++And I think Chemnitz certainly knew enough to know better than to deny it. It's simply a case of reading the Fathers through the lens of Lutheran tradition. In a word, Chemnitz was blinded by his confessional bias and couldn't accurately report the true nature of St. Irenaeus' opinions on the matters at hand.++
That was more than mere blindness, that was down right misrepresentation of St Irenaeus. If ANY Catholic Apologist butchered a reference like that they would never hear the end of it from the Protestant side.
It always amazed me how ccel.org can put forth these ECF writings as if they were protestant and pretend like he ECFs were protestant. It is amazing the existence of those "catholic but not Roman Catholic" protestants out there in the blog world. What is clear however is that all of this is coming to an end, the facts are being shouted from the roof tops, the Catholic Church is being vindicated.
It isnt hard to predict that there will be few if any Protestants out there who will actually attempt to refute the plain facts presented, it is even more predictable that the few who try will likely not even address the issue at all but rather dance around the issue while painting the CC as black as possible.
I look forward to the follow up critiques of Chemnitz.
it is even more predictable that the few who try will likely not even address the issue at all but rather dance around the issue while painting the CC as black as possible.
You don’t know how right you are, Nick! Or maybe you do!!!
Many Protestants, (not all of course, there are many honorable exceptions who put certain Catholics to shame), have, sad to say, been unfairly distorting the truth about the Catholic Church from their very inception. I’ve come to the conclusion that what really motivates many of them is simply an all-encompassing hatred of authority - Rome’s authority. Dare I say it? Such hatred seems almost demonic!
Anyway, here's a bit of history for you younger folks (I'm 51 btw). Soon after the Martin Luther movie of 1953 appeared, Our Sunday Visitor responded with a small pamphlet (about 30 pages). It was entitled:
The Martin Luther Motion Picture: Unhistorical – Unbiblical – Unfair
and was published November 18, 1953. It was written by one Lon Francis. In addition to criticizing the movie itself, it also presented general discussion of the way in which Catholicism had been systematically misrepresented by Protestants. Ironically, many of the sources used to demonstrate this fact were themselves Protestants - honorable Protestants. Allow me to quote from pp. 9-12.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/w9MAsrgm.jpg
TRUE HISTORY
“Historians who are non-partisan and desire to be wholly objective and truthful in reporting what they discovered in careful research, denounce the Reformation time writers, in Germany and England in particularly, for misrepresentations, exaggerations, and concealment of many facts.
They were ordered to write “history” in that way to whitewash principles.
We recall that Hitler ordered Rosenberg to rewrite the history of Germany. Presently Russia is having rewriting the history of Poland and Hungary in such a way as to justify their conquest by communism. We quote from a few modern protestant historians who warn against prejudiced partisan writers.
Rev. Dr. Richard Frederick Littledale (1833-1890), in Innovations, (p. 16) writes:
“Two mendacious partisans, the infamous Foxe and the not much more respectable Burnet, have so overhauled all the history of the Reformation with falsehood, that it has been well nigh impossible for readers to get at the facts.”
Innovations: A Lecture Delivered in the Assembly Rooms, Liverpool, April 23, 1868
http://books.google.com/books?as...m=1&sa=N&
tab=wp
The Dublin Review:
http://books.google.com/books?
id...6XlDA#PPA561,M1
Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Innovation...Liverpool/dp/
B0
Cont...
WorldCat: http://worldcat.org/oclc/51075072
Henry Mayers Hyndman (1842-1921), in Historical Basis of Socialism in England, 1883, (p. 14) writes:
“Protestant divines whose creed is the devil take the hindmost here and hereafter, fail to discover but luxury, debauchery, and hypocrisy in Church of the fifteenth century. It is high time that, without any prejudice in favor of that Church, the nonsense which has been foisted on to the public by men interested in suppressing the facts should be exposed. It is not true that the Church or our ancestors was the organized fraud which it suits fanatics to represent it.”
http://books.google.com/books?
id...0SpHiPqp8ach8Qk
Sir Francis Palgrave (1788-1861), in his History of Normandy and England, 1851, (Introduction, pp. 45-46) writes:
“Abstractedly from all the influences which we have sustained in common with the
rest of the civilized commonwealth, our British disparagement of the middle ages has been exceedingly enhanced by our grizzled ecclesiastical church historians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; men who, instead of vindicating the Reformation by the advocacy of reverence for holy things, obedience, love, charity, sought to establish righteousness through vengeance, and in all things rendering evil for evil. ‘Hate your enemies’ is with them the law and the prophets. These ‘standard works’ accepted an received as Canonical Books have tainted the nobility of our national mind.”
http://books.google.com/books?
as...nG=Search+Books
The Rev. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Dean of Westminster (1815-1881), in his Life and Letters (vol. 1, p. 151) writes:
“I am convinced that Protestantism treats Catholics with shameful ignorance and unfairness.”
http://books.google.com/books?as...m=1&sa=N&
tab=wp
Dr. Schaff, in Political Ecclesiastical Conferences, U. S. p. 230 writes:
“The Roman Catholic Church is bemired from day to day with all possible calumnies.”
http://books.google.com/books?as...m=1&sa=N&
tab=wp
Dr. Joseph Nightingale in his Religion of All Nations (p. 16) writes:
“In scarcely a single instance has a case concerning them (Catholics) been fairly stated; the channels of history not grossly, not to say wickedly, corrupted.”
http://books.google.com/books?as...hi=&
as_occt=any
Cont....
Dr. Johnson in his Religious Life, etc. (p.149) writes:
“In the present day there is much vituperation of Roman Catholic belief.”
Henry Hallam, in his Introduction to the History of Literature in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries (in 4 vols.), vol. 1, 1880, p. 305-307 writes:
“Whatever may be the bias of our minds as to the truth of Luther’s doctrines, we should be careful in considering the Reformation as part of the history of mankind, not to be misled by the superficial and ungrounded representations which we sometimes find in modern writers. Such as this, that Luther, struck by the absurdity of the prevailing superstitions, was desirous of introducing a more rational system of religion; or that he contended for freedom of inquiry, and the boundless privileges of individual judgment; or what others have pleased to suggest, that his zeal for learning and ancient philosophy led him to attack the ignorance of the monks, and the crafty policy of the church, which withstood all liberal studies. These notions are merely fallacious refinements, as every man of plain understanding, who is acquainted with the early reformers, or has considered their history, must acknowledge.”
(Cf. The Century of Columbus, by James Joseph Walsh)
http://books.google.com/books?id...7s+doctrines%
22
cont...( last part)
GREATER AUTHORITY.
The greatest of all writers on the reformation was Ludwig Pastor, a son of a sincere Lutheran father, who was prompted to write the history of the Popes (in German) after he read the historian Ranke’s version. He asked for permission of Rome to do research work in the Vatican archives. Pope Leo XIII granted it, and then threw open the Vatican archives and library to the historians of the world, claiming the church has nothing to gain by hiding the truth.
The average non-Catholic does not seem to know that the Church has a Diary running back to the times of primitive Christianity and is, therefore, what was the belief and practice of the Church in every century from the council of Nice in the year 325.
Pastor quotes from more than 500 historians of many nationalities to support what he writes in his Geschichte der Papste. Ahead of him Johann Janssen had written a work entitled History of the German People. He died after completing six volumes and Ludwig Pastor finished it in two more volumes. Pastor wrote his story objectively from data filed when and where took place, whether the same were favorable or unfavorable to the Church.
Since the time of Janssen and Pastor, numerous historians, including a number of Americans, have done research work in the Vatican archives and many of them became converted to the Catholic faith by such research work. Two deans of history at Columbia University – Moon and Hayes- became Catholics “through the study of history.” So did two professors at the University of New York and an historian at Western Reserve.
In England, Newman and Manning, both of whom had been prejudiced Protestant ministers, found their way into the Catholic Church by their study of Christian writers of the first five centuries, often referred to as ‘Fathers and Doctors of the Church.’ So did Von Reuville in Germany and Maritain in France.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lud...dwig_von_Pastor
One final quote; I must add!
This from the great John Wesley:
"Yet I can by no means approve the scurrility and contempt with which the Romanists
have often been treated."
"To a Roman Catholic Priest," 1739. http://wesley.nnu.edu/John_Wesle...etters/
1739.htm
Not to be confused with the great Wesley's much more beautiful and ecumenical "Letter to a Roman Catholic," written some ten years later, DUBLIN July 18, 1749, http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesle...tters/
1749b.htm
Oh! That more Christians -Catholics and Protestants- could be like that man!
Just in case anyone's interested, here's a picture of the great historian Ludwig von Pastor. It appears to be from some magazine article, a portion of which had been clipped and pasted inside vol. 1 (I think) of Pastor's 4o volume "History of the Popes" which I copied some time ago to my computer. Just remember I had it and thought I'd share it. It's late now, time to hit the sack. And to all the dear visitors at Cor ad Cor, Catholic and Protestant alike, good night, and may he who is the font of all goodness and mercy, bless and keep, one and all.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/wCIxHzP9.jpg
Mary most pure, mother undefiled, pray for us. St. Joseph, her most chaste spouse, pray for us. St. Michael the Archangel, guardian of the Church, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host —
by the Divine Power of God —
cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
Thanks for those quotes. It doesnt take a rocket scientists to see that the Catholic Church has been utterly demonized from the very early days of the Deformation and even today.
The biggest problem Catholic Apologists have is undoing the years of virtual anti-Catholic indoctrination, founded not upon actual Church teachings but lies and misinformation.
Thanks for that Dave. I know I would never get through 4 volumes of this stuff so it is great to have you review it. Hopefully some Lutherans show up to defend their hero.
I am disappointed that such bad scholarship seems to have survived so many years. You would assume people would point out the errors over time and works that are full of errors would fall into obscurity. That would be the motive for a scholar to actually be honest. The idea that such a work will stand up to scrutiny and therefore be much more valuable.
1) Perpetual succession of bishops (this the Lutherans rejected and put in their place the rule of secular bishops, which even Melanchthon and to a lesser extent Luther, lamented in later years).
Lutherans reject that there was a succession of bishops in the 2nd century?
2) The apostles instituted bishops (this also the Lutherans reject, or else (quite obviously) they would have retained bishops and apostolic succession as patristically understood, since this was (in Irenaeus' understanding) clearly an apostolic practice, having been literally instituted by the apostles.
Lutherans deny the apostles instituded line of 2nd century bishops?
3) Peter and Paul founded the preeminent Church of Rome (many Protestants -- I don't know about Chemnitz or confessional Lutheranism offhand -- reject this and even deny that Peter was ever in Rome, or was bishop of Rome, etc.). But Chemnitz, of course, thinks that the Church of Rome had forsaken the true apostolic faith at some point, so that schism was necessary. That is not what Irenaeus would have held at all.
How on earth do you know what Irenaeus would have held about the Church of Rome if he were to time travel to the 16th century?
He would have stated -- like Catholics -- that the one true Church (a real, historical institution, headed by the pope in Rome) cannot, could not possibly defect from the true faith.
He didn't state that in the 2nd century, what makes you think he would state that in the 16th century?
4) Every Church should agree with the Church of Rome (the Catholic Church). This was obviously rejected by Lutherans and all Protestants. Yet they continue to claim St. Irenaeus as one of their own in this respect of authority and Scripture.
Lutherans reject that every Church should agree with the 2nd century Church at Rome?
5) Early papal succession is given.
OK
6) "things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true." No mention of Scripture here (note the key word "alone"). Nor is it logically required to deduce from this that absolutely everything that the Church declares has express, explicit sanction in Scripture. For Irenaeus and Catholics, such things need only be harmonious and consistent with Scripture.
Lutherans are interested in teachings that were handed down to Polycarp and other early Christians. We don't throw out early Church writings. It is a large leap in logic to assume that everything down through the centuries that the "Church declares" has been learned from the apostles. Besides, you have yet to define "the Church declares" in a way Irenaeus would recognize. That is because Irenaeus wouldn't recognize anything comparable to what you mean by "the Church declares".
7) The Church of Rome was already acting with authority over other churches (letter of First Clement: a sort of primitive papal encyclical).
O
continued...
ne man's "primitive papal encyclical" is another man's "letter".
The Evangelical lutheran church of the USA has "Bishops". The WELS and LCMS has Presidents.
Read this. Does this sound Protestant to you?
Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place....Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present....Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church."
Council of Ephesus,Session III (A.D. 431
The latest from the peanut gallery of Josh Strodtbeck's blog and my responses in brackets:
Anonymous said...
Brave? Able? Huh? We're talking about an epologist, not some world renowned patrologist and church historian. That's like asking me if I'm brave enough to check out James White or Dave Hunt's take on the development of the papacy.
Why not consult reputable scholars? That of course doesn't mean a Mr. Armstrong or Mr. White *can't* discover such things, but it does mean that they're immediately at a disadvantage since they have no expertise in such a field like Patristics or Church History (I've yet to see anything remotely resembling the learning of a Pelikan, Gilson or Chadwick come out of said sources).
Give me the ivory tower gray beards over the "I do this in my spare time" contingent any day.
[nice rationalization for competent lay Lutherans to not defend their hero]
Josh S said...
Anonymous1, I already checked out that post and commented on it. You will notice that he declined to comment further because he simply isn't educated enough to respond, nor brave enough to admit he's wrong. What you're basically doing is criticizing Chemnitz for not using modern punctuation and citation style, which is absolutely idiotic.
The facts are on the table, will you be brave enough to read a late medieval text with competence instead of like an uneducated boor?
[completely missed the point of my post -- much as David King did -- on Chemnitz and citations, which was a reductio ad absurdum argument against James Swan]
Josh S said...
Chemnitz didn't paint Irenaeus or Tertullian as proto-Lutherans. Dave is performing a giant nonsequiter, as what he's quoting from Irenaeus doesn't really have too much to do with what Chemnitz was quoting. Furthermore, far from being a proto-Catholic, Irenaeus points to Rome not simply as having a God-granted infallibility to develop doctrine in some Newmanish sense, but because the apostolic doctrine had been most self-evidently preserved there.
Look, this is a stupid argument. Dave selectively highlights things that help his case, he doesn't read carefully, he doesn't put things in historical context, he doesn't give any thought to the changing use of words over the centuries, and he doesn't even read the texts he's critiquing carefully.
In short, this isn't real theology. This is just some hack on the Intarweb engaging in silly little ad hoc arguments.
Josh S said...
And what I mean by all that is that this isn't worth responding to. This is just rhetorical grandstanding, not serious textual analysis. Why should I splash around in every theological kiddie pool on the Internet just because someone dared me to prove I'm not afraid of drowning? Wading in ankle-deep water is not the way to prove your swimming ability.
Dave said...
Josh,
I'm the Lutheran man-off-the-street, and it seems to me that Mr. Armstrong is basically antagonizing you in order to increase his readership.
Nothing in his blog about Chemnitz looks much different than troll bait. As you say, he hasn't advanced any serious arguments so far. Perhaps he is trying to gain "Catholic street cred"?
Lutherans deny the apostles instituded line of 2nd century bishops?
I don't know about Lutherans specifically but most protestants do deny this. That is they believe the bishops came into leadership but they do not concede that the apostles put them there. That would give the office of bishop way to much credibility.
It would also mean the church was acting on information that was implicit referenced by the apostles in scripture but was explicitly taught outside of scripture in much more detail. That seems to be an apostolic tradition. How was the church to treat this? Should they assume it is suspect because it was not written in scripture or should they respect it because it came from the apostles? St Irenaeus seems to take the ladder course.
So conceding that bishops were ordained by the apostles doesn't really solve your problem. The problem is it is not in scripture. St Irenaeus does not see that as a reason to doubt it. It flatly contradicts Chemnitz' assertion that he used ONLY scripture.
Chemnitz didn't paint Irenaeus or Tertullian as proto-Lutherans.
Chemnitz thought, and wanted his readers to think, that the writings of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian support Protestantism rather than Catholicism. That amounts to trying to portray them as proto-Protestants or proto-Lutherans.
Dave is performing a giant nonsequiter (sic), as what he's quoting from Irenaeus doesn't really have too much to do with what Chemnitz was quoting. Furthermore, far from being a proto-Catholic, Irenaeus points to Rome not simply as having a God-granted infallibility to develop doctrine in some Newmanish sense, but because the apostolic doctrine had been most self-evidently preserved there.
The argument is that what St. Irenaeus says of Rome and Tradition and Scripture is far, far closer to what you'd expect from a Catholic than what you'd expect from a Protestant. That is, what he says would be "proto-Catholic" rather than proto-Protestant. That St. Irenaeus did not express Catholic doctrine as it would be expressed in the 1500s or 1800s or 2000s does not weaken the argument that what St. Irenaeus wrote is closer in agreement with later, more developed Catholic teaching than it is with later Protestant notions. Indeed, St. Irenaeus doesn't just point to Rome because the apostolic doctrine had been most self-evidently preserved there, but because of Rome's greater authority that makes it necessary for all churches to agree with Rome. Thus, because of Rome's primacy, St. Irenaeus felt it necessary to demonstrate the integrity of the Apostolic Tradition by showing just the apostolic succession of Roman bishops rather than the successions of all of the churches.
Look, this is a stupid argument. Dave selectively highlights things that help his case, he doesn't read carefully, he doesn't put things in historical context, he doesn't give any thought to the changing use of words over the centuries, and he doesn't even read the texts he's critiquing carefully.
Care to substantiate any of those charges? From where I'm sitting, it looks like you're guilty of all of those things in your reading of St. Irenaeus.
I'm the Lutheran man-off-the-street, and it seems to me that Mr. Armstrong is basically antagonizing you in order to increase his readership.
Yeah, Dave, you're just critiquing Chemnitz to get Josh's goat and to get more attention for yourself. You couldn't possible have any serious and sincere objections Martin Chemnitz's arguments and assertions.
One man's "primitive papal encyclical" is another man's "letter".
Um, papal encyclicals are "letters," written by the Bishop of Rome (or in his name and by his authority) and sent out to be read by other churches. . . .
I'm enjoying the discussion. Thanks to all for your contributions! I continue to await a comprehensive, direct reply to my arguments.
Let me think, look at some small clues.
(1) Jesus built His Church on Peter.
(2) The Church in Rome that's built on the tomb of St. Peter---> is the Catholic Church.
(3) The Catholic Church has a billion memebers coming from the four corners of the earth.
(4) Millions and millions of Catholic pilgrims have vist Vatican which is not mandatory to do.
(5) When you look at the Vatican from above and look at St. Peter's Square starting in the middle where you see Egyptian obelisk. Then look at the small road that connets St.Peter Square. You can see it looks like a very large key. Just find St. Peter's Square pictures and see for yourself. (smile)
Hello David. Good to chat again.
I feel as though I am getting farther and farther behind in the conversaiton as you post more and more! But please bear with me in my untimely responses.
You say:
Of course, I continue to strongly disagree on the presuppositional level. Chemnitz (as I discussed last time) takes the view that the Church Fathers are far more like Lutherans than Catholics. I take the opposite view (big surprise).
I just want to confirm what you write here. It is entirely true, that as a Lutheran, I don't see my church beginning in 1519. We have always defined our church as catholic, as universal, as connecting back to the Church through the ages.
So yes, to be blunt, I'd expect early church writers to reflect what we as Lutherans believe, teach and confess.
I am not sure that this is a presupposition though...is it a presupposition to say that Jesus is the Christ? That is what Scripture says. We can go to what the early church writers say and see what they say.
Obviously we might have some differences with certain positions taken--but that is just as true when we read Luther as when we read Augustine. Or even Chemnitz.
But as well--and this is important--I think we need to approach the discussion with a certain...oh, humility I guess. After all, there have been a lot of smarter people than you or I who have read a lot more of the church fathers than you or I (in the original languages doubtless) and they have not found that either position is just plan stupid and foolish!!! How ignorant those (insert either RC or L)! It is clear what the fathers say!!
No. We have not had that. So, knowing that we are not both dumb, let's take a look at what Chemnitz says, okay?
Chemnitz, for many pages, presents scriptural testimony that Scripture is central and primary in Christianity. Since we Catholics do not in the slightest disagree with that, I have no beef, and so need not critique those lengthy sections.
You know...I guess once again, I understand why you would say that. I just disagree that it is in fact true.
That is to say, because of your position on tradition, I do not beleive that Scripture can be central and primary.
Take indulgences. I mean, from my position, this is an issue that deals with salvation--the core of our understanding of what Christ has done for us--that the RC church has generally defended out of arguments from tradtion, not Scripture.
Now, I might be wrong about either one of those opinions: connection to salvation, explanation from tradition. I know that indulgences are not some purchase of salvation--I understand that.
At the same time, I do see them closely connected with the entire RC theology dealing with Christ, His work, and the cause of our salvation. And once again, where does the support come from for the practice?
I have always understood that it is Luther's discussions with the church on indulgences that formed his position on sola Scriptura. It was their pointing towards what the church had taught, rather than what Scripture taught, that helped form his position.
Even the position of celibate clergy. That certainly is an issue for me that is central to Christianity--at least my faith and how I practice it (grin). Do I really not have an objection to say that the position of the RC does not rely solely upon the Word of God? And that therefore, Scripture is not central?
So, I understand that this (centrality of Scripture) is what you believe. And I surely don't want to bog down a discussion. I'm just not sure I can pass by it without comment.
Well...I mean, obviously I can't. 
Hello Pastor Louderback,
I trust that you enjoyed a blessed Lord's Day today.
I just want to confirm what you write here. It is entirely true, that as a Lutheran, I don't see my church beginning in 1519. We have always defined our church as catholic, as universal, as connecting back to the Church through the ages.
So yes, to be blunt, I'd expect early church writers to reflect what we as Lutherans believe, teach and confess.
That's why discussion of the Fathers is often (and should be) central in friendly (but substantive and honest) Catholic-Lutheran disputes
I am not sure that this is a presupposition though...is it a presupposition to say that Jesus is the Christ? That is what Scripture says. We can go to what the early church writers say and see what they say.
Well, yes and no, I think. Everyone has starting presuppositions that they may not be able to prove in an airtight fashion. A Catholic has a starting assumption that the Catholic Church is unique and authoritative, and there is a large measure of faith in that, of course, though not without the aid of corroborating historical evidences.
Likewise, a Lutheran believes that his church is hearkening back to the early Church in a way that the Catholic Church (so he believes) does not (else why, and what would justify the separation?; Lutherans MUST believe this, by their very nature and essence).
Informed Lutherans will make the particular arguments to back this up, but it remains a presupposition in any case. Not every individual who holds a view is required to do all the work that apologists or pastors or scholars may do in order to defend specific viewpoints. And (it may surprise some to see me write this) I don't think there is anything wrong in that. We all rely on other experts and some form of authority, at some point.
Obviously we might have some differences with certain positions taken--but that is just as true when we read Luther as when we read Augustine. Or even Chemnitz.
I think the discussion is about honest, gentlemanly agreement among Christians who have respect for each other as fellow Christians with some differences. Unfortunately, there are many on both sides who want to make these discussions unpleasant and hyper-polemical, as well as some who seem to think that if one is not a scholar, one cannot engage in any disputes about patristic beliefs at all. I've always despised intellectual elitism and snobbery, esp. among those who pose as scholars when they themselves aren't scholars at all, but only pseudo-scholars. No names, of course. 
You show yourself a polar opposite from that mentality. We're simply having a pleasant discussion about how we differ, with mutual respect. I highly commend you for your charity and friendly demeanor. You are a wonderful example of the many fine Lutherans that I know and who have influenced my own walk with Christ (e.g., Pastor Dick Bieber, a very godly, zealous man under whom I first learned to be a serious disciple of Jesus in the late 70s).
But as well--and this is important--I think we need to approach the discussion with a certain...oh, humility I guess. After all, there have been a lot of smarter people than you or I who have read a lot more of the church fathers than you or I (in the original languages doubtless) and they have not found that either position is just plan stupid and foolish!!! How ignorant those (insert either RC or L)! It is clear what the fathers say!!
I fully agree.
No. We have not had that. So, knowing that we are not both dumb, let's take a look at what Chemnitz says, okay?
I'd love to. Thanks again for your comments and Christian charity.
Continuing . . .
because of your position on tradition, I do not beleive that Scripture can be central and primary.
It's a different conception of the relationship of Scripture and Tradition. Yours is more "either/or" whereas ours is "both/and" . . . twin fonts of the same divine wellspring, etc. I have cited Lutheran historians (Pelikan, Oberman) stating that the Fathers held to the Catholic "both/and" perspective. That is a fact that can be ascertained. Assuming foir the sake of argument that Pelikan and Oberman are correct, I think this poses major problems for the Lutheran perspective that their view reflects the Fathers on this score. It's major because this is one of the Protestant pillars.
Take indulgences. I mean, from my position, this is an issue that deals with salvation--
It's not really directly related to salvation, but rather, to temporal punishment for sin.
the core of our understanding of what Christ has done for us--that the RC church has generally defended out of arguments from tradtion, not Scripture.
Now, I might be wrong about either one of those opinions: connection to salvation, explanation from tradition. I know that indulgences are not some purchase of salvation--I understand that.
At the same time, I do see them closely connected with the entire RC theology dealing with Christ, His work, and the cause of our salvation. And once again, where does the support come from for the practice?
From explicit biblical evidence, that I have provided in my first book: A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 162-165; very slightly different from the paperback book, because this is pasted from my manuscript):
Biblical Evidence for Indulgences
Matthew 16:19 / 18:18 / John 20:23 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
. . . Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.
These passages form the biblical basis for priestly absolution (forgiveness), and broadly speaking, for both papal and Church jurisdiction (by extension, for the power to impose penance -- binding, retaining -- and to grant indulgences -- loosing, forgiving). Matthew 16:19 was spoken by our Lord to St. Peter alone, and is the primary foundation for the concept of the papacy (along with the preceding verse). Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23 were directed toward the twelve disciples. From these verses, among others, the Catholic Church deduces the power and governing jurisdiction of the bishops (in agreement with the pope), especially in an ecumenical Council such as Trent or Vatican II.
Karl Adam, in his marvelously insightful book, The Spirit of Catholicism, comments on the Catholic belief in indulgences:
"The Church in virtue of her power of binding and loosing may supplement the poverty of one member out of the wealth of another . . . All the main ideas upon which the doctrine of indulgences is based -- the necessity of expiation for sin, the co-operative expiation of the members of the Body of Christ, the Church's power so to bind and loose on earth that her action is valid in heaven -- all these ideas are contained in holy Scripture.
"So that although the historical form of the indulgence has undergone some change . . . and may in the future undergo further change, and although the theology of indulgences has only been gradually elaborated, yet in its substance the doctrine is in line with the pure thought of the Scriptures. Here, as in no other practice of the Church, do the members of the Body of Christ co-operate in loving expiation. All the earnestness and joyfulness, humility and contrition, love and fidelity, which animate the Body are here especially combined and manifested." [171]
1 Corinthians 5:3-5 / 2 Corinthians 2:6-8,10-11
. . . I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. {see 5:1-2}
For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him . . . Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive . . . in the presence of Christ, to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs.
St. Paul in his commands and exhortations to the Corinthians is in entire agreement with the Catholic tenets of penance and indulgences. He binds in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 and looses in 2 Corinthians 2:6-7,10, acting as a type of papal figure in 2 Corinthians 2:10, much like St. Peter among the Apostles. He forgives, and bids the Corinthian elders to forgive also, even though the offense was not committed against them personally. Clearly, both parties are acting as God's representatives in the matter of the forgiveness of sins and the remission of sin's temporal penalties (an indulgence). In this as in all other doctrinal matters, the Catholic Church is grounded in the Bible, takes seriously all that it teaches, and grapples with all the implications and deepest wellsprings of Truth to be found within the pages of God's Holy Scriptures.
Cardinal Gibbons elaborates:
"Here we have all the elements that constitute an Indulgence. First -- A penance, or temporal punishment proportioned to the gravity of the offence, is imposed on the transgressor. Second -- The penitent is truly contrite for his crime. Third -- This determines the Apostle to remit the penalty. Fourth -- The Apostle considers the relaxation of the penance ratified by Jesus Christ, in whose name it is imparted." [172]
The doctrine of penance was indisputably believed and practiced by the early Church, as reputable Protestant Church history reference works admit. [173] It was firmly established in the early Church, and did not substantially change in the Middle Ages, but was only developed, like all Catholic doctrines. It was the subject of much reasoned speculation and discussion among the Scholastics (such as St. Thomas Aquinas), but it was neither invented nor distorted at this time, as the above biblical evidence proves conclusively.
[171] Adam, Karl, The Spirit of Catholicism, tr. Justin McCann, rev. ed., Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1954 (orig. 1924 in German), 127-128.
[172] Gibbons, James Cardinal, The Faith of Our Fathers, New York: P.J. Kenedy & Sons, rev. ed., 1917, 308-309.
[173] Cross, F.L. & E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 1059; Douglas, J.D., ed., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, rev. ed., 1978, 762.
I have always understood that it is Luther's discussions with the church on indulgences that formed his position on sola Scriptura. It was their pointing towards what the church had taught, rather than what Scripture taught, that helped form his position.
Then what would he do with the above straightforward proof for indulgences from Scripture? Luther adopted sola Scriptura because he was forced to in a debate (with Eck, I believe). He couldn't accept Catholic authority where he disagreed with it, so he had to act as though his views were biblical over against the Catholic views. But all Scripture requires an interpretation, and why should anyone believe that Luther's was always correct when it conflicted with previous Catholic dogma?
Even the position of celibate clergy. That certainly is an issue for me that is central to Christianity--at least my faith and how I practice it (grin).
As a happily married Catholic apologist, who can't imagine myself not being married, I agree that it has a direct effect on our lifestyle.
Do I really not have an objection to say that the position of the RC does not rely solely upon the Word of God? And that therefore, Scripture is not central?
Not, I believe, on this point, because the superiority of singleness in terms of undistracted devotion to the Lord is very clear-cut teaching of the Apostle Paul, who was himself single. I swear that the objection to this teaching on the part of many Protestants has always mystified me, as I have always thought (even before I converted) that the biblical and practical reasoning behind the position of a celibate clergy was perfectly obvious.
I've written about it many times:
Clerical Celibacy: The Biblical Rationale
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
rationale.html
[if you want to see the outline of my biblical argument, read this one first]
Dialogue on Clerical Celibacy
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...l-
celibacy.html
Dialogue: Differences and Agreements on Celibacy of the Clergy (Dave Armstrong vs. Ken Temple)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...eements-
on.html
Dialogue on Objections to Clerical Celibacy (Dave Armstrong vs. "Grubb")
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...o-
clerical.html
Dialogue on Objections to Clerical Celibacy, Round Two (Dave Armstrong vs. "Grubb")
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...lerical_12.html
The Irrational Antipathy of Luther, Calvin, and Other Protestants to Clerical Celibacy
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...her-
calvin.html
So, I understand that this (centrality of Scripture) is what you believe. And I surely don't want to bog down a discussion. I'm just not sure I can pass by it without comment.
Well...I mean, obviously I can't.
That's good! I enjoy our discussion quite a bit. I hope it will continue. I specialize in biblical evidences for Catholic belief, so you have come to the right person if you are inquiring how we justify certain beliefs that you find "unbiblical" or insufficiently biblical.
Dave,
Don't have time to cover everything; but just to point out that the context for Irenaeus' Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 3 is in middle of his argument from Book 3, chapters 1 and 2 and chapter 5, where he says, since the tradition does exist in the churches, let us revert to the Scriptural proof . . .
Book 3, chapter 3 cannot be properly interpreted without the surrounding conext of Book 3, chapters 1, 2 and 5. Book 3 is in the middle of his argument, that the Gnostics distort the Scriptures, and use other sources, secret traditions, oral traditons, vive voce, etc.
Chapter I.—The apostles did not commence to preach the Gospel, or to place anything on record until they were endowed with the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit. They preached one God alone, Maker of heaven and earth.
1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
This shows the rule of faith or tradition is a proto-Nicean or pre-Apostles creed, fully in agreement with the Scriptures against the Gnostics about the one true creator God, the Father. The context is against Gnosticism, not protestantism.
Book 3, 1:2 Against Heresies, continued . . .
2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.
Continued, Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 2:1
Chapter II.—The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.
1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” 1 Cor. ii. 6. And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself. . . .
Book 3, chapters 3 and 4, which you provided in arguing against Chemintz, is followed by chapter 5, where he shows that the deposit that he is talking about is the Scriptures, the rule of faith or tradition is in the Scriptures; and by taking about the churches and succession of bishops and presbyeters, he is merely using more evidence that they at that time
disagreed with Gnosticism
Held to the Scriptures
Believed in one true creator God called the Father (Not the Gnostic Demi-Urge or Pleroma and immanations)
Followed the rule of faith, which is the summary doctrinal content that is all in the Scriptures.
He says, check out all the churches, and you will see that we all agree with each other on this issue. There is nothing there about secret traditons of Mary, transubstantiation, Infallibility, Indulgences, treasury of Merit, etc.
Nothing in Irenaeus that you quote goes against Evangelicalism, when understood in context of all of this surrounding context I provide. Chemnitz may have been sloppy by saying "nothing more than", etc., but that is not a doctrinal mistake, just sloppy in his wording, and summarizing. (On this point; I don't have time to cover all your other points; but I hope to look more at it later and Tertullian.)
That is the point that Chemnitz is trying to make.
Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 5:
Chapter V.—Christ and His apostles, without any fraud, deception, or hypocrisy, preached that one God, the Father, was the founder of all things. They did not accommodate their doctrine to the prepossessions of their hearers.
1. Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, John xiv. 6. and that no lie is in Him. . . .
Against Heresies continued from book 3, chapter 5
. . . As also David says, prophesying His birth from a virgin, and the resurrection from the dead, “Truth has sprung out of the earth.” Ps. lxxxv. 11. The apostles, likewise, being disciples of the truth, are above all falsehood; for a lie has no fellowship with the truth, just as darkness has none with light, but the presence of the one shuts out that of the other. Our Lord, therefore, being the truth, did not speak lies; and whom He knew to have taken origin from a defect, He never would have acknowledged as God, even the God of all, the Supreme King, too, and His own Father, an imperfect being as a perfect one, an animal one as a spiritual, Him who was without the Pleroma as Him who was within it. Neither did His disciples make mention of any other God, or term any other Lord, except Him, who was truly the God and Lord of all, as these most vain sophists affirm that the apostles did with hypocrisy frame their doctrine according to the capacity of their hearers, and gave answers after the opinions of their questioners,—fabling blind things for the blind, according to their blindness; for the dull according to their dullness; for those in error according to their error. And to those who imagined that the Demiurge alone was God, they preached him; but to those who are capable of comprehending the unnamable Father, they did declare the unspeakable mystery through parables and enigmas: so that the Lord and the apostles exercised the office of teacher not to further the cause of truth, but even in hypocrisy, and as each individual was able to receive it!
"He claims that Irenaeus is doing "nothing else" in three entire books of this treatise than proving everything right from Scripture."
Chemintz was sloppy here in his wording; but Ireneaus' listing of the churches and succession of presbyters and bishops was an added proof that all the churches held to the rule of faith, which content wise, was a pre-Nicean, pre-Apostles creed kind of doctrinal statement, all in Scripture. That rule of faith, or tradition, at that time, is fully consistent with classic Evangelical Protestantism that affirms the Apostles Creed, and the Nicean Creed.
Commenting by HaloScan
