Is transubstantiation a Monophysite doctrine?

CrimsonCatholic and Perry Robinson participated a few months ago in a fairly technical but somewhat interesting discussion at David Waltz's blog.
CrimsonCatholic made a very interesting statement:

The key feature of Chalcedonian theology is that Christ's nature is exactly the same as ours, so what happens to the human nature in Christ happens to everyone who is "in Christ Jesus" (to use St. Paul's term) by grace, including the sharing of the divine glory.

I'd like to ask a few questions, if we're going to take this consistently with the rest of our theology.
So Christ's nature if exactly the same as mine. My nature is human. Part of being human (as opposed to being divine) is to be limited to a particular physical location at any one time, is it not? My body cannot be in more than one place at any one time. That's obvious.

Now, Christ Himself, at the time of His Incarnation, took upon Himself a human nature and a physical body. At the time of His Resurrection, His body became glorified and immortal; He doesn't necessarily have blood anymore, but He retains flesh and physical tangibility, among other properties. He can perhaps walk through walls, or perhaps not; John 20 simply says, "when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, 'Peace be with you.'" Maybe He created a key and let Himself in; maybe He knocked and they let Him in; maybe He passed through the door via "teleportation"; the text does not tell us. Obviously He can perform miracles such as walking on water and perhaps passing through walls, disappearing right in front of two disciples at dinnertime on the road to Emmaus, etc, but we never see Christ in more than one place at any one time.

CCC 1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."

1379 The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood. . . ."

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

On any given Sunday, or really most any day of the week, Mass is performed at thousands of churches across the globe. On any given Sunday morning, to be sure, the Eucharistic host is transubstantiated in multiple locations, at the same time. How well does this match with the conception of Christ's body's substance? It is supposed to be of human substance, yet here it displays a trait better assigned to divinity, that of omnipresence. Christ's human body, it turns out, is NOT "exactly the same as ours", as I don't think CrimsonCatholic has ever been at two or more places at once. I know I haven't, much as I'd like to be; I could get a lot more accomplished!

And the situation seems to be even worse than that. Take a look at this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated Hosts and particles that remain on the or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion.

Thus the red candle/light that one often sees perpetually lit on the altar of a Roman church - one or more transubstantiated hosts are still there. The real and substantial body of Jesus Christ is enclosed there. In many hundreds or thousands of churches across the world, simultaneously.

So, taking the doctrine that CrimsonCatholic has expressed and applying it consistently across the board, we run into a serious snag in the doctrine of the Eucharist. It would seem that, if transubstantiation is true, then the RC position leads to a denial of the true human nature of Christ, because the substantial, real human body of Christ is simultaneously in thousands of different places, thus applying a divine trait to Christ's human nature. Not Chalcedonian at all, then; more like Monophysite.

Luther: There are now as many doctrines as there are heads

TurretinFan is much more gracious than I am. He's been going through Steve Ray's 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (PDF alert). TurretinFan came upon #30:

30) If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that “there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?

TFan did a great job of locating a very similar Luther quote, via a book by Joseph Lortz:

The whole history of philosophy and religion, of Christian heresies, and finally of the Reformation itself, is convincing proof of a statement that Luther himself affirmed in his First Lecture on the Psalms: “Unless doctrine is authoritatively promulgated by a living human being endowed with the authority to teach, there will be as many doctrines as there are heads.” Joseph Lortz, The Reformation: a problem for today‎ (Newman Press, 1964), p. 246

In his lecture on the Psalms (about 1512), he had said: “Unless doctrine can be authoritatively guaranteed by one living man, there will be as many doctrines as there are men.” Joseph Lortz, The Reformation: a problem for today‎ (Newman Press, 1964), p. 149

I say TFan is more gracious, because he says, "I'm quite sure Steve Ray cannot give an accurate citation for that alleged quotation from Luther." I'd go a bit further, and say Steve Ray probably doesn't even know what a "Lortz" is. In fact, I'd speculate that Ray (or David Palm, if it was his question) actually was using a different Luther quote, but cited it incorrectly (see this link also).

As TFan points out, if indeed these men are using the same quote Lortz is referring to, it's a pre-Reformation quote, not a quote from the end of his life, and it has nothing to do with Luther being "frustrated." But if my suspicion is correct, the botched quote they are using is from 1525: not the end of his life either. So, when Ray says,"frustrated at the end of his life," this was just added on for propaganda purposes. Either scenario demonstrates the question is bogus.

It is true that Luther lamented the rise of sects, as well as sects within Romanism. But Luther doesn't blame the perspicuity of Scripture, nor does his blame sola scriptura. He blames Satan and sin. He fully expected the Gospel to cause divisions. He fully expected the preaching of the Scriptures to be attacked by those misusing it.

If any of you haven't read TFan's critique of Ray's 35 Loaded Questions, I strongly suggest you begin doing so. The questions are loaded alright: their loaded with errors, and I doubt we'll see any serious responses by Mr. Ray to TFan's analysis.

One final irony: Steve Ray sells the Collected Works of Martin Luther on his website, I kid you not. I suggest perhaps he buy this product from himself and at least cite things accurately.

Luther's Drinking (Part One)

Through the centuries, one of the popular personal charges against Luther was alcoholism. I've written about this before, and probably elsewhere if you search through the blog. Of course, the majority of those making this charge were (and are) Roman Catholics.

The most detailed look at Luther's drinking I've ever seen is found in Hartmann Grisar's Luther III. Grisar was a Roman Catholic scholar. His work is typically classified with the earlier Roman Catholic destructive criticism of Luther. While Grisar is indeed a hostile critic whose approach is no longer followed by Roman Catholic scholars, his six volumes on Luther are indeed valuable research tools. If there's one thing that can be said about Grisar, his work on Luther was thorough, and his documentation and use of primary sources is good. He didn't simply cite works that cited Luther. In fact, he was bold enough to actually correct insinuations and errors in Heinrich Denfile's (another Roman Catholic scholar) work on Luther. Grisar worked with primary sources. For the topic of Luther's drinking, Grisar's analysis spans twenty five pages. Reading it depends on how well one can handle tedium.

Some of the most facinating (yet tedious!) material is Grisar's exploration of earlier Roman Catholics that charged Luther with alcoholism. Grisar basically did what I've been doing: looking up obscure quotes, and putting them in a context. He states, "Luther's enemies must resign themselves to abandon some of the proofs formerly adduced for his excessive addiction to drink" Here are some of his Luther quotes and analysis. Time allowing, I'd like to work through all twenty five pages.

1. "If I have a can of beer, I want the beer-barrel as well."

...the fact being overlooked, that he only made use of this expression in order to illustrate, by a very common example, the idea expressed in the heading of the chapter in which it occurs, viz. that "No one is ever satisfied." Everyone, he continues, desires to go one step higher, everyone wants to attain to something more, and, then, with other examples, he gives that mentioned above, where,for "I," we might equally well substitute "we," which indeed we find employed elsewhere in this same connection : "If we have one Gulden, we want a hundred.


2."We eat ourselves to death, and drink ourselves to death; we eat and drink ourselves into poverty and down to hell."

Here Luther is merely speaking against the habit of drinking which had become so prevalent, and dominated some to such an extent that death and hell were the lamentable consequences to be feared.

3. Luther says that he is not "drunk," but is writing "in the morning hours."

Must we infer, then, that he was in the habit of writing when drunk, or that in the afternoon he was not usually sober? Must he be considered drunk whenever he does not state plainly that he is sober? The truth is that such expressions were merely his way of speaking. In the important passage here under consideration he writes: "Possibly it may be asserted later that I did not sufficiently weigh what I say here against those who deny the presence of Christ in the Sacrament; but I am not drunk or giddy; I know what I am saying and what it will mean to me on Judgment Day and at the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ." Thus he is speaking most seriously and uses this curious verbal artifice simply to emphasise his earnestness. Were additional proof necessary it might be found in other passages ; for instance: "Christ was not drunk when He said this," viz. the Eucharistic words of consecration, the literal meaning of which Luther is upholding against the Strasburg Sacramentarians.

4. In a letter to his wife, Luther says that he preferred the beer and wine he was used to at home to what he was having at Dessau, and "Yesterday I had some poor stuff to drink so that I had to begin singing: 'If I can't drink deep then I am sad, for a good deep drink ever makes me so glad".

It is quite unnecessary to take this as a song sung by a "tipsy man"; it is simply a jesting reference to a popular ditty which quite possibly he had actually struck up to get rid of his annoyance at the quality of the liquor. "You would do well," he continues in the same jocular vein, "to send me over the whole cellar full of my usual wine, and a bottle of your beer as often as you can, else I shall not turn up any more for the new brew."

5. Luther calls himself, "The corpulent Doctor"

No one who is familiar with his homely mode of speech will take offence at his calling himself on one occasion the "corpulent Doctor," and in any case this involves neither gluttony nor drunkenness. Moreover, the words occur in a serious connection, for we shall hear it from him during the last days of his life: " When I return again to Wittenberg I shall lay myself in my coffin and give the worms a corpulent doctor to feast on," referring, of course, to his natural stoutness. Offence has also been taken at a sentence met with in Luther's Table-Talk, where he says of his contemporaries of fifty years before : "How thin they [i.e. their ranks] have become" ; from which it was inferred that he wished them a luxurious life and corpulence, and that he "regarded pot bellies as an ornament and a thing to be desired." From its context, however, the meaning of the word "thin" is clear. What Luther means is : How few of them remain in the land of the living.

6. Luther says he would like to be more frequently in the company of those "good fellows, the students," "the beer is good, the parlour-maid pretty, the lads friendly."

Such is one of the statements brought forward against him to show his inordinate love of drink. Yet, when examined, the letter is found to say nothing of any yearning of Luther's to join in the drinking-bouts of the students or of any interest of his in the maid. "Two honest students" had been recommended to Luther, and the letter informs its addressee, the Mansfeld Chancellor Miiller at Eisleben, of the rumour that "too much was being consumed without any necessity by the pair"; the Chancellor was to inform the Count of Mansfeld of the fact in order that he (whose proteges they may have been) "might keep an eye on them." Then come the words: "What harm would friendly supervision do? The beer is good, the parlour-maid pretty and the lads young; the students really behave very well, and my only regret is that owing to my weak health, I am unable to be oftener with them." This letter surely does Luther credit. It testifies to his solicitude for the two youths committed to his care; seeing they are still " good and pious," he is anxious to preserve them from intemperance and other dangers, and regrets that, owing to his poor state of health, he is unable to have the pleasure of visiting these young fellows more often.

7. Lemnius (a contemporary of Luther)is reported to have said: "His excessive indulgence in wine and beer made Luther at times so ill that he quite expected to die."

No such statement occurs in the works of Lemnius... The above words are a modern invention, though one author, strange to say, actually tacked them on to the authentic passage in Lemnius as though they had belonged to the latter.

8. Excessive indulgence in some Malvasian wine was, on Luther's own admission, the cause of a malady which troubled him for a considerable time in 1529.

Luther's letter in question speaks, however, of a "severe and almost fatal catarrh," which lasted for a long time and almost deprived him of his voice; others, too, says Luther, had suffered from the catarrh (no great wonder in the month of March or April), but not to the same extent as he. He had imprudently aggravated the trouble possibly by preaching too energetically or and here comes the incriminating passage " by drinking some adulterated Malvasian to the health of Amsdorf." Such were his words to his confidential friend Jonas. The fact is that a wine so expensive as Malvasian was then very liable to being adulterated, the demand far exceeding the supply of this beverage, which was always expected to figure on the table on great occasions. At any rate, there is no mention here of Luther's illness having arisen from continuous and excessive indulgence. in wine.

On Spinning Luther

I recall hearing John Gerstner explain that one of the best scholars on Jonathan Edwards wasn't even a Christian, or even a theist. I've always found that fascinating - a person would choose to be an expert on a historical personage in whom he personally disagreed with on a basic presuppositional level.

I'm not an expert on the life and work of Martin Luther by any means, though I do share something similar with this gentleman. I'm a non-Lutheran that has a keen interest in Martin Luther. That is, I've studied Luther from a non-Lutheran perspective.

I've explained this before, but yet, I'm still viewed with deep suspicions from Lutherans and probably even some of my Reformed brethren (when my back is turned). I'd probably have a lot more Lutheran support if I were Lutheran. I'd probably have a lot more Reformed support if I didn't spend the time on the subjects I do. But this blog is not about climbing to the top of the theological food chain. It's about providing a source for the truth about obscure quotes and facts that get thrown around the Internet as propaganda. Will a lot of people read it? No, probably not. But those people that read some sort of outrageous Luther quote, wonder about it, and take two seconds to do a little further digging, will be pleasantly surprised at what they find. Reformation History has never been a close friend of the current batch of pop-Roman Catholic apologists. They've written enough on Luther to keep me busy for years.

Typically Roman Catholics don't trust me, but for much different reasons. In dialog recently with a Roman Catholic, it was stated, "Please stop with the spin and give a straight answer." Some Roman Catholics think any defense or counter evidence on Luther's life is a deceptive ploy. They think I'm so dedicated to the original Protestant that every ounce of his being gets a free pass, and I'm the master spin doctor. Then there was this comment left recently on this blog:

I do recognize you normaly [sic] refuse to take a position on what a particluar [sic] quote DOES mean (to you), but prefer only to put yourself in a position to criticize what other people say about it. You depict yourself as being someone who knows A LOT about Luther, and no doubt you do, so why not take a stand in regards to what you actually believe about the man?

So, if I discuss the historical facts of Luther's life, I'm a spin doctor. If I simply post something Luther said out of interest, I'm not taking a stand as to what my opinion is of his words. With the former, my hero must be protected by all means possible. With the later, I'll do whatever it takes to avoid contradicting the depth of wisdom of my hero. I assume most people wouldn't arrive at these conclusions. Indeed, they are ravings without substance.

Roman Catholics try to deflect the guilt of their church’s abuses and doctrinal confusion that Luther rightly fought against. Instead of dealing with the blatant abuses, need for reform, and muddled theology inherent in the sixteenth century church, the tactic is to discredit Luther by any means possible. Simply because Luther was wrong on say, something like his attitude toward the Jews does not necessarily mean he was wrong on the need for church reform, the proclamation of the gospel of justification by faith alone, or sola scriptura. No serious or sane Protestant argues that Luther was an infallible interpreter, divine authority, or immaculately conceived. We realize Luther was a man of many faults. Yet when he proclaims the gospel, he is absolutely correct because the Bible clearly teaches it. When he speaks out against the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church he is right because history shows this was the case. When he makes terrible statements, he’s not right (or wrong) because he was somehow a Protestant pope or the originator of Protestantism, he’s wrong because a clear exposition of the Scriptures do not support such terrible statements.

There are plenty of theological areas I disagree with Luther on. Always keep in mind, I'm a Calvinist, really. There are also things Luther said or did that I think were sinful, but then again, this is the plight of all mankind. When I defend Luther's life, in some instances it's not to simply give him a free pass, it's to point out the argument being employed by a Roman Catholic (or whoever) is usually flawed, a double standard, or historically inaccurate.

On The Acronym TULIP: Who's Responsible?

Where did the acronym TULIP come from? In preparing some lecture materials, I came across the following web page: The Points of Calvinism: Retrospect and Prospect (PDF alert). The author asserts the TULIP acronym may be of late origin. He asserts the earliest reference to the acronym is in Loraine Boettner’s The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932). The author documents his sifting through Reformed literature over the centuries. While I don't agree with all the points being made, it was a very interesting read. I've often wondered who coined the acronym.

Boettner simply states: "The Five Points may be more easily remembered if they are associated with the word T-U-L-I-P; T, Total Inability ; U, Unconditional Election; L, Limited Atonement; I, Irresistible (Efficacious) Grace;and P, Perseverance of the Saints." Simply because he uses it, doesn't mean he was the mastermind of the acronym, but it is a rather curious fact that his is the first book to use it.

From TurretinFan: He found a Google book that predates Boettner:

Some eight years ago I had the privilege of hearing a popular lecture, by Dr. McAfee, of Brooklyn, upon the Five Points of Calvinism,given before the Presbyterian Union of Newark, New Jersey, which was most interesting as well as instructive. To aid the mind in remembering the Five Points, Dr. McAfee made use of the word Tulip, which, possessing five letters, lends itself nicely to the subject in hand, especially as it ends with the letter P, as will be seen later.

Taking the five letters, Dr. McAfee used them as follows:

1st, T stands for Total Depravity.

2d, U " " Universal Sovereignty.

3d, L " " Limited Atonement.

4th,I " " Irresistible Grace.

5th,P " " Perseverance of the Saints. Source

Luther: We must remove the Decalogue [Ten Commandments] out of sight and heart

A few years ago, I went looking for this Luther quote: "We must remove the Decalogue [Ten Commandments] out of sight and heart." I wrote about it here. I found something very similar to this quote in Luther’s Commentary on John, but this quote actually comes from a letter.

This one made it's way to cyberspace via Patrick O’Hare's The Facts About Luther (Illinois: Tan Books, 1987), 311. If you do a simple Google search, you can see how far this quote has travelled.

O'Hare documents it as De Wette 4, 188. "De Wette" refers to a collection of Luther's letters. The source is actually Luther's letter to Jerome Weller from July 1530. I have that letter posted here, and I also have a follow up post planned on the entirety of the letter. The relevant section is:

When I drink my wine unmixed, prattle with the greatest unconcern, eat more frequently, do you think that I have any other reason for doing these things than to scorn and spite the devil who has attempted to spite and scorn me? Would God I could commit some real brave sin to ridicule the devil, that he might see that I acknowledge no sin and am not conscious of having committed any. We must put the whole law entirely out of our eyes and hearts,--we, I say, whom the devil thus assails and torments. Whenever the devil charges us with our sins and pronounces us guilty of death and hell, we ought to say to him: I admit that I deserve death and hell; what, then, will happen to me? Why, you will be eternally damned! By no means; for I know One who has suffered and made satisfaction for me. His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Where He abides, there will I also abide.

Hartmann Grisar provides an alternate translation:

Sometimes it is necessary to drink more freely, to play and to jest and even to commit some sin (peccatum aliquod faciendum) out of hatred and contempt for the devil, so that he may get no chance of making a matter of conscience out of mere trifles; otherwise we shall be vanquished if we are too anxious about not committing sin. ... Oh that I could paint sin in a fair light, so as to mock at the devil and make him see that I acknowledge no sin and am not conscious of having committed any! I tell you, we must put all the Ten Commandments, with which the devil tempts and plagues us so greatly, out of sight and out of mind. If the devil up braids us with our sins and declares us to be deserving of death and hell, then we must say: I confess that I have merited death and hell, but what then? Are you for that reason to be damned eternally? By no means. I know One Who suffered and made satisfaction for me, viz. Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Where He is, there I also shall be.

Grisar and O'Hare are using two different sources. O'Hare is using Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken (5 volumes of letters), and Grisar is using the Weimar Edition of Luther's Works (which includes 11 volumes of letters). Interestingly, O'Hare actually cites the letter elsewhere in his book.

Usually this letter is singled out because of the counsel Luther gave to his friend to "drink more freely." For this quote though, Luther's alleged aversion to the Ten Commandments is in view. This is hardly the case, as I've documented here. When Luther makes strong statements against the Law, it's always the Law considered as a means of salvation or justification.

Luther: Is The Church Over Scripture?

Further they object: The church has accepted the four gospels, others they have not accepted. Thus the church is master over them. If not, who would know which gospel were true, perhaps Bartholomew's gospel or another? That sounds just as if we had the gospels from the church and not from God. Christianity has accepted the book, they say, therefore Christianity is over the book. I accept the teaching of Paul, therefore I am over his teaching. Oh, that they had made the distinction between confessing and haying authority! The Christian church confesses that the teaching, the Gospel, the book are true. But thereby the church is not given the authority over it. Then I could also say: I accept Christ, therefore I am over Christ. Or I would say of the prince of the land: Duke Hans of Saxony is my prince, not Duke George and the Margrave. I accept the former, not the latter; therefore because he is my prince, I am over him. Would he allow this? Would he allow his command to be changed? Is that indeed consistent?

Similarly, a lawyer could say: This command the emperor has fixed, that one a false teacher has fixed. Therefore this scholar stands over the emperor because he can distinguish between what the emperor has fixed and what another fixes. You've got to be kidding yourself! So they conclude quite foolishly: The Christian church confesses that this book and its teaching are true, therefore it is over them. These are rotten hoaxes. Christ has given the church this authority, to separate between truth and falsehood, as he says in Matthew 7:15: "Beware of false prophets!" When the evangelical teaching spread throughout the world from the apostles, upright teachers saw and received it; but other books that did not correspond to this, they discarded. So we also do. But I cannot conclude: Because I accept John's gospel, I am over the same. For this reason say: It is not true; the Christian church does not have the authority to change a single letter. For it is written in Matthew 5:19, "Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Add nothing and take nothing away. It should remain as Christ has ordered it.

Source: Irving L. Sangberg, Tr., The 1529 Holy Week and Easter Sermons of Dr. Martin Luther (St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press, 1999), pp. 40-41.

Luther Condemned the Word "Trinity"?

Here's one I found over on the Catholic Answers Forums:

"does anybody have documentaiton [sic] on Luther's criticism of the word 'Trinity'? I read about this in Newman, but don't have a source (I don't recall Newman giving one)"

Here is the Cardinal Newman quote in question:

Lutheranism has by this time become in most places almost simple heresy or infidelity; it has terminated, if it has even yet reached its limit, in a denial both of the Canon and the Creed, nay, of many principles of morals. Accordingly the question arises, whether these conclusions are in fairness to be connected with its original teaching or are a corruption. And it is no little aid towards its resolution to find that Luther himself at one time rejected the Apocalypse, called the Epistle of St. James "straminea," condemned the word "Trinity," fell into a kind of Eutychianism in his view of the Holy Eucharist, and in a particular case sanctioned bigamy. Calvinism, again, in various distinct countries, has become Socinianism, and Calvin himself seems to have denied our Lord's Eternal Sonship and ridiculed the Nicene Creed. {199}[source]

I've been searching around looking for exactly what Newman may have been referring to. Given the examples he uses, it's obvious, his Luther scholarship was a bit weak. That is, he repeats the popular Roman Catholic polemic against Luther.

Each instance I've read from Luther using the word "Trinity" is positive. If Luther did strongly condemn the word, it must have been an isolated instance, or a few isolated instances. That is, if one simply searches Luther's Works for the word "Trinity," you would never arrive at Newman's "Luther condemned the word 'Trinity' ".... at least as something consistently held throughout Luther's career. Keep in mind, condemning a word is not the same thing as condemning a doctrine. Even Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar stated,

Certain controversialists have undoubtedly been in the wrong in making out Luther to have been sceptical about, or even opposed at heart to, many of the ancient dogmas which he never attacked, for instance, the Trinity, or the Divinity of Christ. A few vague and incautious statements occasionally let slip by him are more than counterbalanced by a wealth of others which tell in favour of his faith, and he himself would have been the last to admit the unfortunate inferences drawn more or less rightly from certain propositions emitted by him. [source]

Even the folks on the Catholic Answers board figured this one out. One person quoted a sermon from Luther that states:

Today we celebrate the festival of the Holy Trinity, to which we must briefly allude, so that we may not celebrate it in vain. It is indeed true that the name “Trinity” is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man. For this reason it sounds somewhat cold and we had better speak of “God” than of the “Trinity.”

This word signifies that there are three persons in God. It is a heavenly mystery which the world cannot understand. I have often told you that this, as well as every other article of faith, must not be based upon reason or comparison, but must be understood and established by means of passages from the Scriptures, for God has the only perfect knowledge and knows how to speak concerning himself.

The source for this quote can be found here in a limited preview with some pages missing. The full text can be found in the Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), vol. 2.1 p. 406-407). In this early sermon from 1522, Luther goes on to vigorously argue for the Trinity from the Bible.

A very helpful explanation as to Luther's approach to the word "Trinity" and the limitations of human language and reason can be found here:



In fact, in the very sermon quoted on the Catholic answers forum, Luther immediately goes on to say:

The great universities have invented manifold distinctions, dreams and fictions by means of which they would explain the Holy Trinity, and have made fools of themselves. We shall therefore quote only passages from the Scriptures in order to determine and establish the divinity of Christ. In the first place, we quote from the New Testament, where we find many proof texts; for instance, John I, I-3 : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made." Now if he is not made, but is himself the Maker, he must indeed be God. John also says afterwards: "And the Word became flesh." [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.1 p. 407].

He concludes a few sections later, "Therefore we cling to the Scriptures, those passages which testify of the Trinity of God, and we say: I know very well that in God there are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; but how they can be one I do not know, neither should I know it."

Elsewhere Luther comments on the inadequacy of the term "Trinity": "The words trinitas, unitas are really mathematical terms. And yet we can't talk about God without using such words. But at the same time, it is also true that when we use human language to speak about God, it seems to have a ring to it, a whole new connotation" [Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 6, pp. 206-207]. "True [Trinity] is not choice German, nor has it a pleasing sound, when we designate God by the word 'Dreifaltigkeit' (nor is the Latin, Trinitas, more elegant): but since we have no better term, we must employee these" [Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 4.2, pp. 7-8]. I'm sure a plentiful supply of similar sentiment from Luther could be brought forth as testimony to the fact he didn't deny the Trinity, and also used the word positively.

Paul Althaus provides a good overview of Luther's understanding of the Trinty:



Source: Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966], pp. 199-201

Here's another tidbit to go along with this:

Though correct for leading the Reformation Movement, Martin Luther had been deceived for years on 95 or more points of Roman Catholic teaching. The trinity was not a subject of concern to him. As it turns out, the trinity was the 96th point that Martin Luther did not include in his thesis nailed to the church door.[source]

First it's asserted The Trinity didn't concern Luther. Then it's asserted the Trinity was left off the 95 Theses. Interestingly, the Trinity does appear in Luther's earlier Disputation Against Scholastic Theology, but in no sense important to the charge being asserted. Perhaps the writer is intending to say, "the Trinity should have been the 96th point." That is, the author of the web page finds the Trinity to be a heretical concoction of the Roman Catholic Church. This is probably the sense in which it's intended.

Clash of the Titans- Staples vs. Sungenis

If you enjoy the unity of Roman Catholic apologetics, you'll enjoy this one:

Tim Staples vs. Robert Sungenis

Highlights-

Staples: I sent a private email to a friend to warn her of Bob Sungenis’ whackiness” that was not intended to become public information. I am not going to enter into a lengthy argument with you about this. I have gone down that road before with Mr. Sungenis and I have made the judgment that it is not worth the time. But now that I have been threatened with some untold “consequences” for my actions, and I have been accused of “slander” by Mr. Sungenis, I will spell out for you SOME of the reasons why I said what I said to my friend.

Sungenis: The real problem, in my opinion, is that Catholic Answers (for whom Tim works) has chosen to take the politically correct road in their treatment of this issue. Karl Keating was sent my Galileo Was Wrong books, but as far as I know, he still hasn’t read them and has never interacted with any of the arguments presented in them. Instead, Karl keeps repeating the same elementary viewpoints he has used in the past, but which have all been scientifically disqualified.

Where Did the Term "Sola Ecclesia" Come From?

You were all shocked when the truth was revealed that Al Gore invented the Internet. Now, the inventor of the phrase "Sola Ecclesia" steps forth:

Cajetan on the Canon: He's Ok Bcause He's One Of Us

A few weeks back I mentioned my recent acquisition: Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy (Washington: The Catholic University Press of America, 1978).

A contemporary of Luther, Cajetan was a leading Roman Catholic scholar and deeply affiliated with the Papacy. I usually mention Cajetan because of his views on the canon of Sacred Scripture.

Cajetan's opinions are interesting to juxtapose against Luther's. Romanists typically malign Luther mercilessly on the canon. For instance, on a discussion thread I'm involved with, it was stated, "Luther was a Catholic who denigrated Scripture, removed 7 Books from the Old Testament as he saw fit, and attempted to do the same with Revelation, James, Jude and Hebrews. He tampered with Scripture to boost his new doctrines..." This is a typical caricature.

A person stating something like the above typically has no idea how to navigate their way through Cajetan's view on the canon. Recall some of the charges against Luther: he questioned (or denied) the canonicty of James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. He saw these books as not the works of apostles, but of second century Christians. He also classified the Old Testament Apocrypha as: not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.

Cardinal Cajetan also questioned the authenticity of certain Biblical books and if they were canonical. The Catholic Encyclopedia points out he questioned “the authorship of several epistles… Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia takes a stronger position on his “questioning” and says, “He expressed strong doubts about the literal meaning of Canticles and the Apocalypse; the authenticity of Mk 16:9-20 and Jn 8:1-11; and the authorship of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John, and Jude.” In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ). In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

The dilemma is obvious: how can Luther be chastised for being the sixteenth century Marcion, while Cajetan held very similar views, and was a leading Roman Catholic scholar?

Here's some interesting information from the preface to Cajetan Responds by Jared Wicks:

Cajetan's biblical commentaries occasioned no little admiratio. From Luther, there is a recorded remark, "Cajetan, in his later days, has become Lutheran." Considerable zeal was expended by Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P., against the exegetical work of his retired Master General. Catharinus submitted a denunciation before the still acerbic faculty in Paris and proceedings began that could have led to another book-burning Clement VII intervened in a letter to the Parisian professors in September, 1533, to protect the man who was by then the Pope's regular source of valued theological advice. Proceedings were halted at this time in Paris, but not before an open letter of the Parisian theologians had begun to circulate listing the censurable propositions excerpted from the commentaries. The Sorbonne masters charged Cajetan with imprudently taking these notions from Erasmus or even Luther. The letter ended with a stinging rebuke of Cajetan's rashness in abandoning the long approved Vulgate text to base his work on new versions in no way guaranteed for their exactness. In 1534 a Wittenberg printer, no doubt with considerable glee over this discomfiture of Luther's old adversary, brought out the open letter in pamphlet form. Catharinus published his criticisms of Cajetan's commentaries in 1535, revised and expanded them in 1542, and obtained a censure by the Paris faculty against Cajetan's biblical works in August, 1544.

The specific charges brought against Cajetan concerned the reservations and plain doubts he had expressed about the apostolic origin of the final eleven verses of Mark's gospel, the story of the adultress in John 8, and five whole epistles of the New Testament (Hebrews, James, Jude, and 1 and 2 John). These views were especially serious in Cajetan's case, since he had laid down the rule that apostolic authorship or direct approval by an apostle was normative for inclusion in the New Testament canon. Following Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed doctrine.

-snip-

Certainly Cajetan's commentaries deserved better treatment than they received at the hands of the fearful Catharinus and the censorious Parisian faculty. Cajetan's confident approach to the biblical text did not fit into the mentality of cautious defensiveness that began to predominate in the Catholic world less than a decade after his death. From our vantage point, it may well be that the most significant results of Cajetan's dedicated work on Scripture are to be found in the concise treatises he wrote in the final four years of his life.

I found this very interesting because I didn't realize Cajetan's views did cause some controversy, at least with one man. So what does this information do to the Luther / Cajetan comparison?

First it shows us that someone close to the papacy was able to express similar ideas as Luther and be protected by the papacy. And why not? Cajetan, and Luther had every right within the Roman Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon before an offical declaration by a council.

Second, It appears to me, the quest for ad fontes sources was a major impetus provoking the textual and historical criticism of sixteenth century scholars, both on the Roman Catholic and Protestant side. Other documents besides Scripture were being looked over as well. Forgeries of the Early Church Father's were uncovered. Wicks points out that Cajetan's criticism of the Vulgate drew heated response as well. The tradition of the Vulgate appears to have clouded many minds.

Third, the problem of bias still stands. How is it not a double standard for contemporary Romanists to chastise Luther's New Testament criticism, while completely ignoring Cajetan (or Erasmus as well)? Why is it the man protected by Clement VII gets a pass?

One interesting source has found its way on to the Internet: Pre-Tridentine Doctrine: A review of the Commentary on the Scriptures of Cardinal Cajetan. It's an old source, but gives yet another look into the life of Cajetan. Interesting finds:

Following St. Jerome, the Cardinal finds great difficulty in assigning the Epistle of St. James to the " brother of the Lord " its opening salutation which differs so greatly from the ordinary apostolic formula playing in his mind a preliminary obstacle to its apostolic origin. The violent abuse which the Roman advocates have heaped upon Luther for entertaining the same doubt stands in strange contrast with the fact that Cajetan s views on the doubtfulness of this and many other parts of the canon have never given him a place in the " Index," or even detracted from his general authority as a divine. The salutation appears to him so brief and secular as to present no point of affinity to those of the other apostles.

-snip-

The Second Epistle of Peter he held to be of very doubtful authenticity, but considers that St. Jerome's scepticism regarding it, on account of its difference of style from that of the former, would tell against either epistle with equal force. For either might represent St. Peter s style, and two of the Catholic Epistles claim to be his. But difference of style he regards as not a sufficient criterion, as many writings of the same author (as the Registrum of Gregory the Great and his other works) present equal differences.

-snip-

Yet (and this is not a little remarkable) the writings of Cajetan, notwithstanding the freedom with which he rejects the Apocrypha, and claims a "liberty of prophesying" such as the Roman Church has never admitted in its greatest saints, have never been placed in the Index, though the bitter attack of Catharinus, himself a member of the Council of Trent, and of great influence in Rome, might have well secured for them a place in that Walhalla of sacred and profane literature. The writings of Cajetan, however, needed not this posthumous advertisement. Nay, he has a yet more illustrious one in the great work of Pope Benedict XIV., " De Synodo Dicecesana " (1. xiii. c. xix. sect, xxviii.), where he is bravely defended by the Pope against Catharinus. "Catharinum excessisse in censura, tum quia non fideliter Cajetani sententiam retulerit, tum quia non admodum solide eam impugnaverit, facillime ostenditur."

Roman Catholic Tradition: It's Roots and Evolution - By: William Webster

William Webster has revised his website, and has a page dedicated to mp3 audio lectures:

Part 1 » 8 Lectures Dealing with the subjects of

• 1 - Introduction, Overview of the Issues
• 2 - Sola Scriptura: What does Scripture say?
• 3 - The Canon
• 4 - Sola Scriptura: The Fathers Say Yes
• 5 - Tradition: It's Meaning in the Early Church
• 6 - The Papacy: Matthew 16 - Peter and the Rock
• 7 - The Papacy: Papal Primacy - Fact or Fiction?
• 8 - The Papacy: Fallible Infallibility

Part 2 » 8 Lectures Dealing with the subjects of

• 1 - Mary: Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity
• 2 - Mary: Assumption, Medriartrix - CoRedemptrix
• 3 - The Sacraments, The Priesthood, Baptism
• 4 - The Eucharist, The Mass
• 5 - Confession and Penance, Purgatory
• 6 - Justification
• 7 - Faith
• 8 - Summary and Conclusion

The Long Ending of Mark

"This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent." [source]

I didn't know that, or if I did at one time, I've since forgotten it.

Interesting tidbit: Every reference I've checked so far indicates Luther treated the long ending as Sacred Scripture.

A contemporary Luther's, the great Roman Catholic theologian Cardinal Cajetan,doubted the authenticity of Mk 16:9-20.

Taking Irenaeus out of context

And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.

(Against Heresies, IV, 32, 1) [only the last sentence]

Dave Armstrong, by quoting only this last sentence of Irenaeus' section, is trying to make Irenaeus sound like a Roman Catholic; although in "seed" form (binding authority, apostolic succession) whereas if one reads the context of the whole section, both before and after, we find that what Irenaeus is saying is consistent with what any doctrinally sound Reformed Protestant would say today.

Let's look at the whole passage of Irenaeus' point here:

Against Heresies, Book IV, 32

Chapter XXXII.—That one God was the author of both Testaments, is confirmed by the authority of a presbyter who had been taught by the apostles.

1. After this fashion also did a presbyter, a disciple of the apostles, reason with respect to the two testaments, proving that both were truly from one and the same God. For [he maintained] that there was no other God besides Him who made and fashioned us, and that the discourse of those men has no foundation who affirm that this world of ours was made either by angels, or by any other power whatsoever, or by another God. For if a man be once moved away from the Creator of all things, and if he grant that this creation to which we belong was formed by any other or through any other [than the one God], he must of necessity fall into much inconsistency, and many contradictions of this sort; to which he will [be able to] furnish no explanations which can be regarded as either probable or true. And, for this reason, those who introduce other doctrines conceal from us the opinion which they themselves hold respecting God, because they are aware of the untenable and absurd nature of their doctrine, and are afraid lest, should they be vanquished, they should have some difficulty in making good their escape. But if any one believes in [only] one God, who also made all things by the Word, as Moses likewise says, “God said, Let there be light: and there was light;” (Genesis 1:3) and as we read in the Gospel, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was nothing made;” ( John 1:3) and the Apostle Paul [says] in like manner, “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all” ( Ephesians 4:5-6) this man will first of all “hold the head, from which the whole body is compacted and bound together, and, through means of every joint according to the measure of the ministration of each several part, maketh increase of the body to the edification of itself in love.” ( a combination of Ephesians 4:16 and Colossians 2:19) ,And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.

2. For all the apostles taught that there were indeed two testaments among the two peoples; but that it was one and the same God who appointed both for the advantage of those men who were to believe in God, I have proved in the third book from the very teaching of the apostles; and that the first testament was not given without reason, or to no purpose, or in an accidental sort of manner; but that it subdued those to whom it was given to the service of God, for their benefit (for God needs no service from men), and exhibited a type of heavenly things, inasmuch as man was not yet able to see the things of God through means of immediate vision; and foreshadowed the images of those things which [now actually] exist in the Church, in order that our faith might be firmly established; and contained a prophecy of things to come, in order that man might learn that God has foreknowledge of all things."

So, at first glance, the last sentence by itself that Dave quotes is made to look like some kind of Roman Catholic doctrine of a "seed" that will develop into the infallibility of the church leaders and then the Bishop of Rome and then centuries and almost two millennia later, in 1870, finally be revealed for the people of God for guidance and knowing the right interpretations and solving all problems of disunity with the supposed ability to walk into the room and say "Thus says the Lord".

Irenaeus is fighting Gnosticism, and the various forms of it; Valentinian, Basiledes, and Marcion ( and others also). Gnosticism was not monolithic. Protestants disagree vehemently with Gnosticism; so most of the points that RCs try to score in debate by using Irenaeus and Tertullian and others are anachronistic with the way they are trying to make them be anti-Protestantism. We are not claiming that the early church was Protestant, only that they are what they are, the early church, and that they are not Roman Catholic. As Dr. White says all the time, "let the early church be the early church".


Every time Irenaeus spells out the content of the "rule of faith", it is a doctrinal summary in simple form of the main doctrines of the ecumenical creeds of the first 5 centuries. (see Against Heresies, 1:10:1-2 and 3:4:2) Protestants agree with this. There are no Roman Catholic distinctives or "seeds" to develop ( in a Biblical or legitimate exegetical way) later in these doctrinal summaries or creeds. To claim that is anachronistic and not dealing with history fairly. The Roman Catholic "developments" later in history are exaggerations, distortions, mutations, deformities, corruptions.

Irenaeus shows at the beginning of his section here, that a presbyter learned the apostles doctrine that is in Scripture, that the OT is inspired Scripture and the God of the OT is the same God in the NT and so he is refuting the idea of the Gnostics of an evil god (a demiurge) in the OT who created matter (and the Gnostics claim that matter is evil); and refuting the Gnostic idea that the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is a different good God from the OT "god". Protestants agree with this. We believe in church leaders/presbyters (elders)/pastor-teachers/overseers (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5ff; I Timothy 3; Acts 20:17, 28; I Peter 5:1-5) Irenaeus is saying the same thing we do; one must read the Scriptures and read the Scriptures with the presbyters. But Irenaeus also says that the Presbyters follow the Scriptures as their final authority, because the apostles doctrine was written down, and he just quotes from the writings to prove his point.

Irenaeus goes on to quote Scripture proving his point, so no where is he talking about Roman Catholic distinctives or dogmas here. Since the presbyter was taught from an apostle, and the content of that teaching was Scripture, as Irenaeus shows by extensive quoting from it; and the interpretation of the Presbyters is the same all throughout the churches that the OT is inspired Scripture and the God of the OT is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the last statement is only saying that the average Christian, when he reads the Scriptures, will find that the Scriptures are clear and he will be build up in the faith and grow, as Ephesians 4 teaches, as he reads the Scriptures with the Presbyters (Elders) of the church at that time, that were interpreting the Scriptures rightly, that there is only one good Creator God, Sovereign, all mighty and who is the same, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no promise that future presbyters will be infallible. If in the future, they do not follow Scripture, then they have no authority.

So, these kinds of methods are all throughout Dave Armstrong's kind of argumentation, and it is not necessary, as he keeps claiming and whining about, that everyone must deal with every word that he has written and cut and pasted or else he will not deal with their arguments at all. I hope Jason Engwer keeps it up and stays in the battle and responds fully to all of the significant issues; even though Dave Armstrong requires someone to respond to every word, it seems. All we have to do is to shoot holes in some of his argumentation, as we have time, which we have done (Jason Engwer, Steve Hayes, Turretinfan, and simple me) (Dave has not answered the points I made in my earlier article concerning how he misread Philip Schaff and Ireneaus on the barbarian tribes who had the basic gospel before the Scriptures were translated) and Dave refused to deal with Turretinfan's excellent critiquehere and the whole Roman Catholic claims of infallible authority are exposed as false and not Biblical nor existent in early church history, then the whole edifice of the Papacy and infallibility crashes to the ground. Furthermore, the very nature of their definition of 1870 shows that if they made one mistake, the whole thing is false, because one mistake means they are not infallible. Since they have made many mistakes both doctrinally (and morally), they are not infallible. And this shows that David Waltz was right to leave the Roman Catholic church.

Arguing with Dave Armstrong

Dave Armstrong has a four part seriesseeking to refute Jason Engwer's well written article about the Canon of Scripture and Infallibility of the church issues; which has implications against the Roman Catholic Church's authority claims of Infallibility and the Papacy. Dave is trying to prove that Newman's Development of Doctrine Theory is correct. Dave wrote this in response to David Waltz' recent decision to leave the Roman Catholic Church.

I contributed to a few comboxes ( # 15-20) in part 1. I have not read parts 2-4 yet as one only has so much time in life, but I hope to go through all of it and interact with whatever parts I see a problem with.

Dave wrote:
In a nutshell, what he has done in his present argument that I shall critique, is define Catholic development according to hostile Protestant conceptions of it.

You seem to have immediately poisoned the well in your argumentation by calling it a “hostile” conception. You say he “defines” it according to his own understanding of it, rather than understanding the Roman Catholic view of the development of doctrine.

Jason understands quite well Newman’s development of doctrine theory. It is anachronistic by nature. Ideas and doctrines are not like seeds or organic material. They do not grow like seeds or eggs or embryos. Biblical Doctrine does develop in church history, but right doctrine (not just any claim to have right doctrine) must have Scriptural material and sound exegesis to back it up; the Roman Catholic claims of Pope and Mary and indulgences and relics and NT priests have no credible exegesis or Scriptural backing.

Everyone has some kind of Presuppositions; you do also; our human minds are not “tabula rasa” ( blank slates in our minds) (John Locke)

Dave wrote:
He seems to expect papal infallibility and the nature of the papal office to appear almost whole and entire in the early centuries (which is the Protestant tendency in approaching Church history), whereas in fact, development of doctrine (and particularly Venerable Cardinal Newman's formulation of it) is precisely an explanation of organic development over time, meaning (by its very definition) that in many ways doctrines and doctrinal beliefs of large masses of people will look quite different in the year 300 than they would in, say 1870."

Since it is such an important and all encompassing doctrine, and indeed the main doctrinal claim that makes the RCC claim to be the Church over all Christendom and all others are in rebellion, we would expect it to be there both in the Scriptures and in the early church history, but, alas, it is not in either one. If it was true, we would expect Peter to at least mention some basic form of it in his second letter. 2 Peter does not mention it all; instead he says “this is the second letter I am writing to you” ( 3:1) Let that sink in, “writing to you”; he is emphasizing Scripture. He says his writing to them is “being diligent” and “reminding them of the truth” ( 3:1; 1:12-21)

Peter knows he is going to die. (1:12-18) He says, essentially, “after I am gone, I am writing now, so I will be diligent by writing this, so that when I am gone you will have something written to refer to and build yourselves up and remind yourselves in the truth.” This is Sola Scriptura in a simple form, not any kind of Papal doctrine or dogma or even the existence of a Papal office, much less infallibility of the Pope. Peter does not even mention any presbyter / overseer who would be his successor. Why? Because the early churches each had a plurality of elders and there was no such thing as one man being the successor of one apostle or presbyter as an authoritative "buck stops here" kind of office.

Peter called himself a “fellow-elder” (fellow presbyter) in I Peter 5:1. Not only is infallibility not there, the Papal office is not there, and successor to Peter is not there in I Peter, 2 Peter, nor Matthew 16:13-19. Nada, zilch. The mono-episcopate developed later; even the Didache (15:1 - deacons and episcopate) and I Clement only mention 2 offices (presbyters/episcopais as one office and deacons as the other office) and I Clement uses episcopais and presbuteros interchangeably.(I Clement 44 and 47) Both the Didache and I Clement are earlier history than Ignatius, and way earlier than any other jurisdictional claims of Rome by Stephen (255 AD), Leo (440 AD) or Gregory (601 AD).


Dave wrote:
". . . is precisely an explanation of organic development over time, meaning (by its very definition) . . .

Jason and others of us understand Newman’s theory well enough. “organic development” means “seeds and acorns into oak trees”. We are saying the theory itself is wrong, unbiblical and unhistorical in the earliest centuries. We are not imposing our understanding of it on it, as you claim, rather we are refuting the idea itself, that doctrines/thoughts/ideas are parallel to organic material of seeds, acorns, embryos, eggs, DNA, etc. that grow naturally over time in history. Since the seeds of the Papacy are not there in the Bible, nor in Early Church history, it is non-existent. The mono-episcopate comes later, with Ignatius, later than Clement and the Didache, and even that is nothing compared to the audacity of the Bishop of Rome jurisdictional claims. Cyprian was right to oppose Stephen, bishop of Rome around 255-256 AD.


Dave wrote: [claiming that this is the "seed" in the early church of the Newman Development of Doctrine Theory:]

There is such a thing as an authoritative Church, that has binding authority in matters of the faith.


Doctrinal Protestants believe in this idea in its basic/Scriptural form. We believe in the local church, and the local church is God’s instrument on the earth to be the body of Christ to minister to people, preach the gospel, teach sound doctrine, discipline the unrepentant, administer baptism and the Lord’s supper. The word “authoritative” would need more definition, as also does the word “binding”.

So, this statement is no better than Protestantism and we can affirm it in the bare statement as is and therefore, we are just as much a part of early church history as you are; we are small "c" catholics. History is history; whatever happened is whatever happened.

It is easy for the Roman Catholic Church to look back over history and claim it is the one infallible church, because its power and might forced and anathematized the two main rival church traditions (EO and Protestantism) in the issue of the Papal doctrines. (and killed others as individuals who dared question the authority of the Pope, like Jan Huss) The Papacy and Infallibility developed slowly over the centuries from the beginning of jurisdictional claims, starting around 255 -256 AD with Stephen, but he was wrong. Even then it did not really start developing until after Gregory and after Islam conquered the east and became more pronounced with the 1054 filoque clause schism with the Greek Orthodox church. The Eastern /Greek and Oriental churches knew it (Papacy, infallibility, jurisdictional claims over all Christians) was wrong also. Boniface VIII made one of the most arrogant statements in history in Unam Sanctum in 1303 AD. Basically, Pope Boniface VIII said that every one must submit to the Pope for salvation. Not only arrogant, but contradictory to Romans, Galatians, John, Acts, Philippians, Ephesians, the whole NT !!

The RCC anathematized the EO in 1054 and the Protestants in 1520-1521; then 1545-1563 (bull and trial against Luther and then Trent).

They just claim Papal infallibility by raw power and an attitude of "whatever we say goes"


Dave wrote:
That's it, and the concept is already (I would contend) explicitly present in Scripture, in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), which not only claimed profoundly binding authority, but even the express sanction of the Holy Spirit, making it close to the concept of biblical inspiration: a thing that goes beyond all Catholic claims for infallibility: an essentially lesser gift than inspiration. The authoritative Church also includes apostolic succession. The true apostolic tradition or deposit is authoritatively passed down.

Since the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 is in Scripture, we are assured of its authority by the inspiration of the Scriptures. It is history recorded in Scripture. It does not say that the churches are to go out and copy that model of gathering all the leaders of other churches together (not a sin to do that; Nicea and Chalcedon were good; but they were not infallible or inspired by the Holy Spirit on the same level as Scripture) and that whatever they decide is infallible or 100% in all areas guided by the Holy Spirit.

We know that the decision of Acts 15 was guided by the Holy Spirit because the text tells us this. The leaders, Peter and James, also quoted Scripture there, so they were acting in a Sola Scriptura kind of way. Peter’s statements in Acts 15:7-10 are consistent with Paul’s epistle to the Galatians; faith alone and grace alone. James quotes from Amos 9:12. There is nothing in the text that says extra-canonical meetings between leaders of church later in history will have the same level of binding authority or inspiration (as you seem to be claiming) or infallibility. The authority of Nicea against the Arians is authoritative because it was biblical; same for the doctrinal issues of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. They were right on the issues of the nature of Christ and the Trinity because those doctrines are biblical; but only the Bible is infallible and inerrant.


Dave wrote,
Quoting from Philip Schaff,

Irenaeus confronts the secret tradition of the Gnostics with the open and unadulterated tradition of the catholic church, and points to all churches, but particularly to Rome, as the visible centre of the unity of doctrine. All who would know the truth, says he, can see in the whole church the tradition of the apostles; and we can count the bishops ordained by the apostles, and their successors down to our time, who neither taught nor knew any such heresies. Then, by way of example, he cites the first twelve bishops of the Roman church from Linus to Eleutherus, as witnesses of the pure apostolic doctrine. He might conceive of a Christianity without scripture, but he could not imagine a Christianity without living tradition;

Dave stopped the quote here. (I don’t know why)

It goes on -
and for this opinion he refers to barbarian tribes, who have the gospel, "sine charta et atramento," written in their hearts.

Obviously, if they could not read or write yet, and the Scriptures have not been translated yet into their language, they will have to rely on oral teaching and acceptance until that can be done. Oral cultures can be saved by hearing the gospel and repenting and trusting Christ and being able to memorize basic truths as a catechism. Ulfilas (ca 310-383 AD)was an Arian and he was the first to translate the Scriptures in Gothic German. Even Arians were not Gnostics. But Irenaeus is writing around 200 AD, so this is stronger for oral/living tradition to be used as the way of spreading the gospel until the Scriptures can be translated.

He might conceive of a Christianity without scripture, but he could not imagine a Christianity without living tradition;


Irenaeus is not teaching RCC doctrine about development here nor Newman’s theory nor 1870. Irenaeus is not even saying what Schaff says. In another place, which Dave also quoted, Irenaeus says, “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, . . .
(Against Heresies, III, 5, 1)

This proves the Scriptures are the basis for the oral preaching and teaching to the barbarian tribes. Irenaeus is just saying the tradition orally went to the Barbarian tribes and even they agree against the Gnostics by their oral tradition or simple catechism, even without having written Scriptures.

Remember the context is about combating Gnosticism, which Protestants also disagree with. We are like Irenaeus because we also are against the heresies of Gnostism.

Schaff again:
“Irenaeus confronts the secret tradition of the Gnostics with the open and unadulterated tradition of the catholic church, and points to all churches, but particularly to Rome, as the visible centre of the unity of doctrine.”

This is no problem for Protestants because the tradition is a basic proto-Apostles or proto-Nicean Creed and against Gnosticism. There is nothing in Irenaeus’ tradition that teaches Roman Catholic distinctives on the Pope and Mary and indulgences and relics and purgatory.

The Schaff quotes are from - (History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970; reproduction of 5th revised edition of 1910, Chapter XII, section 139, "Catholic Tradition," pp. 525-526)

Dave wrote:
“Conceiving of a Christianity without Scripture is hardly any sort of Protestantism or anything remotely like it. Jason's contention falls flat in a heap of ashes. Yet Jason is still playing the game.”

Jason's contention did not fall flat; rather it is your anachronistic reading of RCC definition of "living tradition" read back into Irenaeus that falls flat.

As I wrote above, Schaff is not saying what Dave Armstrong is making him say; otherwise, how would Schaff have consistently remained Protestant his whole life? (Same for J.N.D. Kelly, who Dave quotes later) He is not defining “living tradition” the way the RCC does today. He is only saying that even the Barbarian tribes were not Gnostic, believe in the God of the OT, have been taught the tradition without the Scriptures yet; because they were wild tribes that needed the gospel before the time it takes to translate. They can learn the tradition and basic doctrine orally and believe in their hearts without having the Bible.


At the end of the section of Philip Schaff, that Dave quotes from, Schaff recovers from the statement (that Irenaeus can conceive of a Christianity without the Scriptures, but not without living tradition) that Dave took out of context:

“In the substance of its doctrine this apostolic tradition agrees with the holy scriptures, and though derived, as to its form, from the oral preaching of the apostles, is really, as to its contents, one and the same with there apostolic writings. In this view the apparent contradictions of the earlier fathers, in ascribing the highest authority to both scripture and tradition in matters of faith, resolve themselves. It is one and the same gospel which the apostles preached with their lips, and then laid down in their writings, and which the church faithfully hands down by word and writing from one generation to another.”

UPDATE:
Dave removed the "self-servingly" part of the comment about how Jason "self-servingly molding and transformed position X 2", and admitted it is over the top, so I have removed that part. (For anyone who already read this) That was good of Dave to do that, and I sincerely mean that. We all should seek to stick to the issues of argumentation and not make personal attacks nor seek to judge motives. (I Cor. 4:5)

Is sola Scriptura self-refuting?

I'm sure most everyone stopping by here ventures over to Triablogue, but in case you don't, Steve Hays has an excellent post entitled, Is sola Scriptura self-refuting?