Dave,
This is so true. Everyone of my Evangelical friends who left the Church did so as nominal catholics after reading scripture for a very short period of time, whereas everyone of my Evangelical friends who converted to Catholicism deeply immersed themselves in the study of history for years on end before crossing the tiber.
James
Just wanted to add that my own situation reflects this reality. I left the Jehovah's Witnesses as a result of a year and a half of private Bible Study. I then worshipped with Protestants for about 4-5 years as I studied scripture and history in more depth. It took a total of 10 years of study before I became Catholic. All of my Catholic convert friends followed a similar course of protracted study whereas virtually all of my Catholic-turned-Evangelical friends are still at the same point I was after having left the JWs. That is, they are stuck in a very anti-historical sola scriptura paradigm.
James
I hate to just say me too but ... me too
This is so hard for protestants to process. The idea that not only are active protestants becoming Catholic but they are the kind of people you would expect to be immune from theological deception. They are intelligent. They know their bible. They are not given to impulsive, emotional behaviour. And they are quite numerous.
It is just so hard to explain. I just read a paper by Scott McKnight trying to explain the phenomenon. I'm not sure if anyone has heard of him but he argues that there are flaws in Evangelical Christianity that cause this to happen. These are in the areas of unity, certainty, history, and authority. He sees them as fixable flaws rather than as fatal flaws but does not go into any detail on how they could be fixed. Still the idea that these papers are being written shows that the trend is being noticed and is puzzling people.
Indeed. Name one great convert from Catholicism/Orthodoxy to Protestantism (post 1600). I can name many right off the top of my head: Newman, Chesterton, Soloviev, Bouyer...
The phenomena was arresting when I was looking at the issue.
My process of conversion to Catholicism also generally followed the sort of scenario mentioned by James Caputo. It took years of historical and patristic study before I was able to reach the tipping point -- indeed, for most of those years, I didn't even realise what direction my spiritual life was heading, not til the last couple of years. That's when I discovered Dave's website.
Would you say that the many, many priests who have become evengelicals were undercatechised? If Evangelicals were led to the Church by study why weren't these priests led to remain in the Church by study?
Hi Sharon,
How many priests are we talking about here? Also there are other reasons besides being undercathechized, which I don't think this thread is trying to exclude, it's just not the focus here.
In JMJ, Richard
Is any one besides me having a problem running a script on this page using Mozilla Firefox?
Randy and Dave ( and all),
Good discussion and interesting insight by Mark Noll and others. Certainly that is a strong point and thinking evangelicals need to take that seriously.
It is not ONLY intellectual and lots of reading of history and the ECF, but there are also lots of emotional and experiential factors involved in evangelicals converting to Rome.
You mention:
Scott McKnight,
"From Wheaton to Rome: Why Evangelicals Become Roman Catholic", in Journal of Evangelical Theological Society, September, 2002, pp. 451-472.
Scott McKnight's article, he says, was not meant to offer a full blown critique of the ERC ( Evangelicals who turned Roman Catholic), ". . . that would involve a lengthy discussion of each of the major terms ( certainty, history, unity, and authority). Instead, I have tried to utilize a model of conversion to show its value for describing a current trend by evangelicals to ( sic. I think he meant "who") convert to Catholicism."
So, his article is an introduction in describing this phenomenon among former evangelicals. He doesn't offer much by way of solutions, but he is mostly describing what is going on and the reasons for conversion.
He does say that evangelicals need to get a better grip on those issues of history, certainty, authority, and unity and also liturgy and aesthetics and art.
He closes with this assessment of the RCC: ". . . until the Roman Catholic Church learns to focus on gospel preaching of personal salvation, on the importance of personal piety for all Christians -- and abandons its historical two- level ethic -- and personal study, and on the Bible itself, there will be many who will leave Catholicism to join the ranks of evangelicalism." ( Ibid, p. 472)
But there is also lots of emotion and desire for experience that relates to the evangelicals who convert to Rome, not only careful intellectual study. That is certainly there, as there are some very intellectually oriented and former ministers and Presbyterian and Anglican pastors and professors who have converted.
( End of Part 1, because it says, it will be cut because of size)
Part 2
I am just offering other reasons, in addition to intellectual study of church history for the conversions of former evangelicals, these are experiential, emotional, and desire for comfort from doubt and despair over interpretations and ultimately over salvation. Many discussions of the experiences of the R. Catholic Eucharist and praying to Mary cannot be objectively evaluated because they are subjective and experiential in nature.
I am not able to, nor am I trying to "psycho-analyze" former evangelicals, but I just offer an observation.
I can only speak from what I perceive as an underlying current in the "Surprised by Truth" series and other testimonies on the Coming Home network, etc. and other testimonies and from my own interactions with a friend who converted to RCC.
There is also an underlying "despair" of feeling that they are NOT able to interpret the Bible for oneself that grips some of the former evangelicals that I know as personal friends. I will not mention names, because that may jeopardize our friendship, but after about 8 years of debate ( face to face and lots of emails) with one of my friends, at the end, he said with lots of emotion, almost crying, and brokenness and humility, "The problem I have is with myself, I cannot trust myself to come up with the right interpretation". (This is from memory, as we were on the phone.)
His humility and brokenness are good qualities. I was impressed. (Psalm 51:17, Isaiah 57:15)
But the despair of being able to be sure of one's salvation goes against I John 5:13 and the despair of being sure about truth and the Scriptures goes against I John 2:27 --"And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him."
Obviously, with all of the other Scriptures on the need for teachers, pastors, the church, etc. this verse cannot mean that there is no need for any more teachers at all in the church. It must mean that there is no infallible magisterium who would lord it over the flock with wrong interpretations. ( As the RCC did in history and still holds to today.)
As R.C. Sproul points out, we have the right to interpret the Scriptures for ourselves, but we do not have the right to interpret them wrongly. Pastors and teachers should be guiding the flock on the right understanding of the apostolic doctrine and traditions, i.e., the Scriptures.
But that is the accusation that is made many times,-- that is arrogant to be sure of one's interpretation and of the internal witness of the Spirit about the canon. I forget where it is in Dave's papers, but he writes something like, "Calvin's view of the internal witness of the Spirit as to the Bible was arrogant and silly." (Not an exact quote, mind you)
The pride and arrogance that sometimes comes across with
Part 3
My friend said the RCC helps give him that security that he no longer has to struggle with all the different interpretations of "secondary" issues among Christians. ( Some issues became primary enough in his mind to cause him to convert.)
He was also tired of church hopping after he got disillusioned and tired of evangelism with no real authority or training to pastor or disciple people. Evangelicals encourage people to get out there and share their faith and even have home bible studies and hospitality in our homes, like the early church. But evangelicals like this are not prepared for the pastoral duties of discipling people with deep problems. He was not trained to be an elder or pastor ( Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5, I Timothy 3, I Peter 5:1-5, Acts 20). Others who are trained in evangelical ministry also convert to Rome; so I am not ignoring that.
And the process causes doubts in the person doing the outreach and answers are not to be found in the local evangelical church, the troubled, sensitive, yet intelligent soul, who likes to read and think, retreats to deeper study of history and historical theology and the early church fathers.
Another of his friends also said the same thing, "Who am I to think I can come up with the right interpretation of the difficult Bible verses?"
Dave A., in his paper on Athanasius and the sufficiency of Scripture, asks "where is this despair?", after the two evangelicals ( Cranmer and Hamilton) mention this despair, although, I don't have it in written form from the more formal Roman Catholic apologists, it seems to be there. It seems there is a real crisis and brokenness in most of these converts’ lives that comes from their sincerity and intelligence and contemplative and introspective nature. People get tired of doctrinal fights, negative emotions that come with it, and wanting to find something bigger than themselves that is not just God in heaven and Jesus at the right hand of the father, and internal witness of the Spirit. They want more than the protestant idea of church, which is only local in authority, artistically plain and boring, historically ignorant, and relates to the larger body only in a mystical, Spiritual, internal emphasis. They want to experience and feel and touch something, hence the "incarnational" theology of the Eucharist, statues, icons, praying to the saints, candles, etc. is also appealing.
It seems that this "despair" is also a major factor in the conversions -- a desire for comfort and security and certainty and relief from "despair" over the different secondary and sometimes primary issues that divide different Christian churches and communions.
I just noticed Part 2 got cut -- here is the rest of it.
The pride and arrogance that sometimes comes across with being sure about God, the Bible, and Jesus as The way, the Truth, and the Life is perhaps one of the weaknesses about evangelical evangelism and apologetics --sometimes, we come across as arrogant because we are sure. And we need to work on that, "speaking the truth in love". Ephesians 4:15, and I Peter 3:15 "with gentleness and fear."
But, as John Piper has argued, I think we can have confidence, boldness, certainty, and humility and grace and love all at the same time, which is what we are commanded to have.
( End of Part 2)
Hi Ken,
>>There is also an underlying "despair" of feeling that they are NOT able to interpret the Bible for oneself that grips some of the former evangelicals that I know as personal friends.>>
Of course. That is the proper posture to have in relation to a library of books written in dead languages and varying genres over a period of 16 centuries to communities whose cultures differ so drastically from our own. Unless your friend's name was Jarislav Pelikan, I would expect him to feel a bit despaired.
I've dialogued exstensively with Protestants who come to the absurd conclusion that each Chrstian must decide for himself the exact parameters of the Bible Canon. But you can't blame Christians of that stripe, for it's the logical outcome of epistemological autonomy.
Unless the Church of Christ is to be comprised of Jarislav Pelikans, I'd argue God established the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth. Before the printing press, any other methodology could not even be implemented thus precluding it as the genuine mode of knowing.
>>It seems that this "despair" is also a major factor in the conversions -- a desire for comfort and security and certainty and relief from "despair" over the different secondary and sometimes primary issues that divide different Christian churches and communions.>>
God always forgives. Man sometimes forgives. Nature never forgives. The nature of man demands that truth be found in a system of coherent thought shared in concrete communion with others. This is not possible without a concrete authority. Protestantism has no such authority. Hence, it's unity is premised in the lowest common denominator and the willingness to agree to disagree on the very fundamentals of the faith.
There is only so much one can embrace the paper-theory of "sola scriptura". The testimony of history, the passes said theory through the paper-shredder, imho.
James
Why do Catholics and Catholic converts have this assumption that the Bible is difficult to interpret. It is plain where it intends to be plain. It is plain in everything regarding salvation.
With regeneration, anyway, a Christian is able to understand the Bible because he has the Holy Spirit to discern the truth of the Bible.
Sola Scriptura is the only foundation for a real Christian. Anything else is man-centered and of the world. God didn't send you His Revelation as a joke that you can't figure out. His own can read His Word and see the truth of His Word.
Apply yourself.
So Matthew, are you a Calivinist or an Arminian?
If your whole Sola Scriptura premise was true, then everyone who was a Christian would hold to the same view of the meaning of the Scriptures. Or is everyone who disagrees with your own interpretation not "a real Christian", or one of "His own"?
"It is plain in everything regarding salvation"--and yet, what I see as a plain requirement for salvation, ie Baptism, many Protestant churches deny. But it seems to me that the Bible clearly teaches it.
So I gotta wonder, of the myriads of ways that different Christians interpret Scripture, who is right? And are you really willing to write out of the book of Life all those who disagree with your interpretation?
The sacraments and church polity are the areas where man sees it differently, but that's OK because the Bible is not clear and dogmatic on issues of sacraments and church polity. Man makes it a big deal because it's in issues of the sacraments and church polity that man is able to assert his vain, worldly power into God's domain (clericalism, sacramentalism).
As for the rest, we can see differences in beliefs or understanding of the sacraments and church polity and not make a divisive issues. The Bible gives us warrant for that. Justification by faith alone, on the other hand, for instance, is another matter.
As for Calvinist vs. Arminian, no real Calvinist denies an Arminian is not saved (I mean, you know, going on what we all go on regarding fellow Christians, nobody knows each other's hearts), and vice versa.
Did I come to God or did God draw me towards Him, etc. These are questions that reside at the philosophical level of theology (and, though touching the practical level in serious ways yet not ways that deny salvation to anyone who hold one or the other view).
One doesn't need to understand biblical doctrine to systematic theology level to experience regeneration.
Conversion requires repentance and faith which require a basic level of doctrinal understanding of what one is to repent of and what one is to have faith in, yet this knowledge is not of the kind that divides Calvinist and Arminians.
The classic, foundational, most elegant defining doctrine of apostolic biblical doctrine is the five solas. The main, historic Protestant churches and denominations share this (the ones that hold to the Apostles' Creed let's say, i.e. orthodox Protestantism as opposed to Unitarians or Mormons or whatever).
So I gotta wonder, of the myriads of ways that different Christians interpret Scripture, who is right? And are you really willing to write out of the book of Life all those who disagree with your interpretation?
It's not in my power nor is it my place to write anybody out (or in for that matter) of the Book of Life.
This is a statement Jews are always making. It's a statement of a person who without realizing it (or with realizing it faintly in his heart) knows he is talking to someone who has the truth. Notice Calvinists aren't defensive about what they hold to. That's because we accept God's Word on God's terms and make no concessions to the demands of our vain selves or to the world.
As soon as you introduce the word "orthodox" ("...i.e. orthodox Protestantism"), you have established yourself as infallible interpreter. If someone is going to be an infallible interpreter, I'd look where Jesus placed the keys.
Hi Matthew,
>>Why do Catholics and Catholic converts have this assumption that the Bible is difficult to interpret. It is plain where it intends to be plain. It is plain in everything regarding salvation.>>
What's the plain biblical teaching on baptism in re; of salvation? Should infants be baptized?
James
The Bible (as stated above...) doesn't make issues surrounding the sacraments dogmatic, so neither should man. But man WILL make them dogmatic because that is how man asserts man's vain, worldly power into God's domain.
From the point-of-view of the rest of us issues of sacraments (mode of baptism, etc.) and church polity are not divisive issues.
Baptism re salvation is not in question in the Bible: baptismal regeneration is a false doctrine. Regeneration is effected, when it is, by the effectual work of the Word and the Spirit...
Even there, though, if a person want to put assurance in ritual water baptism and not in saving faith then so be it. Just so long as a good Protestant has come along and told you the error of your ways... Then, how you proceed from there is up to you...
Matthew,
You start by saying sacraments are unimportant. I don't think that is biblical. I believed that as a protestant because there was so much disagreement the questions must be peripheral. They are not. There are just very important doctrines that are being denied by many churches. Controversy does not make something a secondary issue. Protestants desperately want it to be so because they have no way to settle controversies. It just isn't the case.
Sola Scriptura is the only foundation for a real Christian. Anything else is man-centered and of the world. God didn't send you His Revelation as a joke that you can't figure out. His own can read His Word and see the truth of His Word.
Sola Scriptora is not just man centered it is self centered. All questions are resolved by myself. The church is only man centered if you assume the God isn't present there in a special way. It other words you have begged the question.
Hi Matt,
>>The Bible (as stated above...) doesn't make issues surrounding the sacraments dogmatic, so neither should man.>>
Why do you assume sola scriptura in your argument? Of the 27 New Testament books, 14 are not even mentioned for some 80-100 years after the death of St. John. The slow distribution of the NT books and epistles precludes their acting as the sole basis of knowledge in reference to the Christian faith. Hence, I don't understand why you assume an epistemology that was impossible to implement during the first three generations of the Church.
>>But man WILL make them dogmatic because that is how man asserts man's vain, worldly power into God's domain.>>
Was man being dogmatic or asserting his wordly power into God's domain when the Church officially and definitively pronounced on the canon of New Testament at the end of the 4th century in a series of Catholic Councils?
>>From the point-of-view of the rest of us issues of sacraments (mode of baptism, etc.) and church polity are not divisive issues.>>
Sure they are. Otherwise you would be united as one Church. But as it is, those doctrinal differences continue to keep you divided.
>>Even there, though, if a person want to put assurance in ritual water baptism and not in saving faith then so be it.>>
Why the false dichotomy? It was my faith that led me to baptism.
>>Just so long as a good Protestant has come along and told you the error of your ways... Then, how you proceed from there is up to you...>>
I know good Protestants who believe in baptismal regeneration. In light of such, what is a "good Protestant", anyway?
James
Well, that's the thing, Matthew, when it comes to the sacraments (church polity aside) it seems to me that they are some of the most clearly taught and expressed ideas in all of Scripture, so it amazes me that a) a "real Christian" can deny sacramental efficacy, and b) that there can be such a difference of opinion on the matter.
As for the rest, we can see differences in beliefs or understanding of the sacraments and church polity and not make a divisive issues.
How do you figure? If I recall history correctly, it was precisely on these issues that Luther and Calvin and Zwingly did find their greatest divisiveness! And lets not even mention the anabaptists!
The Bible gives us warrant for that. Justification by faith alone, on the other hand, for instance, is another matter
Except Justification by faith alone isn't actually taught in Scripture...
As for the Book of Life comment, I'm not sure why you assumed I was being defensive. I was merely pointing out that your line of reasoning was flawed. (Far from being defensive, my original reply to you was actually rather glib. I just wanted to get you thinking.) When you say that "real Christians" can interpret the Scriptures, and then are faced with the reality that Christians over the last 500 years have interpreted it in radically different ways reaching radically different conclusions, you have to conclude that the "wrong" interpretations are made by people who aren't "real" Christians. Therefore, by your own argument against an official interpretation, you are, in effect writing out of Christianity all those who have a "wrong interpretation." So, assuming that you obviously think that you have the "right" interpretation, it seems apparent by your thought, that someone who doesn't hold to the 5 Solas (and forgive me, but I don't even know what all the five solas are), etc. can't be a "real Christian", since they are obviously unable to properly interpret Scripture.
I also find it somewhat amusing that you define "orthodox protestantism" as those who hold to a creed composed by the Catholic Church, which purports to believe in "the holy Catholic Church" and "in the communion of saints".
I realise that Protestants redefine "Catholic" and "communion of saints" in the creed to fit their protestant understanding, but the fact is, is that the creed historically was understood as referring to very Catholic definitions of those phrases.
It's a statement of a person who without realizing it (or with realizing it faintly in his heart) knows he is talking to someone who has the truth.
That is most certainly not the case with me--truth does not contradict, but your own replies contradict themselves and historical reality! To avoid this, you appealed to a lowest-common-denominator Christianity dealing specifically with how we're saved--and yet we don't even agree on that.
James, thanks for the junior Catholic catechism lesson.
It was my faith that led me to baptism.
I see. You're some kind of a credo baptist then. I thought you were a baby sprinkling Roman Catholic...
Sure they are. Otherwise you would be united as one Church. But as it is, those doctrinal differences continue to keep you divided.
Not divided as Protestants and RCs are divided. Just different. The five solas unite foundationally Bible-believing Protestants.
Randy wrote: Sola Scriptora is not just man centered it is self centered. All questions are resolved by myself. Protestants take the Bible as authority. The Bible is God's Word not man's. The Bible is also Revelation that God gave to man so as to know Him and his plan of salvation. It's a myth (or an instance of ignorance, whichever case fits) that the Bible is a rorschach blot that can say or mean just anything. On matters of salvation, and most everything else for that matter, the Bible is clear.
The Bible, by the way, gives warrant for the fact that divisions will exist. Paul writes of this. Divisions will exist so that those who hold to God's Word will be known by the contrast. God has set it up like this. God is wise.
So, anyone, what is the Roman Catholic Understanding of I John 2:27, ". . . you have no need of anyone to teach you . . ." Because of the anointing of the Holy Spirit on all true believers.
Calvin's understanding that the internal witness of the Holy Spirit could give the believers and the church discernment over the canon is therefore not prideful nor silly.
that Christians over the last 500 years have interpreted it in radically different ways reaching radically different conclusions
Not God's elect. God's elect are able to know the truth. (See above comment on the Bible itself explaining the existence of divisions within the church...)
I did not mean to be anonymous -- the new software is not automatically keeping my name on my post.
I am the one asking for comments on I John 2:27
Ken Temple
Hey Matt,
In re: of "ritual water baptism" you had said:
>>Just so long as a good Protestant has come along and told you the error of your ways... Then, how you proceed from there is up to you...>>
To which I resplied:
"I know good Protestants who believe in baptismal regeneration. In light of such, what is a "good Protestant", anyway?"
Could you kindly treat this question for me?
Thanks,
Ken,
Thanks for the reply. I don't think dispair is the right word here. I would call it humility. When you conclude that you cannot discern the right interpetation well enough. Even with the definition of "well enough" watered down a lot you start to see you are very capable of error. Studying history can do this. For me it was more church hopping but digging much deeper into the teachings of each church than most hoppers do. You come to a place where there are so many good arguments that are contradicting eachother. You just don't know.
I think the other thing that hits so many converts is the Catholic view of certain passages. Matt 16:18 and Matt 18:17 were big for me. I read so many debates on these passages and the Catholic position made much more sense. That is something that most conversion stories mentioned yet Scott McKnight does not really list this as a key factor because he assumes that assessment must be based on extreme bias from somewhere or other.
There is an emotional element to conversions. That is a good thing. People grow to love the Eucharist. There is a sense of holiness in the Catholic Church that isn't present in most protestant churches. I am differant than most on that point. I was going to mass every week and receiving the Eucharist long before I became Catholic. My wife was Catholic so we went to both churches. Our priest figured I was such a solid protestant I would never convert so he just gave me special permission to take communion. So for a long time I was a practicing non-catholic with no thought of converting. It was the digging into the theology that changed that.
No good Protestant believes in baptismal regeneration. You'll find sects such as Reformed Catholics (there are six of them currently) or Federal Vision (currently about 38 iof them) and perhaps some high church, half-Roman whatevers, but classical Protestantism and baptismal regeneration don't exist together because the Bible gives no warrant for baptismal regeneration. It's a purely devilish doctrine that exists to exalt man (clerics) over the Word and the Spirit, and to assert man in between a Christian and his Only Mediator Jesus Christ.
James, I apologise for the junior Catholic catechism remark...
For the record, Calvin is the best source on the subject of Scripture being the foundation of the church rather than vice versa.
And to somebody who called the Apostles' Creed Catholic (as in, Dave Armstrong's Roman Catholic Church) that is a creed that is historically accepted by all branches of Christianity. As for the implied assertion that Protestants can't or perhaps don't want any connection with anything Christian pre-Reformation I'd just remind all that the Reformation was about recovering apostolic biblical doctrine. Going back to the source and recovering the truth of the Word of God itself.
It was successful. Now we all have the Standard that will show, by contrast, where we stand regarding God's truth... I stand with God and His Word. The Word of God is my authority.
Five solas...
Hi Matt,
>> No good Protestant believes in baptismal regeneration.>>
The Protestant in question is a Swedish Scholar whom I know personally and with whom I've dialogued extensively. He has authored many books and regularly writes articles against the Catholic Church. He defines himself as a "Bible-believing" Christian. I guarantee you he is more credentialed than yourself on these matters.
>>It's a purely devilish doctrine that exists to exalt man (clerics)>>
Well, there you have it: In one statement you just anathamatized the belief of the universal Church throughout the ante-Nicene period. Where, pray tell, were the true Christians when the teaching of baptism was being transmogrified? Every detour from truth produces controversy. Can you so much as produce one burp of protest from ecclesiastical history to support your assertion?
Cordially,
James
Was Martin Luther a good Protestant?
Fellow Catholics,
If you read through this thread, the interactions between the Catholics and the Protesants, it becomes clear just how true Dave's initial citations are and how vacuous (although well-intentioned) Ken Temple's commentary truly is. The Catholics speak of an historical faith whereas the Protestants talk about an illusory unity built off of five solas. Any and all questions as to why one's epistemology should be limited to scripture only go wholly ignored.
James
God always has his remnant. In the darkest period of the history of redemption he always had his remnant. In Elijah's day there were 7000. I would venture to guess that today there are more than that. How much more who knows... God knows...
I would need more info on your Swedish friend. Perhaps he's liberal, perhaps he's Lutheran (they have a heavily 'nuanced' view of baptismal regeneration that is neither fish nor fowl), perhaps he's both, perhaps he's all of that and also eccentric...
Actually Lutherans distinguish their view of baptism from Roman Catholic belief, so... I'm not Lutheran...
Yes, Catholics, and if you believe James' summation reflects reality then I have this new organisation I'd like to sell you... It has a long history and famous name... It's called the BBC...
That would be 'news' organisation...
Wesleyans believe in baptismal regeneration, too.
And as I pointed out above logically, Matthew, you have proven practically in your replies. The only "real Christians" are the ones who agree with your particular interpretation of Scripture--and anyone who doesn't believes satanic twistings of Scripture. So you really are willing to write the majority of Christianity out of the Book of Life.
So then, in light of the fact that I could provide ample scriptural evidence for baptismal regeneration (causing me to wonder if you've actually read your Bible...sorry) the question still remains--who decides which "interpretation" is correct?
All Lutherans, from (and including) Martin Luther onward, believed in baptismal regeneration, and however much they may have "nuanced" their belief to differentiate it from the Catholic view, it is clear that on both Baptism and the Eucharist orthodox Lutheras have always held Reformed Christianity to be more "erroneous" than Catholicism.
And, by the way, Mr. Johnson's statement about the Apostles Creed is erroneous as well. No Eastern Church, whether Catholic, Orthodox or non-Chalcedonian received that creed or attributes any authority to it. It is a purely Western Creed, an expansion of the Roman baptismal Creed of ca. 400, but it did not reach its current form until between 775 and 800.
The only creed which has universal authotity among the ancient churches of the East and the West is the Nicene Creed.
Dave has a paper called "Dialogue on the Biblical Evidence for Infant Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration" here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030...smus/
RAZ398.HTM
Just in case you want to know where to find the "ample scriptural evidence for baptismal regeneration" that Greg refers to.
"So, anyone, what is the Roman Catholic Understanding of I John 2:27, ". . . you have no need of anyone to teach you . . ." Because of the anointing of the Holy Spirit on all true believers."
Did you read the whole passage?? I John 2: 24, "Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father." The source of the truth of which John speaks is indeed the Holy Spirit, but the means of it's transmission is via John's own apostolic authority. Where does it say the transmission is through personal revelation of the meaning of scripture isolated from those empowered via the authority passed down from the apostles to interpret it??
Yes, that is the apostolic deposit, the rule of faith, the contents of the kerygma, the canon of our tradition -- which Ireneaus and Athanasius and Tertullian expound as a basic Trinitarian doctrine that affirms God as creator, and a basic proto-Nicean Creed -- which was concurrent with the different books being brought together in all the churches -- When it was oral teaching it was the apostolic deposit and they later inscripturated it, or wrote it down -- go back to I John 2:20:
"But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know." The anointing of the Holy Spirit, ( 2 Cor. 1:21-22, Acts 1:8, I Cor. 12:13, Ephesians 1:14, Romans 8:9) which he says all have and all know ( all believers that is) gives them knowledge and discernment and protection against deception and false teaching. ( v. 18, 19, 26) So, if he has the apostolic deposit ( Jude 3, I Cor. 15:1-5, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6) and the anointing of the Holy Spirit to guide him/her in interpretation along with godly teachers in the church ( Ephesians 4:11-12, I Tim. 3, Titus 1, Romans 12:3-8, I Cor. 12:28, then what does it mean about "not needing teachers" ??
James Caputo wrote:
". . . vacuous (although well-intentioned) Ken Temple's commentary truly is. The Catholics speak of an historical faith whereas the Protestants talk about an illusory unity built off of five solas. Any and all questions as to why one's epistemology should be limited to scripture only go wholly ignored."
The passages I cited prove I am not igoring epistemology and the study of how we know what we know. Sola Scriptura believes in tradition and church and authority and teachers -- just not Infallible ones.
Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know, right?
Then I John 5:13 and I John 2:18-27 says lots about "knowing", and it comes through the apostles doctrine, which became scripture and confirmed by Ireneaus and Athanasius as nothing added that is not in Scripture, and we know by the indwelling and anointing of the Holy Spirit, confirmed when godly teachers stick to the Scriptures and properly interpret the Scriptures.
So, it does not go ignored.
Ken
Here's how you know a church truly believes in baptismal regeneration: it exalts clerics and rituals above the Word and the Spririt (sometimes to the degree of making owning a Bible a criminal offense worthy of torture and death).
Anyway, a regenerate Christian knows what regenerates because we have experienced it. All the talk and appeal to man and traditions of man aside, when you know you know.
A Catholic above stated something about my not reading the Bible. It's because of the reformers that we all have Bibles to read. I thank God for their heroic efforts to conquer the forces of darkness that were keeping God's people in the dark for so long, and I thank God for His Word and I read it diligently, dedicatedly, and humbly, knowing what a privilege it is to be able to have God's very Word to sustain and nourish my soul, not to mention to regenerate me to begin with and to sanctify me continually.
God bless the reformers, many if not most of whom paid the ultimate price, often by the most excruciating deaths. God bless them. God bless them. After darkness, light...
Five solas.
Wow. Nothing like a pinch of ideological bluster to go with your morning tea.
Lutheras have always held Reformed Christianity to be more "erroneous" than Catholicism.
Yes, we Reformed are rather hardcore for the truth. It's, though, really the only way to be. Anything less is death...
Hi Ken,
>>The passages I cited prove I am not igoring epistemology and the study of how we know what we know. Sola Scriptura believes in tradition and church and authority and teachers -- just not Infallible ones.>>
You cite Ireneaus and Tertullian as if they were Protestant Christians who held to "sola scriptura" and "Tradition" in the anachronistic sense you assert. Yet even a cursory reading of their writings evidence that Tradition and the proper understanding of scripture was passed down through the bishops:
"True knowledge is [that which consists of] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops [episkopos],"
>>Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know, right?>>
Correct, and how does your epistemology as a Protestant dovetail with that of Ireneaus?
>>Then I John 5:13 and I John 2:18-27 says lots about "knowing", and it comes through the apostles doctrine, which became scripture and confirmed by Ireneaus and Athanasius as nothing added that is not in Scripture, and we know by the indwelling and anointing of the Holy Spirit, confirmed when godly teachers stick to the Scriptures and properly interpret the Scriptures.>>
This is paper theory. No where in ecclesiastical history is the New Testament canon viewed as an exhaustive source of knowledge in re: of the faith. The Tradition of the Church explains scripture exhaustively and thus completes it. The same is true of Judaism. I would strongly reccomend Yves Congar's_ Tradition and Traditions_.
James
If you stay in the contexts of where Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Athanasius outline "the faith" or "preaching" or "rule of faith" or "tradition" or "scope", there is nothing in those contexts or lists that contradict Evangelical protestant understanding. Athanasius defined what his "scope" is, which is usually cut off by Roman Catholic Apologists at "Discourse Against the Arians" 3:28 -- Please read 3:29, which explains what the "ecclesiastical scope" is.
Dave A. cuts it, and avoids 3:29. "Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this, it contains a double account of the Savior; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary the bearer of God, and was made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, "Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me." But lest I exceed in writing . . . " Discourse Against the Arians, 3:29
( "The Sufficiency of Scripture and the Church Fathers ( Particularly, St. Athanasius and the Trinity" http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ319.HTM) Dave also cut "To Serapion" 1:28 before Athanasius gives us the content of "the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church" -- it is all from Matthew 28:19.
James,
Thanks for the interaction. I understand what you are saying, but where is this quote found?
"True knowledge is [that which consists of] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops [episkopos],"
Ireneaus mentions the successions of the bishops in the churches as holding to God as creator and the Trinity against the Gnostics view of God and Jesus. Evangelicals agree with this.
In order to prove your point, you have to show that Ireneaus and Tertullian and Athanasius held to the content of the later developed dogmas which the RCC holds to as part of the apostolic tradition AT THAT TIME. It is your understanding of "tradition" that seems anachronistic, for none of those three mention those dogmas in their listing or contexts of what the apostolic tradition or scope is. It is all, as I said before, proto-Nicean, Trinitarian, Deity of Christ, God as One Creator God both of OT and NT agains the Arians and Gnostics and Docetists and Marcionites.
Ken,
Are you claiming that St. Athanasius believed in sola Scriptura?
Hi Ken,
You and I are discussing epistemology. You claim that your flavor of "sola scriptura", Tradition and Bible teachers dovetails with that of Ireneaus and Tertullian. I'm arguing that this is unfounded given the fact that true knowledge (according to the fathers) is found in the succession of bishops.
Evangelicals do not agree with that "episcopal means of knowing". That is, they do not hold to apostolic succession as an epistemology. Who are your bishops in succession to the apostles? If you don't have them, then you and Ireneaus do not share the same epistemology.
>>In order to prove your point, you have to show that Ireneaus and Tertullian and Athanasius held to the content of the later developed dogmas which the RCC holds to as part of the apostolic tradition AT THAT TIME.>>
This is faulty logic. It's somthing on the order of saying:
"In order to prove your point, you have to show that Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch held to the content of the New Testament of the later developed canon which the RCC holds as part of the apostolic tradition AT THAT TIME."
If we followed that muddled, stagnant epistemology, we'd have no New Testament canon given the fact that a survey of the apostolic Fathers' understanding of the New Testament is highly inconclusive.
James
Dave A. asks:
"Are you claiming that St. Athanasius believed in sola Scriptura?
Dave Armstrong
Dave,
Thanks for interacting here!
If he doesn't, he comes pretty close. You admit he taught "Material sufficiency". I am not trying to be "mean" to you, but you avoided the question of those two cuts that you made in your quotations of Athanasius.
Deal with the quotes first, please.
If you mean in a full blown sense that was articulated by the Reformers in the period of 1517 into the 1700s, my senses tell me that I should be careful here. As I read over your papers on Athanasius and the long ones dealing with Jason Engwer's "Catholic, but not Roman Catholic" series, (It took me a month just to print, read with understanding and look up Ireneaus and Athanasius in the ECF. There is no time to do all of them.)
I found that in Ireneaus, you also cut the quotes or avoid the parts that give the protestant, Evangelical view of the Early Fathers.
I don't think you proved Sola Scriptura is wrong, but you did prove that SOLO Scriptura ( me and my bible in the woods with no church and no good tradition) is wrong, as Keith Mathison has pointed out. Athanasius and Ireneaus don't articulate it in the full sense that you are wanting to hang me with, but they come pretty close. J. N. D. Kelly, as you point out, writes that it is anachronistic to ask the quesion in those terms.
Ireneaus and Athanasius of course believed in an authoritative church that is suppossed to teach the right and exegically sound interpretation of Scripture. But they never say that the Church is infallible. Athansius was exiled by Arian Emperors and Bishops (at least one Bishop of Rome, right?) and wrote, " . . . you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the faith. Clearly the true faith. . . . yet without such restoration of the churches the Faith is sufficient for us . . . And they think themselves to be within the truth, but are exiled, and in captivity, and gain no advantage by the church alone. For the truth of things is judged." ( Festal Letter 29)
I had much more, but your new software cuts it off, so I will try to keep things more short for now.
James,
This is good interaction and challenging, but where is that quote found?
"True knowledge is [that which consists of] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops [episkopos],"
Please give the reference.
Of course, we would agree that true knowledge is in the doctrine of the apostles, and the only way to know that is go back to the texts, the Scriptures. ( Acts 2:42-46 "they kept on devoting themselves to the apostles doctrine . . . "
I John 5:13 and 2:18-27 do not say we "know" for sure by "episcopal knowlege" or the bishops to tell us with infallibility what the Scriptures mean.
We also hold that all the books were in existance at that time, because they were written by an apostle and the church discovered them and collected them together later.
Your statement about the canon and Clement and Ignatius is good, and challenging, but just because they did not mention some books in their writings, say Revelation, or Jude, or 3 John, does not mean that those books did not exist.
Hi Ken,
Dave A. asks:
"Are you claiming that St. Athanasius believed in sola Scriptura?
Thanks for interacting here!
If he doesn't, he comes pretty close.
Why don't you refute my evidences that he didn't then, since you have been reading my papers?
>You admit he taught "Material sufficiency".
So what? I as a Catholic believe that. That doesn't prove sola Scriptura at all. All who accept SS believe in material sufficiency, but not vice versa. That's the fallacy often present in these sorts of arguments.
>I am not trying to be "mean" to you, but you avoided the question of those two cuts that you made in your quotations of Athanasius. Deal with the quotes first, please.
I'm not gonna play your game of "Dave is trying to mislead his readers by selective citation." I've had enough of that nonsense with Frank Turk and others in the past, such as "BJ Bear" and Tim Enloe.
If you want to seriously interact, then disprove what I have already written. I'm not gonna waste my time going back and proving that every time I made a citation, I wasn't deliberately trying to mislead.
If that's what you thihnk, then I'm not interested in interacting with you, anyway, because those types of cynical accusations do not help move the discussion along. If you retract that charge, then perhaps we can have a serious discussion about what Athanasius really believed.
Hi Ken,
>>This is good interaction and challenging, but where is that quote found?>>
It's found in his workd against Heresies. And I'm well aware of the context of his statement. But I also hold that (based on the broarder reading of his work and my reading of the fathers) that the general rule he states is not limited to belief in one God and one Christ the Son of God - beliefs against which the heretics inveighed. The general rule is that the deposit of faith (which is much larger than that by the lights of the whole of Ireneaus work - which in itself should not be presumed to exhaust it) is passed down via the bishops in succession to the apostles. Hence, the idea of Mary as the second Eve, the advocate of Eve, the instrumental cause of man's salvation (an idea shared by Tertullian and Justin as well) also fits into that deposit. The eucharist as preternatural food is gives life to our souls and is genuinely confectd at the hands of apostolic bishops - also a matter of salvation. The rule of faith expressed by Ireneaus is thus very broad and precludes the Protestant paradigm as tenable.
>>I John 5:13 and 2:18-27 do not say we "know" for sure by "episcopal knowlege" or the bishops to tell us with infallibility what the Scriptures mean.>>
Pitting the scriputures against the fathers simply assumes sola scriptura. You'll have to prove that before I buy it. Furthermore, you read too much into John's epistle.
>>We also hold that all the books were in existance at that time, because they were written by an apostle and the church discovered them and collected them together later.>>
Correct. My point was that the knowledge of said books, their status as scripture, their inclusion in a definitive canon, etc. crystallized over time as did doctrine. You can't accept one without the other.
>>Your statement about the canon and Clement and Ignatius is good, and challenging, but just because they did not mention some books in their writings, say Revelation, or Jude, or 3 John, does not mean that those books did not exist.>>
Of course not. And just because they did not mention some Catholic distinctive beliefs, does that mean they did not exist?
Jamee
"Anyway, a regenerate Christian knows what regenerates because we have experienced it. All the talk and appeal to man and traditions of man aside, when you know you know."
The great mystic saints all testify that one should discount and not trust their own experience, but that its truth must be tested in humility, obedience and trust in the judgement of their superiors. The more one proclaims their own experience, revelation and understanding as superior; the more likely one has been deceived. Christ established a visible authoritive hierarchy within His Church for a reason. The apostolic authority handed down in the Magesterium of the Church is exactly how Our Lord gave the Church the Holy Spirit so that we might all be one. Authority resides in people, not in books. The Bible is infallible tool only in the hands of an authoritative Church.
"When it was oral teaching it was the apostolic deposit and they later inscripturated it, or wrote it down -- go back to I John 2:20"
When did the Church proclaim that all has been written down and there is no more? When did the Church give up its teaching authority, either oral or as the definer of scripture and its interpretation? When did the Church set the faithful adrift with a Bible? Answer: NEVER! The implication that inscripturation captured all that was necessary and stripped the Church of its authority to teach is a Protestant myth.
MLJ:
1 John 4:1-3 "Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God,
3 and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world."
As a Catholic, I rejoice in acknowledging Jesus Christ in the flesh; not just 2000 years ago, but in the Eucharist all days even to the end time. Can you?
The great mystic saints all testify that one should discount and not trust their own experience, but that its truth must be tested in humility, obedience and trust in the judgement of their superiors. The more one proclaims their own experience, revelation and understanding as superior; the more likely one has been deceived. Christ established a visible authoritive hierarchy within His Church for a reason. The apostolic authority handed down in the Magesterium of the Church is exactly how Our Lord gave the Church the Holy Spirit so that we might all be one. Authority resides in people, not in books. The Bible is infallible tool only in the hands of an authoritative Church.
The devil himself wouldn't have changed a single word in your paragraph if he'd written it himself.
The head of that magesterium was caught kissing a koran not too long ago. Oops. If you'd maintained totalitarian control of all Christendom that would have never made the newswires. Well...
When a Protestant is having an exchange with a Catholic on an internet site it is basically prison ministry. Only you have no clue you're in a prison of darkness. All I can ultimately say to you is this: read the Word of God; read it humbly, read it dedicatedly; read is passively (as much as that offends your vanity and worldly pride and self-will currently); just take it in, meet it at its level; read it complete, Genesis through Revelation. Pray, talk, to God. Ask him to give you understanding of His Word. Ask Him to send the Holy Spirit into your heart. This is how you move towards God. When you move towards God He will move towards you. He tells you this in His Word (James 4)...
Dave wrote:
"I'm not gonna play your game of "Dave is trying to mislead his readers by selective citation." I've had enough of that nonsense with Frank Turk and others in the past, such as "BJ Bear" and Tim Enloe.
If you want to seriously interact, then disprove what I have already written. I'm not gonna waste my time going back and proving that every time I made a citation, I wasn't deliberately trying to mislead.
If that's what you think, then I'm not interested in interacting with you, anyway, because those types of cynical accusations do not help move the discussion along. If you retract that charge, then perhaps we can have a serious discussion about what Athanasius really believed."
Dave,
Please forgive me in Jesus name if I have offended you --
I am amazed that you now seem to be getting offended. I did not mean to offend you, and I am not trying to read "evil" motives in the cutting of the quotes. If you just explain why the cuts at certain places, and that Athansius does indeed explain the content of the preaching and the faith and the tradition from the Scriptures, then all will be peaceful.
I did not accuse you of deliberately misleading, rather you ( and the other RCC apologists) cut "To Serapion" 1:28 ( Four letters on the Holy Spirit) and Discourse Against the Arians 3:28-29 at just the point that would contextually and exegetically show what Athanasius means by tradition, "the preaching", "the faith" -- that it is found in Matthew 28:19 (Doctrine of the Trinity) and also in the "Discourse", 3:29, Athanasius defines what the "skope" is, "a double account of the Savior", both the humanity and the Deity of Christ.
I am just honestly asking for interaction at those points, without jumping to another book or context of Athansius. It is amazing that you won't even explain the connection in the context of Athanasius and I am surprised that you are starting to get offended.
I tried to be very careful and not anachronistic, and your papers and quoting of J. Pelican, J.N.D. Kelly, Schaff, and Heiko Oberman are indeed helpful. I don't see anything offensive in what I have written, I simply asked you to concentrate on those two quotes before we move on. I cannot prove you wrong when the software cuts it at 3000 characters.
Obviously, you do have lots of time with the Early Church Fathers -- you seem to know them extensively and your 30 page papers prove that you have lots of time to research and write. This is not negative, I know you also have a another job and a family, but that should be easy for you to just explain those two contexts of those two quotes.
I thought I was being very kind and careful. I even said you did a good job of disproving "SOLO Scriptura ("Me and my Bible in the woods with no church and no good tradition"), but you did NOT prove that Sola Scriptura is wrong or un-biblical.
Sincerely, Ken
Hi Ken,
Fair enough. Perhaps I'm battle-weary, after being accused of these things so many times before. Whenever I see something about editing of citations, the flag goes up. I get very tired of that. The atheists do it, the anti-Catholics do, Catholic "traditionalists" do, etc.
I want to discuss the issues, not how I edited something (I still think you implied that I engaged in cynical editing, but I accept your clarification and word that you meant no offense).
Ken is, I believe, referring to my paper, "The Sufficiency of Scripture and the Church Fathers (Particularly, St. Athanasius and the Trinity)" (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ319.HTM)
This is what frustrates me. I provided a very lengthy analysis of St. Athanasius' rule of faith, from patristics scholar John Henry Newman (scroll about two-thirds of the way down. This leaves little doubt as to where Athanasius stood on these issues. Personally, I think it is very clear, and that any Protestant wishing to argue otherwise has quite the uphill battle.
So Ken, why can't you simply pick up on Newman's analysis (since you read this paper), that I agree with, and provide a counter-argument?
Instead, I have to go and provide the next sections of citations because you think they prove that Athanasius was more Protestant than Catholic? I'll do it, but it is "under protest."
I urge readers to simply read what Athanasius wrote. It's clear enough.
I wrote in the same paper:
"Entire books are written about the Fathers' supposed belief in sola Scriptura, when in fact they are merely expressing their belief in
material sufficiency of Scripture, and its inspiration and sufficiency to refute heretics and false doctrine generally. It is easy to misleadingly present them as sola Scripturists if their statements
elsewhere about apostolic Tradition or succession and the binding authority of the Church (especially in council) are ignored. But a half-truth is almost as bad as an untruth (arguably worse, because in
most instances the one committing it should know better)."
In my debate with Jason Engwer on the Fathers and SS, I expanded this a bit:
". . . we'll look to see if the person thinks Scripture is formally sufficient for authority without the necessary aid of Tradition and the Church, or if he does not, as indicated in other statements. A thinker's statements must be evaluated in context of all of his thought, rather than having pieces taken out and then claiming that they 'prove' something that they do not, in fact, prove at all."
In other words, even if you find a quote where a Father seems (at first glance) to be stating something akin to SS (since he is writing about the Bible without immediate reference to Church or Tradition), one must examine what the same person believes about Tradition, Church, and apostolic succession, because the very question at hand (what is the rule of faith?) has to do w
(cont.)
. . . with the relation of all those things. For that reason, all three (or four) have to be examined in his writing, to understand properly how he views their relationship vis-a-vis each other.
The Protestant always puts the Bible above Church and Tradition, and denies that the latter two can be infallible. Catholics and Orthodox believe in a three-legged stool, where, practically-speaking, Church and Tradition have equal authority with Scripture, because they are the necessary framework and interpretive grid through which Scripture can be properly interpreted in an orthodox sense. This is what I contend that Athanasius believes himself.
Here is one proof I offered:
"But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached and the Fathers kept."
(To Serapion of Thmuis 1:2
You claim I cut this off so as to avoid "Protestant" implications (or some such thing). Okay, let's see if that is true. I am using Wm. A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1 (p. 336):
The section above continues:
"On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian . . . "
Thus far, it only strengthens my case, since he had talked about all this authority, hadn't even mentioned the Bible as part of it, and says that if someone follows a different method of authority, they are not even a Christian.
He then goes on to write about the Holy Trinity, using "Word" as in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, in the sense of the logos, or Jesus Christ. You must be interpreting "Word" as the Bible, but that is nonsensical in context; e.g.,:
"one God . . . He is over all as Father, as beginning, as source; and through all, through the Word; and in all, in the Holy Spirit."
He repeats the same formula twice more. Indeed, he makes it crystal clear that he means this, elsewhere in the letter (1:20):
". . . the Son, the living Word . . . the Word, who is confessedly from the father."
There is nothing here at all about the Bible, let alone some imagined primitive or pseudo-sola Scriptura belief, so I fail to see what your point is. I have not cut out anything in the immediate context that is relevant to the discussion, except for a remark which strengthens my case and weakens yours.
Now the second passage I provided:
"We may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think."
(Discourse Against the Arians 3:2
Note that the Introduction on the Christian Classic Ethereal Library website online translation mentions Cardinal Newman's Athanasius scholarship:
"The translation which follows is that of Cardinal Newman, published in 1844 (the year before his secession), in the Oxford Library of the Fathers. The copious and elaborate notes and discussions which accompany it have always been acknowledged to be a masterpiece of their illustrious author. The modern reader sits down to study Athanasius, and rises from his task filled with Newman."
Here is the whole of 3:29 (from CCEL: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPN....htm#TopOfPage)
"29. Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this,-it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God, and was made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, `Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me.' But lest I should exceed in writing, by bringing together all the passages on the subject, let it suffice to mention as a specimen, first John saying, `In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was made not one thing;' next, `And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of one Only-begotten from the Fathers;' and next Paul writing, `Who being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion like a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross.' Any one, beginning with these passages and going through the whole of the Scripture upon the interpretation which they suggest, will perceive how in the beginning the Father said to Him, `Let there be light,' and `Let there be a firmament,' and `Let us make man;' but in fulness of the ages, He sent Him into the world, not that He might judge the world, but that the world by Him might be saved, and how it is written `Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us.'"
Again, there is not one word about sola Scriptura as th
(cont.)
. . . the only infallible rule of faith. Zero, zilch, zip, nada. All he does is give biblical trinitarian teaching. He defined the rule of faith in the section I cited. Now he goes on to particular biblical teaching.
Your confusion here is, unfortunately, fundamental as to what is being discussed in each section. They are two different things. You see the word "scope" in each and conclude that he means the same thing in each instance. He does not. In 3:28, St. Athanasius writes:
". . . the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture."
In other words, faith is the rule by which we interpret Holy Scripture. "Scope" here refers to the Christian faith, not to the Bible, because it is applied to the reading and understanding of the Bible. Otherwise, you would have a logical tautology: "use the Bible to interpret the Bible." We do that, too (Athanasius does it in this very treatise), but here the Father is speaking of the content of previously-received orthodox faith, not the Bible.
In 3:29, on the other hand, he writes:
"Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this,-it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son . . . And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, `Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me.'"
This is talking about the content of Scripture, not the rule of faith of how to properly interpret Scripture, or how the authority of the Church and Tradition is related to the Bible. Apples and oranges. But you conclude:
". . . and also in the "Discourse", 3:29, Athanasius defines what the "skope" is, "a double account of the Savior", both the humanity and the Deity of Christ."
Yes; that's what the Bible teaches about Jesus. So what? What's that got to do with sola Scriptura or the rule of faith? Nothing. Cardinal Newman (remember, he translated this and was a patristics scholar, so I think he knows a bit more about this than you or I) properly interpreted what Athanasius meant by the "scope of faith" in 3:28:
"The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. Vid. art. Private Judgment. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters—a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible,
(cont.)
. . . whether true or not, but
simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical [phronema], the writings of saints; these are enough for him.
". . . Perhaps the most obvious proof that what I have stated is substantially true, is that on any other supposition he seems to argue illogically. Thus he says: 'The Arians, looking at what is human in the Saviour, have judged Him to be a creature ... But let them learn, however tardily, that the Word became flesh;' and then he goes on to show that he does not rely simply on the inherent, unequivocal force of St. John's words, satisfactory as that is, for he adds, 'Let us, as possessing [ton skopon tes pisteos], acknowledge that this is the right ([orthen], orthodox) understanding of what they understand wrongly.' Orat. iii. § 35.
". . . And again: 'Since they pervert divine Scripture in accordance with their own private ([idion]) opinion, we must so far ([tosouton]) answer them as ([hoson]) to justify its word, and to show that its sense is orthodox, [orthen]." Orat. i. 37.
". . . This illustrates what he means
when he says that certain texts have a "good," "pious," "orthodox" sense, i.e. they can be interpreted (in spite, if so be, of appearances) in harmony with the Regula Fidei.
"It is with a reference to this great principle that he begins and ends his series of Scripture passages, which he defends from the misinterpretation of the Arians. When he begins, he refers to the necessity of interpreting them according to that sense which is not the result of private judgment, but is orthodox. "This," he says, "I conceive is the meaning of this passage, and that a meaning especially ecclesiastical." Orat. i. § 44. And he ends with: "Had they dwelt on these thoughts, and recognised the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not of the faith have made shipwreck." Orat. iii. § 58.
"It is hardly a paradox to say that in patristical works of controversy the conclusion in a certain sense proves the premisses. As then he here speaks of the ecclesiastical scope "as an anchor for the faith;" so when the discussion of texts began, Orat. i. § 37, he introduces it as already quoted by saying, "Since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them so far as to do justice to these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error." Again, Orat. iii. 7, he says, "What is the difficulty, that one must need take such a view of such passages?" He speaks of the [skopos] as a [kanon] or rule of interpretation, supr. iii. §28. vid. also § 29 init. 35 Serap. ii. 7. Hence too
(cont.)
. . . Hence too he speaks of the "ecclesiastical sense," e.g. Orat. i. 44, Serap. iv. 15, and of the [phronema], Orat. ii. 31 init. Decr. 17 fin. In ii. § 32, 3, he
makes the general or Church view of Scripture supersede inquiry into the force of particular illustrations."
Furthermore, elsewhere in the same work (Discourse Against the Arians, III), we find this remark along the same lines:
"However here too they introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise `one,' or `like,' as the Church preaches, but, as they themselves would have it." (3:10)
And elsewhere:
". . . inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, . . ."
(Festal Letter 2:6)
"See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to
father; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many
fathers can ye assign to your phrases?"
(Defense of the Nicene Definition, 27)
"For, what our Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine; . . ."
(De Decretis 4)
"Remaining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast the traditions of the Fathers, pray that now at length all strife and rivalry may cease, and the futile questions of the heretics may be condemned, . . ."
(De Synodis 54)
Hence J.N.D. Kelly, Anglican ppatristics scholar, concludes:
"So Athanasius, disputing with the Arians, claimed that his own doctrine had been handed down from father to father, whereas they could not produce a single respectable witness to theirs . . .
". . . the ancient idea that the Church alone, in virtue of being the home of the Spirit and having preserved the authentic apostolic testimony in her rule of faith, liturgical action and general
witness, possesses the indispensable key to Scripture, continued to operate as powerfully as in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian . . . Athanasius himself, after dwelling on the entire adequacy of Scripture, went on to emphasize the desirability of having sound teachers to expound it. Against the Arians he flung the charge that they would never have made shipwreck of the faith had they held fast as a sheet-anchor to the . . . Church's peculiar and traditionally handed down grasp of the purport of revelation."
What more do you NEED, Ken, for heaven's sake? You find yourself amazed that I didn't include two irrelevant passages in my analysis:
"It is amazing that you won't even explain the connection in the context of Athanasius . . ."
Well, I am flat-out astonished that Protestants can read all this and still pretend (hope, pray?) that Athanasius believed in some sort of primitive sola Scriptura, closer to your view than to ours, regarding Bible and Tradition. This (to be blunt) is sheer nonsense. His view is exactly the Cathol
(cont.)
. . . Catholic view. I'm sorry, my esteemed friend and brother in Christ, but it's simply NOT sola Scriptura, or anything remotely like it.
And most of this was already in my existing paper, which is one reason why I was frustrated at you ignoring that, and asking me to flesh out my quotes, as if what I already presented wasn't more than sufficient to prove that Athanasius believed precisely what I argued that he believed.
I truly don't see what else is required to prove this. Everything the Catholic needs to find to prove his case (or that a Protestant would or should demand that we produce to overcome their objections) is present here.
Athanasius is not an early Father, where different schools can put their interpretation on more basic, less-developed theological statements and believe that the person would have gone in their direction, had he lived later. His statements on this are very straightforward and clear, and leave little room for doubt.
At least that's how I see it. If you disagree, then you have the floor to explain why.
Dave,
Thanks for your patience with me. I am willing to work with you, if you will be more patient with me. One thing at a time. As to "To Serapion 1:28" ("The Letters of St. Athanasius on the Holy Spirit", written "To Serapion". Perhaps the Jurgens book you are using has not included the full quote of “To Serapion” 1:28, and the fact these books of Athanasius are not included in the standard “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” book series, nor is it on the web-site, makes our discussion go slower.
Here is the full quote of “The Letters of Saint Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit” ( Translanted with Introduction and Notes by C. R. B. Shapland. The Philosophical Library: New York, 1951.
Book 1, verse or section or paragraph 28:
“But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. There is, then a Triad, holy and complete, confessed to be God in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity one. The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the holy Triad is preserved. Thus one God is preached in the Church, ‘who is over all, and through all and in all’ – over all, as Father, as beginning, as fountain, ‘through all’, through the Word; “in all”, in the Holy Spirit. It is a Triad not only in name and form of speech, but in truth and actuality. For as the Father is He that is, also His Word is one that is and God over all. And the Holy Spirit is not without actual existence, but exists and has true being. Less than these (Persons) the Catholic Church does not hold, lest she sink to the level of the modern Jews, imitators of Caiaphas, and to the level of Sabellius. Nor does she add to them by speculation, lest she be carried into the polytheism of the heathen. And that they may know this to be faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The Apostles went, and thus they taught; and this is the preaching that extends to the whole Church which is under heaven.”
1:29:
“Since then the Church has this foundation of faith, let these men tell us once again and let them make answer, Is God triad or dyad? . . ."
End of Part 1
Part 2
Don’t you see that “the faith”, “the preaching”, ”the tradition”, “the foundation” is the doctrine of the Trinity? To back his proofs up, Athansius quotes Ephesians 4:6 ( “over all and through all and in all” ) and Matthew 28:19. So, here, we have someone who is using Scripture to show what the content of the tradition is. This is in perfect agreement with historical Protestant evangelicalism. Ireneaus and Tertullian make the same points. We all agree that the content of the rule of faith is the tradition of the church, which the apostles preached. And what was it? The Doctrines of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, Monotheism, Creator and Creation, the Cross, Resurrection, Virgin Birth, Judgment day, etc.
Part 3
I am trying to be careful, I had to go to a local Seminary library and hunt down this book translated by C.R.B. Shapland because it is not available in the standard series or the web. Are you going to condemn me for that? When there is time and patience and ability to look at the full context of many of these writers, for example here, Athanasius does seem to come closer to the Evangelical Protestant view.
Since you also did not have the rest of the verse, I am assuming that you just do not have the full text available. You have Jurgens, that’s fine, but not the full “To Serapion”, right? I am not trying to be difficult, but you need to let evangelicals have the same tenacity and scrutiny that you also exemplify. If we are relentless, you are just as tenacious, and more so. That’s OK, work with me, because I don’t think you have the full quote in front of you. I admit, when some of the early fathers are not on the web or were not published in the original book series, this makes it harder to us to discuss the issues. For example, Ireneaus’ “The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching” is also not in the original series. We do not even have Greek or Latin for this; the only extant manuscript is an Armenian one. And I could not even learn all of this information unless I searched it out for myself and asked, “Why is this reference so hard to find?” ( in the quotes that RCC apologists make)
part 4
This is a problem for all of us,( that some books are not in the standard series) for all Evangelicals and Roman Catholics too, because as we are challenged by the RCC apologist by the Early Fathers and Newman’s theory, and yet we cannot get to the text, this makes the whole exercise slower. And if all you have is Jurgens, then that makes your work slower also. These Four “Letters of St. Athanasius on the Holy Spirit” or “To Serapion” are not in the standard series, either on the web or in the old Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace book series.
Thanks for your patience with me. Perhaps the Jurgens book you are using has not included the full quote of “To Serapion” 1:28, and the fact these books of Athanasius are not included in the standard “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” book series, nor is it on the web-site, makes our discussion go slower. I checked out Jurgens three volume set once a couple of years ago from a local Theological library, so again, be patient with me, because I do not have it front of me. But, it is a compendium of select quotes, and my guess is that he also cut the quote too soon, ( I am not judging motives, I am merely pointing out the fact that verse 28 of book 1 of Athanasius’ “Four Letters on the Holy Spirit to Serapion” is frequently cut before Athanasius quotes Mattthew 28:19. ( Tim Staples did the same thing in his debate with James White)
You wrote, “. . . so I fail to see your point”. You included more of the quote, which to at first glance, “strengthens your case”, but the quotes goes on to quote Matthew 28:19. Don’t get upset, please. I don’t think you have the full text. If you don’t have the text, that is not your fault.
I read all the other points you make, about the other passage in Athanasius ( "Discourse Against the Arians", 3:28-29) and Newman and, yes, I have read the whole thing, (your paper about Athansius), about the church being able to "bind" and "compeling" and "enforcing" ( because of space and time, I summarize). and I think I DO understand what you are saying.
You are saying that the rule or tradition is whatever the bishops or presbyters say ( even later) as the right method of interpreting the Scriptures. Am I right? You are saying that in seed form, because the early church taught as tradition and binding the Trinity and Double nature of Christ, then they also have the infallible authority to later add more and other things, things about Mary and the Pope, and Transubstantiation, for example, to the rule of faith. You are saying that it is the opinons or interpretations of the bishops, presbyters ( and later councils, then later, popes), no matter what, because they have authority, infallible authority.
You, nor Newman prove that Athanasius ( nor Irenaus nor Tertullian) taught that. Rather than the rule being the Trinity, and Deity of Christ, you are implying that Ireneaus and Athansius and Tertullian are teaching that the bishops and presbyters IN THE FUTURE can NEVER go wrong. They never say anything about the future and they never outline or define ANY distictive dogma or doctrine that Evangelicals have issue with in their scope or tradition or rule of faith.
To me, Newman, nor you PROVE this. Newman just assumes it and develops it, and runs with it. He doesn't prove it.
Yes, he was much much deeper and more religious, and more pious and more knowledgeable than me,(and very difficult to understand much of the time); but I honestly don't see him proving his point.
Newman is a little tricky ( to me) when he writes he is quoting Athansius, that Athanasius proves the Arians wrong by quoting John 1:1 and 1:14 and then writes, "and then he goes on to show that he does not rely simply on the inherent, unequivocal force of St. John's word, satisfactory as that is, for he adds, "Let us, as possessing [ton skopon tes pisteos], acknowledge that this is the right ([orthen], orthodox) understanding of what they understand wrongly."
He does not translate the Greek phrase, "ton skopon tes pisteos". It is "the scope of the faith". I do know Greek; I am no expert, but I can work with it, with Dictionaries and Grammars, etc. and review. ( I admit I have forgotten a lot.)
The scope of the faith is the Deity of Christ and the Humanity of Christ, not infallible authority to add other things to the rule of faith later in history. You and Newman assume that the rule of faith is the churches authority to take any other doctrine and develop it or add to it later in history, just because that person later is a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church.
J.N.D. Kelly's quote is fine, and it does not contradict Protestantism nor Sola Scriptura. If you pressed him to think he means that later, the leaders in the church did not go wrong -- later developments -- he, as an Anglican, would disagree with you, and he would agree that the Roman Catholic Church LATER went wrong on their interpretations. (But not on Trinity or double-scope Deity and humanity of Christ.) All these from Athanasius show is that the rule or scope or method of interpretation is the understanding of the Trinity as the rule of faith and the double skope of the 2 natures of Christ as the eccelsiastical scope. Don't say, "So what?" None of these passages you cite include anything about infallibility, Mary's Immaculate conception, Mary's sinlessness, Bodily Assumption, popes, Transubstantiation, etc.
You have only proved that the tradition of the Trinity and 2 natures of Christ was taught orally at first ( even to the Barbarians, that Ireneaus says, don't have pen and ink); and that this tradition was also written down later, therefore he writes, "since the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the church, and is permanent among us, let us revert (or resort) to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel. . . ".(Against Heresies, 3:5:1) I also know about all the other passages about the apostolic succession in the churches and that the church of Rome has a "potent principality" and that the other churches in the Empire reflect her doctrine. (Against Heresies, 3:3:1-2)
That faith, rule of faith, content, canon, tradition, preaching, catechism, foundation was passed on and existed concurrently, at the same time. After persecution was over and chaos was settled by Constantine and Theodosius, the church had time and peace to examine all the extant documents and collect the ones that were already in existance, the "Theopneustos" ones ( God-breathed).
By the way, to James Caputo:
Thanks for telling me your quote was from Ireneaus "Against Heresies".
Please give the book number and verses and paragraph so I can also look it up myself. I am willing to work with you, as time and space allows, in God's providence, but I ask that you give the complete reference so I can look it up and see the context.
Sincerely,
Ken Temple
From James Caputo:
It's found in his work against Heresies. And I'm well aware of the context of his statement. But I also hold that (based on the broarder reading of his work and my reading of the fathers) that the general rule he states is not limited to belief in one God and one Christ the Son of God - beliefs against which the heretics inveighed. The general rule is that the deposit of faith (which is much larger than that by the lights of the whole of Ireneaus work - which in itself should not be presumed to exhaust it) is passed down via the bishops in succession to the apostles. Hence, the idea of Mary as the second Eve, the advocate of Eve, the instrumental cause of man's salvation (an idea shared by Tertullian and Justin as well) also fits into that deposit.”
This is not a problem, if the RCC did not LATER read too much into that. Yes, in a sense, because of Mary’s obedience, she became the instrument or channel that God used to bring Christ into the world. There is no problem here. Evangelicals can heartily concur with Ireneaus here in that sense.
But Ireneaus does not include these details in his definition of the rule of faith or tradition. Ireneaus also just assumes that Eve was a virgin. I disagree. I think it is clear from Genesis 2:24-25 that Eve was not necessarily a virgin before sin. The text seems to imply “leaving, cleaving, becoming one flesh” and “they were naked and not ashamed”, that they had a normal, marital, sexual relationship, but Eve did not get pregnant until Genesis 4:1.
We agree that Ireneaus and Justin and other ECF are not infallible, so he could be making a mistake here. As to advocate, the same goes, in the sense that Mary was the instrument or channel that brought Messiah into the world, and because Christ is the one advocate or mediator, Mary, as a woman, parallels redemption for the first woman sinner, Eve. But because the Bible is clear about “one mediator” as Christ, that should never have been developed beyond that.
Tertullian is reasonable and very gifted much of the time, but sometimes he gets goofy too. But he is the most reasonable of all the ECF on the issue of Mary having a normal sexual married relationship after Jesus was born. He read and believed Matthew 1:18, 25 and was right. Unfortunately, because he joined the Montanists, the RCC apologist is quick to dismiss him on this issue and also his disagreement with infant baptism.
Ken,
Tertullian did not "disagree with" infant baptism. In a piece that I wrote several years ago, I said:
"... Is Tertullian the 'odd man out' or is he the only representative, amidst the 'ongoing corruption of the Church' (as our Baptist debating partner might claim) of the 'true Bible teaching'? The citation from Tertullian is in fact from his work *On Baptism* (chapter 1, and the Lutheran New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias, in his detailed analysis of the passage in his book *Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries*, proves clearly both that Tertullian in this passage had in mind only the children of pagans converting to Christianity and that in it he was arguing against the established practice of the Church, in his own native Carthage and elsewhere, of baptizing all such infants. Tertullian's concern appears to have arisen from the possibility thta if the convert parents were to die, the godparents ...
... would be unable to fulfill theior commitment to secure the Christian nurture of the baptized infants (presumably because the children would be in the hands of the deceased parents' pagan kinsmen), and that the children themselves, as "baptized pagans," would be in a more dangerous spiritual condition than if they had remained unbaptized; and (as Jeremias goes on to argue) in another one of Tertullian's works, *On the Soul,* he clearly presupposed and advocates the baptism of the children of Christian parents and the offspring of mixed marriages. (I myself, when I searched out and read chapter 18 of *On Baptism,* found there that Tertullian advicated the same delay in the case of young unmarried or recently widowed converts, until the latter had either married or shown themselves able to bear the burden of celibate chastity.) The Baptist argument falls to the ground, insofar as it is based on history, as opposed to privileging novel and unprecedented interpretations of Scripture.
This is from my review of *A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More Than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers* ed. David W. Bercot (2001). The review appeared in the November 2002 issue of *New Oxford Review* and can be found by going to www.newoxfordreview.org, clickig on "Archives" and then clicking on the respective year and monthly issue.
Thank you William, you are a gentleman and a scholar. Good point,
I will have to look at Jeremias. I admit, I have not read the whole book, only parts long ago; but I have read more closely and own Paul K. Jewett's "Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace", Erdmans,1978. That is pretty powerful argument for believer's baptism.
Sincerely,
Ken Temple
Hi Ken,
"This is not a problem, if the RCC did not LATER read too much into that."
But who are you to say if the Church reads too much into something? Take for example the books and letters that would eventually come to constitute the New Testament. During the period of the apostolic fathers (say, upto 140) there is not even a remote suggestion that any of the fathers viewed them as inspired, inerrant "scripture" on par with the Old Testament. But in time the Church via her bishops and the the sense of the faithful declared that such was so. To assume that such was generally so from the beginning is evangelical bias.
I just spent months in debate with a progressive scholar who sees the entire NT canon as a Catholic invention. On his view, those books and letters may had said something imporant about how some people understood Jesus' message (as did, say, the Naghamadi libary), but their becoming viewed as inerrant, inspired scripture, a definitive literary corpus for Christians till the end of time - that he construes as a total innovation of the Catholic Church.
And when I used Bruce Metzger's book on the canon of the New Testament in our discussion, his theory was vindicated on the same grounds you oject to Catholic teachings (i.e. reading into something too much.)
Our difference turned on the fact that I don't personally judge if the catholic Church later read too much into a matter. I see the Church as the instrument that Christ would employ to bring Christians into all truth.
>>But Ireneaus does not include these details in his definition of the rule of faith or tradition. Ireneaus also just assumes that Eve was a virgin. I disagree.>>
So the entire Church embraced a falsehood, Ken? The pillar and ground of truth, the church, enshrined a total fiction? This is what I was taught as a Jehovah's Witness. It's how we explained away ecclesiastical history - a history that looked very different from our own Church.
>>We agree that Ireneaus and Justin and other ECF are not infallible, so he could be making a mistake here. As to advocate, the same goes, in the sense that Mary was the instrument or channel that brought Messiah into the world, and because Christ is the one advocate or mediator, Mary, as a woman, parallels redemption for the first woman sinner, Eve. But because the Bible is clear about “one mediator” as Christ, that should never have been developed beyond that.>>
How can assume sola scriptura when the very indentification of what constituted scriptura is yet future by a some three generations? Is this an ex post facto rule of faith?
>>Tertullian is reasonable and very gifted much of the time, but sometimes he gets goofy too. But he is the most reasonable of all the ECF on the issue of Mary having a normal sexual married relationship after Jesus was born. He read and believed Matthew 1:18, 25 and was right. Unfortunately, because he joined the Montanists, the RCC apologist is quick to dismiss him
Hey ken,
I wrote a Socratic dialogue on "sola scriptura as a result of protracted discussions on the matter with "Bible Christians".
Give it a squint when you get a chance:
http://www.catholicxjw.com/
socra...aticdialog.html
James
PS. I'll be away from my pc until Mnday.
Hi Ken,
Again, we are at a place where you are not interacting with my material point by point and considering it on its own merits. Dialogue is not merely giving your opinion on what the other guy did and going on and on, as you tend to do, introducing all sorts of extraneous subject matter into the discussion in the process. You have to interact with opponents' arguments.
I spent several hours last night (when I really didn't feel like it) painstakingly answering your questions, only to find that you are doing the same thing that you have in the past (at least with me): not interacting, but rather, basically preaching and simply stating your position over and over, as if that proves it.
I'm not mad or "impatient" or trying to be harsh or whatever; I'm just stating the facts of the matter. You have not responded to my material, and I have reason to believe that you either don't understand my argument, or that you do and refuse to deal with it directly.
That being the case, again, there is nowhere to go with this. I won't spend even more time, when my arguments are virtually ignored. That's not dialogue; it's mutual monologue, aka "ships passing in the night."
If you want to better understand exactly what I mean by both "dialogue" and dealing with opposing arguments, see my paper:
"Good Discussion": The Preferability of Socratic Back-and-Forth Dialogue Over "Mutual Monologue"
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ492.HTM
James, LOL at that article! That was great!
One mistake, I noticed, though. You have the Prot Christian cite 1 Timothy 3:15 when you meant 2Timothy 3:16. Other than that, that was quite enjoyable!
Dave,
Show me where I deviated from the subject. What do you say about the full text of "To Serapion 1:28-29" ?? It is you who seem to be avoiding. Why don’t you just easily answer that and then I will be glad to move forward. Why do only you have the right to control what we focus on? Seems unfair.
I will admit I am not as organized or gifted or knowledgeable as you. Your web-site is amazing in the volume, content, research, connections, and prolific nature, giftedness in arguing your case, etc. I am totally sincere that you have high quality web-sites that seek to provide comprehensive answers for Roman Catholicism. You believe your church and doctrines and you are zealous. I disagree with the RCC distinctives against Sola Scriptura, but you are a passionate spokesperson for your view and a heavy weight. But bowing out now does not become you.
I am very surprised that you don't want to even explain "To Serapion 1:28-29". This should be easy for you. Who is avoiding? Did I not reference Shapland's book and provide the full text in all sincerity and honesty????
I am a nobody and perhaps I am a little scattered and not organized and wordy and repetitious. But now you bow out without any comment on the full text of "To Serapion 1:28-29". Why do you seem to be afraid to deal with that text?
Every thing I wrote about was all directly related to your article on Athanasius and I did try to answer your points. You however, are still avoiding the full text of "To Serapion 1:28-29".
You want me to jump to the conclusion of your paper, rather than focus on two texts, which I discovered have more material that point to the historical protestant position in the ECF. I am willing to proceed to more of your conclusions, if you will answer me "point by point". ( Same thing you want me to do) ( To Serapion 1:28-29 and Discourse against the Arians 3:28-29) What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You also should easily be able to answer those two points.
I did interact with your material where you quote Newman. Again, at the end of the long quote, Newman writes, “. . . and then he goes on to show that he does rely simply on the inherent, unequivocal force of St. John’s words, satisfactory as that is, for he adds, “Let us, as possessing [ton skopon tes pisteos], acknowledge that this is the right ( orthen, orthodox) understanding of what they understand wrongly.” Oration against the Arians, iii. Section 35.”
This is from your paper on Athanasius. Newman admits that Athanasius uses St. John’s words, which are Scripture ( John 1:1-5, 14) and says, “satisfactory that this is”, but then assumes that the “scope” means something like “the Churches right to say one’s private interpretation is wrong”. Private interpretation is wrong, if it goes against the Trinity or Diety of Christ or humanity of Christ, because the “scope” of Scripture teaches the Trinity and Deity and Humanity of Christ. But in iii, section 35, Athanasius goes on to quoting Scripture after Scripture. In 3, section 58, where Athansius writes about the “ecclesiastical scope” as an anchor for the faith, both the preceding context and the material following shows Athanasius is talking about the “double account of the Saviour”. His humanity: “He was troubled”, “He got tired”, “He got thirsty”, “He wept.”, etc. All Athanasius is saying is that the church’s scope follows the pattern in Scripture, either the Trinity or the 2 natures of Christ. I think it is Newman who is trying hard to make the “skope” more than what Athanasius actually says.
I also tried to get you focus on one or two points, but you refused. I clearly and sincerely provided the full text of "To Serapion 1:28-29a", and I give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not have the full text in front of you, that Jurgen's also may have cut the quote before Athanasius quotes Matthew 28:19, or even Ephesians 4:6. These texts of Scripture shows that Athanasius believed the tradition, the preaching, the faith of the church was outlined or backed up by Matthew 28:19. If Matthew was written in 55-68 AD, then the Scriptures came before the ECF. Yes, the oral preaching was going at the same time, and later became in-scripturated in more epistles and the rest of the NT. Of course "the preaching" started in the book of Acts, in 33 AD to 70 Ad and beyond and existed simultaneously with the process of writing the gospels and epistles. Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Athanasius all agree on the content of what the "tradition" or "teaching" or "faith" or "rule of faith" is. They at times also in other places talk about other things like the Eucharist and Mary as the second Eve, and baptismal regeneration, but they do not include those distinctives in "the rule of faith". At least, I do not know where they do, on the issues of baptism. They talk about it, in other contexts or other books or other writings, but I don’t see them saying that that interpretation is part of the rule of faith or “the tradition”.
I was sincerely asking the same thing you are asking me -- to focus on that one text and explain how "the tradition" or "the faith" that Athanasius writes about is anything other than the Doctrine of the Trinity or in the other passages where he talks about "scope", in "Discourse Against the Arians" 3:28-29, he explains the scope as a "double account of the Savior", His humanity and His Deity.
Thanks for your kind words. I'm not bowing out; I simply want my opponent to directly deal with my arguments. The opponent must stay on subject, and understand and deal with opposing arguments, for dialogue to have any worth at all. It's not rocket science. Let me give a brief summary again, of the difference between mutual monologue and dialogue. The first is this:
Dave: x
Ken: y
Dialogue, however, is this:
Dave: x
Ken: point-by-point refutation of x (preferably by citing it in its own words) by examining its fallacious logic, factuality, or lack of biblical support, followed by a presentation of y, where it is argued that it is superior in one or more of these respects than x; therefore worthy of belief over against x. [and a refusal to introduce all sorts of other variables not directly related]
Dave: further defense of x against counter-critique (according to the above method), and refutation of y by examining its fallacious logic, factuality, or lack of biblical support.
Ken: further defense of y, and response to counter-critique . . .
Etc.
I dealt with both texts. Serapion was examined here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...27917898/
#12037
And Discourse Against the Arians, III, here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...27917898/
#12083
And here (part II):
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...27917898/
#12084
As to Serapion, as mentioned, I was using Jurgens. He provides all of 1:28 (I think, but I'm not absolutely sure), but not 1:29. There seems to be some confusion, however, as to what is 1:28 and what is contained in 1:29. More on that below.
Your original complaint was that the citation cut off the relevant next important point of Athanasius. I showed that he moved onto discussion of the Trinty, not how authority works (sola Scriptura, Church, Tradition, etc.).
So even though I didn't have 1:29, I noted how at least the immediate context of all of 1:28 (I originally had cited only the first sentence) does not indicate that anything changes by considering a larger context.
Moreover, what I have from Jurgens (here's the confusing part) includes citation of Matthew 28:19, and Ephesians 4:6, all in 1:28. It's true that I should have dealt with that before; I'll grant you that (I was too hasty and overlooked his citations, because I couldn't cut-and-paste and I was too lazy to type out the whole thing); yet it doesn't change anything in my argument, or the result of the inquiry at all.
>These texts of Scripture shows that Athanasius believed the tradition, the preaching, the faith of the church was outlined or backed up by Matthew 28:19.
Sure it was. It always is. So what? The Bible backs up the Tradition of trinitarianism in the Church. Catholics supposedly don't believe this? This is some bombshell that we didn't already know? It has nothing to do with the rule of faith, and how Church, Tradition, a
(cont.)
. . . and Bible are related to each other. The subject was the Trinity, and so he showed how the Bible backed that up.
When a Catholic (and Athanasius in particular) appeals to Scripture to back up his argument, it does not reduce to sola Scriptura.
I explained this in my own case, because I was accused of doing the same thing by an Orthodox, since I appeal to the Bible constantly in my own apologetic (as you well know, I'm sure: one knows by the titles of my website and books):
Dialogue on Whether Extensive Use of Biblical Arguments Reduces to a Quasi-Sola Scriptura Position? (Development of Doctrine, Tradition, and Implicit vs. Explicit Biblical Proofs. The Papacy as a Test Case)
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ185.HTM
The Fathers do that all the time. But they also ultimately appeal to the Fathers and the received Tradition. That's their final court of appeal. And that is because the Arians (among many heretics) were making many solely "biblical arguments."
They had no history of doctrine to back them up, so they were more or less forced to do that. But they interpreted wrongly. Thus, we are right back into matters of orthodoxy and Tradition and an authoritative Church and apostlic succession, which proves what is heretical and what is orthodox and truly biblical.
The Catholics responded with counter-biblical arguments and then the slam dunk of appeal to the consensus of the Fathers and the Church. The Arians (like Protestants in many areas, including this issue, and as with Luther, right from the start) had no such appeal on their side, so they had to appeal to Bible Alone. What else could they do?
It looks to me like you are simply assuming what you are trying to prove (as so often in this discussion, from the Protestant side). It's a form of special pleading. I am including the elements in Athanasius (his view of Church, Tradition, and apostolic succession and how binding they are) which must also be considered, in order to conclude whether he accepted sola Scriptura or not. He did not, of course. But you haven't dealt with these other crucial elements.
When Athanasius cites Eph 4:6, he is simply supporting trinitarianism (over against the Arian heresy). Catholics and Protestants agree on that; it is not under dispute. We both utilize Scripture to prove the doctrine. I just posted a paper doing that very thing, on this blog. But it has nothing directly to do with the Bible and Tradition dispute.
Later, he cites Matthew 28:19, the trinitarian baptismal formula:
"And because this is the faith of the Church [the Trinity, from the preceding context], let them somehow understand that the Lord sent out the Apostles and commanded them to make this the foundation of the Church, when He said: 'Go out and instruct every people, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' "
In other words, the Holy Trinity and baptism are foundations of the Church, i
(cont.)
. . . in terms of theology. They are fundamental (Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox all agree on that). But this tells us nothing about sola Scriptura, or how authority works, which is the question under consideration. That has to be found elsewhere in Athanasius. I have provided those quotes, and you have either ignored them, or dismissed them out of hand, and gone back to these texts, repeatedly.
Your problem remains: how to incorporate all the relevant elements of Athanasius' thought in this regard into a coherent interpretation of his overall thought. Typically, according to a certain Protestant method (the old "proof text" routine), you are simply emphasizing beyond all proportion two passages which you think prove your case (but they really don't) and then trying desperately to fit them into a sola Scriptura grid.
This is what Protestants who try to "Protestantize" the Fathers invariably but futilely attempt to do, unfortunately. Jason Engwer is notorious for doing that. William Webster and David T. King have almost made a career out of it. James White (to the extent that he deals with the Fathers at all) does it, too.
When they are opposed they flee for the hills (I have refuted all four of them, and that's what happened each time). This is because their "cases" cannot withstand the scrutiny of close examination. They appear strong until a Catholic systematically dismantles them. That's easy to do because the facts are on our side in this discussion. The Fathers were primitive Catholics, not primitive or "proto"-Protestants. And St. Athanasius is "Exhibit A" in that respect.
I hasten to add that I don't think you are deliberately trying to distort historical and patristic fact. No; as I almost always assume, I think your bias is profoundly affecting the way you look at and interpret the facts before us. Strong bias can easily mutate into special pleading, and if you special plead enough, you eventually fall into sophistry.
But none of this need be deliberately dishonest at all. You believe what you do just as sincerely as I believe what I do. I simply think that the actual facts are fatal to your case. One can be sincerely wrong. One can have only the best intentions and the most sincerity and passion for truth in world history and still be dead wrong. We've all done this at one time or another.
It isn't fatal to Protestantism if Athanasius was far more Catholic than "Protestant," since you don't grant the Fathers the authority that we do in the first place (i.e., patristic "consensus"). If in fact he believed what I say he believed, all you have to do is say "he is fallible, so he was wrong on this matter." That's all there is to it.
But I think that Protestants such as yourself really want to see Athanasius (and even more so, and above all, Augustine) come out "smelling more like a Protestant," because then you have some sense of historical continuity that P
(cont.)
. . . Protestantism sorely needs. So you are passionate about this and cannot grant anything to our case, lest you are in danger of "giving up the store." Just a speculation, mind you, but based on long experience in these sorts of historical discussions.
>Why do only you have the right to control what we focus on? Seems unfair.
You brought up the two passages, and I dealt with them in depth (and have again today, at least with one), even thought I didn't feel like it, and didn't think it was necessary. But I did it. I showed courtesy and respect towards your argument by devoting several hours of my time responding to it.
It is not "control," therefore, to simply ask that you show me the same courtesy by dealing directly with my counter-arguments. As it is, you have basically briefly dismissed them again and demanded that I again deal with your two texts. So I have done so again, with at least one of them, and admitted that I did overlook one thing.
Yet you claim I am trying to "control" the conversation like some kind of arbitrary dictator. I submit that if anyone is trying to do that (which is different from asserting that this is in fact the case), it is you.
Discussions go where they must go if indeed both parties are committed to getting to the truth of the matter. But one must stay on topic (we don't bring in Mary and the pope and the kitchen sink and everything else in the universe) and one must DEAL DIRECTLY with opposing arguments.
I go through this all the time. Please don't feel like I am trying to single you out. Folks aren't taught how to properly engage in discussion, even in college. So what they think is a "dialogue" is not at all, according to classical standards (Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hume, Pascal, etc.).
Some people may think I am overly-dogmatic or demanding on this "true dialogue" business (and no doubt, I am at times), but at bottom, all I am striving for is constructive discussion, with a sensible form, so that something can be accomplished, rather than both parties spinning their wheels and getting frustrated.
I believe that both further understanding and some kind of resolution is able to be obtained in all these discussions. But to do that, some rules and formats will have to be followed, to have any hope at all of achieving those desirable ends. I submit that classic. Socratic dialogue is one way to do that. If someone has something better to suggest, please do so.
Thanks Dave,
That was a nice post!
I am willing to continue this after next Friday( almost a week away), as God allows, because I am going out of town and I have to get ready and I have already spent too much time on this, but I have enjoyed it and it sharpens me and forces me to think. I appreciate your patience.
I am not giving up; I just am not good enough in all of this material to keep up with you at the speed that you do, because this is not my full time job, nor even my second job. Maybe I should never have started trying to enter these discussions in the first place.
Your last post was very good!
I was afraid that you were going to get mad at me and give up just because I don't know or follow your Socratic method of staying focused on your particular point. You finally acknowledged all of "To Serapion 1:28", with the quotes from Matthew 28:19 and Ephesians 4:6; so I am happy for now.
Why is that so important? Because it shows that there was written scripture behind what Athansius was "binding" (to use your wording and argumentation in your paper on Athanasius) upon the Tropici. And in the Arian contexts, yes, he talks about church and tradition, and the Nicean council, but they are backed up with specific texts of written scripture.
Sola Scriptura does not mean "no other authorities" to help us determine the meaning of something or interpret the text of Scripture.
Your papers prove that SOLO scriptura is wrong ( me and my bible in the woods with no church and no tradition) (Keith Mattison), but they still do not prove that Sola Scriptura is wrong or Unbiblical.
I will print out your post and try to think through and meditate on what you are trying to get me to stay focused on and come back some other time.
Sincerely in Christ,
Ken Temple
Glad you liked it. I have to disagree that I have only disproven solo Scriptura. I recently did a two-piece critique of Mathison, and have dealt with this solo vs. sola bit many times. Both are equally self-defeating, and ultimately indefensible from both the Bible and history, but sola is far more respectable because it is not immediately goofy and dimissible. One has to work a lot harder to refute it, but in the end, it collapses just like solo, as untrue and unworkable.
Hope you enjoy your travels, wherever and whatever they are.
>And in the Arian contexts, yes, he talks about church and tradition, and the Nicean council, but they are backed up with specific texts of written scripture.
Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? You act as if every time someone makes an argument from Scripture, that they must be some sort of Protestant, and accept sola Scriptura (you seem to assume that anyone who highly values biblical argumentation must be some sort of Protestant, or an inconsistent Catholic or Orthodox, as if it were oli and water). Neither follows at all.
The Catholic includes all these things, whereas the Protestant usually disregards Church and Tradition alike if he feels that a compelling case can be made from Scripture alone. With the Trinity, I feel that this is probably the case (by and large), but remember, all the Christological herestics built their case on supposed biblical proofs. They continue to do so today.
They interpreted Scripture one way, and thus emphasized certain proofs much more than others, and Catholics did another way. But the Catholics had apostolic Tradition and succession behind their views, so they were correct. Moral of the story: Scripture alone cannot solve these theological conflicts.
duel masters trading card game duel masters trading card game duel masters trading card game // stacked poker video stacked poker video stacked poker video
Dave-
I somehow stumbled across this website last year and got to thinking that you might be interested in the (now published) book _Nature, the Physician, and the Family: Selected Works of Herbert Ratner, M.D._ that I was editing at the time. Dr. Ratner was my father, a convert to Catholicism from Judaism, and a strong supporter of the book of Nature. Here's a quote from the book: "We profess belief in a Trinitarian God, but we are ignorant of or recalcitrant to the teachings the Father has revealed to us in nature even though we know by faith that God authored both the Book of Nature and the Book of Scriptures. In a sense, we ignore nature and tend to replace it with sacraments, as if once grace is possessed, nature is irrelevant ." More can be read about this book at www.authorhouse.com. -Mary Tim
mortgage refinance second mortgage mortgage refinance second mortgage mortgage refinance second mortgage. royal vegas poker promotion code royal vegas poker promotion code royal vegas poker promotion code.
Commenting by HaloScan
