The Protestant's Dilemma: A Review (Part One)

Recently I picked up The Protestant's Dilemma: How the Reformation’s Shocking Consequences Point to the Truth of Catholicism (San Diego: Catholic Answers Press, 2014). In the preface of the Kindle edition, an unidentified author states that the primary author, Devin Rose, has put forth a book looking to engage in "dialogue" specifically"with members of the thousands of Protestant sects." The book is said to raise issues that a Protestant "has never considered before," not simply to have dialogue for the sake of mutual understanding, but rather to have "conciliar" dialogue in which the goal is to show the logical inconsistency of Protestantism while leading a reader into "the fullness of truth that Catholic Church alone possesses in fullness." In response, I offer these reviews of The Protestant's Dilemma (T.P.D.), to demonstrate that the book does the opposite of its intentions. It presents caricatures of Protestant positions, illogical conclusions, shoddy documentation, assumes the truth of the Roman Catholic worldview without proving it, and demonstrates that the author did not apply his own criteria to his own position.

The Conversion Story
It's not surprising that T.P.D. begins with the conversion story of the author. Conversion stories like that offered by Mr. Rose typically point to the abilities of a person and the supposed wisdom gained by crossing the Tiber. For instance, Rose begins by showing how as a new convert to Christianity, he was already quick to ask about the problem of multiple denominations: "How had I, a newly minted Christian, come so quickly to a conclusion about which denomination taught the real truth?" He says also,

It was never a question in my mind that God is a reasonable being. I assumed it to be true, because even as an atheist I observed that the world functioned in a logical manner: Scientific laws were provable, mathematics could produce correct answers to problems, and deductive and inductive reasoning were demonstrably useful for understanding reality. The Christian faith, therefore, must also be supported by sound reasons, even if its truths also exceeded the limits of what reason could prove. I brought such an analysis with me into my new found faith, and I discovered that Protestantism’s tenets led to untenable conclusions. It simply was not possible to maintain a reasonable basis for my Christian faith while remaining Protestant.

This is not to say that reason is not important, or that people should not reasonably think about their faith. What irks me about Rome's converts is that they take their reasoning only so far. Rose's conversion story displays the same logical inconsistency that most of them do. His story is filled with the traumatic uncertainly felt as a Protestant and then the joys of certainly that a conversion to Roman Catholicism brings. The author states as a Protestant he "prayed that Jesus would guide [him] into the denomination that was the truest." He was befuddled by Christians "claiming to be 'led by the Holy Spirit'" using the "the Bible alone" and having different understandings of the Bible. He asks, "How did I know who was right?" He concluded that the Holy Spirit would lead such a person to the true church, this along with "investigating the Catholic Church in earnest." What Rome's converts rarely admit though is that the story they so cling to as an objective reality is a subjective experience, as all personal stories are. There's not much different between this story and that put forth by a Mormon or an Islamic convert (and particularly a convert to Orthodoxy). It was the fallible decision of Devin Rose to conclude that Rome was the true church.

Elsewhere in T.P.D. the author speaks against "the principle of private judgment." He states,

At the root of the endemic divisions within Protestantism lies the absence (and by definition, the impossibility) of an interpretive authority for Scripture above that of the individual Christian. Protestants cannot accept that any person or group has this power, because the Bible itself has to be the ultimate authority. Ideally, Protestants would be united in their interpretation of the Bible; but as we have seen, from the beginning of Protestantism this has not been the case. This lack of unity leads inevitably to the principle of private judgment, which makes each believer the final interpreter of Scripture. Just as inevitably, each believer’s interpretation will be at least partly wrong, because no believer is infallible.

But yet, private judgment was the very principle which led him to Rome rather than Orthodoxy or Islam! Why is private judgment acceptable when choosing to become Roman Catholic, and then once becoming a Roman Catholic, it is no longer acceptable?

Mr. Rose claims he investigated those claiming to possess "the fullness of truth"- Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Mormonism (why not Islam?). His research most certainly included interpretations of Scripture. His study led him to conclude that Rome was the true church. But this raises the same problem. The body of literature that Mr. Rose went through is the same body of literature that Rome says is not open for private judgment, nor can it be understood properly without the infallible guidance of the Roman church. Yet, Mr. Rose used the very thing Rome says one is not to rely on, private judgment.

Eric Svendsen pointed all this out years ago:

"The fact is, he had to engage in the very same principle of private judgment that we all must use to decide among the various options; namely, a thinking, objective reasoning process, apart from reliance upon the system to which he would eventually subscribe. But it is that very same principle of private judgment that leads him to Rome and others of us away from Rome. Certainly Rome condemns the decision we reached, but she cannot condemn the principle we used to that decision, since it is the very same principle that all Roman Catholics must use to decide that Rome is the ‘true’ church. The Roman Catholic cannot introduce a double standard at this point and still be consistent.” [Eric Svendsen, Upon This Slippery Rock, 34]. 

It is simply gratuitous to suggest that private judgment is sufficient to interpret Scripture and church history to determine whether Rome is the true church, but insufficient to interpret Scripture and church history once we either accept or reject Rome. After all, in order to arrive at the conclusion that Rome is the true church, we must first compare Rome to Scripture and church history; hence we must first engage in private interpretation of these things before choosing Rome. But if our private interpretation of Scripture and church history is sufficient to inform us that Rome is the true church, how is it that that same private judgment is suddenly rendered deficient once we either get to Rome or reject Rome? [Eric Svendsen, Upon This Slippery Rock, 34-35]

An irony about Rome's conversion stories is that one never knows when they're finished. Take the ex-poster child for Catholic Answers, Gerry Matatics. He certainly loved to tell his story. Simply go back and listen to his debates with Dr. White. He’d tell that story every chance he could get. He’d even stay late into the night to tell it again and again. Now, go ask Karl Keating why Mr. Matatics is no longer endorsed by Catholic Answers. Gerry likewise used his reason.  Similarly, how do I know that Devin Rose isn't going to keep having a new conversion story? How do I know his intelligence won't lead him to the positions held by Gerry Matatics, Robert Sungenis or Father Gruner?

This is typical of these conversion stories.  They do not point to Christ---they point to a triumphal entry into the Roman Church from one's own intellectual abilities. Their conversion stories are about what they did. They are about what wisdom and glory they achieved. They are not conversion stories of the broken sinner bowing his knee to the merciful God, given by the Father to Christ and irresistibly drawn (like Paul’s recounting in Galatians 1; cf. Acts 9); rather, these are accounts of people accepting the alleged Roman Catholic “fullness of truth”, and a rejection of Protestant essentials like sola fide and sola scriptura. In other words, the emphasis is not on spiritual rebirth, but rather the acceptance and realization of a “higher knowledge.” The conversion is not to Christ, but to an infallible church.

Addendum
In a blog article published the same day as this, Mr. Rose stated,

Near the end, Dr. Quiggle brought up Martin Luther’s famous words about standing by what he thinks the Bible teaches. “Popes and councils have erred in the past. Unless I’m convinced by Scripture and reason, here I stand. And that’s what it means to be a Protestant.” I gave a final rejoinder that the individual Protestant is the ultimate interpretive authority, and that under Protestantism, not only popes and councils are error-prone, but all people and churches and denominations are, so who are we supposed to follow? Who teaches the truth of God without error?

Here' it is again. Mr. Rose appears to not have any problem being the "ultimate interpretive authority" in determining that Rome is the "fullness of truth"while Islam or Orthodoxy is not.

Some current responses to repeated Roman Catholic claims

Michael Kruger's excellent post on substitutionary atonement and the imputation of Christ's righteousness in the early church. 

Turretinfan's thorough response to Devin Rose's book, going through all 34 points/ chapters. 

My response to Roman Catholic DeMaria at Devin Rose's blog. 

Addendum:

My response to Devin Rose concerning the Called to Communion article on "The Canon Question" by Tom Brown.

"God called me to become an apologist"

Here's some brief comments for the few of you following  "The Protestant’s Dilemma Destroys James White’s Scripture Alone" saga.

Mr. Rose did take down his video “The Protestant’s Dilemma Destroys James White’s Scripture Alone” (along with the comments) and is determined to post another blog entry explaining things.  He states, "After reflecting on the way I came across in the video, I have decided to remove it. If I expect James White to show respect and consideration toward me, I need to do the same to him. I will make another blog post sometime in the next few days discussing the situation, the response, and what transpired with regard to the radio discussion."  I look forward to reading why he refused to go on Moody radio with Dr. White. It just goes to show that a 3 minute YouTube video can put one on the radar, for better or for worse.

Since I purchased Devin's book, I plan on delving into it, time allowing. Obviously, I'll be most interested in his use of sources and quotes pertaining to the Reformation. I did post a comment on his blog letting him know that he mis-read Luther's Table Talk.  Or he may not have read it all, who knows? His interpretation of Luther's alleged comment was so bizarre, I would rather he say he didn't read the context. He hasn't responded, which is OK, I'm sure he has enough "apologetics" on his plate at the moment to contend with. The tedium of quoting something out-of-context, or mis-reading a context probably isn't his high priority right now.

I would speculate that there are things going on behind the scenes with Mr. Rose and other cyber Roman-apologists on how he should work through the mess he's made. Or perhaps I should say, I hope there are mentors he's working with- maybe some of the folks at Catholic Answers, or... maybe he should follow a Roman authority paradigm and sit down with a priest?

The thing with the Internet is that folks come along all the time and deem themselves "apologists." In Devin's case, he says, "I entered full communion with the Catholic Church in 2001 and ten years later God called me to become an apologist." This isn't the first time I've read someone with a blog or webpage claiming God called them to this or that. The irony of course is when Rome's defenders do it. They'll never concede God called the Reformers. But of course, they know God called them to be Roman Catholic apologists! Perhaps after the YouTube debacle he brought on himself, he'll ponder his "calling" a little deeper.

When the Defenders of Rome Refute Themselves

In a video presentation, Devin Rose stated:

“Now on the back [James White] got a quote from Martin Luther, right, so he’s got a quote from Martin Luther but, White’s not a Lutheran. Nor does he believe in Lutheran doctrines, nor does he believe in doctrines Martin Luther believed in. Martin Luther wanted to remove four books from the New Testament. Martin Luther believed in Marian veneration and in Mary’s perpetual virginity. James White doesn’t believe that, so why is he quoting Luther? Right? It’s the same silly stuff that you see over and over again.”

Why would Dr. White quote Luther? Mr. Rose doesn't answer in the video. His point appears to be that because James White isn't a Lutheran, he shouldn't cite Luther.

Devin Rose though answers his own argument in his book:

"Martin Luther sparked the Protestant Reformation and formulated the key tenets still held by all Protestants today: sola fide and sola scriptura. He also had a key role in discerning the Protestant canon of Scripture. Since Protestantism’s foundation is so closely tied to Luther’s personal theological judgment, it’s reasonable to expect that he would have had personal holiness to match."


Addendum
I hadn't realized that Mr. Rose gave an interpretive comment on the following Luther quote:

The Word comes first, and with the Word the Spirit breathes upon my heart so that I believe.— Martin Luther

Mr. Rose says, "An okay quote, as far as it goes. But the problem with it for White is that Luther is talking about his own faith and beliefs, how the Word and the Spirit combine to bless him with his (implicitly great) faith."

First, the quote is actually a Table Talk statement, not a direct quote. Second, Luther isn't simply "talking about his own faith and beliefs." Rather, the context is about  how people have the Holy Spirit and don't always immediately realize it.

Here's what is stated:

No. 402: The Relation of Word, Spirit, and Faith December, 1532
 “Faith and the Spirit go together, but the Spirit is not always revealed. So Cornelius had the Holy Spirit before Peter came to him, although he didn’t know it. Those in the book of Acts who said, ‘We don’t know the Holy Spirit,’ also had the Spirit, just as the patriarchs in the Old Testament had Christ, although they didn’t know him. They clung to the Word, and through it they received the Holy Spirit. Later in the book of Acts he was manifested to them outwardly. It’s to be understood thus: The Word comes first, and with the Word the Spirit breathes upon my heart so that I believe. Then I feel that I have become a different person and I recognize that the Holy Spirit is there. Accordingly these are two things: to have the Holy Spirit and to know that you have him. When somebody speaks in your ear, you hardly hear his words before [you feel] his breath, so strong is the breath. Even so, when the Word is proclaimed, the Holy Spirit accompanies it and breathes upon your heart. The sophists say that this is reflected knowledge, as an image is reflected in a mirror. When the Word is scattered abroad the Holy Spirit blows upon us, but he must also breathe upon us inwardly. Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 54: Table Talk. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 54, p. 63). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Mr. Rose continues: "The quote then, where Luther describes how God has enlightened him with such faith, is a bizarre one to use by White, as their two faiths contradict one another on important doctrines. This is what I criticized in my video." It appears to me, this budding apologist doesn't check a context before he pronounces on it. If he did check the context, his interpretation is that which is bizarre.

Luther and Calvin... Friends or Enemies?

A recent comment left by a defender of Rome opined,

My take on Calvin: I did not read about Calvin, I read and studied Calvin. I read every single word of his Institutes and marked every page with notes. I read some of his commentaries as well as other works. I taught Calvin's theology to Jr. High kids. I wouldn't recommend him to anyone. Yes, he did start with Scripture, his own pet passages that he built his own new doctrines on. He stayed away from passages that went against his teachings. His erroneous teachings on limited atonement and God predestining some to hell are in defiance of using the whole Bible as a hermanuetic and an example of creating a God in his own image. Even Luther opposed him on this.

While there are a number of points here to comment on, what jumped out to me was the final statement:  "Even Luther opposed him on this." To my knowledge, I know of no theological writings that Luther ever wrote to or about Calvin. This last statement about Luther and Calvin demonstrated to me that the former comments didn't need to be responded to.

An irony with the above statement is that Calvin's sparse comments on the extent of the atonement have led a number of historical theologians to question whether or not Calvin actually held to limited atonement. Luther doesn't have lengthy treatises on the extent of the atonement either. Certainly both of these men made comments about the extent of the atonement (and I think it's possible to construct an overview of what each held on this Biblical issue). Luther never wrote about Calvin in opposition to limited atonement. In regard to predestination, Luther never wrote against Calvin. There is certainly a different emphasis in the two writers on predestination (contrary to R.C. Sproul's statement, Calvin wrote far more on the topic than Luther), but search Luther's writings, and you'll never find Luther going after Calvin about predestination. The hot topics between the Lutherans and the Calvinists at this time was the Lord's Supper, not the five points of Calvinism.

The comment from Rome's defender provoked me to track down an old article in my library: B.A. Gerrish, "John Calvin on Luther," from Jarosla Pelikan (ed.), Interpreters of Luther, Essays in Honor of Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968) pp. 67-96. I was pleasantly surprised to discover the article appears to have been  completely reprinted in a later book by Gerrish, I have not checked  the reprint closely to see if there were any significant changes between the two publications.

Gerrish presents an historical overview of Calvin's statements about Luther throughout his career. Overall, Calvin's statements in regard to Luther are positive, this despite the controversies between the Lutherans and the Swiss, and despite some negative comments from Calvin. While the article is specific to Calvin's comments about Luther, the author does venture into Luther's comments (or purported comments) about Calvin. For the remainder of this entry, I'd like to take a look at some of these. Elsewhere Gerrish does have an article entitled, Luther and the Reformed Eucharist: What Luther Said, or Might Have Said About Calvin.

1. There are no letters from Luther to Calvin (there is one from Calvin to Luther). Gerrish documents that there was an alleged letter from Luther to Calvin. The letter turned out to be from Simon Sultzer from Berne upon investigation.


2. In a 1539 letter to Martin Bucer, it's possible that Luther had read Calvin's Reply to Sadolto. Luther stated:

Farewell, and please greet reverently Mr. John Sturm and John Calvin; I have read their books with special pleasure. I wish Sadoleto would believe that God is the creator of men even outside of Italy. But this thought does not enter the hearts of the Italians since of course they alone, ahead of the rest of mankind, have totally lost their minds because of their arrogance. Again, farewell. October 14, 1539 Yours, MARTIN LUTHER [Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 50: Letters III. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 50, pp. 190–191). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

There is debate as to whether Luther had read the Reply to Sadoleto or rather the 1539 edition of the Institutes. Gerrish speculates that it was the Reply to Sadoleto: "But, when confronted with the section on the Eucharist in the new edition of the Institutes, he refused to retract his favorable opinion of the author" (p. 73).


3. In 1544 Calvin wrote The Necessity for Reforming the Church. Gerrish states that it is probable Luther read this: "We have it on reliable authority that Luther read the Humble Exhortation and gave it his glowing commendation" (p. 80). The "reliable source" Gerrish explains in a footnote: "'...vehementer esse collaudatum.' So the Spanish Protestant Dryander (Francisco d'Enzinas) wrote to Calvin, August 3, 1545: CO 12, 127 (no. 673). Dryander lived at Wittenberrg 1544-46" (p. 94). According to Dryander, Luther strongly praised this work from Calvin: "Ceterum quam sententiam de scripto tuo statibus Imperii oblato nostrorum procerum postulas, audio a Luthero lectum et vehementer esse collaudatum."


4. There are a few Table Talk statements from Luther. Gerrish explains,

An entry in the Table Talk asserts that “Calvin conceals his opinion on the question of the sacraments” (no. 5303); another that, “although a learned man, he is strongly suspect on the error of the sacramentarians” (no. 6050) [The first entry indicates that Lutheran suspicion of Calvin’s honesty goes back to Luther himself. The second, more ambivalent entry may mean that Calvin is suspected of misrepresenting, rather than sharing, the error of the sacramentarians: “Caluinus est vir doctus, sed valde suspectus de errore sacramentariorum] (p. 4).

5. Gerrish documents a lost letter  (1539) of Melanchthon to Calvin: "Calvin was also able to add two further testimonies of Luther's good will. The first was a statement in a letter from Melanchthon (now lost), according to which 'Calvin has found great favor'. The second was an incident which Melanchthon had instructed the messanger to deliver orally." (p.72). The letter from Calvin documenting this reads (in part) as follows:

Crate, one of our engravers, lately returned from Wittemberg, who brought a letter from Luther to Bucer, in which there was written “Salute for me reverently Sturm and Calvin, whose books I have read with special delight.” Now, consider seriously what I have said there about the Eucharist; think of the ingenuousness of Luther: it will now be easy for you to see how unreasonable are those who so obstinately dissent from him. Philip, however, wrote thus: — “Luther and Pomeranus have desired Calvin to be greeted; Calvin has acquired great favor in their eyes.” Philip has informed me at the same time by the messenger, that certain persons, in order to irritate Luther, have shown him a passage in which he and his Friends have been criticized by me; that thereupon he had examined the passage, and feeling that it was undoubtedly intended for him, had said at length: — “I hope that Calvin will one day think better of us; but in any event it is well that he should even now have a proof of our good feeling towards him.” If we are not affected by such moderation, we are certainly of stone. For myself, I am profoundly affected by it, and therefore have taken occasion to say so in the preface which is inserted before the Epistle to the Romans. If you have not yet read Philip on the Authority of the Church, I desire you may read it. You will perceive he is much more considerate than he appeared in his other writings. Capito, Bucer, Sturm, Hedio, Bedrot, and others, salute you most lovingly. Do you also salute respectfully all the brethren. — Yours, Calvin

5. The last purported statement from Luther about Calvin is one of the ones that I've heard before and have always meant to track down.  Gerrish states,

The most interesting testimony to Luther's continuing goodwill [to Calvin] is an anecdote related by both Christoph Pezel and Rudolph Hospinian. Moritz Goltsch, a Wittenberg bookseller, brought back the Latin translation of Calvin's Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper from the Frankfurt Fair (1545) and presented a copy to Luther, who read the closing section with particular care and announced that if Zwingli and Oecolampadius had spoken like Calvin there would have been no need for a long dispute" (p. 94). 

Gerrish notes that this anecdote comes from two witnesses, noting that "Pezel relates it with attention to details and also names the witnesses (one of Luther's table companions) from which this incident is derived." In his other article, Gerrish states,

The other writing of Calvin’s that earned Luther’s commendation is more important for our topic because directly pertinent to the eucharistic debate. In 1545 the Wittenberg bookseller Moritz Goltsch brought back from the Frankfurt Fair the Latin translation of Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper, first written in French while Calvin was in Strasbourg and published in 1541 after his return to Geneva. Goltsch presented a copy to Luther, who, we are told, read with particular care the concluding section on the history of the eucharistic debate. Calvin, at his diplomatic best, says that Zwingli and Oecolampadius were so committed to the necessary task of rooting out the medieval belief in a carnal presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper that they neglected (Calvin says “they forgot”!) to show the true nature of the communion of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament. Luther thought they meant to leave nothing in the sacrament but bare signs without their substance. But Luther should have made it clearer, for his part, that he did not mean a local presence such as the papists dream of, and he could have been more cautious in his use of language that was a bit harsh and crude—although, Calvin admits, it is difficult to explain so high a matter without some impropriety. Once these mild reservations, addressed evenhandedly to each side, are duly noted, Calvin concludes that the controversy is over: “We all confess, with one mouth, that in receiving the sacrament in faith, according to the Lord’s ordinance, we are truly made partakers of the proper substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. How that happens, some can deduce better and explain more clearly than others.” Luther is reported to have announced, as he read this gentle account of the controversy, that had Zwingli and Oecolampadius spoken like Calvin, there would have been no need for a long dispute.

Gerrish doesn't give an opinion on the authenticity of this one way or the other in his article about Calvin's view of Luther. In his article about Luther's view of Calvin he states, "Luther’s reported verdicts on these two treatises of Calvin’s may sound a little like Calvinist fiction, but they are well attested."

Another interesting account of this can be found here in an old source:

Luther's attitude to the same work was entirely favourable. We have proof of this in Pezel's Erzahlung vom Sakramentstreit. "The book of Calvin translated into Latin by Des Gallars had been printed in 1545, and brought to Wittenberg. On 13th April, Dr. Luther, having finished his lecture, betook himself to the book-shop of Moritz Goltsch, who showed him Calvin's little work on the Lord's Supper. Dr. Luther, seating himself, read the book with particular interest, and at last said, 'Certainly a learned and pious man! I could have entrusted the whole matter of this debate to him. For my part, I consider that if the opposite party had not made so much of it, we could have come to an agreement. If Zwingli and Oekolampadius had expressed themselves thus at the beginning, we should not have had so long dispute.' " Hospinian, in his Historiae Sacramentariae relates the same anecdote. Henry regards it as "having all the external and internal signs of truth." Koestlin says that it is credible, and Doumergue reproduces it as well as Ebrard. The De Coena was an irenical work, which did not profess to go deeply into any question, but rather to examine if no common formula could be found in which Luther and Zwingli could unite.

It's interesting to see the weight some place on this second hand account. This writer states, "According to Luther's confidant Christopher Pezel, Luther now realized the wisdom of Calvin's conception of the Lord's Supper. He even acknowledged that if the Zwinglians had expressed themselves in the terms of Calvin, the sacramentarian controversy would not been the dispute that it was." This writer simply states it as fact. Personally, I think that the information  from 1545 is too tenuous to be of any real use. The only benefit I can see it having are to those who want to infuriate Lutherans.


I've been told by a number of people that Luther would not think too fondly of me because I'm not a Lutheran, and worse than that, I'm Reformed. I've never given much thought on answering this beyond, "Oh well." The point of my blogging has never been to promote Lutheranism, but rather demonstrate the poor historical methods of Rome's defenders and others. Obviously I think there is a unity on the most essential theological point between Luther and myself: justification by faith alone. In reviewing this material though I found this excerpt from one of Calvin's letters most fascinating:

I hear that Luther has at length broken forth in fierce invective, not so much against you as against the whole of us. On the present occasion, I dare scarce venture to ask you to keep silence, because it is neither just that innocent persons should thus be harassed, nor that they should be denied the opportunity of clearing themselves; neither, on the other hand, is it easy to determine whether it would be prudent for them to do so. But of this I do earnestly desire to put you in mind, in the first place, that you would consider how eminent a man Luther is, and the excellent endowments wherewith he is gifted, with what strength of mind and resolute constancy, with how great skill, with what efficiency and power of doctrinal statement, he hath hitherto devoted his whole energy to overthrow the reign of Antichrist, and at the same time to diffuse far and near the doctrine of salvation. Often have I been wont to declare, that even although he were to call me a devil, I should still not the less hold him in such honor that I must acknowledge him to be an illustrious servant of God. But while he is endued with rare and excellent virtues, he labors at the same time under serious faults. Would that he had rather studied to curb this restless, uneasy temperament which is so apt to boil over in every direction. I wish, moreover, that he had always bestowed the fruits of that vehemence of natural temperament upon the enemies of the truth,and that he had not flashed his lightning sometimes also upon the servants of the Lord. Would that he had been more observant and careful in the acknowledgment of his own vices. Flatterers have done him much mischief, since he is naturally too prone to be over-indulgent to himself. It is our part, however, so to reprove whatsoever evil qualities may beset him, as that we may make some allowance for him at the same time on the score of these remarkable endowments with which he has been gifted. This, therefore, I would beseech you to consider first of all, along with your colleagues, that you have to do with a most distinguished servant of Christ, to whom we are all of us largely indebted; that, besides, you will do yourselves no good by quarreling, except that you may afford some sport to the wicked, so that they may triumph not so much over us as over the Evangel. If they see us rending each other asunder, they then give full credit to what we say, but when with one consent and with one voice we preach Christ, they avail themselves unwarrantably of our inherent weakness to cast reproach upon our faith. I wish, therefore, that you would consider and reflect on these things rather than on what Luther has deserved by his violence; lest that may’ happen to you which Paul threatens, that by biting and devouring one another, ye be consumed one of another. Even should he have provoked us, we ought rather to decline the contest than to increase the wound by the general shipwreck of the Church. Adieu, my much honored brother in the Lord, and my very dear friend. Salute reverently in my name all the brethren in the ministry. May the Lord preserve you, and more and more increase his own gifts in you. My colleagues very kindly salute you.

συγγενις και ανεψιος

The New Testament writers would have used the words for "cousin" if they had meant "cousin" in passages about Jesus' brothers and sisters

Persistent commentor "Guy Fawkes" / Jim wrote:
"Brothers" does not have to mean uterine brother. 

Ken Temple:  (with addition comments)

Except when the context demands it.  

συγγενις 

Also, Luke calls Elizabeth a relative or cousin of Mary - sungenis = συγγενις = kinswoman, relative

Luke 1:36

The Greek has words for cousin, kinsman/kinswoman and relative.


καὶ ἰδοὺ Ἐλισάβετ ἡ συγγενίς σου καὶ αὐτὴ συνειληφυῖα υἱὸν ἐν γήρει αὐτῆς, καὶ οὗτος μὴν ἕκτος ἐστὶν αὐτῇ τῇ καλουμένῃ στείρᾳ·

"And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month" Luke 1:36

sungenis / συγγενις means "kinswoman", "relative" 

ανεψιος

If the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" were cousins, the NT writers would have used those words.

But it would make no sense for Jesus to be making the spiritual application and saying, "My true cousins are those that do the will of God"
Matthew 12:46-50 and parallels in Luke 8:19-21 and Mark 6:3; see also, John 7:3-10; cf. Matthew 13:55-57  

only uterine/blood brothers makes sense.

ανεψιος / anepsios 

John Mark is Barnabas' cousin. Colossians 4:10
anepsios = cousin

καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ 

Mark, the cousin of Barnabas

That is an even more specific word; so the NT writers would have used those words if the passages of "brothers and sisters" of Jesus meant "cousins".  

Your argument is refuted and defeated again.

The heos hou / ἕως οὗ construction in the New Testament proves the RC Perpetual Virginity of Mary dogma wrong

Who is My Mother? by Eric Svendsen

I answered the very persistent and redundant "Guy Fawkes" / Jim, who lives in Portugal and apparently has lots of time to keep repeating himself, after being refuted many times, in a combox: (with additional comments)

Regarding Matthew 1:18 - "before they came together"
and
Matthew 1:25 - Joseph "kept her a virgin until" (heos hou / ἕως οὗ ) "she gave birth to a son"

 "but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."


"And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25  but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."  Matthew 1:24-25

24 ἐγερθεὶς δὲ  Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου ἐποίησεν ὡς προσέταξεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίουκαὶ παρέλαβεν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ· 
25 καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν  ἕως οὗ  
ἔτεκεν υἱόν· καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.  (I don't know why the Greek font gets smaller after the embolding of ἕως οὗ )

Note:  For those who don't know Greek, the mark above the letter that is like a backwards apostrophe is a breathing mark, "he" or "h" sound. (above the ε in the first word, and above the υ in the second word.)

Guy Fawkes / Jim,
I just don't have much time to keep repeating this stuff; you seem to have too much time on your hands.  You have not done research on the differences between "heos" / 'εως by itself, "heos hou" / 'εως 'ου,  and the other prepositional phrases (heos hotou / 'εως 'οτου ; and heos an / 'εως αν, and ἄχρι οὗ / axri hou - see 1 Cor. 15:25) and syntactical constructions - the Greek NT has many different ones, and all the examples that Roman Catholics bring to mean "until, but continuing on after that also" are NOT the heos hou / 'εως 'ου construction .  They are other constructions.

Guy Fawkes/Jim wrote: 
The passages from Matthew you mention are based on the words "before/until". 
It is important to stress Jesus had no human father so the word "before" says that and nothing more.

"before they came together" is in the context of marriage - so that means "having sexual intercourse" in marriage.  " [ see context: (verse 18) - "betrothed" with intention of getting married; "Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife" (verse 20); "Joseph did as the angel commanded him, and took her as his wife" (verse 24), "but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son . . . " (verse 25)]

Guy Fawkes / Jim wrote:
"Until" does not need to mean a change took place after a particular event.

But it does in this context.  As Eric Svendsen has definitively demonstrated,

"This construction [of heos hou / 'εως 'ου] is used in Matthew 1:25 and so is of special interest here.  It occurs only seventeen times in the NT, and all are temporal.  Two of these have the meaning "while" (Matthew 14:22; 26:36), whereas the other 15 occurrences are instances in which the action of the main clause is limited by the action of subordinate clause and require the meaning, "until a specific time, (but not after)".

(Svendsen, Who is My Mother?  page 52)

On page 251 he lists all the occurrances in the NT of the heos hou / 'εως 'ου construction with the English verses typed out.  It is a lot to type out, but with the verse thingy that James put in here, I can type the verse references and then you can hover over them to see:

Matthew 1:25

Matthew 13:33

Matthew 14:22 (while)

Matthew 17:9

Matthew 18:34

Matthew 26:36 (while)

Luke 13:21

Luke 15:8

Luke 22:18

Luke 24:49

John 13:38

Acts 21:26

Acts 23:12

Acts 23:14

Acts 23:21

Acts 25:21

2 Peter 1:19


You will have to go to http://biblewebapp.com/study/

or some other place to see the Greek constructions.

Svendsen also goes through all the LXX constructions; but this is enough to prove you wrong.

2014, Beggars All in Review

I began this blog back in December 2005. It's hard to believe that it's almost 2015, and I'm still going at it.

I wanted to take the opportunity to express my gratitude for those of you visit. While I don't post entries in order to attract visitors and comments (I mean, take a look at some of the topics posted here!), I really do appreciate that people take the time to visit, and some of you visit everyday.

I'd like to give a special thanks to Ken for all his insightful posts throughout the year, as well as his gracious spirit, and commitment to the Gospel. It always pleases me to fire up the computer and find Ken's insights, particularly his work on Islam. Ken also has his own blog, Apologetics and Agape, which really does describe him. I'm honored he takes the time to post here as well and so consistently follows up on comments left for him. He certainly has far more patience, compassion,  and stamina than I do.

I'd also like to thank my cyber-mentors and friends that often have a role behind the scenes in directing me towards sources, answering questions, and also inspiring me to keep blogging: Dr. James White, Steve Hays, TurretinFan, John Bugay, Algo, the French translation work of Rhology, and even though I don't have contact with him much anymore, Pastor David King (his is still the best contemporary book on sola scriptura and I still use it regularly).

As I look over my years of blogging, there are cyber-folks I miss as well. First and foremost is Carrie who will always have an open invitation to post whatever she wants here on the blog. Her life these days is probably far removed from the pettiness of online battles. Miss you Carrie, and you are in my prayers! Also I've not heard from Matthew Schultz in a while. He's a bright young man that's probably far removed from blogging these days.  I also haven't heard from my favorite Lutheran Brigitte lately. There are others who visited for a time, and then disappeared into the depths of cyber-space. It's unfortunate that often I don't know what's happened to some of these people- whether they've moved on to other things, or whether they've passed on.

I'd also like to thank the Roman Catholic visitors who stop by. There are some of you who are friendly and respectful like Peter Holter and Scott Windsor. You guys should set up a training blog for your fellow defenders of Rome. There are others of you, that, well, let's just say I am thankful you do read what I write, but you remind me how little sanctification I actually have. All in all the defenders of Rome, both the polite and the nasty, have been an excellent source for learning about defending and understanding the church. If you really want to know what you believe and why you believe it, simply interact with those who think you're wrong on almost everything.

I just finished reading a negative treatment of the the Internet by philosopher Hubert Dreyfus. Dreyfus makes some insightful points on the dangers of the Internet. He casts doubt on the notion that true community can exist in cyberspace. In regard to all the people I mentioned above, there is only one of you I've actually met in-person. For all the others, I think you're real! Despite what Dreyfus says, you're people that I've grown to know and enjoy interacting with. Sure, cyber-relationships do not equal physical relationships, but they are special nonetheless, and I'm grateful to have virtually met you.

1 Cor. 16:23
The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you (in 2015).

James

Humorous illustration of Rome's real tactic to achieve unity

From Lutheran Satire

A Past Interaction on Roman Catholic Apologetics

The following are excerpts from an interaction I had in 2013 on the Steadfast Lutherans blog with a defender of Rome.  I mentioned this discussion here some time ago.The discussion post was entitled, Sanctification: By Grace Alone.  I have not edited any of the comments posted below, and readers interested in the complete context of the interaction can visit the two pages of comments on the original blog entry (page 1) (page 2). I'm posting this interaction out of  what some would consider purely selfish reasons: I've noticed that things in cyberspace disappear, so I've been trying to save copies of  discussions I spent time in as I recall them and come across them. This came clear to me on the CARM boards that all the time I spent writing and interacting with people can vanish overnight.

Since this was a discussion from over a year ago, I will not be allowing any comments on this blog post.

1. 

   Lloyd I. Cadle
   April 17th, 2013 at 19:54 | #7

   Reply | Quote

   Since we did not have a complete listing of the books in the Bible until the Councils of Hippo in AD 393 and the Council of Carthage in AD 397, it is of most importance to see how the early church fathers (whom were taught by the Apostles themselves) were instructed in issues which pertain to our faith and salvation.

   Failure to read the teaching’s of the early church fathers leads to a teaching that important history essentially ended with the closure of the N.T. and picked up again with the sixteenth century Protestant reformation and we thus now have a “lost” fifteen hundred years.

   How important are the teaching’s of the early church fathers? In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Saint Paul exhorted Christians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Saint Paul also says in 1 Cor. 11:2 to “maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”

   The Apostolic traditon included all aspects of “how one ought to behave in the Church.” The Apostles instructed the early church fathers, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”, 2 Tim 2:2.

   It is of upmost importance to learn not only the Word of God, but also the writing’s of the early church fathers because they were taught by the Apostles themselves.

   Failure to do so, leads to about 40,000 christian denominations since the reformation. And, they all claim to be right. God is not the author of confusion.

1. 

   jamesswan
   April 19th, 2013 at 16:55 | #35

   Reply | Quote

   Lloyd I. Cadle :
   Since we did not have a complete listing of the books in the Bible until the Councils of Hippo in AD 393 and the Council of Carthage in AD 397, it is of most importance to see how the early church fathers (whom were taught by the Apostles themselves) were instructed in issues which pertain to our faith and salvation.

   Careful here: according to Irenaeus, Jesus was more than fifty years old when He died. Irenaeus claimed this information came from those who knew the apostles.

   So. simply because someone claims that something comes from the Apostles, this does not mean it’s true.

1. 

   jamesswan
   April 19th, 2013 at 17:02 | #36

   Reply | Quote

   In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Saint Paul exhorted Christians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Saint Paul also says in 1 Cor. 11:2to “maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”
   The Apostolic traditon included all aspects of “how one ought to behave in the Church.” The Apostles instructed the early church fathers, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”, 2 Tim 2:2.
   It is of upmost importance to learn not only the Word of God, but also the writing’s of the early church fathers because they were taught by the Apostles themselves.
   Failure to do so, leads to about 40,000 christian denominations since the reformation. And, they all claim to be right. God is not the author of confusion.

   Even though sola scriptura does not deny that there was a period of inscripturation in which the word of God was oral, Roman apologists typically use 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15, John 20:30, and John 21:25 in defense of the Catholic understanding of Tradition. These verses are offered as proof of an oral tradition functioning during the New Testament period, and therefore prove the existence of Rome’s concept of Tradition. Catholic apologists never explain why the notion of a period in which the gospel was oral necessarily means God intended extra-biblical revelation to be passed on via Tradition. They simply conclude that if at some time God’s word was oral, God intended more than what was inscripturated.

   The Catholic assumption in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is that the unwritten traditions referred to are different than those which were written. Such cannot be proven from this verse. The Catholic must be pressed to prove that both categories contain different information. 2 Thessalonians 2:14 speaks of the gospel, not doctrines like papal infallibility, indulgences, or the assumption of Mary. If these Traditions indeed exist, the act of producing them should be an easy task. However, Rome’s apologists can only point to highly debatable vague inferences from Scripture on such doctrines, further impaired by any lack of infallible biblical definition from the papacy. Note what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:5, after writing on the man of lawlessness, Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? The content being told matched that being written.

   Those Roman Catholics using 2 Thessalonians 2:15 whose views imply partim-partim must be pressed to produce what they claim to have. If they claim the use of church history as that which provides proof for their particular extra-biblical dogmas, let these peculiar dogmas be traced through two thousand years of history. Such dogmas like the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility find their journey back through the pages of history meet dead ends long before they arrive in the first century.
2. 

   jamesswan
   April 19th, 2013 at 17:06 | #37

   Reply | Quote

   Lloyd I. Cadle :
   @Abby #8 Hi Abby –
   After an arduous and methodical study of early church history and the teaching’s of the early church fathers it is painfully clear that neither Luther, Calvin or any of the others of one of the some 40,000 Protestant denominations go by the teaching’s of the early church fathers in their teaching’s in things pertaining to doctrine and practice.

   It is “painfully clear” to me that Roman Catholics often play loose and fast with church history. For instance:

   In the popular Catholic work, “Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura,” appeals are made to the church fathers as proof for Tradition as another equally authoritative source of divine revelation. For instance, Patrick Madrid cites Basil of Caesarea stating, “Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the apostles by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force “(On the Holy Spirit, 27). Madrid states, “Basil’s appeal to an authoritative body of unwritten apostolic Tradition within the Church is frequent in his writings.” Was Basil referring to an unwritten apostolic Tradition that held contents like the Mary's assumption or papal infallibility, passed down from the apostles? Was Basil the recipient of unwritten God-inspired Traditions, passed down from the apostles, able to infallibly decide between disputing parties? Was Basil simply referring to Tradition as interpretation of revelation, or the development of Tradition?

   Many of the Church fathers cited by Catholic apologists did embrace a form of tradition that was independent of Scripture (like Papias, Tertullian, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, Augustine and Basil the Great). What Basil and these others meant in no way supports Madrid’s position. Basil, in using the term tradition is describing mysteries of the Christian faith that were allegedly communicated in an unwritten form. These refer to liturgical rites of practices like baptism or the Eucharist. Basil was not teaching two sources of infallible revelation, with Tradition functioning similarly to scripture, but rather referred to a tradition of ecclesiastical practices or customs. Most often, doctrine was not in view. After discussing Basil and other Early Church Fathers, the great patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly noted, “Indeed, all the instances of unwritten tradition lacking Scriptural support which the early theologians mention will be found, on examination to refer to matters of observance and practice (e.g. triple immersion in baptism; turning East for prayer) rather than of doctrine as such, although sometimes they are matters (e.g. infant baptism; prayers for the dead) in which doctrine is involved.”

   Madrid shuffled Basil around just enough so that one is left unsure of what exactly Basil held to. Madrid did not define what contents make up Tradition for either himself or Basil, or even if they together believe the same content of Tradition. Basil though did define the contents of the Tradition he was speaking of. William Webster points out, “Basil’s teaching primarily had to do with customs and practices such as triple immersion in baptism and turning to the East in prayer, practices of secondary importance.”

1. 

   Nicholas
   April 19th, 2013 at 17:16 | #38

   Reply | Quote

   @jamesswan #36

   Thanks for commenting, James, and thank you for the work you have done in defending Martin Luther against the attacks of Roman polemicists.
2. 

   jamesswan
   April 19th, 2013 at 17:20 | #39

   Reply | Quote

   You keep giving me links to websites where you are getting your information. You need to start reading books and materials on the teachings of the early church fathers. If you do that, you will see what I am telling you is the truth.

   Some of the links were to things I’ve written. I’ll gladly respond to any concerns you have to anything I’ve written in those links.

   In regard to the “early church fathers” I have a book for you to read:

   A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of Controversies Existing at This Day in Religion by John Daillé (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856)

   http://books.google.com/books?id=1gYAVJ65hSsC&dq=A+treatise+on+the+right+use+of+the+Fathers&source=gbs_navlinks_s

   Read this book, then get back to this discussion. I’ll gladly interact with you on the contents.

   Here’s an excerpt from the book on how two contemporaries and friends have two different opinions on an important subject:

   Epiphanius maintains against Aerius,of whom he ranks among the Heresiarchs, that a bishop, according to the Apostle Paul, and the original institution of the office itself, is more than a priest: and this he proves in many words, answering all the objections that are made to the contrary. If you only read the passage, I am confident that when you have done, you would not hesitate to swear that what he has there delivered, was the general opinion of all the doctors of the Church; it being very unlikely that so great and so renowned a prelate would so positively have denied the opinion which he disputed against, if any one of his own familiar friends had also maintained the same. Yet for all this, Jerome, who was one of the principal lights of our western Church, and who lived at the same time with Epiphanius, who was his intimate friend, and a great admirer of his piety, says expressly, “that among the ancients, bishops and priests were the same; the one being a name of dignity, and the other of age.” That it may not be thought that this fell from him in discourse only, he there undertakes to prove the same at large, alleging several passages of Scripture on this subject; and he also repeats the same thing, in two or three several places of his work; whereby it evidently appears that even positions quite contradictory to the opinions which have been delivered and maintained by some of the Fathers, and proposed in whatever terms, have notwithstanding been sometimes either maintained, or at least tolerated, by some others of no less authority.

   Jerome himself has severely criticised Rufnnus, and condemned many of his opinions as most pernicious and deadly; yet we do not anywhere find that he was ever accounted a heretic by the rest of the Fathers. But we shall have occasion hereafter to consider more at large similar examples; and shall only at present observe, that if those books of Jerome, which we mentioned a little before, should have chanced to be lost, every man would then assuredly have concluded from Epiphanius, that no doctor of the ancient Church ever held, that a bishop and a priest were one and the same thing in their institution.

   Who now, after all this, will assure us, that among so many other opinions as have been rejected here and there by the Fathers, and that too in as plain terms as those of Epiphanius, none of them have ever been defended by some of the learned of those times? Or, is it not possible, that they may have held them, though they did not write in defence of the same? Or may they not perhaps have written also in defence of them, and their books have been since lost ? How small is the number of those in the Church, who had the ability, or at least the will, to write ! And how much smaller is the number of those whose writings have been able to secure themselves against either the injury of time or the malice of men!

   It is objected against the Protestants, as we have observed before, that Jerome commends and maintains the adoration of relics: but yet he himself testifies, that there were some bishops, who defended Vigilantius, who held the contrary opinion; whom he, according to his ordinary rhetoric, calls ” accomplices in his wickedness.”*

   Who knows now what these bishops were, and whether they deserved any such usage at Jerome’s hands or no? For the expressions which he uses against them, and against their opinions, are so full of gall and enmity, that they utterly take away all credit from his testimony. But we have insisted long enough upon this particular, and shall therefore forbear to instance any further in others.

   As it is therefore impossible to discover exactly, out of the Fathers, what have been the sense and judgment of the ancient Church,—whether taken universally or particularly, or whether the Church is taken for the whole body of believers, or for the prelates and inferior clergy only,—I shall here conclude as heretofore, that the writings of the ancients are altogether insufficient for proving the truth of any of those points which are at this day controverted amongst us.
3. 

   jamesswan
   April 19th, 2013 at 17:23 | #40

   Reply | Quote

   Nicholas :
   @jamesswan #36 
   Thanks for commenting, James, and thank you for the work you have done in defending Martin Luther against the attacks of Roman polemicists.

   Thanks for sharing my links in this discussion.

   JS
4. 

   Lloyd I. Cadle
   April 24th, 2013 at 14:52 | #41

   Reply | Quote

   @jamesswan #39 The writings of the Early Church Fathers are not inspired. There is no guarantee that the Fathers expressed everything and only those things that God wanted expressed or that everything in their writings is without error.

   The Fathers did make mistakes. They also disagreed with each other on things pertaining to substance.

   That being said, we are talking about a consensus here of the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, on such major issues as the appeal to tradition, the Trinity, the 73 books of the Bible (not the 63 that Luther wanted), Apostolic tradition, Baptism (including baptismal regeneration and infant Baptism), the real presense of the Body and Blood, Confession, etc.

   Sola scriptura was never taught as a consensus of the Early Church Fathers. Neither were many other doctrines by the Protestant denominations.

   Because of a lack of appeal to the consensus of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, you have a reformation mess, whereas almost anything is allowed.

   The two sources that you cite are Protestant sources. Since Protestant’s as a whole are not in agreement with the teachings of the consensus of the Early Church Fathers, why should I believe their mess, where they pull some of the minority views of the Fathers out of context to try to make it sound Protestant?

   The fact is this; the post reformation teachings are not in agreement with the consensus of the teachings of the Early Church Fathers on most things pertaining to doctrine and practice.

   That is the big picture here.
5. 

   jamesswan
   April 25th, 2013 at 17:09 | #42

   Reply | Quote

   Hi Lloyd,

   Before I spend the time responding to you, could you either affirm or deny if you are a Roman Catholic, or are on your way to becoming a Roman Catholic? If not, do you ascribe to any particular tradition? If so, which one?

   I ask this because recently I spent some time interacting with someone who sounded very Roman Catholic, only to discover the person claimed to be “closer to Catholic than Protestant” and was picking and choosing which things they liked from each tradition. In other words, it’s very hard to interact with a person not committed to a particular tradition, but rather uses their private judgment to pick what they want to from wherever they want to, all the while criticizing me for being a Protestant.

   JS
6. 

   Lloyd I. Cadle
   April 25th, 2013 at 21:34 | #43

   Reply | Quote

   @jamesswan #42 Hi Jamesswan,

   I can assure you that I will not be like the person that you mentioned above (going back and forth between Catholic and Protestant theology). If a person is commited to going with the tradition of the Early Church Fathers, the only two traditions you can choose from are either Orthodox or Catholic.

   It is interesting to note that there are Eastern Rite churches within the Catholic church, of which Pope Francis has a real fondness for. In fact, many in both traditions say that the Orthodox are the Eastern Lung, and the Catholics are the Western Lung of the Christian church.

   Anyway, just a little background; my brother was a non-denominationl Christian for about 23 years. He started an in-depth study of the Early Church Fathers, and in his studies attended a Coptic Orthodox church and became an expert in church history. Believe me on this, very few folks would ever want to debate him on church history. He eventually became Coptic Orthodox. So, that inspired me to study Early Church history, the Orthodox tradition and the Roman Catholic tradition (including reading all of the Catholic Catechism) and many other resources. Over the last couple of years, I have really been studying the Early Church Fathers.

   Some of the things that I really like about the teachings of the Early Church Fathers is their no-nonsense stance on the seriousness of sin. The Early Church Fathers were not what we would call politically correct. They flat out taught that if you practiced the sins like in Gal. 5 or 1 Corth. 6, you would end up in hell. They had a passion for Christ and a holiness that would put all of us to shame.

   Another doctrine that the Early Church Fathers had that my brother really said changed his life was Confession. He mentioned that he doesn’t even struggle with the sins that he used to because of his monthly confession to his Father. I humbly ask you in a respecful way, how many Christian folks would be watching porn on the internet if they were honest and had to confess this horrible sin to a priest? But, they do not realize that God is watching and judging their lustful sin.

   Because of the lack of preaching the law forcefully, truthfully and biblically, many folks have a false security of their salvation, and a light view of sin, and, unfortunately many will end up in hell. That is what the Bible, tradition and what the Apostles taught the Early Church Fathers.

   My wife and I want to be held accountable for our sins in Confession and I want my kids in Confession too.

   If you ever get a minute or two, look at some of the reasons that Frances Beckwith became a Catholic. He described it as having more tools in the toolbox to live for Christ on a daily basis. Afterall, you can go to Mass everyday, if you choose to. Same with the Orthodox.

   With me and my family it would be that, and sticking with the Bible, tradition and the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

   Peace!

1. 

   jamesswan
   April 26th, 2013 at 09:01 | #3

   Reply | Quote

   First, my apologies to Rev. Dr. David P. Scaer, because many of the comments left under his blog post, while related, are not on topic to what he’s posted, and some of those comments I have left. He certainly has every right to shut this down.

   Second, in regard to my previous questions to Mr. Cadle, I appreciate his taking the time to share some of his personal journey with me. That being said, it is certainly curious that he did choose not not answer such simple questions. The choices he leaves are between some sort of Orthodoxy or some form of Romanism. Since it appears to be up to me to follow the clues given, one particular clue stands out above the others: “If you ever get a minute or two, look at some of the reasons that Frances [sic] Beckwith became a Catholic.” I happen to be very familiar with Dr. Beckwith’s “Return to Rome” book which documents his apostasy and return to the Roman church. Based on that clue, I’m leading towards the conclusion that Mr. Cadle has likewise made a fallible and personal choice to become a member of the Roman church. If this is incorrect, it would be up to Mr. Cadle to set straight.

   Third, the categories of discussion presented by Mr. Cadle run a wide spectrum, reminiscent of someone setting a new fires once the first few are put out, and then starting the same fires again. For instance, the topic of Luther, which eventually led me to this discussion has been abandoned. The discussion surrounding “tradition” with 2 Thes. 2:14-15 has faded into the past. The “40,000” denominations discussion has faded away. A large majority, if not the great majority of comments I’ve posted have been ignored. Now I notice Paul and the Judaizers is the recent fire. I mention this merely to show the inherent futility of intricate discussions without focus in a comment box.

   Fourth, if I am correct that Mr. Cadle has joined some sort of sect in communion with Rome, there are a number of areas in which historical double standards are in play. Mr Cadle appears to be fond of locating specific Roman doctrines in the early church at the expense of others. For instance, today’s Romanists love citing Matthew 16 to establish the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, yet the early church speaks quite strongly against such an exegesis. The Roman church says Mary was immaculately conceived and later assumed into heaven, yet the early church certainly isn’t in unity on this “dogma” of Romanism. Purgatory and indulgences in the early church? Nope. Another later addition. Mr Cadle wants to argue “the post reformation teachings are not in agreement with the consensus of the teachings of the Early Church Fathers on most things pertaining to doctrine and practice,” while appearing to be completely certain the Rome of today looks like the early church. Well, it doesn’t, which is why Newman’s development hypothesis is so important to the survival of Romanism. Lloyd can’t have it both ways.

   Fifth, Mr. Cadle points to some sort of consensus of the early church on a 73 book canon, but this is simply historically inaccurate. There were at least two major traditions in the church on the extent of the canon, and this right up until Trent. In fact, a very respectable group of Romanists at Trent argued against the larger canon Mr. Cadle says had consensus in the early church. He also argues against sola scriptura as the consensus of the early church, yet this topic, if taken on in a detailed manner, has quite a number of voices in the early church previous to the Reformation testifying to the Scriptures as the sole infallible authority for the church. Anyone interested in a comprehensive study should secure the 3 volume set, Holy Scripture, The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith by Webster / King. These 3 volumes have gone virtually unanswered by Rome’s defenders.

   Sixth, my recommendation of the Webster / King set will probably be met with the same dismissal that my previous book suggestion was met with from Mr. Cadle- that such books are from a “Protestant source.” That response is nothing else than fear, for if Rome’s claims are true, it should be relatively easy to go through the sources I mentioned and show their error. Earlier Mr. Cadle mentioned looking at Beckwith’s work. Well, why? He’s a “Roman source.” I don’t have the same fear of books though Mr. Cadle appears to have. I actually purchased Beckwith’s “Return to Rome” and I, along with some of my other friends have gone through it and showed it’s blatant distortions and errors. I’ll gladly list them, along with the page reference in Beckwith’s book.

   My apologies for such a lengthy post. The bottom line, at least to me, is that Mr. Cadle appears to be somewhat of a recent convert to Romanism and is filled with zeal and the desire to argue for her. The simple truth is, none of need trust Mr. Cadle’s interpretation of Rome, because each Romanist is a fallible interpreter of Rome and her history. Why is Lloyd’s version of Rome and church history accurate, and that of say, Gerry Matatics is not? Or Robert Sungensis? Or some liberal on the Catholic Answers forum?” All of these Romanists claim to speak as interpreters of doctrine and history for Rome, but say different things.

   Regards,

   JS

1. 

   Lloyd I. Cadle
   April 26th, 2013 at 13:53 | #4

   Reply | Quote

   @jamesswan #3 There is not a consensus among the Early Church Fathers for “Sola Scriptura”, and I think that you know it. The Early Church Fathers clearly taught Apostolic Succession and Tradition along with the Word of God.

   The Early Church Fathers (by consensus) went with the “deuteroncanonical” books listed in Septuagint, which included the seven books taken out at the time of the Reformation. These books were approved at the Councils of Hippo in AD 393 and The council of Carthage in AD 397. Up until that point all they had was Traditon and Apostolic succcession.

   The Early Church Fathers also had a majority consensus on such doctrines as the Councils (I don’t have the time to list them here), Baptism, the Real Presence, Mary as the Mother of God (as the Orthodox have in their liturgy as “Theotokos”) and Mary as ever virgin and Confession.

   The above is a consensus of the Early Church Fathers. The Protestants may be able to point to a minority quote here and there for some of their doctrines, but not a majority consensus of the above doctrines by the Early Church Fathers.

   I like to point out that some Protestants like to quote St. Augustine because that is all that they have for a few quotes here and there for some of their positions. Unfortunaely, they can only use about 10% of his quotes, because that is all that they have to cling to. Even at that, St. Augustine was in agreement with about 90% of the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

   The big picture here is that if one wants to go by the teachings (majority consensus) of the Early Church Fathers, he or she would have to become either Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

   Clearly, post Reformation church bodies are not in agreement with the Early Church Fathers in any of the major doctrines listed above.

1. 

   jamesswan
   April 26th, 2013 at 15:09 | #5

   Reply | Quote

   Mr. Cadle,

   In regard to your previous comment, you’re now repeating yourself. I know you believe these things, but you do so (if in fact you are member of the Roman church) with blatant double standards in regard to theological history as I stated above (I’m repeating my self as well).

   Perhaps others have the tolerance for such double standards, but I certainly do not. “Consensus” in the early church is wishful thinking. In order to demonstrate this once more, consider the following question:

   “When the Council of Nicea convened, around 318 (by one count) bishops attended. Could a Roman Catholic representative point me to a single bishop at Nicea who believed what you believe de fide? That is, was there a single bishop in attendance who believed, for example, in transubstantiation? Purgatory, as defined by Rome today? Indulgences? The thesaurus meritorum? Immaculate Conception? Bodily Assumption? Papal Infallibility? If these things have been defined de fide, are we to believe that the gospel has ‘changed’ since that time, if, in fact, these things were not defined as part of the gospel at that time?”

   In other words, Mr. Cadle, you need to first apply your own standards to your own Romanism before trying to take apart any particular Christian theology you disagree with. If your own argumentation works against your own position, your argumentation is faulty.

   Each subject you raise from the early church is debatable as to its alleged “unanimous consent.” As Dr. White has stated,

   “The grand myth of Roman Catholic dogmatics (enshrined in her own statements), is the idea of the “unanimous consent of the Fathers.” Outside of monotheism, I do not believe you could create a ‘unanimous consent’ based upon the currently existing historical record for any doctrine, any belief, without engaging in ‘tradition editing,’ that is, without picking and choosing which sources you will allow into your “unanimity.” Obviously, a serious, open-eyed examination of the patristic corpus reveals wide divergences of viewpoint, just as any examination of the current theological literature reveals the same phenomenon. Only conservative Roman Catholics seem to labor under the idea that since they know their church has been around for two thousand years, and the Pope has always been the Pope, etc., then there must be some kind of unified body of doctrinal belief that looks just like…them! The selective reading of patristic sources is the inevitable result.”

   But, don’t take Dr. White’s word for it. Consider the following from a Roman Catholic scholar on consensus in regard to interpretation:

   “When one hears today the call for a return to a patristic interpretation of Scripture, there is often latent in it a recollection of Church documents that spoke at times of the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” as the guide for biblical interpretation.(fn. 23) But just what this would entail is far from clear. For, as already mentioned, there were Church Fathers who did use a form of the historical-critical method, suited to their own day, and advocated a literal interpretation of Scripture, not the allegorical. But not all did so. Yet there was no uniform or monolithic patristic interpretation, either in the Greek Church of the East, Alexandrian or Antiochene, or in the Latin Church of the West. No one can ever tell us where such a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is to be found, and Pius XII finally thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact that there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, “nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.” (fn. 24) Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Scripture, The Soul of Theology (New York Paulist Press, 1994), p. 70.

   Now, before you simply restate the same thing again, please answer the question about Nicea above in regard to the current Roman church. I say the question proves your double standards in regard to history. Prove me wrong.

   JS

1. 

   Lloyd I. Cadle
   April 26th, 2013 at 19:41 | #6

   Reply | Quote

   @jamesswan #5 Regarding the Real Presence, The Early church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. 1 Cor 10:16-17; 11:23-29 and especially Jn 6:32-71.

   Your own guy, Protestant historian of the early Church J.N.D. Kelly writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440.)

   Here are some of the Early Church Fathers that believe in the Real Presence: St Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, St. Hippolytus of Rome, Origen of Alexandria, St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Council of Nicaea I (It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters (i.e., priests) though neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer (the Eucharistic sacrifice) should give the body of Christ to them that do offer (it) (Canon 18 (A.D. 325). St Aphrahat the Persian sage, St Cyril of Jersualem, St Ambrose of Milan, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. Augustine of Hippo and the Council of Ephesus.

   The Sacrifice of the Mass: The Church Fathers shared this faith in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. Again, your guy Kelly says this, “The Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice.” Here are some of the Early Church Fathers to uphold this view, Didache, A.D.50, St Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Serapion of Thmuis, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianz, St. Ambrose of Milan, Sth. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Sechnall of Ireland.

   To be Continued…….. Sometimes this gets deleted before I get it posted.

1. 

   Lloyd I. Cadle
   April 26th, 2013 at 21:05 | #8

   Reply | Quote

   @jamesswan #5 Continued…..This is way too much work. I am not cutting and pasting off of a computer website here, but I am typing out of books on my desk.

   The Early Church Fathers believed in praying for the dead. Jews, Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox all believe in praying for the dead even if it is articulated in different ways in different communities. Here are some Early Church Fathers that prayed for the dead; Early Christian Inscription (Christian Inscription 34, A.D. 150), Acts of Paul and Thecla, AD 160, St. Abercius of Hierapolis, AD 190, Martyrdom of Peretua and Felicity, AD 203, Tertullian of Carthage, AD 218, St. Cyprian of Carthage, AD 252, Lactantius, (Divine Institutes 7:21) AD 307, St Cyril of Jerusalem, AD, 350, St Gregory of Nyssa, Ad 382, St John Chrysostom AD 402, and St. Augustine of Hippo, AD 402.

   Here is a quote from non other than C.S. Lewis. In his Letters to Malcom: Chiefly on Prayer, he writes: “Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not bread the heart if God said to us, “It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter tinto the joy”? Should we not reply, “With submission, sir and if there is no objection. I’d rather be cleaned first.” “It may hurt, you know” — “Even so, sir.”

   I don’t have the time to continue, at least for the time being. I have more than made a case for the teachings of the Early Church Fathers not being in agreement with post Reformation denominations. Aren’t you Reformed? Aren’t you a Protestant? Yet you are on this website hand in hand with those that you are not even in agreement with in doctrine and practice (if you are Reformed).

   Among Christians in the World, some 75% are either Orthodox or Catholic. And they agree on about 94% of doctrine. The other 25% are Protestant, and they are divided all over the place on doctrine and practice.

   There is a reason as to why when you tell folks that you are studying the Early Church Fathers, they usually respond with, “Well, you will either become Orthodox or Catholic.” Because they teach the majority consensus of the Early Church Fathers, as handed down to them from the Apostles.

   I am out of here on this issue.

1. 

   jamesswan
   April 26th, 2013 at 21:54 | #10

   Reply | Quote

   Hello Mr. Cadle,

   You seem intent on a monologue, and you also appear not to be intent on truly evaluating the claims of Rome fairly by applying the same standards to Rome that you’re hoisting on others. This refusal to actually engage the points I’ve placed before you strongly suggests you can’t. If you can, you certainly haven’t demonstrated it. The simple fact of the matter is that you can’t consistently argue that “the big picture here is that if one wants to go by the teachings (majority consensus) of the Early Church Fathers” someone would have to become a Roman Catholic, when in fact what Rome believes today on many important issues can’t be found in the early church. Your argument refutes your own position. I’m leaving Orthodoxy out of this, because it appears to me you’re a Roman Catholic. If Nicholas is correct, that you’re simply cut-and-pasting from Catholic Answers, I’m going to just add that as one more piece of evidence that you’re a fairly recent Roman convert.

   That being said, let’s look at something you’ve posted that demonstrates the sort of thing I think you overlook as Roman Catholic in regard to squaring it with Roman Catholicism:

   “Your own guy, Protestant historian of the early Church J.N.D. Kelly writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440.)”

   A good friend of mine (and co-blogger) has presented a compelling argument (summarized below) which demonstrates the historical revisionism that goes into viewing history as a Roman Catholic in regard to this statement from Kelly.

   The Council of Trent teaches the following:

   CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

   CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

   CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

   These canons teach that both the bread and wine become not just the body of Christ, but the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, and no longer remain bread and wine. In other words, each element (bread and wine) becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

   Whatever Kelly means by Eucharistic realism, there is no explicit consensus evidence during the first 800 years of the church that the bread becomes not just the body of Christ, but the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, and no longer remains bread. There is no consensus evidence during the first 800 years of the church that the wine becomes not just the body of Christ, but the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, and no longer remains wine.

   Certainly some of the fathers appeal to the metaphor of the bread being the body and cup being the blood. You’ll find some fathers who insist that this relationship is more than just a symbol, but consists of a symbol with power. You’ll find those that refer to a spiritual presence. What you won’t find though is the explicit points laid out by Trent. Show me someone from the early church that says that after consecrated by a priest, the bread is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ and the wine is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. If you can find one, the next task is to show the “consensus” that teaches exactly what Trent states.

   Note the following metaphors from Ignatius:

   You, therefore, must arm yourselves with gentleness and regain your strength in faith (which is the flesh of the Lord) and in love (which is the blood of Jesus Christ).

   Greek text: Ὑμεῖς οὖν τὴν πραϋπάθειαν ἀναλαβόντες ἀνακτίσασθε ἑαυτοὺς ἐν πίστει, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ ἐν ἀγάπῃ, ὅ ἐστιν αἷμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

   See J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, 2nd. ed., The Letters of Ignatius, To the Trallians, Chapter 8 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 163.

   Ignatius (@ 110 AD): I take no pleasure in corruptible food or the pleasures of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for drink I want his blood, which is incorruptible love.

   Greek text: Oὐχ ἥδομαι τροφῇ φθορᾶς οὐδὲ ἡδοναῖς τοῦ βίου τούτου. Ἄρτον θεοῦ θέλω, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, «τοῦ ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ», καὶ πόμα θέλω τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος.

   See J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, 2nd. ed., The Letters of Ignatius, To the Romans, Chapter 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 175.

   Now square this comment from Tertullian with what Trent teaches:

   Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. (ANF, Vol. 3, Against Marcion, 4.40).

   This comparison between Kelly and Trent is a great example of how you should have evaluated the claims of Rome in the light of the evidence of the early church.

   JS

1. 

   jamesswan
   April 26th, 2013 at 22:36 | #12

   Reply | Quote

   Mr Cadle states: “This is way too much work. I am not cutting and pasting off of a computer website here, but I am typing out of books on my desk.”

   Yes it is Lloyd, but it’s the situation you created by not focusing on one issue at a time.

   In regard to “prayers for the dead,” your latest subject, this isn’t the same thing as purgatory. That combined with the fact the fathers are all over the ballpark on this issue. Tertullian for instance speaks of prayers for refrigerium for those who have died. Compare that with Gregory the Great’s view or Augustine’s view, all of them held different views on it. To say all three of these men, because they speak of prayers for the dead support the doctrine of purgatory is reading the later doctrine of purgatory back into the fathers. In some cases when the early church is cited as holding “prayers for the dead” what’s in view is a prayer of joy for the departed, not a prayer for their release from purgatory. Once again your way of reading the early church on this subject is just another example of a faulty way of reading the early church documents. You’re reading later Roman doctrines back into history.

   You state: “I don’t have the time to continue, at least for the time being. I have more than made a case for the teachings of the Early Church Fathers not being in agreement with post Reformation denominations.”

   If you were being consistent, you would apply the same standard you use to the modern Roman Catholic Church. But it appears you can’t see past your own zeal to think carefully through this. Had you done that, you’d realize the paradigm you’re using to evaluate truth from error is faulty. Certainly church history can be insightful, but it is not the infallible interpreter of the Bible. If you use history as your sole infallible interpreter, it will bite you.

   You state: “Aren’t you Reformed? Aren’t you a Protestant? Yet you are on this website hand in hand with those that you are not even in agreement with in doctrine and practice (if you are Reformed).”

   Yes, I’m Reformed. Big deal. Simply because I am does not mean I can’t read the documents of the early church and point out your double standards.

   You state: “Among Christians in the World, some 75% are either Orthodox or Catholic. And they agree on about 94% of doctrine. The other 25% are Protestant, and they are divided all over the place on doctrine and practice.”

   I suggest sir, you open your Bible and notice that Jesus and the disciples were outnumbered by the majority, which was, at the time, Judaism. Also take note of the remnant theme that runs throughout the pages of Scripture. In case you’re not convinced by the testimony of Scripture that a majority doesn’t necessarily= true, an in-depth study of Athanasius would be something you certainly would benefit from. Search particularly for the phrase, “Athanasius Contra Mundum” and pay particular attention to who comprised the majority in the church and what they thought of Athanasius.

   You state: “I am out of here on this issue.”

   That’s fine Lloyd. I certainly hope you continue to study the early church. Here is a word of advise to you from the good Doctor:

   “the sum of my argument is that whereas the words of men, and the use of the centuries, can be tolerated and endorsed, provided they do not conflict with the sacred Scriptures, nevertheless they do not make articles of faith, nor any necessary observances.” – (Martinus Lutherus contra Henricum Regem Angliæ)

   JS