Addendum 2/14/15
Sadly, Mr. Rose has stated the following:
Showing posts with label Devin Rose. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Devin Rose. Show all posts
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Devin Rose on Catholic Answers
Dr. White reviewed the interview with Devin Rose on Catholic Answers. Devin, please take the time to listen to Dr. White's comments on your book and your interview.
Addendum 2/14/15
Sadly, Mr. Rose has stated the following:
Addendum 2/14/15
Sadly, Mr. Rose has stated the following:
Monday, January 19, 2015
The Protestant's Dilemma: A Review (Part Four): Ecumenical Councils
Section 3 of TPD is entitled, "Ecumenical Councils." It's a longer chapter, almost 2300 words. The temptation in reviewing it is is to respond at a much greater length. One of the problems bloggers succumb to is responding at double or triple the length of that under review (yes, I've done this). So, I'm going to strive to keep the reviews around the same word count.
Tedium
First, there are the tedious errors of this chapter. TPD refers to the Westminster Confession of Faith XXXI,4 in Endnote 9, whereas the actual reference should be to XXXI,3. TPD claims The Westminster Confession of Faith is "the most important confessional document of Calvinist (or Reformed) Protestantism." No, this confession holds this pedigree typically for confessional Presbyterians. Then there are the errors of undocumented assertions. TPD asserts,"Most Protestants allege, however, that even these early councils contained errors. For example, few are willing to accept that Mary is the 'mother of God,' as the third ecumenical council in Ephesus declared." No documentation is given as to whom the author is referring to. In actuality, what Protestants have historically rejected is Rome's misuse of the term theotokos, not the theological term itself used at the third ecumenical council [see for instance, James White, Mary- Another Redeemer? (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998, chapter 5]. TPD asserts Martin Luther "had no problem" with the title "Mother of God." Yes, Luther used the term, but he certainly had a problem with Rome's mariolatry and the meaning they pour into the term. TPD explains Luther "presented the accepted Protestant belief that ecumenical councils have erred and 'contradicted themselves' by deviating from the true meaning of God’s word as found in the Bible" but shows no interaction with or understanding of why Luther believed this. There is also this odd undocumented claim:
More traditional Protestants of the Anglican or Reformed communities, however, do view the first four councils as authoritative. They contend that for a council to be considered an ecumenical (and therefore authoritative) one, it had to have been attended by all five major patriarchs (bishops of important cities or areas): those of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. They claim that the first four councils met this criterion. But, they argue, due to the divisions that have occurred in the Church since—notably the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox schisms—it has become impossible for these five patriarchs to be present at a council, making ecumenical councils a practical impossibility to this day.
Which Anglicans or "Reformed Communities" believe this? The author doesn't say. He goes on later to refute this theory, known as "pentarchy" saying, "Modern Protestants have taken up the theory as an objective way of identifying authoritative councils; but, as we have seen, it simply doesn’t work." Now he says the ecclesiastical body adhering to pentarchy are simply, "modern Protestants." The theory though appears to be primarily an Orthodox argument, not an Anglican or Reformed argument. If he just meant "modern Protestants" a simply footnote would have been helpful to see whom he was referring to.
The Protestant Conception of Ecumenical Councils
TPD summarizes the Protestant position on church councils as follows: None of the early church councils "carry any authority—except insofar as they accurately interpret Scripture, in which case the authority is the Bible’s, not theirs." Protestants generally accept the first four ecumenical councils, "only insofar as they are accurate deductions from the words of God in the Bible." This is true enough as far as it goes. If one were to make a general statement for Protestants, the author would have done well to simply say these councils have authority, but not infallible authority. Beyond this, TPD launches into creating its own straw-man: "If Protestantism is true: Ecumenical councils somehow no longer have the authority they used to have. This is very similar to TPD's earlier arguments on authority and the papacy. " While it takes Mr. Rose some paragraphs to get to it, the ultimate paradigm he argues for is an infallible council with infallible authority. Placed in this form, the straw man becomes obvious. TPD says Protestants hold that "councils must somehow have ceased to carry that universal teaching authority," or rather, infallible authority. In actuality, Protestants don't believe any post-enscripturated council has ever had infallible teaching authority to lose to begin with.
Answering TPD's Objections
TPD posits it does not "make sense, as Protestants argue, that ecumenical councils are authoritative only insofar as they accurately represent scriptural truth." It does so by arguing that since the entire Bible had not been completed, the infallible extra-biblical authority of the Council of Jerusalem had to settle the matter about circumcision and salvation. What this argument fails to interact with is that sola scriptura applies to the normal means God has conveyed His truth to the church after Scripture had been completed. As Dr. White said long ago, "Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is ‘sufficient.’ It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, 'See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!' Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?”
TPD also asks,
Who has the authority to accurately interpret the scriptures (and therefore rule whether a council affirms or contradicts their truths)? Luther believed that he did. Other Protestants claimed that Luther erred and that they had the correct key to Scripture’s meaning. The problem of varying Protestant interpretations of biblical truth persists to this day. Without a standard for interpreting Scripture, then, according to this test it’s impossible to say with certainty whether a given council teaches authoritatively.
This is a typical Roman Catholic double standard. How many verses has Rome infallibly interpreted? Some say only a small handful of verses have an infallible interpretation, others deny the Church has defined the literal sense of any single passage. Roman Catholics aren't even united on a basic issue like the inerrancy of Scripture. The problem for Roman Catholics is compounded even more, because their church holds that a doctrine can be defined, but the scriptural proofs used to support it utilized by the church's theologians might not actually support it. In other words, one can have certainty for a doctrine, but not have certainty in the scriptural proof texts for that doctrine. The infallibility is in the decree, not in the reasoning to that decree. The dogmatic pronouncements of Rome are still left up to private interpretation. For instance Trent speaks of Scripture and Tradition, yet Jimmy Akin states, "While these considerations may be useful as an apologist explores the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, he ultimately will have to decide how he thinks they fit together. So far, the Church has left him considerable latitude." Throw "development of doctrine" into the mix, and it creates more of a problem because it can grant differing possible authentic interpretations. If doctrine develops, and one cannot know when a doctrine has completely developed, one must consider many differing Roman Catholic opinions as possible authentic Roman Catholic opinions.
The Roman Catholic Criterion for an Ecumenical Council
TPD states, "If none of the Protestant theories makes sense, what makes a council ecumenical and thus authoritative? Quite simply: the pope." There's a bit of historical anachronism here at best, or at worst ignoring the development of papal primacy over the authority of a council (the concilliar movement). As noted in a previous review, TPD simply assumes beforehand a monarchical episopate functioning in Rome controlling the entire church from the beginning. A study of The Council of Nicea shows that "when the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West."
But even the very Council of Jerusalem cited by TPD speaks against its claim. The account in Acts 15 does not say the Pope and the council met. Peter is considered simply as one of the apostles, meeting with the elders. James appears to be directing this meeting. TPD thinks that Peter speaking first at the Council implies he's the leader and the pope, when the text shows that it's James who has the decisive word in verse 19-21. Exegetically, it's James who commands the others to listen to him in verse 13. The letter written at the end shows the decision of the council and a letter from the council. Nowhere do we find this council being confirmed by Peter as "the final guarantor" of its "orthodoxy" as TPD claims a pope should be doing.
TPD uses the classic prooftext, Matt. 16:18-19 to establish Petrine primacy, ignoring Matthew 18:18 as well as the testimony of many of the early church fathers who identify "the rock" as all of the apostles or the testimony of Peter [See James White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis:Bethany House, 1996 ) p. 119-120; William Webster, The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18].
TPD claims, "The Catholic Church is the only Christian Church or community that still holds ecumenical councils today. No other group dares to claim that it has held one, which makes sense when you realize that no other group is led by the bishop of Rome." Illogical assertions like this based on false premises occur throughout the book. Other church bodies meet together in similar fashion to what Rome does, all the time. My own church is part of a larger body that meets at least once every three years, and interestingly, often other denominations are involved, or at least invited to attend.
The Protestant's Dilemma?
This section of TPD ends with the following "dilemma":
Assuming the Catholic Church is wrong about what makes a council ecumenical, why did God design his Church such that, for centuries, these councils were the primary way in which vitally important matters of the Faith were discerned and authoritatively proclaimed, but then remove his authority from them such that they could no longer be trustworthy?
To simply reiterate the point made earlier, in his review of TPD, TurretinFan stated, "No, the authority of ecumenical councils has not changed. They were never infallible. Nicaea was right – not infallible. Ariminum was a larger council than Nicaea, but it was wrong." The unproven assumption throughout TPD is the infallibility of Rome
In my community, I attend a local church, of which I'm a member, and that church meets with other churches on a concilliar level. Many churches still do this. "Vitally important matters of faith" are addressed at these meetings. Yes, it's a sad fact that there are different denominations, but this isn't due to the failure of the sole infallible rule of faith, but rather the sinfulness of those who interpret it. Before one of Rome's defenders runs with this, consider the following: the Orthodox church is waiting for you to repent of your errors and cease your denomination. Note the following from an Orthodox website:
The Orthodox attitude to the Papacy is admirably expressed by a twelfth-century writer, Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia:
My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honourable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office ... How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.'
Saturday, January 17, 2015
The Protestant's Dilemma: A Review (Part Three): The Papacy
Section 2 of TPD is entitled, "The Papacy." It's a short chapter, under 1000 words. The temptation in reviewing it is is to respond at a much greater length, but for the sake of the same brevity, I'd like to focus on it as an example of assuming a Roman Catholic historical paradigm without proving it. Based on these unproven assumptions, TPD sets up another straw-man to knock down. If the papacy existed from the beginning, then logically for Protestants, "sometime between the first centuries of the Church and the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, the papacy as an office must have become corrupted, and God revoked his authority from it." TPD says that "An unbiased examination of the historical evidence, coupled with Peter’s words in his first epistle, make an overwhelming case for the first bishop of Rome being Peter and the line continuing in unbroken succession," yet the book only provides a surface-level biased interpretation of the evidence. It offers no counter-evidence to its claims, nor does it appear to function with an understanding of the difference between an interpretation of the facts and the facts themselves.
The section begins boldly stating, "The Church had a pope, a visible head, from the beginning." TPD simply assumes there was a monarchical episcopacy functioning in Rome "all the way back" without proving it. In order for any of TPD's claims to be true in this section, this fact would have to have been established from the outset. It isn't. For instance, we see this glaring factual omission in TPD's treatment of 1 Clement: "Clement begins the letter by stating that he writes from the church in Rome, strengthening the claim that this line of bishops dwelled in Rome and was begun by Peter." The letter being referred to doesn't identity its author. Rather, the letter says it's from "The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth." There is not any sort of historical consensus that there was a monarchical episopate functioning in Rome at the time this letter was penned. Rather, this letter serves just as well as evidence that the church of Rome was led by a body of presbyters [see: Lampe, Peter. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries Trans., Michael Steinhauser Ed., Marshall G. Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003].
TPD assumes that in 1 Peter 5:13 "Babylon" means "Rome," concluding Peter wrote from Rome, therefore he established the Roman church. Granted, TPD says "the Bible does not explicitly say 'Peter was the bishop of Rome.'" Rather for TPD, 1 Peter 5:13 is only "biblical evidence for the claim." But It's debatable whether or not "Babylon" means "Rome." 1 Peter 5:13 is the only shred of Biblical inferring evidence that TPD has proving Peter was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. The historical information given by Luke documents Peter’s ministry in Palestine and Syria. When Paul wrote to the Roman Church, there is not even a hint or allusion to Peter being its bishop. Similarly in the epistles written by Paul from Rome, any information linking Peter to Rome is absent. Here's TDP's Peter: the visible head of the Roman Catholic Church, with only one word of biblical support to prove it: the code word "Babylon." I'm reminded of Adam Clarke's old comment, "It's true that all the ancient ecclesiastical writers have ascribed to the word Babylon a mystical meaning; for though the Greek and Latin fathers commonly understood Rome, yet the Syriac and Arabic writers understood it literally, as denoting a town in the east; and if we are to be guided by opinion, an oriental writer is surely as good authority, on the present question, as a European."
TPD simply assumes Peter founded the church in Rome because he went there. On the one hand it presents evidence to prove "Peter was in Rome and established a church," and then a paragraph later states "Irenaeus spoke of the church in Rome founded by the apostles Peter and Paul." Which is it? I'll assume Mr. Rose will claim both are true. Whichever it is, the historical waters are quite murky for Rome's defenders in regard to Peter's physical presence in Rome. One tradition posits that Peter and Paul established the Roman Church in the early 40’s. Peter is said to have remained in Rome for twenty-five years, preaching the Gospel, and eventually writing the epistles of 1 and 2 Peter. Some versions of this twenty-five year period include Peter’s travels, with Rome serving as his “home base” when he wasn't on missionary trips or attending church councils. Other versions have Peter going to Rome shortly after the Jerusalem council in 49 AD, and then returning to Rome just prior to 60 AD. Yet another version has Peter going to Rome one time only: towards the end of life during Nero’s reign. It depends on which defender of Rome one is dealing with as to which version is utilized. Catholic Answers posits that "if Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome." On the other hand, the Catholic Encyclopedia sees it as essential for Peter to be in Rome at some point: "The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter." Yet for TPD, the reader is to trust that Mr. Rose is presenting an unbiased look at the facts. Some Protestants have looked at the same facts and have concluded that Peter may not have gone to Rome at all. Perhaps what Mr. Rose should have sought to provide is a fair accounting of differing interpretations rather than his own biased conclusions.
Addendum
TPD states, "we know the names and approximate dates of all of the popes, all the way back to the first century."
The Problem of the Anti-Popes.
Another riddle of Roman Catholicism is the scandalous specter of having more than one infallible pope at the same time—a pope and an anti-pope. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says “there have been about thirty-five anti-popes in the history of the Church.” How can there be two infallible and opposing popes at the same time? Which is the true pope? Since there is no infallible list of popes or even an infallible way to determine who is the infallible pope, the system has a serious logical problem. Further, this difficulty has had several actual historical manifestations which bring into focus the whole question of an infallible pope. Geisler, N. L., and MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: agreements and differences (p. 217). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
The Protestant's Dilemma: A Review (Part Two): Divine Authority, Church Corruption
Bible Verses Used by The Protestant's Dilemma
Rome's defenders typically raise the issue of authority. Sometimes they ask who authorized the Protestant Reformers to start new churches? Sometimes they ask if current Protestant churches have any authority whatsoever. Don't Protestants just start their own churches rather than submit to church leadership? TPD's version of this is to ask Protestants to explain when the visible church had it's divinely given authority taken away. To appeal to Protestants, TDP primarily grounds the assumption that God gave the visible church divine authority with Bible verses. This opening chapter, entitled "Divine Authority," demonstrates the author's private interpretation of a few Bible verses (remember, Rome doesn't do all that much in actually infallibly interpreting Bible verses: "To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible" [Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist, 1981), p. 40]. Using his private judgment, Mr. Rose states,
We know that Christ established a Church, visible and unified, to which he gave his divine authority. In Matthew’s Gospel we read that “he called to him his twelve apostles and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity” (Matt. 10:1). But according to Protestantism, this authority must have been lost when that visible Church became morally and doctrinally corrupt.
Here the author demonstrates once again that he's inconsistent with his Roman Catholicism. He says, "We know that Christ established a Church." According to Mr. Rose, the Bible must be clear enough to be read on its own, so that "we" all see what he sees. Elsewhere in TPD the author speaks against "the principle of private judgment." The most difficult problem though for the author is his interpretation. The authority given to the apostles which is passed on the visible church is the "authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity." To my knowledge, the Roman magisterium is not going to local hospitals and healing everyone brought in. Whatever this authority is the author claims Rome has, this certainly isn't it. If it is, the author needs to demonstrate that the Roman church is using this authority over unclean spirits, casting them out, and healing every disease and every infirmity. There are cancer wards filled with children that the magisterium could help out.
In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus says to his disciples: “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (10:16). Notice the direct line of authority: The Father sends the Son, and the Son sends the apostles with his authority, such that listening to them (and the men whom they in turn authorize) is equivalent to listening to Jesus and the Father.
Did you notice the statement in parentheses "and the men whom they in turn authorize"? This is not exegeting this text, but rather a blatant example of reading something into the text that isn't there. As we'll see below, the early church did have an authority structure and did ordain people to the ministry. This verse though says nothing about it.
The author cites Acts 9:1-5 and states, "Notice that Jesus didn’t say, 'Saul, why are you persecuting my followers,' but rather, 'Why are you persecuting me?' For in murdering the leaders of Christ’s Church, Saul was rejecting not only them but Christ himself." Mr. Rose privately interprets the word "followers"to be the "leaders of the Church." Once again, Mr. Rose lacks an infallible interpretation. According to the author, here is a clear proof-text that apostles have the same authority as Jesus, so when someone rejects these leaders (and their successors), one is rejecting Christ. The interpretation depends though on these "followers" being the leaders of the church. Had Mr. Rose compared Acts 9 to Acts 22, he would have seen whom Paul persecuted: "I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and putting both men and women into prisons." Even in Acts 9, the text says, "any belonging to the Way, both men and women."
From the Bible and early Christian writings, we understand that the authority Christ gave to the apostles as the leaders of his Church was transmitted to their successors. Paul speaks of this authority in his first letter to his disciple, Timothy: “[D]o not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands by the council of elders” (1 Tim. 4:14). In the next chapter, he enjoins Timothy to “not be hasty in the laying on of hands” to avoid ordaining an unworthy man to lead the church (1 Tim. 5:22).
The author cites 1 Tim. 4:14 and 1 Tim. 5:22 as proof that apostolic authority was transferred to Timothy. If these verses are supposed account for the same transference of divine authority that the Roman church has practiced for years, one wonders if the magisterium is still ordaining people based prophecy. As we'll explore below, that the visible church ordains both then and now isn't the issue. The point of contention is that the author has to prove the apostles transferred a divine and unbroken line of authority that brings with it the pedigree of infallible and non-corrupted doctrines all the way to this present date.
The Visible and Invisible Church
Of major importance to TPD is the notion that Protestants believe corruption entered the church causing the visible church to lose its God-given authority. The author states:
The vast majority of Protestants believe that the visible Church did in fact lose God’s authority at some point in time; that Christ revoked it when corruption entered into its teachings. Many fundamentalist Protestants believe that the date when the Church became corrupted and lost God’s divine authorization was the year 313, when Constantine proclaimed the Edict of Milan, which ended the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire and began (they say) the mixture of pagan corruption with the true gospel. But Protestants in general are usually not so exact in their dating estimates, and instead claim that corruption entered into the Church somewhere between the second and sixth centuries. The dates vary according to when a particular Protestant, in studying the historical evidence, discovers a doctrine or practice of the Church that he believes is heretical. John Calvin describes the pervasive nature of the Church’s corruption.
Putting aside the unstated assumption for a moment that "visible church" means "Roman church" for this author, one thing suspiciously missing from this paragraph is documentation. Which "vast majority of Protestants" believe this? Here would have been the place to document a broad range of Protestant opinions with a simple footnote to a few sources. If the amount is "vast" documentation should have been easy enough for the author to produce. That said, I don't recall ever reading a meaningful Reformed Protestant source that has posited "Christ revoked" the authority of the "visible church" "when the church became corrupted" whether in 313, or any of the centuries after the apostles lived. TPD appears to be presenting some form of the argument of Karl Keating in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, chapter 12 (Fanciful Histories of Catholicism), and has done so confusedly. Keating at least cites a few sources, presents their arguments, and formulates a response. TPD on the other hand makes broad undocumented claims and then knocks down the chimera it's created.
The author flatly denies any doctrinal corruption has occurred in the visible church. Calvin is cited to explain church corruption, but it doesn't appear the author is citing Calvin in agreement. Perhaps Calvin is only describing "what he believes is heretical"? Or Is Calvin being cited as a representative of "the vast majority of Protestants" or "many fundamentalist Christians"? Did "the vast majority of Protestants" inherit the ideas about dating corruption entering the church and the loss of "God's divine authorization" from Calvin? The author doesn't say.
The author continues:
The notion that “the Church” became corrupt nonetheless does not sit well with Protestants, since they also believe the Bible passages that speak in exalted terms about the Church. Their solution is to separate the historical institution originally known as “the Church”—which fell into corruption—from the true Church of Christ, which continued undefiled. At the time of its corruption, whenever that was, the visible institution became the Roman Catholic Church, while Christ’s true Church became invisible and purely spiritual. Hence, the promises Christ made in the Bible still apply to all “true believers” in the world, who make up this invisible Church: the one that quietly endured through all the apostate centuries until the Reformation unearthed it.
Once again with this paragraph, documentation would have been helpful to know whom the author was referring to. This theme of the visible church becoming the invisible church reoccurs throughout the book. Is the basic argument here that the Reformers turned the visible church into the invisible church because of their sensing of corruption? Was it Calvin who "unearthed" the invisible church seeing that the visible church was so corrupt? The author claims in footnote #33 to have access to Calvin Institutes. In Book IV, Calvin presents a full treatment of the visible church, and it isn't the negative presentation one would expect after reading The Protestant's Dilemma. The English title for section IV.1.4 is "The Visible Church as Mother of Believers." Calvin says, "For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels [Matthew 22:30]." For Calvin, the visible church was an important reality. For the Reformed tradition, it is as well. The author shows no familiarity with either Calvin or the Reformed churches, or what is meant by visible and invisible church. Certainly Calvin spoke of the invisible church, but he did not do so at the expense of the visible church.
The Divine Authority of the Church?
The Protestant's Dilemma asks the following question:
Since Christ established a visible Church in the first century and gave it rightful authority, the burden of proof falls on Protestants to demonstrate that he revoked this authority universally from the Church at some point in time. What event can they point to that caused Christ to take away his authority, and which Church leaders were involved in it? Where is the historical evidence for the claim? I have asked this question to many knowledgeable Protestant apologists and pastors and have yet to receive a definite answer. The fact is, no event or even century can be pinpointed that can carry the weight of such a momentous claim, so the fallback is the idea that false teachings crept slowly into the Church and eventually tainted the gospel beyond recognition.
It's important to keep your eye on the ball with TPD. The book is vying for a church authority that not only is transferred from generation to generation, but it's also arguing that authority is infallible and that her interpretations of the Bible are also infallible. I would argue there certainly are church leaders from generation to generation, but their interpretations of the Bible are not infallible. Church leaders are to conform themselves to the the infallible words of God. It simply does not follow that simply because Christ established a visible church, the leaders in the early church transferred an infallible understanding of the Bible along with it.
Frankly, I don't think their was a visible New Testament church "golden age" free of corruption, nor do I recall any serious theologian from my own Reformed tradition arguing there was. Simply open the Bible. Read 1 Corinthians (problems of immorality, factions), 2 Corinthians (false teachers), Galatians (Jadaizers), Colossians (diverse false teachings), and of course the letters to the churches in Revelation. The only thing free of corruption is the Holy Scriptures. The church is made up of sinners, even the leaders of the church. Note Christ's condemnation of the church in Pergamum and Thyatira:
But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality. So you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:14-15).
But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols (Rev. 2:20).The author's argument that doctrinal corruption never polluted the teachings of the visible church is also directly contradictory to Paul's words in Galatians. The apostle denies that such divine infallible authority is a given: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" He goes as far to indict Peter for not "acting in line with the truth of the gospel." Here is a dilemma for TPD: Why would an apostle say that a layman had the ability to to judge the words of an apostle, and condemn them if they were at odds with this gospel?
Addendum
TurretinFan succinctly summed up one of the primary errors of this chapter from TPD:
Christ gave authority to the apostles not “to the Church.” The fault in Devin’s argument arises from a faulty assumption about the recipient of Christ’s authority. The apostles taught authoritatively, and left behind them Scriptures, not more apostles.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
The Protestant's Dilemma: A Review (Part One)
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,
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.
Monday, January 12, 2015
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.
Friday, January 09, 2015
"God called me to become an apologist"
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.
Thursday, January 08, 2015
When the Defenders of Rome Refute Themselves
“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, 1532Mr. 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.
“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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
