic Church”.

     It’s frequently pointed out that in ancient Greek, the word “catholic” meant “universal”. For example, Michael Holmes (“The Apostolic Fathers”) in a footnote mentions, “the term here occurs in Christian literature for the first time. In later use (by ca. AD 200) the word “catholic” became a technical term designating “the Catholic Church” as opposed to the heretical sects, but here the expression is used in the sense of “universal” or “general” (thus the adjective could be attached to words like “resurrection” or “salvation” as well as to “church”), or possibly, “whole” (conveying the idea of organic unity or completeness).

     But that’s only a part of it. The word was in common usage in Ignatius’s time. It referred to a political ipetus “to create a collective and international identity for Hellenistic city-states endeavouring to define their cultural ideal over against the imperial power,” according to Allen Brent in his work on Ignatius. The key: “Ignatius’ imperative for Christian unity mirrors the political imperatives of his pagan contemporaries (pg 69).”

     What was going on there? All over that part of Europe, you had a network of Greek “city-states” that had had their own identities, but which then had been conquered by, and were living under the rule of Roman imperial masters. This state of affairs is known as “the Second Sophistic”, in which “Oraters such as Dio Chrysostom and Aelius Aristides were employing a discourse of autonomy, which proclaimed that human beings could not be naturally and happily governed by naked force”.

     Just as Ignatius is making analogies of bishop to God, he is addressing a state of affairs in the church, in which there are two separate kinds of authorities – the presbytery, which is largely fixed within a church location, and also the “charismatics”, who traveled, and who, in Ignatius’s thinking, caused ongoing factionalism within the various churches (including his home church of Antioch).

     In the political world, ruled by Romans, this katholikos, of course, was not an actual state of affairs, but was, as we know, a state of wishful thinking.

     Brent argues that “this expression [catholic church] has been developed by an Ignatius who breathes the air of the pagan political culture of his own time, which has an impetus to create a collective and international identity for Hellenistic city-states endevouring [sic] to define their cultural ideal over against the imperial power. Ignatius’ imperative for Christian unity mirrors the political imperatives of his pagan contemporaries.”

     The second century, as we know, was buzzing with “heresies” of all types, and during that century there was an effort to identify and distinguish what was orthodox from what was heresy. In that effort, the term “catholic” was very useful. And in fact, by the time of Irenaeus, church had identified itself thusly. But it was not a fait accompli the first time Ignatius used the word.

     Back to your claims, this time from Ignatius to the Ephesians. The translation you provide says:

     “Wherefore it is fitting that ye also should run together in accordance with the will of the bishop who by God’s appointment rules over you. Which thing ye indeed of yourselves do, being instructed by the Spirit. For your justly-renowned presbytery, being worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Thus, being joined together in concord and harmonious love, of which Jesus Christ is the Captain and Guardian, do ye, man by man, become but one choir; so that, agreeing together in concord, and obtaining a perfect unity with God, ye may indeed be one in harmonious feeling with God the Father, and His beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Ephesians; Ch 4)

     The context of the section you are quoting, of course, begins by saying, “I am not commanding you, as though I were someone important. For even though I am in chains for the sake of the Name, I have not yet been perfected in Jesus Christ. For now I am only beginning to be a disciple, and I speak to you as my fellow students”.

     Wishful thinking.

     Ignatius continues: “For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience”.

     So much for “ruling over”. But in fact, a better translation does not even have that phrase:

     Thus it is proper for you to run together in harmony with the mind of the bishop, as you are in fact doing. For your council of presbyters, which is worthy of its name and worthy of God, is attuned to the bishop as strings to a lyre.

     There is nothing about “ruling” in the original text. In fact, what Ignatius IS saying here is also more a case of “wishful thinking” than something that is “indicative” (much less “imperative”):

     Therefore in your unanimity and harmonious love Jesus Christ is sung. You must join this chorus, every one of you [you are not there now], so that by being harmonious in unanimity and taking your pitch from God you may sing in unison with one voice through Jesus Christ to the Father [for indeed, you have not yet reached such a state of affairs].

     I’ve added some of my own comments in that paragraph – but that is the meaning that makes so much more sense, given the context. (Not only the context of this letter, or these particular letters, but Ignatius’s whole situation, and in fact, the political realm through which he was traveling.)

     The purpose of this exercise was to show that “the faith” has historical context. The notion that “apostolic succession” came from somewhere – it is not evident here in Ignatius.

     This is what I meant when I said you were “terribly uninformed”. It takes context to know what a writer is really talking about. And you don’t get that context by attributing later meanings to words that clearly had different meanings in context.

     LikeLike

375. Darryl,

     “Clete, but with Tradition you have no transparency. The people with a vested interest in power also have the power to say what tradition teaches. That is a recipe for abuse.”

     I understand this perspective, but it’s similar to college atheists saying “hey man the Church totally filtered the bible and threw out/suppressed writings that opposed its positions – you ever hear about the gnostic gospels and Constantine dude? It was all about power man.”

     Furthermore, just because Tradition and Scripture are interpreted, does not mean they are wax noses. Do you think a pope could say Mary was eternal based on Tradition? There has to be witness in the Tradition – if there’s no witness to doctrines or their antecedents, it negates the whole purpose of Tradition (the “common life, worship, teaching” of the church handed over each generation).

     “Clete, that view of tradition — the necessary interpretive lens — makes no sense of the Immaculate Conception, which is dogma, declared infallibly.”

     Hmm? When dogmas are defined, it’s not in a vacuum – the documents themselves often cite scriptural and traditional witness. The IC is said to have implicit scriptural support, both directly or via typology and via extrapolation/development from other doctrines (i.e. the precise nature of the IC could not have been defined before original sin and Christological doctrines were developed). I’m aware you of course reject those appeals for support as invalid, because you view the necessary interpretive lens of Tradition as unnecessary.

     LikeLike

376. Clete, I am not a college atheist. I believe in the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. If the church can go this far from Scripture — which the church itself professes — then it can say almost anything and base it on tradition.

     LikeLike

377. John B,

     thanks for such a thought out response! If your life is anything like mine time can be tight for blogging over the holidays and I appreciate the effort. A couple of things immediately catch my attention.

     1. You didn’t bother defending your dubious use of the commentary of John Behr… Which makes me doubt your use of further commentators.

     2. You still didn’t address my exegesis of the passage from the epistle to the Romans….

     Besides those things lets examine your thoughts….

     Even the Roman Catholic commentator Boniface Ramsey, “Beginning to Read the Fathers,” (New York, Paulist Press, 1985, p.10), says, “Just because Ignatius of Antioch … emphasizes the role of the Bishop in the early 2nd century churches of Antioch and Asia Minor does not mean that anyone else felt the same way about the Bishop at that time, or even that Bishops existed in other churches at such an early period.”

     OK so now you have quoted a patristics scholar who actually DOES admit that Ignatius focuses on the authority of the Bishop…. Which you are in the process of attempting to deny... And then admits that this doesn’t necessarily mean bishops have this authority all over the world at this time in history. Well of course it doesn’t mean that! No one claims that just because Ignatius held to AS and the authority of the Bishop means that all Christianity upheld this teaching. This commentary doesn’t support your position at all.

     The authority of the bishop is…”. He is saying “All of you, you must follow …even as … even as…” The “following” is by analogy, and it is “the following” that is analogous. It is not the Bishop’s authority that is analogous to God’s authority.

     Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. […]

     More about “what the congregation should do” and nothing about “the authority of the Bishop”

     Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be;

     More about “what the congregation should do” and nothing about “the authority of the Bishop” Contrary to your claims, Ignatius has not ACTUALLY TAUGHT anything about the authority of the bishops.

     So let me see if I have this straight. Ignatius says that a congregation should

     1. Contradict their bishop in nothing
     2. Do nothing connected to the Church without a bishop
     3. Follow and obey their bishop as if they are following and obeying Jesus christ or the apostles
     4. Show up in a great multitude wherever the bishop is
     5.consider the Eucharist valid only when the bishop or someone that he appoints celebrates it
     6. Should only consider the Catholic Church (whatever you want that to mean) present when a bishop is present
     7. Accept the Bishop as “Ruling over them” by divine appointment

     and all this doesn’t actually teach anything about authority or Apostolic Succession because its addressed to the congregation? It has to say “The authority of the bishop is…” before we can learn anything about the position of the bishop? If we found a letter that read “The congregation should listen to the readings from the Bible as if they were listening to Christ Himself. They should always trust what is read. They should always consider the text inerrant” would that letter have said nothing about the authority of scripture?

     Also, on your critique of the letter to Ephasus you (again) neglect the fact that he is writing to men that ARE NOT IN HIS DIOCESE! He is approaching them with humble language, always mindful of the fact that he is in chains being delivered to his death. You are confusing his humble descriptions as a denial of bishop authority that literally permeates his teachings! This is not sound historical exegesis. I’ve posted the links to the letters in full context. Talk about wishful thinking!

     LikeLike

378. John B,

     Ephesians 3:8 “although I am less than the least of all God’s people”

     This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief .“—I Tim. 1:15.

     By the very same criteria you use for Ignatius it would appear that the apostle Paul denied he had any kind of special authority.

     LikeLike

379. Darryl,

     Of course you’re not an atheist, but the skeptical approach you take is not so far removed from their view of the history of the canon and textual transmission.

     “If the church can go this far from Scripture”

     All in the eye of the beholder.

     “then it can say almost anything and base it on tradition”

     No, it has to be consonant with what came before (that does not mean no development though). Hence we’re not going to get Eternal Mary or James isn’t inspired coming down the pike. Rome can’t just pull a Stalin and redact history or pretend the church is celebrating feast days when it isn’t (part of the development leading to the IC definition).

     LikeLike

380. Kenneth, you have totally misconstrued what I was saying. Ignatius did not present the Roman Catholic view of “bishops” – and indeed, as you said in your most recent comment, “By the very same criteria you use for Ignatius it would appear that the apostle Paul denied he had any kind of special authority.”

     You say that in the negative – that is, Paul only “seems” to deny that he had any kind of authority. But that is in fact the case, precisely as it is stated. Paul denied that he had any kind of special authority.

     And further, it is fair to say that Ignatius was somewhat confused about this, suggesting that “Peter and Paul gave orders”. What is being said is that “while Paul urges himself on the community as an example to be followed, what he is urging is not obedience to his own commands, but obedience to the gospel itself as it actively sustains and should inform the life of the community” (citing the study by John Howard Schutz, “Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority” (republished in 2007 by Westminster John Knox Press, originally published in 1975 by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, pg 228).

     In fact, the “authority” for Peter and Paul was the purity of the message, and not any “authority” that was inherent in their persons as “apostles”. Paul could not be more clear about this, as he says in Galatians 1:8-9:

     But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

     If an angel, or if Peter and Paul say something different from the Gospel which you have already heard and “accepted” or “received” – the phrase here is “εὐαγγελίζεται παρ’ ὃ παρελάβετε”, “a gospel other than that which you have already accepted”, and the word here, παρελάβετε, being the root of which you might recognize as “paradosis” (sometimes translated as “tradition” – but in this case, indicating “the gospel that the Galatians had already “accepted” from Paul’s earlier visit to them).

     According to Andrew Clarke in his work “Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers”, Paul was especially careful to avoid drawing attention to any leadership role for himself (and when he did point out “leadership” of the apostles in some way, it was to discount it).

     Clarke’s work looks at the various models of “leadership” that existed in Roman society, including leadership in Roman cities, colonies, “voluntary associations”, families, and synagogues, and according to Clarke, Paul found none of these to be satisfactory models for the Christian church. In the same way that Jesus emphasized than no one was to “lord it over” another, Clarke says:

     For Paul, the nature of the Christian ἐκκλησία demands a significantly different model of organization from that which prevailed in the civic ἐκκλησία. It is then all the more anomalous that considerable focus is given in many modern contexts to church ‘leaders and church ‘leadership’. Those descriptions which Paul did use include that of deacon and bishop (overseer). These terms have since been embellished in some ecclesiastical quarters by adding as a prefix one particular term, familiar in first-century context, which Paul seems to have avoided, namely ‘arch-‘ (derived from one of the Greek words for leader, . ἀρχων). In this way the importance of official titles in church contexts is reinforced and the appearance of a hierarchy is created which would have been as familiar in the cultural context of the first-century world, both Graeco-Roman and Jewish, as it is today. On this issue Paul is clearly countercultural. Not only is the word ‘leader’ avoided by him, but he also eschews the associated concepts of leadership.

     To the extent that Paul distances himself from any who would call themselves his followers or disciples, he does not regard himself as a leader. Similarly, he is no master and has no servants, just fellow-workers, fellow-partners and fellow-soldiers. This is an important contrast to the ministry of Jesus, who attracted disciples and expressly called people to follow him. Thus it is important to note that, although Paul looks to Jesus as a model, there are aspects of Jesus’ ministry which cannot be emulated by the apostle (Pgs 249-250).

     This is a key to understanding what “overseers” and “deacons” were to be in Paul’s writings. Clarke continues with this thought:

     Avoiding the notion of leader, Paul did, however, regard himself as a servant. In this regard he does adopt the pattern modeled by Jesus, who came to serve. He is a servant both of Christ and to the church, and as such he labours and applies to himself the metaphors of manual work, such as builder and planter (quite at odds with the sophists of the day who could proudly say ‘our hands never knew labour’). Similarly he considers that where there is a hierarchy in the church, God deems that it is these serving apostles who are on the lowest rung [1 Cor 3:21-23, 4:9].

     Given Paul’s countercultural stance preferring the notion of service (or ‘ministry’) to that of leadership, it may seem strange that he also established himself as one who should be imitated. It is significant, however, that he did not regard himself either as the exclusive model to believers, nor even as one of particular importance. Indeed, he expressly commended others who were equally worthy of imitation. A particular model was considered appropriate not because of who that person was but because of the extent to which that life was conformed to the gospel. Consequently, all such models were of secondary importance. Their supreme goal was imitation of Christ (250-251).

     The key for Paul – the key to everything – was that the Gospel be put ahead of all things. Ahead of persons, ahead of roles, ahead of titles.

     Referring back to Schutz, in discussing Paul’s disagreement with Peter in Galatians 2, for Paul:

     The gospel and its truth are first. This does not mean that he consciously sacrifices the unity of the Church, but rather that he construes [unity] as a function of the one gospel. In almost perfect parallelism he also construes his authority – and hence, the authority of an apostle – in the same terms and by the same device of subordination and derivation. That is, both the Church’s unity and the apostle’s authority are derived from, and subordinate to the gospel and its truth precisely because they are grounded in this gospel (pg 156).

     Paul is saying that, in this episode, “Peter and Barnabas are, in fact, not true to their calling because their actions, like the Galatians’ subsequent action, ignores God’s grace and so nullifies the gospel.” The result of this, according to Schutz:

     Should others [including “Apostles”] prove not to be illustrations of the truth of the gospel, Paul would have to deny their authority, and here he does seek to counteract their potential influence (pg 156).

     Schutz’s point is that for Paul, it is that, in the case of the apostle, “the true gospel authorizes the messenger”.

     The larger theme of [Galatians] 1-2 is also the singularity of the gospel, but it is expressed as a function between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders. With that in mind it is interesting to see what happens in [Galatians 1:6-9] when the idea of one gospel is the ruling concept. All figures in the historical transcript are subordinated to it. That includes both Paul and the community. As a result, not a word is said about the community’s being to Paul. Again, this is emphasized by the shift from εὐαγγελίζεσθαι [the gospel] to παρελαμβάνειν [“which you received”] in v. 9. Because the gospel is singular and takes precedence, both Paul and the community can be subordinated to it. Paul can preach only what he has already preached, and the community can receive only what it has already received. The gospel is thus a double-sided norm – for preaching and for receiving. It is a norm for faith and a norm for apostleship. By virtue of their common dependence on, and the need for their obedience to, the one gospel, faith and apostleship are brought into the closest possible relationship. (pg 123).

     Douglas Moo, in his recently released commentary on Galatians (Baker Exegetical), reiterates Schutz’s point here: “There is one gospel, revealed in Christ, to be ‘received’ by those who hear it” (pg 82).

     This is a fact that is lost on the church as the developing “Roman” catholic influence sought to define what role a bishop should play. Rome’s current definition of “bishop” is the complete opposite of this. See CCC 889:

     889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”

     Here is how the two are diametrically opposed. Paul says, “the Gospel is the Gospel, and if I don’t preach that one Gospel, I’m no longer an Apostle”. Rome says, “the Gospel is what we say it is by virtue of our Authority”.

     Interestingly, this is a truth which Irenaeus (c. 180) understands, but which Rome conveniently forgets, as it defines what it means to be “successors” of the apostles:

     [The Apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

     To “fall away” indicates behavior. That is, according to Irenaeus, in the thinking of the Apostles, it is possible for “bishops” and “successors” to lose their place (a thing which Rome denies).

     LikeLike

381. Kenneth – getting back to Ignatius: there are two sides of a coin: first is how those in ministry roles ought to regard themselves; the second is, how people “in the pews” ought to regard those in ministry roles. I’m going to go back and look at some of your comments.

     You said: 1. You didn’t bother defending your dubious use of the commentary of John Behr… Which makes me doubt your use of further commentators.

     My use of Behr is not dubious in any way. Behr, again, is an Eastern Orthodox priest and theologian, and Dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, where he teaches Patristics. He correctly identifies that Ignatius did not have a doctrine (or understanding) of “succession” but rather he saw the fixed gulf between himself and what the Apostles were.

     While Ignatius says that “Peter and Paul gave orders”, in my previous comment, I’ve identified the nature of these “orders”. What Peter and Paul preached was indeed the unchangeable gospel.

     This is the contrary of what Rome says today about bishops as “successors” of the Apostles. Today, Rome says “the gospel is what we say it is”, and they have in fact changed it multiple times over the centuries.

     My reason for citing Ramsey was to enhance what Behr said. Look at that citation again:

     [Ignatius] “emphasizes the role of the Bishop in the early 2nd century churches of Antioch and Asia Minor does not mean that anyone else felt the same way about the Bishop at that time, or even that Bishops existed in other churches at such an early period.”

     Ramsey too is saying that “there should be bishops” and that these should be respected, but “as yet, there are none” (or not many).

     It is widely accepted, among Anglican and Roman Catholic scholars alike, that “bishops” as Ignatius saw them were a second century development. Roger Beckwith makes this point in his work “Elders in Every City” (pgs. 9-10). And the Roman Catholic writer Francis Sullivan, too, in his “From Apostles to Bishops” makes the point that “the episcopate is the fruit of a post-New Testament development”. That is, they no longer try to defend the historical point that there were “Bishops” in the New Testament. Rather, they say that this “post-New Testament development” was “so evidently guided by the Holy Spirit that it must be recognized as corresponding to God’s plan for the structure of his Church” (pg 230).

     Protestants, however, need not be bound by such second-century “developments”, especially as they can be show to be contrary to Paul’s concept of “leadership” as well as his “gospel”.

     Your notion that Ignatius somehow doesn’t speak directly about “the authority of a bishop” because he “is writing to men that ARE NOT IN HIS DIOCESE” is a fairly ridiculous one. He is giving general principles all along, and those principles are constituted in good part by what I have called “wishful thinking”. That is, he has an ideal in mind (which at some points is not a biblical ideal, but his own), and he is enthusiastically espousing his own thoughts. Here is what a leading commentator (Schoedel) says:

     On the historical side, we conclude that the threefold ministry (bishops, elders, deacons) was surely in place in the communities and that the authority of one bishop was recognized. But there are signs that the situation was still somewhat in flux, and it seems likely that Ignatius gave greater weight to episcopal authority than did most of those with whom he came in contact. In any event, episcopacy does not yet seem to have been reinforced by the idea of succession. And the ministry is still genuinely collegial. Thus a requirement to obey they elders along with the bishop is taken for granted.

     Still, in spite of the conclusions that some [like yourself] draw from Ignatius’s writings, careful exegetical study reveals:

     in Ignatius the bishop does not occupy the place of God or Christ [as I notedabove, it is analogous, and presented from the point of view of the congregation], and that we are still close to NT models (Schoedel, pg 22, references omitted).

     The explication given with reference to Magnesians 6:1: “There can hardly be any strict parallelism between the earthy and heavenly realms in Ignatius’ treatment of the ministry. The apostles for him are venerable personages whose presence is still a reality among those who walk in the ways set down by them. Thus the reference to “the recepts of the Lord and the apostles” in Magn 13:1 suggests that when Ignatius links divine and apostolic authority, he has in view the historical events of the primitive period. He himself, we recall, cannot give commands as the apostles did (Tr. 3.3; Rom 4:3; Eph 3:1), and presumably neither can the presbyters in spite of the comparison. It is primarily the universal and local, then, which is being comparied by Ignatius rather than the heavenly and earthly. And the universal is rooted (at least in part) in an idealized past (Schoedel 113).

     Consider this: “Ignatius does not sharply distinguish the ministry from other Christians in terms of a special indwelling of the divine: thus the Magnesians are to obey the bishop and one another as Christ obeys the Father”.

     Here’s that citation: “Be subject to the bishop and to each other as Jesus Christ (was subject) to the Father [according to the flesh], and the apostles to Christ [and the Father and the spirit], that there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.”

     Thus, according to your lights, Ignatius is also saying that everyone in the congregation (“be subject … to each other”) has the same authority as the bishop – a feature that lends itself more to Luther’s “priesthood of all believers” rather than to the Roman episcopacy.

     LikeLike

382. John B,

     thank you for yet another timely response. I do appreciate the polite and well thought out interaction.

     Kenneth, you have totally misconstrued what I was saying. Ignatius did not present the Roman Catholic view of “bishops” –

     He does not precisely hold to the identical view of the bishop that we have today. I am not looking for an identical regurgitation of the 2013 CCC. I am looking for the doctrine of AS in “seed form” if you will. I am contending that Ignatius teaching that the faithful should

     1. Contradict their bishop in nothing
     2. Do nothing connected to the Church without a bishop
     3. Follow and obey their bishop as if they are following and obeying Jesus christ or the apostles
     4. Show up in a great multitude wherever the bishop is
     5.consider the Eucharist valid only when the bishop or someone that he appoints celebrates it
     6. Should only consider the Catholic Church (whatever you want that to mean) present when a bishop is present
     7. Accept the Bishop as “Ruling over them” by divine appointment

     is precisely what one would expect to find when looking for the doctrine of AS in seed form. All the essentials are in place.

     And further, it is fair to say that Ignatius was somewhat confused about this, suggesting that “Peter and Paul gave orders”.

     It might be that Ignatius is confused…. Or it could be that you are interpreting the scriptures in error and anachronistically forcing your view on history and the Word it self. After making the case, supposedly with John Behr, that the apostles had a kind of super authority that was never passed on.. . Now you abandon that claim and insist that not even the apostles had authority and only the gospel does. This is the kind of anticatholic theological hop scotch that drives me nuts. Borrow Anglican arguments when its convenient, maybe toss in a couple EO quotes, sprinkle some liberal catholic scholars for good measure…. And man the RC just has to be wrong! You can’t just morph your argument as we tarry on to whatever you think has the best shot. Pick one and lets see what’s what.

     Since your argument of the moment (always subject to change) is that the apostle Paul didn’t have any authority and only the gospel does…. What do we do with the verses that teach binding and loosing? What do we do with “whoever hears you hears me”? What do we do with Acts 15? How do I make sense of Matthias? What do we do with the multiplicity of verses that explicitly teach that the apostles did in fact have divine authority?
     Matt. 10:1,40
     Matt. 16:19; 18:18
     Luke 9:1; 10:19
     Luke 10:16
     Luke 22:29
     Num 16:28
     John 5:30
     John 7:16-17
     John 8:28
     John 12:49
     John 13:20
     John 14:10
     John 16:14-15
     John 17:18; 20:21
     Acts 20:28
     Jer. 23:1-8; Ezek. 34:1-10
     Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:9,14

     Of course the gospel had authority. Of course the source of that authority was greater than any man or institution. But that doesn’t mean that the apostles weren’t given any authority on earth besides that of the message they carried. It also doesn’t follow that because these authorities could err on matters of discipline that they were always subject to questioning by their congregation on matters of dogma.

     LikeLike

383. John B,

     He correctly identifies that Ignatius did not have a doctrine (or understanding) of “succession” but rather he saw the fixed gulf between himself and what the Apostles were.

     I do not agree with your assessment of his work. Behr certainly does believe the early church held to a notion of apostolic succession.

     http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2007/issue96/10.31.html?start=2

     Irenaeus of Lyons was the first Christian leader to write a confident statement of the faith of “the Great Church” and explain why it could be trusted. He considered three things to be inextricably linked: Scripture (both the Old Testament and the apostolic writings), the tradition of the apostles’ teaching (the Rule of Faith), and the leadership of the church.

     This was an important defense of orthodox Christianity against the Gnostic teachers. If the apostles were going to entrust the truth about Jesus to anyone, Irenaeus argued, they would have entrusted it to the same people to whom they entrusted the churches. They would not have charged some with caring for their flock and then secretly told hidden mysteries to others. In contrast to the Gnostics’ secret succession, the Great Church had a succession of teaching that was universal and public—and therefore more trustworthy…”By this succession,” Irenaeus wrote, “the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is the most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

     now, if you would like to say that Behr focuses on a slightly different definition of apostolic succession that better fits with EO theology than fine. But he does not deny the early church unanimously held to AS. Such is literally undeniable. JND Kelly writes

     “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

     For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).

     Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be “profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field” (ibid., 41).

     Back to Bonifice Ramsey… Here you again showcase your dubious use of patristics commentators this time by editing out a part of the quotation…. First you cite Ramsey as saying

     Just because Ignatius of Antioch … emphasizes the role of the Bishop in the early 2nd century churches of Antioch and Asia Minor does not mean that anyone else felt the same way about the Bishop at that time, or even that Bishops existed in other churches at such an early period.”

     and then later as we “go back and look at it again” the quotation reads

     
     Ignatius] “emphasizes the role of the Bishop in the early 2nd century churches of Antioch and Asia Minor does not mean that anyone else felt the same way about the Bishop at that time, or even that Bishops existed in other churches at such an early period.”

     Ramsey too is saying that “there should be bishops” and that these should be respected, but “as yet, there are none” (or not many).

     Is Ramsey in fact saying that there “should be bishops” but there aren’t? Or is he saying that just because Ignatius emphasizes the bishops role doesn’t necessarily mean that they are living out that role everywhere or that they even exist at all? Well…. Depends on what your in the mood to show I guess….

     is a fairly ridiculous one. He is giving general principles all along, and those principles are constituted in good part by what I have called “wishful thinking”.

     You will not explain why it is ridiculous. You merely assert that it is and handwavingly quote another commentator (dubiously or not who can know at this point) that doesn’t even address the fact that a bishop would naturally not order other Christians around that were not under his jurisdiction.

     For another take on the ecclesiology of Ignatius see here.

     Click to access ignatiusandjustin.pdf

     LikeLike

384. Kenneth – a couple of things. I’ll start with your critique of what I have been saying:

     After making the case, supposedly with John Behr, that the apostles had a kind of super authority that was never passed on.. . Now you abandon that claim and insist that not even the apostles had authority and only the gospel does. This is the kind of anticatholic theological hop scotch that drives me nuts. Borrow Anglican arguments when its convenient, maybe toss in a couple EO quotes, sprinkle some liberal catholic scholars for good measure…. And man the RC just has to be wrong! You can’t just morph your argument as we tarry on to whatever you think has the best shot. Pick one and lets see what’s what.

     Since your argument of the moment (always subject to change) is that the apostle Paul didn’t have any authority and only the gospel does….

     I have been consistent all the way through. And when I bring out Behr when he says that “Ignatius had no concept of ‘Apostolic Succession’”, it was to rely on that particular facet of his knowledge. I’m not bound by everything else he says. And I can disagree with him where I will. But the fact is, he disagrees with you, and you can’t [without looking like a fool] simply say “Nuh-uh” to him.

     The same with Roger Beckwith. His analysis of the Anglican doctrine of Apostolic Succession coheres with what Behr was saying: that the Anglicans have pretty much discovered that their doctrine of “Apostolic Succession” came from the second century (and pretty much the late second century, to boot) – and that the Anglicans of our era have fudged their language to cover for the fact (while themselves still trying to maintain that “Apostolic Succession” somehow had ties to the NT church, when in fact, it didn’t.

     I cited Francis Sullivan above who says essentially the same thing — “the episcopate is the fruit of a post-New Testament development”. Men like Beckwith and Sullivan and Behr are to be congratulated for their willingness to speak the truth when it goes against their church’s respective dogmatic teachings.

     These men [along with others that I’ve quoted like Schutz and Clarke and Moo and a raft of others] are scholars in the disciplines in question – New Testament and early church fathers (and the history of Europe and Palestine of the first and early second century) – they are all studying the actual history of “Apostolic Succession” and they are consistently clarifying a set of facts that the “church government” found in the New Testament was NOT what the Roman Catholic Church had for centuries been saying it was.

     For example, the Council Trent’s Decree on Holy Orders, Chapter 1, says that “there is in this Church a new visible and external priesthood … that was instituted by that same Lord our Saviour, and that to the apostles and their successors in the priesthood was handed down the power of consecrating … [this] the Sacred Scriptures show and the tradition of the Catholic Church has always taught.”

     There is no “seed form” here. It is full blown and full strength as instituted by Christ.

     Canon 1 says, “if anyone says that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood … let him be anathema”.

     And canon 6, says that there is in the Church “a hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, which consists of bishops, priests, and ministers” and if anyone says otherwise, “let him be anathema”.

     Of course, the individuals I’ve been citing have been further concluding that history simply does not support what the Council of Trent said.

     In fact, Vatican II itself contradicts this as well, however, slipping in an Anglican-style “bait-and-switch”, while still trying to pass itself off as affirming what Trent said. Here’s that language:

     Thus the divinely established ecclesiastical ministry is exercised on different levels by those who from antiquity have been called bishops, priests and deacons.

     Take a look at the link here:

     http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/02/roman-bait-and-switch-on-orders.html

     LikeLike

385. I’ll get to your scripture verses in time, but for now, I’d like to focus on your comment that “you are looking for a seed form”.

     You wrote: I am looking for the doctrine of AS [“apostolic succession”] in “seed form” if you will.

     You wrote: I am contending that Ignatius teaching that the faithful should … [list] … is precisely what one would expect to find when looking for the doctrine of AS in seed form. All the essentials are in place.

     Following up on my previous comment, there are a number of contemporary writers, including Roman Catholics and other branches that hold to “Apostolic Succession”, who no longer try to defend the historical point that there were “Bishops” in the New Testament. Rather, they say things like, this “post-New Testament development” was “so evidently guided by the Holy Spirit that it must be recognized as corresponding to God’s plan for the structure of his Church” (Sullivan pg 230).

     “Essentials in place” is not good enough, according to the Council of Trent.

     According to Trent, you must have the full-blown thing, by “divine institution” from the hand of Christ.

     This is one “difficulty” among the many historical “difficulties” that Newman saw (not the Vatican II stuff, but things like it – and Vatican II goes far beyond the “difficulties” that Newman noticed), for which Rome has decided to “reformulate” Trent and go with something like a full-blown “doctrine of development” (see Dei Verbum 8).

     DV 8, by the way, says that “development” occurs because “there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.”

     However, how do you account for this “growth” in terms of a priesthood that at one point (and for many centuries) had been infallibly declared (by many councils) that it had been “divinely instituted” as a hierarchy, by Christ – and yet, some centuries later, there is a backpeddaling to the point that the mere process of “guidance by the Holy Spirit” that led to the hierarchy.

     But how is that an “acorn-to-oak” development? The movement from full-blown hierarchy from the hand of Christ to a “spirit-guided process” is more likely a movement from “oak-to-acorn”, leaving you looking for seed forms.

     Owen Chadwick’s work, “From Bossuet to Newman”, describes the process of how Roman Catholicism stopped boasting about semper eadem and divinely instituted hierarchy”, “visible and external”, which was “instituted by the Lord and Savior”, and started looking for “seed forms” of things.

     You accused me of interpreting the scriptures in error and anachronistically forcing your view on history and the Word it self.

     But as we know historically now, that is precisely what Rome had been doing for centuries – “Anachronistically forcing its own view of history and the Word itself” upon a world that couldn’t do research into Rome’s errors.

     And that is why Rome had to stop relying on history, and instead, started anachronistically “looking backward” to mine the sources for things that could be used as evidence to support current Roman dogmas:

     This Roman Catholic hermeneutical method – “the mind of the church” – is well described by popes and scholars. It is, in fact, a blatant form of revisionism.

     Pius IX’s articulated this method in his Letter, “Gravissimas inter,” to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, Dec. 11, 1862. Pius XII cited and reiterated this in his statement in Humani Generis: “theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.”

     This is further explained in a variety of sources. One Roman Catholic theologian wrote, “We think first of developed forms for which we need to find historical justification. The developed forms come first and the historical justification comes second.” (“Ways of Validating Ministry,” Kilian McDonnell, Journal of Ecumenical Studies (7), pg. 213, cited in Carlos Alfredo Steger, “Apostolic Succession in the Writings of Yves Congar and Oscar Cullmann, pg. 322.) Steger calls this type of historical revisionism “highly questionable if not inadmissible.”

     Aiden Nichols, “The Shape of Catholic Theology” (253) notes that for the last several hundred years, according to these popes, “the theologian’s highest task lies in proving the present teachings of the magisterium from the evidence of the ancient sources.” … Nichols calls this, “the so-called regressive method,” and notes that Walter Kasper (now a Cardinal) has traced the origins of this method to the 18th century.

     Precisely when the Roman Catholic Church started coming across these historical “difficulties” which required the formulation of a “theory of development”.

     http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/11/roman-catholic-hermeneutic.html

     LikeLike

386. I’ll refer you to Robert Reymond’s analysis of Matthew 16:17-19, from his Systematic Theology (pgs 812-818), at the conclusion of which he says:

     Rome’s exegesis of Matthew 16 and its historically developed claim to authoritative primacy in the Christian world simply cannot be demonstrated and sustained from Scripture itself. This claim is surely one of the great hoaxes foisted upon professing Christendom, upon which false base rests the whole papal sacerdotal system.

     There is, of course, much more that could be said, but Reymond’s analysis (look it up at amazon’s “search inside this book” feature) is a very thorough exegetical treatment. I personally have written reams and reams upon this topic as well, but suffice it to say that Protestants have very good reasons for rejecting the papacy as antiChrist.

     See also:

     http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-papacy-neither-biblical-nor.html

     This is an analysis of the “succession” of Peter — just one of your verses. More to follow, Lord willing.

     LikeLike

387. Kenneth — here’s a survey of some of the recent scholarship on the history (rather, the non-history) of the earliest papacy:

     http://reformation500.com/2010/01/14/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy/

     LikeLike

388. John B,

     I wrote a rather lengthy response to your portion on Ignatius. Alas, it has either been offered up to the moderation supercomputer or was lost. If you could please hold back for a while I would like to see if it will resurface before I endeavor to retype the entire thing via cellphone…. Tedious…. And then address some of your follow up

     LikeLike

389. OK it is awaiting moderation…. That’s a relief…. I was not looking forward to rewording that on my phone!! Haha we will have to await DGH to release. I want to hear what you had to say to that post before I respond to your lengthy and rather interesting followup

     LikeLike

390. @Zrim —

     CDH, I had more in mind the Pentecostals, Adventists, and Millerites than standard issue Baptists (which seem more like creatures of modernity than proper descendants of either Protestantism or Anabaptism).

     Pentecostals, Millerites both came from Baptists. Adventists came from Millerites and Methodists. There wasn’t any anabpatist input except idealogical influence.

     I guess how are you defining Protestantism in a modern context?

     LikeLike

391. Kenneth — more than one link in a post here goes into moderation.

     LikeLike

392. @Kenneth —

     But pentacostals are poorly represented in the academic world.

     That’s a substantial change from what Protestants believe to what Protestant academics at particular institutions believe. You were trying to defend the idea that you represented mainstream Protestantism. If you are willing to concede that some variant of Landmarkism is actually the mainstream belief and your belief exists only for small Protestant sects that’s progress.

     In terms of academics I’m not sure that your theory is true because once we start talking academics you pick up a huge liberal bias while the population is more evenly split. I suspect if we restrict ourselves to academics far more academics would agree with my position that “early church fathers” is a later political construction than any theological position. Heck your position does’t do well even among Catholic academics. So then you have to restrict to conservative academics, writing in English. Yeah I’ll probably give that to you that you are in the majority. I can still find exceptions.

     LikeLike

393. John,

     “According to Trent, you must have the full-blown thing, by “divine institution” from the hand of Christ.”

     Similar language is used in Vat1. That same council affirms notions of development in the section where it cites Vincent, and Pius IX himself affirmed development as well in other statements/teaching. Saying something has “always been believed” or “always been taught” does not negate development. It’s like saying the Church has always believed/taught the Trinity. That doctrine obviously developed. All doctrine, no matter at what stage of development, was divinely given by Christ – it is part of the apostolic deposit.

     LikeLike

394. Cletus,

     Them thar are weasel words. Papal infallibility has either always been taught or it hasn’t. You might make the argument that it doesn’t contradict what the church has taught before, but that is far different than saying it’s always been taught.

     The apostolic deposit either has a defined content or it doesn’t. A deposit is a tangible thing. We’re still waiting for its delimitations beyond the NT. Where are those words that Peter spoke that never got written down. Is it like Farenheit 451 where you have guys memorize them and then have successors memorize them, and so on. C’mon man, this should not be hard if it actually exists.

     LikeLike

395. Robert,

     “Papal infallibility has either always been taught or it hasn’t”

     Essence has. PI developed. That’s why Vat1 uses language of both always believing as well as development. Not mutually exclusive, and you get close to that with “You might make the argument that it doesn’t contradict what the church has taught before” – what the church taught/believed before was the essence.

     LikeLike

396. Doctrine of the pope sure did develop, just a little before your PI business in your communion. Instead, try 16th century, it developed right into what Luther and Calvin had to say. Hence, we here in the OPC, a communion founded by Christ, just keep answering away on our smartphones while watching Netflix..

     https://oldlife.org/2013/12/calvinism-envy/

     LikeLike

397. John B,

     I will repost the moderated comment and update it

     John B,

     He correctly identifies that Ignatius did not have a doctrine (or understanding) of “succession” but rather he saw the fixed gulf between himself and what the Apostles were.

     I do not agree with your assessment of his work. Behr certainly does believe the early church held to a notion of apostolic succession.

     http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2007/issue96/10.31.html?start=2

     Irenaeus of Lyons was the first Christian leader to write a confident statement of the faith of “the Great Church” and explain why it could be trusted. He considered three things to be inextricably linked: Scripture (both the Old Testament and the apostolic writings), the tradition of the apostles’ teaching (the Rule of Faith), and the leadership of the church.

     This was an important defense of orthodox Christianity against the Gnostic teachers. If the apostles were going to entrust the truth about Jesus to anyone, Irenaeus argued, they would have entrusted it to the same people to whom they entrusted the churches. They would not have charged some with caring for their flock and then secretly told hidden mysteries to others. In contrast to the Gnostics’ secret succession, the Great Church had a succession of teaching that was universal and public—and therefore more trustworthy…”By this succession,” Irenaeus wrote, “the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is the most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

     now, if you would like to say that Behr focuses on a slightly different definition of apostolic succession that better fits with EO theology than fine. But he does not deny the early church unanimously held to AS. Such is literally undeniable. JND Kelly writes

     “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

     For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).

     Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be “profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field” (ibid., 41).

     Back to Bonifice Ramsey… Here you again showcase your dubious use of patristics commentators this time by editing out a part of the quotation…. First you cite Ramsey as saying

     Just because Ignatius of Antioch … emphasizes the role of the Bishop in the early 2nd century churches of Antioch and Asia Minor does not mean that anyone else felt the same way about the Bishop at that time, or even that Bishops existed in other churches at such an early period.”

     and then later as we “go back and look at it again” the quotation reads

     Ignatius] “emphasizes the role of the Bishop in the early 2nd century churches of Antioch and Asia Minor does not mean that anyone else felt the same way about the Bishop at that time, or even that Bishops existed in other churches at such an early period.”

     Ramsey too is saying that “there should be bishops” and that these should be respected, but “as yet, there are none” (or not many).

     Is Ramsey in fact saying that there “should be bishops” but there aren’t? Or is he saying that just because Ignatius emphasizes the bishops role doesn’t necessarily mean that they are living out that role everywhere or that they even exist at all? Well…. Depends on what your in the mood to show I guess….

     is a fairly ridiculous one. He is giving general principles all along, and those principles are constituted in good part by what I have called “wishful thinking”.

     You will not explain why it is ridiculous. You merely assert that it is and handwavingly quote another commentator (dubiously or not who can know at this point) that doesn’t even address the fact that a bishop would naturally not order other Christians around that were not under his jurisdiction.

     In summary, I reject the idea that Ignatius had no notion of his own authority as a bishop first and foremost because of his own extensive writing on the subject. I can not accept the evidence presented as compelling due to dubious use of patristic commentators and a hermeneutic of skepticism that could make Bart Ehrman blush. A humble self depreciating comment eerily similar to st Paul referring to himself as the chief of all sinners and the least of all the saints is not strong evidence of a denial of authority. The fact that he was addressing the people in the pews and not giving a doctoral dissertation on “the authority of the bishop means” is not a persuasive reason to dismiss his comments addressing the gratuitous authority of the Catholic bishop. It also is not surprising for him to not issue orders to men outside of his diocese. You have never addressed any of these issues and simply wave your hand and quote another patristic scholar as if I haven’t responded. Simply saying things like “that’s not informed” or “that doesn’t match reality” won’t cut it. I could dump a thousand Bart Ehrman scholars on you, call them all “cutting edge” and then say your faith doesn’t meet reality and isn’t very informed…. Wouldn’t add up to much would it?

     LikeLike

398. CVD: in response to my statement, “According to Trent, you must have the full-blown thing, by “divine institution” from the hand of Christ”, you said:

     Similar language is used in Vat1. That same council affirms notions of development in the section where it cites Vincent, and Pius IX himself affirmed development as well in other statements/teaching. Saying something has “always been believed” or “always been taught” does not negate development. It’s like saying the Church has always believed/taught the Trinity. That doctrine obviously developed. All doctrine, no matter at what stage of development, was divinely given by Christ – it is part of the apostolic deposit.

     You also said in response to Robert’s comment “Papal infallibility has either always been taught or it hasn’t”:

     Essence has. PI developed. That’s why Vat1 uses language of both always believing as well as development. Not mutually exclusive, and you get close to that with “You might make the argument that it doesn’t contradict what the church has taught before” – what the church taught/believed before was the essence.

     In the first place, the doctrine of the Trinity is articulated in full-blown ways in the New Testament, whereas the doctrines of “priesthood/hierarchy” and “papal infallibility” have been found through a process of exegesis and history not to have existed in the New Testament (or for many centuries afterward). So you’re crying “development” as a process and you want that concept, undefined as you have left it, to apply to widely diverse concepts in the same way.

     Furthermore, what you’re saying is that “Trent and Vatican 1 used ‘similar language’ to discuss that Jesus himself ‘divinely instituted’ multiple things, some of which underwent different and wildly divergent processes in order to arrive at the “correct” understanding (we think? – the “living Magisterium” still has time to “reformulate”!) that Vatican II has espoused on all these things.

     [With Trent, it was “the priesthood” and “the hierarchy”, and with Vatican 1, it was talking about “the papacy”.]

     First of all, Trent DOES NOT mention the topic of “development” at all. Trent (and Rome’s polemic following Trent for the next three centuries) was all about semper eadem — “always the same” – and it was very clear to articulate that the “priesthood/hierarchy” were “visible” and “external”. No development was allowed for at Trent or during those following centuries.

     Second, look at the actual citation from Vincent of Lerins at Vatican 1: May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.

     Aside from the fact that Newman was known in the 19th century and the concept of “development” was floating about in the broader intellectual culture, Vatican I had a reason to say something about “understanding, knowledge, and wisdom increasing”. That fit their scheme. Vatican I was attempting to dogmatize a concept that had only been around since the Middle Ages – so they want a “seed concept” to “grow into a tree”.

     However, to allow for “development” with respect to Trent’s teaching on “priesthood/hierarchy” is to introduce many convolutions into the story.

     Trent was affirming a thing about the hierarchy that Rome had been affirming since the 4th century. But look at what the concept of “increasing understanding” does to the dogma that was espoused at Trent:

     The understanding and articulation of the doctrine of the hierarchy from the Middle Ages through Trent and through Bossuet said: Priesthood and hierarchy: instituted full-blown by Christ

     Later, the understanding and articulation of the doctrine of the hierarchy from Vatican I through Vatican II: Priesthood and hierarchy: Spirit-guided process to “develop” the “priesthood and hierarchy” through the second century

     So you are actually claiming several kinds of “development” here. First, with Vatican II, that the priesthood/hierarchy “developed” over the first four centuries. Then you are saying that the retrograde understanding at Trent (“full-blown divine institution from the hand of Jesus”) was a “development”. Then there was a mere allowance of “development-by-association” (Vatican I used similar language and they allowed for “development”) – and then finally, the understanding [forced by an increasing knowledge of history] back to the understanding of the process that Vatican II articulated.

     Now, there was a guy named Frank Ramirez on the Internets some years ago. He went by the name “Kepha”, and he had a blog entitled “Conscious Faith”. Now, let’s try to put the “conscious faith” through the paces, just briefly – the church lived through “the development” of “priesthood/hierarchy” in the first through the fourth centuries; in the fourth century, the understanding “increased” to understand that “priesthood/hierarchy” were given by divine institution by the hand of Jesus, as affirmed by Trent. Then at Vatican I, they allow that “development occurs” by which “understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along”, and then at Vatican II, they finally understand that

     Alongside of that symphonic movement, you have the doctrine of “papal infallibility”, which, rising from a position of not having any articulation at all through the 12th century, then rising, rising through the Middle Ages, a subject not mentioned by Trent, to its “full-blown divinely-instituted by Jesus yet somehow developed”.

     Meanwhile, you have a church understanding that all along was “divinely protected from teaching error”, even while you have diametrically opposed concepts being articulated – and consider that the “conscious faith” of many of these people, for centuries, really being discounted in order to uphold the concept that “development” occurred.

     To Cletus van Damme, I’m asking you, do you at least see why the Reformed folks here would not want to buy into such a story?

     Keep in mind, people died for opposing the teaching of Trent. Do you really expect us to say, “Oh yeah, the allowance for development … that makes it all make sense”.

     I know you simply articulated this as a quick comment in an ongoing discussion. But that is just a wild gyrating movement from the first four centuries through Trent through Vatican I through Vatican II, on the topic of “priesthood/hierarchy”. Perhaps when you have time, you could show us, in the actual documents (and the Magisterial documents alone have the “authority” – not your “interpretation” of them), precisely how and when this “development” occurred, and what was the least bit rational about such a thing.

     Your phrase “uses language of both always believing as well as development” raises a number of questions.

     You may or may not know, that theologians who are providing advice to the “infallible Magisterium” are having great difficulty doing that very thing. Consider just one theologian (whose work is outlined at this link), who is having great difficulty reconciling Vatican I to Vatican II:

     http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/09/dg-hart-maybe-called-to-communion.html

     Here’s what Buckley has said, what Ratzinger asked for, was improved upon by the colleagues at Boston College, and completed with the generous, unflagging, competent help of the research assistants.

     The development from Pastor aeternus to Lumen Gentium, from speaking of the bishops as the episcopate to speaking of the bishops as “a college…or a college of bishops” (collegium … seu corpus episcoporum), is far more considerable than a simple semantic shift. “Episcopate” is somewhat more abstract than “college of bishops,” and it fails to express the dynamic relationship of the bishops among themselves… (pg 77).

     Just wait until you’ve got to take into account a millennium’s-worth of Orthodox (and Oriental) bishops who have been slighted.

     By no means is that the only problem which the college of bishops initially poses. Lumen Gentium, no. 22, did not include in its description of the Episcopal college the local churches of which the bishops were shepherds and representatives. If one fails to place this section within the context of Lumen Gentium no. 23, one would have an understanding of the college of bishops without the simultaneous and explicit recognition of the communion of churches, indeed, without mention of local churches at all. The perspective would remain that of a universalist ecclesiology, and the college of bishops would read as if it were primarily a governing board of the whole Church (80).

     Then there are “the vital relationship between the bishop and the local church within which he is to represent the leadership and the sanctifying presence of Christ” (81) … and the Apostolic Tradition which “insists that the bishop is to be chosen by all of the people and that this selection is to be approved by the assembled [local] bishops and elders (86). Buckley writes, in summary:

     Two questions arise in this context. Whether the present settlement actually detracts from the full vigor of the episcopate and whether papal restoration of ancient legislation on the selection of bishops and their stability within their sees could contribute significantly to the strengthening of the episcopate and the local churches today. Could the apostolic See further effectively its responsibilities simply by restoring what has been taken [or, what the papacy has usurped for itself] over the centuries? This would be to retrieve in a very different way that papal leadership whose bent was the strength and freedom of the local church. Neither problem is an easy one to resolve, but both merit serious study and each touches upon both components of this essay (94).

     Michael J. Buckley, S.J., “Papal Primacy and the Episcopate: towards a relational understanding,” New York: Crossroad Herder, © 1998, from the “Ut Unum Sint” series.

     This is the Magisterial consideration of just two documents. What do you think happens when someone traces “development” of “priesthood/hierarchy” from the early church through Trent through Vatican I through Vatican II?

     LikeLike

399. John,

     Here’s what Buckley has said, what Ratzinger asked for, was improved upon by the colleagues at Boston College, and completed with the generous, unflagging, competent help of the research assistants.

     Wait, that wouldn’t be the same Boston College where the discerning theologians hired the lesbian pagan theologian Mary Daly, who taught there for 30 years and was finally removed not by the pope or the bishop for being a heretic but because of an equal opportunity lawsuit under federal law, would it?

     LikeLike

400. Robert: Not only that Boston College, but also check out the acknowledgments:

     As this book goes to press, its author should pause over the gratitude he owes to others, a debt he would gladly pay:

     To Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for his gracious invitation to participate in the symposium sponsored by the Congregation on the “primacy of the successor of Peter”;

     To Archbishop Tarcissio Bertone, S.D.B., secretary to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for his unfailing kindness and facilitation of the symposium in innumerable details;

     To my colleagues in the department of theology at Boston College for their discussion of an earlier draft of the monograph that is now this small book;

     To Joseph Komonochak, Peter Hunnermann, and Clifford Kossel, S.J., for their review of the several drafts of the document and their suggestions for its betterment.

     To the members of the doctoral seminar at Boston College on primacy and episcopate for the analysis, interpretation, and arguments that occupied many hours of the Wednesday afternoons of the fall of 1996;

     To Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., and Michael Himes for their insightful and collaborative direction of this doctrinal seminar that provided the context in which this book was written;

     And above all, to my two generous research assistants, Joseph Curran and Brian Hughes, for their hours of scholarly digging in libraries together with their unflagging, competent help in the completion of this work.

     http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-does-infallible-magisterium-cause.html

     Who says the Roman conservatives and liberals aren’t just one big happy family?

     LikeLike

401. John,

     you are making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Is it not entirely possible that we could have “the full blown thing” divinely instituted by Christs hand from the time of the apostles and still have room for development? When Christ gave Peter they keys and the apostles the authority to bind and loose they had “the full blown thing” right then and there. That doesn’t mean they had the same dull grown understanding of their situation right from the start…. Although they had a pretty darn good grip it seeing as we have already shown that Ignatius taught
     1.eucharist was only valid with bishop or someone bishop had ordained
     2. Bishop sat in the place of God
     3. Bishop should be contradicted in nothing and obeyed as the apostles and even Christ himself
     4. No one should do anything connected to the Church without a bishop
     5. Wherever a bishop was so was the church

     etc etc etc…. Not to mention the writings of Tertillian, clement, etc. I think that a fairly reasonable case could be made from scripture and history that both are true (development and “full blown thing”

     LikeLike

402. Kenneth,

     Not to butt-in here, but we are talking about the establishment of the Petrine office in Rome being established by the Apostles per VI. The problem, as everyone in the academic establishment recognizes, is that Ignatius does not identify a bishop in Rome. Clement does not mention a bishop in Rome. Hermas does not mention a bishop in Rome. Instead, they refer to a plurality of leadership. Whether or not Peter received the keys in a distinct way from the Apostles is problematic assertion as well, as many church fathers do not accept this premise and the exegesis is dubious.

     The fact is, John is not making this more difficult, trad RCC apologists are ignoring glaring historical problems. Pointing to Ignatius is only one piece of the puzzle and a complicating one at that. He helps in one way (that he makes so much of the episcopacy) but is problematic in another that he refers to a plurality of leaders in Rome.

     LikeLike

403. John,

     “In the first place, the doctrine of the Trinity is articulated in full-blown ways in the New Testament, whereas the doctrines of “priesthood/hierarchy” and “papal infallibility” have been found through a process of exegesis and history not to have existed in the New Testament (or for many centuries afterward). So you’re crying “development” as a process and you want that concept, undefined as you have left it, to apply to widely diverse concepts in the same way.”

     You are well aware there wasn’t just a single council to deal with Trinitarian/Christological heresy. It was a complicated process unfolding. It’s easy to say it’s full-blown in hindsight; for centuries that was not the case. It was developing. You are also presupposing something has to be full-blown to be valid, rather than allowing it can be implicit before being made explicit.

     “First of all, Trent DOES NOT mention the topic of “development” at all. Trent (and Rome’s polemic following Trent for the next three centuries) was all about semper eadem — “always the same” – and it was very clear to articulate that the “priesthood/hierarchy” were “visible” and “external”. No development was allowed for at Trent or during those following centuries. ”

     I don’t disagree many argued that way. But notions of development did not start with Newman. His thought “developed” the development of doctrine, but it wasn’t out of thin air – others touched on it before him, including before Trent.

     “Aside from the fact that Newman was known in the 19th century and the concept of “development” was floating about in the broader intellectual culture, Vatican I had a reason to say something about “understanding, knowledge, and wisdom increasing”. That fit their scheme. Vatican I was attempting to dogmatize a concept that had only been around since the Middle Ages – so they want a “seed concept” to “grow into a tree”. ”

     Okay, so you are cool with Vat1 asserting development. That’s a vast improvement over Webster and other guys saying Vat1 was opposed to development. You think it’s a disingenous move on Vat1’s part, but that’s a different dispute.

     “Priesthood and hierarchy: instituted full-blown by Christ”
     vs.
     “Priesthood and hierarchy: Spirit-guided process to “develop” the “priesthood and hierarchy” through the second century”

     Trinity and Christological doctrines and original sin and understanding of grace: instituted full-blown by Christ
     vs.
     Trinity and Christological doctrines and original sin and understanding of grace: developed over centuries with spirit-guided process.

     “So you are actually claiming several kinds of “development” here. First, with Vatican II, that the priesthood/hierarchy “developed” over the first four centuries. Then you are saying that the retrograde understanding at Trent (“full-blown divine institution from the hand of Jesus”) was a “development”. Then there was a mere allowance of “development-by-association” (Vatican I used similar language and they allowed for “development”) – and then finally, the understanding [forced by an increasing knowledge of history] back to the understanding of the process that Vatican II articulated.”

     I’m saying this – teaching that a doctrine was instituted by Christ that also developed is not a contradiction. Similarly, teaching that the apostolic deposit was fixed and contains all revelation/doctrine (itself instituted by Christ) yet doctrine develops is not a contradiction. Vat1 before Vat2 affirmed development while using similar language of “always held/believed/divinely instituted” and the like. Vat1 was not contradicting itself. The doctrine of development did not come out of thin air with Newman in response to historical inquiry. The essence of something does not equate to the full-blown development/implications of that essence (though they won’t contradict, obviously).

     “Meanwhile, you have a church understanding that all along was “divinely protected from teaching error”, even while you have diametrically opposed concepts being articulated – and consider that the “conscious faith” of many of these people, for centuries, really being discounted in order to uphold the concept that “development” occurred.”

     The question of whether a doctrine developed (and how that occurred) or whether that doctrine was actually fully explicit from the beginning has no effect on the substance of the doctrine itself.

     “To Cletus van Damme, I’m asking you, do you at least see why the Reformed folks here would not want to buy into such a story?”

     I see that the Reformed folks do not think the RCCs claims are true.

     “Consider just one theologian (whose work is outlined at this link), who is having great difficulty reconciling Vatican I to Vatican II”

     Because some theologians have difficulty does not mean it is impossible or disingenous to do so. Lots of atheists have great difficulty reconciling Scriptural ‘contradictions’. That has no bearing on whether they can truly be reconciled. Some theologians say Vat2 is incompatible with previous teaching. Others have devoted much work to showing compatibility (Brian Harrison for one). Theologians contribute to development.

     LikeLike

404. Hi Brandon.

     The problem, as everyone in the academic establishment recognizes, is that Ignatius does not identify a bishop in Rome

     I have to chuckle when you say “everyone in the academic establishment recognizes”. What does “everyone in the academic establishment” say about the resurrection? Or biblical inerrancy? Just a side note…. It is odd that Ignatius does not recognize the Bishop of Rome. However, he does acknowledge that Peter and Paul “gave orders” in Rome. So I don’t think it can accurately be said that Ignatius actually hurts the case for the papacy. Also, if I’m not mistaken, Ireneus makes a list of all the bishops of Rome very early on that would include Clement as fourth from Peter.

     Instead, they refer to a plurality of leadership

     Besides all of the evidence that can be shored up in defense of a single bishop of Rome from the beginning…. I’m not sure if the existence of a plurality of leaders would damage the claims for the papacy. Rome was a large city after all. Perhaps there were numerous leaders and factions at work within the city. As long as one of those was the successor of saint Peter and as long as that line of succession is still alive and well today everything would still be fine.

     LikeLike

405. Kenloses, I must say, when I have to chuckle, I keep it to myself. But in this instance, your comment in the other thread about the time capsuling of this blog and combox and stuff is a bit humorous. Have you stopped to think just what it is we are all doing out here? Of course these are weighty matters with big brains on either side duking it out. You do know we (present company especially included) are a bunch of nobodies with smartphones, right? Just wanted to bring us back down the planet earth where we are just dudes on a blog. Thanks as always for presenting your opinions, it helps us understand. Regards, Andrew

     LikeLike

406. Kenneth,

     What it means that everyone in the academic establishment means is that Protestant and Catholics of every single religious persuasion. Conservatives, liberals, non-Christians, etc. I’m speaking of my own experience here, but the Trad arguments you are offering are not taken seriously by anyone doing work in early Christian history. [As an aside, we (you and me) can put forward brilliant scholars like N.T. Wright, Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, who are entrenched in Early Christian studies who cogently argue for things like the resurrection. I’ve yet to read the definitive treatment of the papacy from a Roman Catholic expert] Furthermore, what I was saying was that you can look at Ignatius and see that he nowhere mentions a Roman bishop but appeals to the presbuteroi in Rome. What scholars acknowledge is that nothing in Irenaeus necessitates a bishop in Rome. As a matter of fact, his omission is what scholars place more weight on when discussing the ecclesiastical climate of Roman Christianity.

     And if you want to discuss Irenaeus’s list we can discuss that, but it is the first piece of evidence for a monepiscopate in Rome. Even if you grant Irenaeus was reporting an Apostolic tradition, you still are not getting Petrine Primacy or that Jesus particularly founded the RCC. You just have a tradition that Peter was a bishop in Rome. I don’t think it makes sense of what we know of the first two centuries to come to this conclusion, but my point is that even if we grant your evidence it doesn’t get us where you want it to.

     I can understand on one level what you mean when you say that a plurality of leaders in Rome does not undercut the claims for a papacy. It *could* be that there was a bishop in Rome as a successor of Peter that no one knows of in the extant literature until ~150 years after the fact. But that introduces some serious lag time between the claim to Apostolic foundation and later ecclesiastical development. What parts of Petrine primacy were understood as being given by Christ and what were later “developments” in the sense that Newman coined the term?

     LikeLike

407. Brandon,

     but the Trad arguments you are offering are not taken seriously by anyone doing work in early Christian history.

     what arguments are those?

     resurrection. I’ve yet to read the definitive treatment of the papacy from a Roman Catholic expert

     Jesus, Peter & the Keys, by Butler, Dahlgren & Hess
     Studies on the Early Papacy, by Dom John Chapman
     The Early Papacy To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, by Adrian Fortescue

     that’s a good start!

     LikeLike

408. Checking back in one can see that the clown show continueth heartily. As well it should. If Romanism didn’t so blatantly resemble another religion rather than Biblical Christianity, it would be easy to demonstrate its agreement with Scripture, reason and history.

     Clete,
     Blah, blah blah and all that. You know of course that Rome denied material and formal sufficiency at the Reformation and now? well maybe one and not the other or maybe not. Whatever/what’s your authority for your pontifications?

     So did Christ and the NT writers never make positive references coming from Jewish oral tradition? Everything they referenced explicitly came from OT scriptures?

     Did you mean these kind of “positive references” otherwise known as condemnations?
     Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

     Or this?
     Mark 7:8,9 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

     Or this oral tradition?
     Matthew 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: (cp. also Matt. 5:38,43)

     IOW if somebody can’t distinguish between the Tanankh and the Talmud, they are totally incompetent to the question of whether or not Christ approves Rome’s addition of tradition/application to Scripture.

     Yet another problem with the oral traditions of Romanism is that when they are written down they are no longer oral traditions, but, but … OK they are not quite Scripture, but then again they are.

     IOW forget about telling Irenaeus to hold his lips a little closer to the phone, so that he can whisper sweet nothings into our ears. Particularly since the NT in part, was all about opposing gnosticism, which eschewed the written word as opposed to a secret occult oral knowledge about which the master would verbally instruct his pupils.
     Hmm.

     Or as we are told, Tradition or the application of Scripture is Scripture. So when Clete says the deposit of faith is fixed, what he really means is the definition is fixed. That’s all. The content of “Scripture” itself continues to grow as traditions or applications of Scripture get added unto it.
     In the real world.
     But not in the Roman Rule 13 world:

     That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.… Ignatius of Loyola

     As for Kenny, well things are looking pretty beat for the old boy in his intellectual and theological diapers. He hasn’t yet demonstrated he can tell the difference between an ad hominem and reductio absurdum when it comes to an argument. IOW he thinks ridiculing the person is on par with ridiculing their argument, if not that an assertion, i.e. ‘name it/claim it’ is the same thing.

     Nowhere has he demonstrated, for instance, that DT King mistranslates or misquotes the patristics, but only that DTK doesn’t tie his shoelaces in the Vatican approved fashion, which is enough to discredit the messenger, in hopes that the non sequitur prevails: that no good thing can come out of such a Nazareth.

     Yet another non sequitur would be the whole “He who hears you, hears me” which Christ said of the apostles, applied carte blanche to the bishop/presbyters so that while on the one hand the bishops are not inspired like the apostles …. but on the other hand they are.
     Huh?

     And now a word from our sponsor guaranteed to upset fire up the “Let me explain away what he clearly explained” non reader/illiterate faction in the audience.

     
     3:24. However, if you inquire or recall to memory the opinion of our Ambrose, and also of our Cyprian, on the point in question, you will perhaps find that I also have not been without some whose footsteps I follow in that which I have maintained. At the same time, as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. Wherefore, when I look round for a third name that I may oppose three on my side to your three, I might indeed easily find one, I believe, if my reading had been extensive; but one occurs to me whose name is as good as all these others, nay, of greater authority— I mean the Apostle Paul himself. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102082.htm

     IOW so much for the consent of the patristics when it contradicts Paul according to a patristic as quoted by papists.

     Now that we got that straight.

     LikeLike

409. Kenneth:

     Citing JB: He correctly identifies that Ignatius did not have a doctrine (or understanding) of “succession” but rather he saw the fixed gulf between himself and what the Apostles were.

     Kenneth: I do not agree with your assessment of his work. Behr certainly does believe the early church held to a notion of apostolic succession.

     You’re mixing things up here. It is Ignatius who did not have a doctrine of “apostolic succession” and Behr’s assessment of that comports with other things I’ve read.

     But I wasn’t saying “Behr didn’t believe that the early church held to a notion of apostolic succession”. Merely that he had identified Ignatius as not having such a belief.

     * * *

     I certainly undertand that in Irenaeus was the first to write about “apostolic succession”. And yes, he made a defense of Christianity vs the Gnostics.

     However, his “succession of teachING” concept was not an original Christian concept. It was a concept that he borrowed fom the Gnostics:

     The first and only usage of the concept of “a succession (διαδοχἡ) of teachers and instructors” [within the context of Christianity] prior to Irenaeus is found in the Gnostic Letter to Flora of the Gnostic teacher Ptolemaeus (c. AD 90 – c. AD 168). Von Campenhausen notes in a footnote, “this is the only pre-Irenaean attestation of that conception of παράδοσεις [tradition being handed on] which from now on is the determinative one” (von Campenhausen, 158).

     http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/06/kruger-vs-ratzinger-2-apostolic.html

     So “apostolic succession” as “a succession of teachERS” was a concept picked up from, and likely used as an effective apologetic tool, against the Gnostics.

     Prior to that, it was “the teaching” itself — as I mentioned above in my citation from Schutz, that from Paul, “the Gospel itself” was normative:

     “authority” for Peter and Paul was the purity of the message, and not any “authority” that was inherent in their persons as “apostles”.

     But after Irenaeus, “the message” became subsumed under the “succession of persons”.

     Meanwhile another concept from Irenaeus was lost — the notion that “[The Apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all thing”.

     That is a notion from Irenaeus that went completely out the window in the 4th century. And in this way, Paul’s admontion that “an elder must be blameless” was flipped on its head: “a bishop or priest can get away with being any kind of human scum, so long as the ‘succession’ is in place”.

     What you have is a concept, “succession of teachERS” that was introduced by Irenaeus — it was a useful concept in the second century, but the “episcopal system” has adopted it as a tool in defense of its own power — the papacy being the worst offender — which permits the kind of flip that we’ve seen in Christian history: turning this teachING on its head (turning “an elder must be blameless” into a dogma that says “an elder need not be blameless at all”).

     * * *

     That is not a “seed” turned into a fully-grown concept. That is the destruction of an original concept in Christianity.

     * * *

     Kenneth: Is Ramsey in fact saying that there “should be bishops” but there aren’t? Or is he saying that just because Ignatius emphasizes the bishops role doesn’t necessarily mean that they are living out that role everywhere or that they even exist at all? Well…. Depends on what your in the mood to show I guess….

     It’s not dependent on mood. What it depends on is understanding who is saying what.

     Ignatius was emphasizing the role of bishops (not in the sense that they had “apostolic authority” but in that he saw usefulness in the bishop-presbyter-deacon structure. He did not “command” — he was emphatic about that —

     And my citation of Ramsey was not intended to confuse you. It was merely his reporting of Ignatius’s line of thinking.

     * * *

     So, it was Ignatius who was saying (in a “wishful thinking” kind of way) “there should be bishops, because this enables harmony in the church”.

     * * *

     Kenneth: In summary, I reject the idea that Ignatius had no notion of his own authority as a bishop first and foremost because of his own extensive writing on the subject.

     Now you are hand-waving. I’ve gone to great lengths to provide an analysis of the selections from Ignatius’s writings that YOU ORIGINALLY QUOTED. And I’ve not merely provided my own opinions, but I’ve provided the opinions and analyses of those who have studied the writings of Ignatius and the history of his times.

     * * *

     I could dump a thousand Bart Ehrman scholars on you, call them all “cutting edge” and then say your faith doesn’t meet reality and isn’t very informed….

     This isn’t, or shouldn’t be about factionalism. It should be about being factual. There is a difference.

     Especially in a topic like this one — we should seek to understand the history — understand “what these writers knew, when they knew it” — not anachronistically reading later concepts back into the things they wrote.

     LikeLike

410. Bob,

     “You know of course that Rome denied material and formal sufficiency at the Reformation and now?”

     No, it denied formal, not material, though it did not dogmatize material.

     “Did you mean these kind of “positive references” otherwise known as condemnations?”

     No, I meant where there are positive NT references to OT teaching not recorded in the OT. Or do you mean to say every positive reference to the OT in the NT is directly found in the OT writings?

     “Particularly since the NT in part, was all about opposing gnosticism, which eschewed the written word as opposed to a secret occult oral knowledge about which the master would verbally instruct his pupils.”

     Read the catechism and councils and go to an RC church. RCCs not hiding anything.

     “Or as we are told, Tradition or the application of Scripture is Scripture. So when Clete says the deposit of faith is fixed, what he really means is the definition is fixed. That’s all. The content of “Scripture” itself continues to grow as traditions or applications of Scripture get added unto it.”

     I’m not sure I can decipher all of that, but it boils down to the deposit can be fixed while development still occurs. Scripture doesn’t “grow” but our understanding does – the depth of scripture is inexhaustible given its nature. You freely admit sola fide and sola scriptura and reformed view of atonement developed. You don’t think the deposit got “added to” because of that.

     “That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.…” Ignatius of Loyola

     Yep. If RCC’s claims are true, I have to submit to her definitive judgments, as many saints have in the past. Sproul:
     “However, if something can be shown to be definitively taught in the Bible without questioning, and somebody gives me a theory from natural revelation—that they think is based off of natural revelation—that contradicts the Word of God, I’m going to stand with the Word of God a hundred times out of a hundred. But again I have to repeat, I could have been a mistaken interpreter of the Word of God.”

     LikeLike

411. To Kenneth and CVD (and all — sorry about the missed “end-bold” tag in the comment above).

     But in my comment immediately prior to this one, this phrase is key:

     What you have is a concept, “succession of teachERS” that was introduced by Irenaeus — it was a useful concept in the second century, but the “episcopal system” has adopted it as a tool in defense of its own power — the papacy being the worst offender — which permits the kind of flip that we’ve seen in Christian history: turning this teachING on its head (turning “an elder must be blameless” into a dogma that says “an elder need not be blameless at all”).

     This is precisely why I believe that Newman’s foundational assumption is false.

     Newman said:

     It is not a violent assumption, then, but rather mere abstinence from the wanton admission of a principle which would necessarily lead to the most vexatious and preposterous scepticism, to take it for granted, before proof to the contrary, that the Christianity of the second, fourth, seventh, twelfth, sixteenth, and intermediate centuries is in its substance the very religion which Christ and His Apostles taught in the first, whatever may be the modifications for good or for evil which lapse of years, or the vicissitudes of human affairs, have impressed upon it.

     http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/12/newman-roman-catholic-hermeneutic-and.html

     Given what I’ve written in the comment above (and extensively elsewhere), the notion that “the Christianity of the second, fourth, seventh, twelfth, sixteenth, and intermediate centuries is in its substance the very religion which Christ and His Apostles taught in the first, is a violent assumption” which must be challenged.”

     This, in itself, is a bald-faced assertion — in the face of the evidence — and it is the unproved assertion upon which the whole Roman Catholic religion owes its legitimacy today.

     LikeLike

412. CVD: You are well aware there wasn’t just a single council to deal with Trinitarian/Christological heresy. It was a complicated process unfolding. It’s easy to say it’s full-blown in hindsight; for centuries that was not the case. It was developing. You are also presupposing something has to be full-blown to be valid, rather than allowing it can be implicit before being made explicit.

     Your phrase “implicit before being made explicit” is what’s problematic here.

     With respect to the Trinity, it was not simply implicit in the NT. It was quite explicit in the NT. It was even fairly explicit (though not fully understood) in the OT. Without going to too much detail, you start with the beginning: “God said, ‘let us …’” but throughout really with numerous references to “the Angel of the Lord” (who receives worship), “The word of the Lord”, “grieved his Spirit”, “the Spirit of the Lord”, etc.

     Citing a commentator on Warfield’s works:

     The older writers discovered intimations of the Trinity in such phenomena as the plural form of the divine name ‘Elohim, the occasional employment with reference to God of plural pronouns (“Let us make man in our image,” Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8), or of plural verbs (Genesis 20:13; 35:7), certain repetitions of the name of God which seem to distinguish between God and God (Genesis 19:27; Psalms 45:6,7; 110:1; Hosea 1:7), threefold liturgical formulas (Deuteronomy 16:4; Numbers 6:24,26; Isaiah 6:3), a certain tendency to hypostatize the conception of Wisdom (Proverbs 8), and especially the remarkable phenomena connected with the appearances of the Angel of Yahweh (Genesis 16:2-13; 22:11,16; 31:11,13; 48:15,16; Exodus 3:2,4,5; Judges 13:20-22). The tendency of more recent authors is to appeal, not so much to specific texts of the Old Testament, as to the very “organism of revelation” in the Old Testament, in which there is perceived an underlying suggestion “that all things owe their existence and persistence to a threefold cause,” both with reference to the first creation, and, more plainly, with reference to the second creation. Passages like Psalms 33:6; Isaiah 61:1; 63:9-12; Haggai 2:5,6, in which God and His Word and His Spirit are brought together, co-causes of effects, are adduced. A tendency is pointed out to hypostatize the Word of God on the one hand (e.g. Genesis 1:3; Psalms 33:6; 107:20; 119:87; 147:15-18; Isaiah 55:11); and, especially in Ezekiel and the later Prophets, the Spirit of God, on the other (e.g. Genesis 1:2; Isaiah 48:16; 63:10; Ezekiel 2:2; 8:3; Zechariah 7:12). Suggestions–in Isaiah for instance (7:14; 9:6)–of the Deity of the Messiah are appealed to.

     Now, that’s a Biblical concept. That’s a Biblical foundation for a Biblical concept.

     Within the New Testament, of course, there’s much, much more. The notion that “God is One”, and yet Jesus is God: he “was the Word”, he was “with God”, and he “was God”. Jesus is the subject of the Gospels, and Jesus was worshipped as God. This worship was what Larry Hurtado called a “binitarian form of worship” – that is, the early believers worshipped Jesus as God. Such worship “exploded” (his word) onto the scene in first century Palestine, and it spread quickly.

     Not that “the Spirit” was a stranger (left out of this “Binitarian” worship). There are about 275 references in the New Testament to “the divine Spirit” – and “the Spirit” is associated with both God the Father and with Jesus. In fact, Jesus totally identifies himself with the Spirit, while being separate from him. “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—he Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”

     The Spirit is both “sent” by Jesus, and “given” by Jesus. “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me”.

     The only thing that “development” added to the Trinity were some clarifying concepts – mere “shorthand” in some cases – the word “Trinity” as a descriptor, for example, or add-ons of philosophical concepts “person” and “substance” and “nature” – that are useful but that have no business being put on equivalent terms with “the Word of God” (as the church of the fourth and fifth centuries had done).

     The “One God” as “Father, Son, and Spirit” is very clear in Scripture. The non-biblical language helped people of that day to understand that “One God”. From Paul writing a mere 20 years after the death and resurrection of Christ, we have the doctrinal formulation “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”

     * * *

     On the other hand, a concept like “the papacy” owes its life to really one verse, the “interpretation” of which is highly questionable (see Robert Reymond’s treatment of it in his Systematic, pgs 812-818, where he concludes by saying that the concept of “the papacy” is “the greatest hoax foisted upon the Christian church in its history”.)

     Concepts such as the “Immaculate Conception” and “Assumption of Mary” have NO biblical warrant. And yet, for Rome, they are dogma. The Immaculate Conception of Mary was first mentioned in a 2nd century work of fiction, and the Assumption of Mary had its origins in Transitus (“Gnostic”) fiction of the fifth century. That these things were dogmatized is farcical, when you consider the “centuries” that went into the discussions of the Trinity/Christology.

     * * *

     JB: No development was allowed for at Trent or during those following centuries.

     CVD: I don’t disagree many argued that way. But notions of development did not start with Newman. His thought “developed” the development of doctrine, but it wasn’t out of thin air – others touched on it before him, including before Trent.

     Let’s take this further. You mentioned that Vatican I cited Vincent of Lerins. However, Newman’s analysis of Lerins comes to the conclusion that Lerins’s statement (“always, everywhere, by all”) was unworkable in patristic times.

     The concept of “development” itself was a kind of backpedalling to account for all of the “difficulties” that Newman saw. Newman euphemistically called them “difficulties” – one might more fairly describe these “difficulties” as the wholesale adoption of the Roman pagan culture into “the worship and practice of the church” (again, only to see some of these things dogmatized by councils and popes).

     * * *

     JB: Newman was known in the 19th century and the concept of “development” was floating about in the broader intellectual culture, Vatican I had a reason to say something about “understanding, knowledge, and wisdom increasing”. That fit their scheme. Vatican I was attempting to dogmatize a concept that had only been around since the Middle Ages – so they want a “seed concept” to “grow into a tree”. ”

     CVD: Okay, so you are cool with Vat1 asserting development. That’s a vast improvement over Webster and other guys saying Vat1 was opposed to development. You think it’s a disingenous move on Vat1′s part, but that’s a different dispute.

     No I am not “cool” with saying Vatican I “asserted” development – they didn’t “assert” it – they made one veiled citation of Lerins (whom Newman had already said was unworkable – he said “the testimony of those early times lies very unfavourably for the application of the rule of Vincentius”).

     They needed the concept of something “increasing” – in this case, it was the power of the pope – but their concept of “development” was different from Newman’s.

     Your statement “I don’t disagree many argued that way” is an understatement of the highest proportions. It’s not that “many argued that way”. That was the dogma of the church. That is why “development” was needed to explain Newman’s “difficulties”. “Development” was further needed to explain the morph that was accomplished at Vatican II.

     The notion of semper eadem has been morphed into whatever we say today is the correct interpretation. This is why “pope Francis” is giving fits to the traditionalists. There was a divided mind at Vatican II. JPII and BXVI took sides with one side, and now Francis is openly taking sides with the other.

     Remember Newman on Lerins: “the testimony of those early times lies very unfavourably for the application of the rule of Vincentius”

     What is and what should be “normative” for the church today? Should it then be the “always, everywhere, and by all” of the first century?

     What about the fourth century? According to Newman, some of what appeared during that time were “difficulties”.

     Or should those things from the fourteenth, or fifteenth, or nineteenth centuries be normative?

     What about whatever may come in the future, at the hands of Francis, or the next pope, or the next one? It’s not inconceivable that one of the homosexual cardinals will become pope, and REALLY relax the rules on homosexuality. But, according to Rome’s current system, whatever is said at that point will become normative.

     CVD:

     Trinity and Christological doctrines and original sin and understanding of grace: instituted full-blown by Christ
     vs.
     Trinity and Christological doctrines and original sin and understanding of grace: developed over centuries with spirit-guided process.

     I’ve already talked about the Trinity as being biblical, and only needing some minor clarification. Concepts like “priesthood/hierarchy” and “sacrifice of the Mass” were imported, not being original to first-century (New Testament) Christianity. (See Newman here, too: “In truth, scanty as the Ante-nicene notices may be of the Papal Supremacy, they are both more numerous and more definite than the adducible testimonies in favour of the Real Presence.” – that too is one of his “difficulties”).

     There is a difference between what is helpful and what should be dogmatized “for all time”. And Rome wrote itself into the script with that “structure of the church” “for all time” business.

     Given what I’ve said here (“an elder must be blameless” morphing into “a bishop need not be blameless), that sort of thing is just bogus and we, today, are in no way bound to it. No second century writer could, or did, make that claim. For 4th century and 5th century writers to make that assertion (echoed by 20th century writers) is just a clear example of “power corrupts”.

     The Reformation was a God-given gift to free the true church from that satanic choke-hold.

     LikeLike

413. Kenneth: Besides all of the evidence that can be shored up in defense of a single bishop of Rome from the beginning…. I’m not sure if the existence of a plurality of leaders would damage the claims for the papacy. Rome was a large city after all. Perhaps there were numerous leaders and factions at work within the city. As long as one of those was the successor of saint Peter and as long as that line of succession is still alive and well today everything would still be fine.

     Begging the question:

     “a single bishop of Rome from the beginning”.

     “claims for the papacy”

     “Successor of saint Peter”

     “line of succession”

     LikeLike

414. Hi Brandon, good to see you here 🙂

     LikeLike

415. John,

     “What you have is a concept, “succession of teachERS” that was introduced by Irenaeus — it was a useful concept in the second century, but the “episcopal system” has adopted it as a tool in defense of its own power”

     I have a few questions.
     Does Irenaeus himself claim to be introducing this concept? If not, where does he claim he received it from?

     Regardless of that answer, let’s say you’re right and this was intro’ed by Irenaeus. You say this was in response to Gnostic heresy. Does Newman say that one aspect of development is that it may occur in response to heresy?

     Can development make implicit Scriptural teaching explicit according to Newman? If so, would that mean the substance was taught in the first century?

     You say this was a “useful concept” to fight off heresy, but even though it was useful to fight heresy, it has no claim to be valid doctrine?

     Since Irenaeus came up with this on his own, there should be some disagreement/dissent with him introducing this foreign doctrine correct? Especially if he’s claiming it’s apostolic in nature. Was that the case? If not, is widespread agreement amongst the faithful on a teaching any indication of a doctrine’s validity?

     LikeLike

416. CVD: I have a few questions.
     Does Irenaeus himself claim to be introducing this concept? If not, where does he claim he received it from?

     He doesn’t specifically make a claim that I’m aware of. My friend Jason Engwer wrote a whole series identifying and putting into place some of the scholarly discussions of “Succession”, which you can find here:

     http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/apostolic-succession.html

     He cites Everett Ferguson on Irenaeus:

     Ignatius, the first witness to only one bishop in a church, did not base his understanding of the ministry on succession. The one bishop was a representative of God the Father, and the presbyters had their model in the college of apostles (Trall. 3).

     The first claim to a succession from the apostles in support of particular doctrines was made in the second century by the Gnostics. They claimed that the apostles had imparted certain secret teachings to some of their disciples and that these teachings had been passed down, thus having apostolic authority, even if different from what was proclaimed in the churches (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.2.1; cf. Ptolemy in Epiphanius, Haer. 33.7.9). Hegesippus, an opponent of Gnosticism, compiled a list of the bishops in Rome (Eusebius, H.E. 4.22.5f.).

     Irenaeus of Lyons drew on the idea of the succession of bishops to formulate an orthodox response to the Gnostic claim of a secret tradition going back to the apostles. Irenaeus argued that if the apostles had had any secrets to teach, they would have delivered them to those men to whom they committed the leadership of the churches. A person could go to the churches founded by apostles, Irenaeus contended, and determine what was taught in those churches by the succession of teachers since the days of the apostles. The constancy of this teaching was guaranteed by its public nature; any change could have been detected, since the teaching was open. The accuracy of the teaching in each church was confirmed by its agreement with what was taught in other churches. One and the same faith had been taught in all the churches since the time of the apostles.

     Irenaeus’s succession was collective rather than individual. He spoke of the succession of the presbyters (Haer. 3.2.2), or of the presbyters and bishops (4.26.2), as well as of the bishops (3.3.1). To be in the succession was not itself sufficient to guarantee correct doctrine. The succession functioned negatively to mark off the heretics who withdrew from the church. A holy life and sound teaching were also required of true leaders (4.26.5). The succession pertained to faith and life rather than to the transmission of special gifts. The “gift of truth” (charisma veritatis) received with the office of teaching (4.26.2) was not a gift guaranteeing that what was taught would be true, but was the truth itself as a gift. Each holder of the teaching chair in the church received the apostolic doctrine as a deposit to be faithfully transmitted to the church. Apostolic succession as formulated by Irenaeus was from one holder of the teaching chair in a church to the next and not from ordainer to ordained, as it became….

     The movement went from teaching what had been taught, the teachING, to the persons doing the teaching, the teachERS.

     CVD: Regardless of that answer, let’s say you’re right and this was intro’ed by Irenaeus. You say this was in response to Gnostic heresy.

     First of all, if you checked the link to the article that I provided, you’ll note that I cited Ratzinger himself saying that “the concept of succession was clearly formulated, as von Campenhausen has impressively demonstrated, in the anti-Gnostic polemics of the second century”.

     CVD: Does Newman say that one aspect of development is that it may occur in response to heresy?

     What makes any second-century “development” to be “structural” for the church “for all time”?

     Aside from that, another response to heresy is more heresy — going further afield. Think of a rocket that’s one degree off course. Down 100 miles away, the difference won’t be too significant; but a million miles away, and that one degree start puts you way off course.

     CVD: Can development make implicit Scriptural teaching explicit according to Newman? If so, would that mean the substance was taught in the first century?

     The word “substance” itself is a philosophical term that doesn’t reflect what was actually taught. The “development” which changed the teaching from “an elder must be” to “a bishop need not be” is not a movement of one degree, but a complete change of course.

     The legitimate way to check for “substance” is to find it in the Scriptures. To say “a bishop need not be” is not a legitimate “development” from the Scriptual teaching that “an elder must be…”.

     This is one where the spirit and the letter of the Scripture are completely violated. There are others, of course.

     CVD: You say this was a “useful concept” to fight off heresy, but even though it was useful to fight heresy, it has no claim to be valid doctrine?

     If observed properly — in the way that Irenaeus intended — it would have been great for Irenaeus’s claim to have been valid: “The succession functioned negatively to mark off the heretics who withdrew from the church. A holy life and sound teaching were also required of true leaders”.

     This was not a doctrine “for all time”. It morphed again into something bad — and the “bad” became the doctrine.

     LikeLike

417. John,

     “The only thing that “development” added to the Trinity were some clarifying concepts – mere “shorthand” in some cases – the word “Trinity” as a descriptor, for example, or add-ons of philosophical concepts “person” and “substance” and “nature” – that are useful but that have no business being put on equivalent terms with “the Word of God” (as the church of the fourth and fifth centuries had done).”

     I am not claiming the Trinity has no scriptural support. I do think the above is way oversimplified. You think Cyril’s arguments with Nestorius or Maximus’ writings on the two natures were just “shorthand”, or the Cappadocian development of Trinitarian thought was just a little afterthought? Those were complicated, involved, philosophical arguments spanning centuries. Let’s see all the heresies dealt with over the centuries dealing with this simple “shorthand”:
     Adoptionism, Apollinarism, Arianism, Docetism, Pneumatomachians, Melchisedechians, Monarchianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Patripassianism, Sabellianism, Nestorianism. It’s not just “add-ons”. These understandings of person/nature have direct bearing on Christological dogma which has impact on soteriology. Hence the common saying “All heresy stems from Christological heresy”.

     “The “One God” as “Father, Son, and Spirit” is very clear in Scripture.”

     What isn’t clear are the *implications* of that statement and *precision* needed to avoid heresy. Hence development.

     “Let’s take this further. You mentioned that Vatican I cited Vincent of Lerins. However, Newman’s analysis of Lerins comes to the conclusion that Lerins’s statement (“always, everywhere, by all”) was unworkable in patristic times.”

     It’s prescriptive rather than descriptive. Notice how many assumptions are built into it, especially when you read the larger passage it came from. Newman was saying it was unworkable in the sense the Anglicans were trying to use it to justify their link to antiquity over Rome’s claims. He was saying Vincent could not mean by his dictum no development in the sense the Anglicans were postulating, because it indeed would be unworkable in that sense.

     “The concept of “development” itself was a kind of backpedalling to account for all of the “difficulties” that Newman saw.”

     Here’s Aquinas:

     “it was necessary to promulgate confessions of faith which in no way differ, save that in one it is more fully explicated which in another is contained implicitly.”

     and

     “It should be said that in any council whatsoever some creed was instituted on account of some error that is condemned in the council. Hence a later council was not making another creed than the first, but that which is implicitly contained in the first creed is explained against the existing heresy through certain additions….What therefore in the time of ancient councils was not yet necessary is posited here explicitly. But later it was expressed, with the rising error of certain
     people, in a Council gathered in the West by the authority of the Roman pontiff, by whose authority the ancient councils were also gathered and confirmed.”

     Newman would say no different.

     “They [Vat1] needed the concept of something “increasing” – in this case, it was the power of the pope – but their concept of “development” was different from Newman’s.”

     Here’s Vat1:
     “Hence also that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother Church has once declared, and there must never be a deviation from that meaning on the specious ground and title of a more profound understanding. ‘Therefore, let there be growth and abundant progress in understanding, knowledge and wisdom, in each and all, in individuals and in the whole Church, at all times and in the progress of ages, but only within the proper limits, i.e., within the same dogma, the same meaning, the same judgment.'”

     Here’s what Pius IX who convened Vat1 said in Ineffabilis Deus:
     “For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning.”

     Both of these are consistent with Newman.

     “That was the dogma of the church.”

     You will have to substantiate that. I have already said saying something has “always been believed” or was “divinely instituted” does not contradict development.

     “That is why “development” was needed to explain Newman’s “difficulties”.”

     I’ve already cited Aquinas. I could cite Augustine and other figures espousing development before Newman.

     “What about the fourth century? According to Newman, some of what appeared during that time were “difficulties”.”

     They are difficulties when presuming the Anglican position towards antiquity. Which is the same difficulty Vincent presented.

     “What about whatever may come in the future, at the hands of Francis, or the next pope, or the next one? It’s not inconceivable that one of the homosexual cardinals will become pope, and REALLY relax the rules on homosexuality. But, according to Rome’s current system, whatever is said at that point will become normative.”

     Right. So I guess it’s quite plausible Rome in the future will declare Mary is eternal or James is uninspired or will add the Book of Mormon to its canon. Rome is the servant of tradition and scripture, not its master.

     “I’ve already talked about the Trinity as being biblical, and only needing some minor clarification. ”

     Oversimplification of epic proportions. Minor clarification. History says otherwise.

     LikeLike

418. Hi Kenneth,

     The Trad argument is that Jesus founded (personally instituted) the Roman Catholic Church. That historical claim is not held by a single Patristic scholar that I am aware of.

     Let me just quote the bios of the individuals you just noted I found from Amazon:

     “Adrian Fortescue, a British apologist for the Catholic faith in the early part of the 20th century”

     “John Chapman was a RC priest and Patristics scholar (d. 1936).”

     No biographic information is available on Amazon for Butler, Dahlgren, or Hess. Amazon does not have any other published work for these men. I’m not saying the fact that they are not scholars invalidates their work, but have they published anything else through a peer reviewed journal of their study? I notice that the book is published by an independent Roman Catholic apologetic organization. Again, it doesn’t invalidate their work, but have they submitted their work to peer review? If not, I have a hard time calling them scholars.

     It’s also important to view the dates listed for the individuals you cite. The scholarship you are referencing is 75 years old. Furthermore, the content of those works deals almost entirely with third century developments of the Papacy. The amount of research in the last 75 years in early Christianity is important and voluminous. You have scholars like Allen Brent (converted Anglican to RC), Peter Lampe (Lutheran), Raymond Brown (Catholic), Eamon Duffy (Catholic), all arguing that there was no bishop in Rome in the first or early second century. Brent is even skeptical going into the third century about the existence of an episcopate.

     Such a view of the early church is neither a Protestant idiosyncrasy nor is it inherently skeptical. That argument put forward that Christ founded the RCC needs to be further specified. What do you mean that Jesus founded it? People want to talk about development (and some of the RC theologians/historians I’ve listed are willing to posit such divinely guided development), but which portions of the papacy have developed and which were clear in the Apostolic deposit? I’ve not been able to find an answer to this in any of the literature. This is very disappointing, especially coming from CtC, because if Jesus did not found the RCC then the entire project of CtC (and websites of its ilk) is built upon a dubious premise. Do you have any answers or any reputable scholars you can point to?

     LikeLike

419. Brandon,

     I don’t wish to interrupt your convo with Kenneth but just had one question. You claim Fortescue and Chapman are outdated and so probably not as reliable as current scholars. So in the past 75 years historical inquiry has altered/lessened the force of their arguments. Presumably, the next 75 years will be just as or more fruitful than the past 75 years in historical inquiry. If that’s the case, is it possible such work will cause someone to reevaluate the arguments of Brent, Lampe, Duffy, etc. as much as you think we have to reevaluate the arguments of Chapman and Fortescue? Or do you think the arguments of modern scholarship are so air-tight with no room for further context or filling in silences that any future scholarship will simply strengthen and reconfirm their conclusions?

     (Just as an aside, this is part of the reason why the validity of doctrines is not driven *solely* by historical scholarship – such by its nature is ever-provisional and always subject to change and ignorance of heretofore unconsidered or undiscovered documents/ideas/analysis)

     And I at least appreciate you bring up some of these scholars postulate divinely guided development. That is critical in these historical discussions.

     LikeLike

420. Cletus,

     Great and important question that I think both sides need to consider.

     My point is not to discredit anyone because of when they wrote, that would be chronological snobbery of the worst sort. The question must be asked though, if general consensus has moved on from these men, even in Roman Catholic circles, is it wise to use dated sources? Perhaps the older men had it right. That happens all the time. But that is why I also point out to Kenneth that the works of Chapman and Fortescue are not doing the sort of scholarship that scholars of first century Christianity are doing. Just go look at the table of contents and you’ll see that Peter Lampe’s work deals with early Christian practice and ecclesiology of a time period almost 100 years before Cyprian. And Fortescue is attempting to write about the Papacy after Chalcedon… If we are talking about the Church that Christ founded these books are not in the same category of what modern scholarship is discussing.

     If there are particular claims or arguments that Fortescue or Chapman make that run contrary to the assessment of modern scholarship I’d be interested to see them. But to raise these men as opponents of modern scholarship is to miss the point entirely. On another post here at Old Life (the Wow! post) I cited John Crocker in 1936 admitting that historians had given up the notion that Jesus founded episcopacy in an official sense–even as he continued in his article to argue why episcopacy was divinely instituted and guided providentially.

     I think that this is so important to acknowledge. I’m willing to consider an idea that God providentially guided the development of the RCC. I think it will be almost impossible to verify, but I’m open to it. But we need to know what parts of continuity exist between what Jesus established and what he did not. What constitutes legitimate development? If I am being told that Jesus can said to be the founder of the RCC when Roman ecclesiology was Presbyterian, then perhaps you can see why someone like myself is bewildered at what it even means to say that Jesus founded the RCC.

     This is very important because the apologetic offered by CtC & at Jason’s blog says that without Apostolic Succession we cannot distinguish human opinion from Divine Revelation. But if the RCC was not founded by Jesus, then CtC’s entire apologetic is detrimental to ecumenicism and perpetuating a lie. I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but I’ve seen nothing written by anyone at CtC that engages with modern historical scholarship and supports their major premise–that Jesus founded the RCC.

     LikeLike

421. Brandon and John B.,

     sorry guys but I’m gonna have to tap out! I would love to continue the convo but ny wife just gave birth to my third son a couple of days ago and I just don’t have the time to keep up! Hope you all have a merry Christmas! God bless you.

     LikeLike

422. Brandon, you make a good point about current scholarship.

     Over the last 200 years, the Jesus and the Scriptures have withstood the most brutal scrutiny from the most brutal kinds of skeptics, and have come out more established than ever as reliable sources.

     On the other hand, the Roman Catholic account is just recently (last 50-60 years or so) is coming under scholarly scrutiny, and Rome is, in a fairly uniform way, having to back off of its historical accounts.

     (For example, Vatican I has you believe that Peter was the first pope, who laid hands on Linus, who was a pope, who laid hands on Cletus (not you CVD), who became the next pope, etc., and I grew up literally thinking these guys were known in their day as popes.

     However, now, the state of the scholarship is such that even a “true believer” like Kenneth says things like “just so long as someone [in that undefined mass of un-named Roman presbyters] had the succession”.

     Kenneth’s actual quote was ” I’m not sure if the existence of a plurality of leaders would damage the claims for the papacy. Rome was a large city after all. Perhaps there were numerous leaders and factions at work within the city. As long as one of those was the successor of saint Peter and as long as that line of succession is still alive and well today everything would still be fine.” Such a thing would have been unthinkable when I was a kid.

     LikeLike

423. Kenneth, congratulations on the baby. Try to get some sleep 🙂

     LikeLike

424. CVD, you have argued successfully that “development has occurred”.

     However, you have not persuaded me of very many things.

     You’ve nit-picked my characterization about “the Trinity”, but for all the reams of words that were written, what of “substance” got added beyond the Scriptural account, except for words like “substance” and “person”?

     You haven’t responded to my question of why anyone in the 21st century should be bound by non-Scriptural “developments” such as the “development” of Irenaeus’s borrowed version of “apostolic succession”.

     You haven’t addressed that a so-called “development” actually changed the Scriptural doctrine from “an elder must be…” (which Irenaeus still held to) to “a bishop need not be …” (and the predicate here has to do with moral behavior). This is a polar opposite.

     Why did Protestants come under the anathema for denying things that Trent affirmed, whereas in our time, Vatican II is all lovey-dovey with everyone? How can they make that switch on a life-and-death issue?

     In my experience, Roman Catholics have seemingly an infinite number of directions they can go in to avoid discussing some real objections like these.

     LikeLike

425. Brandon,

     Chapman is one of the greatest patristic and scripture scholars of all time. Definitely the greatest of his own time. “Jesus, Peter and the Keys” is a very impressive work I think you will find challenging even though none of the authors are hailed as notorious scholars. It is nice for an author to have credentials but but a work should stand on its own merits. All three of the books recommended will keep your hands full! Keep in mind William Lane Craig writes excellent apologetic material but his “peer reviewed” work in philosophy is just so-so. Robert Sungenis can read like an absolute nutcase following around various Jewish conspiracies and geocentrism etc but his apologetic material (not by…..alone) is hardcore. Anyways, if you checkout the work let me know! Take care

     LikeLike

426. Kenneth,

     Congratulations.

     LikeLike

427. John B,

     One more thing! (as my wife’s eyes burn wrathful lasers into the back of my skull) I don’t think Brandons point about “modern” scholarship does hold water. For one, I don’t think that the RCC has been “forced” to give up ground historically as much as the Church has just been infiltrated back rank liberalism in the aftermath of V2. Our universities are not even recognizable as Catholic anymore for the mist part. Second, the bible has been drilled with all kinds of “fad” criticisms that have come and gone and eventually been dismissed. The most recent being textual criticism, etc. The point is that “current” when your talking about history is not necessarily “best”. These professors are under all kinds of pressure to publish something groundbreaking and amazing. Liberalism sells. That’s just the way it is. God bless, have a great Christmas!

     LikeLike

428. John,

     “what of “substance” got added beyond the Scriptural account, except for words like “substance” and “person”?”

     The very definitions of those words in terms of Christology/Trinity were part of development. I just think you’re being rather dismissive of the hard long work that was done over multiple councils and multiple centuries. And again these two doctrines have implications for quite important doctrines such as predestination, monergism/synergism, imputation/infusion, the atonement, the real presence, original sin, etc. As you said about the missile veering off course, errant Christology can build up in distorting more “practical” doctrines. It’s not just like councils rubber stamped something obvious – if they had there’d be no need for subsequent councils as heresy continued to sprout up.

     “You haven’t responded to my question of why anyone in the 21st century should be bound by non-Scriptural “developments” such as the “development” of Irenaeus’s borrowed version of “apostolic succession”

     First that apostolic succession is a non-Scriptural development is presupposing exactly what’s in dispute. Secondly, it has still not been established Irenaeus borrowed it and by doing so introduced something novel. Because a group claims a similar doctrine that is then advanced by another group, does not mean the latter borrowed from the former. I had also asked that if he was the first to introduce this concept, and was passing it off as apostolic, it seems like there should be some significant dissent or disagreement against him for promoting this. Rather what we see is that this doctrine is merely strengthened and re-confirmed by subsequent/parallel figures, again with no dissent against these figures that are just passing off novel ideas as apostolic.

     “You haven’t addressed that a so-called “development” actually changed the Scriptural doctrine from “an elder must be…” (which Irenaeus still held to) to “a bishop need not be …” (and the predicate here has to do with moral behavior). This is a polar opposite.”

     You cited Irenaeus earlier ““[The Apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all thing”. Where does the RCC say this is false? I’m sure the Apostles did (and continue to) desire that, and the RCC obviously would desire that as well. But sin infects us all – that’s reality. And that’s why this issue had to be developed when it grew large between Augustine and the Donatists. Furthermore, the fact that a father held to a belief does not necessitate it being doctrine.

     “Why did Protestants come under the anathema for denying things that Trent affirmed, whereas in our time, Vatican II is all lovey-dovey with everyone? How can they make that switch on a life-and-death issue?”

     The anathemas still hold on doctrine. Anathemas are a form of church discipline – they apply to formal members of the church. The church makes no definitive judgment on culpability of a person’s heart in the present day, nor has it taught that formal membership is a requirement for salvation (being joined, submission to is not formal membership). It also does not teach one will be saved because of their holding non-catholic doctrine, rather than despite it, nor does language of “may or can be saved” mean it actually will happen. But God is not bound by the sacraments and the spirit blows where it will.

     LikeLike

429. Kenneth,

     First and foremost, congrats on the new baby. I pray that the baby is healthy and that you and your wife get enough sleep to function 🙂

     WRT to your comment about scholarship, Chapman was known as a very good Patristics scholar. If you could point me to anything that he’s done on early Roman Christianity I’d take a look at it. None of the books you mentioned contribute in this area.

     To be clear, my point about modern scholarship is that I am not aware of any published work advocating Jesus founded the RCC. Chapman and Fortescue don’t address the issue for numerous reasons. They don’t discuss anything about first or second century sources and the existence of the episcopate. If I’ve over-looked a portion of their work please feel free to let me know and I’ll go back and revisit it. I’ve not looked at Butler, et. al. but in a quick perusal of summaries by Catholics and Protestants, nowhere does the book deal with the voluminous literature on first and second century Christianity. It may be there, but I’m not seeing even Catholics mention it.

     I’ll again say that it is very problematic that you cannot cite one academic who believes that there was an episcopate in Rome in the first century. That does not mean that there was not, but I have not seen any compelling historical reconstruction that suggests that there was a Petrine office in Rome let alone an episcopate. What we find instead is a scholarly consensus among varying confessional lines that no episcopal office existed in the first or early second century. Such wide acceptance does not require conformity (that’s not how scholarship works). It does require a response however and I have not read one in blogosphere or in any academic work.

     LikeLike

430. Clete, you still don’t get it.
     Either that or you do and now are in the evasion mode.

     You are arguing for tradition being added to Scripture and ask about traditions in the OT era which Scripture/Christ pretty much dynamites as having any kind of authority compared to the apostolic canonical Scriptures according to protestantism.

     I’m not sure I can decipher all of that, but it boils down to the deposit can be fixed while development still occurs. Scripture doesn’t “grow” but our understanding does – the depth of scripture is inexhaustible given its nature. You freely admit sola fide and sola scriptura and reformed view of atonement developed. You don’t think the deposit got “added to” because of that.

     Come on, you don’t have an IQ of a three year old, do you? The deposit of Scripture is fixed according to protestants. Our understanding of it grows. For Rome that growing understanding is also Scripture.
     Or to put it another way, for prots Scripture is norma normans (“the rule that rules”), while the creeds are norma normata (“a rule that is ruled”). Rome combines them both and calls it Scripture, yet they couldn’t be more different in principle and practice.

     In reply to Ignatius of Loyola’s statement of blind faith, you say,

     Yep. If RCC’s claims are true, I have to submit to her definitive judgments, as many saints have in the past.

     Notice the weasel word “if”. Just in case you haven’t figured it out, private judgement is verboten in the RCC and you don’t get to decide if the RCC’s claims are true or not. You just accept them.

     IOW more of the same old “let me explain away what was just explained clearly”.
     But double standards even for skepticism are hypocritical.
     Connect the dots.
     There’s a reason why we don’t have too much respect for the papist interlocutors around here. Either their word cannot be trusted or they don’t understand their own position and its implications well enough to hold up their end of the discussion.

     cheers

     LikeLike

431. Brandon,

     I couldn’t stand leaving you without an answer so check this out

     http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/debate13.htm

     great written debate with follow up links provided. Hits all the relevant points. Enjoy.

     ***********************************************************&
     Robert,

     thanks man! Talk to you soon

     LikeLike

432. Kenneth, congrats again, from me and us over here. I found three to be another order of magnitude, and my third was my first boy. Enjoy your family and these first days with your precious newborn son. Later.

     LikeLike

433. Clete, the anathemas is not the way all Roman Catholics see it. When will your mechanism set the record straight?

     LikeLike

434. CVD: The very definitions of those words [like “substance” and “person”] in terms of Christology/Trinity were part of development.

     I notice that you are talking about monergism vs synergism over in the other thread. One [so far] unspoken difference between you and me comes is something that readers of Scott Clark’s work may know about.

     You may have heard of Van Til’s teaching. At the beginning of each class, he would draw two circles — one large one, representing “God”, and a smaller one, representing “everything else”. This became known as the “Creator/creature distinction”.

     You may be aware of a doctrine of God’s “simplicity”, that is, “God alone is infinite, simple, and immutable. Human beings are finite and complex, and we change every moment we live. God, by contrast, considered apart from the incarnation, is precisely te same as he has always been. He is not more or less God than he was last week. Even in the incarnation, he did not become less divine; he did not become mutable or complex” (RRC 132).

     The adoption of neo-platonic thinking (especially through the adoption of Pseudo-Dionysius’s thinking in Aquinas) muddled this. Aquinas starts with “Being” as a category, and God is contained within this category. The greatest thing to be sure, but this opened the door to Roman Catholic thinking.

     Van Til put it this way:

     They started with the idea of being as such and introduced the distinction of Creator and creature as a secondary something. This This did at first seem to produce the necessary rational connection between God and man. For it posited a principle of unity that reduced the Creator-creature distinction to a matter of gradation within one general [concept of] being (fom his Introduction to Warfield’s “Inspiration and Authority of the Bible”.

     In the Reformed understanding of God, there is an infinite gulf between God and man.

     For the Reformed, “If God is sovereign in the realm of being, he is surely also sovereign in the realm of knowledge”

     This “categorical distinction” leads to “the theory of the incomrehensibility of God and the unknowability of his essence [that] became the starting point and fundamental idea of Christian theology” (RRC 128-129).

     Thus Roman Catholics fail (where the Reformed succeed) to hold God’s Word with enough reverence. If there is a mere “hierarchy of truths” (with God’s Word at the top, to be sure, but not separated from man’s knowledge by a rather infinite gulf), then there is not really a difference between God’s word and man’s contribution to understanding that word.

     And that is what we see with Roman Catholic acceptance of “Tradition” as somehow being on par with God’s Word.

     But with this “categorical distinction” between God’s Word and man’s contribution to understanding it, a Reformed believer is naturally going to discount “tradition”.

     This is why, while these discussions went on for several centuries, the additions to the clarification were human and not divine. It is why I hold the 275 mentions of God’s Spirit in the NT to be of infinitely more worth than “the very definitions” of the philosophical concepts that the human authors of the creeds were fighting about.

     LikeLike

435. CVD: First that apostolic succession is a non-Scriptural development is presupposing exactly what’s in dispute.

     It is not in dispute. When you have a Roman Catholic writer like Francis Sullivan saying “most Catholic (emphasis added) scholars agree that the episcopate is the fruit of a post-New Testament development, they maintain that this development was so evidently guided by the Holy Spirit that it must be recognized as corresponding to God’s plan for the structure of his Church”, you can be assured that these RC writers are claiming THE MOST that Rome can reasonably claim.

     Protestant writers are obviously not even going to go that far in allowing for “succession” as having anywhere near that much importance in “God’s plan for the structure of his Church”.

     Protestants believe that God, being “sovereign in the realm of knowledge”, didn’t leave out any of the important parts with respect to “the structure of the church”.

     So what we have, what the Reformers saw looking back 1500 years, and what we see reflecting back on 2000 years of church history, is centuries’ worth of Roman bishops making claims to authority that have been extraordinarily damaging to the entire Christian church.

     LikeLike

436. CVD: Secondly, it has still not been established Irenaeus borrowed it and by doing so introduced something novel.

     It has been established by the scholar Joseph Ratzinger, writing in the work “God’s Word: Scripture-Tradition-Office” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press ©2008; Libreria Editrice Vaticana edition ©2005). There, he says

     “The concept of [apostolic] succession was clearly formulated, as von Campenhausen has impressively demonstrated, in the anti-Gnostic polemics of the second century; its purpose was to contrast the true apostolic tradition of the Church with the pseudo-apostolic tradition of Gnosis” (pgs 22-23).

     The work he is referring to is Hans von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, trans. J. A. Baker (London: Black, 1969), pgs 149-177.

     http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/10/christ-did-not-found-visible-church.html

     LikeLike

437. John

     “It is not in dispute. When you have a Roman Catholic writer like Francis Sullivan saying “most Catholic (emphasis added) scholars agree that the episcopate is the fruit of a post-New Testament development, they maintain that this development was so evidently guided by the Holy Spirit that it must be recognized as corresponding to God’s plan for the structure of his Church”, you can be assured that these RC writers are claiming THE MOST that Rome can reasonably claim.”

     You are saying if something is the fruit of post-New Testament development, that it must be a non-Scriptural development. That does not follow. A post-New Testament development can bring out what was implicitly contained in Scripture. That’s the point of development – implicit to explicit. I would not be surprised to see Sullivan also say conciliar doctrines on the Trinity/Christology or the Nicene creed was a post-New Testament development – he would not mean those teachings are therefore not implicit in Scripture because of that.

     “The concept of [apostolic] succession was clearly formulated, as von Campenhausen has impressively demonstrated, in the anti-Gnostic polemics of the second century; its purpose was to contrast the true apostolic tradition of the Church with the pseudo-apostolic tradition of Gnosis”

     “was clearly formulated.” That does not mean he spun it out of thin air and introduced something novel. Heresy can develop/clarify doctrine. You still avoid my question on parallel/subsequent figures espousing and strengthening this “novel” concept rather than resisting it, and the apparent absence of any dissent/disagreement with Irenaeus the maverick who had the gall to claim this novel doctrine as apostolic.

     LikeLike

438. Kenneth,

     I only looked at Bonocore’s statements and didn’t read Engwer. Basically, this link shows that the trad arguments are brute assertions about early Christianity and blind acceptance of Ignatius in a letter to another church about the pervasiveness of episcopacy..even though he writes to a plurality of leaders in Rome. Ignatius is not a piece of evidence for Roman episcopacy–he is widely seen as further evidence against that supposition. And again, Bonocore’s view is unsubstantiated by anything in the secondary literature. And by anything, I mean I have never read an article advocating such a view. I would actually point to this debate as an example of the problematic nature of Rome’s claims.

     LikeLike

439. CVD,

     But lets actually get to brass tacks if you want to talk about development. What do you mean when you say Jesus established the RCC? Posts at CtC suggest that the historical person of Christ instituted it. But what did He institute? How much continuity is there between what Christ founded and what the RCC is? How do we tell? Where is the principled distinction between development and establishment?

     LikeLike

440. Brandon,

     A possible first pass at discerning developed doctrines in terms of ecclesiology would be to look at where EO disagree with RCC. What they share in common does not mean that nothing they agree on developed as well, but it’s a decent starting point.

     “How much continuity is there between what Christ founded and what the RCC is?”

     Complete and full. Development is discontinuous only in the sense of bringing forth what was previously implicit to make it explicit, continuous in the sense that it is consonant with what came before.

     “How do we tell?”

     Not by whatever the current state of historical scholarship is alone.

     LikeLike

441. CVD,

     The agreement of EO and RCC is the starting point? What is principled about that starting point other than that you share agreement on early ecclesiology? That won’t move ecumenicism any further at all and is completely arbitrary.

     My question about continuity is in relation to establishment and development. How do we know what was originally established and what developed (conceding for the moment that nebulous description of being “consonant” with that which came before).

     Finally, I’m not sure what your final sentence is meant to imply. If you mean to imply that I do, you are incorrect. If you mean to imply that historical rigor is not important, then that is problematic, but I don’t think that is what you mean.

     I’m not sure what you’re saying, but I obviously scholarship is important for substantiating the historical claims you are making. The fact that I have not encountered a single modern scholar that would attach themselves to your theory doesn’t invalidate your theory. I’m just pointing out that if you’re going to say, “Christ founded the RCC” you’re going to need to interact with the academic guild which definitively rejects such claims.

     At the end of the day, the reason for holding a position is the strength of the evidence presented for it. My question to you is, what is your methodological step forward to prove your assertions? How do we differentiate between Christ’s original establishment and those things which “naturally” developed out of what Christ established?

     From the Protestant perspective, we don’t see development we see departure. We need to have a way forward, criteria to evaluate, in order to avoid talking past one another. I don’t think it’s reasonable to see “development,” it looks much more like departure to me. But so long as criteria is not defined we cannot even move forward to mutual understanding and refinement.

     LikeLike

442. Brandon,

     “The agreement of EO and RCC is the starting point? What is principled about that starting point other than that you share agreement on early ecclesiology?”

     You were asking how to go about determining some RC developed doctrines. I didn’t realize you were asking me to abandon what RCs think about the rule of faith at the same time. Is it only principled if I adopt a sola scriptura + contemporary historical scholars approach?

     ““Christ founded the RCC” you’re going to need to interact with the academic guild which definitively rejects such claims.”

     Claiming Christ founded the RCC does not equate to Christ founded the RCC in its current state in the 1st century. That’s not my “theory” nor do I find it surprising many scholars wouldn’t hold to it.

     “How do we differentiate between Christ’s original establishment and those things which “naturally” developed out of what Christ established?”

     They did not naturally develop, it was supernaturally guided. If developed doctrines are part and parcel of divine revelation, it cannot be natural.

     “From the Protestant perspective, we don’t see development we see departure”

     How do you distinguish the two?

     LikeLike

443. CVD,

     I never asked about determining some RC developed doctrines. I was asking how you would even in principle know what was developed from what was originally given. Suggesting that a way to get back to what Jesus established is agreement between RC’s and EO, then we can’t really have a fruitful discussion moving forward because you are simply presupposing that Jesus founded an episcopal church structure. That is the very thing in question. And when you make historical arguments, they need to be supported by historical inquiry. To say God guided the development of the RCC is completely different than saying Jesus founded the RCC. One of them is verifiable by historical measures, the other is not.

     You continue to say that the 1st century didn’t need to look like it does today. OK, I’ll work with you. But is there just a mass of stuff that exists and you don’t really care if it developed or not? If we accept that the episcopacy did not exist in Rome until the middle of the second century does that undermine your argument? If you say no, why. If it does not undermine your argument that Christ founded the RCC, then in what sense are you talking about Christ “founding” it?

     Development is the outworking of the Apostolic Deposit. For example, it was a development to say that Jesus was homoousious and not homoiousious. That was a development but that development served to clarify the Apostolic deposit. It was latent in the deposit and the later reflection clarified our understanding of Christ’s person. An example of departure, from my perspective, would be people claiming that there was a Petrine office in Rome. That was not part of the Apostolic Deposit, it was instead added to the AD. That would be an example of departure.

     LikeLike

444. Brandon,

     “To say God guided the development of the RCC is completely different than saying Jesus founded the RCC. One of them is verifiable by historical measures, the other is not.”

     To say God guided the recognition of the canon is completely different than saying God inspired the canon. One of them is verifiable by historical measures, the other is not.

     “An example of departure, from my perspective, would be people claiming that there was a Petrine office in Rome.”

     Was the papacy always in Rome? No, it’s been in France as well. And if somehow Francis had to flee Rome today, that wouldn’t mean the papacy vanished out of existence. Petrine primacy is part of the AD. What that actually means/implies is part of development (and the EO and RCs and Protestants disagree).

     LikeLike

445. CVD,

     Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re connecting. I don’t see any fruitful reason for either of us to continue. Blessings.

     LikeLike

446. Brandon,

     That’s fine but I’ll ask one question – is it plausible a concept of Petrine primacy and a concept of apostolic succession were established by Christ/Apostles in the 1st century? Or do you say not even that much gets off the ground?

     LikeLike

447. CVD,

     My own assessment is that such a position lacks explanatory power of 1st and 2nd century Roman Christianity. Even if you accept Ireaneus’s list as an accurate retelling of bishops in Rome back to Peter, you still don’t have Petrine primacy. I have yet to encounter an argument that offers a reasonable accounting for the extant literature that we possess from that period.

     [For the record, you seem to have understood my point but missed the force of it entirely. You are not arguing that God providentially guided the development of the Papacy. You are saying it was instituted by Jesus himself. That is falsifiable historically in the same way that the reception of the canon is an historical phenomenon that can be discussed and evaluated through historical analysis.]

     LikeLike

448. Brandon,

     “You are not arguing that God providentially guided the development of the Papacy. You are saying it was instituted by Jesus himself.”

     That is incorrect. Notions of Petrine primacy + notions of apostolic succession does not equate to Papacy. EO hold to a concept of Petrine primacy – they don’t believe in the papacy.

     LikeLike

449. CVD: You are saying if something is the fruit of post-New Testament development, that it must be a non-Scriptural development.

     Let me show you an example. Here is how “reflection” on the Trinity becomes “development”:

     The term “Trinity” is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assemble the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine.

     (from a Triablogue article series on “Warfield on the Trinity”)

     In this way, the Trinity, Christology, and similar kinds of doctrines are “deduced from Scripture” “by good and necessary consequence”.

     Critics of Newman’s theory distinguish two kinds of development.

     The example above is an example of the first type of “development” (which is based upon the OT citations I mentioned above and the 275 various references to the Holy Spirit, plus the observation of the early “explosion” of the worship of Jesus in the NT and in history) — where the doctrine “lies in Scripture in solution”. The raw elements are in Scripture, and they are extracted and “systematized” from those elements, and in that way they are brought into a sharper focus. This kind of development is legitimately Scriptural.

     That is distinguished from a second kind which is not Scriptural — the “raw materials” are NOT contained in Scripture or in the words of Scripture — they are fashioned from what is said to be “implicit”, but this is a euphemism for “what is more or less pure speculation, with no Scriptural warrant”.

     Dr. William Witt presented several examples of the second type of “development”, which are largely crafted out of non-Scriptural speculations:

     Classic examples of Development 2 would include the differences between the doctrine of the theotokos and the dogmas of the immaculate conception or the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the former, Marian dogma is not actually saying something about Mary, but rather something about Christ. If Jesus Christ is truly God, and Mary is his mother, then Mary is truly the Mother of God (theotokos). She gives birth, however, to Jesus’ humanity, not his eternal person, which has always existed and is generated eternally by the Father. The doctrine of the theotokos is a necessary implication of the incarnation of God in Christ, which is clearly taught in the New Testament. However, the dogmas of the immaculate conception and the assumption are not taught in Scripture, either implicitly or explicitly. They are entirely new developments [JB note: and these are based entirely upon speculations].

     The same would be true, of course, for the doctrine of the papacy. The New Testament says much about the role of Simon Peter as a leader of the apostles. It does not say anything explicit, however, about the bishop of Rome being the successor to Peter.

     http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/newmans-doctrine-of-development-rests.html

     Witt says:

     I believe that J. B. Mozley’s “The Theory of Development” provides the decisive critique of [John Henry] Newman on development of doctrine. Mozley argues that Newman commits a logical fallacy of amphiboly by not distinguishing between two different kinds of development.

     Roman Catholics all-too-often are guilty of conflating these kinds of concepts and using that kind of confusion in their own favor.

     CVD: That does not follow. A post-New Testament development can bring out what was implicitly contained in Scripture. That’s the point of development – implicit to explicit.

     Per my discussion above, your categories of “implicit to explicit” are too broad and too vague. My discussion describes the difference between doctrines that are found in Scripture, those that are deduced “by good and necessary consequence”, and those that are in the category of “speculation”.

     Would you say that the Scriptural basis for the Trinity is “implicit” or “explicit”? Father, Son, Spirit, all amply mentioned, amply attested.

     As for “development”, for all the councils and discussion, what was added to the doctrine of the Trinity had ample Scriptural basis – and in fact, Rome did not feel any compunction about leaving alone those conciliar decisions – unilaterally modifying them with the filioque clause.

     CVD: I would not be surprised to see Sullivan also say conciliar doctrines on the Trinity/Christology or the Nicene creed was a post-New Testament development – he would not mean those teachings are therefore not implicit in Scripture because of that.

     That’s speculation on your part. Find it in his writing and support your claim.

     CVD: [The notion of “apostolic succession” given by Irenaeus] “was clearly formulated.” That does not mean he spun it out of thin air and introduced something novel. Heresy can develop/clarify doctrine.

     Good that you understand the concept of something being “spun out of thin air” and the introduction of “something novel” – as were the Marian doctrines.

     But still, early on, you want to say “heresy helps develop/clarify doctrine”. But lots of things “develop/clarify” doctrine. Including “reflection on speculative things”. “Further reflection” helps develop/clarify doctrine. The inner workings of a pope’s own mind can develop/clarify doctrine. A concept can exist “full-blown” and “in seed form” at the same time, and morph back-and-forth between two extremes, and still count as a “legitimate development” in the Roman Catholic schema.

     Any theory at all will do in support of Roman doctrine. No matter that these processes are different. At a high level, any process will do to defend “development”, so long as it supports Roman claims.

     It is easy for you to make speculations at a high level. Development here, development there, by this process or that: “Development, presto-change-o”, and we always have the legitimate Church Authority that we have today.

     What you have consistently done in this thread is thrown about different ways that “development” can occur.

     What you have failed to do consistently in this thread is to say precisely how a Biblical doctrine (“an elder must be”) can “develop” precisely into its opposite (“a bishop needs not be”) (with a throwaway statement like “Oh, we’d like them to be blameless too, but we dismiss that kind of perfection because all are sinful…”)

     You have dismissed, with mere “hand-waving”, how Trent’s claims that Christ founded an “explicit and visible” priesthood and hierarchy (you merely said “I’ll admit, some people thought that way”) with more contemporary claims that concepts were “Spirit-led developments” that nevertheless became seen as “the structure of the Church”.

     How vague that all is.

     You seem to care a great deal about the precision of language with which the Trinity and Christology were defined in the fourth and fifth centuries – this precise crafting of the language was important work. But when Rome goes back-and-forth with its concepts of priesthood/hierarchy, then the vague concept is introduced that a thing may exist “implicitly” and “in seed-form” and “full-blown” (“explicit”) at the same time.

     You dismiss, you throw away “modern scholarship” as a whole, without analyzing a single argument of modern scholarship in-depth.

     What you have failed to do, all through this thread, is to say precisely how (referring back to one of my original questions), Trent could have looked at a “seed-form” “priesthood/hierarchy” and mistaken it for a full-blown “explicit” and “visible” priesthood/hierarchy, which is then “recognized” as having been only “implicit” and “in seed-form”. And this gyration goes round-the-block several times.

     CVD: You still avoid my question on parallel/subsequent figures espousing and strengthening this “novel” concept [Irenaeus’s concept of “succession”] rather than resisting it, and the apparent absence of any dissent/disagreement with Irenaeus the maverick who had the gall to claim this novel doctrine as apostolic.

     We are talking about a specific instance of Irenaeus borrowing a concept that (as I’ve mentioned in the Jason Engwer article citing Everett Ferguson) was prevalent in the culture. Even here you’re making an assumption though. From a textual perspective, we have only fragments of Irenaeus’s original writings, and we have only a Latin copy from many centuries later (and the text of that seems to have been tampered with in certain “key” places).

     How much notice did Irenaeus actually receive in his own day? In an era when Scripture was copied and distributed widely, the writings of Irenaeus (and many of the other “early church fathers”) were largely forgotten for centuries. There was not only an “apparent absence of dissent/disagreement”, but there was a corresponding absence of affirmation and agreement.

     * * *

     I appreciate you hanging in here and having this discussion with me, but the nature of your objections to the things we know in a positive sense from history (which I have been pointing out) has really been to throw out a bunch of vague and undefined concepts (“development”, “implicit-to-explicit”), without really taking the time to explain what any of them are.

     Newman recognized “difficulties”, and he came up with a wide-ranging theory of “development” that was inconsistent to its core – it was based on a fundamental assumption that the doctrines of the church in their “substance” were “essentially” the same – but that’s such a broad and nebulous way of looking at it, if you don’t start with that initial assumption, if you attempt to prove, from history, how one thing “developed” into another, you end up all over the place with no consistency whatsoever.

     Pope Ratzinger noticed this too. He said:

     The Second Vatican Council, with its new definition of the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought, has reviewed or even corrected certain historical decisions, but in this apparent discontinuity it has actually preserved and deepened her inmost nature and true identity.

     (from his address to the Roman Curia, 22 December 2005)

     If starting from the New Testament, you don’t make the assumption that the “inner nature and true identity” of the church is equivalent to the Roman Catholic Church (or where it “subsists” – an unverifiable weasel-word in any case), and if you proceed to try to understand “what they knew and when they knew it”, then you can’t show that Roman Catholicism developed in a “spirit-guided way” and make it a dogma. All you can do, starting with the New Testament, is make excuses for some truly bad things that the church got itself into, that Rome later dogmatized.

     Ratzinger’s “apparent discontinuities” which Vatican II “corrected”, are in reality the fruits of modern scholars whom you dismiss with hand-waving.

     Again, I’ll point out to you that, while the life of Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament have been confirmed and reinforced in spite of the most skeptical searching of the most skeptical of “modern scholars”, it is the Roman Catholic account of its own history that has fallen apart in major ways, calling for the kinds of backpedalling we’ve seen on all kinds of things that were dogmatically understood to be unchangeable before Vatican II, but which have really changed “in substance” following that council.

     Here’s the way that “development” works in Roman Catholicism today: anything that can be seen to strengthen Rome’s claims for its own authority is accounted to be “legitimate development”. And anything that works against the Roman accounting of itself is a mere “apparent discontinuity” that can be dismissed as easily as you have done so here and in fact, as Ratzinger has done.

     The truly sad thing is that nobody is paying attention, and just as you see in modern journalism, that things become a matter of “he-said, she-said”, there is little concern to investigate the actual sources with the attempt to really understand the underlying causes for thing, to really get to the heart of the matter.

     But some “modern scholars” have taken care to make this investigation; others are following and broadening the conclusions, and those conclusions are inescapable. It is why even the infallible, semper eadem church has to “correct” “historical decisions”.

     A brighter spotlight would show these things for what they truly are. But many in today’s world don’t even care. 95% of Roman Catholics in the US blatantly disregard such papal teachings as Humani Generis, classifying themselves not as “the faithful”, but really, cafeteria-style pick-and-choose Catholics. Much of today’s culture is far more interested in what this star or that one is wearing, or the glitzy multi-billion dollar sports industry, than in understanding what the truth of human existence is.

     There is a line from a Keith Green song which, I think is entitled “Song from the Devil”. It is characteristic of Roman Catholic apologetics has been in the centuries since the Reformation. That line is, “I mix a little truth with every lie, to tickle itching ears”. Roman Catholicism does retain some true elements from its past. But over time, the falsehoods have accumulated and many have become dogmatized. And with the air of ancientness and authority, such things have been believed, precisely because there is SO MUCH information, and Roman apologists are SO GOOD at “mixing a little Rome with every truth, so that it seems like Rome has always been in charge”.

     The problem with that is, modern scholarship, which has investigated Jesus and the New Testament every which way and left it stronger than ever, has also investigated Roman claims and left them with reams and reams of “apparent discontinuity” and 50 years-worth of backpedalling on formerly unassailable Roman claims.

     You may think that’s overly harsh, but there is the “principle” in the “principled distinctions” that you and others are always looking for.

     The real, genuine principle in all of this, however, is God. God is sovereign; If you truly believe in “One God”, “The Father Almighty”, “His Son Jesus Christ”, and “The Holy Spirit”, you should also believe that this One God is sovereign in his ontology – the “Creator/creature distinction” – and in his epistemology – His Word is infallible and inerrant, and nothing else is like it, and in fact, nothing is capable to even come close.

     Yes, God guides the church providentially – and providentially, he allows sinful men and concepts to have their day too – but outside of and apart from “God’s Word”, the providentially-guided human deliberations are useful, but they are not “God’s Word”.

     The “interpretation” of “God’s Word” is NOT “God’s Word”.

     LikeLike

450. John,

     “In this way, the Trinity, Christology, and similar kinds of doctrines are “deduced from Scripture” “by good and necessary consequence”.”

     So the litany of heresies I mentioned before were because their adherents were blind and couldn’t apply GHM properly to deduce proper teaching from Scripture. The Trinity and Christology is more than these little one-sentence summaries you offer – that’s the problem with heresy – it interprets such sentences (and even conciliar definitions, hence subsequent clarifying councils) in an unorthodox way.

     “That is distinguished from a second kind which is not Scriptural — the “raw materials” are NOT contained in Scripture or in the words of Scripture — they are fashioned from what is said to be “implicit”, but this is a euphemism for “what is more or less pure speculation, with no Scriptural warrant”.”

     Something being in scripture implicitly does not equate to something with no Scriptural warrant.

     As for Witt/Mozley their critique is entirely question begging.
     “Development 1 adds nothing to the original content of faith, but rather brings out its necessary implications….Development 2 is genuinely new development that is not simply the necessary articulation of what is said explicitly in the Scriptures.”

     The “original content of faith” of course reducing to Scripture alone. “Bringing out its necessary implications” of course reducing to “exegeted via GHM alone only what is said explicitly”. All of these presuppose exactly what’s in question related to development – that is, that there is no role for Tradition, GHM is the only valid way to exegete (contra patristic use of allegorical exegesis and other methods – the same people hammering out foundational doctrines), and that Scripture is formally sufficient (and consequently teaches that itself).
     And so when he says:
     “Development 1 adds nothing new to the content of faith. Development 2 does. Accepting Development 1 is a necessary consequence of taking seriously what the New Testament actually says. Development 2, however, adds something genuinely new to the content of faith.”
     He’s assuming that Newmanian development must be adding something new to the faith, which both Newman and the RCC deny.

     “It is easy for you to make speculations at a high level. Development here, development there, by this process or that: “Development, presto-change-o”, and we always have the legitimate Church Authority that we have today.”

     You seem to think Rome can just define any dogma and then just cover it up with development and it’s golden. I’ve said earlier that is an incorrect assessment. If your characterization was true, Rome could tomorrow define Mary is eternal, or James is uninspired, or the Book of Mormon is inspired, or any number of doctrines that oppose Scripture and Tradition. That’s why she’s the servant of both, that’s why she even bothered to maintain the canon – in your assessment she might as well have just ditched any “problematic” books you think contradict her doctrines at Trent and it wouldn’t have mattered.

     “What you have failed to do consistently in this thread is to say precisely how a Biblical doctrine (“an elder must be”) can “develop” precisely into its opposite (“a bishop needs not be”) (with a throwaway statement like “Oh, we’d like them to be blameless too, but we dismiss that kind of perfection because all are sinful…”)”

     Yeah it was called the Donatist controversy. It’s not a throwaway statement – you said Irenaeus said the Apostles desired an elder to be blameless. Where has Rome defined a dogma saying it does not desire elders to be blameless? Furthermore I said not everything a father believes is infallible or doctrine.

     “You have dismissed, with mere “hand-waving”, how Trent’s claims that Christ founded an “explicit and visible” priesthood and hierarchy (you merely said “I’ll admit, some people thought that way”) with more contemporary claims that concepts were “Spirit-led developments” that nevertheless became seen as “the structure of the Church”.”

     Oh brother – yes I’m hand-waving. I cited Vatican 1 using similar language while simultaneously asserting development. I said that I admit some Tridentine Roman apologists argued according to “explicit full-developed doctrines were around since beginning”. That some argued that way has no bearing on the veracity of the Council’s statements or whether they can be interpreted in the Vat1 sense (or for that matter Vat2).

     “You dismiss, you throw away “modern scholarship” as a whole, without analyzing a single argument of modern scholarship in-depth.”

     Where have I done that? I’ve asked general questions about historical scholarship in general – if you disagree that the field is by its nature ever-provisional and necessarily subject to ignorance of heretofore undiscovered documents/archaeology/analysis/ideas then I don’t know what I could say. That’s not throwing it away – that’s putting some context around it. I don’t base my rule of faith on the scholarly magisterium alone, and neither do you.

     “What you have failed to do, all through this thread, is to say precisely how (referring back to one of my original questions), Trent could have looked at a “seed-form” “priesthood/hierarchy” and mistaken it for a full-blown “explicit” and “visible” priesthood/hierarchy, which is then “recognized” as having been only “implicit” and “in seed-form”. And this gyration goes round-the-block several times.”

     As I’ve said repeatedly, saying something is “always believed/divinely instituted” does not necessitate saying something is full-blown developed since the beginning. You keep presupposing it must.

     “From a textual perspective, we have only fragments of Irenaeus’s original writings, and we have only a Latin copy from many centuries later (and the text of that seems to have been tampered with in certain “key” places). How much notice did Irenaeus actually receive in his own day? In an era when Scripture was copied and distributed widely, the writings of Irenaeus (and many of the other “early church fathers”) were largely forgotten for centuries. There was not only an “apparent absence of dissent/disagreement”, but there was a corresponding absence of affirmation and agreement.”

     Ah, so now historical scholarship is not so clear and we have to allow for silences and qualifications and lexical analysis and we might be missing things. That is exactly the point I’ve been making about your absolute reliance on historical scholarship for this time period.

     “if you proceed to try to understand “what they knew and when they knew it””

     Which you do for Ignatius and Irenaeus, but then qualify heavily as above (we don’t have everything, maybe what we have was tampered with, others might not have been aware of him, etc.) when it doesn’t suit your purposes.

     “if you attempt to prove, from history, how one thing “developed” into another, you end up all over the place with no consistency whatsoever.”

     First, it is impossible to prove from history alone the validity of a doctrine that is supernaturally/divinely revealed by definition. Secondly, what we have in history does show plausible development. The IC could not have been developed before doctrines of grace developed. Those could not have developed before original sin developed. That doctrine then could not have developed without some Christological dogma in place. PI could not have developed without the doctrines of Petrine primacy and apostolic succession. And so on.

     “Again, I’ll point out to you that, while the life of Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament have been confirmed and reinforced in spite of the most skeptical searching of the most skeptical of “modern scholars””

     Skeptical scholars believe the Resurrection of Christ happened? Skeptical scholars don’t think Scripture contains contradictions related to the life of Christ and Apostles? Have passages that were for long periods of time always believed to be inspired been determined to be additions due to developments in textual criticism? Have the number of disputed passages grown as textual criticism develops?

     “His Word is infallible and inerrant, and nothing else is like it, and in fact, nothing is capable to even come close.”

     So why do you think the only valid way to understand it is the same way you would understand any other plain old historical document (GHM exegesis)?

     LikeLike

451. Wow, this conversation got a little heavy for me. Good thing for our TV character Cletus, John runs a blog where he could continue there, as desired. Or else keep it up out here. 1 billion prots and cats are waiting for our mystery interlocutor to reveal to us something new. Take care, comboxxers!

     LikeLike

452. Andrew, my intention is to respond to CVT’s latest post, and to keep going with this discussion.

     LikeLike

453. Blessings, John. I got through half his post, and couldn’t go on. Its got lots of errors.

     LikeLike

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.