Perspicuity of Scripture Contra Bellisario - Part 6

I'm responding to a post from Mr. Matthew Bellisario (see my first post for the introduction). In this post, I address Mr. Bellisario's response to my quotation from Athanasius. Mr. Bellisario has put my words in italics, and I have attempted to reproduce them as he provided them, within the quotation box below. His own words are (for the most part) in the plain font:

Turretin moves on to St Athanasius where he pulls one sentence out of context,

I wonder if this is where Mr. Shea hopes to gain an edge on folks with less experience in the laboratory than he. I refer to folks like Athanasius (about A.D. 297 - 373) who wrote:

And this is usual with Scriptures, to express itself in inartificial and simple phrases.

- Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 3

OK so is St Athanasius in complete rebellion to the Biblical text of Acts 8:30-31 which reads, "30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. 31"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Is he assuming that all Biblical texts are simple phrases? Does the great Saint believe that the Scriptures Alone are his only authority? I think not. During the Arian crisis Saint Athanasius on several occasions told us how the Church defended itself during the Arian crisis. He states that it is not Scripture Alone but that understanding which has been passed down in the Church. For he readily admits that even the Arians referred to Scripture, but not in compliance with that which was handed down within the Church by apostolic Tradition which Turretin Fan rejects.


Accordingly we too, according to your confession of faith, desire to hold the Apostolic tradition , and to live according to the commands of the divine law, that we may be found along with you in that band in which now Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and Martyrs are rejoicing. So then, though the Arian madness, aided by external power, was so active that our brethren on account of their fury could not even see the open air with freedom, yet by God's favour, according to your prayers, I have been able, though with trouble and danger, to see the brother who is wont to bring me necessaries and the letters of your holiness, along with those of others. And so we have received the books of your most wise and religious soul, in which we have seen the image of an Apostle, the confidence of a Prophet, the teaching of truth, the doctrine of true faith, the way of heaven, the glory of martyrdom, the triumphs against the Arian heresy, the unimpaired tradition of our Fathers, the right rule of the Church's order.
Athanasius. Letter 51 Second Letter to Lucifer.

We can also see this understanding here when he refers to the Arian heresy again,

"But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power" Athanasius Festal Letter 2

I answer:

The first part of Bellisario's response is an amazing example of the strain that arguing his case has placed on him. Let me demonstrate in a few points.

1) Over the word of Athanasius, Mr. Bellisario would take the word of an as-yet-unbelieving Ethiopian Eunuch. Yes, his comment is recorded in Scripture, but it is not endorsed by Scripture. Scripture does not say the eunuch was right, just that the eunuch said what he said. What an odd magisterium Bellisario has.

2) Mr. Bellisario is attempting to attack the perspicuity of Scripture by appealing to a highly perspicuous passage of Scripture. It's crystal clear what the sense of this passage is: it's an historical narrative, not some kind of dark parable or complex theological argument.

3) Rather than dealing with the position that Athanasius provides, namely that Scripture is usually presented in simple terms, not always in simple terms.

4) Whereas the eunuch was having trouble understanding the prophecy of Isaiah, without the aid of any pope, any dogma-defining councils, or even any hierarchy at all, but only at the mouth of a lone evangelist, who (according to the Scripture), "opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus," (Acts 8:35) and during the same journey the eunuch believed and was baptized (Acts 8:37-38).

5) Athanasius was not unaware of the passage about the Ethiopian Eunuch. Let's see what he thinks of it:

The Eunuch of Ethiopia indeed, though he understood not what he read [Acts 8:27], believed the words of Philip, when he taught him concerning the Saviour; but the eunuchs of Constantius cannot endure the confession of Peter [FN: Matt. xvi. 16, allusion to Liberius? vid. Hard. Conc. t. 2. p. 305 E.], nay, they turn away when the Father manifests the Son, and madly rage against those who say, that the Son of God is His genuine Son, thus claiming as a heresy of eunuchs, that there is no genuine and true offspring of the Father.

- Athanasius, History of the Arians, Part V, Section 38

As the editor notes, it is not unreasonable to think that Athanasius is actually using this passage to mock pope Liberius. But that's an aside. (UPDATE: Roman Catholic David Waltz has pointed out that perhaps we should understand the editor as thinking that Athanasius means to refer to Liberius via the reference to the "confession of Peter" - and Waltz is probably right about that. See my newly written footnote for a more complete discussion of the matter.) Notice what Athanasius points out. The eunuch did not understand what he read, but he believed when Philip preached and Philip was just an evangelist, not a bishop. As Ambrosiaster (flourished about A.D. 366 - 384) put it: "Evangelists are deacons, even as Philip was; although they were not elders (sacerdotes) they can nonetheless preach the gospel (evangelize) without a chair, as blessed Stephen and Philip are recorded to have done." (Evangelistae diaconi sunt, sicut fuit Philippus; quamvis non sint sacerdotes, evangelizare tamen possunt sine cathedra, sicut et beatus Stephanus et Philippus memoratus.) - Ambrosiaster, On Ephesians 4:11-12, Section 14 (Latin at PL17:387)

Philip was only an evangelist - not a bishop or any other elder, and yet he was a sufficient magisterium for the Ethiopian both to believe and to be baptized. Notice as well that Athanasius does not attribute lack of clarity to the text, but a lack of understanding to the eunuch. And that's not the only time Athanasius references this account:

Samuel, that great man, no less clearly reproved Saul, saying, ‘Is not the word better than a gift [Ecclus. xviii. 17.]?’ For hereby a man fulfils the law, and pleases God, as He saith, ‘The sacrifice of praise shall glorify Me.’ Let a man ‘learn what this means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice [Ps. l. 23; Hosea vi. 6; Matt. ix. 13],’ and I will not condemn the adversaries. But this wearied them, for they were not anxious to understand, ‘for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory [1 Cor. ii. 8.].’ And what their end is, the prophet foretold, crying, ‘Woe unto their soul, for they have devised an evil thought, saying, let us bind the just man, because he is not pleasing to us [Is. iii. 9, 10; Wisd. ii. 12.].’ The end of such abandonment as this can be nothing but error, as the Lord, when reproving them, saith, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures [Matt. xxii. 29.].’ Afterwards when, being reproved, they should have come to their senses, they rather grew insolent, saying, ‘We are Moses’ disciples; and we know that God spake to Moses [John ix. 28, 29.];’ dealing the more falsely by that very expression, and accusing themselves. For had they believed him to whom they hearkened, they would not have denied the Lord, Who spake by Moses, when He was present. Not so did the eunuch in the Acts, for when he heard, ‘Understandest thou what thou readest [Acts viii. 30.]?’ he was not ashamed to confess his ignorance, and implored to be taught. Therefore, to him who became a learner, the grace of the Spirit was given. But as for those Jews who persisted in their ignorance; as the proverb saith, ‘Death came upon them. For the fool dies in his sins [Prov. xxiv. 9, LXX., cf. Ps. lv. 15.].’

- Athanasius, Letter XIX, Section 5

Athanasius here attributes not a lack of clarity to Scripture, but simple ignorance to the Eunuch. The eunuch was ignorant, but he was wise enough to ask for assistance. But these two times are not the only times that Athanasius addresses this passage. There is yet another time when Athanasius addresses this passage:

For it is written, ‘So much better than the Angels;’ let us then first examine this. Now it is right and necessary, as in all divine Scripture, so here, faithfully to expound the time of which the Apostle wrote, and the person [De Decr. 14, note 2.], and the point; lest the reader, from ignorance missing either these or any similar particular, may be wide of the true sense. This understood that inquiring eunuch, when he thus besought Philip, ‘I pray thee, of whom doth the Prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man [Acts viii. 34.]?’ for he feared lest, expounding the lesson unsuitably to the person, he should wander from the right sense. And the disciples, wishing to learn the time of what was foretold, besought the Lord, ‘Tell us,’ said they, ‘when shall these things be? and what is the sign of Thy coming [Matt. xxiv. 3.]?’ And again, hearing from the Saviour the events of the end, they desired to learn the time of it, that they might be kept from error themselves, and might be able to teach others; as, for instance, when they had learned, they set right the Thessalonians [Vid. 1 Thess. iv. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 1, &c.], who were going wrong. When then one knows properly these points, his understanding of the faith is right and healthy; but if he mistakes any such points, forthwith he falls into heresy. Thus Hymenæus and Alexander and their fellows [2 Tim. ii. 17, 18; 1 Tim. i. 20.] were beside the time, when they said that the resurrection had already been; and the Galatians were after the time, in making much of circumcision now. And to miss the person was the lot of the Jews, and is still, who think that of one of themselves is said, ‘Behold, the Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted, God with us [Is. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23.];’ and that, ‘A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you [Deut. xviii. 15.],’ is spoken of one of the Prophets; and who, as to the words, ‘He was led as a sheep to the slaughter [Is. liii. 7.],’ instead of learning from Philip, conjecture them spoken of Isaiah or some other of the former Prophets.

- Athanasius, Against the Arians, Discourse I, Chapter 13, Section 54

Here Athanasius makes it out as though the eunuch not only understood, with Philip, much of the text, but also the appropriate hermeneutic, especially that it was important to know what person was being discussed in order properly to understand the text. So, there was something that the eunuch did not understand, but Athanasius again, a third time, does not attribute this to any lack of clarity in the text.

Pastor David King has some good thoughts on the typical arguments we hear on this matter from Rome:

Thus the contention is that what the Ethiopian eunuch "needed was a teacher (magister) who could instruct him in what God intended him to understand; that is what the eunuch received in Philip, and that is what we have in the magisterium of the Church." But according to Rome, the magisterium is restricted to those who hold the office of bishop, who are assisted by priests. This is where the Roman apologetic faces a problem with the example of the Ethiopian eunuch. Philip himself did not hold the office of bishop in the primitive Church! He was most likely a deacon (Acts 6:1-5) and is explicitly called an evangelist in Acts 21:8. But he was not a bishop. [See Ambrosiaster quotation above] The only infallible authority Philip appealed to was the Holy Spirit! Moreover, all the Ethiopian had in his hands was the Prophet Isaiah; whether he was in possession of any other Old Testament Scriptures, we do not know. But what we do know is that he did not have the benefit of any New Testament Scriptures which constituted the full and sufficient revelation of the Gospel, and thus this is no argument against the perspicuity of Holy Scripture taken as a whole with respect to its essential message. But the Old Testament Scriptures were indeed sufficient for those who lived under them.

- David King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, p. 206 (responding to argument from Cardinal Newman)

But I know that backing up Athanasius with Pastor King may not be overly persuasive to a member of the church of Rome. Let us then consider what Chrysostom (about A.D. 349 - 407) said. After all, Lord Willing, we will soon be discussing Chrysostom with Mr. Bellisario as well:

But what do the multitude say? “I do not hear what is read,” saith one, “nor do I know what the words are which are spoken.” Because thou makest a tumult and confusion, because thou comest not with a reverent soul. What sayest thou? “I know not what things are said.” Well then, for this very reason oughtest thou to give heed. But if not even the obscurity stir up thy soul, much more if things were clear wouldest thou hurry them by. Yea, this is the reason why neither all things are clear, lest thou shouldest indulge indolence; nor obscure, lest thou shouldest be in despair.
And whereas that eunuch and barbarian (Acts 8:20.) said none of these things, but surrounded as he was with a crowd of so important affairs and on his journey, had a book in his hands and was reading: dost thou, both abounding in teachers, and having others to read to thee privately, allege to me thine excuses and pretexts? Knowest thou not what is said? Why then pray that thou mayest learn: but sure it is impossible to be ignorant of all things. For many things are of themselves evident and clear. And further, even if thou be ignorant of all, even so oughtest thou to be quiet, not to put out them that are attentive; that God, accepting thy quietness and thy reverence, may make the obscure things also plain.

- Chrysostom, Homily 36 on First Corinthians, Section 9

Notice how Chrysostom, like King and Athanasius does not ascribe obscurity to the text, but places the matter in the lap of the eunuch. The eunuch was a busy man, but you have time to read privately. He had no teachers, you have teachers. Now I recognize that someone like Mr. Bellisario might try to say, "Look - he mentions teachers, so he's denying Sola Scriptura." Such a naive argument fails to recognize that Sola Scriptura does not deny the value of teachers, it simply denies that teachers cannot be made subject to the Scriptures.

Like Athanasius, Chrysostom did not mention the eunuch only once. Here's another time that Chrysostom dealt with him:

Even that pagan eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia, remember, despite being in all his glory and riding along in his chariot, did not neglect that opportunity for reading; instead, with the inspired author in his hand he put much effort into reading, even without understanding the contents. Nevertheless, because he brought to bear all that lay within him—his enthusiasm, his earnestness, his attention—he chanced upon a guide. Consider, I ask you, what a great effort it was not to neglect reading even while on a journey, and especially while seated in a chariot. Let this be heeded by those people who don’t even deign to do it at home but rather think reading the Scriptures is a waste of time: claiming as an excuse their living with a wife, conscription in military service, caring for children, attending to domestics, and looking after other concerns, they don’t think it necessary for for them to show any interest in reading the holy scriptures. I mean, look at the case of the eunuch, a pagan to boot, both facts sufficient to induce indifference in him, and as well as that his public image and abundance of wealth, plus the fact that he was on a journey and traveling in a chariot (after all, it’s not easy to pay attention to reading when you’re traveling like that—quite the contrary, it’s extremely difficult). Yet his desire and great enthusiasm made light of all these problems, and so he gave himself to reading without muttering the words many people mutter these days: I don’t understand the contents, I can’t grasp the full sense of the words, why should I go to this trouble all to no purpose by reading without having someone capable of guiding me?

- Chrysostom, Homily 35 on Genesis, Section 3

Notice that Chrysostom gives the eunuch another excuse: he's traveling in a chariot and it is not easy to read in that condition (they did not have the kinds of suspensions that cars today have). But Chrysostom notes that his hearers can read at home (yes, people read the Bible at home in ancient days, not just after the Protestant Reformation). And Chrysostom encourages people by pointing out that their home reading can be successful, and even shows that if someone is diligent to study the text on their own, God will provide assistance - using the eunuch as an example (here is another example of Chrysostom encouraging people to read the Bible at home).

Chrysostom deals with this same subject at least one more time:

Remember the eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia. Being a man of a barbarous nation, occupied with numerous cares, and surrounded on all sides by manifold business, he was unable to understand that which he read. Still, however, as he was seated in the chariot, he was reading. If he showed such diligence on a journey, think how diligent he must have been at home; if while on the road he did not let an opportunity pass without reading, much more must this have been the case when seated in his house; if when he did not fully understand the things he read, he did not cease from reading, much more would he not cease when able to understand. To show that he did not understand the things which he read, hear that which Philip said to him: “Understandest thou what thou readest?” (Acts viii. 30). Hearing this question he did not show provocation or shame: but confessed his ignorance, and said: “How can I, except some man should guide me?” (ver. 31). Since therefore. while he had no man to guide him, he was thus reading; for this reason he quickly received an instructor. God knew his willingness, He acknowledged his zeal, and forthwith sent him a teacher.

But, you say, Philip is not present with us now. Still, the Spirit that moved Philip is present with us. Let us not, beloved, neglect our salvation! “All these things are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come,” (1 Cor. x. 11). The reading of the Scriptures is a great safeguard against sin; ignorance of the Scriptures is a great precipice and a deep gulf; to know nothing of the Scriptures, is a great betrayal of our salvation. This ignorance is the cause of heresies; this it is that leads to dissolute living; this it is that makes all things confused. It is impossible—I say, it is impossible, that any one should remain unbenefited who engages in persevering and intelligent reading. For see how much one parable has profited us! how much spiritual good it has done to us! For many I know have departed, bearing away abiding profit from the hearing; and if there be some who have not reaped so much benefit, still for that day on which they heard these things, they were rendered in every way better. And it is not a small thing to spend one day in sorrow on account of sin, and in consideration of the higher wisdom, and in affording the soul a little breathing time from worldly cares. If we can effect this at each assembly without intermission, the continued hearing would work for us a great and lasting benefit.

- Chrysostom, Four Discourses of Chrysostom, Chiefly on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 3rd Sermon, §2-3 (courtesy of Pastor David King)

Notice, in addition to the points already raised above, that Chrysostom notes that we have the Spirit that filled Philip and does not suggest that instead we have the church in place of Philip. Indeed, he continues to commend private Scripture reading by stating: "The reading of the Scriptures is a great safeguard against sin; ignorance of the Scriptures is a great precipice and a deep gulf; to know nothing of the Scriptures, is a great betrayal of our salvation." One is reminded of the quotation attributed to Jerome: “Ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”

Well, perhaps we have adequately proven our point with respect to the Ethiopian Eunuch. With such discussion we have closed out what Mr. Bellisario had to say with respect to the issue of perspicuity. Mr. Bellisario, however, wished to go beyond that topic and expand the matter to full-fledged Sola Scriptura.

As you may recall from above, Mr. Bellisario stated: "Does the great Saint believe that the Scriptures Alone are his only authority? I think not." Mr. Bellisario, however, is arguing against a straw man. Scriptures are not the only authority in the church. Scriptures, however, are the only infallible authority - they are the norm of all norms, which is not itself normed. They are the highest authority we have today.

Mr. Bellisario continued: "During the Arian crisis Saint Athanasius on several occasions told us how the Church defended itself during the Arian crisis. He states that it is not Scripture Alone but that understanding which has been passed down in the Church." Mr. Bellisario's combination of poor grammar and straw man argumentation make it rather difficult to understand what point it is that he is trying to argue. The best guess we can make is that Mr. Bellisario is trying to suggest that Athanasius thought there was a second source outside of Scripture of doctrine, and that the second source of doctrine was equally as authoritative.

Please note that we have, on another occasion, responded to Mr. Bellisario's misuse of Athanasius.

Mr. Bellisario continues: "For he readily admits that even the Arians referred to Scripture, but not in compliance with that which was handed down within the Church by apostolic Tradition which Turretin Fan rejects." Again, this "Turretin Fan rejects" line has been addressed in a similar context in a previous segment, and so we'll let it go without further remark. This is an interesting comment from Mr. Bellisario - it seems to assume that there is Scripture plus a body of tradition sitting along side Scripture, one that is equally as authoritative, and which must be consulted to properly even "refer to Scripture."

Mr. Bellisario quoted a portion from Letter 51 of Athanasius:

Accordingly we too, according to your confession of faith, desire to hold the Apostolic tradition , and to live according to the commands of the divine law, that we may be found along with you in that band in which now Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and Martyrs are rejoicing. So then, though the Arian madness, aided by external power, was so active that our brethren on account of their fury could not even see the open air with freedom, yet by God's favour, according to your prayers, I have been able, though with trouble and danger, to see the brother who is wont to bring me necessaries and the letters of your holiness, along with those of others. And so we have received the books of your most wise and religious soul, in which we have seen the image of an Apostle, the confidence of a Prophet, the teaching of truth, the doctrine of true faith, the way of heaven, the glory of martyrdom, the triumphs against the Arian heresy, the unimpaired tradition of our Fathers, the right rule of the Church's order.
Athanasius. Letter 51 Second Letter to Lucifer.

(as provided by Mr. Bellisario, but without bold font face)

Mr. Bellisario is short on explanation for his quotation, but it would appear (based on our familiarity with Mr. Bellisario's approach) that Mr. Bellisario has provided this quotation because it uses the word "tradition" twice. Mr. Bellisario seems to think that Athanasius is using that term to refer to a second rule of faith in addition to Scripture. Neither in the first usage, nor in the second usage, however, does Athanasius give such an indication. With respect to the second instance, Athanasius is saying that Lucifer's books are good, orthodox books. In the first instance, likewise, Athansius is simply affirming his desire to be orthodox.

It is even more instructive, however, to see the context that Mr. Bellisario carefully omitted. Here's how the letter opens:

To the most glorious lord and deservedly much-desired fellow-Bishop Lucifer, Athanasius greeting in the Lord. Although I believe that tidings have reached your holiness also of the persecution which the enemies of Christ have just now attempted to raise, seeking our blood, yet our own most beloved messengers can tell your piety about it. For to such a length did they dare to carry their madness by means of the soldiers, that they not only banished the Clergy of the city, but also went out to the Hermits, and laid their fatal hands upon Solitaries. Hence I also withdrew far away, lest those who entertained me should suffer trouble at their hands. For whom do Arians spare, who have spared not even their own souls? Or how can they give up their infamous actions while they persist in denying Christ our Lord the only Son of God? This is the root of their wickedness; on this foundation of sand they build up the perversity of their ways, as we find it written in the thirteenth Psalm, ‘The fool said in his heart there is no God;’ and presently follows, ‘Corrupt are they and become abominable in their works [Ps. xiv. 1.].’ Hence the Jews who denied the Son of God, deserved to be called ‘a sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil doers, children without law [Isa. i. 4.].’ Why ‘without law?’—because you have deserted the Lord. And so the most blessed Paul, when he had begun not only to believe in the Son of God, but also to preach His deity, wrote, ‘I know nothing against myself [1 Cor. iv. 4.].’

- Athanasius, Letter 51

Notice that Athanasius begins by mentioning the Arian persecution. Then he turns to the root of their problem. Then he opposes that problem with Scripture. That's the immediately preceding context for Athanasius' comment about wanting to hold Apostolic tradition: he's referring to the teaching of the Apostle Paul in Scripture.

Likewise, consider the context immediately following the portion of the letter that Mr. Belliario provided:

O truly Lucifer, who according to your name bring the light of truth, and have set it on a candlestick to give light to all. For who, except the Arians, does not clearly see from your teaching the true faith and the taint of the Arians. Forcibly and admirably, like light from darkness, you have separated the truth from the subtilty and dishonesty of heretics, defended the Catholic Church, proved that the arguments of the Arians are nothing but a kind of hallucination, and taught that the diabolical gnashings of the teeth are to be despised. How good and welcome are your exhortations to martyrdom; how highly to be desired have you shewn death to be on behalf of Christ the Son of the living God. What love you have shewn for the world to come and for the heavenly life. You seem to be a true temple of the Saviour, Who dwells in you and utters these exact words through you, and has given such grace to your discourses. Beloved as you were before among all, now such passionate affection for you is settled in the minds of all, that they call you the Elijah of our times; and no wonder. For if they who seem to please God are called Sons of God, much more proper is it to give that name to the associates of the Prophets, namely the Confessors, and especially to you. Believe me, Lucifer, it is not you only who has uttered this, but the Holy Spirit with you. Whence comes so great a memory for the Scriptures? Whence an unimpaired sense and understanding of them? Whence has such an order of discourse been framed? Whence did you get such exhortations to the way of heaven, whence such confidence against the devil, and such proofs against heretics, unless the Holy Spirit had been lodged in you?

- Athanasius, Letter 51

Notice how he praises Lucifer for his arguments against the Arians, but he only mentions as the source: "memory of the Scriptures" and a gift of the Holy Spirit. There is no mention of a body of oral tradition - no second source of authority.

The next segment of the letter is in much the same vein:

Rejoice therefore to see that you are already there where also are your predecessors the martyrs, that is, among the band of angels. We also rejoice, having you as an example of valour, and patience, and liberty. For I blush to say anything of what you have written about my name, lest I should appear a flatterer. But I know and believe that the Lord Himself, Who has revealed all knowledge to your holy and religious spirit, will reward you for this labour also with a reward in the kingdom of the heavens. Since then you are such a man, we ask the Lord in prayer that you may pray for us, that in His mercy He may now deign to look down upon the Catholic Church, and deliver all His servants from the hands of persecutors; in order that all they too who have fallen on account of temporal fear may at length be enabled to raise themselves and return to the way of righteousness, led away from which they are wandering, poor people, not knowing in what a pit they are. In particular I ask, if I have said anything amiss, you would be good enough to overlook it, for from so great a fountain my unskilfulness has not been able to draw what it might have done.

- Athanasius, Letter 51

Notice again that Athanasius indicates to Lucifer that Lucifer has received wisdom from the Lord, but so far we have only seen that expressed via Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

The letter concludes without any further suggestion of a second source:

But as to our brethren, I ask you again to overlook my not having been able to see them. For truth itself is my witness that I wished and longed to compass this, and was greatly grieved at being unable. For my eyes ceased not from tears, nor my spirit from groaning, because we are not permitted even to see the brethren. But God is my witness, that on account of their persecution I have not been able to see even the parents whom I have. For what is there that the Arians leave undone? They watch the roads, observe those who enter and leave the city, search the vessels, go round the deserts, ransack houses, harass the brethren, cause unrest to everybody. But thanks be to God, in so doing they are more and more incurring the execration of all, and coming to be truly known for what your holiness has called them: slaves of Antichrist. And, poor wretches, hated as they are, they persist in their malice, until they shall be condemned to the death of their ancestor Pharaoh. Those with me salute your piety. Pray salute those who are with you. May God’s divine grace preserve you, mindful of us and ever blessed, worthily called man of God, servant of Christ, partner of the Apostles, comfort of the brotherhood, master of truth, and in all things most longed for.

- Athanasius, Letter 51

Thus, while Athanasius refers again to the Arian persecution and salutes and praises Lucifer. We've now looked at the whole letter, and though the letter mentions "Apostolic Tradition" and even the "catholic church" there is not hint or suggestion that this is anything other than the doctrines contained in Scripture and identified by Athanasius.

Let's turn, finally, to Mr. Bellisario's final select quotation from Athanasius. Mr. Bellisario presents the quotation thus:

"But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power" Athanasius Festal Letter 2

(as provided by Mr. Bellisario, but without bold font face)

Again, Mr. Bellisario leaves us guessing as to why he quoted this fragment of Athanasius' letter. Our best guess is that it uses the word "traditions" and mentions "opinions as the saints have handed down." Apparently, Mr. Bellisario thinks one or both of these are a reference to a separate body of tradition that is of equal authority with Scripture. The expression "not rightly know them nor their power" is also in the quotation, and perhaps Mr. Bellisario thinks that this phrase is speaking about the "power" of extra-scriptural traditions, or something like that.

First, it appears, based on the format of this quotation that Mr. Bellisario copied it from some edited source. Let's take a look, therefore, at the particular section of the letter that Mr. Bellisario quoted, without the editing and isolation provided by his quotation:

For not only in outward form did those wicked men dissemble, putting on as the Lord says sheep’s clothing, and appearing like unto whited sepulchres; but they took those divine words in their mouth, while they inwardly cherished evil intentions. And the first to put on this appearance was the serpent, the inventor of wickedness from the beginning—the devil,—who, in disguise, conversed with Eve, and forthwith deceived her. But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their [Matt. xxii. 29.] power. Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians [1 Cor. xi. 2.], because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions. And the Lord most righteously reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Wherefore do ye also transgress the commandments of God on account of your traditions [Matt. xv. 3.].’ For they changed the commandments they received from God after their own understanding, preferring to observe the traditions of men. And about these, a little after, the blessed Paul again gave directions to the Galatians who were in danger thereof, writing to them, ‘If any man preach to you aught else than that ye have received, let him be accursed [Gal. i. 9.].’

- Athanasius, Festal Letter 2, Section 6

Looking at the quotation in full, we see that the "opinions as the saints have handed down" refers to the opinion of saints as to Scripture. That is to say, the saints do not receive the traditions as being or as being equivalent to the traditions of men. Mr. Bellisario seems unaware of the Scriptural allusion that Athanasius is making when he says that heretics do not know them or their power: he's referring to Scripture as can be clearly seen from Matthew 22:29 and the parallel passage in Mark 12:24:

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Mark 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

The "them" to which Athanasius is referring is "Scriptures" not "the opinions of the saints."

In the next two sentences Athanasisus contrasts the traditions of Paul and the traditions of the Jews. Then in the subsequent sentences reverses the order, again contrasting human tradition and the tradition received from the apostles. There is, however, no mention of a body of apostolic tradition that is separate from or independent of Scripture. Indeed, the specific positive references to "tradition" that Athanasius makes are to the traditions of Paul, and he relies on Scripture (not some secondary body of authority) to substantiate them. Finally, it should be noted that the error of the Jews, per Athanasius and Paul, was departing from the commandments from God and from what had been received. Both of these characterizations suggest a once-for-all delivery of the "tradition" rather than a continuing magisterial authority that can spin new traditions. For more discussion on Athanasius and Sola Scriptura, see the previous interaction with Bellisario linked above.

-TurretinFan

Thanksgiving Verses - Part 1

In the New Testament, our peace offering is Christ. We no longer offer burnt offerings, but instead we remember the offering of Christ in the Eucharist, which means "Thanksgiving," which we usually call the "Lord's Supper" or "Communion" in the Reformed churches. In the Old Testament, however, there was an option to offering a peace offering as a thanksgiving to God. The following passage provides the mechanism for a person to offer thanks to God then:

Leviticus 7:11-15
And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the LORD. If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried. Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings. And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the LORD, and it shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings. And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning.

It is interesting to note that the peace offering was accompanied by both unleavened cakes and leavened bread. This suggests that both leavened and unleavened bread may be suitable for our thanksgiving in the Lord's Supper, despite the long-standing disagreement between the Greeks and the Romans.

-TurretinFan

Praising Ray Comfort

The "Seeking Disciple" at Arminian Today has some good thoughts and praise of Ray Comfort (link). May God continue to use Mr. Comfort to bring people out of atheism and to Christ.

A Picture is Worth 1000 Words

The idea that a picture is worth 1000 words makes this post from "The Pilgrim" at Defending Contending quite a long one (link to post). His point is simple: the more Roman Catholicism changes, the more it stays the same.

Perspicuity of Scripture Contra Bellisario - Part 5

I'm responding to a post from Mr. Matthew Bellisario (see my first post for the introduction). In this post, I address Mr. Bellisario's response to my quotation from Tertullian. Mr. Bellisario has put my words in italics, and I have attempted to reproduce them as he provided them, within the quotation box below. His own words are (for the most part) in the plain font:

Turretin Fan then quotes Tertullian who was a heretic himself who also lived in an age where he did not have access to the New Testament as we know it. Be that as it may maybe Turretin forgot about this text that he wrote,

Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition" (Prescription against the Heretics,28).

I answer:

a) Well, most obviously, Mr. Bellisario never touches the actual quotation from Tertullian provided. Instead, he tries to dodge the question by turning to some other passage of Tertullian.

b) As to the New Testament canon question, looking at ANF3 (the volume of Schaff that includes part of Tertullian's writings), we see that the following books are the only ones that Tertullian does not reference in that volume of Schaff:

Ruth, Ezra, Obediah, Zephaniah, Philemon, 2 John, and Jude. (also, for those interested in such things, he also refers to Tobit, Wisdom, Barch, Susanna, Bel, 1/2 Macabees, and 2 Esdras)

So, yes, even if it was a little fuzzy at the edges, his canon was essentially the same as ours. Besides that, I've addressed Bellisario's implicit canon argument in previous segments.

c) Calling Tertullian an "heretic" doesn't change the fact that he's viewed as the father of Latin Christianity. He eventually wandered off into heresy, but the quotation provided wasn't from an heretical work.

d) As for the additional quotation provided by Bellisario, we note initially that it does not address the same issue as the quotation that I had provided. But let's see what the quotation says in its full context:

Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, [John xiv. 26.] and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; [John xv. 26.] grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, [FN: Tertullian knows no other Vicar of Christ than the Holy Spirit. They who attribute infallibility to any mortal man become Montanists; they attribute the Paraclete’s voice to their oracle.] neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless [Audeat.] enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?

- Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 28

1) Notice, as an interesting but largely irrelevant (to the issue of perspicuity) issue, that Tertullian is arguing that the Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ (not the pope or his minions). The editor's footnote is exactly right in that regard.

2) Notice that Tertullian's primary point is to consider the hypothesis (which obviously views as absurd) that the entire church fell away, and not even one church maintained the truth.

3) Tertullian uses essentially a modus tolens argument. Phrased more formally, the argument is:

Major Premise: If the churches had just simply all gone off on their own separate errors, we would expect a variety of doctrine.

Minor Premise: But we see a unity of doctrine, not a diversity of doctrine.

Conclusion: Therefore, the churches did not all go off on their own separate errors.

The major premise is stated by Tertullian as "is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues."

The minor premise is stated by Tertullian as "When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition."

The conclusion is stated by Tertullian as "Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?"

What is the tradition that Tertullian had in mind? It is simply the gospel. We see this from Tertullian's very next section:

In whatever manner error came, it reigned of course only as long as there was an absence of heresies? Truth had to wait for certain Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free. During the interval the gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized; so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts, so many spiritual endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many ministries, were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns! Else, if not wrongly done, and to no purpose, how comes it to pass that the things of God were on their course before it was known to what God they belonged? that there were Christians before Christ was found? that there were heresies before true doctrine? Not so; for in all cases truth precedes its copy, the likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd enough, however, is it, that heresy should be deemed to have preceded its own prior doctrine, even on this account, because it is that (doctrine) itself which foretold that there should be heresies against which men would have to guard! To a church which possessed this doctrine, it was written—yea, the doctrine itself writes to its own church—“Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.”

- Tertullian, Prescription Against Heresies, Chapter 29

Likewise, we find confirmation that Tertullian is speaking specifically of the gospel in the immediately preceding chapter:

Since, therefore, it is incredible that the apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to declare, or failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith, let us see whether, while the apostles proclaimed it, perhaps, simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault, set it forth otherwise than the apostles had done. All these suggestions of distrust you may find put forward by the heretics. They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?” [Gal. iii. 1.] and, “Ye did run so well; who hath hindered you?” [Gal. v. 7.] and how the epistle actually begins: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him, who hath called you as His own in grace, to another gospel.” [Gal. i. 6.] That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they “were yet carnal,” who “required to be fed with milk,” being as yet “unable to bear strong meat;” [1 Cor. iii. 1, and following verses.] who also “thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know.” [1 Cor. viii. 2.] When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the apostle “rejoices and gives thanks to God,” which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution.

And we see the same thing continuing back to the previous chapters:

Chapter XXVI.—The Apostles Did in All Cases Teach the Whole Truth to the Whole Church. No Reservation, Nor Partial Communication to Favourite Friends.

Chapter XXV.—The Apostles Did Not Keep Back Any of the Deposit of Doctrine Which Christ Had Entrusted to Them. St. Paul Openly Committed His Whole Doctrine to Timothy.

And continuing forward to the subsequent chapters:

Chapter XXX.—Comparative Lateness of Heresies. Marcion’s Heresy. Some Personal Facts About Him. The Heresy of Apelles. Character of This Man; Philumene; Valentinus; Nigidius, and Hermogenes.

Chapter XXXI.—Truth First, Falsehood Afterwards, as Its Perversion. Christ’s Parable Puts the Sowing of the Good Seed Before the Useless Tares.

So, in fact, the section provided by Mr. Bellisario is not helpful to his case at all. But there is a section that is better for him:

Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: “With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.

- Tertullian, Prescription Against Heresies, Chapter 19

How might this be more helpful? Well, it has this line that might sound nice taken out of context: "Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures... ." That doesn't sound very Sola Scriptura, does it! The context, however, is simply that one cannot carry on reasonable debates about the Bible with non-Christians. What's interesting is that when one sees that context, one realizes that Tertullian is saying, in essence, if we were dealing with Christians, we'd argue from the Bible, but since we are dealing with non-Christians, what's the point?

Indeed, it is in that context that Tertullian is addressing the historical question of the possession of the gospel: he's pointing out how it is impossible that all these churches all over the world could have the same gospel if it did not come from the apostles.

So, in short, we've seen that Mr. Bellisario didn't even address the quotation provided from Tertullian and provided us with an irrelevant quotation from Tertullian.

-TurretinFan

Papal Primacy vs. Scripture

Pope Boniface VIII, in Unam Sanctam, stated: “Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.”

Scripture, in contrast, gives universal jurisdiction to Christ alone: “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15) and the Psalmist declares: “Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet” (Psalm 8:6) which the Apostle tells us plainly refers to Christ: “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church” (Ephesians 1:22).

Let Hans Kung Explain ...

... why the papal attempt to cause schism within Anglicanism is likely to undermine Rome's ecumenical attempts (link). I don't endorse or even like Kung. He's a Roman Catholic priest, whose authority to teach theology has been revoked by the Vatican (as of 1979, I believe). Back in the 60's he used to work with Joseph Ratzinger, who is now the pope of Rome, though plainly the two have parted ways in certain respects. Kung is considered a theological "liberal" in Roman Catholicism today. His area of specialty: ecumenical theology.

His view of Christianity is far too broad. Christianity is to be defined by the gospel as preached by Jesus and the apostles: a gospel of repentance from sin and trust for salvation in Christ alone.

Kung's complaints are somewhat revealing, however. They demonstrate the fact that, for Rome, unity with those she considers "other Christians" must always be subservient to her goal of maintaining primacy over the church.

Kung states: "Evidently, the papal primacy – which Pope Paul VI admitted was the greatest stumbling block to the unity of the churches – does not function as the 'rock of unity'."

-TurretinFan

Perspicuity of Scripture Contra Bellisario - Part 4

I'm responding to a post from Mr. Matthew Bellisario (see my first post for the introduction). In this post, I address Mr. Bellisario's response to my quotation from Irenaeus. Mr. Bellisario has put my words in italics, and I have attempted to reproduce them as he provided them, within the quotation box below. His own words are (for the most part) in the plain font:

Then Turretin Fan turns to butcher the words of Saint Irenaeus. One has to wonder when this guy will stop. So he writes,

We have many arguments at our disposal, we might, as Irenaeus (about A.D. 130 - 200) did and take the position that the perspicuity of Scripture is self-evident, hidden only from the blind:

Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it,—those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own.

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 27, Section 2

Many arguments at his disposal? Many weak arguments. What does this prove? We all have to ask ourselves who the blind one is? The one who reads the Scriptures from within the Church or outside of it. Also once again Saint Irenaeus lived in the middle of the second century, which did not possess a universal New Testament text. So it is obvious that this Saint was not referring to the method of Scripture Alone as Turretin Fan understands it to be. It is impossible. Most likely the Saint was referring to the Gospels and the Old Testament, making light of the parables of Jesus, which are only revealed to those whom Christ had removed the blinders from so they could understand them. If anything this defeats Turretin Fan's own argument. One has to wonder if Turretin Fan has really read this Father at any length because the Saint tells us how we are to understand the Scriptures in the very same letter just a couple of books later. He tells us that they must be understood in harmony with the Church's Tradition and from within the apostolic succession of the bishops, which Turretin rejects. Turretin Fan conveniently forgot that part. A flimsy flam for sure. Lets read it shall we?

"True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither addition nor curtailment [in the truth which she believes]; and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and 'above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts of God." -- Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Bk. 4, Chap. 33)

(He had placed bold on his quotation of Irenaeus, I've removed that bold.) I answer:

1) There is a fair amount of chaff in this particular segment of Mr. Bellisario's response. I'll just identify the comments that add nothing to his discussion, and address them as a group:

a) Then Turretin Fan turns to butcher the words of Saint Irenaeus.
b) One has to wonder when this guy will stop.
c) Many arguments at his disposal? Many weak arguments. What does this prove?
d) A flimsy flam for sure.

I think it should be apparent that these arguments require no substantive response since they make no merit-based claim. Thankfully, Mr. Bellisario does make a few arguments that go beyond simple rhetoric.

2) "We all have to ask ourselves who the blind one is? The one who reads the Scriptures from within the Church or outside of it."

It may simply be that this is another one of Bellisario's colorful rhetorical flourishes. I'm trying to give Mr. Bellisario the benefit of the doubt here, though. Who is the blind one according to Irenaeus? It is the person who refuses to believe the clear, unambiguous, and harmonious teachings of the "entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels." Nothing about refusing to interpret them within "the Church" or outside of it. "The Church" doesn't even into the point that Irenaeus is making. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. Irenaeus' point is that those writings ("the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels") speak "clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously" and that you don't need special qualifications ("by all") for this purpose. Irenaeus explains away the objection of those who misinterpret by blaming those people: not the Scriptures.

3) "Also once again Saint Irenaeus lived in the middle of the second century, which did not possess a universal New Testament text."

Actually, Irenaeus is thought to have died at the beginning of the third century (about A.D. 202). I've addressed the referenced ("once again") mistaken concept regarding the canon in the first instance in which Mr. Bellisario raised it. His objection here has a slightly different twist, though. Rather than just claim that Irenaeus didn't know what the canon was, he claims that Irenaeus did not possess a "universal New Testament text."

a) This is a strange objection. So what if he did not have a complete copy of the New Testament? Irenaeus explicitly states that the gospels speak "clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously" regarding at least certain important things. Unless Mr. Bellisario is sticking with his straw man that our position is that everything in Scripture has to be perspicuous, it is odd for Mr. Bellisario to complain that Irenaeus had an incomplete New Testament.

b) It should be fairly apparent that Mr. Bellisario is just speculating regarding what Irenaeus did or didn't have. All the books of the Bible had already been written over a generation before Irenaeus was born. Furthermore, Irenaeus specifically wrote against Marcion, explaining that the number of Gospels was exactly four:

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sits upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit.

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 11, Section 8

Of course, just because Irenaeus somehow knew the number of gospels over a hundred years before Athanasius or the councils of Hippo and Carthage and a thousand years before Trent may not seem like proof enough that one doesn't need an authoritative ecumenical council in order to identify the Scriptures.

c) I don't (right now, at any rate) have time or interest in tracking down precisely which Scriptures were quoted by which of the apostolic fathers. Suffice that in the Schaff patrology, first volume of the Ante-Niceaen fathers (ANF1), the Scripture index contains quotations from all of the books of the Bible except:

Ruth
Ezra
Nehemiah
Obediah
Nahum

(and for those interested, Schaff also lists quotations from Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, Susanna, and Sirach)

Based on this Scripture index, all of the New Testament books are quoted from (or alluded to) by the combination of the apostolic fathers, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeaus (Irenaeus being chronologically last) (link to index). So, one wonders what makes Bellisario think that Irenaeus didn't have the whole New Testament? He doesn't tell us why he thinks that. (Addendum, Schaff includes an Irenaeus-specific index. In that one, there is a quotation, reference or allusion by Irenaeus to all the books of the New Testament except Philemon and 3 John, and to the Old Testament books except those identified above, and further 1&2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Zephaniah, and Haggai.)

4) "So it is obvious that this Saint was not referring to the method of Scripture Alone as Turretin Fan understands it to be. It is impossible."

Mr. Bellisario has again forgotten that the issue was and is the perspicuity of Scripture not the whole "method of Scripture Alone" (as he puts it). But Mr. Bellisario is wrong. One can practice Sola Scriptura even if one has (as Mr. Bellisario seems to think of Irenaeus) a wrong understanding of what books are the true Scriptures. After all, the issue of the identification of Scripture is a separate and preliminary issue: Sola Scriptura assumes that something has been identified as the Scriptura.

5) "Most likely the Saint was referring to the Gospels and the Old Testament, making light of the parables of Jesus, which are only revealed to those whom Christ had removed the blinders from so they could understand them."

a) I do like the fact that Mr. Bellisario seems to recognize the Scriptural truth that the blinders that men have must be removed by Christ if those men are to see. He's quite right in that regard. The problem is that, at least here, Irenaeus is not expressing that thought. Instead, Irenaeus is focusing on the human element: the sense of many Scriptures is plain to all, except those who blind themselves.

b) There's no good reason to suppose that Irenaeus meant only the gospels and the Old Testament. In the very preceding chapter, Irenaeus had used as his theme a quotation from 1 Corinthians, writing:

It is therefore better and more profitable to belong to the simple and unlettered class, and by means of love to attain to nearness to God, than, by imagining ourselves learned and skillful, to be found [among those who are] blasphemous against their own God, inasmuch as they conjure up another God as the Father. And for this reason Paul exclaimed, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth:” [1 Cor. viii. 1.] not that he meant to inveigh against a true knowledge of God, for in that case he would have accused himself; but, because he knew that some, puffed up by the pretense of knowledge, fall away from the love of God, and imagine that they themselves are perfect, for this reason that they set forth an imperfect Creator, with the view of putting an end to the pride which they feel on account of knowledge of this kind, he says, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.”

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 26, Section 1

So there's no good reason to think that Irenaeus meant only the gospels and the Old Testament, though certainly Irenaeus did place a stress on the gospels in this particular chapter.

c) "making light of the parables of Jesus"

In English, "making light of" is an expression that means "trivializing." I don't think that Mr. Bellisario intended to employ that expression (though I durst not assume anything). Instead, I think he means "shining light on."

If so, then Bellisario is partly right. The basic point of Chapter 27 of Book 2 of Irenaeus' Against Heresies is that the proper way of understanding parables and other obscure parts of the Bible (after all, not every passage of Scripture is equally clear) is by turning to the more clear parts of Scripture.

This is, after all, the usual way we understand writings. We interpret the more clear by the less clear. In fact, I'm doing this same thing when I interpret Bellisario's expression "making light of" as "shining light on." It's unlikely, in context, that Bellisario is trying to say that Irenaeus is trivializing parables, so from the more clear context of Bellisario we understand the less clear expression that Bellisario used. Scripture, in that regard, is like most other writings: we under the obscure parts from the clear parts.

That's not what the heretics did. They argued that the right way to understand Scripture was found in oral tradition. In the very sentence after the one I included in the post to which Bellisario is responding, Irenaeus explains:

For that there is nothing whatever openly, expressly, and without controversy said in any part of Scripture respecting the Father conceived of by those who hold a contrary opinion, they themselves testify, when they maintain that the Saviour privately taught these same things not to all, but to certain only of His disciples who could comprehend them, and who understood what was intended by Him through means of arguments, enigmas, and parables.

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 27, Section 2

Irenaeus then goes on, in the next section to compare his position of interpreting Scripture with Scripture building one's house on a rock and their position of interpreting Scripture according to alleged oral tradition as being building one's house on shifting sand:

But since parables admit of many interpretations, what lover of truth will not acknowledge, that for them to assert God is to be searched out from these, while they desert what is certain, indubitable, and true, is the part of men who eagerly throw themselves into danger, and act as if destitute of reason? And is not such a course of conduct not to build one’s house upon a rock [Matt. vii. 25.] which is firm, strong, and placed in an open position, but upon the shifting sand? Hence the overthrow of such a building is a matter of ease.

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 27, Section 3

6) "If anything this defeats Turretin Fan's own argument."

Apparently, Mr. Bellisario means that his speculation (at least partly incorrect) regarding what Irenaeus was trying to say "defeats [my] argument." As noted above, however, a correct and contextual understanding of Irenaeus only reinforces my argument. This all is explained above.

7) "One has to wonder if Turretin Fan has really read this Father at any length because the Saint tells us how we are to understand the Scriptures in the very same letter just a couple of books later."

I would be the first to admit that the early church fathers were sometimes inconsistent. That said, even while it is possible that Irenaeus goes on to contradict something he says here, the more reasonable explanation (when someone looks for a comment from Irenaeus that is not only not in the same section or chapter but not even in the same or an adjacent book) is that Mr. Bellisario is simply attempting to divert attention from what Irenaeus is saying in the passage I quoted. For example, Mr. Bellisario does not claim "Irenaeus contradicted himself," or "Irenaeus later corrected his mistake." Instead, we have more of a request that we look over in another direction (accompanied by some sort of personal dart thrown at me). Perhaps as to familiarity with this father it is sufficient to point out that for Mr. Bellisario to say that Against Heresies is a "letter" is simply to misrepresent the nature of the substantial, five volume treatise.

8) "He tells us that they must be understood in harmony with the Church's Tradition and from within the apostolic succession of the bishops, which Turretin rejects. Turretin Fan conveniently forgot that part. A flimsy flam for sure. Lets read it shall we?"

a) "which Turretin rejects"

There is a lot of juice packed into those three words. What does Bellisario aim to say? There are several options thanks to his ambiguity.

First, he could be saying that I reject his position regarding what Irenaeus teaches. If so, we'll address that below when we get to the quotation itself and compare it to his claim.

Second, he could be saying that I reject the position he ascribes to Irenaeus. If so, he's right. I don't agree that the Scriptures must be understood in the way Mr. Bellisario has asserted. What's interesting is that Mr. Bellisario cannot show such a requirement from Scripture. As we will see below, he cannot substantiate such a requirement from the earliest tradition of the Church or the first generations of those who succeeded the apostles.

Third, he could be saying that I reject the idea of there being traditions of the Church or successors of the apostles. Here he'd be a little confused. Where I disagree is that the human traditions of the Church have equal authority to Scripture, or that the successors of the apostles have equal authority to the apostles. Of course, it is an historical fact that the apostles were succeeded by elders and that those elders were followed by other elders, etc., down to the present day. There is a chain of ordinations. There is also "church tradition" that exists in various forms. Neither this chain of ordinations nor any "church tradition" apart from Scripture has any comparable authority to Scripture.

Fourth, Mr. Bellisario could be saying that I reject his church. If so, he's quite right. But at the same time, he'd be wrong in assuming that Irenaeus was a part of his church. Such an anachronism ought to be its own rebuttal.

b) "Turretin Fan conveniently forgot that part."

Again, the quotation Mr. Bellisario is about to provide is not a "part" of the quotation provided above. It's in the same work, but it is not in the same book, chapter, or section. It's not even in an adjacent book.

Note as well how only a second ago, Mr. Bellisario was claiming that I must not have read much of Irenaeus. Now he is suggesting that I read it and forgot it. This sort of inconsistent rhetoric is self-defeating.

c) "A flimsy flam for sure."

Again with this "flam" usage. See the first post in this series regarding that odd usage issue.

d) "[Irenaeus] tells us that [the Scriptures] must be understood in harmony with the Church's Tradition and from within the apostolic succession of the bishops"

The only support for this claim is Mr. Bellisario's quotation of a few paragraphs from Irenaeus. Let's carefully consider what Irenaeus is saying and see whether it says that the Scripture must be understood in harmony with the Church's Tradition and from within the apostolic succession of the bishops.

The first thing to do is to present the text as it appears in Schaff's patrology, as it appears that Mr. Bellisario's quotation is an edited version of that appearing in Ante-Nicaean Fathers, Volume 1 (Bellisario doesn't specifically identify his source). The unedited quotation is as follows (omitting only the footnotes):

True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 33, Section 8 (all brackets in Schaff's edition)

Looking at the quotation, the first and most indisputable fact is that the comment "[the Scriptures] must be understood in harmony with the Church's Tradition and from within the apostolic succession of the bishops" is not a quotation from Irenaeus. I don't think that even Mr. Bellisario would try to claim that Irenaeus uses those words.

The second fact is that Irenaeus does use the words "the successions of the bishops" (notice that pluralization) and does say "they have handed down" which is the verbal form of "tradition" ("tradition" as a verb means "to hand down"). The term "Scriptures" is also mentioned in the text. So, Mr. Bellisario's characterization has at least some connection to the text.

That is about the limit of the connection that Mr. Bellisario's characterization has with the text. The text doesn't suggest that the successions of bishops are a necessary context in order to understand Scriptures, nor that a distinct body of tradition is required for us to understand what Scriptures teach.

The thrust of the section is the identification of "true knowledge." In order to appreciate what "true knowledge" meant to Irenaeus, one needs context that Mr. Bellisario omitted. The immediately preceding section sets the stage for the discussion:

He [the spiritual man] shall also judge all those who are beyond the pale of the truth, that is, who are outside the Church; but he himself shall be judged by no one. For to him all things are consistent: he has a full faith in one God Almighty, of whom are all things; and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom are all things, and in the dispensations connected with Him, by means of which the Son of God became man; and a firm belief in the Spirit of God, who furnishes us with a knowledge of the truth, and has set forth the dispensations of the Father and the Son, in virtue of which He dwells with every generation of men, according to the will of the Father.

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 33, Section 7

That provides the reference to "knowledge of the truth" that serves as the antecedent basis for the reference to "true knowledge" in the beginning of section 8. The expression about judging all things but being judged of no man is taken directly from Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Furthermore, the discussion of the Father and the Son that make up the core beliefs of this spiritual man who judges those beyond the pale of truth (i.e. outside the Church) are taken from another verse of the same book:

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

And, in the same context of discussing that the spiritual man judges all things, yet is judged of no man, 1 Corinthians 2 acknowledges that it is the Spirit that furnishes us with a knowledge of truth:

1 Corinthians 2:10-13
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

You can see as well in this passage the basic principle that Irenaeus is making regarding the Spirit revealing the Father and the Son. We also see that Irenaeus ascribes a subordinate role to the Spirit much like that of the Son that we see in John's Gospel:

John 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

After pointing out that it is the Spirit that provides us with knowledge of the truth, we encounter what has been designated as section 8. The section is divisible into two parts in the English translation:

"True knowledge is"

Part 1: "[that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and"

What is Irenaeus affirming about the true knowledge here? One alternative is that (as with the dubious quotation from Cyril that we discussed previously) Irenaeus is indicating a correlation between the Church and orthodoxy. It could also be aspirational: that is to say, it could state what ought to be, as opposed to what actually is. The translators of this section noted (in a footnote that Mr. Bellisario did not provide, perhaps because he used the NewAdvent source):

The following section is an important one, but very difficult to translate with undoubted accuracy. The editors differ considerably both as to the construction and the interpretation. We have done our best to represent the meaning in English, but may not have been altogether successful.

Thus, let's reserve some judgment regarding what the possible sense of this part of the discussion is, until we have seen the other half.

Before we get to the second half, though, there are a couple of interesting points to note. First, the "true knowledge" here is most plainly the "doctrine of the apostles." Thus, this is not a situation in which we are dealing with new doctrines defined by a living magisterium.

A similar concept seems to be conveyed by "ancient constitutions." These are not something new, recent, or organic. These are something ancient.

There is something that is not just ancient: "the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place." The concept "distinctive manifestation" is a bit obscure - but it is clear that there is a reference of the successions of the bishops by which they handed down "the Church which exists in every place." It's interesting to note, in passing, that it is not one succession, but a plurality of successions.

The distinctive manifestation becomes a bit more clear when we see the two aspects:

1) "being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and"

2) "neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]"

Notice that, as to the second part, this is a fixed quantum of truths. As to the first part, the system is very complete and there is no forgery of Scripture. The sentence structure seems to suggest that the "forging of Scriptures" would be the way in which there would be addition, and a lack of "guarding and preserving" is what would lead to a curtailment. In short, it looks as though what is being guarded are the canonical Scriptures.

This is confirmed when we turn to the second half of the discussion of what true knowledge is:

Part 2: "[it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]."

Notice that it consists in reading the Scriptures without falsification. The fact that this second part is joined to the first with an "and" can have two possibilities: it can be an additional aspect of the knowledge or it can be a restatement of the knowledge from a different perspective.

Notice as well that it consists in exposition in harmony with the Scriptures. This is essentially the reverse of what Mr. Bellisario had indicated in that this true knowledge is something that is to be read in harmony with the Scriptures, not vice versa. Thus, even assuming that the "true knowledge" were extra-Scriptural tradition (something Mr. Bellisario seems to have assumed rather than demonstrated) the relation to Scripture would be the inverse of what Mr. Bellisario had described.

The statement continues: "both without danger and without blasphemy." This would seem to describe the result of reading in harmony with the Scriptures, although the relation of this phrase the sentence is not particularly clear.

The final comment of the passage really shows the main point of the sentence: it has all been building up to this: Love. Irenaeus says: "and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." This kind of comment tends to undermine the idea that Irenaeus is saying that (as Bellisario claims) "the Scripture must be understood in harmony with the Church's Tradition and from within the apostolic succession of the bishops."

In fact, that love was the focal point we can see from the section that follows:

Wherefore the Church does in every place, because of that love which she cherishes towards God, send forward, throughout all time, a multitude of martyrs to the Father; while all others [FN: i.e., the heretics.] not only have nothing of this kind to point to among themselves, but even maintain that such witness-bearing is not at all necessary, for that their system of doctrines is the true witness [for Christ], with the exception, perhaps, that one or two among them, during the whole time which has elapsed since the Lord appeared on earth, have occasionally, along with our martyrs, borne the reproach of the name (as if he too [the heretic] had obtained mercy), and have been led forth with them [to death], being, as it were, a sort of retinue granted unto them. For the Church alone sustains with purity the reproach of those who suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake, and endure all sorts of punishments, and are put to death because of the love which they bear to God, and their confession of His Son; often weakened indeed, yet immediately increasing her members, and becoming whole again, after the same manner as her type, [Comp. above, xxxi. 2.] Lot’s wife, who became a pillar of salt. Thus, too, [she passes through an experience] similar to that of the ancient prophets, as the Lord declares, “For so persecuted they the prophets who were before you;” [Matt. v. 12.] inasmuch as she does indeed, in a new fashion, suffer persecution from those who do not receive the word of God, while the self-same spirit rests upon her [Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 14.] [as upon these ancient prophets].

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 33, Section 9 (all brackets in Schaff's edition, some as footnotes in Schaff)

This section casts a lot of light on the previous section. We see that Irenaeus is comparing churches with the churches of the heretics. When we shine that light back on the previous section, we get the following result:

"True knowledge is [that which consists in]" => What our church teaches, as opposed to what the heretics teach.

"the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world," => We teach the same thing that was taught by the apostles, but the heretics have departed from the apostles

"and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us," => our church didn't come from nowhere, like the heretics, it is the result of the apostles evangelizing and appointing elders, and those elders evangelizing and appointing other elders, and so forth down to the present time, we (Irenaeus included) being the latest generation of this process

"being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine," => The "true knowledge" of our church is guarded and preserved by a complete system of doctrine, doctrines that do not require forged Scriptures, whereas the heretics have incomplete systems of doctrines and rely on apocryphal scriptures

"and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes];" => We are not adding or removing truths like the heretics are

"and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification," => We read Scriptures exegetically, not eisegetically, like the heretics

"and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy;" => We avoid danger and blasphemy by comparing Scripture with Scripture

"and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]" => We have a true love for God, whereas the heretics do not (that love being shown in martyrdom)

In short, not to impose too systematic a structure on Irenaeus, we could say that "true knowledge" is:
1) Ecclesiastically, to be connected to the apostles by being under those who were under those who were under those who were under the apostles;
2) Doctrinally, to derive one's teachings from the Scriptures by comparing Scripture with Scripture, not fabricating either Scripture itself or the sense thererof; and
3) Practically, to love God, even to be willing to die for his Name.

While (1) may seem to favor supposedly "ancient" churches like Rome, that's a rather different issue from the issue we are discussing. In point of fact, on doctrine (item 2), we find Irenaeus pointing us to Scripture, suggesting that our doctrines must harmonize with Scripture, not the other way 'round.

We find further confirmation of this reading of section 8 not only from section 9 but also from looking back to section 7. I've already discussed the second half of section 7, but let's look now at the first half:

He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it,—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. [Matt. xxiii. 24.] For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism.

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 33, Section 7 (all brackets in Schaff's edition, some as footnotes in Schaff)

Notice how well that fits with the explanation just given. The schismatic is one who breaks with the church over some improper reason (something trifling or arbitrary). Doing so shows a lack of love for God: while they act as though they are straining out some gnat of error, they swallow a camel (an enormous error). The only possible justification for schism is reformation, but such men as this are dividing over minor or arbitrary things, such any reformation that they theoretically could produce could not justify their actions.

As for the remaining part of section 7, as we saw above, it speaks of the Scriptural faith of the spiritual man and the fact that all things are consistent to him. Thus, we see the same three points in section 7 phrased one way, and section 8 phrased another way. However, no matter how we look at it, even the light most favorable to Rome, it doesn't say what Mr. Bellisario contends.

-TurretinFan

Perspicuity of Scripture Contra Bellisario - Part 3

I'm responding to a post from Mr. Matthew Bellisario (see my first post for the introduction). In this post, I address Mr. Bellisario's response to my quotation from Justin Martyr. Mr. Bellisario has put my words in italics, and I have attempted to reproduce them as he provided them, within the quotation box below. His own words are (for the most part) in the plain font:

Then Turretin Fan quotes Saint Justin Martyr in an attempt to bolster his position that the Scriptures are easy to understand.

Pay attention, therefore, to what I shall record out of the holy Scriptures, which do not need to be expounded, but only listened to.

- Justin Martyr, Dialog With Trypho, Chapter 55

First of all Saint Justin Martyr lived in the middle of the second century. There was not a New Testament canon yet, nor would there be for the next 150 years or more. So the Saint was not even referring to the New Testament as we know it. Secondly the great Saint is only talking about an isolated case here where he is quoting the Scriptures for a specific purpose. Anyone knows that Justin was not making a blanket statement on Scripture as not needing any exposition on them. This is once again a pitiful stretch of the text. If this is so then why does the "Reformer" read the writings of John Calvin in which he expounds upon the Scriptures giving his own interpretation? As many times as I have heard the Reformed apologist tell us that the Scriptures need no aid to their understanding, I am baffled by the pages of Scripture commentaries they refer to. If you have to write anything other than what is in the text itself (in this case the Scriptures), then by definition you are expounding upon the text.

I answer:
1) As to the intro: "Then Turretin Fan quotes Saint Justin Martyr in an attempt to bolster his position that the Scriptures are easy to understand," I've noted a couple of times that the argument is not that every Scripture text is easy to understand. Also, Justin Martyr is not properly a "saint," in traditional Roman Catholic hagiology, not that it matters much (the practice of calling him a "saint" seems to have originated in the 19th century, and gradually expanded due to carelessness - but this issue has nothing to do with the topic of the discussion). In fact, Justin Martyr's testimony is really brought as rebuttal to the idea that Scripture cannot be understood without some further "tradition."

2) Belliario continued: "First of all Saint Justin Martyr lived in the middle of the second century. There was not a New Testament canon yet, nor would there be for the next 150 years or more. So the Saint was not even referring to the New Testament as we know it."

As far as we know, Justin Martyr was born about A.D. 100 and lived to around A.D. 165. There are two main schools of thought as to the date of the completion of the last book of the New Testament, either before A.D. 70 or before A.D. 100. Thus, unless Bellisario is taking a position that no serious scholar has taken, the New Testament was complete either well or at least shortly before Justin Martyr was born.

More likely, Bellisario is simply confusing the historical reality of the canon with official proclamations of this canon. The canon is an historical reality: it is, by definition, the set of the inspired writings. That canon was complete as soon as the last book of the New Testament was finished, whether anyone (other than God) knew that objective reality. Furthermore, while some people may have been uncertain about the objective reality of whether a particular book was in or out of the canon is not dependent on anyone knowing that it is in the canon.

Further, we have to presume that Mr. Bellisario is trying to point us either to Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter (about A.D. 367) or to the Councils of Hippo (about A.D. 393) and/or Carthage (about A.D. 397), each of which contained a correct listing of the New Testament canon. Those are both more than 200 years after Justin's death, though, so it is not perfectly clear what Mr. Bellisario is trying to reference.

In any event, Mr. Bellisario's argument appears to be that because Athanasius and/or Hippo/Carthage haven't come around, people didn't know what Scripture was because they had no authoritative canon. Of course, even after Hippo/Carthage the canon was not "authoritative" because those were regional councils (same for Athanasius, because he's just one bishop). In fact, the first "ecumenical" council to define (authoritatively) the canon of the New Testament was the council of Trent.

Now, if Mr. Bellisario wants to insist that people just had no idea what Scripture was before Trent, so be it. But that's rather unreasonable. Athanasius shows us people knew about it before regional councils weighed in, and the regional councils show us that people knew about it before any bishop of Rome or ecumenical council weighed in. In fact, over a thousand years passed between Athanasius, Hippo, and Carthage (on the one hand) and Trent (on the other hand). People referred to Scripture as Scripture during that time, blissfully unaware of any need for any authoritative canon.

That may sound bad for Mr. Bellisario, but it gets worse. Mr. Bellisario seems to have assumed that Justin Martyr is speaking about the New Testament scriptures. Justin is not. Justin is speaking of Old Testament Scriptures. After all, Justin is debating Trypho, a Jew.

Of course, the same rebuttals apply to Mr. Bellisario's canon argument, if we let him change it to Old Testament canon. It may well be that Justin Martyr had an idea about what books were in the Old Testament that differs in some minor way from the books we have today. What is interesting, though, is that he not only used the term "Scriptures" as though it had meaning, but used it as though it would have meaning to a Jew. That's not overly surprising, I guess: Jesus himself referred to the Old Testament canon as "the Scriptures," without ever explicitly providing a list.

Nevertheless, the ability to reference a group of books by the term "the Scriptures" suggests at least some recognition of the canon, without any authoritative list sitting around: without any "inspired table of contents," as some Romanists are wont to put it. Thus, even if Justin Martyr's knowledge of the canon was less than ours, he had a more or less clear idea of what the Old Testament Scriptures were and so did his Jewish opponent.

Mr. Bellisario's comment, "[Justin] is only talking about an isolated case here where he is quoting the Scriptures for a specific purpose ... [a]nyone knows that Justin was not making a blanket statement on Scripture as not needing any exposition on them," is misleading at best. Anyone reading the statement sees that's not what he's saying. Justin's saying that there are some clear Scriptures that, on an important topic, don't require any interpretation. They speak for themselves. But is Mr. Bellisario willing to grant that many Scriptures are self-evident in their meaning? It's hard to see Mr. Bellisario agreeing that, yes, much of Scripture is easy to understand, so much so that it doesn't require any interpretation.

As potentially misleading as Mr. Bellisario's comments above are, though, his next one is worse: "This is once again a pitiful stretch of the text." The problem with this comment is that he's creating a straw man. He's trying to suggest that I've argued that all of Scripture requires no interpretation, which (of course) is not the case.

His straw man is undermined by the fact that the Reformed churches so prominently exegete and interpret Scripture. Mr. Bellisario recognizes this fact in his remaining comments, which makes his use of a straw man inexcusable. Furthermore, of course, sometimes comments are needed because even Scriptures that are perfectly clear are attacked by those who wish to obscure what is plain.

-TurretinFan

Blueprint for Reliability Following the Lord's Example

Gennadius (died about A.D. 496) on James of Nisibis (aka "the Wise") (died after A.D. 350): "He composed also a Chronicle of little interest indeed to the Greeks, but of great reliability in that it is constructed only on the authority of the Divine Scriptures." (Gennadius, Supplement to Jerome's Illustrious Men, Chapter 1)

Gennadius (died about A.D. 496) on Evagrius the Monk (lived about A.D. 345 - 399): "He was first to mention or among the first at least to teach these setting against them [i.e. the eight principal sins] eight books taken from the testimony of the Holy Scriptures only, after the example of our Lord, who always met his tempter with quotations from Scripture, so that every suggestion, whether of the devil or of depraved nature had a testimony against it." (Gennadius, Supplement to Jerome's Illustrious Men, Chapter 11)

But, according to Patrick Madrid, Sola Scriptura is a "Blueprint for Anarchy" and alleges that it is "unhistorical, unbiblical and unworkable." Let the reader consider whether to trust Madrid or Gennadius.

-TurretinFan

Perspicuity of Scripture Contra Bellisario - Part 2

I'm responding to a post from Mr. Matthew Bellisario (see my first post for the introduction). In this post, I address Mr. Bellisario's response to my quotation from Cyril of Jerusalem. Mr. Bellisario has put my words in italics, and I have attempted to reproduce them as he provided them, within the quotation box below. His own words are (for the most part) in the plain font:

As Cyril of Jerusalem (about A.D. 315 – 386) put it:

Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

- Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture IV, Section 17

Turretin Fan takes the Father out of context. What Turretin Fan fails to tell you is that Saint Cyril's work that he quotes from is a catechetical lecture based on the Scriptures, which is why this particular text is focused on the Scriptures. Saint Cyril however never tells us that Scripture alone is how the Church receives its only Divine Revelation and where it gets its only authority from. Cyril is telling his catechumens that the Gospel was not based on clever human reasoning, but that he had based his lectures on Holy Writ. Turretin has reached far beyond the context of the text. No Catholic would disagree that salvation is demonstrated from the Holy Scriptures or that the Gospel is based on human ingenious reasoning. Next.

I answer:

I. Clarifying the Charges

a) Mr. Bellisario's first charge is that I have taken Cyril's comments out of context. The context that he says I've omitted is that is from a catechetical lecture based on the Scriptures. Mr. Bellisario asserts that this explains why this particular text of Cyril is focused on Scripture. As for the context, I did point out that the quotation was taken from one of Cyril's catechetical lectures. So, Mr. Bellisario must be charging that I did not indicate that the catechetical lecture was based on the Scriptures.

b) Mr. Bellisario's second charge is that Cyril never tells us that Scripture alone is how the Church receives its only Divine Revelation and is the source of the Church's only authority.

c) Mr. Bellisario's third charge appears to be an assertion that, in effect, I have misrepresented Cyril's comment. According to Mr. Bellisario, Cyril is telling his students that the Gospel was not based on clever human reasoning, and(?) that Cyril based his lectures on Holy Writ.

d) Mr. Bellisario's fourth charge is that I've reached "far beyond the context of the text." Mr. Bellisario does not explain this charge particularly, though it seems to be connected to charge (1) above.

e) Mr. Bellisario's fifth charge is that "No Catholic would disagree that salvation is demonstrated from the Holy Scriptures or that the Gospel is based on human ingenious reasoning" by which I think he means that no Roman Catholic would, in Mr. Bellisario's opinion, either think that "the Gospel" is based on ingenious human reasoning or disagree that "salvation can be demonstrated" from the Bible. It's actually still not clear what Mr. Bellisario means by "salvation can be demonstrated" or even what Mr. Bellisario intends to convey by "the Gospel." We assume that Mr. Bellisario is just parroting back Cyril's words from the second half of the quotation.

II. Responding to the Charges

a) As for pointing out the context, I did (as noted above) point out that the quotation was taken from one of Cyril's catechetical lectures. Also, given the nature of the quotation (that people shouldn't believe anything that Cyril didn't prove from Scripture) it should be obvious to anyone that Cyril was trying to base his lecture on Scripture. So, this charge seems hollow.

b) As for what Cyril didn't say, one wonders why Bellisario thinks Cyril would have to say "Scripture alone is how the Church receives its only Divine Revelation and where it gets its only authority from." It looks like Mr. Bellisario is trying to insist that Cyril express a negative concept in a very specific way. Why? There's no good reason.

Cyril is pretty specific: "Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures." That expression "even ... me" is a way of promoting Cyril to the top of list of sources, and "unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures" is a way of saying that they shouldn't accept "the things which [he] announce[s]" unless they are proved to them from Scripture.

How on earth is that supposed to be consistent with the Romanist position? Can you really imagine a Roman pope saying, "Don't accept even what I teach you unless you receive the proof of this encyclical from Scripture"? Can you imagine any priest of the Roman church suggesting that anything the church, through him, teaches needs proof from Scripture for acceptance?

I ask because that's what Cyril is saying. He's saying that these folks who are not yet even baptized - these catechumen folks - are not to accept what he says unless he proves it from Scripture. He's not telling them, "don't believe what I teach unless I prove it from the teachings of the church," or "believe whatever I teach, because I represent the voice of the church." No, he's inviting them to reject whatever he teaches for which they don't receive proof from Scripture.

c) Mr. Bellisario is mistaken if he thinks that Cyril is simply claiming that he based his lectures on Scripture. That's one thing implied by what Cyril says, of course, but what Cyril is saying is that the catechumen should not accept what Cyril says without proof from Scripture. It's one thing for Cyril to "based his lectures on Scripture" (though the lectures are topical, not exegetical) and quite another for him to encourage them to demand Scripture proof for acceptance.

Mr. Bellisario is also mistaken in trying to limit the quotation simply to a denial that the message Cyril is teaching is a message based on bare reason. He's contrasting two things: (1) ingenious reasoning and (2) demonstration from Scripture. He's denying (1) and affirming (2). Cyril is not just teaching that the salvation he teaches does not depend from ingenious reasoning, but but that it does depend on demonstration from Scripture. Cyril is conveying the rule of Christian faith to the catechumen.

Cyril's words parallel those of the apostle Peter:

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

But notice the difference: Peter was an eyewitness, and Cyril was not. Therefore, Cyril relies on Scripture, whereas Peter learned directly from Jesus.

Notice that, contrary to Mr. Bellisario's insinuations, this not just Cyril's lectures that are based on Scripture, but the dogmas of the faith: "this salvation we believe." These catechetical lectures are the transferring of the faith to the catechumen, teaching what is to be believed for salvation. Thus, while (of course!) the comment is immediately applicable to the teaching of the faith being imparted by the catechetical lectures, it is broadly applicable to the doctrines of the Christian religion being imparted through the mouth of Cyril as a spokesman for the Church.

d) This is already answered above.

e) The claim that "No Catholic would disagree that salvation is demonstrated from the Holy Scriptures or that the Gospel is based on human ingenious reasoning" misses the point. Even leaving aside Mr. Bellisario's apparent grammatical errors and the ambiguities of his comment, the issue is not whether the true doctrines can be demonstrated from Scripture.

Notice that Cyril doesn't just say that they can be proved from Scripture: Cyril invites the catechumen to exercise private judgment and not accept any teaching of Cyril's that is not just based on Scripture, but proved to the catechumen from Scripture. The statement: "this salvation which we believe depends ... on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures" is about as clear a statement of the fact that Scripture is the rule of faith as one could hope for, short of using those exact words. Furthermore, while that phrase doesn't explicitly use the word "only" the previous sentence including "even ... me" and "not ... unless" conveys the same sense in different words.

- TurretinFan

Addendum: Mr. Matthew Bellisario has added some commentary suggesting that even if we are right about the quotation above, Cyril says something different and more helpful to the Romanist position in section 1 of Lecture 17 (link to Bellisario's comment - and clarification). Specifically, Mr. Bellisario provided the following quotation:

"1. In the preceding Lecture, according to our ability we set before you, our beloved hearers, some small portion of the testimonies concerning the Holy Ghost; and on the present occasion, we will, if it be God's pleasure, proceed to treat, as far as may be, of those which remain out of the New Testament: and as then to keep within due limit of your attention we restrained our eagerness (for there is no satiety in discoursing concerning the Holy Ghost), so now again we must say but a small part of what remains. For now, as well as then, we candidly own that our weakness is overwhelmed by the multitude of things written."

- Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 17, Section 1

The very first thing to note that is that Mr. Bellisario has left off the last sentence of the section. Those sentences are:

Neither to-day will we use the subtleties of men, for that is unprofitable; but merely call to mind what comes from the divine Scriptures; for this is the safest course, according to the blessed Apostle Paul, who says, Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual [1 Cor. ii. 13.]. Thus we act like travellers or voyagers, who having one goal to a very long journey, though hastening on with eagerness, yet by reason of human weakness are wont to touch in their way at divers cities or harbours.

- Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 17, Section 1

What then is Mr. Bellisario's apparent argument? His apparent argument is that "remain out of the New Testament" is a reference to extra-Scriptural revelation. That's not what Cyril means. Cyril is pointing out that his previous lecture (Lecture 16) was based on the Old Testament, and now he is going to be presenting the remaining proofs from the New Testament.

This is confirmed by the sentence that Mr. Bellisario omitted - a sentence that simply drips Sola Scriptura: "Neither to-day will we use the subtleties of men, for that is unprofitable; but merely call to mind what comes from the divine Scriptures; for this is the safest course, according to the blessed Apostle Paul, who says, Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual [1 Cor. ii. 13.]." Notice that Cyril has taken the position that the safest course is merely to call to mind what comes from the Scriptures. Incidentally, we are going to see a similar discussion of 1 Corinthians 2:13 when we come to Irenaeus.

But it appears that while this post was being prepared, Mr. Swan made a similar note to Mr. Bellisario and persuaded him (to some extent) regarding this lecture (Mr. Swan's comment, pointing out that the last section [section 32] of Lecture 16 is: "And indeed it were easy to collect very many texts out of the Old Testament, and to discourse more largely concerning the Holy Ghost. But the time is short; and we must be careful of the proper length of the lecture. Wherefore, being for the present content awhile with passages from the Old Testament, we will, if it be God’s pleasure, proceed in the next Lecture to the remaining texts out of the New Testament. And may the God of peace, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and through the love of the Spirit, count all of you worthy of His spiritual and heavenly gifts: - To whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.")(Mr. Bellisario's acknowledgment). However, Mr. Bellisario pointed to the next lecture, averring that Cyril has something contrary to Sola Scriptura in that lecture. Specifically, Mr. Bellisario provided the following quotation (Mr. Bellisario providing the quotation):

Now then let me finish what still remains to be said for the Article, "In one Holy Catholic Church," on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly.
23. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly ; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.

- Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 18, Sections 22-23

The very attentive reader will note that Mr. Bellisario's quotation has an unusual punctuation issue after the word "earthly" - namely there is a space before the semicolon. The reason for that artifact is probably that Mr. Bellisario got his text of the lecture from newadvent.org - a helpful website that unfortunately removes many of the footnotes in their reproduction of the Schaff edition. In this case, the footnote states:

Bishop Lightfoot (Ignatius, ad Smyrnæos, viii.) traces the original and later senses of the word “Catholic” very fully. “In its earliest usages, therefore, as a fluctuating epithet of ἐκκλησία, ‘catholic’ means ‘universal,’ as opposed to ‘individual,’ ‘particular.’ In its later sense, as a fixed attribute, it implies orthodoxy as opposed to heresy, conformity as opposed to dissent.” Commenting on this passage of Cyril, the Bishop adds that “these two latter reasons, that it (the Church) is comprehensive in doctrine, and that it is universal in application, can only be regarded as secondary glosses.”

What is the significance of this comment? The significance is that Mr. Bellisario is relying on a portion of Cyril that is not, according to Lightfoot, not authentic.

More importantly, even if it were authentic, it is simply an indication of correlation between the church that is spread throughout the world and a complete set of doctrines. There is no suggestion that the church has a complete set of doctrines because she is the church, as opposed to being the church because she has a complete set of doctrines. Given the other places where Cyril makes plain that the church derives its doctrines from Scripture, this sort of correlative comment is not only uncompelling, it is essentially irrelevant.

-TurretinFan

Steve Hays Responds to Francis Beckwith

I enjoyed this article (link) from Steve Hays on Francis Beckwith and his (Francis') peeve about the label "Roman Catholic."

Catholic or Roman?

John Z at The Boar's Head Tavern writes:

[Francis] Beckwith seems to think that his particularly vocal Protestant apologist detractors are using the prefix “Roman” as a pejorative instead of being merely descriptive. This is probably true to a certain extent, because I’m sure many of them have no use for the word “catholic” themselves.

(source)

I certainly can't speak for all of Beckwith's detractors, but many of us take being catholic (in the true sense of the term) seriously. For us, to be "catholic" means to have the universal (that's what "catholic" means) faith. It means to believe in the gospel. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. Rome is not a part of that church. The Roman church is not a catholic church because it has anathematized the gospel. The way of salvation that Rome teaches will not lead one to heaven, but to hell. It is, therefore, misdescriptive to call the church of the pope, "the catholic church."

John Z continued:

I have no problem if Beckwith and other Roman Catholics want to identify themselves as just simply “Catholic.” The terminology has evolved in such a way that it’s the first thing people think of when they hear the word. However, in the comment box, people are gently pushing back, reminding him that the creed talks about the “holy catholic church” and that there are plenty of Protestants (myself included) that are perfectly comfortable using the term for themselves in the sense that it means in that context. In this sense the “Roman” prefix would not be a pejorative but would rather be descriptive of what sort of “catholic” you are talking about.

There seems to be something of a dichotomy here. We don't use the term "Roman" to specify which sort of "catholic" a person is, but to indicate that the term "catholic" is not being used in its ordinary sense, but as part of a sectarian designation.

There are other ways we can designate members of that sect: "Romanist" and "papist" are two that have been in common use among the Reformed churches for centuries. Both of those terms are descriptive labels relating to the ecclesiology of Rome ("papist" referring to being an adherent to the papacy, and "Romanist" referring to being an adherent of the bishop of Rome). When folks like Beckwith complain that there are many rites of Roman Catholicism and that the Latin rite is just one of those rites, it encourages folks like me to use the term "papist" to avoid any confusion over the fact that I don't mean "Latin rite" by the term "Roman."

Of course, the term "papist" tends to ruffle the feathers of Roman Catholics worse than any other descriptive term, so we sometimes try to minimize needless (even if it is unjustified) offense by using the term "Roman Catholic" or "Romanist" instead of "papist."

After a brief quotation from Beckwith (which we'll address last) John Z concludes:

Beckwith is my brother in Christ (internet apologists send in the attack dogs!), but I think this is kind of an immature response. In my opinion, he ought to be pleased that more and more Protestants are seeing the necessity to call themselves “catholic” with all it entails (first and foremost that we don’t think that centuries went by without any true church).

Francis Beckwith is an apostate evangelical. We have no good reason to think that he has saving faith in Jesus Christ. Folks who view Beckwith as their "brother in Christ" seem to have either a different notion of the gospel itself (which I am inclined to suspect is the majority of the cases), a very different notion of who should be called a brother in Christ (perhaps some of the Federal Vision folks would fit in here), or perhaps a different experience with Beckwith (after all, just because someone is a member of an apostate church does not guarantee that the person themselves is a full adherent to their church's teachings).

I doubt many folks would be willing to call Bart Ehrman, another and more famous apostate evangelical, their "brother in Christ." But if you claim to be an evangelical Christian, why would you accept one apostate and not the other? Do you think that the legalism of Rome saves? Do you think that adherence to the Roman pontiff is a true way to the Father?

I realize that John Z may be a very kindhearted person who does not like to judge someone. Yet there are some times when judgment is necessary and appropriate:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Furthermore, I think John Z must be a bit naive. Why would Beckwith be pleased that those he must view as "heretics" (though perhaps Beckwith does not view them as Trent did) want to consider themselves "catholic"? We who view Rome as a proponent of heresy are not happy that Rome is attempting to call herself "catholic" - why would Rome be happy to have heretics apply that label to themselves? But John Z does not view Rome as heretical, so it is not so obvious to him. Hopefully, he recognizes that Mormonism is heretical. If so, is he happy when Mormons refer to themselves as Christians? I would hope not.

But it is worse than simply being a misdescription or simply a matter of Beckwith being grousy over a term that he should be happy for evangelicals to appropriate. Here is the final piece of John Z's comment including his blockquotation of Beckwith:

Beckwith concedes this point but doesn’t seem to take it too seriously, finally saying:

I guess it should not surprise me that a Protestant would not only protest against the Catholic Church but also the Catholic Church’s use of the word Catholic. He’s not pleased with just leaving our church and having his own church; he wants to take our name and give us a new one. So much for the “priesthood of all believers.” :-)

Does Francis Beckwith really think we consider him a believer? We don't. Surely Beckwith is aware of this.

But worse than that, notice that Beckwith claims that "catholic" is "our name." He's not only using a term that's misdescriptive of his sect, but trying to claim exclusive use of the term for his sect. Rome and her pontiff try to claim universal dominion over Christianity. That is, after all, one of the reasons that the Reformers identified the office of Roman pontiff with the man of sin:

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
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.

Even Arminius understood this:

It is demonstrable by the most evident arguments that the name of Antichrist and of The Adversary of God belongs to him. For the apostle ascribes the second of these epithets to him when he calls him "the man of sin, 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. ii. 3-8.) It was he who should arise out of the ruins of the Roman empire, and should occupy its vacant digaity. These expressions, we assert, must be understood, and can be understood, solely respecting the Roman pontiff. But the name of "The Antichrist" belongs to him pre-eminently, whether the particle anti signifies opposition, or the substitution of one thing for another; not indeed such a substitution as is lawfully and legitimately made by Him who has the power of placing things in subordination, but it signifies one by which any man is substituted, either by himself or by another person through force and fraud. For he is both a rival to Christ, and his adversary, when he boasts of himself as the spouse, the head, and the foundation of the church, endowed with plenitude of power; and yet he professes himself to be the vicegerent of Christ, and to perform his functions on earth, for the sake of his own private advantage, but to the manifest injury of the church of Christ. He has, however, considered it necessary to employ the name of Christ as a pretext, that under this sacred name he may obtain that reverence for himself among Christians, which he would be unable to procure if he were openly to profess himself to be either the Christ, or the adversary of Christ.

- Arminius, Disputation 21, Section 12

These days, however, folks have lost sight of what matters - of the importance of affirming sola fide against the legalism of Rome. Arminius was wrong to treat faith as he did - and his errors were serious errors. Dordt was right, but Arminius looks positively orthodox against the backdrop of the broad landscape of contemporary evangelicalism and especially the "ecumenical" segments thereof.

-TurretinFan

When the Moon Hits Your Eye ...

(for those too young to remember Dean Martin or who otherwise miss my allusion)

My pizza illustration (which you can find here) seems to have caught the eye of Mr. Bellisario, though he could hardly be said to be in love with it (you can catch his comments here).

Mr. Bellisario seems to have difficulty handling the argument, though. Let's examine what he does:

1. Insults

Just read his post, you'll agree that's not amore.

2. Straw man

The first time Mr. Bellisario tries to characterize my position he gets it wrong. He states:

Turretin Fan however has another solution to the Biblical Canon. He says since it exists, then we know what it is. The only problem with his arguments is, he doesn't know what it is.

This argument may seem to shine like it had too much wine, but that's largely because it's not the argument I presented. What I actually said was:

If you have "the Bible" you can deduce the canon. To say that "The Bible doesn't tell you what the Canon is," is rather like saying that the Pizza doesn't tell you what its ingredients are. Well, there may not be a list of ingredients on the side, but if you have the pizza you can write your own list of ingredients.

(of course that's not all I said, that's one short paragraph out of the post)

That argument is not logically or practically equivalent to saying that since the canon exists, we know what it is. Frankly put, I cannot imagine where Bellisario got that idea.

The pizza illustration may have distracted him a bit, so perhaps he'll try, now, to understand the argument with a different illustration. Suppose you buy a copy of Moby Dick, only you discover that the printer didn't include a table of contents. Could you write out a table of contents yourself from the book? Of course you could! It would be a little annoying, since one expects the convenience of a table of contents these days, but it would be easily done.

If you have the book, writing out the table of contents is a trivial task.

The problem is not writing out the table of contents: the problem is getting the book. After all, the Bible didn't fall out of heaven bound in leather with gilt edges and a pair of lovely ribbons to serve as bookmarks. It was given to us piece by piece.

Of course, in the case of many believers, it does come to them so bound and gilt. It doesn't fall from heaven, but their parents or an evangelist comes to them and says "this is the Word of God" and they either believe this claim or they do not. Later they may discover that the way the Bible came was in much smaller pieces originally, and this may spur them on to investigate whether the bundle has the correct number of sticks.

But again - the same kind of question takes place, simply on a smaller scale. The question is whether this book of Genesis is God's word or not, and Exodus, and so on. They may believe in each case, or they may doubt.

And the same holds true of parts of books, and even individual words. We have critical, majority, and received texts of New Testament that each bring to the reader's attention the need to consider whether a particular word is the inspired word or not.

In Roman Catholicism, there is "canon" (a listing) of books that Rome says are inspired (provided by Trent). Additionally, Rome has clearly taken the position that the extraneous portions of Esther, Daniel, and Jeremiah are inspired. Originally (i.e. in the days of Trent and shortly thereafter), Rome tried to promote the Sistine and then the Clementine Vulgates as being absolutely correct down to the correct words. Now, the Nova Vulgata has come out with significant numbers of wording changes, suggesting that any claim to any word-for-word guarantee is off the table. Until Rome speaks again, there is no inspired table of contents for the book of Matthew in Roman Catholicism - nor of Mark, etc., though no one seems to think this is a problem.

More amusingly, the copies of the decrees of the council of Trent that I have seen have not included a table of contents. Perhaps there was one made. That table of contents, however, was not something that was dogmatically defined by Trent, and consequently would not be (if it existed) deemed an infallible table.

Does this create an insoluable problem for those who wish to rely on the council of Trent in Roman Catholicism? Surely not - just as the absence of "an infallible canon of Scripture" does not create problems for the Reformed churches.

3. Mixed Metaphor / Straw man

Mr. Bellisario wrote:

[TurretinFan] doesn't realize the the Bible he is using doesn't contain all of the books that the Church has recognized as being Scripture. So now he compares the Scriptures to a pizza. Just when you think you have seen it all. So I guess if anyone walks up to you and hands you a "Bible" you should just take their word for it that it is God's Written Word, right? So I guess if the pizza guy were to walk up to Turretin Fan's house with a pizza box that only contained a half of pizza in it, he would be perfectly happy. Hey, its a pizza, its not a whole one, but who cares, its a pizza.
...
We know that the Bible has 73 books in it because Christ tells us so through His Church. If [TurretinFan] comes up to you telling you that it has only 66 books, then it obviously isn't a complete Bible, or if we want to use this guy's analogy, it isn't a whole pizza, despite what the box says.

You'll recall that the original metaphor had to do with ingredients. Now Mr. Bellisario has mixed the metaphor and referred us to the number of slices in the pizza. That's ok. We'll address his argument.

The straw man portion of his argument is his statement: "I guess if anyone walks up to you and hands you a 'Bible' you should just take their word for it that it is God's Written Word, right?" One wonders if even Mr. Bellisario thinks this is what we have been arguing. Does Mr. Bellisario really think that the Reformed position is that if anyone walks up to you and hands you a "Bible" you should just take their word for it that it is God's written Word? After all, we already explained to him previously that the Holy Spirit persuades men of the authenticity of Scripture. We don't simply take someone's word for it, although (of course) one of the instruments by which we may be persuaded is through the testimony of a person.

What about his analogy? His analogy simply begs the question. Let's alter his analogy a bit further. Suppose that a pizza shows up in its box, but Mr. Bellisario notices that there are no breadsticks. Suppose further that Mr. Bellisario insists that it is not really a pizza without breadsticks. That would be a more fitting analogy. After all, the Apocrypha may have a lot of value for various purposes, and it may even be nice to put them in the same box with the pizza, but they are not quite the same thing.

Of course, the counter-illustration begs the same question from the opposite side. The question is really over whether the breadsticks should be considered part of the pizza. Is it a true pizza without the breadsticks? Mr. Bellisario may adamantly say, "no," and we may adamantly say, "yes," but the question becomes how reach agreement. After all, the pizza itself (or pizza portion of the pizza from Bellisario's perspective) isn't it dispute. We both agree that it is pizza - the only question is whether the breadsticks are also part of the pizza.

The problem for Mr. Bellisario is that there just aren't many good arguments to be made for the idea that the breadsticks are really part of the pizza.

He appeals to the idea that "Christ ... through the Church" tells us that there are 73 books. The problem, however, is that Trent wasn't speaking for Christ. Mr. Bellisario has asserted that, but we have no good reason to think that his statement is true: quite to the contrary, we have many good reasons to believe that his claim is false.

But I hear the bells ringing "ting-a-ling-a-ling" so perhaps I should move on to other topics. Mr. Bellisario's pizza post has done nothing to revitalize his fallacious appeals to the absence of an infallible canon. He thinks that we have a canon problem, but what he doesn't realize is that he has an even bigger canon problem (if canons are a problem). We told him before that his church is misleading him, but he won't listen to us. He cannot establish why his position is right beyond simply claiming that Christ speaks through his church. He doesn't understand the absurdity of insisting that the Bible has to provide its own table of contents, nor does he address the myriad of other arguments laid out in the post.

So, we continue to sing "Vita Bella!"

-TurretinFan