Over the next few posts, I hope to be able to comment on a couple of different aspects of that thread. But following up on a posting about the misuse of 1 Tim 3:15, here's another common Catholic "proof-text" that is also badly misused:
The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple. In them He prays on their behalf and bears witness to the fact that they are adopted sons. The Church, which the Spirit guides in way of all truth (Cf. Jn. 16:13) and which He unified in communion and in works of ministry, He both equips and directs with hierarchical and charismatic gifts and adorns with His fruits. (from Lumen Gentium, paragraph 4).
Note a couple of things here: First, see that "the Church" is separate from "the hearts of the faithful." Even at Vatican II, "The Church" is significantly "the hierarchy."
But note also that little reference, "cf" which is used with respect to the reference to John 16:13. It's an abbreviation for the Latin word confer, meaning "compare" or "consult". The Roman hierarchy will throw that little reference out there -- it's not given as a firm exegesis for "infallibility," but possibly with the intention that through the process of "mental reservation," some of "the faithful" will begin to use this verse, incorrectly, as a proof-text. And in this thread, that's exactly what happened: John 16:13 was thrown out there as a kind of proof for infallibility of the Magisterium. See this statement from the Catholic Catechism:
The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. [Emphasis supplied, JB; see the comment from "Tori" below.] Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms...
One form that's not explicitly given in the Catechism, but is nevertheless "out there" (cf) is that this verse is a support for "the Magisterium". See comment #400 by an individual named "Toli":
See Jn. 16:13. What does Christ say the Spirit will do? That text,among others, through good and necessary inference, opens the gate to an infallible magisterium. The continuity that exists is the same, but better.
This is one key reason why I think that Catholic apologetics, from the top level on down, is fundamentally a dishonest exercise.
What we've seen here is a clear, outright example of the Catholic Hermeneutic, as I've discussed, in which a Catholic does not rely on an exegetical process to understand what a verse means, but instead will start with an existing Catholic teaching, and then read that teaching back into the verse. This "method" has notably been defined by, among others, Pope Pius XII in his encyclical, Humani Generis:
“theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.”But what does this verse really say? What does it promise? I've consulted two commentaries on John, both D.A. Carson (1991) and Andreas Kostenberger (2004) for clarification:
The Paraclete will guide you in (Gk. en is the best reading; eis, 'into', as in NIV, is secondary) all truth. If there is a distinction between 'in all truth' and 'into all truth', it is that the latter hints at truth the disciples have not yet in any sense penetrated, while 'in all truth' suggests an exploration of truth already principally disclosed. Jesus himself is the truth (14:6); now the Spirit of truth leads the disciples into all the implications of the truth, the revelation, intrinsically bound up with Jesus Christ. There is no other locus of truth; this is all truth. The notion of 'guidance' (the Gk. verb hodegeo) in all truth has nothing to do with privileged information pertaining to one's choice of vocation or mate, but with understanding God as he has revealed himself, and with obeying that revelation -- as the occurence of this verb in the Psalms makes clear (e.g. Pss 25:4-5; 143:10).
... it makes sense to suppose that the Holy Spirit is unpacking [the significance of Jesus' death/exaltation]. The verb used here and repeated in vv. 14. 15 (anangello, NIV 'tell' in v.13 and 'make known' in vv. 14, 15) suggests an announcement, indeed in this context a revelatory declaration (as its use in 4:25 suggests), but it is a reiterative announcement. These features square best with the view that what is yet to come refers to all that transpires in consequence of the pivotal revelation bound up with Jesus' person, ministry, death, resurrection and exaltation. This includes the Paraclete's own witness to Jesus, his ministry to the world (16:8-11) primarily through the church (15:26, 27), the pattern of life and obedience under the inbreaking kingdom, up to and including the consummation. All of this the Spirit of truth 'announces', yet in making it known he is doing little more than fleshing out the implications of God's triumphant self-disclosure in the person and work of his Son. (Carson, pgs 539-541, emphasis in original.)
Also Kostenberger:
Yet when the "Spirit of truth" comes (see 14:17; 15:26), he will guide (hodego) them in all truth. "Guidance in all truth" (better than "into all truth") entails providing entrance to the revelatory sphere of God's character and ways. In one very important sense, Jesus is the eschatological Word who has explained ["exegeomai", from which we get the word "exegesis"] the Father (1:18). In another sense, however, by salvation-historical necessity is the Spirit who guides his followers in "all" truth. Such divine guidance was already the Psalmist's longing (Ps. 25:4-5; 43:3; 86:11; 143:10). The prphet recounts how God led his people Israel in the wilderness by his Holy Spirit (Isa. 63:14) and predicts God's renewed guidance in the future (Isa. 43:19). Yet as he guides Jesus' followers in all truth, the Spirit will speak only what he hears--his dependence on Jesus enacting the pattern set by Jesus in relation to the Father--and also tell Jesus' followers what is yet to come. The object of revelation is "what is yet to come" subsequent to the giving of the Spirit, which cannot be the passion, but must be events following Pentecost. The emphasis may lie not so much on predictive prophecy but on helping the believing community understand their present situation in light of Jesus' by-then-past revelation of God. This entails both "a more profound penetration into the content of revelation" and "the application of that revelation to the behaviour of the community within the world."I just wanted to suggest one more thing here. Note the verb "exegeomai," which Kostenberger refers to, John 1:18: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known..." This process of "making known" is "exegesis," which, used in the Gospel of Luke means "to give a full account" in the sense of "telling the whole story," which is the most probable meaning here, too.
Jesus is very clear, especially in the Gospel of John, that he only speaks what he hears from the Father (See John 3:34-35, 5:19-20, 7:16-18, 8:26-29, 42-43, 12:47-50, 14:10.) The Spirit repeats this pattern (John 16:14-15). If there is a pattern of "succession," it is this "succession in the truth," demonstrated within the Trinity, that is to be followed. This flies in the face of the "Catholic Hermeneutic," which superimposes its own meaning onto Scripture.
Posts
12 comments:
Hi John Bugay,
Good post.
Here's something that puzzles me. Now that you've shined the light and exposed the tactic, why do the Called to Communion guys, ex-Reform Protestants, not just swim back across the Tiber back to conservative Protestantism?
Hi Truth -- I know you're kind of serious about this, and so even though your question is off-topic, I'll give you a bit more of an answer maybe than you would have expected.
In my experience, it takes a lot of soul searching to "change religions," or church memberships, and there's even more of a process involved with becoming Catholic. First there's everything you have to go through to make the decision to become Catholic in the first place. Then you have to go through an RCIA process, which can be more or less involved. And then you have to wait for next Easter, when they have the baptism ceremony.
During that time, you have all kinds of time to think about things. And of course, the Holy Spirit is there to convict you.
I know you hear about folks who are overjoyed to have converted to Catholicism. But for some of these guys who may have been to evangelical or Reformed seminaries -- especially if their Protestant faith has been genuine, at some point -- I think that there has to be some sense of "buyer's remorse." After all, these guys probably learned very good and logical ways to think about things (Scriptures, exegesis, etc.)
To be a "really good" Catholic, you almost have to be indoctrinated in it. You have to be indoctrinated to think that way. That's the thing with Ignatius of Loyola's "Spiritual Exercises" -- "even if your eye sees white, if the Church says 'black,' it's really black." And "Give me a child until he's 5 years old, and I'll make a Catholic for life."
So you've got these really smart guys like Bryan Cross, having to smush their intellects into a Catholic box and "receive with docility" some of the teachings of the Church. Which involves putting up with a lot of the nonsense that we've talked about here and other places.
Now, I'm sure Bryan is comfortable with some of the Scholastic stuff, but I'm sure there are plenty of things that he finds himself "receiving with docility" that just don't make sense.
How long can you keep "receiving" some of that stuff? Maybe for a long time. Bryan strikes me as someone who's wrapped very tightly, though. And "logic" for him is a defense mechanism. That's an internal struggle that's got to be hard to keep up.
And as I said, on top of all that, the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit" will continue to convict some of these guys (assuming that what they had at some point was "genuine faith.")
I can say all of this, because I've been along that route myself. I left the RCC, was a Protestant for a few years, but I was genuinely attracted to the beauty and the mystery of the outward practice (and also some of the inner disciplines) of the Roman Catholic religion.
The thing for me was, I started getting these really convicting thoughts and feelings every time I went to communion, or knelt before a statue, and before long, I figured out where that conviction was coming from.
So, in answer to your question about "swimming the Tiber," even though the metaphor is a bit simplistic, I'm sure that the process will reverse itself in some of these folks. The "buyer's remorse" will kick in, aided by the Holy Spirit. I see part of my role as helping to define that and articulate just "what's happening" for these guys, and I do believe, Lord willing, that we'll see some of the guys coming "back home" before long.
But it's a long process.
Hello John,
You wrote:
>>What we've seen here is a clear, outright example of the Catholic Hermeneutic, as I've discussed, in which a Catholic does not rely on an exegetical process to understand what a verse means, but instead will start with an existing Catholic teaching, and then read that teaching back into the verse.>>
Me: There is little question that the same could be said for virtually every theological school/system; substitute “Catholic Hermeneutic” with “Reformed Hermeneutic”, or “Lutheran Hermeneutic”, or “Mormon Hermeneutic”, or “Arian Hermeneutic”, or “Socinian Hermeneutic”, or “Anabaptist Hermeneutic”, et al. A theological system is in denial if they believe they have somehow escaped the reading of their system’s teaching “back into” more than a few verses of the Bible.
For example, take the verse you cite at the end of your post—John 1:18: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” (NASB) If the Nestle/Aland reading is correct (and I believe that it probably is), “an exegetical process to understand what [the] verse means” clearly demonstrates that two Gods are being spoken of; one God who no man has seen, and another God, an “only begotten God” (monogenēs theos), who has declared/explained/revealed the God that no man has seen. I suspect such verses as John 1:18 compelled some of the more prominent early Church Fathers whose mother tongue was Greek to speak of “another God”, and/or of a “second God”, reserving the title “one God” for the Father alone.
Grace and peace,
David
David -- I've addressed that in this post:
http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/the-catholic-historical-method/
Here's a bit of that thread:
* * *
In comments to a recent posting on the question of the origin of the Bible, one Catholic writer prefaced his statement this way: “Both sides, yours and mine both can be accused of question begging.”
The dishonesty of this statement is astounding.
In his “Biblical Theology,” Geerhardus Vos discussed the Protestant attitude when approaching the Scriptures. He spoke of “an instinctive recognition that at the beginning of all Theology lies a passive, receptive attitude on the part of the one who engages in its study. The assumption of such an attitude is characteristic of all truly exegetical pursuit. It is eminently a process in which God speaks and man listens.” (“Biblical Theology,” pg. 4).
So when Reformed theologians “beg the question,” it is only at a point at which there is no way to avoid admitting one presupposes God at the beginning of such a study. Following that, the Reformed work with Scripture through a process of exegesis, that is getting out of the text what is there. The Reformed continue to follow the practice of Irenaeus, which I’ve outlined in another post. (“The parables will agree with the clear statements and the clear passages will explain the parables.”) Scripture interprets Scripture.
With regard to the Catholic Church, it is a blatant form of revisionism. This is evidenced by Pius IX’s method articulated in his Letter, “Gravissimas inter,” to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, Dec. 11, 1862, reiterated in Pius XII’s statement in Humani Generis, “theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.”
This is further explained in a variety of sources. One Roman Catholic theologian wrote, “We think first of developed forms for which we need to find historical justification. The developed forms come first and the historical justification comes second.” (“Ways of Validating Ministry,” Kilian McDonnell, Journal of Ecumenical Studies (7), pg. 213, cited in Carlos Alfredo Steger, “Apostolic Succession in the Writings of Yves Congar and Oscar Cullmann, pg. 322.) Steger calls this type of historical revisionism “highly questionable if not inadmissible.”
Aiden Nichols, “The Shape of Catholic Theology” (253) notes that for the last several hundred years, according to these popes, “the theologian’s highest task lies in proving the present teachings of the magisterium from the evidence of the ancient sources.” One internet writer called this method “Dogma Appreciation 101” (related in a discussion of his studies in a Catholic seminary.) Nichols calls this, “the so-called regressive method,” and notes that Walter Kasper (now a Cardinal) has traced the origins of this method to the 18th century.
* * *
Your example from John 1:18 is not a very helpful or realistic one. No one ever built or will build a doctrine based on that one verse -- without reading it in the context of the whole first chapter of
Thanks John - your posts are rich - wish I had time to read them all with full comprehension -
I never noticed the textual variant before of en vs. eis !!
Dr. White's emphasis on understanding the textual variants right here in this example is important!
NIV and NASB and ESV and KJV all (according to Gateway.com - I am not taking time to look up/and I don't know which editions are used) have "into (eis) all the truth" but the best reading is, "ev"
ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ
vs
εἰς Tnv alntheav (couldn't get the font on the accusative form)
Kostenberger is amazing - we were in seminary together (Columbia International University, Columbia, SC) and he always (seemed to me) to make 100s in Greek and Hebrew - amazing.
Hello again John,
Thanks for responding, though I cannot help but observe that your response is somewhat of a “canned version”, and does not actually interact with what I posted. The previous post you provided is a good response to pre-Vatican II Catholics who upheld the supplemental/constitutive view of tradition, but it neither addresses the new wave of Catholic theologians who have embraced an “ad fontes” approach, nor distinction theological systems within Protestantism. Your quote from the esteemed Geerhardus Vos is embraced by numerous non-Reformed theological systems; as such, I fail to understand how it addresses what I posted earlier.
As for John 1:18, you are making the assumption that John 1:1 has greater clarity/priority over 1:18; however, there is a problem with this—though 1:1 has greater textual stability, the grammatical/exegetical history of the text is certainly not clear-cut, and remains open to more than one plausible interpretation. So, there is a strong case, when implementing the “Scripture interprets Scripture” principle, that 1:18 should take priority over 1:1.
Grace and peace,
David
Thanks for responding, though I cannot help but observe that your response is somewhat of a “canned version”, and does not actually interact with what I posted. The previous post you provided is a good response to pre-Vatican II Catholics who upheld the supplemental/constitutive view of tradition, but it neither addresses the new wave of Catholic theologians who have embraced an “ad fontes” approach, nor distinction theological systems within Protestantism. Your quote from the esteemed Geerhardus Vos is embraced by numerous non-Reformed theological systems; as such, I fail to understand how it addresses what I posted earlier.
David, I have a full-time job and a full-time family, and I do try to respond to all of the comments that are addressed to me. The accusations that talk of us all being "accused of question-begging" and having our own "hermeneutics that read their system's teaching 'back into' more than a few verses of the Bible" do seem to be very similar in nature.
You had asked about "starting with an existing teaching, and then reading that teaching back into the verses in question."
It's true that such things happen. But my point in bringing Vos (and there could be many others) really is attitude: Do you want to learn what the Scriptures have to say, or do you see the Scriptures as just putty in your hand that you can pull out of context, essentially making you the master of them? My point was about attitude.
Since you are pressing silly examples here, I'll give you one that a friend used to throw out. The verse Ephesians 4:28 has been rendered, "Let him who stole, steal no more; let him work with his hands." But if you punctuate that differently, (and there is no punctuation in the original Greek), "Let him who stole, steal; no more let him work with his hands."
I'm sure you'll find common petty thieves who would have motivations to use the kind of hermeneutic that comes up with THAT rendering. But someone who genuinely wants to learn from the One True God will rather put that verse into context and try to find out what he Apostle is truly saying.
As for your look at John 1:1/1:18, take a look at Carson's analysis of the whole Prologue of John. Verses 1-18 are an entire cohesive literary unit that, he says, presents the themes of the whole Gospel. It "summarizes how the 'Word' which was with God in the very beginning came into the sphere of time, history, tangibility -- in other words, how the Son of God was sent into the world to become the Jesus of History, so that the glory and grace of God might be uniquely and perfectly disclosed" (pg 111).
Isolating the verses for the purposes that you've described is really completely counter to what John was intending to communicate.
Ken, I appreciate your encouragement. I'm really just "standing on the shoulders of giants," especially relying on Carson and Kostenberger.
One of these days I hope to be able to attend Seminary. For now, I'm just listening to RTS classes on my commute to and from work, and learning what I'm able to learn that way.
By the way, what kinds of fonts are you using, to be able to get Greek fonts to appear in these comments, and also to appear in your posts at Beggar's All?
Hi John,
For Greek, I usually go to this website and cut and paste. You can do Hebrew there also.
http://biblewebapp.com/reader/
I could not find an accusative example of tnv alntheav, (to go with eis - and they don't have textual variants there) (but I did see it in my own GNT) so that is why I did it that way.
In Farsi, I have Farsi software (an Iranian friend taught me how to upload it from Microsoft office 03) and I can type in it.
Testing Hebrew:
בְּלִבִּי צָפַנְתִּ אִמְרָתֶךָ לְמַעַן לֹא אֶחֱטָא־לָךְ
Wow, Ken, thanks for this. Don't be surprised if you find me experimenting :-)
Hebrew and Farsi just seem way down the road for me. Fortunately, we'll have eternity to learn and master such things.
Good morning John (before 11:00AM here),
Once again, thanks for responding; you wrote:
>>You had asked about "starting with an existing teaching, and then reading that teaching back into the verses in question."
It's true that such things happen. But my point in bringing Vos (and there could be many others) really is attitude: Do you want to learn what the Scriptures have to say, or do you see the Scriptures as just putty in your hand that you can pull out of context, essentially making you the master of them? My point was about attitude.
Since you are pressing silly examples here…>>
Me: I do “want to learn what the Scriptures have to say”, and I have devoted hundreds, if not thousands of hours to this noble, and essential endeavor. I have also spent thousands of dollars, collecting a substantial library as and aid, as well as learning Greek and Hebrew. Anyway, though I do not make the claim of being a scholar, I am a highly devoted student of the Scriptures, and have been since 1976.
As for John 1:1-18 (and the entire Gospel), I have done a good deal of prior research into this important prologue, utilizing more than 40 commentaries, as well as some important Greek grammars that touch on this section of Scripture.
Carson’s book on John fails to interact in any substantial way with scholarship that differs with his dogmatic statement:
“…the Word was God. That is the translation demanded by the Greek structure, theos ēn ho logos.” (Page 117)
Though I do have a lot of respect for Dr. Carson, the evidence for such a dogmatic statement is stacked against him.
Anyway, I do appreciate that you have taken the time to respond to my comments. One of my daughters will be arriving for the weekend this afternoon, and next week I head out for Southern Cal for a few days; but, when I get back, I work on a new thread devoted to proper theology and Christology of the gospel of John (the Lord willing).
Grace and peace,
David
David Waltz: Anyway, though I do not make the claim of being a scholar, I am a highly devoted student of the Scriptures, and have been since 1976
I'm glad to hear that. I don't know you very well, but I do know that your studies have taken you to a variety of places. I wonder how much of your study has been productive study, and how much of it non-productive. (Or rather than say "non-productive," since I'd guess that you'd like to think it has all been productive, how much of your study has taken you into intellectual dead-ends?)
As for John 1:1-18 (and the entire Gospel), I have done a good deal of prior research into this important prologue, utilizing more than 40 commentaries, as well as some important Greek grammars that touch on this section of Scripture.
Then I'm sure you've come across some commentaries that begin with presuppositions that have absolutely nothing to do with the historical Christian faith.
Which gives a clue to Carson's behavior in your next statement:
Carson’s book on John fails to interact in any substantial way with scholarship that differs with his dogmatic statement: ... Though I do have a lot of respect for Dr. Carson, the evidence for such a dogmatic statement is stacked against him.
I don't know much about Carson other than what I've heard in a few taped lectures and read in a few of his books.
But with that said, I do know that life is short, and don't imagine there's too much to be gained by a thorough examination of a Schleirmacherian commentary on the Gospel of John. I'm sure Carson believed he had a good reason to be as selective as he was.
Hope you have a good weekend with your daughter, and good luck in your studies.
Post a Comment