Matthew Bellisario, editor of the Catholic Champion, was kind enough to bring this clip to my attention, and I'm happy to bring it to the attention of Dave Armstrong and others, who think that Francis is just business as usual for the Roman see:
Christopher Ferrara is a traditionalist Roman Catholic, to be sure, but that's kind of the point. He says: "Something is seriously wrong with this pontificate. You can't deny it any longer." (Christopher Ferrara, 11 minutes in)
"I think we just got stuck with a really, really bad decision in Pope Francis, who again I think has to rank among the very worst popes in the history of the papacy." (Michael Matt - 24:45 in)
Mr. Matt goes so far as to say that living under Francis is worse than living under Alexander VI and the (other) Borgia popes (around 26 minutes in).
-TurretinFan
Showing posts sorted by date for query Dave Armstrong. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Dave Armstrong. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Defining "Christian" so as to Deceive Christians
Over in the comment box of the GreenBaggins blog, Dave Armstrong asked:
If one is going to include "heretics" who do not accept the Tridentine creed, why not accept heretics who do not accept the Nicene creed? After all, from Rome's perspective, both Arians (who reject Nicaea) and the Reformed (who reject Trent) are "outside the fold" in the same sense. Trent is not less of an ecumenical council in Romanism, nor is its authority any less.
I understand that there are Christians out there who like to use one of those creeds as being a true definition of what is involved in being a Christian. That's because they think that the essential doctrines of the faith are captured in those creeds. That's not Rome's position - Rome doesn't permit people to differ over what Trent has said: if you deny Trent, you can't reasonably call yourself a Roman Catholic.
For a Roman Catholic to select the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed as definitive of what it means to be a Christian is, at best, arbitrary. Trent and Nicaea are equally authoritative for a Romanist. Monothelitism (not condemned at Nicaea) is just dogmatically defined to be a heresy as Arianism. Iconoclasm is as strongly opposed as Monothelitism. And Trent's Canon IX on Justification defines Sola Fide to be as false as any other condemned teaching.
Unfortunately, a number of Christians fall for this sort of sophistry. They imagine that folks like Mr. Armstrong are recognizing them as true followers of Christ by calling them a Christian. You should have seen him squirm, though, when asked the simple question of whether he equated "Christian" and "saved." (he himself documented his own numerous attempts to evade the question on his own blog - link) This confusion is exacerbated by the fact that there are many folks within the Roman Catholic Church who do actually think that non-RCs are just on different paths to heaven: RC members who essentially adopt pluralism. Those two groups read Vatican II's comments "ecumenical" comments in radically different ways.
And which group reads Vatican II correctly?
-TurretinFan
First of all, how could one who accepts the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed not be a Christian? I think that is something you should ask yourself.If those do not help clarify who is and who is not a Christian, what in the world does? This is the very purpose of creeds and confessions: to determine in a concise manner who is within and outside of the fold.One has to ask why, i.e. upon what pretense, Dave selects the creeds of those councils, and not the Tridentine creed?
If one is going to include "heretics" who do not accept the Tridentine creed, why not accept heretics who do not accept the Nicene creed? After all, from Rome's perspective, both Arians (who reject Nicaea) and the Reformed (who reject Trent) are "outside the fold" in the same sense. Trent is not less of an ecumenical council in Romanism, nor is its authority any less.
I understand that there are Christians out there who like to use one of those creeds as being a true definition of what is involved in being a Christian. That's because they think that the essential doctrines of the faith are captured in those creeds. That's not Rome's position - Rome doesn't permit people to differ over what Trent has said: if you deny Trent, you can't reasonably call yourself a Roman Catholic.
For a Roman Catholic to select the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed as definitive of what it means to be a Christian is, at best, arbitrary. Trent and Nicaea are equally authoritative for a Romanist. Monothelitism (not condemned at Nicaea) is just dogmatically defined to be a heresy as Arianism. Iconoclasm is as strongly opposed as Monothelitism. And Trent's Canon IX on Justification defines Sola Fide to be as false as any other condemned teaching.
Unfortunately, a number of Christians fall for this sort of sophistry. They imagine that folks like Mr. Armstrong are recognizing them as true followers of Christ by calling them a Christian. You should have seen him squirm, though, when asked the simple question of whether he equated "Christian" and "saved." (he himself documented his own numerous attempts to evade the question on his own blog - link) This confusion is exacerbated by the fact that there are many folks within the Roman Catholic Church who do actually think that non-RCs are just on different paths to heaven: RC members who essentially adopt pluralism. Those two groups read Vatican II's comments "ecumenical" comments in radically different ways.
And which group reads Vatican II correctly?
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Scriptural Doctrine of the Atonement Defended - against John Martin
John Martin has also responded to another of my previous posts (link to post, his comments are in the comment box there).
I had written: “The Christian position is that Christ is our substitute.”
JM responded: "If Christ is our substitute and we are impute a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, means"
Christ is our substitute, and we are imputed the righteousness of Christ ... let's examine the supposed implications:
"1 – Jesus has deceived the father and therefore the Father and Jesus are not God because God cannot be deceived, or sin."
No. The Father has graciously permitted the substitution.
"2 – The Father sent the son to do a sinful act to deceive the father into believing we are righteous even though we are not."
No. It's absurd to say that Father sent the Son to deceive the Father - how could that even be possible? More to the point, the Father sent the Son to die in the place of the elect, so it was known to the Father all along.
"3 – There is no need for faith, because a substitute is a substitute for all our sins. Yet the scriptures say we need faith to be justified."
Faith is the instrumental means of justification, not a meritorious cause of justification. Thus, faith does not satisfy divine justice, only Christ's work does that.
"4 – Nobody can go to hell, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin as a substitute."
None of the elect can go to hell (or the Romanist fiction of purgatory), because that would imply double payment.
"5 – The scriptures nowhere say Jesus was a substitute for our sins."
a) You've lost track of supposed implications. That isn't an implication of the doctrine.
b) It's also not a true allegation. The Scriptures do teach that Jesus was a substitute for the sins of his people. I can provide a more extensive discussion on this, if needed.
"6 – The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, after the Son has deceived the Father into thinking we are righteous, even though we are sinners. Therefore the Holy Spirit has been sent on a mission by a deceiver and the deceived, to guide the church into the truth of forensic imputation of righteousness, which is itself a deception. Evidently the Holy Spirit is also a deceiver and has been deceived."
This blasphemy is built in the previous false claim that forensic imputation is deception.
"7 – There is no precedent in the OT for a substitute atoning for a sinner and the sinner having the substitutes righteousness imputed to the sinner, therefore if penal substitution is correct, it is not base upon the OT, so Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he didn’t fulfill the OT."
This simply shows JM's unfamilarity with the OT sacrificial system. Practically the whole system was one of substitution and imputation. Of course, it was in shadows and types, but Hebrews helps us to see the connection between the shadow and substance.
"8 – There is no need for repentance because the substitute has been made and the Father sees all men as righteous."
Repentance is not a meritorious cause of justification. See discussion of faith above.
"9 – According to Calvinism, the substitute only has limited value because it’s not applied to all men, even though it’s a perfect substitute. Somehow the father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute. So the Father has been deceived in sending the Son as a substitute because the substitute didn’t work for some men even though Jesus was the perfect substitute. What’s a God got to do to be a substitute and perfect savior when not even an imputed exchange that is external to the sinner cannot cover all men’s sins?"
a) This misrepresentation of Calvinism is possibly the result of reading Dave Armstrong on Calvinism rather than reading Calvinists on Calvinism.
b) "the substitute only has limited value" That's not the Calvinist position. The Calvinist position is that the value of the substitute is limitless - sufficient for all.
c) "Somehow the father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute."
The Son, as Priest, only offers himself (as sacrifice) for many (not all). That many is the elect.
"10 – The scriptures have deceived us into thinking we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God, even though according to Calvinism, man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God. Therefore we are told on one had to have faith and this is enough to be justified by a legal process, yet we are also told men cannot do an act pleasing to God, so God justifies man, even though He is not pleased with men’s acts. What’s a man to do to be justified after all? Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? (Yep!) If not, then why does man have to do any act at all to receive justification, when the perfect sacrificial substitute has already been made?"
a) "we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God"
Scripture's message is clear that we cannot do anything to be justified and pleasing to God. Justification is by grace, through the instrumental means of faith in Christ and His work.
b) "man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God."
Until God's Holy Spirit regenerates him, right. As Jesus said, "Except a man be born again ... ."
c) "What’s a man to do to be justified after all?"
There is nothing a man can do to be justified. "In thy sight shall no flesh be justified."
Instead, man must place his hope in the works of another so that he may be vicariously justified.
d) "Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? (Yep!)"
That is the alternative to the Christian view of the atonement. The alternative is that man merits justification by an act that is pleasing to God.
"11 – If God sends anyone to hell then He is being unjust, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin."
If God received Christ's payment for the sins of anyone and still punished them for those sins, there would be a double punishment. Thus, none of those for whom Christ was offered will go to hell.
-TurretinFan
I had written: “The Christian position is that Christ is our substitute.”
JM responded: "If Christ is our substitute and we are impute a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, means"
Christ is our substitute, and we are imputed the righteousness of Christ ... let's examine the supposed implications:
"1 – Jesus has deceived the father and therefore the Father and Jesus are not God because God cannot be deceived, or sin."
No. The Father has graciously permitted the substitution.
"2 – The Father sent the son to do a sinful act to deceive the father into believing we are righteous even though we are not."
No. It's absurd to say that Father sent the Son to deceive the Father - how could that even be possible? More to the point, the Father sent the Son to die in the place of the elect, so it was known to the Father all along.
"3 – There is no need for faith, because a substitute is a substitute for all our sins. Yet the scriptures say we need faith to be justified."
Faith is the instrumental means of justification, not a meritorious cause of justification. Thus, faith does not satisfy divine justice, only Christ's work does that.
"4 – Nobody can go to hell, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin as a substitute."
None of the elect can go to hell (or the Romanist fiction of purgatory), because that would imply double payment.
"5 – The scriptures nowhere say Jesus was a substitute for our sins."
a) You've lost track of supposed implications. That isn't an implication of the doctrine.
b) It's also not a true allegation. The Scriptures do teach that Jesus was a substitute for the sins of his people. I can provide a more extensive discussion on this, if needed.
"6 – The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, after the Son has deceived the Father into thinking we are righteous, even though we are sinners. Therefore the Holy Spirit has been sent on a mission by a deceiver and the deceived, to guide the church into the truth of forensic imputation of righteousness, which is itself a deception. Evidently the Holy Spirit is also a deceiver and has been deceived."
This blasphemy is built in the previous false claim that forensic imputation is deception.
"7 – There is no precedent in the OT for a substitute atoning for a sinner and the sinner having the substitutes righteousness imputed to the sinner, therefore if penal substitution is correct, it is not base upon the OT, so Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he didn’t fulfill the OT."
This simply shows JM's unfamilarity with the OT sacrificial system. Practically the whole system was one of substitution and imputation. Of course, it was in shadows and types, but Hebrews helps us to see the connection between the shadow and substance.
"8 – There is no need for repentance because the substitute has been made and the Father sees all men as righteous."
Repentance is not a meritorious cause of justification. See discussion of faith above.
"9 – According to Calvinism, the substitute only has limited value because it’s not applied to all men, even though it’s a perfect substitute. Somehow the father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute. So the Father has been deceived in sending the Son as a substitute because the substitute didn’t work for some men even though Jesus was the perfect substitute. What’s a God got to do to be a substitute and perfect savior when not even an imputed exchange that is external to the sinner cannot cover all men’s sins?"
a) This misrepresentation of Calvinism is possibly the result of reading Dave Armstrong on Calvinism rather than reading Calvinists on Calvinism.
b) "the substitute only has limited value" That's not the Calvinist position. The Calvinist position is that the value of the substitute is limitless - sufficient for all.
c) "Somehow the father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute."
The Son, as Priest, only offers himself (as sacrifice) for many (not all). That many is the elect.
"10 – The scriptures have deceived us into thinking we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God, even though according to Calvinism, man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God. Therefore we are told on one had to have faith and this is enough to be justified by a legal process, yet we are also told men cannot do an act pleasing to God, so God justifies man, even though He is not pleased with men’s acts. What’s a man to do to be justified after all? Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? (Yep!) If not, then why does man have to do any act at all to receive justification, when the perfect sacrificial substitute has already been made?"
a) "we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God"
Scripture's message is clear that we cannot do anything to be justified and pleasing to God. Justification is by grace, through the instrumental means of faith in Christ and His work.
b) "man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God."
Until God's Holy Spirit regenerates him, right. As Jesus said, "Except a man be born again ... ."
c) "What’s a man to do to be justified after all?"
There is nothing a man can do to be justified. "In thy sight shall no flesh be justified."
Instead, man must place his hope in the works of another so that he may be vicariously justified.
d) "Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? (Yep!)"
That is the alternative to the Christian view of the atonement. The alternative is that man merits justification by an act that is pleasing to God.
"11 – If God sends anyone to hell then He is being unjust, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin."
If God received Christ's payment for the sins of anyone and still punished them for those sins, there would be a double punishment. Thus, none of those for whom Christ was offered will go to hell.
-TurretinFan
Friday, April 23, 2010
Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 7/25
Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 7/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
7. The U.S. Constitution might be regarded as true and wonderful and sufficient, etc. But the fact remains that this abstract belief only lasts undisturbed as long as the first instance of case law in which two parties claim divergent interpretations of the Constitution. It's the same with Protestants.
Short Rebuttal
The major error in this argument is that it assumes a bogus standard for sufficiency. The minor error is that the analogy to the U.S. Constitution is false.
Longer Rebuttal
For the Scriptures to be wonderful and sufficient, there is no requirement that they eliminate every disagreement about themselves. Such a false standard for sufficiency is strange - Dave's own church includes plenty of internal disagreement over their own standards. We don't claim that the Scripture prevents people from disagreeing - and surely disagreement is an invalid standard of measurement of the sufficiency of any standard.
As for the U.S. Constitution - it is not divinely inspired. The Holy Spirit doesn't promise to lead Americans into a proper understanding of the Constitution, but does promise to lead believers into the truth:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Likewise there is no American spirit that provides as fruit the analogous equivalent of "goodness and righteousness and truth."
Ephesians 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
Thus, while the U.S. Constitution may be as clear as men can make it, the Scriptures are a divine production - they are inspired.
- TurretinFan
Armstrong's Argument
7. The U.S. Constitution might be regarded as true and wonderful and sufficient, etc. But the fact remains that this abstract belief only lasts undisturbed as long as the first instance of case law in which two parties claim divergent interpretations of the Constitution. It's the same with Protestants.
Short Rebuttal
The major error in this argument is that it assumes a bogus standard for sufficiency. The minor error is that the analogy to the U.S. Constitution is false.
Longer Rebuttal
For the Scriptures to be wonderful and sufficient, there is no requirement that they eliminate every disagreement about themselves. Such a false standard for sufficiency is strange - Dave's own church includes plenty of internal disagreement over their own standards. We don't claim that the Scripture prevents people from disagreeing - and surely disagreement is an invalid standard of measurement of the sufficiency of any standard.
As for the U.S. Constitution - it is not divinely inspired. The Holy Spirit doesn't promise to lead Americans into a proper understanding of the Constitution, but does promise to lead believers into the truth:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Likewise there is no American spirit that provides as fruit the analogous equivalent of "goodness and righteousness and truth."
Ephesians 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
Thus, while the U.S. Constitution may be as clear as men can make it, the Scriptures are a divine production - they are inspired.
- TurretinFan
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 6/25
Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 6/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
6. Is every Christian in the world able to find enough time, and become educated enough and familiar enough with Scripture to be his own theologian? And if he consults other ones, wise enough to always get it right when he chooses?
Short Rebuttal
The most necessary things of Scripture are simple enough not to require someone to be a "theologian" per se, and the right approach is test others' teachings by Scripture rather than relying on one's own wisdom.
Longer Rebuttal
The way to avoid relying on one's own wisdom is to rely on the Scriptures:
Proverbs 3:1-7
My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: for length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: so shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
Furthermore, the Scriptures assist even the simple:
Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
That's one of the reasons that the Proverbs were written:
Proverbs 1:1-4
The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; to know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; to give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
So one does not have to be wise to nevertheless receive wisdom from Scripture. Scripture is prepared and even specifically provided to help give light to those who are not professional theologians.
- TurretinFan
Armstrong's Argument
6. Is every Christian in the world able to find enough time, and become educated enough and familiar enough with Scripture to be his own theologian? And if he consults other ones, wise enough to always get it right when he chooses?
Short Rebuttal
The most necessary things of Scripture are simple enough not to require someone to be a "theologian" per se, and the right approach is test others' teachings by Scripture rather than relying on one's own wisdom.
Longer Rebuttal
The way to avoid relying on one's own wisdom is to rely on the Scriptures:
Proverbs 3:1-7
My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: for length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: so shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
Furthermore, the Scriptures assist even the simple:
Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
That's one of the reasons that the Proverbs were written:
Proverbs 1:1-4
The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; to know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; to give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
So one does not have to be wise to nevertheless receive wisdom from Scripture. Scripture is prepared and even specifically provided to help give light to those who are not professional theologians.
- TurretinFan
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 5/25
Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 5/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
5. Since Protestants can't agree in their interpretation of Scripture, of what practical use is an infallible Bible? If the interpretation is fallible and contradictory, then -- practically speaking -- the Bible in effect is no more infallible than its differing interpretations.
Short Rebuttal
The practical use of the Bible is explained below:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Longer Rebuttal
The argument, if we can call this question an argument, seems to be trying to suggest that the appropriate test of the sufficiency of a rule of faith is if everyone agrees about it. But there is no rule of faith about which everyone agrees. To take the alternative for which Armstrong is trying to argue by tearing down Scripture, Roman Catholicism provides a rule of faith in the form her allegedly infallible teachings. Nevertheless, there are differences of opinion among Roman Catholics regarding how to interpret their rule of faith. Thus, if we accept the extremely skeptical premise of this argument, the result is agnosticism: we wouldn't be able to have any rule of faith at all, because people have differences of opinion over any given rule of faith.
- TurretinFan
Armstrong's Argument
5. Since Protestants can't agree in their interpretation of Scripture, of what practical use is an infallible Bible? If the interpretation is fallible and contradictory, then -- practically speaking -- the Bible in effect is no more infallible than its differing interpretations.
Short Rebuttal
The practical use of the Bible is explained below:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Longer Rebuttal
The argument, if we can call this question an argument, seems to be trying to suggest that the appropriate test of the sufficiency of a rule of faith is if everyone agrees about it. But there is no rule of faith about which everyone agrees. To take the alternative for which Armstrong is trying to argue by tearing down Scripture, Roman Catholicism provides a rule of faith in the form her allegedly infallible teachings. Nevertheless, there are differences of opinion among Roman Catholics regarding how to interpret their rule of faith. Thus, if we accept the extremely skeptical premise of this argument, the result is agnosticism: we wouldn't be able to have any rule of faith at all, because people have differences of opinion over any given rule of faith.
- TurretinFan
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 4/25
Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 4/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
4. I think Scripture is pretty clear (I've always found it to be so in my many biblical studies), but I also know from simple observation and knowledge of Church history that it isn't clear enough to bring men to agreement.
Short Rebuttal
The fact that the Scriptures don't bring all men to complete unanimity isn't really relevant to the issue of perspicuity.
Longer Rebuttal
In other words, the Scriptures are sufficiently clear to present the Gospel so that people can hear and believe. The fact that not all believe has nothing to do with the clarity of the message.
The Scriptures make Christ manifest, even if sinners refuse to accept what the Scriptures say:
Romans 16:25-27
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
Furthermore, there is no need for there to be complete unanimity on every teaching of Scripture. One of the joys of Scripture is that one cannot exhaust all of its treasures. The fact that, in the process of exploration, we are going to disagree with other Christians about some teaching or other is reasonable, especially since we are fallible human beings.
- TurretinFan
Armstrong's Argument
4. I think Scripture is pretty clear (I've always found it to be so in my many biblical studies), but I also know from simple observation and knowledge of Church history that it isn't clear enough to bring men to agreement.
Short Rebuttal
The fact that the Scriptures don't bring all men to complete unanimity isn't really relevant to the issue of perspicuity.
Longer Rebuttal
In other words, the Scriptures are sufficiently clear to present the Gospel so that people can hear and believe. The fact that not all believe has nothing to do with the clarity of the message.
The Scriptures make Christ manifest, even if sinners refuse to accept what the Scriptures say:
Romans 16:25-27
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
Furthermore, there is no need for there to be complete unanimity on every teaching of Scripture. One of the joys of Scripture is that one cannot exhaust all of its treasures. The fact that, in the process of exploration, we are going to disagree with other Christians about some teaching or other is reasonable, especially since we are fallible human beings.
- TurretinFan
Monday, April 19, 2010
Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 3/25
Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 3/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
3. If Protestants discount the Church's binding authority because men are sinners, then they obviously have to discount every individual's interpretation, as each person is a sinner, too!
Short Rebuttal
Yes, of course. Nevertheless, Scripture is able to speak clearly.
Longer Rebuttal
The fact that men are sinners is true. However, Scripture still speaks clearly to sinners. The Scriptures are able to make men wise unto salvation - Scripture itself says so.
- TurretinFan
Armstrong's Argument
3. If Protestants discount the Church's binding authority because men are sinners, then they obviously have to discount every individual's interpretation, as each person is a sinner, too!
Short Rebuttal
Yes, of course. Nevertheless, Scripture is able to speak clearly.
Longer Rebuttal
The fact that men are sinners is true. However, Scripture still speaks clearly to sinners. The Scriptures are able to make men wise unto salvation - Scripture itself says so.
- TurretinFan
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 2/25
Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 2/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
2. [Roman] Catholics have every confidence in Scripture. What we lack confidence in, is the ability of men to "rightly divide the word of truth."
Short Rebuttal
If they had every confidence in Scripture, they would have confidence in Scripture to communicate clearly. The point of Scripture is not to impress the possessor with the beauty of the script in which it is written, or the luxurious feel of the paper on which it is written, or even the sturdiness of its binding. The point of Scripture is to communicate to the reader.
Longer Rebuttal
This argument is a very pious-sounding argument. The argument purports to honor the Word of God while humbly disparaging man. This sort of false humility is not new. The prophet Isaiah described it long ago:
Isaiah 29:9-14
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Furthermore, we are given encouragement to read, study and meditate upon the Scriptures:
Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
Furthermore, God has given us his Holy Spirit, and one of the purposes of the Holy Spirit is to lead us into truth:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
The verse to which the argument alludes similarly undermines Roman skepticism:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The fathers of the church also recognized this. They explained:
Irenaeus:
Chrysostom:
And we could provide many more. The bottom line, however, is that the argument is an example of false humility. While lip service is paid to Scripture, it is nevertheless treated as though it cannot communicate clearly on the things necessary to salvation.
- TurretinFan
Armstrong's Argument
2. [Roman] Catholics have every confidence in Scripture. What we lack confidence in, is the ability of men to "rightly divide the word of truth."
Short Rebuttal
If they had every confidence in Scripture, they would have confidence in Scripture to communicate clearly. The point of Scripture is not to impress the possessor with the beauty of the script in which it is written, or the luxurious feel of the paper on which it is written, or even the sturdiness of its binding. The point of Scripture is to communicate to the reader.
Longer Rebuttal
This argument is a very pious-sounding argument. The argument purports to honor the Word of God while humbly disparaging man. This sort of false humility is not new. The prophet Isaiah described it long ago:
Isaiah 29:9-14
Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.The purpose of Scripture is to communicate. It is consequently written in a way that, as to the necessary things, it is clear.
And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, "Read this, I pray thee:" and he saith, "I cannot; for it is sealed:" and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, "Read this, I pray thee:" and he saith, "I am not learned."
Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Furthermore, we are given encouragement to read, study and meditate upon the Scriptures:
Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
Furthermore, God has given us his Holy Spirit, and one of the purposes of the Holy Spirit is to lead us into truth:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
The verse to which the argument alludes similarly undermines Roman skepticism:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The fathers of the church also recognized this. They explained:
Irenaeus:
A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures.- Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:27:1
Chrysostom:
For generally the servants also have their characters formed after their master's, and are fashioned after their humors, love the same objects, which they have been taught to love, speak the same language, and engage with them in the same pursuits. If thus we regulate ourselves, and attentively study the Scriptures, in most things we shall derive instruction from them. And thus shall be able to please God, and to pass through the whole of the present life virtuously, and to attain those blessings which are promised to those that love Him, of which God grant that we may all be counted worthy, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, together with the Holy Ghost, be unto the Father, glory, power, and honor, now, and ever, through all ages. Amen.- Chrysostom, Homily 20 on Ephesians (concluding lines)
And we could provide many more. The bottom line, however, is that the argument is an example of false humility. While lip service is paid to Scripture, it is nevertheless treated as though it cannot communicate clearly on the things necessary to salvation.
- TurretinFan
Monday, March 08, 2010
Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 1/25
Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 1/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
1. The Bible is only clear to the extent that various Protestant factions agree on any one of its teachings.
Short Rebuttal
The argument confuses subjective clarity for objective clarity.
Longer Rebuttal
The idea that Scripture is only clear to the extent that people agree seems to assume that the different opinions of people come from ambiguity or lack of clarity in the text of Scripture. In fact, however, sometimes the different opinions come from other sources.
For example, tradition can be a powerful influence on one's views. If someone has grown up in a community in which the Scriptures are interpreted in a particular way, that can exert an influence on the person's perception of the text. For example, people will think that Jesus was weeping over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37 because they have so often heard that, although the text doesn't actually say that.
In another example, one's sin can influence one's views. Those who insist on various forms of sexual immorality will find ways, in their own mind, to justify their behavior despite Scripture's clear prohibition of their deeds.
We could go on and on with examples, but perhaps we should simply state what Scripture says:
The light is light, even though the darkness doesn't understand it.
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
The darkness doesn't embrace the light because of sin.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Wicked men wrest both the difficult sayings of Scripture, as well as the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
One way that men obscure Scripture is through Scripture-invalidating Tradition:
Matthew 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
But in contrast, the Scriptures are clear to those who love God and seek His instruction:
Proverbs 8:9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
The fathers of the church also recognized this. They explained:
Alexander of Alexandria:
Cyril of Alexandria:
And we could provide many more. The bottom line, however, is that the argument fundamentally confuses the objective clarity of Scripture with the subjective obscurity, the latter being caused by a variety of factors, such as sin and human tradition.
- TurretinFan
Armstrong's Argument
1. The Bible is only clear to the extent that various Protestant factions agree on any one of its teachings.
Short Rebuttal
The argument confuses subjective clarity for objective clarity.
Longer Rebuttal
The idea that Scripture is only clear to the extent that people agree seems to assume that the different opinions of people come from ambiguity or lack of clarity in the text of Scripture. In fact, however, sometimes the different opinions come from other sources.
For example, tradition can be a powerful influence on one's views. If someone has grown up in a community in which the Scriptures are interpreted in a particular way, that can exert an influence on the person's perception of the text. For example, people will think that Jesus was weeping over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37 because they have so often heard that, although the text doesn't actually say that.
In another example, one's sin can influence one's views. Those who insist on various forms of sexual immorality will find ways, in their own mind, to justify their behavior despite Scripture's clear prohibition of their deeds.
We could go on and on with examples, but perhaps we should simply state what Scripture says:
The light is light, even though the darkness doesn't understand it.
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
The darkness doesn't embrace the light because of sin.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Wicked men wrest both the difficult sayings of Scripture, as well as the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
One way that men obscure Scripture is through Scripture-invalidating Tradition:
Matthew 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
But in contrast, the Scriptures are clear to those who love God and seek His instruction:
Proverbs 8:9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
The fathers of the church also recognized this. They explained:
Alexander of Alexandria:
Oh, the impious arrogance! Oh, the immeasurable madness! Oh, the vainglory befitting those that are crazed! Oh, the pride of Satan which has taken root in their unholy souls. The religious perspicuity of the ancient Scriptures caused them no shame, nor did the consentient doctrine of our colleagues concerning Christ keep in check their audacity against Him. Their impiety not even the demons will bear, who are ever on the watch for a blasphemous word uttered against the Son.- Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople, Section 10
Cyril of Alexandria:
All things are plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge, as it is written, but darksome to the foolish is even that which is exceeding easy. For the truly wise hearer shuts up the more obvious teaching in the treasury of his understanding, not admitting any delay in respect of this: but as to the things the meaning whereof is hard, he goes about with his enquiries, and does not cease asking about them; and he seems to me profitably to press on to do much the same as they say that the fleetest dogs of the chase do, who having from nature great quickness of scent, keep running round the haunts of their game.- Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 4, Chapter 2, at John 6:52-53
And we could provide many more. The bottom line, however, is that the argument fundamentally confuses the objective clarity of Scripture with the subjective obscurity, the latter being caused by a variety of factors, such as sin and human tradition.
- TurretinFan
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Joseph Ratzinger (aka Benedict XVI) and David T. King
I'm not sure Pastor King will be entirely pleased by comparison, but it is interesting to note that Joseph Ratzinger has confirmed something that Pastor King has been saying for a long time.
Ratzinger writes:
Pastor King has said:
What is also interesting is that Ratzinger's comment stands opposed to lay Roman apologists who claim things like "The Church Fathers Were Catholic" (meaning, of course, "Roman Catholic") (Dave Armstrong, who has a book by that title, comes to mind, though he is not alone in making this sort of ignorant assertion).
Ratzinger goes on, of course, to insist that "only one side can consider them its own Fathers" but the admission that Ratzinger has made exposes one of the central weaknesses to much of the patristically-directed Roman apologetic effort in the English-speaking world today. We can agree with Ratzinger that the Fathers were "catholic" as that term is properly understood, and we can also agree with him that they would not be considered "Roman Catholic" by modern (or even medieval) standards. We too willingly acknowledge that the Fathers were not distinctly "Protestant" - they were who they were, often differing in significant ways from one another. As Pastor King explained it, we "are very content to let the [early church fathers] be what they were."
These facts ought, however, to point us to the need for an even earlier source of authority - the written Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. By such an established authority we can evaluate the claims of apostolicity of the various competing claimants to the catholic and apostolic faith.
- TurretinFan
Ratzinger writes:
We are fairly certain today that, while the Fathers were not Roman Catholic as the thirteenth or nineteenth century would have understood the term, they were, nonetheless, "Catholic", and their Catholicism extended to the very canon of the New Testament itself.- Benedict XVI (then Joseph Ratzinger), Principles of Catholic theology: building stones for a fundamental theology (2:1:D), p. 141 (English edition, 1987 - Originally published in German in 1982)(see more context here)
Pastor King has said:
We, as Protestants, are very content to let the ECFs be what they were. But it is the Roman apologist who, on the contrary, must read back into the ECFs the notions of modern day Rome and papal primacy that were never recognized by the eastern church. Again, for all this insistence on the ECFs being “catholic” I am in great agreement!(source)
What is also interesting is that Ratzinger's comment stands opposed to lay Roman apologists who claim things like "The Church Fathers Were Catholic" (meaning, of course, "Roman Catholic") (Dave Armstrong, who has a book by that title, comes to mind, though he is not alone in making this sort of ignorant assertion).
Ratzinger goes on, of course, to insist that "only one side can consider them its own Fathers" but the admission that Ratzinger has made exposes one of the central weaknesses to much of the patristically-directed Roman apologetic effort in the English-speaking world today. We can agree with Ratzinger that the Fathers were "catholic" as that term is properly understood, and we can also agree with him that they would not be considered "Roman Catholic" by modern (or even medieval) standards. We too willingly acknowledge that the Fathers were not distinctly "Protestant" - they were who they were, often differing in significant ways from one another. As Pastor King explained it, we "are very content to let the [early church fathers] be what they were."
These facts ought, however, to point us to the need for an even earlier source of authority - the written Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. By such an established authority we can evaluate the claims of apostolicity of the various competing claimants to the catholic and apostolic faith.
- TurretinFan
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Acorn Falls Far from the Tree - A Response to Dave Armstrong
Jason Engwer is a blogger at the Reformed blog Triablogue. Mr. Engwer had posted (in 2008) some discussion related to the rule(s) of faith in the Early Church Fathers and Rome's claims for the church and the papacy (link to article). Dave Armstrong is a layman in the Roman Catholic church, but has recently been promoted by Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid. Dave has posted a lengthy response to Mr. Engwer in four parts (first, second, third, fourth, with more apparently to come). While I was preparing this response, Jason Engwer already provided two responses (first and second). Other brethren have already responded to Dave's post as well, such as Steve Hays (first and second). I should clarify that I am mostly responding to what Dave is saying, rather than trying to defend Mr. Engwer. Mr. Engwer is more than capable of defending himself.
1. Lack of Resemblance and Low Expectations
The weakness of Dave's case can be seen from the very law bar that he sets for himself in terms of confirming the hypothesis of development of doctrine with respect to the church/papacy as a rule of faith. Parroting the usual developmental party line, Dave describes the similarity between the views of the early church and the view of contemporary Rome as: "just as an oak tree has little outward resemblance to an acorn, even though it is organically derived from it." Notice what a low bar that is: there can be almost no resemblance ("outward" is simply redundant) between the views of the early church and the view of Rome.
Notice the implicit concession: the early church looked (doctrinally as well as liturgically and ecclesiastically) nothing like modern Roman Catholicism. This concession is really necessary, because even if previous generations believed that the distinctive doctrines of Roman Catholicism had been taught since the days of the apostles, no one who studies history can take that sort of claim seriously.
Naturally, there is some attempt at damage control from Dave's side. Dave insists, for example, "We wouldn't expect to find such a detailed understanding early on" and refers to what is found in history as being "exactly what Cardinal Newman would predict in a theologian of the second century." Notice that the lack of resemblance leads to low expectations, and then it is alleged that the finding of a church that lacks resemblance to Rome is confirmation of the expectations! Dave's characterization of the matter is sophistical. Newman's hypothesis is the product and result of his study of history. It's not as though Newman generated his hypothesis from somewhere else (such as Scripture) and then found historical confirmation of it. Instead, Newman's hypothesis is a last-ditch attempt to explain away the many theological differences between the Rome of his day and the early church.
Indeed, Newman ends up making the same implicit concession when responding to his critics as follows: "They seem to me to expect from History more than History can furnish." (Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk) Newman even concedes:
History is truly unable to furnish proof of the Roman position, but the best explanation is that Rome teaches different doctrines than the early church did, because Rome has strayed from the apostolic faith.
2. Fatherless Assumptions
Dave treats "development," for the most part, as though it could simply be taken for granted. That is to say, as though he could simply assume that it is legitimate to appeal to "development" as a solution for the problem of lack of resemblance between the early church and modern Rome. We are not given a reason to accept this assumption, nor are we are told who came up with this idea.
In the fourth part, Dave finally provides an appeal to Vincent of Lerins as allegedly supporting the idea of development. However, when one reads what Lerins has to say, we find that he describes the kind of development he is talking about as a development of expression, not progressive revelation of additional doctrines, as will be discussed below.
I found Dave's appeal to Vincent of Lerins to be rather amusing. Dave has been fond of mocking me for using a pseudonym, but Vincent of Lerins wrote his Commonitory under the pseudonym "Peregrinus." Likewise, Dave ties Augustine and Vincent together ("Philip Schaff also understood that both St. Augustine and St. Vincent espoused an explicit notion of doctrinal development") but as the editor's introduction to the Commonitory in Schaff's collection indicates:
Indeed, there are remarks in the Commonitory that seem to be directly aimed at trying to argue that is ok to reconsider Augustine's teachings:
But what about Vincent's view of development? Vincent suggests that advancement is possible, while denying that change is possible. Vincent writes:
Dave notes some similarities between Vincent's view of advancement and his own view of development, but fails to address the crucial differences. For Vincent, the doctrine must always be the same doctrine in the same sens and in the same meaning: the progress must be real progress not alteration. It cannot be a transformation of one thing into something else.
Vincent continues:
Notice that the point is that the parts are all framed beforehand and nothing new is added. In fact, for Vincent, if new things are added the body of doctrine becomes monstrous or at least crippled. This important principle becomes even more apparent when Vincent continues:
Again, we see that for Vincent the progress never permits change or variation in the limits of the believed doctrine. Contrary to the acorn/tree analogy in which there is no resemblance between the original state and the later state, the analogy for Vincent is of a child growing into a man, where all the parts remain the same throughout the development (as we saw above: "Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children ...").
Thus, after some examples, Vincent comes to the role of the Church of Christ. Read carefully what Vincent alleges regarding the Church:
Notice that Vincent notes that the Church is a guardian. She "never adds" according to Vincent. In fact, Vincent claims that all that the Church does by Councils ("this, and nothing else")is to hand down what she previously received, summarizing much material in few words and designating an old article of the faith by a new name. Nothing else than that, is Vincent's assessment of the Church's guardian role. There is no definition of new articles of faith. There is no development in the sense of change for Vincent - though there is tremendous change in the case of an acorn.
In short, Dave's appeal to Vincent (the apparently semi-pelagian opponent of Augustine) falls short of establishing that Dave idea of development is itself an ancient view. As a result, we're still left wondering who the father of Dave's hypothesis is. Is it Newman in the 19th century? If so, why should anyone accept it? Dave hasn't given reasons for us to accept it.
3. History and Scripture vs. Romanism
The difference between Dave and Vincent becomes even more apparent when Vincent asks and answer a question on the issue of novelty in the church:
Notice that the reason, which Vincent has argued from appeal to Scripture, is not just perspicuous (according to Vincent) but "clearer than day." That reason is to permit testing of the individual person. That individual person is not only permitted to exercise private judgment with respect to the orthodoxy of the particular teachings of doctors of the church, but even commanded to do so. Vincent views his readers as fully competent to make that evaluation from an examination of history and Scripture. What about Dave?
At a few points, Dave seems to act as though his readers are competent judges of history and Scripture. At one point in response to a "how can we know" question, Dave states: "Well, by looking at the history! Its not rocket science. But there is also the biblical evidence ... ."
Dave, however, quotes with approval from Newman who indicates that "private judgment" is "unlawful in interpreting Scripture against the voice of authority," and similarly cannot be "lawful in the interpretation of history" against authority. In other words, you can examine history and Scripture so long as you don't conclude from history or Scripture that the Roman Catholic church is wrong about anything.
This phenomenon is not new.
The same basic thing is happening here. At first there is an appeal to Scripture, but when we show that the Scriptures don't support their contention they turn to history/tradition. Then, when we show that their contentions are not supported by tradition/history, they object that they are wiser than those men (like Vincent of Lerins) that we quote, at least in that they have (by appeal to their contemporary magisterium) discovered the unadulterated truth. So we can see that they follow neither Scripture nor history/tradition.
As Newman puts it, "in all cases there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church." (Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk) Margin indeed! The whole matter turns on whether one exercises faith in the word of the modern Roman church. If so, then one will necessarily not hear the arguments to contrary.
4. Evasions and Sophistry in Defense of Rome
The positional weakness of Rome can lead to various evasions and sophistry in her defense. We sadly see these crop up time and time again in Dave's series. Here are a few examples.
a) Argument from Inapplicable Reasons
Mr. Engwer had pointed out that some of the early church fathers suggest that a particular church, such as Rome, or the churches in general are reliable. However, they did not just say that the church or churches were reliable, but also stated why the churches are reliable. Mr. Engwer observed that when the factual basis for this reliability changes, there is no basis for continuing to judge the church or churches as reliable. Look at Mr. Engwer's comment and Dave's response:
[UPDATE] A friend pointed out that I would be remiss to mention here Newman's own thoughts on the Vincentian canon that Dave has attempted to rely upon:
b) Argument from Comparison to "Protestantism"
When Mr. Engwer points out that even until Augustine's time there are positions among the church fathers that are not consistent with the position of the modern Roman Catholic church. As we'll see, Dave's response is to say that Augustine was somehow closer to the Roman Catholic position than to the "Protestant" position. However, that's really irrelevant to the discussion unless Jason Engwer is attempting to adopt Dave's premise of "development" and claim that "Protestantism" is the authentic development rather than the Roman Catholic position. But Mr. Engwer does not appear to be making such an argument. Accordingly, Dave's attempted recusal is hollow. It misses the point that Mr. Engwer has raised:
Even if Dave's claim were true about it contradicting "Protestant notions" more than it contradicts the Roman Catholic rule, that wouldn't change the fact that it makes statements that are inconsistent with the Roman Catholic position.
c) Ignoring the Historical Aspect of Sola Scriptura
Mr. Engwer points out (in a comment with which I might disagree, but I digress) that if he were in the position of a very early church father, such as Papias, he would not hold to sola Scriptura. Dave ignores the historically conditioned aspect of sola Scriptura (namely the fact that sola Scriptura is a claim that the only infallible rule of faith we have right now is the Scriptures) and goes on to mockingly misrepresent Mr. Engwer:
i) Pre-Scripture
God spoke directly with Adam, with Noah, with Job, and with the Patriarchs until the time of Moses.
ii) Scripture
From the time of Moses until the last word of Scripture was penned, God spoke through Scripture and also often directly to and through living prophets, although there were apparently times that the prophetic gift was suspended in Israel.
iii) Immediately Post-Scripture
For some time after the Scripture was complete there was at least a memory among some of the believers regarding what the living prophets of their day had spoken to them.
iv) The Present Era
The present era began as the prophetic gift ceased and those who had heard the prophets died. Scripture remained, and remained as the only Word of God that was available in a reliable form.
v) The Ages to Come
Whatever one thinks of eschatology, Christ will return and we will be with Him. At that time, of course, we will not rely only on Scripture but on any further revelation that Christ gives.
The idea of Sola Scriptura as such is an idea that is relevant only to the present era. It is a factual statement that Scripture is all we have by way of an infallible rule of faith. Dave's response suggesting relativism misses the essence of what Sola Scriptura is, and demonstrates that either Dave is unwilling or unable to address Mr. Engwer's position for what it is.
d) Ignoring the Dispute over Ecumenical Councils
In another case, Mr. Engwer pointed out that the idea of infallible ecumenical councils may sound nice in theory, but there is dispute over what councils and what parts of which councils are infallible. Dave, apparently oblivious to these issues, blows off Mr. Engwer with mockery:
e) Pretending that we Think the Fathers were Protestants
One of Dave's more base tactics is to suggest that we claim that the church fathers were "Protestants." We don't, and Mr. Engwer certainly doesn't in anything of what he's written that I've seen. But Dave repeatedly makes statements such as: "the ostensible Protestant project to co-opt the Church fathers and make them out to be Protestant" or "The way Jason presents the situation, it sounds as if it is almost an even battle between the proto-Protestant fathers and the Catholic ones, with the latter hopelessly divided amongst themselves." However, Dave ought to know better. We are quite willing to let the fathers be the fathers without trying to make them in our own image.
In fact, in other places Dave seems to recognize this, since he quotes with approval from some guy named Nick who accuses Mr. Engwer of "using the typical Protestant stealth tactics," in which "he can call them "Christian" on one hand while affirming they weren't promoting a true Gospel on the other ... ." Actually, we note that it is actually Roman Catholics these days who have become fond of referring to heretics as "Christians." I can't speak for Mr. Engwer, but most of the Reformed authors I've read regard at least most of the church fathers as Christians rather than as heretics: as those who did believe the true gospel, even if they (like us) made some mistakes.
f) Ignoring the distinction between Infallibility and Inerrancy
It's unclear if Dave really thinks there is no important difference between inerrancy and infallibility, but he devotes a long section that appears to attempt to obfuscate the difference between the two. He even states:
g) Frequent Substitution of ad hominem for argumentation
Of course, there are bound to be things critical of one's opponent in one's writings. I've been critical of Dave above, but Dave employs ad hominem as a substitute for argumentation on various points. One example is this:
h) Outright Laziness
Dave complains at the outset that Mr. Engwer makes "general statements of a sweeping negative nature" but when Dave comes to very specific claims, Dave doesn't bother to examine them carefully. For example, Mr. Engwer points to an article on Papias from Richard Bauckham, but Dave states: "I'm not gonna go read all that. I've spent enough time on this as it is."
i) Double Standards
At one point, Dave accuses Mr. Engwer of misrepresenting Athanasius' position. Dave states:
5. The Myth of Sola Scriptura as an Heretical Distinctive (Alternative Title: Augustine Was Quite Happy to Agree with the Arians Regarding Sola Scriptura)
Although Dave refuses to acknowledge the fact (established by many Reformed authors) that many of the church fathers held to Scripture as their only infallible rule of faith, Dave is quick to allege that the "heretics" accepted Sola Scriptura. As we've noted above, regarding Irenaeus, the early heretics with whom he dealt said that Scripture was not enough, that tradition was not enough, and that consequently one needed knowledge one could only get from them (quite parallel, in may respects, to the practical application of the "three-legged stool" that Rome uses).
Dave claims, however:
Of course, part of the reason is that the Arians did have apostolic succession in the sense that they were lawfully ordained priests and bishops. Arius himself had been ordained as a priest by an orthodox bishop in Alexandria - so if Arius lacked apostolic succession in that sense, then so did the whole Alexandrian church, including Athanasius, a successor (several ecclesiastical generations after) of the bishop that ordained Arius. So, if simply having a chain of ordination ensured orthodoxy, the Arians would have been orthodox. No one of that era appears to have been so foolish.
In point of fact, we don't see anyone contesting the fact that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith. In fact, we see Augustine saying:
6. Conclusion
Much more could be said, though perhaps the quotation from Augustine immediately above says all that needs to be said in terms of whether Dave has correctly imagined the early church. As noted above, I don't mean to speak for either Engwer or Hays or anyone else who may have provided a response to Dave. I hope that the above response may, however, assist the reader who wishes to see some of the holes in Dave's arguments and flaws in the position that Dave feels compelled to try to defend.
- TurretinFan
1. Lack of Resemblance and Low Expectations
The weakness of Dave's case can be seen from the very law bar that he sets for himself in terms of confirming the hypothesis of development of doctrine with respect to the church/papacy as a rule of faith. Parroting the usual developmental party line, Dave describes the similarity between the views of the early church and the view of contemporary Rome as: "just as an oak tree has little outward resemblance to an acorn, even though it is organically derived from it." Notice what a low bar that is: there can be almost no resemblance ("outward" is simply redundant) between the views of the early church and the view of Rome.
Notice the implicit concession: the early church looked (doctrinally as well as liturgically and ecclesiastically) nothing like modern Roman Catholicism. This concession is really necessary, because even if previous generations believed that the distinctive doctrines of Roman Catholicism had been taught since the days of the apostles, no one who studies history can take that sort of claim seriously.
Naturally, there is some attempt at damage control from Dave's side. Dave insists, for example, "We wouldn't expect to find such a detailed understanding early on" and refers to what is found in history as being "exactly what Cardinal Newman would predict in a theologian of the second century." Notice that the lack of resemblance leads to low expectations, and then it is alleged that the finding of a church that lacks resemblance to Rome is confirmation of the expectations! Dave's characterization of the matter is sophistical. Newman's hypothesis is the product and result of his study of history. It's not as though Newman generated his hypothesis from somewhere else (such as Scripture) and then found historical confirmation of it. Instead, Newman's hypothesis is a last-ditch attempt to explain away the many theological differences between the Rome of his day and the early church.
Indeed, Newman ends up making the same implicit concession when responding to his critics as follows: "They seem to me to expect from History more than History can furnish." (Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk) Newman even concedes:
No Catholic doctrine could be fully proved (or, for that matter, disproved) by historical evidence -- 'in all cases there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church.' Indeed, anyone 'who believes the dogmas of the Church only because he has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a Catholic'.- Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk
History is truly unable to furnish proof of the Roman position, but the best explanation is that Rome teaches different doctrines than the early church did, because Rome has strayed from the apostolic faith.
2. Fatherless Assumptions
Dave treats "development," for the most part, as though it could simply be taken for granted. That is to say, as though he could simply assume that it is legitimate to appeal to "development" as a solution for the problem of lack of resemblance between the early church and modern Rome. We are not given a reason to accept this assumption, nor are we are told who came up with this idea.
In the fourth part, Dave finally provides an appeal to Vincent of Lerins as allegedly supporting the idea of development. However, when one reads what Lerins has to say, we find that he describes the kind of development he is talking about as a development of expression, not progressive revelation of additional doctrines, as will be discussed below.
I found Dave's appeal to Vincent of Lerins to be rather amusing. Dave has been fond of mocking me for using a pseudonym, but Vincent of Lerins wrote his Commonitory under the pseudonym "Peregrinus." Likewise, Dave ties Augustine and Vincent together ("Philip Schaff also understood that both St. Augustine and St. Vincent espoused an explicit notion of doctrinal development") but as the editor's introduction to the Commonitory in Schaff's collection indicates:
Vincentius has been charged with Semipelagianism. Whether he actually held the doctrine which was afterwards called by that name is not clear. Certainly the express enunciation of it is nowhere to be found in the Commonitory. But it is extremely probable that at least his sympathies were with those who held it. For not only does he omit the name of St. Augustine, who was especially obnoxious to them, when making honorable mention at any time of the champions of the faith, but he denounces his doctrine, though under a misrepresentation of it, as one of the forms of that novel error which he reprobates.(source)
Indeed, there are remarks in the Commonitory that seem to be directly aimed at trying to argue that is ok to reconsider Augustine's teachings:
It behoves us, then, to give heed to these instances from Church History, so many and so great, and others of the same description, and to understand distinctly, in accordance with the rule laid down in Deuteronomy, that if at any time a Doctor in the Church have erred from the faith, Divine Providence permits it in order to make trial of us, whether or not we love God with all our heart and with all our mind.- Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Chapter 19 (Section 47)
But what about Vincent's view of development? Vincent suggests that advancement is possible, while denying that change is possible. Vincent writes:
But some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.- Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Chapter 23 (Section 54)
Dave notes some similarities between Vincent's view of advancement and his own view of development, but fails to address the crucial differences. For Vincent, the doctrine must always be the same doctrine in the same sens and in the same meaning: the progress must be real progress not alteration. It cannot be a transformation of one thing into something else.
Vincent continues:
The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant’s limbs are small, a young man’s large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.- Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Chapter 23 (Section 55)
Notice that the point is that the parts are all framed beforehand and nothing new is added. In fact, for Vincent, if new things are added the body of doctrine becomes monstrous or at least crippled. This important principle becomes even more apparent when Vincent continues:
In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.- Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Chapter 23 (Section 56)
Again, we see that for Vincent the progress never permits change or variation in the limits of the believed doctrine. Contrary to the acorn/tree analogy in which there is no resemblance between the original state and the later state, the analogy for Vincent is of a child growing into a man, where all the parts remain the same throughout the development (as we saw above: "Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children ...").
Thus, after some examples, Vincent comes to the role of the Church of Christ. Read carefully what Vincent alleges regarding the Church:
But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another’s, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,—if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined, to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,—this, and nothing else,—she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.- Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Chapter 23 (Section 59)
Notice that Vincent notes that the Church is a guardian. She "never adds" according to Vincent. In fact, Vincent claims that all that the Church does by Councils ("this, and nothing else")is to hand down what she previously received, summarizing much material in few words and designating an old article of the faith by a new name. Nothing else than that, is Vincent's assessment of the Church's guardian role. There is no definition of new articles of faith. There is no development in the sense of change for Vincent - though there is tremendous change in the case of an acorn.
In short, Dave's appeal to Vincent (the apparently semi-pelagian opponent of Augustine) falls short of establishing that Dave idea of development is itself an ancient view. As a result, we're still left wondering who the father of Dave's hypothesis is. Is it Newman in the 19th century? If so, why should anyone accept it? Dave hasn't given reasons for us to accept it.
3. History and Scripture vs. Romanism
The difference between Dave and Vincent becomes even more apparent when Vincent asks and answer a question on the issue of novelty in the church:
But some one will ask, How is it then, that certain excellent persons, and of position in the Church, are often permitted by God to preach novel doctrines to Catholics- Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Chapter 10 (Sections 27-28)
...
The reason is clearer than day why Divine Providence sometimes permits certain doctors of the Churches to preach new doctrines—“That the Lord your God may try you;” he says.
Notice that the reason, which Vincent has argued from appeal to Scripture, is not just perspicuous (according to Vincent) but "clearer than day." That reason is to permit testing of the individual person. That individual person is not only permitted to exercise private judgment with respect to the orthodoxy of the particular teachings of doctors of the church, but even commanded to do so. Vincent views his readers as fully competent to make that evaluation from an examination of history and Scripture. What about Dave?
At a few points, Dave seems to act as though his readers are competent judges of history and Scripture. At one point in response to a "how can we know" question, Dave states: "Well, by looking at the history! Its not rocket science. But there is also the biblical evidence ... ."
Dave, however, quotes with approval from Newman who indicates that "private judgment" is "unlawful in interpreting Scripture against the voice of authority," and similarly cannot be "lawful in the interpretation of history" against authority. In other words, you can examine history and Scripture so long as you don't conclude from history or Scripture that the Roman Catholic church is wrong about anything.
This phenomenon is not new.
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition.- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 2
...
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.
...
It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points.
The same basic thing is happening here. At first there is an appeal to Scripture, but when we show that the Scriptures don't support their contention they turn to history/tradition. Then, when we show that their contentions are not supported by tradition/history, they object that they are wiser than those men (like Vincent of Lerins) that we quote, at least in that they have (by appeal to their contemporary magisterium) discovered the unadulterated truth. So we can see that they follow neither Scripture nor history/tradition.
As Newman puts it, "in all cases there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church." (Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk) Margin indeed! The whole matter turns on whether one exercises faith in the word of the modern Roman church. If so, then one will necessarily not hear the arguments to contrary.
4. Evasions and Sophistry in Defense of Rome
The positional weakness of Rome can lead to various evasions and sophistry in her defense. We sadly see these crop up time and time again in Dave's series. Here are a few examples.
a) Argument from Inapplicable Reasons
Mr. Engwer had pointed out that some of the early church fathers suggest that a particular church, such as Rome, or the churches in general are reliable. However, they did not just say that the church or churches were reliable, but also stated why the churches are reliable. Mr. Engwer observed that when the factual basis for this reliability changes, there is no basis for continuing to judge the church or churches as reliable. Look at Mr. Engwer's comment and Dave's response:
[Mr. Engwer wrote:]Irenaeus does refer to the current reliability of the apostolic churches. But he gives reasons for their reliability that could change with the passing of time.Notice that Dave does not address the issue that Mr. Engwer posed. He simply insists that things don't change. In other words, while he does not explicitly say so, Dave is forced to take the position that it doesn't matter why Irenaeus thought that the apostolic churches were reliable, simply that he thought they were reliable. But ignoring why Irenaeus thought what he thought amounts (in this discussion) to make pretextual use of Irenaeus. To phrase it in Vincentian terms, Dave's position is an alteration of Irenaeus' position, not an advancement of Irenaeus' position.
[Dave replied:] Passing down an unbroken tradition or set of truths does not change over time. It either has happened and can be verified or it hasn't.
[UPDATE] A friend pointed out that I would be remiss to mention here Newman's own thoughts on the Vincentian canon that Dave has attempted to rely upon:
It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem.- John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., LTD., 1927), p. 27.
b) Argument from Comparison to "Protestantism"
When Mr. Engwer points out that even until Augustine's time there are positions among the church fathers that are not consistent with the position of the modern Roman Catholic church. As we'll see, Dave's response is to say that Augustine was somehow closer to the Roman Catholic position than to the "Protestant" position. However, that's really irrelevant to the discussion unless Jason Engwer is attempting to adopt Dave's premise of "development" and claim that "Protestantism" is the authentic development rather than the Roman Catholic position. But Mr. Engwer does not appear to be making such an argument. Accordingly, Dave's attempted recusal is hollow. It misses the point that Mr. Engwer has raised:
[Mr. Engwer wrote:]Even long after the time of Irenaeus, we find sources like Augustine making comments about church authority that are inconsistent with a Catholic or Orthodox view (On Baptism, Against The Donatists, 2:2-4).(Dave makes a similar claim in another place: "There were differences, of course, but the fathers were far closer overall to the Catholic position than anything resembling a Protestant one." and in further place: "It's quite amusing for a Protestant to even quibble about real or alleged differences in the early Church on ecclesiology, when one looks at what Protestantism did to [the] same ...")
[Dave responded:]To the contrary, On Baptism, 2:2-4 contradicts Protestant notions more than it does the Catholic rule of faith.
Even if Dave's claim were true about it contradicting "Protestant notions" more than it contradicts the Roman Catholic rule, that wouldn't change the fact that it makes statements that are inconsistent with the Roman Catholic position.
c) Ignoring the Historical Aspect of Sola Scriptura
Mr. Engwer points out (in a comment with which I might disagree, but I digress) that if he were in the position of a very early church father, such as Papias, he would not hold to sola Scriptura. Dave ignores the historically conditioned aspect of sola Scriptura (namely the fact that sola Scriptura is a claim that the only infallible rule of faith we have right now is the Scriptures) and goes on to mockingly misrepresent Mr. Engwer:
[Mr. Engwer wrote:]I've said before that if I were in the position of somebody like Papias, I wouldn't adhere to sola scriptura. But we aren't in his position. We're in a much different position. If sola scriptura had been widely or universally rejected early on, it wouldn't follow that it couldn't be appropriate later, under different circumstances.But Dave is missing the point. It matters what the fathers thought and why they thought what they thought. Those who are present when the prophetic gift of the Lord comes can hear and follow the teachings of the prophet. Under such circumstances sola Scriptura as such is not applicable - because at that time the Word of the Lord is not speaking only through Scripture but also through the prophet. But when the prophet dies or the gift ceases, the Scriptures are again the only voice of God (although those who were living when the prophet is around may still bring to mind the Word given to him). Thus, we may divide history into five epochs:
[Dave responded:] ... So now he "gets" it. Assuming that sola Scriptura was "widely or universally rejected early on" (as in fact it was), it doesn't matter, you see, because (hallelujah!) it can be "appropriate later, under different circumstances." Why are we having this discussion at all, then, if it doesn't matter a hill of beans what the fathers en masse thought? The rule of faith is as variable as the weather and President Obama's latest opinion on war policy.
i) Pre-Scripture
God spoke directly with Adam, with Noah, with Job, and with the Patriarchs until the time of Moses.
ii) Scripture
From the time of Moses until the last word of Scripture was penned, God spoke through Scripture and also often directly to and through living prophets, although there were apparently times that the prophetic gift was suspended in Israel.
iii) Immediately Post-Scripture
For some time after the Scripture was complete there was at least a memory among some of the believers regarding what the living prophets of their day had spoken to them.
iv) The Present Era
The present era began as the prophetic gift ceased and those who had heard the prophets died. Scripture remained, and remained as the only Word of God that was available in a reliable form.
v) The Ages to Come
Whatever one thinks of eschatology, Christ will return and we will be with Him. At that time, of course, we will not rely only on Scripture but on any further revelation that Christ gives.
The idea of Sola Scriptura as such is an idea that is relevant only to the present era. It is a factual statement that Scripture is all we have by way of an infallible rule of faith. Dave's response suggesting relativism misses the essence of what Sola Scriptura is, and demonstrates that either Dave is unwilling or unable to address Mr. Engwer's position for what it is.
d) Ignoring the Dispute over Ecumenical Councils
In another case, Mr. Engwer pointed out that the idea of infallible ecumenical councils may sound nice in theory, but there is dispute over what councils and what parts of which councils are infallible. Dave, apparently oblivious to these issues, blows off Mr. Engwer with mockery:
[Mr. Engwer wrote:] The ecumenical councils are the most popularly accepted examples of an exercise of alleged church infallibility. Yet, there have been many disagreements, and continue to be many, regarding which councils are ecumenical and which portions of the ecumenical councils are to be accepted.The "vague statements" that are made are mostly vague to those unfamiliar with the issues. Engwer is referring, for instance, to the position of Quinisext Council and perhaps as well to portions of the decrees of Council of Constance, as well as generally to whether things like the reasoning applied by the Council of Florence needs to be given dogmatic weight. There are lots of these issues, which is why Mr. Engwer is able to point at them generally, and hope that folks who are at least moderately familiar with the issues (apparently unlike Dave) will be able to get it.
[Dave responded:] Like what? Again, we have mere vague statements. Does anyone think this sort of method of "amateur apologist sez whatever slogan comes into his head and expects it to be accepted as Gospel Truth" is impressive?
e) Pretending that we Think the Fathers were Protestants
One of Dave's more base tactics is to suggest that we claim that the church fathers were "Protestants." We don't, and Mr. Engwer certainly doesn't in anything of what he's written that I've seen. But Dave repeatedly makes statements such as: "the ostensible Protestant project to co-opt the Church fathers and make them out to be Protestant" or "The way Jason presents the situation, it sounds as if it is almost an even battle between the proto-Protestant fathers and the Catholic ones, with the latter hopelessly divided amongst themselves." However, Dave ought to know better. We are quite willing to let the fathers be the fathers without trying to make them in our own image.
In fact, in other places Dave seems to recognize this, since he quotes with approval from some guy named Nick who accuses Mr. Engwer of "using the typical Protestant stealth tactics," in which "he can call them "Christian" on one hand while affirming they weren't promoting a true Gospel on the other ... ." Actually, we note that it is actually Roman Catholics these days who have become fond of referring to heretics as "Christians." I can't speak for Mr. Engwer, but most of the Reformed authors I've read regard at least most of the church fathers as Christians rather than as heretics: as those who did believe the true gospel, even if they (like us) made some mistakes.
f) Ignoring the distinction between Infallibility and Inerrancy
It's unclear if Dave really thinks there is no important difference between inerrancy and infallibility, but he devotes a long section that appears to attempt to obfuscate the difference between the two. He even states:
Is there really all that much of a difference, and does it have any significant effect on this discussion? No. There certainly is not much difference in English.Without the ability to distinguish between the two (even in English) Dave is unable to handle Engwer's arguments that explain (perhaps in terms too complex for Dave) that something can be without error without being without the ability to err. The distinction is, of course, highly significant. The fact that a church hasn't erred (yet) is quite a different claim from saying that a church is constitutionally unable to err. Yet Dave (for whatever reason) glosses over the distinction, rendering his response worse than useless.
g) Frequent Substitution of ad hominem for argumentation
Of course, there are bound to be things critical of one's opponent in one's writings. I've been critical of Dave above, but Dave employs ad hominem as a substitute for argumentation on various points. One example is this:
[Mr. Engwer wrote:]I see no reason to assume that the views of somebody like Irenaeus were equivalent to those of Catholics or Orthodox,Notice that the entire substance of Dave's response is to simply claim that Irenaeus is "consistent with Catholicism in kernel form" and that he accompanies this bald assertion with allegations that Jason doesn't see the consistency because of years of tunnel vision and historical revisionism! Dave also brings in the irrelevant claim that Irenaeus is "inconsistent with Protestantism," which is one of the tactics we've already discussed above.
[Dave responded:]I know; this is the problem. Tunnel vision and historical revisionism have this blunting effect after so many years of doing that. By this I mean "equivalent" in terms of being consistent with Catholicism in kernel form, and inconsistent with Protestantism. It's not equivalent in terms of his views being as fully developed as they were later on. But that is our view, so it is no problem for us.
h) Outright Laziness
Dave complains at the outset that Mr. Engwer makes "general statements of a sweeping negative nature" but when Dave comes to very specific claims, Dave doesn't bother to examine them carefully. For example, Mr. Engwer points to an article on Papias from Richard Bauckham, but Dave states: "I'm not gonna go read all that. I've spent enough time on this as it is."
i) Double Standards
At one point, Dave accuses Mr. Engwer of misrepresenting Athanasius' position. Dave states:
To the extent that Athanasius supposedly believed in sola Scriptura, just like Protestants do (or closer to them than to Catholics), I myself believe it in exactly the same way. In fact, I got so sick and tired of Protestants playing this game with fathers (even in direct opposition to the consensus of their own historians), that I proved that I believe it too (!): with many "prooftexts" from my own words through the years.The problem is that Dave didn't take the next step (which gets us back to item (h) above) and demonstrate from Athanasius and from his own words that he does not believe in sola Scriptura. If he did so, he would see what sort of evidence he could find of his own rejection of that idea, whereas there is nothing remotely close to that kind of evidence with respect to Athanasius. The reason is that Athanasius hasn't been misrepresented.
5. The Myth of Sola Scriptura as an Heretical Distinctive (Alternative Title: Augustine Was Quite Happy to Agree with the Arians Regarding Sola Scriptura)
Although Dave refuses to acknowledge the fact (established by many Reformed authors) that many of the church fathers held to Scripture as their only infallible rule of faith, Dave is quick to allege that the "heretics" accepted Sola Scriptura. As we've noted above, regarding Irenaeus, the early heretics with whom he dealt said that Scripture was not enough, that tradition was not enough, and that consequently one needed knowledge one could only get from them (quite parallel, in may respects, to the practical application of the "three-legged stool" that Rome uses).
Dave claims, however:
That was Arius' method, because it was precisely the heretics who adopted sola Scriptura. Arius agreed with the Protestant rule of faith, and he did so for the same exact reason: if one can't trace his beliefs back through an unbroken chain of apostolic succession and tradition (Arius, being a denier of the Trinity clearly couldn't dop [sic] that), then one must become a-historical and pretend to arrive at one's heresies by Scripture Alone.What is interesting here, however, is that Dave's argument has proved too much. If the Arians really employed sola Scriptura and if sola Scriptura is an invalid rule of faith during our era, then we ought to see the fathers who opposed the Arians pointing out the error of the Arians with respect to their rule of faith. But we do not.
Of course, part of the reason is that the Arians did have apostolic succession in the sense that they were lawfully ordained priests and bishops. Arius himself had been ordained as a priest by an orthodox bishop in Alexandria - so if Arius lacked apostolic succession in that sense, then so did the whole Alexandrian church, including Athanasius, a successor (several ecclesiastical generations after) of the bishop that ordained Arius. So, if simply having a chain of ordination ensured orthodoxy, the Arians would have been orthodox. No one of that era appears to have been so foolish.
In point of fact, we don't see anyone contesting the fact that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith. In fact, we see Augustine saying:
I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witness for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason.- See WSA, Answer to Maximinus, Part I, Vol. 18, ed. John Rotelle, O.S.A., trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (New York: New City Press, 1995), p. 282.
6. Conclusion
Much more could be said, though perhaps the quotation from Augustine immediately above says all that needs to be said in terms of whether Dave has correctly imagined the early church. As noted above, I don't mean to speak for either Engwer or Hays or anyone else who may have provided a response to Dave. I hope that the above response may, however, assist the reader who wishes to see some of the holes in Dave's arguments and flaws in the position that Dave feels compelled to try to defend.
- TurretinFan
Monday, November 23, 2009
Mark Shea on Me on Hitchens and Fry
Mark Shea seems unhappy (link to his post). He states:
He didn't make the same complaint when I posted a link to a debate between Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza (link to my previous post).
Perhaps that's because I had positive things to say about Dinesh's performance and negative things to say about the performance of Archbishop Onaiyekan. That is a bit odd, though, because I didn't see Shea complain when Patrick Madrid posted this same debate and said negative things about Archbishop Onaiyekan's performance (link to Madrid's post).
Shea mentions something about cheering from the peanut gallery, but frankly if you read my post, there isn't actually any "cheering" going on there. In fact, there was more cheering in the Dinesh post than in the Onaiyekan post.
What makes Shea's botched potshot more amusing is that so far no atheists have complained about "weird partisanship" because of my comments about Dinesh. Although, in fairness, Roman Catholic Dave Armstrong did mock me for my post saying something nice about Dinesh's performance (link to Dave Armstrong's mockery).
So, when I post a debate that went poorly for Rome, I get targeted by Shea while he leaves Madrid alone; meanwhile when I post a debate that goes well by a Roman Catholic debater I get targeted by Armstrong.
The moral of the story: you can't make folks with double standards happy.
Speaking of weird partisanship, here's yet another Calvinist sitting in the peanut gallery and cheering on the atheists because they happen to be quarreling with Catholics. Better that God be blasphemed than that any slight pettiness of the 16th Century quarrel be abandoned for one second. We must have our priorities!He's complaining because I posted a link to a debate in which a Roman Catholic archbishop and a Roman Catholic member of the British parliament got trounced in a debate with Hitchens and Fry (link to my previous post).
He didn't make the same complaint when I posted a link to a debate between Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza (link to my previous post).
Perhaps that's because I had positive things to say about Dinesh's performance and negative things to say about the performance of Archbishop Onaiyekan. That is a bit odd, though, because I didn't see Shea complain when Patrick Madrid posted this same debate and said negative things about Archbishop Onaiyekan's performance (link to Madrid's post).
Shea mentions something about cheering from the peanut gallery, but frankly if you read my post, there isn't actually any "cheering" going on there. In fact, there was more cheering in the Dinesh post than in the Onaiyekan post.
What makes Shea's botched potshot more amusing is that so far no atheists have complained about "weird partisanship" because of my comments about Dinesh. Although, in fairness, Roman Catholic Dave Armstrong did mock me for my post saying something nice about Dinesh's performance (link to Dave Armstrong's mockery).
So, when I post a debate that went poorly for Rome, I get targeted by Shea while he leaves Madrid alone; meanwhile when I post a debate that goes well by a Roman Catholic debater I get targeted by Armstrong.
The moral of the story: you can't make folks with double standards happy.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Cochlaeus Work On-Line
Further to my last post about the BSB digitization project, one may recall an informal debate that I conducted with Dave Armstrong last January on the issue of a spurious quotation attributed to Luther. The full work of that slanderer Cochlaeus, from which the quotation originated, has been digitized and is available freely on-line, though one will have to navigate some German menus to download it (link).
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Friday, February 27, 2009
Misquoting Athanasius
It's very popular among Rome's apologists today, to make claims that famous church fathers, those that "Protestants" would have heard of, held to the same views as Rome teaches today. Unfortunately for Catholicism, history is not her friend. So, while occasionally a church father or two will provide some seemingly helpful material for the apologist for Catholicism, these sorts of things often aren't really good enough to provide a compelling case from the best known fathers.
So some of these apologists turn to spurious works: pseudographic writings that are attributed to some father but were not actually written by him. This can happen two ways: (1) unintentionally or (2) deliberately.
The unintentional error can happen to anyone. One of the callers to the "Dividing Line" radio program recently made reference to a quotation with respect to the Johannine Comma that John Calvin had attributed to Jerome. Upon the further investigation, it appears that the author of the quotation was not Jerome himself, but a later writer using Jerome's name. Thus, the person who called unintentionally used a pseudographic writing (through simply adopting what Calvin said, but not investigating it more thoroughly).
A deliberate error is more serious. I have a particular quotation in mind, and at this point, I want to refrain from stating that Rome's apologists are deliberately quoting a pseudographic source as though it were authentic. After all, they may simply be falling into the same error that our caller fell into of using outdated or inaccurate information from a secondary source.
Nevertheless, a particular quotation allegedly from Athanasius has come to my attention. Athanasius is one of those church fathers that lots of "Protestants" have heard of and respect. It would be an interesting survey to do, but I think that among Reformed Christians especially, one would find almost no criticism or negative attitudes towards Athanasius: after all, Athanasius stood for orthodoxy against error in a Martin-Luther-esque manner - "Athanasius Contra Mundum" (Athanasius Against the World).
Athanasius was a Reformer in his day, so what a shock it would be to "Protestants" if Athanasius turned out to be Roman Catholic! And of course, unbeknown to typical "Protestants", there are a number of areas where there would be a significant difference between Athanasius doctrines or practices and those of the more Biblical churches of the Reformation. Those legitimate differences, however, are apparently not enough.
So, now we find apologists for Rome citing a spurious, pseudographic work entitled "Homily of the Papyrus of Turin." This work is not part of any standard corpus of Athanasian writings, and no scholar who deals with Athanasius has (to my knowledge) ever identified it as authentic. It is not found in any Greek manuscripts but apparently comes down to us in a single Coptic manuscript. The manuscript does have the name "Athanasius" at the top, but this is not a sufficient reason to consider it an authentic work, as anyone familiar with ancient manuscripts would be aware.
Who are the guilty parties? Well, we see Steve Ray both at his own site as well as at the Catholic Answers site and This Rock magazine, Dave Armstrong, John Salza at CAI, and if one searches the Internet one will find quite a number of lesser luminaries in the field of Roman apologetics providing the same quotations.
Why are they doing this? I would like to assume that they just don't know better. As noted above, Mr. Ray's use of this spurious, pseudographic work was published in the popular This Rock magazine in 2005, which would have given it a wide distribution. It is possible that many folks that are using this quotation simply got it from Mr. Ray, mistakenly believing that Mr. Ray carefully checks his sources.
But where did Mr. Ray get it? Mr. Ray doesn't read Coptic (as far as I know) - so how did he get an English translation of the text to present? I think the answer to that question lies in Mr. Luigi Gambero's book, "Mary and the Fathers of the Church," first published in English in 1999. At pages 106 and 107, Mr. Gambero provides two quotations from this source. Mr. Gambero himself cites to the earlier work of Louis-Théophile Lefort, in Le Muséon 71 (1958).
Scholarly citations aside from Mr. Gambero typically correctly identify the work as Pseudo-Athanasius (see, for example, Virginia Burrus' citation at p. 258 of Late Ancient Christianity or David Frankfurter's citation at p. 35 of Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt) or at least identify the work simply as "attributed to" Athanasius or other indicators of the dubious (at best) nature of the claim that Athanasius was the work's author.
What about Mr. Gambero? He provides no argument at all in favor of authenticity of the quotation. Since Mr. Gambero did not write the book in English, but instead the work was translated from the Italian original, perhaps the translator left out some indication that Mr. Gambero had originally provided. Unfortunately, where I am now, a copy of the Italian original (published in 1991 and now out of print and largely unavailable for sale in a used condition) is not within my reach. If any of my readers has a copy and would care to let me know what citation is provided by Gambero in the original, I'd be much obliged.
Assuming that the translator has done a proper job, however, we are left weighing the weight of the scholarly consensus against authenticity with an unexplained citation by Mr. Gambero to the work as though it were authentic. Furthermore, Mr. Gambero (while certainly a scholar within his field) is not entirely without bias. One web bio described him this way:
Hopefully, this article will spur Mr. Ray and others to begin publishing suitable retractions to try to undo the (we assume unintentional) errors they have been propagating. I note that I would include in that group Mr. William Albrecht who recently posted a video in which reads back from this work as though it were Athanasius (link), even mistakenly using the section title from Gambero ("In Praise of the Blessed Virgin") rather than the actual title of the work.
This is not the first time I've brought this matter to light. I had previously discussed this on my blog (link), and no one from the side of Rome has come forward to correct this mistake or justify this citation.
So here's my challenge to Albrecht, Armstrong, Catholic Answers, CAI, and Steve Ray: stop using spurious and pseudographic quotations to try to bolster your cause. We realize that this may have been an unintentional error, but you can no longer use ignorance as an excuse now that this matter has been brought to light. When Alpha and Omega Ministries discovers an error in a quotation from the church fathers, we're not afraid to fix the mistake (as demonstrated here). We're not afraid of what the Early Church Fathers actually said or didn't say, are you?
-TurretinFan
Updates: 4 March 2009
1) As noted in my more recent post in response to William Albrecht's attempted defense of the spurious (or - at best - dubious) work, since the scholars I already named in the article above weren't enough for Mr. Albrecht, I've added one more, Mr. Angelo Gila. Mr. Gila is not only a doctor of theology, whose doctoral thesis was a study of the Marian writings of Severus of Gabala, but Mr. Gila is also a Servite friar - a friar in the order of the Servants of Mary - as well as a resident of the Turin area of Northern Italy (the very area where they papyrus manuscript fragments are housed). In a scholarly article published in the "Theotokos" journal, (Theotokos VIII (2000) 601-631), at page 613, Mr. Gila correctly identifies this work as Pseudo-Athanasius.
2) One kind reader has noted that Jay Dyer is another of the folks that have used this quotation (link). [Further update: 5 March 2009 - Mr. Dyer has graciously agreed to remove his reliance on that particular quotation. My hat is off to Mr. Dyer.]
3) Another kind reader has observed that it might be helpful to provide the work's number in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum. This work has been indexed and is included in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum, Volume 2, from Athanasius to Chrysostom (published 1974). At that time, the work was identified as Homilia adversus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria and was assigned the index number 2187, which is in the range of the "dubious" works for those works attributed to Athanasius.
Updates: 5 March 2009
1) Mr. Hoffer has correctly pointed out that Virginia Burrus is the editor of "Late Ancient Christianity," but that the article in question is also by David Frankfurter. This ought to have been pointed out above.
2) Other editors besides Burrus could be identified as approving of Frankfurter's identification of this work as Pseudo-Athanasius. For example, see "Envisioning Magic" edited by Peter Schäfer et al., page 126, and "Religions of Late Antiquity in Practice" edited by Richard Valantasis, page 475. In both cases, the articles in question are by David Frankfurter.
3) Probably it's worth providing an example of the entries that this work gets in a couple of lists. The Université Laval (of Quebec) provides the following entries (under the direction of René-Michel Roberge), respectively in "by the author" and "by the editor" lists of patristic works:
ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria" (coptice)
Lefort, L.-Th. * ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei
Maria" (coptice) * (introduction, apparat critique, traduction française,
repagination du papyrus, commentaire et notes) *22124 1P197 1958 PRSY (link to author index - pdf)
Lefort, L.-Th. * ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei
Maria" (coptice) * (introduction, apparat critique, traduction française,
repagination du papyrus, commentaire et notes) *22124 1P197 1958 PRSY (link to editor index - pdf)
Likewise, the Biblindex provides the entry corresponding to the Center for Patristics Analysis and Documentation (CADP) collection as follows (source):
ATHANASIVS ALEXANDRINVS ? Homliia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria 93470 CPG 2187
In both of the lists above, the "?" is the designator that the work is a dubious work, rather than being within list of authentic works (which would omit the "?"). The lists could have gone further and indicated the work as explicitly pseudographic by using the indicator "pse" - a straw that only someone desperate to continuing citing the work would grasp at.
So some of these apologists turn to spurious works: pseudographic writings that are attributed to some father but were not actually written by him. This can happen two ways: (1) unintentionally or (2) deliberately.
The unintentional error can happen to anyone. One of the callers to the "Dividing Line" radio program recently made reference to a quotation with respect to the Johannine Comma that John Calvin had attributed to Jerome. Upon the further investigation, it appears that the author of the quotation was not Jerome himself, but a later writer using Jerome's name. Thus, the person who called unintentionally used a pseudographic writing (through simply adopting what Calvin said, but not investigating it more thoroughly).
A deliberate error is more serious. I have a particular quotation in mind, and at this point, I want to refrain from stating that Rome's apologists are deliberately quoting a pseudographic source as though it were authentic. After all, they may simply be falling into the same error that our caller fell into of using outdated or inaccurate information from a secondary source.
Nevertheless, a particular quotation allegedly from Athanasius has come to my attention. Athanasius is one of those church fathers that lots of "Protestants" have heard of and respect. It would be an interesting survey to do, but I think that among Reformed Christians especially, one would find almost no criticism or negative attitudes towards Athanasius: after all, Athanasius stood for orthodoxy against error in a Martin-Luther-esque manner - "Athanasius Contra Mundum" (Athanasius Against the World).
Athanasius was a Reformer in his day, so what a shock it would be to "Protestants" if Athanasius turned out to be Roman Catholic! And of course, unbeknown to typical "Protestants", there are a number of areas where there would be a significant difference between Athanasius doctrines or practices and those of the more Biblical churches of the Reformation. Those legitimate differences, however, are apparently not enough.
So, now we find apologists for Rome citing a spurious, pseudographic work entitled "Homily of the Papyrus of Turin." This work is not part of any standard corpus of Athanasian writings, and no scholar who deals with Athanasius has (to my knowledge) ever identified it as authentic. It is not found in any Greek manuscripts but apparently comes down to us in a single Coptic manuscript. The manuscript does have the name "Athanasius" at the top, but this is not a sufficient reason to consider it an authentic work, as anyone familiar with ancient manuscripts would be aware.
Who are the guilty parties? Well, we see Steve Ray both at his own site as well as at the Catholic Answers site and This Rock magazine, Dave Armstrong, John Salza at CAI, and if one searches the Internet one will find quite a number of lesser luminaries in the field of Roman apologetics providing the same quotations.
Why are they doing this? I would like to assume that they just don't know better. As noted above, Mr. Ray's use of this spurious, pseudographic work was published in the popular This Rock magazine in 2005, which would have given it a wide distribution. It is possible that many folks that are using this quotation simply got it from Mr. Ray, mistakenly believing that Mr. Ray carefully checks his sources.
But where did Mr. Ray get it? Mr. Ray doesn't read Coptic (as far as I know) - so how did he get an English translation of the text to present? I think the answer to that question lies in Mr. Luigi Gambero's book, "Mary and the Fathers of the Church," first published in English in 1999. At pages 106 and 107, Mr. Gambero provides two quotations from this source. Mr. Gambero himself cites to the earlier work of Louis-Théophile Lefort, in Le Muséon 71 (1958).
Scholarly citations aside from Mr. Gambero typically correctly identify the work as Pseudo-Athanasius (see, for example, Virginia Burrus' citation at p. 258 of Late Ancient Christianity or David Frankfurter's citation at p. 35 of Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt) or at least identify the work simply as "attributed to" Athanasius or other indicators of the dubious (at best) nature of the claim that Athanasius was the work's author.
What about Mr. Gambero? He provides no argument at all in favor of authenticity of the quotation. Since Mr. Gambero did not write the book in English, but instead the work was translated from the Italian original, perhaps the translator left out some indication that Mr. Gambero had originally provided. Unfortunately, where I am now, a copy of the Italian original (published in 1991 and now out of print and largely unavailable for sale in a used condition) is not within my reach. If any of my readers has a copy and would care to let me know what citation is provided by Gambero in the original, I'd be much obliged.
Assuming that the translator has done a proper job, however, we are left weighing the weight of the scholarly consensus against authenticity with an unexplained citation by Mr. Gambero to the work as though it were authentic. Furthermore, Mr. Gambero (while certainly a scholar within his field) is not entirely without bias. One web bio described him this way:
Fr. Luigi Gambero, S.M., a Marianist priest, studied philosophy and theology at the University of Fribourg and the Lateran University in Rome. He specialized in Mariology at the Pontifical Faculty of the Marianum in Rome. He presently teaches patristics at the Marianum and at the University of Dayton.I attempted to find contact information for Mr. Gambero through the University of Dayton, but it does not appear to be available. Again, if a reader is able to get in contact with Mr. Gambero, I would be much obliged to have the opportunity to hear his own explanation for this use of a pseudographic work, which has resulted in widespread miscitation of the work in the world of modern Roman apologetics.
Hopefully, this article will spur Mr. Ray and others to begin publishing suitable retractions to try to undo the (we assume unintentional) errors they have been propagating. I note that I would include in that group Mr. William Albrecht who recently posted a video in which reads back from this work as though it were Athanasius (link), even mistakenly using the section title from Gambero ("In Praise of the Blessed Virgin") rather than the actual title of the work.
This is not the first time I've brought this matter to light. I had previously discussed this on my blog (link), and no one from the side of Rome has come forward to correct this mistake or justify this citation.
So here's my challenge to Albrecht, Armstrong, Catholic Answers, CAI, and Steve Ray: stop using spurious and pseudographic quotations to try to bolster your cause. We realize that this may have been an unintentional error, but you can no longer use ignorance as an excuse now that this matter has been brought to light. When Alpha and Omega Ministries discovers an error in a quotation from the church fathers, we're not afraid to fix the mistake (as demonstrated here). We're not afraid of what the Early Church Fathers actually said or didn't say, are you?
-TurretinFan
Updates: 4 March 2009
1) As noted in my more recent post in response to William Albrecht's attempted defense of the spurious (or - at best - dubious) work, since the scholars I already named in the article above weren't enough for Mr. Albrecht, I've added one more, Mr. Angelo Gila. Mr. Gila is not only a doctor of theology, whose doctoral thesis was a study of the Marian writings of Severus of Gabala, but Mr. Gila is also a Servite friar - a friar in the order of the Servants of Mary - as well as a resident of the Turin area of Northern Italy (the very area where they papyrus manuscript fragments are housed). In a scholarly article published in the "Theotokos" journal, (Theotokos VIII (2000) 601-631), at page 613, Mr. Gila correctly identifies this work as Pseudo-Athanasius.
2) One kind reader has noted that Jay Dyer is another of the folks that have used this quotation (link). [Further update: 5 March 2009 - Mr. Dyer has graciously agreed to remove his reliance on that particular quotation. My hat is off to Mr. Dyer.]
3) Another kind reader has observed that it might be helpful to provide the work's number in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum. This work has been indexed and is included in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum, Volume 2, from Athanasius to Chrysostom (published 1974). At that time, the work was identified as Homilia adversus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria and was assigned the index number 2187, which is in the range of the "dubious" works for those works attributed to Athanasius.
Updates: 5 March 2009
1) Mr. Hoffer has correctly pointed out that Virginia Burrus is the editor of "Late Ancient Christianity," but that the article in question is also by David Frankfurter. This ought to have been pointed out above.
2) Other editors besides Burrus could be identified as approving of Frankfurter's identification of this work as Pseudo-Athanasius. For example, see "Envisioning Magic" edited by Peter Schäfer et al., page 126, and "Religions of Late Antiquity in Practice" edited by Richard Valantasis, page 475. In both cases, the articles in question are by David Frankfurter.
3) Probably it's worth providing an example of the entries that this work gets in a couple of lists. The Université Laval (of Quebec) provides the following entries (under the direction of René-Michel Roberge), respectively in "by the author" and "by the editor" lists of patristic works:
ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria" (coptice)
Lefort, L.-Th. * ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei
Maria" (coptice) * (introduction, apparat critique, traduction française,
repagination du papyrus, commentaire et notes) *22124 1P197 1958 PRSY (link to author index - pdf)
Lefort, L.-Th. * ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei
Maria" (coptice) * (introduction, apparat critique, traduction française,
repagination du papyrus, commentaire et notes) *22124 1P197 1958 PRSY (link to editor index - pdf)
Likewise, the Biblindex provides the entry corresponding to the Center for Patristics Analysis and Documentation (CADP) collection as follows (source):
ATHANASIVS ALEXANDRINVS ? Homliia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria 93470 CPG 2187
In both of the lists above, the "?" is the designator that the work is a dubious work, rather than being within list of authentic works (which would omit the "?"). The lists could have gone further and indicated the work as explicitly pseudographic by using the indicator "pse" - a straw that only someone desperate to continuing citing the work would grasp at.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Response to Alexander Greco on Sola Scriptura
Previously, I wrote against some comments made by Mr. Bellisario (link to my post) regarding Eric Svendsen's book, "Upon this Slippery Rock." Mr. Alexander Greco has decided to respond as follows:
AG's analogy, "It seems to be the case that you would like to have your cake and eat it too," is inapt. It's not applicable to the case at hand. A better analogy here would be "have your orange and eat your apples," for Mr. Greco is comparing not cake to cake but apples to oranges.
AG states, "On the one hand you proclaim "Sola Scriptura," the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith." AG has left out, however, the term "infallible." Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. But perhaps this omission is not critical to this particular discussion.
Continuing on, AG states, "On the other hand you have the audacity to tell me ... that [my] beliefs are wrong ... ." There is obviously more to his comment, but this seems to be the key point of his objection. In AG's mind, if one holds to Sola Scriptura, then one cannot tell other people that their beliefs are wrong. This is an incredibly enormous logical misstep. Not only does AG's supposition not follow - it is directly contradicted.
The fact that Scripture is a rule of faith provides a way by which doctrines can be measured. It provides the umpire to settle our arguments. If we disagree over whether Christ died or rose from the dead, we can turn to Scripture and see the answer there. The side who agrees with Scripture teaches the truth.
Where then could AG's non-sequitur accusation come from? I cannot say for sure - logical fallacies sometimes have a way of creeping up on people. I suspect, however, that there is a chance that it has come from AG being overexposed to papist propaganda suggesting that to believe Sola Scriptura is to accept relativism.
Usually the way we see this done is more subtly (such as by pointing out a large number of denominations and then groundlessly blaming this on the standard of Sola Scriptura) but sometimes it is done quite explicitly, even to the point of point an equals sign between Sola Scriptura and relativism.
Of course, all this is absurd: everyone should realize that if one has a standard of absolute truth and that standard is external to oneself, then one is not a relativist. Sola Scripture is a standard of absolute truth and it is external to us. Therefore, those of us who practice Sola Scriptura are plainly not relativists.
And, of course, it is precisely because we recognize that Scripture is the touchstone and metric of doctrinal truth that we can judge whether a church preaches the gospel. If we did not have Scripture as a measuring stick, we'd be left floating in the breeze. Scripture provides an anchor and reference point.
Now, let's deal with a few other of AG's points: "and numerous other christians dating back to the founding of the Church ... ." The label "christian," here is not helpful. If a person claims to be a Christian, but refuses to heed the Word of God, what good is that sort of profession? And the "back to the founding" part of the claim is just absurd. Some of my biggest objections to Catholicism stem, as AG surely knows, from innovations that occurred in history - such as the innovation of papal infallibility, the bodily assumption of Mary, Purgatory, Idolatry, attempted communication with the dead, and Indulgences. Historically, AG doesn't have a leg to stand on.
But furthermore, Paul himself stood up to Christians in his own day - he even opposed a fellow apostle, Peter, to his face. Christians can be wrong, and Christians can and should help to correct each other's errors. Scripture says so.
AG adds that we also tell him that "our liturgies" are wrong. This should be no surprise. The liturgies of Catholicism (and other supposedly ancient religions) have evolved over time. The Roman liturgies ("Latin" rite) are especially famous for the dramatic changes we saw in the Vatican II era - but the others have developed as well. It's not surprising to see them incorporating more or less error over the years, especially in a church that refuses to reform its own teachings to the norm of Scripture.
AG declares, "You tell us that they are wrong according to how you (and in reality it is your instructor, who ever that may be...Svendsen, etc.) interpret the Gospel." This sort of comment is symmetrically reflexive and infinitely regressive. If AG's point is valid, then it is also valid to say that AG tells us that we are wrong according to how he (and in reality it is his instructor, who ever that may be ... Dave Armstrong, etc.) interprets Catholicism's standards. But AG's point is not valid.
We tell him that these things are wrong according to what Scripture says. Scripture, not our interpretation of it, is the standard. We acknowledge the fallibility of our own interpretations, and subject them to the higher authority of Scripture. It's puzzling to me why this concept is so hard for advocates of Catholicism to get.
Don't they know that the law of the land - the thing that determines whether they are committing a crime or not - is not someone's interpretation of the law, but the law itself? In practice, people do have to interpret the law. A judge may have to noodle over the issue of what the law has to say about something, but ultimately it is the law, not the judge, that is the standard. The judge doesn't make his own law: he interprets the law.
The same goes when Christians follow Scripture's commands that require them to be judges of doctrine. Such obedience doesn't require them to become laws unto themselves, but rather to interpret the law of God given in the Word of God.
But AG doesn't stop there. He continues, "However, you quickly add the caveat that you are not infallible; but never mind that, we should take your proclamation to be infallible because even with history on our side you have the superior fallible interpretation." This is just intentional ignorance. How one can add, "But never mind that," knowing that isn't what we say, is simply mind boggling.
Furthermore, of course, history is not on AG's side. As noted above, upon historical examination, numerous central distinctives of Catholicism turn out to be innovations: neither believed nor practiced by the apostles or the earliest churches. History is not the friend of a church that promotes papal infallibility and transubstantiation.
AG concludes, "How the early Christians practiced their faith is of no relevance to your 'Sola Scriptura.'" This is a bit misleading. It is, of course, true that no matter what, Scripture is the norm - not what early Christians did. We know from the book of Revelation that not all the early Christians did what was right.
On the other hand, what the early Christians did is still of interest. Although Scripture is the rule of faith (i.e. the sole infallible authority), the teachings of previous Christians, whether living or passed on, are of value and are not simply to be ignored. That doesn't mean that we automatically accept everything attributed to an early Christian, but it does mean that we read what they wrote, and try to learn from it - all the while comparing it to Scripture - as they would have wanted, as we see in many cases.
-TurretinFan
It seems to be the case that you would like to have your cake and eat it too.
On the one hand you proclaim "Sola Scriptura," the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith.
On the other hand you have the audacity to tell me (and numerous other christians dating back to the founding of the Church) that our beliefs are wrong, that our Liturgies are wrong. You tell us that they are wrong according to how you (and in reality it is your instructor, who ever that may be...Svendsen, etc.) interpret the Gospel. However, you quickly add the caveat that you are not infallible; but never mind that, we should take your proclamation to be infallible because even with history on our side you have the superior fallible interpretation. How the early Christians practiced their faith is of no relevance to your "Sola Scriptura."
AG's analogy, "It seems to be the case that you would like to have your cake and eat it too," is inapt. It's not applicable to the case at hand. A better analogy here would be "have your orange and eat your apples," for Mr. Greco is comparing not cake to cake but apples to oranges.
AG states, "On the one hand you proclaim "Sola Scriptura," the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith." AG has left out, however, the term "infallible." Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. But perhaps this omission is not critical to this particular discussion.
Continuing on, AG states, "On the other hand you have the audacity to tell me ... that [my] beliefs are wrong ... ." There is obviously more to his comment, but this seems to be the key point of his objection. In AG's mind, if one holds to Sola Scriptura, then one cannot tell other people that their beliefs are wrong. This is an incredibly enormous logical misstep. Not only does AG's supposition not follow - it is directly contradicted.
The fact that Scripture is a rule of faith provides a way by which doctrines can be measured. It provides the umpire to settle our arguments. If we disagree over whether Christ died or rose from the dead, we can turn to Scripture and see the answer there. The side who agrees with Scripture teaches the truth.
Where then could AG's non-sequitur accusation come from? I cannot say for sure - logical fallacies sometimes have a way of creeping up on people. I suspect, however, that there is a chance that it has come from AG being overexposed to papist propaganda suggesting that to believe Sola Scriptura is to accept relativism.
Usually the way we see this done is more subtly (such as by pointing out a large number of denominations and then groundlessly blaming this on the standard of Sola Scriptura) but sometimes it is done quite explicitly, even to the point of point an equals sign between Sola Scriptura and relativism.
Of course, all this is absurd: everyone should realize that if one has a standard of absolute truth and that standard is external to oneself, then one is not a relativist. Sola Scripture is a standard of absolute truth and it is external to us. Therefore, those of us who practice Sola Scriptura are plainly not relativists.
And, of course, it is precisely because we recognize that Scripture is the touchstone and metric of doctrinal truth that we can judge whether a church preaches the gospel. If we did not have Scripture as a measuring stick, we'd be left floating in the breeze. Scripture provides an anchor and reference point.
Now, let's deal with a few other of AG's points: "and numerous other christians dating back to the founding of the Church ... ." The label "christian," here is not helpful. If a person claims to be a Christian, but refuses to heed the Word of God, what good is that sort of profession? And the "back to the founding" part of the claim is just absurd. Some of my biggest objections to Catholicism stem, as AG surely knows, from innovations that occurred in history - such as the innovation of papal infallibility, the bodily assumption of Mary, Purgatory, Idolatry, attempted communication with the dead, and Indulgences. Historically, AG doesn't have a leg to stand on.
But furthermore, Paul himself stood up to Christians in his own day - he even opposed a fellow apostle, Peter, to his face. Christians can be wrong, and Christians can and should help to correct each other's errors. Scripture says so.
AG adds that we also tell him that "our liturgies" are wrong. This should be no surprise. The liturgies of Catholicism (and other supposedly ancient religions) have evolved over time. The Roman liturgies ("Latin" rite) are especially famous for the dramatic changes we saw in the Vatican II era - but the others have developed as well. It's not surprising to see them incorporating more or less error over the years, especially in a church that refuses to reform its own teachings to the norm of Scripture.
AG declares, "You tell us that they are wrong according to how you (and in reality it is your instructor, who ever that may be...Svendsen, etc.) interpret the Gospel." This sort of comment is symmetrically reflexive and infinitely regressive. If AG's point is valid, then it is also valid to say that AG tells us that we are wrong according to how he (and in reality it is his instructor, who ever that may be ... Dave Armstrong, etc.) interprets Catholicism's standards. But AG's point is not valid.
We tell him that these things are wrong according to what Scripture says. Scripture, not our interpretation of it, is the standard. We acknowledge the fallibility of our own interpretations, and subject them to the higher authority of Scripture. It's puzzling to me why this concept is so hard for advocates of Catholicism to get.
Don't they know that the law of the land - the thing that determines whether they are committing a crime or not - is not someone's interpretation of the law, but the law itself? In practice, people do have to interpret the law. A judge may have to noodle over the issue of what the law has to say about something, but ultimately it is the law, not the judge, that is the standard. The judge doesn't make his own law: he interprets the law.
The same goes when Christians follow Scripture's commands that require them to be judges of doctrine. Such obedience doesn't require them to become laws unto themselves, but rather to interpret the law of God given in the Word of God.
But AG doesn't stop there. He continues, "However, you quickly add the caveat that you are not infallible; but never mind that, we should take your proclamation to be infallible because even with history on our side you have the superior fallible interpretation." This is just intentional ignorance. How one can add, "But never mind that," knowing that isn't what we say, is simply mind boggling.
Furthermore, of course, history is not on AG's side. As noted above, upon historical examination, numerous central distinctives of Catholicism turn out to be innovations: neither believed nor practiced by the apostles or the earliest churches. History is not the friend of a church that promotes papal infallibility and transubstantiation.
AG concludes, "How the early Christians practiced their faith is of no relevance to your 'Sola Scriptura.'" This is a bit misleading. It is, of course, true that no matter what, Scripture is the norm - not what early Christians did. We know from the book of Revelation that not all the early Christians did what was right.
On the other hand, what the early Christians did is still of interest. Although Scripture is the rule of faith (i.e. the sole infallible authority), the teachings of previous Christians, whether living or passed on, are of value and are not simply to be ignored. That doesn't mean that we automatically accept everything attributed to an early Christian, but it does mean that we read what they wrote, and try to learn from it - all the while comparing it to Scripture - as they would have wanted, as we see in many cases.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, October 16, 2008
There is One Mediator and Only One Mediator
In a recent blog post (link), Dave Armstrong (a lay advocate of Catholicism) has made the remarkable argument that "there is one mediator" in 1 Timothy 2:5 does not rule out what Dave calls "mini-mediators." Dave doesn't comment on whether "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD," rules out mini-Jehovahs or whether "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, " rules out mini-Lords, mini-faiths, and mini-baptisms.
Naturally, he also doesn't comment on whether "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble," rules out mini-Gods. I suppose that he might be excused from these oversights with respect to other uses of "one" in Scripture except that the verse in question does not say only "there is one mediator" but also "there is one God" - in fact the quotation, "There is one mediator," requires one to omit "One God, and" in the usual translation of the text:
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Dave also doesn't comment on the fact that the term "mediator" is only ever used of Jesus in the New Testament (see post-script below for more discussion on this). That's true whether we speak of the English word for mediator in KJV, the Latin word for mediator in the Vulgate, or the Greek word for mediator in the original. Instead of dealing with these troubling details, Dave waves his hand and claims that Scriptures teach the concept of mini-mediators. Of course, it doesn't take a genius to guess that Dave cannot find the term "mini-mediator" in Scripture either. Instead, he declares that:
1) When Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 9:22 of "by all means sav[ing] some" - that means Paul is a "mini-mediator";
2) When Paul speaks in 1 Timothy 4:16 of "sav[ing] both yourself and your hearers" - that means Timothy is going to be a "mini-mediator";
3) When Paul speaks in Philippians 2:12-13 of "work[ing] out your own salvation" - that means the Philippians are going to be "mini-mediators";
4) When Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 4:15 of "all things [being] for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God" - that means that Paul is a "mini-mediator";
5) When Paul speaks in Ephesians 3:2 of "the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward" - that means Paul is a "mini-mediator";
6) When Paul speaks in Ephesians 4:29 of the words from the Ephesians mouths "minister[ing] grace unto the hearers" - that means the Ephesians will be "mini-mediators";
7) When Peter speaks in 1 Peter 4:8-10 of "good stewards of the manifold grace of God" - that means that the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia are going to be "mini-mediators";
8) When John speaks in Revelation 1:4-5 of "the seven spirits who are before his throne" - that means that angels are going to be "mini-mediators";
9) Whenever Paul or anyone else uses the phrase "grace to you" or the like - that means that the person using the phrase is acting as a "mini-mediator."
There a number of significant problems with Dave's methodology. For one thing, Dave more or less simply assumes in each case that the activity involved is somehow a "mini" form of what Christ does as mediator. Another problem is that in order for Dave's overall argument to work, Dave essentially has to reduce Jesus' mediatorial role to that of being a grace conduit, with God (the Father) being the source and believers (or all men - one is not really sure whether Dave applies a "prevenient grace" concept here) being the recipients. There are other problems to be sure. For example, the idea that the "seven spirits who are before [God's] throne" are consequently to be implicated in mediation is particularly far-fetched. But the two I've identified above may be viewed as the primary problems.
What is the cause of Dave's problems in this regard? Dave simply doesn't seem to understand the role of the mediator. The mediator is not simply a grace conduit. The mediator is the person who reconciles two. As Scripture says,
Galatians 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
The mediator stands between two parties and reconciles them together. Thus, for example, the LXX uses this same word for mediator in Job 9:33, where the text says:
Job 9:33 Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, [that] might lay his hand upon us both. (KJV)
Job 9:33 "There is no umpire between us, Who may lay his hand upon us both. (NASB)
Jesus is that one person who reconciles God and man. Jesus does that job and does it completely, leaving no room for a "mini-mediator." Part of that role, moreover, is the role of being the sole object of faith. That's how Galatians connects Jesus' role as mediator to the relation between God and man:
Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
It is by faith in the mediator that we obtain the blessing. There is no mention in Scripture of salvation by faith in any lesser or "mini" mediator - but only by faith in Christ. There is no salvation by faith in the church, in the saints, or in Mary: there is only one mediator: Jesus Christ. The same point is being made in 1 Timothy 2, in which what is well pleasing to God is that men believe on his son - the one mediator between God and man.
But an even stronger point is made in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In chapter 8, Christ is portrayed as performing the mediatorial role by serving as the high priest of the "better covenant" - by which it is meant that he is the one who offers up the sacrifice to God. After all, it is the sacrifice that reconciles us to God. Hebrews 12 makes the same connection, but more loosely.
It is, however, in Hebrews 9 that we find the clear exposition of what it means for Christ to be the mediator:
Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Christ's role as mediator is a priestly role. He is the sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and he is the priest that offers the sacrifice. He is the Lamb and the one who offers the Lamb. He offers it specifically for "they which are called," and do so that they will receive the promise of heaven. Christ mediates the new covenant. He is the one mediator of it.
Paul explicitly disclaims any such role:
1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Furthermore, though he Paul would like to take on such a role, he implicitly acknowledges that he cannot:
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Similarly, Moses' attempt to be the mediator between God and Israel was rejected by God:
Exodus 32:31-33
31And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. 33And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
Furthermore, the epistle to the Hebrews explains that such a role is an impossibility:
Hebrews 10:9-14
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Notice the key here: by one offering Christ has once for all sanctified and perfected us. There is no room for mini-mediators, because this mediator has done it all. It is finished. There is nothing left to mediate: God's wrath against us is appeased in Christ, and consequently we have no need of a further mediator, whether "mini-" or "co-" as some advocates of Catholicism have attempted to suggest.
This is the understanding of Christ's mediatorial role that is missing from Dave's post - that leads to his confused claims that somehow these instrumental means whereby men are saved (such as the preaching of the Gospel in items (1), (2), and (4)-(7) above) are the role of the mediator.
Instead, Dave's concept of mediation is asking God for more grace for people (in an interesting, but largely irrelevant tangent, Dave seems to be under the misapprehension that the Protestant Reformed position on the definition of "grace" is the main view out there). Of course, that is not what Jesus does as mediator of the new covenant, as we have discussed above.
The actions of believers in wishing grace of God on others, or in seeking to bring that about by preaching the gospel or by repentance, faith, and new obedience are in an entirely different category. The mediating of Christ is done: He has sat down at the right hand of God:
Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
As it is sung:
Psalm 110
A Psalm of David
1 The Lord did say unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand,
Until I make thy foes a stool,
whereon thy feet may stand.
2 The Lord shall out of Zion send
the rod of thy great pow'r:
In midst of all thine enemies
be thou the governor.
3 A willing people in thy day
of pow'r shall come to thee,
In holy beauties from morn's womb;
thy youth like dew shall be.
4 The Lord himself hath made an oath,
and will repent him never,
Of th' order of Melchisedec
thou art a priest for ever.
5 The glorious and mighty Lord,
that sits at thy right hand,
Shall, in his day of wrath, strike through
kings that do him withstand.
6 He shall among the heathen judge,
he shall with bodies dead
The places fill: o'er many lands
he wound shall ev'ry head.
7 The brook that runneth in the way
with drink shall him supply;
And, for this cause, in triumph he
shall lift his head on high.
No, Jesus is not simply the central distribution point of "grace" (the view of grace in Catholicism, of course, being different from that in Biblical theology) as Dave seems to think ("Jesus is ultimately the mediator of grace. It all comes through Him. But He also clearly uses human beings to distribute the grace, as these passages establish beyond any doubt.") but Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
What's being described there is not Jesus' role as example (though he is an example) or his role as preacher (though he is a preacher) but instead Jesus' role the one who obtains a heavenly place for his people.
John 14:1-4
1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
The persevering reader who has made it this far may be interested in reading more about the implications of Jesus' having prepared mansions for us, which I've discussed in a previous article (link).
Perhaps someone will ask - do not we ourselves intercede to God for our fellow believers and for the lost? In doing so, are we not in some sense mediators? I cannot think of a better response than that given by Charles Hodge (link to selection from Hodge). The short answer is - no, we are not. We simply intercede in the sense of praying for the person. We are not mediators - we do not reconcile God to man.
In summary, recall that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:19-20 We are not mini-mediators, but spokesmen: declaring the good news so that men who were spiritually dead may live. 1 Peter 4:6
-TurretinFan
P.S. One kind reader has noted that some people believe that the term for mediator in English, Latin, and Greek is used in Galatians 3:19-20 and refers in that place to Moses. While I would disagree that the term used there refers to Moses, it is mostly a moot point, since (if it refers to Moses) it would relate to Moses' role as law-giver. Furthermore, if it were the case that the mediator in verses 19-20 were Moses, the context ("herefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ" vs. 24) would lead us to recognize that Moses foreshadowed Christ (cf. Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.) the one mediator of the New Covenant. Nevertheless, since verse 19 refers to "angels" (plural), it seems better to refer the term "mediator" in verse 19 either directly to the promised Messaiah or to the Messiah as portrayed by the Old Testament priesthood.
Naturally, he also doesn't comment on whether "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble," rules out mini-Gods. I suppose that he might be excused from these oversights with respect to other uses of "one" in Scripture except that the verse in question does not say only "there is one mediator" but also "there is one God" - in fact the quotation, "There is one mediator," requires one to omit "One God, and" in the usual translation of the text:
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Dave also doesn't comment on the fact that the term "mediator" is only ever used of Jesus in the New Testament (see post-script below for more discussion on this). That's true whether we speak of the English word for mediator in KJV, the Latin word for mediator in the Vulgate, or the Greek word for mediator in the original. Instead of dealing with these troubling details, Dave waves his hand and claims that Scriptures teach the concept of mini-mediators. Of course, it doesn't take a genius to guess that Dave cannot find the term "mini-mediator" in Scripture either. Instead, he declares that:
1) When Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 9:22 of "by all means sav[ing] some" - that means Paul is a "mini-mediator";
2) When Paul speaks in 1 Timothy 4:16 of "sav[ing] both yourself and your hearers" - that means Timothy is going to be a "mini-mediator";
3) When Paul speaks in Philippians 2:12-13 of "work[ing] out your own salvation" - that means the Philippians are going to be "mini-mediators";
4) When Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 4:15 of "all things [being] for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God" - that means that Paul is a "mini-mediator";
5) When Paul speaks in Ephesians 3:2 of "the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward" - that means Paul is a "mini-mediator";
6) When Paul speaks in Ephesians 4:29 of the words from the Ephesians mouths "minister[ing] grace unto the hearers" - that means the Ephesians will be "mini-mediators";
7) When Peter speaks in 1 Peter 4:8-10 of "good stewards of the manifold grace of God" - that means that the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia are going to be "mini-mediators";
8) When John speaks in Revelation 1:4-5 of "the seven spirits who are before his throne" - that means that angels are going to be "mini-mediators";
9) Whenever Paul or anyone else uses the phrase "grace to you" or the like - that means that the person using the phrase is acting as a "mini-mediator."
There a number of significant problems with Dave's methodology. For one thing, Dave more or less simply assumes in each case that the activity involved is somehow a "mini" form of what Christ does as mediator. Another problem is that in order for Dave's overall argument to work, Dave essentially has to reduce Jesus' mediatorial role to that of being a grace conduit, with God (the Father) being the source and believers (or all men - one is not really sure whether Dave applies a "prevenient grace" concept here) being the recipients. There are other problems to be sure. For example, the idea that the "seven spirits who are before [God's] throne" are consequently to be implicated in mediation is particularly far-fetched. But the two I've identified above may be viewed as the primary problems.
What is the cause of Dave's problems in this regard? Dave simply doesn't seem to understand the role of the mediator. The mediator is not simply a grace conduit. The mediator is the person who reconciles two. As Scripture says,
Galatians 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
The mediator stands between two parties and reconciles them together. Thus, for example, the LXX uses this same word for mediator in Job 9:33, where the text says:
Job 9:33 Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, [that] might lay his hand upon us both. (KJV)
Job 9:33 "There is no umpire between us, Who may lay his hand upon us both. (NASB)
Jesus is that one person who reconciles God and man. Jesus does that job and does it completely, leaving no room for a "mini-mediator." Part of that role, moreover, is the role of being the sole object of faith. That's how Galatians connects Jesus' role as mediator to the relation between God and man:
Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
It is by faith in the mediator that we obtain the blessing. There is no mention in Scripture of salvation by faith in any lesser or "mini" mediator - but only by faith in Christ. There is no salvation by faith in the church, in the saints, or in Mary: there is only one mediator: Jesus Christ. The same point is being made in 1 Timothy 2, in which what is well pleasing to God is that men believe on his son - the one mediator between God and man.
But an even stronger point is made in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In chapter 8, Christ is portrayed as performing the mediatorial role by serving as the high priest of the "better covenant" - by which it is meant that he is the one who offers up the sacrifice to God. After all, it is the sacrifice that reconciles us to God. Hebrews 12 makes the same connection, but more loosely.
It is, however, in Hebrews 9 that we find the clear exposition of what it means for Christ to be the mediator:
Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Christ's role as mediator is a priestly role. He is the sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and he is the priest that offers the sacrifice. He is the Lamb and the one who offers the Lamb. He offers it specifically for "they which are called," and do so that they will receive the promise of heaven. Christ mediates the new covenant. He is the one mediator of it.
Paul explicitly disclaims any such role:
1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Furthermore, though he Paul would like to take on such a role, he implicitly acknowledges that he cannot:
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Similarly, Moses' attempt to be the mediator between God and Israel was rejected by God:
Exodus 32:31-33
31And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. 33And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
Furthermore, the epistle to the Hebrews explains that such a role is an impossibility:
Hebrews 10:9-14
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Notice the key here: by one offering Christ has once for all sanctified and perfected us. There is no room for mini-mediators, because this mediator has done it all. It is finished. There is nothing left to mediate: God's wrath against us is appeased in Christ, and consequently we have no need of a further mediator, whether "mini-" or "co-" as some advocates of Catholicism have attempted to suggest.
This is the understanding of Christ's mediatorial role that is missing from Dave's post - that leads to his confused claims that somehow these instrumental means whereby men are saved (such as the preaching of the Gospel in items (1), (2), and (4)-(7) above) are the role of the mediator.
Instead, Dave's concept of mediation is asking God for more grace for people (in an interesting, but largely irrelevant tangent, Dave seems to be under the misapprehension that the Protestant Reformed position on the definition of "grace" is the main view out there). Of course, that is not what Jesus does as mediator of the new covenant, as we have discussed above.
The actions of believers in wishing grace of God on others, or in seeking to bring that about by preaching the gospel or by repentance, faith, and new obedience are in an entirely different category. The mediating of Christ is done: He has sat down at the right hand of God:
Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
As it is sung:
Psalm 110
A Psalm of David
1 The Lord did say unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand,
Until I make thy foes a stool,
whereon thy feet may stand.
2 The Lord shall out of Zion send
the rod of thy great pow'r:
In midst of all thine enemies
be thou the governor.
3 A willing people in thy day
of pow'r shall come to thee,
In holy beauties from morn's womb;
thy youth like dew shall be.
4 The Lord himself hath made an oath,
and will repent him never,
Of th' order of Melchisedec
thou art a priest for ever.
5 The glorious and mighty Lord,
that sits at thy right hand,
Shall, in his day of wrath, strike through
kings that do him withstand.
6 He shall among the heathen judge,
he shall with bodies dead
The places fill: o'er many lands
he wound shall ev'ry head.
7 The brook that runneth in the way
with drink shall him supply;
And, for this cause, in triumph he
shall lift his head on high.
No, Jesus is not simply the central distribution point of "grace" (the view of grace in Catholicism, of course, being different from that in Biblical theology) as Dave seems to think ("Jesus is ultimately the mediator of grace. It all comes through Him. But He also clearly uses human beings to distribute the grace, as these passages establish beyond any doubt.") but Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
What's being described there is not Jesus' role as example (though he is an example) or his role as preacher (though he is a preacher) but instead Jesus' role the one who obtains a heavenly place for his people.
John 14:1-4
1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
The persevering reader who has made it this far may be interested in reading more about the implications of Jesus' having prepared mansions for us, which I've discussed in a previous article (link).
Perhaps someone will ask - do not we ourselves intercede to God for our fellow believers and for the lost? In doing so, are we not in some sense mediators? I cannot think of a better response than that given by Charles Hodge (link to selection from Hodge). The short answer is - no, we are not. We simply intercede in the sense of praying for the person. We are not mediators - we do not reconcile God to man.
In summary, recall that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:19-20 We are not mini-mediators, but spokesmen: declaring the good news so that men who were spiritually dead may live. 1 Peter 4:6
-TurretinFan
P.S. One kind reader has noted that some people believe that the term for mediator in English, Latin, and Greek is used in Galatians 3:19-20 and refers in that place to Moses. While I would disagree that the term used there refers to Moses, it is mostly a moot point, since (if it refers to Moses) it would relate to Moses' role as law-giver. Furthermore, if it were the case that the mediator in verses 19-20 were Moses, the context ("herefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ" vs. 24) would lead us to recognize that Moses foreshadowed Christ (cf. Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.) the one mediator of the New Covenant. Nevertheless, since verse 19 refers to "angels" (plural), it seems better to refer the term "mediator" in verse 19 either directly to the promised Messaiah or to the Messiah as portrayed by the Old Testament priesthood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
