tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post116661527280394129..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Pope Damasus and the Canon of Scripture (Part One)James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167538265854801952006-12-30T23:11:00.000-05:002006-12-30T23:11:00.000-05:00I would likewise affirm the statement from Van Til...I would likewise affirm the statement from Van Til on circular reasoning- That being said, there is much more to flesh out on this, in particular with Catholic apologetics.<BR/><BR/>Van Til's brilliance was leveling non-Christian worldviews like atheism and relativism and exposing them as smoke and mirrors. That being said, I'd like to use his basic concepts and apply them to Roman Catholic paradigms-James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167531938406895872006-12-30T21:25:00.000-05:002006-12-30T21:25:00.000-05:00Mr. Swan,I apologize for letting my frustration wi...Mr. Swan,<BR/><BR/>I apologize for letting my frustration with you show at the end of this conversation. Although you may know what you believe and why you believe it, as an outisder of your theological tradition, I do not think your presentation is clear at all. As I've responded to what you have written, and vice versa, and I perceived inconsistency in your presentation. As Iohannes has auggested, this may be in part because of your methodological approach to apologetics, which he says many find difficult. However, I think there is more to it. <BR/><BR/>Iohannes, I am still very interested in your response. Will you be posting it here or sending it to me e-mail? I thank you for your charity, and equally, your clarity. Your admission of circular reasoning on the most fundamental level is something I kept trying to get at with Mr. Swan, but he didn't seem to get it. If he had simply said what you said about having to admit circular reasoning, otherwise we wouldn't be able to reason, much progress would've been made. Likewise, your admission of what the Church actually teaches was essential to progress on this topic. Unfortunately, it was not taken advantage of. I wish you would have posted your comments at the beginning of this conversation! Nevertheless, if you would be so kind, I would very much like to pursue this conversation with you via e-mail. <BR/><BR/>In Christ and His Bride,<BR/>Pope St. PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167503719546172872006-12-30T13:35:00.000-05:002006-12-30T13:35:00.000-05:00John:Update-John- if you'd like to post this respo...John:<BR/><BR/><B>Update</B>-John- if you'd like to post this response to Frank G as a blog entry here, please e-mail me at:<BR/> <BR/><B>Tertiumquid@optonline.net.</B><BR/><BR/>I dropped MSN today, and went high speed with a new internet provider.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167487460474791112006-12-30T09:04:00.000-05:002006-12-30T09:04:00.000-05:00At this point, we have reached something of a stan...<I>At this point, we have reached something of a standstill. I will try to post a response to PSP's paper tomorrow night or Sunday. Until then, I won't have anything more to say.</I><BR/><BR/>John- if you'd like to post this response as a blog entry here, please e-mail me at Tertiumquid@msn.com.<BR/><BR/>I will be putting together one final comment, which will either be here, or maybe even an entire blog entry. Frank G's comments went from cordial to acescent. It is a shame this level of discourse was reached. Frank, you are still welcome to post here, but I suggest you do reread this dialog, and re-look at exactly which arguments have been made by myself and John. <BR/><BR/>I argued against the need for an infallible Magisterium. That's it in a nutshell.None of what you put forth logically forced one to conclude an infallible magisterium was needed. Further I argued that the current Roman Catholic paradigm for reality can't make sense of all the historical facts surrounding certainty for the canon.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167446417556206902006-12-29T21:40:00.000-05:002006-12-29T21:40:00.000-05:00If I might interject, I think JS is making basical...If I might interject, I think JS is making basically the same points that I have tried to make. I don't think he is being inconsistent or intellectually immature, certainly not any more than I have been. When I entered, I had the benefit of having a sturdy foundation already laid for my comments (and these were really only an endeavor toward clarification, or a way of approaching the matter from another angle).<BR/><BR/>As James suggested, I think part of the frustration arises from the fact that he is following the presuppositional method of apologetics, and his manner of doing this has been somewhat more direct and explicit than mine. The presuppositional (or Van Tilian) approach is often hard to understand when it is first encountered, and many Reformed folks themselves have trouble with it. PSP, if you are not familiar with this school of thought on apologetics, you might like to look into it. The best place to begin is probably with two essays by Cornelius Van Til: <A HREF="http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/why_I_believe_cvt.html" REL="nofollow">Why I Believe in God</A> and <A HREF="http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/My_Credo_van_til.html" REL="nofollow">My Credo</A>. Van Til was very much an academic, and he is often criticized for using language that is difficult to understand. For an introduction to the more concrete and practical side of his method, you can look into the work of Greg Bahnsen, much of which is available for free online (just do a google search). Once you get a feel for how the method works, whether you like it or not, you will see that at the very least it cannot be branded as epistemologically unsophisticated.<BR/><BR/>In any event, I have enjoyed this discussion, and have very much benefited from it. If it is to continue, I think it may be good for us all to step back from it for a day. At this point, we have reached something of a standstill. I will try to post a response to PSP's paper tomorrow night or Sunday. Until then, I won't have anything more to say.<BR/><BR/>JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167439084928580212006-12-29T19:38:00.000-05:002006-12-29T19:38:00.000-05:00Mr. Swan,I too deal with your kind, and it is almo...Mr. Swan,<BR/><BR/>I too deal with your kind, and it is almost a complete waste of time. I say "almost" because it is useful knowing how different Protestants try and get out from under the tremendous epistemological weight bearing down upon them. This conversation has been very informative, especially in light of your "Mormon hermeneutic" and the historical ambiguities that you've thrown into the conversation. Iohannes's introduction into the conversation has made your inconsistency of thought crystal clear. It is clear from comparing both of your comments that you are not a clear thinker. I'm sure you have a lot of knowledge; you just don't know how to present it. <BR/><BR/>At any rate, I didn't come here to change anyone's mind. As I told you before, I happened across your blog and thought your post interesting, and as the posts continued it got more interesting. I think now, though, that I must let this conversation go. School begins next week and you're not intellectually mature enough to make time for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167393311219478792006-12-29T06:55:00.000-05:002006-12-29T06:55:00.000-05:00Frank G:I see that my summary comments have pushed...Frank G:<BR/><I>I see that my summary comments have pushed some buttons.</I><BR/><BR/>If by “pushed some buttons” you think in some way I’m angry, heated up, or losing sleep over your comments, you are very mistaken. I’ve appreciated your contributions and attempt to provide reasoning for your faith.<BR/><BR/><I> I realize that this is a very difficult conversation for you, because your biases, presuppositions and theological tradition can never allow you to consider the fact that you might be wrong, i.e., you engage in circular reasoning.</I><BR/><BR/>Your realizations are a product of your imagination. Also, you may wish to reread John’s comments about Van Til and circular reasoning. In fact, it would be a good idea for you to go out and get Van Til’s books. I am a presuppositionalist- thus rather creating a chimera in your mind, you would have a better idea of who I am, and thus would not make such comments.<BR/><BR/><I> I'll not be responding to everything you've said, Mr. Swan, because you've not responded to everything I've said. </I><BR/><BR/>I’ve been around the block with this type of thing before. Like the time I responded to everything from a well-known Catholic apologist with a 70 page single spaced paper and 100 or so footnotes, only to get a small response a week later. Rather, I try to at least stay on a topic, and go with that topic. <BR/><BR/><I> I've addressed every single point you've brought up not only throughout this discussion, but in my most recent comments, which were a kind of summary of everything I have said. I have this entire conversation on Word Perfect, and after reviewing everything you and I have said, I have responded accordingly – and this despite the incredibly busy schedule my family has had. You, on the other hand, have not returned the favor. You quote me here and there and respond to what you like.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I guess we can assume you did misquote Clement last week. Similarly I have a busy schedule, and am able to spend only about an hour a day on line. This weekend, i'm going to again try to have me entire phone/computer switched over to Cable, so I will probably be computer-less. I respond to what is put forth, time allowing. If you are spending time here at the expense of your family, I think you should rethink the way you utilize your time. I appreciate your contributions, but do not spend time here at the loss of spending time with those of importance in your life. <BR/><BR/><I>You want to know what kind of Christian I was…</I><BR/><BR/>Thank you for your clarification.<BR/><BR/><I>Having answered these questions, I should point out the relevance of my mentioning my being a former Protestant. First, I was responding to Mr. Marron, as you well know. Secondly, I was pointing out that I have somewhat of an objective perspective (I say “somewhat” because nobody has a completely objective perspective). Thirdly, I realize I have not won your respect – nor was that ever a concern of mine – but Dr. Kenneth Howell, the former professor of Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Hermeneutics at Reformed Theological Seminary, should. Thus, your comments about the Holy Spirit guiding me into “a Church that teaches doctrine not found in the Bible” also apply to Dr. Howell, as well as to former professor Joshua Hochschild, who was fired this past February from Wheaton College for converting to Rome.</I><BR/><BR/>I’ve never heard of Dr. Howell or Joshua Hochschild. But I have read Surprised By Truth, and I do watch the Journey Home- so I do have an inkling of understanding of the Protestant “conversion story.” <BR/><BR/>Now, my questions to them would be the same as those I’ve been asking you. Simply because someone is well-educated does not mean they are beyond grave error. Gerry Matatics and Robert Sungenis should be proof of that- don’t you think? Both are very well educated, yet they’ve fallen out of favor with popular Roman Catholic apologetics- to the point where Catholic laymen, who once touted the brilliance of these “Protestant converts”, now speak of how wrong they are on important Catholic issues.<BR/><BR/><I>Here are some quotes from you, as you requested:…</I><BR/><BR/>Thank you for providing these. They will help formulate another response to you.<BR/><BR/><I>Also, I do not accept James White as an authority on Church history, and certainly not early Church history. I referred to Jaroslav Pelikan, a noted Church historian who specialized in the development of Christian doctrine. I realize that bringing this up is irrelevant because you're not free to pursue an objective perspective, but I should mention it anyway.</I><BR/><BR/>I deal with this type of false argument all the time. Rather than interact with the point made, the point is rejected because of who the author is. My method of reasoning is usually to point out the error in the point, and then reject the authority of the one who made the assertion. For instance, you can read through my Luther research to see this method. Roman Catholic writers say all sorts of things about Luther. I go and look at their point, research the point, invalidate the point by counter research (if it is flawed), and then raise the issue about reliance on that particular author. You of course, may have another method. In a Roman Catholic worldview, simply rejecting an author’s work without actually knowing why has been often been standard operating procedure.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167375275514463442006-12-29T01:54:00.000-05:002006-12-29T01:54:00.000-05:00I'm trying Iohannes. I really am. But to me, Mr. S...I'm trying Iohannes. I really am. But to me, Mr. Swan is very inconsistent in his thought. This is what is making me frustrated. <BR/><BR/>On another note, it seems to me that the issue of ecclesiology must be addressed if substantial progress is to be made. Calvin uses the phrase "human testimonies," but to Catholics the Church is not merely a human witness. I tried to bring this up before with Mr. Swan, but he just doesn't get it. If the "Old Testamant believer," as he called them, heard the Prophet Isaiah saying, "Thus saith the LORD," he/she would have to have a faith in Isaiah in addition to his message, would they not? In other words, in order to accept his message as from God ("God-breathed"), they would have to believe that he was infallible at the time he spoke it (or wrote it). <BR/><BR/>To some degree, the Protestant position seems to be: "To hell with Timothy, we want 1 and 2 Timothy." Whereas the Catholic position is that just like St. Luke (this is my third time brining this up now) had to sift through the traditions in order to write his Gospel - the words were not dictated to him from the Holy Spirit - so the Church had to sift through the traditions in order to gather the inspired writings. Further, just as Christians don't believe that St. Luke was a fallible writer writing infallible words, but rather that he was infallible at the time of writing them, so Catholics believe that the Church was infallible at the time of her gathering the writings, and according to Sproul, "some Protestant theologians" do as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167373469812831992006-12-29T01:24:00.000-05:002006-12-29T01:24:00.000-05:00I realize that when one penetrates to the level of...I realize that when one penetrates to the level of presuppositions it is hard to avoid raising the matter of biases, which action has a unique unpleasantness about it--but may <I>we all</I> proceed to this in a charitable fashion? Acerbity will likely end only in mutual frustration, and thereby rob us all of an opportunity for edification.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167372328951812452006-12-29T01:05:00.000-05:002006-12-29T01:05:00.000-05:00Since I earlier referred to chapter 7 of the first...Since I earlier referred to chapter 7 of the first book of the Institutes, which concerns the ultimate proof of Scripture, it may be good, for the sake of balance, to suggest an examination of <A HREF="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.i.ix.html" REL="nofollow">chapter 8</A> as well, which concerns additional witnesses to the truth of Scripture, including specifically the proper place of the church. Calvin concludes this section by saying:<BR/><BR/><I>These, however, cannot of themselves produce a firm faith in Scripture until our heavenly Father manifest his presence in it, and thereby secure implicit reverence for it. Then only, therefore, does Scripture suffice to give a saving knowledge of God when its certainty is founded on the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit. Still the human testimonies which go to confirm it will not be without effect, if they are used in subordination to that chief and highest proof, as secondary helps to our weakness. But it is foolish to attempt to prove to infidels that the Scripture is the Word of God. This it cannot be known to be, except by faith. Justly, therefore, does Augustine remind us, that every man who would have any understanding in such high matters must previously possess piety and mental peace.</I><BR/><BR/>Calvin's attitude here reminds me somewhat of the place of the theistic proofs in Christian apologetics. As Berkhof said, "They have some value for believers themselves, but should be called <I>testimonia</I> rather than arguments." [NB The word 'some' should not be taken as disparaging; it only expresses the fact that they must, however impressive they seem, in the end be be what Calvin calls 'secondary helps'.]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167372002929999982006-12-29T01:00:00.000-05:002006-12-29T01:00:00.000-05:00P.S.Mr. Swan, please read the last paragraph of my...P.S.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Swan, please read the last paragraph of my post again. It begins, "The tremendous epistemological weight.." This paragraph should've gotten rid of your need for quotes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167371368602058492006-12-29T00:49:00.000-05:002006-12-29T00:49:00.000-05:00I see that my summary comments have pushed some bu...I see that my summary comments have pushed some buttons. I realize that this is a very difficult conversation for you, because your biases, presuppositions and theological tradition can never allow you to consider the fact that you might be wrong, i.e., you engage in circular reasoning. I'll not be responding to everything you've said, Mr. Swan, because you've not responded to everything I've said. I've addressed every single point you've brought up not only throughout this discussion, but in my most recent comments, which were a kind of summary of everything I have said. I have this entire conversation on Word Perfect, and after reviewing everything you and I have said, I have responded accordingly – and this despite the incredibly busy schedule my family has had. You, on the other hand, have not returned the favor. You quote me here and there and respond to what you like. <BR/><BR/>You want to know what kind of Christian I was prior to converting to Holy Mother Church: I was a “garden variety Protestant.” I did have some Dutch Reformed friends, one of whom is entering the Church this Easter and the other has converted to Anglo-Catholicism, but I myself was not privileged to be one of these Protestant elite. As for the college: the Criswell College. It was a college that was started by Dr. W.A. Criswell in reaction to Liberal Protestantism. <BR/><BR/>Having answered these questions, I should point out the relevance of my mentioning my being a former Protestant. First, I was responding to Mr. Marron, as you well know. Secondly, I was pointing out that I have somewhat of an objective perspective (I say “somewhat” because nobody has a completely objective perspective). Thirdly, I realize I have not won your respect – nor was that ever a concern of mine – but Dr. Kenneth Howell, the former professor of Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Hermeneutics at Reformed Theological Seminary, should. Thus, your comments about the Holy Spirit guiding me into “a Church that teaches doctrine not found in the Bible” also apply to Dr. Howell, as well as to former professor Joshua Hochschild, who was fired this past February from Wheaton College for converting to Rome. <BR/><BR/>Here are some quotes from you, as you requested:<BR/><BR/>- The Church simply infallibly declares the Canon...problem solved. <BR/><BR/> - But then, these same people come to the Canon of sacred scripture, and it's as simple as saying, "The Church [sic] infalibly declared the Canon"... or apply this to any other argument...."The Church has declared x or y". <BR/><BR/> - Try asking such a person a question like, "what criteria was used by Trent or Damasus to determine Canonicity?" What? The answer is simply something like, "Well, the Holy Spirit directed these men (or counsels) as to which books were to be in the Canon." The question then asked should be, "how?"<BR/><BR/> - Of course, this answer will be a lot more complicated than saying, "The Church authoritatively decided".<BR/><BR/>Also, I do not accept James White as an authority on Church history, and certainly not early Church history. I referred to Jaroslav Pelikan, a noted Church historian who specialized in the development of Christian doctrine. I realize that bringing this up is irrelevant because you're not free to pursue an objective perspective, but I should mention it anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167369828845559772006-12-29T00:23:00.000-05:002006-12-29T00:23:00.000-05:00"Pope St. Peter"--I am sorry, but it may take me a..."Pope St. Peter"--<BR/><BR/>I am sorry, but it may take me a little longer than I anticipated to respond to your paper (in part because I am doing some study, so that the answer might be more worthy of your time, and in part also because of a small problem with my car, which will probably occupy me tomorrow morning). I do assure you, though, that I intend to respond, and I hope to do so by the Lord's Day.<BR/><BR/>In the mean time, as a gift, I would like to send you a small volume which explores the Reformed teaching about the authority of the bible. It is entitled <I>The Infallible Word</I>, and is a collection of articles by the faculty of Westminster Seminary. In honesty I must admit that I have read in full only the first article, which is an excellent treatment by John Murray of the attestation of Scripture. However, having looked through the chapters on the authority of the Old and New Testaments, I believe these also may address, in a way more scholarly and thorough than I can hope to achieve, some of your questions about the how Protestants understand the reception of the canon. If you would send your address to me by e-mail (to lechaca1 {at} netscape.net), I will have the book dispatched to you.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/><BR/>JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167362237680157892006-12-28T22:17:00.000-05:002006-12-28T22:17:00.000-05:00Frank G-You take issue with the fact that some Cat...Frank G-<BR/><BR/><I>You take issue with the fact that some Catholics are not concerned with the details of an infallible statement,</I><BR/><BR/>From this discussion, please clarify- Quote me.<BR/><BR/><I> that some Catholics are content with believing that the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium.</I> <BR/><BR/>From this discussion, please clarify- Quote me.<BR/><BR/>I ask this, because i'm curious which of my statements prompted you to make these two comments. This will help me put forth a response to you.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167361542795300092006-12-28T22:05:00.000-05:002006-12-28T22:05:00.000-05:00This discussion has gotten rather long, and sidetr...This discussion has gotten rather long, and sidetracked, yet interesting nonetheless, which is why I’ve not posted any new blog entries. My apologies for not keeping up with everything that has been put forth. <BR/><BR/>That being said, I do have some further comments to make to “Pope st. Peter” whom I’m now going to refer to with his real name: Frank G. Ramirez (he posted this on his blog, Sancta Mater Ecclesia). I noticed he just posted a lengthy reply to me- I will have to get to this within the next day or two.<BR/><BR/>First, here's a comment I didn't want to miss from a few days ago: <BR/><BR/><I>I do not believe that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus promised because I was spoon-fed it from day one. As a former Protestant who studied theology at a Protestant Bible college…</I><BR/><BR/>What “kind” of former Protestant were you? Were you either Lutheran or Reformed? Or were you simply a garden-variety Protestant? Other than confessional Protestants (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican etc.), I do not hold a high level of respect for non-confessional churches (though there are exceptions). Which Bible College did you attend? What theology did you study? <BR/><BR/><I> I came to believe the Catholic Church to be the Church Jesus promised because the Holy Spirit revealed it me in His Word (Note: not "human reason" or "commonsense")! To repeat, I did not wake up one day (as a Protestant) and think to myself, "Wow! The Catholic Church claims to be the true Church; I'd better convert."</I> <BR/><BR/>If the Holy Spirit did indeed reveal this to you, the Holy Spirit led you to believe in a Church that teaches doctrine not found in the Bible. Thus, the Holy Spirit also had to reveal to you that God speaks outside of Scripture. The Holy Spirit also had to reveal to you that the Roman Magisterium also infallibly declares the meaning and scope of both. Now this is much more like Mormonism. The Mormon prays and asks God if the Mormon Church is true. God responds by His Spirit and reveals that the Bible, Mormon extra-biblical beliefs, and the interpretation as determined by the Mormon Church is true (allegedly, that is).<BR/><BR/>Now, to some recent comments: <BR/><BR/><BR/><I> There are some fundamental misunderstandings that must be cleared up. One of them is the contention that the Church “makes” Scripture.</I><BR/><BR/>I have not made this claim. However, Some Catholic apologists do claim the Church precedes and predates Scripture, and therefore is the principle causality behind the Scriptures. In other words, the argument is that, without the Church, the Scriptures would not exisit. Do you think the Word of God could exist without the Roman Church? <BR/><BR/><I> Thus, your argument that the Catholic would not have known what the exact number of writings were prior to the Council of Trent, doesn't have any weight… </I><BR/><BR/>Stop right there. I have been arguing about certainty. I have applied a Roman Catholic paradigm: Certainty for Catholic laymen is given by infallible decree. Since there was not an infallible decree on which books were canonical until Trent, a Catholic could not know, with certainty, which books were canonical and which were not. In other words, I have argued not about a “number of books”- I have argued that a Catholic couldn’t have certainty on any of the books! <BR/><BR/><I>…because the Scriptures are a part of the Tradition that the Church has always had and handed on. In other words, like the hypothetical Protestant who lived prior to the Early Church's definitive acknowledgment of the extant of the Canon, the Catholic still received the Word of God in its fullness prior to Trent, because both accepted Apostolic Tradition. Your question only has weight if you presuppose Sola Scriptura.</I><BR/><BR/>I have not spoken about “hypothetical Protestants”. I have spoken about Christians. My point, is to apply the Roman Catholic paradigm: certainty is given by infallible decree. There was not an infallible decree previous to Trent, hence, no certainty. The argument is not really about the Canon, or the number of books in the canon. The argument is about popping the bubble of the need for an infallible magistertium to provide certainty. If it is proved that there is no need for an infallible magisterium, the popular argument put forth by contemporary Catholic apologists that Protestants can’t know which books should be in the canon without an infallible magisterium falls. Hence, most of your Roman references aren’t even relevant. You're arguing against a position I don’t even hold. I know (and have stated), that the Church receives the Bible from God. Thus I can agree that “they [books] have God for their author and were delivered as such to the Church.” As J.I. Packer said long ago about the Canon, “Not that the church created the New Testament canon by recognizing and isolating it, any more than Newton created the law of gravity by recognizing it and catching it in a formula; nor did the early church, which over four centuries achieved the recognition, ever suppose itself to be creating anything.”<BR/><BR/><I> You asked whether I was going to prove the Church authority by someone other means than Sola Scriptura. Of course I am! Fr. (and Dr.) Mitchell Pacwa, S.J., stated in his debate with James White, that the Catholic Church doesn't get her authority from the Bible, but from Jesus Christ. For Catholics, Jesus and the biblical world are not a literary one like Frodo and Middle Earth in The Lord of the Rings. So Catholics do not appeal to a literary figure or world for its authority; we appeal to a historical One. </I><BR/><BR/>I do have this debate somewhere, but I will trust you accurately have quoted Pacwa. Let me try to rephrase the question: In which historical record can you produce that proves the Roman Catholic Church got her authority from Jesus Christ? I know of no other record than the Biblical record. If you want to admit that the Roman Church got her authority from Jesus because they say so, you will get no argument from me. It will simply stand in this discussion as an example of sola ecclesia. You believe it, because you have made a leap of faith- you are not relying on “proof”. It is a beginning unproven presupposition you hold. <BR/><BR/><I>As to the extent of the Canon, Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guided the leaders (bishops) of the Church “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13; RSV:CE) in her discernment of which writings were inspired by Him and which were not. </I><BR/><BR/>And I would not disagree. The argument is about whether or not this Church is an infallible Church. <BR/><BR/><I> When applied to the Early Church, a superficial reading reveals that things were not as obvious as you indicate. As I mentioned before, Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John were all disputed, while works such as 1 Clement, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas and more were considered inspired. Does this piece of history, which according to Jaroslav Pelikan goes into the mid-fourth century, reveal a confusion in the Church on the part of the people as to what the Spirit was revealing in their hearts?</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, there is hardly any meaningful disagreement about the New Testament canon in the early church. There are isolated occurrences in the historical record. James White points out: “…It is precisely the scattered nature of these statements, and the fact that they never reflect a consensus of believers over any period of time or great distance, that substantiates my claim [there is hardly any meaningful disagreement to be noted on the New Testament canon in the early church]. It is good that there were those who questioned canonical works, especially when they first appeared in a particular area; de facto, open arms and untested acceptance of any ‘scripture’ indicates a lack of discernment. The reception of some works in the particular area of their original authorship is likewise understandable, even if such works never gained currency outside of the geographical area of their origination.”James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167353373569925092006-12-28T19:49:00.000-05:002006-12-28T19:49:00.000-05:00Mr. Swan,You take issue with the fact that some Ca...Mr. Swan,<BR/><BR/>You take issue with the fact that some Catholics are not concerned with the details of an infallible statement, that some Catholics are content with believing that the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium. This is no different than asking a Christian how Mary conceived the Son of God while still a virgin, to which they would simply respond, “By the power of the Holy Spirit.” The next question, according to you, should be: “How?” You say that, “when the Roman Catholic claims 'certainty' we have every right to challenge this and make them prove it. If they do have 'certainty', they should be able to provide rational argumentation to substantiate it.” So, tell us Mr. Swan, how did the Holy Spirit impregnate Mary, not to mention while keeping her a virgin? <BR/><BR/>How did someone like St. Clement of Rome know he was quoting inspired wirings from St. Paul? Because he accepted the authority by which he received them. This authoritative sharing, if you will, can already be seen in St. Paul's letter to the Colossians: “And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also among the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea” (Col 4:16;RSV). In other words, the early Christians held fast to the traditions, “either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15;RSV). Tradition, as the Church would later state, “By means of the same Tradition the full canon of the sacred books is known to the Church” (Dei Verbum, II.8). <BR/><BR/>This is why some Catholics might not concern themselves with your assertion that “previous to [Trent] there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books (about their belonging to the canon).” The Word of God was handed on in its entirety. Furthermore, your attempt to argue “uncertainty” amongst the laity until Trent is refuted by Jaroslav Pelikan's observation that, “The writings of Eusebius and of his contemporary, Athanasius of Alexandria, make it evident that agreement on the disputed books was approaching by the middle of the fourth century and that the canon of the New Testament which now appears in Christian Bibles was gaining general, if not universal, acceptance. That canon appears for the first time in a letter of Athanasius issued in 367 CE,” and also, “The second canon of the Second Trullan Council of 692, known to canon lawyers as the Quinisext, make be taken to have formally closed the process of the formation of the New Testament canon for East and West” (Who's Bible Is It?, pp. 116-117). <BR/><BR/>You never denied the “role of the Church,” but you never defined what it was, practically. In fact, how does it play out practically, as well as “history” and “God's sovereignty”? You brought all these up and never defined what they were. For instance, in this same paragraph you mention both “the role of the Church” and “the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of God's people”; are the “Church” and the “people” two different things here? All these is obvious to you, but it wasn't obvious to the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. It wasn't obvious to the early Christians who thought 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Barnabas, and many others were inspired. With such confusion the Protestant must be asked, “How was the Christian to know what books were inspired?” Is this were the Mormon experience comes into play? It just wasn't a universal experience until the mid-fourth century? “[T]he [Protestant] paradigm for certainty fails when applied practically.” This Mormon experience apparently didn't help the Thessalonian Christians, who had accepted a letter as coming from St. Paul which had shaken their faith! <BR/><BR/>Your biases and presuppositions give you an over-simplistic conception of the formation of the Canon. You “recognize the Christian Church received the Canon,” but completely ignore the fact that the Church had received much more than the Canon (i.e., the post-apostolic writings). As I've said before, like St. Luke, the Church had to sift through many traditions in order to find the right ones. Was not St. Luke infallible, which you stated means, “incapable of error,” when he did this? Or, let me guess, he was a fallible writer writing infallible words? Despite your long paragraph on how you agree that the Christian Church received the canon, in the end you basically said, “The Holy Spirit gave it to us; see, even St. Augustine says so.” Exactly what you accused Catholics of! <BR/><BR/>The tremendous epistemological weight of the Protestant is overbearing, and is obvious in this discussion. Despite the accusation that when Catholics are asked of the practical process of an infallible decision, they simply respond, “the Holy Spirit”; the Protestant, when asked of the practical workings of “the role of the Church,” “history,” “God's sovereignty,” and “the work of the Holy Spirit,” can only answer: “I’m 'certain' or 'sure' that the Canon is the Word of God, not because the Church infallibly said so. My certainty results from my faith in God’s providence- in his outworking of his will for his people.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167288473547483412006-12-28T01:47:00.000-05:002006-12-28T01:47:00.000-05:00Thank you for your cordial reply. I would be happy...Thank you for your cordial reply. I would be happy to look through and address your paper. It may take a little time to do so, but I will try to respond by Thursday evening or early Friday.<BR/><BR/>Respectfully,<BR/><BR/>JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167261651528922802006-12-27T18:20:00.000-05:002006-12-27T18:20:00.000-05:00"No reader of the New Testament can need proof of ..."No reader of the New Testament can need proof of this; on every page of that book is spread the evidence that from the very beginning the Old Testament was as cordially recognized as law by the Christian as by the Jew. The Christian church thus was never without a “Bible” or a “canon.”"<BR/><BR/>That's an interesting point that ought to be easily verified. What were the books of the Christian Cannon in 40 AD? Could you please list them along with the source(s)?<BR/><BR/>What were the books of the cannon in 40 BC? Did all Jews recognize this same cannon? Could you please list them along with the source(s)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167260429524915732006-12-27T18:00:00.000-05:002006-12-27T18:00:00.000-05:00Iohannes, On the contrary! Thank you very much for...Iohannes, <BR/><BR/>On the contrary! Thank you very much for your simple and clear words. My finally turning my attention to you this day has an added backing, if you will; for today is the Feast Day of St. John the Apostle, and further, when I did my usual devotion this morning, it was on Psalm 119, which is arguably the strongest passage in support of Sola Scriptura. Anyway, call me superstitious!<BR/><BR/>You bring up a very interesting point, Iohannes, concerning the Spirit's testimony within one's heart. This especially intrigues me because when I was doing the reading for my paper I had to skip over that section in Muller's presentation of the Reformed scholastics. I simply did not have the time (It's tough going to school and having a family!). <BR/><BR/>However, as moving as your belief in the Spirit's activity is, I don't see how it is reconciled with what the New Testament actually says. I'm sure others here will probably accuse me of <I>having</I> to write that last sentence, but if you can look past the polemic, then please believe that it is a sincerely objective concern. <BR/><BR/>I would like to carry this conversation further, but I'm not that this is the "blog topic" to do it under. In light of what you've said about the Spirit's activity, would you please respond to my paper as a response to what you've said. The first half of the paper can be skipped over because I'm not giving the Reformed scholastics' understanding of what you've presented; however, the second part, the Catholic response, is nevertheless applicable here.<BR/><BR/>In Christ and His Bride,<BR/>PetrusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167258536697766152006-12-27T17:28:00.000-05:002006-12-27T17:28:00.000-05:00James--Thank you for your kind words. If there is ...<B>James--</B><BR/><BR/>Thank you for your kind words. If there is one great fact that this discussion brings out for me, it is the truth in Van Til's assertion that: <I>To admit one's own presuppositions and to point to the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, </I>circular reasoning<I>. The starting point, the method and the conclusion are always involved in one another.</I> DotF, p. 101 in the 3rd ed. And further, <I>Reasoning in a vicious circle is the only alternative to reasoning in a circle</I>. <A HREF="http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/sce/cvt_sce_chap1.html" REL="nofollow">SCE</A>, p. 11. When I compare the teaching of Rome at Trent and other places to the teaching of Scripture (as well as of philosophy and history), it is clear to me that, as you have said, "the template for reality used by Roman Catholic continually doesn't fit." Protestants and RCs both reason in a circle, but I firmly believe that one of these circles is consistent with itself, and one is not.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Blosser, who was cited above, gives <A HREF="http://www.lrc.edu/rel/blosser/Sola.htm" REL="nofollow">an intriguing response</A> to the Protestant position: <I>[T]he argument of self-evidence begs the question by overlooking the distinction between evidence as an objective property (brightness is an evident property of the sun) and as a subjective perception (its brightness is not evident on a cloudy day). The divine inspiration of Scripture is “self-evidencing” in the first sense, but not necessarily in the second.</I><BR/><BR/>The distinction he makes helps to clarifies the matter. However, is not something as innocent as a cloud that keeps men from seeing the radiance of divine truth; it is their sin, which has, as it were, put out their eyes, thus blinding them. As Owen wrote, <I>He that needs another to tell him what is light, wants eyes.</I> In man's fallen condition, it is the intervention of the Spirit that gives him eyes that he may see. That is, the Christian perceives the Spirit objectively in the word through the witness of the Spirit subjectively beside the word. To quote Owen again, <I>The testimony of the Spirit in the word is open, public, general, to all, if they have but eyes to see it; whereas the inward application of it by the efficiency of the Spirit is only to believers.</I> God in his providence has given men additional evidence that assists in corroborating the truth of Scripture, but it is ultimately not this evidence, but rather God's own direct testimony by the Spirit that must be decisive.<BR/><BR/><B>"Pope St. Peter"--</B><BR/><BR/>Thank you for your reply. Please do not feel pressured to respond quickly; I would gladly wait, if other things require your attention.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your efforts toward clarification. Since the particular issue of what Rome teaches about the relation of Scripture's authority to that of the Church has been settled, we can move on to the heart of the matter.<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>When a Protestant says, “I believe the Bible to be true, therefore I can believe what it says,” first of all, is this circular reasoning; secondly, and more relevantly, does he mean that he has infallible certainty that the Bible is true?</I><BR/><BR/>Also:<BR/><BR/><I>[H]ow do we know that the Church didn't err in her judgments concerning the Canon?</I><BR/><BR/>And:<BR/><BR/><I>[W]as St. Paul a fallible writer writing infallible words? Or was he an infallible writer writing infallible words?</I><BR/><BR/>I will attempt to answer these in order.<BR/><BR/>First, I believe the Scriptures to be the very word of God because the Spirit has graciously enabled me, by nature a poor, blind, deaf sinner, to hear God speaking in them. This is indeed circular. It is also about as certain as anything can be; for I cannot conceive of any authority higher than that of God himself. I do not here object to circular reasoning; if I did, I would object to all reasoning. What I oppose is circularity that is inconsistent with itself, which is what I think appears in the argument that without an infallible church, Christians could not know what is actually Scripture.<BR/><BR/>Second, I know the church, meaning the general body of believers throughout the world and across the ages, has not erred in its basic consensus on the canon, not because of an infallible authority inherent in the church, but because the Spirit leads me to receive as Scripture the same writings that he has led other believers to accept as Scripture. This is the same Spirit who leads me to believe in the same Christ in whom he has led other Christians to believe. I certainly do not scorn the testimony of the church, but I <I>ultimately</I> do not trust the Scriptures and my Savior because of her testimony, but because of the direct testimony of the Holy Spirit (the same Spirit who also brings me into the communion of the church).<BR/><BR/>Third, Peter, whom I greatly esteem, as I do the other apostles, was a fallible man whom God condescended to use so that through him He would give the world two inspired and infallible epistles. Peter himself could certainly err; and Paul recounts in Galatians 2:11ff how he once at Antioch had 'to oppose him to his face.' As to whether he was an "infallible writer" I am not entirely sure how to answer, since the phrase may lend itself to some ambiguity. The infallibility did not reside in Peter but in the Spirit who breathed the words he penned and who kept his pen from error as he wrote his letters.<BR/><BR/>You also asked whether the Protestant's certainty about the bible and its canon is because <I>a person has a conversion experience when reading the Bible, like Tina Turner had when she encountered Buddhism?</I><BR/><BR/>I would say that there is both a subjective and an objective component to the Protestant believer's reception of the bible; please see what I wrote above in response to Dr. Blosser's analogy. As for why I reject the conversion experience to Buddhism, I do so because it is contradicted by what I understand God to have taught me about man, the world, and Himself. If I were to demonstrate why the conversion experience to Buddhism was unsound, I would probably do so through an internal critique of the Buddhist worldview, which would demonstrate that it is inconsistent with itself and with experience. This, however, would take us far beyond the scope of the present discussion.<BR/><BR/>Finally, you wrote: <I>You made the claim that there is an no “external authority” involved in acceptance of either the Magisterium's authority or the authority of Sola Scriptura. I do not accept this. No one can confess Jesus as Lord without the Holy Spirit, Who is an infallible Person. Thus, the Holy Spirit's guidance is an infallible one.</I><BR/><BR/>Here you are immeasurably close to seeing the point. I receive the Scriptures because of the witness of the Spirit. The Spirit, who is very God who cannot lie, who causes me to confess Christ as Lord, and who brings me into the communion of the church, also by his testimony gives me my certainty about Scripture, <I>bearing witness by and with the word in my heart.</I><BR/><BR/>I do not need to have recourse to an infallible church, or to any other infallible and external authority, to receive the bible on the testimony of the infallible Spirit, which is internal within the word itself and also inward in my heart.<BR/><BR/>Having the direct testimony of the Spirit in and with the word, my certainty about Scripture is not mediated through another infallible authority. The same is true in the case of your acceptance of the Magisterium. You did not decide which church's teaching to accept because a Super Magisterium infallibly settled the question of whose claim to receive, whether it be that of the Roman Church, or of the Greek Church, or of the Ethiopian Church, etc. Your decision about accepting the judgments of the Roman Magisterium is rather the same in quality as the Protestant's decision about accepting the canon.<BR/><BR/>What Keating said was that without an infallible authority (and he apparently is not counting the testimony of the Spirit) to tell us which books belong in Scriptures, <I>we are left to our own prejudices, and we cannot tell if our prejudices lead us in the right direction.</I> My contention is that if Keating is right, then without an infallible authority to tell RCs which church's teaching to receive, they are left with their own prejudices to guide them in submitting to the judgment of the Roman Magisterium, and cannot tell if their prejudices lead them in the right direction.<BR/><BR/>I wholly agree with your sentiment; may God forbid that the testimony of his Spirit be dismissed as prejudice! But if the RC will dismiss it as such in the case of the one accepting the Scriptures, he must, to be consistent, dismiss it as such in the case of one accepting the Magisterium's judgment. What, then, is he left with? The tension looks irreconcilable to me.<BR/><BR/>I again apologize for the length and repetitiveness of these comments. I hope I am not proving to be a mere nuisance to you, and hope that you are blessed in your study of this question.<BR/><BR/>Respectfully,<BR/><BR/>JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167244354260568642006-12-27T13:32:00.000-05:002006-12-27T13:32:00.000-05:00I'm glad you recognize that the Church does not cl...I'm glad you recognize that the Church does not claim to “make” the Scriptures. Mr. Swan, however, stated something quite different: “It does not though, <I>create</I> the Canon, or stand <I>above</I> the Canon” (emphasis mine). He also quoted Sproul as saying, “some have argued that the Bible <I>owes</I> its authority to the church’s authority” (emphasis mine). This is why I had to quote Vatican I, Pope Leo XIII and Vatican II at length, which revealed that these comments from Mr. Swan and Sproul are “straw men.” I do not doubt that Mr. Swan, like you, already know what the Church's teaching is. Thus, his arguing a position that he knows is not the Church's is very revealing of his thinking on this issue. <BR/><BR/>You bring up a point that I've been trying to get at, but just haven't been able to. As I told Mr. Swan, we both believe that the Holy Spirit gave us the Scriptures. What we disagree on is whether that means was infallible, and, if his quotes of Sproul are accurate, then some “Protestant theologians” disagree on this as well (“Some Protestant theologians believe a special work of divine providence kept the church from error in this matter without imparting to the church any <I>permanent</I> or <I>inherent</I> infallibility.”[emphasis mine]).<BR/><BR/>You argument that “Keating's argument cuts both ways” is difficult to answer because I don't know what the relationship between, or the difference between “certainty” and “infallible” is for Protestants. This is why I asked Mr. Swan to clarify. When a Protestant says, “I believe the Bible to be true, therefore I can believe what it says,” first of all, is this circular reasoning; secondly, and more relevantly, does he mean that he has infallible certainty that the Bible is true? Or, does the Protestant simply not care? In light of his (gracious) quotations from Sproul, I asked Mr. Swan, and am asking you, how do we know that the Church didn't err in her judgments concerning the Canon? Just because it's been a long time? Or because a person has a conversion experience when reading the Bible, like Tina Turner had when she encountered Buddhism? (Ms. Turner's conversion is quote amazing in this regard, because she lived, as you all probably know, a very immoral life. But when she encountered Buddhism, her whole life changed. She became a completely different person.)<BR/><BR/>You made the claim that there is an no “external authority” involved in acceptance of either the Magisterium's authority or the authority of Sola Scriptura. I do not accept this. No one can confess Jesus as Lord without the Holy Spirit, Who is an infallible Person. Thus, the Holy Spirit's guidance is an infallible one. <BR/><BR/>In light of Sproul's comments on a “fallible collection of infallible books,” tell me, was St. Paul a fallible writer writing infallible words? Or was he an infallible writer writing infallible words?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167241046697287902006-12-27T12:37:00.000-05:002006-12-27T12:37:00.000-05:00Do you mean, can all Catholics use Scripture "for ...Do you mean, can all Catholics use Scripture "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16; RSV:CE)? Of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167236918234061572006-12-27T11:28:00.000-05:002006-12-27T11:28:00.000-05:00Iohannes - you don't mind if I use your Latin name...Iohannes - you don't mind if I use your Latin name, do? - I must confess, I have not read any of your comments. My family has been so unbelievably busy this past Christmas weekend, and what I've posted has been here and there on my Word Document. As everyone can probably tell, I've focused primarily on James's comments because they have the most substance. I think I've been faithful to the discussion. I did post my paper on The Reformed Doctrine of Inscripturation in order to bring up what I feel is the main issue in this debate; however, I still answered what was given me.<BR/><BR/>My daughter will be spending the day with her grandmother today, and instead of delving into my Christmas gift (Dr. Brant Pitre's Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origins of the Atonement), I will be reading your posts in order to give a response. <BR/><BR/>In Christ and His Bride,<BR/>PetrusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167220311258276902006-12-27T06:51:00.000-05:002006-12-27T06:51:00.000-05:00iohannes-In light of these considerations, it seem...iohannes-<BR/><BR/><I>In light of these considerations, it seems that the RC believer's acceptance of the Magisterium's claim of authority is quite alike in quality to the Protestant believer's acceptance of the canon and text of Scripture. In both cases the belief is (in the last analysis) certain, not because it is authenticated by an external, objective authority, but because of the testimony of the Spirit through and alongside what is believed. In short, the RC makes the same sort of judgment about the trustworthiness of the Magisterium that the Protestant makes about that of the Scriptures.</I><BR/><BR/>The entirety of your comments were indeed a blessing- the above section stood out to me, as I have harped on points along these lines.<BR/><BR/>The problem sometimes raised against the point you've made,is fideism, and i'm sure you're aware of this charge in regard to presuppositional apologetics.In a sense, Pope St. Peter has gone in this direction when he charges my certainty on the Canon to be the same criteria used by Mormons.<BR/><BR/>I think a counter response can be phrased as follows. Once a Roman Catholic subjectively places their faith in the RC Magisterium, I simply ask Roman Catholics to apply their chosen authority and see if it works as a template for reality. Like, when I earlier brought up Old Testament believers, Timothy, and the Early Church Fathers. Where was the infallible magisterium defining the Canon and providing certainty?<BR/><BR/>As I study the Bible and History, the template for reality used by Roman Catholic continually doesn't fit. I think this is why no one has come to rescue Pope Damasus from my blog entry.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1167205464049451222006-12-27T02:44:00.000-05:002006-12-27T02:44:00.000-05:00Something which may be relevant to the discussion ...Something which may be relevant to the discussion is the Muratorian Fragment, the origin of which is commonly dated to around 170 AD. The text is available <A HREF="http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>With regard to the question of how Christians in whom the Spirit dwells may mistakenly hold something to be inspired which is not, a verse which it may be helpful to consider is 1 John 4:1 (cf. 1 Cor. 14:29). It is conceivable that in the days before the cessation of the gift of prophesy, Christians may sometimes have erred in thinking something to have been delivered from God which in fact came only from men. In the same way, people in the church may sometimes have erred in their judgment as to which books were canonical. Nevertheless, this does not undermine the overall soundness of the Spirit's testimony; for just as early Christians could receive as certain what they discerned through the Spirit to have been given them by God through the prophets, so they also could receive as certain what they likewise discerned to have been given as inspired Scripture. For more explanation, see <A HREF="http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol45/htm/v.v.htm" REL="nofollow">Calvin's commentary</A> on what is entailed in the command to "try the spirits" in the verse from First John. One notable remark he makes is the following: <I>But as the Apostle would have commanded this in vain, were there no power of judging supplied, we may with certainty conclude, that the godly shall never be left destitute of the Spirit of wisdom as to what is necessary, provided they ask for him of the Lord.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com