"leaving/abandoning the commandment of God, you are holding onto the traditions of men"
Mark 7:8
The Aorist participle of "leaving"/ "neglecting" / "abandoning" (aphentes- αφεντες, from aphiaemi αφιημι ) seems to be contrasted with the present active verb of "holding onto" ( κρατειτε )- because they are so focused on teaching as doctrine, the commandments of men (verse 7), or they are so focused on holding onto their own man-made traditions (8b), it caused them to neglect, abandon, leave the commandment of God (the word of God, the Scriptures). Or, it could be an adverbial participle of means or manner, modifying the way they are holding onto the traditions of man - "by abandoning" or "by neglecting" . . . "you are holding onto". Or it could be a causal participle, "because you neglected the commandment of God, you are holding onto the traditions of man". Or it could be a temporal participle: "while neglecting the commandment of God" or "after neglecting the commandment of God". Any of these three fit the context. This is exactly what the church started doing little by little in history.
It is interesting to me that the word for "leaving" ("abandoning" or "neglecting") is also the word used in Revelation 2:4 - "you have left your first love" ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες "But I have this against you, that you have left your first love"
and Matthew 23:23 - "you have neglected the weightier provisions of the law . . . "
Dr. Plummer pointed out in the video that this word, aphiaemi / αφιημι - has a wide range of meaning, many times, in context, it means "to forgive" sins, and other times "to divorce", but you can see the idea of "leaving", "abandoning", "neglecting", "forsaking" in the basic concept.
This is what the Roman Catholic Church did in history, by clinging to man-man traditions and holding onto them, they neglected and abandoned important doctrines such as justification by faith alone; and emphasized Mary too much and exalted her too much, and created doctrines such as Purgatory; and said that bread and wine turns into the body and blood of Jesus by the words of a RC priest. They emphasized and clung to external works and relics and penances and pilgrimages, and clinging to those things caused them to not see the main issues. Justification by faith alone was there all along in the Bible, and hinted at by some early church fathers, but it was left behind and neglected by their emphasis on external works, focus on non-Biblical things about Mary, statues, priests, penances, relics, etc.
Some Roman Catholics like to say that Protestants treat "tradition as a dirty word" or "always negative" and some (far too many) Evangelicals have done that; but that should not be and everyone should be able to handle the passages that speak of "traditions" in a positive way, since they are the true apostolic traditions.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
"But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you rom the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15
Then he turned the tables on me. The students were supposed to ask him a question or two. He said, "Can I first ask you a question, Professor Hahn? You know how Luther really had two slogans, not just sola fide, but the second slogan he used to revolt against Rome was sola Scriptura, the Bible alone. My question is, 'Where does the Bible teach that?'" I looked at him with a blank stare. I could feel sweat coming to my forehead. I used to take pride in asking my professors the most stumping questions, but I never heard this one before. And so I heard myself say words that I had sworn I'd never speak; I said, "John, what a dumb question." He was not intimidated. He look at me and said, "Give me a dumb answer." I said, "All right, I'll try." I just began to wing it. I said, "Well, Timothy 3:16 is the key: 'All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for correction, for training and righteousness, for reproof that the man of God may be completely equipped for every good work....'" He said, "Wait a second, that only says that Scripture is inspired and profitable; it doesn't say ONLY Scripture is inspired or even better, only Scripture's profitable for those things. We need other things like prayer," and then he said, "What about 2 Thessalonians 2:15?" I said, "What's that again?" He said, "Well, there Paul tells the Thessalonians that they have to hold fast, they have to cling to the traditions that Paul has taught them either in writing or by word of mouth." Whoa! I wasn't ready. I said, "Well, let's move on with the questions and answers; I'll deal with this next week. Let's go on." I don't think they realized the panic I was in. When I drove home that night, I was just staring up to the heavens asking God, why have I never heard that question? Why have I never found an answer?
Aside for failing to distinguish between 1 or 2 Timothy, it is amazing to me, that he could not handle this, when one looks at the context of verses 13 and 14; and the date and historical background of when 2 Thessalonians was written. 1. The historical context of when the Thessalonians epistles were written. (50-52 AD) Obviously, at this point, the only other letters that Paul has written are Galatians (48-49 AD) and 1 Thessalonians (50 AD), so it seems obvious that the apostle was preaching and teaching content that will be later included in letters such as Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Timothy, etc. There is no evidence at all that the apostle taught anything that Roman Catholics claim he may have, RC traditions like Mary as a perpetual virgin, or purgatory, or priests as a NT office, or indulgences, or the Papacy, or the Immaculate Conception of Mary, or Transubstantiation, external penances, relics, praying to Mary. No; it is obvious that Paul means was essential doctrine that will be later in the rest of Scripture. There is no evidence that the apostles taught any of those things that Roman Catholics developed centuries later. They read their own traditions back into the word "tradition".
2. The context of the verse within the paragraph. Verse 14 identifies the traditions of verse 15 as the gospel ("our gospel"), and verse 13 shows the doctrines of election, salvation, "sanctification by the Spirit", "faith in the truth" as part of the gospel.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 This verse points to the context of the teachings in verses 7-14, and what Paul already taught them in 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 and 5:14.
1 Corinthians 11:2 - same principle here; 1 Corinthians is early also, around 55 AD, so the same principle goes, and by the rest of the content of the whole letter of 1 Corinthians, especially in the rest of chapter 11 and 15, but not excluding any of the letter. Paul considers his teaching and letters as spiritual truths (1 Corinthians 2:12-13) that he is passing on/delivering/handing over = "traditioning" to them. Since they have written questions about issues that were raised after he taught them (see 1 Cor. 7:1); and he will also write another letter to them (2 Corinthians, which may have as part of it embedded in it, the same content as the "painful letter" about church discipline mentioned in 2 Corinthians 7:8 and 7:12 and possibly with 2 Corinthians 2:2, or it may also refer to 1 Corinthians 5 about church disciple), (or it may be a lost letter); it seems obvious the traditions are basic gospel issues and teachings. These essential teachings will all be included in writing, that will eventually all be finished by 96 AD. All Scripture is written down by either 70 AD or 96 AD. Also, the context is on the content of what he writes to them in chapter 11.
1 Corinthians 15:3 has the verbal form of "tradition", "to deliver", which is also used in Jude 3 - "the faith once for all delivered to the saints". It seems obvious that the context of 1 Corinthians 15 is about gospel essentials (which agrees with 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15, and that Jude 3 shows that all the truths of the faith necessary for the saints was already delivered once for all. This, along with Jesus' promise that when the Holy Spirit comes, He would lead the apostles into all the truth (John 16:12-13) and bring to their remembrance everything (John 14:26); it is reasonable to assume that all the truths needed would be written down.
It seems to me easy to see, when 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "all Scripture is God-breathed", that whatever is God-breathed or inspired is revelation from God, and when that revelation is written Scripture; and since it is God-breathed, is also "canon", since "canon" meant "principle", "law", "criterion", "standard", before it meant "a specific list of books" recognized / discerned as "God-breathed". As Dr. White has said many times, and James Swan in an article below,
"The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation." This means it is physical evidence and a result of revelation, a proof that revelation happened in history, since all 27 books were first individual scrolls in the first century, and each one was God-breathed Scripture, the list is merely the "footprint" or evidence or product of them all together. Scripture is sufficient to equip the man of God in the church for "every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17; verse 17 is important to include), for ministry and teaching and counseling people (rebuking, correcting, training). Paul assumes that the "man of God" is a man like Timothy who has already been qualified to be an elder/pastor/teacher/overseer in the local church (see the whole letters of 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus). Things like the local church (1 Timothy 3:14-16), teaching, being an elder/pastor/teacher, a man of God, a man of prayer, qualified, are assumed in the whole context of the whole letters of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. The fact that Paul quoted gospels with law in 1 Timothy 5:18 as Scripture, and that Peter wrote that all of Paul's letters are Scripture (2 Peter 3:16), along with the "once for all" of Jude 3, rounds things out as logical and reasonable to assume that all things that were needed for the church were written down in Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:15 is about the OT only, but 2 Timothy 3:16 expands it to "all Scripture", including by principle, all of the NT books, even those written in the future.
Colossians 2:8 and 2:20-23 are also negative on man-made traditions. They also point to man-made traditions, (as Mark 7 and Matthew 15 do), philosophy, and the "elementary principles of this world" (see with Galatians 4:9-11) - these things seem to point the things that Roman Catholicism emphasizes - external rituals and laws, asceticism, rites and things that humans can do to make themselves feel religious - like visiting graves and praying to the dead, kissing relics, and the legalisms of adding things to faith as being necessary to do in order to merit finally that one may be justified before God in the future.
Those gospel essentials or essential doctrines are what Irenaeus (180-200 AD), Tertullian (190-220 AD), Origen (250 AD), and Athanasius (297-373 AD) refer to when they explain what "the tradition of the apostles" or "the faith" or "the preaching" is to their readers in the centuries that follow. When they explicate what the tradition is, it never includes any of the things that Roman Catholics read back into it. They are the same basic content as the early creeds, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicean Creed. More on that later, Lord willing.
See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10:1 to 1:11:1 and 1:22:1 and 3:4:2.
Tertullian, Presciption Against Heretics, 13:1-6 Against Praxeas 2:1-2
Origen, On First Principles, 1. preface. 2-8
Athanasius, To Serapion, Concering the Holy Spirit Against the Tropici Heretics, Book 1, 28-32 This work, unforuntately, is not available at the www.ccel.org or www.newadvent.org site.
Granted, I have not had time to post here much in recent years, but here is a repost of an article, because I noticed the link has changed over at William Webster's excellent web-site.
At William Webster's web-site, I discovered the full text of Augustine's "On The Unity of the Church" vs. the Donatists. For the first time in history, the full text has been translated into English. (Amazing that it took so long !! Centuries!) I look forward to reading this, studying it, and possibly writing blog articles on this in the future.
Some choice selections from Webster's Introduction:
Augustine
Introduction: “The question has been proposed: Is the Church of Christ among the Catholics or among the Donatists? This needs to be determined from specific and clear citations in Holy Scripture. First, evidence is brought forth from the Old Testament and then from the New Testament.” (Augustine, Introduction, On the Unity of the Church. My emphasis)
. . .
"But, as I had begun to say, let us not listen to “you say this, I say that” but let us listen to “the Lord says this.” Certainly, there are the Lord’s books, on whose authority we both agree, to which we concede, and which we serve; there we seek the Church, there we argue our case" (Chapter 5). (My emphasis)
Webster says that Augustine basically says,
“Since both parties adhere to the truth of Scripture and believe them to be the word of God, it is scripture which should be the final arbiter.”
Augustine writes, “just as this doesn't need an interpreter” several times in his appeal to the Donatists. Augustine believed that theses Scriptures were clear and perspicuous, and did not need an infallible interpreter to settle the dispute.
In one of his sermons Augustine gives this exegesis of the rock of Matthew 16:
"Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15–19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ. Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer"
(John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
This treatise is of great interest historically because of what Augustine does not say constitutes unity. These words by Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the 19th century, who taught church history for 47 years, are very telling:
St. Augustine has written more on the Church, its unity and authority, than all the other Fathers put together. Yet, from all his numerous works, filling ten folios, only one sentence, in one letter, can be quoted, where he says that the principality of the Apostolic Chair has always been in Rome—which could, of course, be said then with equal truth of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Any reader of his Pastoral Letter to the separated Donatists on the Unity of the Church, must find it inexplicable...that in these seventy–five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the Church, but of the Papal Chair, as one of them, he says not a word (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp. 70-74).
Augustine says, 'Whoever dissents from Holy Scripture concerning the head is not in the Church' (Paragraph 7). (my emphasis)
He repeats this passage:
But, as I had begun to say, let us not listen to “you say this, I say that” but let us listen to “the Lord says this.” Certainly, there are the Lord’s books, on whose authority we both agree, to which we concede, and which we serve; there we seek the Church, there we argue our case (Augustine, On the Unity of the Church, Chapter 5).
"I do not wish the holy Church to be founded on human evidence, but on divine oracles" (Augustine, ibid., Chapter 6). (My emphasis)
"All such things then removed, let them demonstrate their Church, if they can, not in the speeches and murmurs of African, not in the councils of their bishops, not in the epistles of whatever debates, not in false signs and prodigies, since we are prepared and cautioned against them by the word of the Lord, but in the precept of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the songs of the psalms, in the utterances of the one shepherd himself, in the preaching of the evangelists, that is in all the canonical authority of the holy books, and not such that they might gather and cite things that are spoken obscurely or ambiguously or metaphorically which anyone might interpret according to his own opinion as he wishes. Such things cannot be properly understood and explained unless first those things that are said most openly are held with a strong faith (Chapter 47).
From several years ago, Joey Henry wrote an excellent 8 Part response to "Catholic Nick" (linked to on Devin Rose's blog) on Imputation as part of Justification by Faith Alone, which I hope to write more about later if and when I find the time.
"The refrain of lay Catholic apologists is that Protestants must submit to the Magisterium. Yet if the primary lens of theological inquiry is authority, why is so much of the heavy lifting done by Catholic laypersons?" (Matthew Schultz)
Addendum: (June 30, 2018) The debate goes to the nature of the gospel in the way Protestants and Roman Catholics disagree with each other, and they also touched on issues like purgatory, church history, Semi-Pelagianism, Augustine, Gottschalk, the development of doctrine, the wrath of God, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and Sola Scriptura and the Canon. Rich in content.
I noticed that my "Initial Review" of Rod Bennett's book, Four Witnesses, that I put up at Amazon.com and linked to in this article, is no longer there. It is actually "part 1a" of my article.
Update: (April 18, 2017)
see Rob's comment in the com-box:
Ken, I found it. The Amazon grading system wants to show Verified purchases only. If you click on the filter for verified purchases, it will alternate to "All Reviewers. Then your review does show. see my comment also in the combox. I will leave this up here. and adjust the title
Again, I wish I had time to write up an article on this; but I don't. I hope to find time in the future to study the issues more and write more on it.
Some very substantive programs that Dr. White has been doing lately. Also the one on the gospel of Mark, inerrancy, and Mike Licona's perspective. See links at my apologetics and agape link.
This was a very good analysis of why so many students and and teachers at Southern Evangelical Seminary (founder Norman Geisler) have left Evangelicalism and converted to Roman Catholicism.
Analysis of the rationalism of Thomas Aquinas and the book "Evangelical Exodus" (Edited by Douglas M. Beaumont, Ignatius Press, 2016)
Addendum: (June 11, 2016) Dr. White's comments on the Dividing Line Program of June 10, 2016 (from around 18 minute mark to 43 minute mark) about the Evangelical Exodus book, Norman Geisler, Southern Evangelical Seminary, Thomas Aquinas, Oliphint's lecture, and Roman Catholicism are a good addition to Oliphint's lecture.
Dr. White emphasized other issues such as the bondage of the will vs. freedom of the will (Monergism vs. Synergism) and the Sacramentalism of Thomas Aquinas. (Aquinas was the one called upon by the Pope to defend the 1215 dogma of Transubstantiation. Aquinas lived from 1225- 1274 AD, but he is the one who explained the earlier dogma of 1215. ) Also, the fact that the SES students are not exposed much at all to the best of the Reformation thinkers - Luther on the Bondage of the Will, Calvin, others - those Calvinists are avoided by Geisler and SES and so the emphasis on Aquinas and the autonomous freedom of the human will, seems to have filled that vacuum.
Three parts to that DL: 1. An Arminian writer skips Psalm 33:10-11 (beginning to 18:00) 2. Evangelical Exodus, Geisler, Oliphint, Thomas Aquinas, Roman Catholicism ( around 18.00 to 43.00) 3. Issues about the Textus Receptus, Textual Criticism, 1 John 5:7-8, some Reformed Christians who believe the Textus Receptus Greek text is the best (TR Onlyism); and how that attitude will not equip people to deal with atheists, skeptics, Muslims, JWs, Mormons, etc. who will eat their lunch if they try and bring a TR Only ism attitude into the real world in evangelism and apologetics. (43:00 to the end)
There is nothing much new here, if you have listened to Rod Bennett in his previous testimony on the Coming Home Network, and other lectures that are on you tube and catholic web-sites (some are radio interviews and question and answer pod-casts); and if you have seen and read my previous blog posts on my friend (both here at Beggar's All, and at Apologetics and Agape).
Even though both sides repeat a lot of the same arguments; I still think it is important for me to repeat the Protestant responses and apologetic answers to the Roman Catholics who keep making these claims. Even though this is all a repeat of many issues that Protestants and RCs keep debating, I wanted to have these points here together in one blog article with Rod's lecture, because it seems good to me. Again, nothing is meant as a personal attack; I am merely defending the historic Protestant Evangelical position against the Roman Catholic Apologetic arguments.
Rod Bennett's recent appearance on Marcus Grodi's "Coming Home Network", again.
Below is most of my response (edited and developed from the combox comments at the chnetwork site, not at the You Tube link) to Rod's interview and responses to some Roman Catholics who commented. I am not repeating the RC arguments here. In order to get the Roman Catholic comments, go the link and see the comboxes.
----------
Issues revolving around church history, Sola Scriptura, the canon, and tradition:
Rod is right in that our Southern Baptist Mega Church did not
teach us about church history, and it did not prepare us to understand church
history. But knowledgable Protestants do not have that "great
apostasy" view like the Mormons, JWs, or "the Fields of the
Woods" (A. J. Tomlinson, founder of Church of God that later splintered into the Church of God of Prophesy and the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee,etc.) Rod tells that story of "The Fields of the Woods" and Tomlinson in his latest book, The Apostasy That Wasn't, and in his lecture, "The Four Witnesses Brought Me Home". He may have mentioned that in his first book, but I don't remember for sure. Another group that likes to promote the "Great Apostasy" theory are the the Seventh Day Adventists
(who teach that Sunday Worship is the mark of the beast and was done by Constantine). Another common view of "The Great Apostasy" is like the liberal and conspiracy theory views of Dan Brown of the DaVinci Code fame or "the Christ of history vs. the Christ of faith" paradigm. Knowledgeable Protestants just don't have that view, that Rod tries to lump in with those false groups. But Rod is right that some, in fact too many, Evangelicals are ignorant of church history and many of the Evangelical free church types, many Baptists, and Charismatics and Pentecostals do see church history wrongly as in the "Great Apostasy" theory. I remember in seminary, when some one called this the "BOBO" theory, "Being true in the NT, then, "Blink Off sometime after NT was finished, Blink On with Luther".
Knowledgable Protestants who believe the Bible and appreciate
church history appreciate Ignatius, Polycarp, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin
Martyr, Cyprian, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, the Cappadocian fathers,
Anselm, etc. But they were not infallible; they made some mistakes.
Knowledgable Protestants don't say "the church went totally
bust" or "went off the rails", etc.
At first, I
thought Rod was saying that Constantine did make Christianity the state
religion, rather than that is what many Evangelicals (and others also)
believe.It is a common mistake repeated
a lot, even in history books. A couple of the RC commenters helped me see Rod was not saying that. Polycarp and Relics:
Rod
mentioned what happened after Polycarp was burned at the stake. If one reads
the account carefully, (The account of Polycarp's martyrdom is available atccel.orgornewadvent.org) it does not say that after they buried them,
they took out his bones next year for exhibition or stored them in a reliquary
in a church for exhibition, or prayed to Polycarp, or kissed his bones, etc. It says that they honored his remains by gathering them up after he was burned, and then they buried them. I think Timothy Kauffman makes a good case for understanding that "depositing" just meant burial. See Timothy Kauffman's excellent article on this issue of the early church and relics here.
They remembered him the next year on the anniversary of his
martyrdom, but the text does not indicate that they brought out his bones for exhibition or veneration or
kissing them or staring at them or praying before them. And the passage does not say they prayed to
Polycarp for him to pray for them. The Proto-Evangelium of James and Mary:
Rod mentions the Proto-evangelium of James. The Proto-evangelium of James was mentioned and used as a basis
for the Marian dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary, etc. It is Gnostic
tinged, since it implies that Jesus just "popped out" from inside of
Mary, without the normal pains of childbirth and passing through the birth
canal. This is a problem of Roman Catholicism - basing a dogma on a
non-canonical writing. It is a Gnostic idea to think that Jesus was not born in
the normal human way that we all are - after all, He was 100 % human, and that
is a dogma that Protestants agree with the RCC on - Jesus is 100% God and 100 %
man - the God-man; the second person of the Trinity who became flesh/human.
(John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) Athanasius, canon, Sola Scriptura
Much of Rod's new book, The Apostasy that Wasn't, was about Athanasius and his fight to defend Nicene orthodoxy and the Arian heresy. However, Protestants love Athanasius and his fight against Arianism. He
also wrote: "they (the Arians, the heretics) have the buildings, but you
have the faith" (Letter 29) The heretical Arians held the external
buildings and priesthood and bishoprics for some 60 years. Protestants agree
with Athanasius and others who resisted Arianism. To try and imply that
Protestants think the early church went completely off is wrong.
Athanasius also wrote:
"in these alone (the 27 books of the NT) are the doctrine of
godliness" (that is Sola Scriptura in seed form). (Letter 39)
"Alone" = (Greek, "mono" = alone, which in Latin,
"Sola")
And, Athanasius also wrote, "the holy and God-breathed
Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth." (Contra
Gentiles, "Against the Heathen", 1:3)
Athanasisus also wrote:
"Vainly do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded
Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all
things . . . " (De Synoodis 6)
The Mass and Eucharist:
Rod claimed that the Didache has a Roman Catholic mass in it. The Didache does not have anything in it that implies
transubstantiation or a RC mass. It does not even imply the "real presence" in the Eucharist. The word Eucharist is used, but that is not a problem in itself. Protestants would use it, if it was not for the all the RC and transubstantiation associations with it because of the centuries of man-made traditions added to it. It just points to "thanksgiving" and being thankful for the Lord Jesus' atonement on the cross. Using the word "Eucharist" in the early writings, does not mean backloading the word with all the development of the meaning of the Lord's Supper that slowly takes place over centuries all the way up until 1215 AD.
General church history and the "great apostasy" question:
The corruptions that people like John Wycliffe in the 1300s, Jan
Hus in the 1400s, and Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin in the 1500s objected to was
a very slow process of an emphasis on externals, penances, works, rituals,
visiting shrines and relics, and the addition of man-made traditions like
purgatory and praying to dead saints, indulgences, transubstantiation, Marian
dogmas, Papal doctrines, priestly ex opera operato powers, etc. that had
eclipsed or hidden the true teaching of Scripture on justification and
sanctification; and understanding the distinction between the two.
Rod's main point is that many Evangelicals and cultic groups both seem to think that there was a great apostasy with Constantine around 313 AD - 325 and afterward. It is true that many Baptists and free church Evangelicals and Charismatics probably are ignorant of the details of church history and wrongly think there was a complete apostasy with Constantine. But this idea get mixed up with cultic groups and liberal theology and Rod does an effective job of lumping them all together.
All these groups (cultic groups, liberal theology, semi-cultic groups (Seventh Day Adventism), and uninformed Evangelicals), even though totally unlike one another, seem to blame everything on Constantine. Anti-Trinitarian groups, cultic groups, historical revisionism as in the Dan Brown Da Vinci code type of thinking, and a lot of liberal theology (the whole "separating the Christ of history from the Christ of faith" liberal paradigm). We don't
say the early church went off the rails completely - At least not until the
Council of Trent ( 1545-1563) - that is where the Roman Catholic Church
knowingly condemned the doctrine of justification by faith alone; and only then
did it become a completely false church.
Athanasius is claimed to have had a high view of Mary as arc of the covenant:
A Roman
Catholic named Anthony cited from a work attributed to Athanasius called, “the
Homily of the Papyrus of Turin”.
There is some doubt about the work that has been attributed to
Athanasius called, "The Homily of the Papyrus of Turin" - it was
found more recently and was unknown in the west for centuries. It is not part
of the standard works of the early church fathers and was not in Migne's
Patrology.
"I wonder whether this is spurious or genuine. The name of
the document is not itself frightfully reassuring. It suggests attribution to
Athanasius based on a single copy (probably in Coptic-Sahaddic not Greek) from
the 6th century or so. As far as I can tell, it was unknown to the Western
church as part of the Athanasian corpus and has become known via the journal Le
Muséon in 1958." (Turretinfan, at his blog,) ( with my editing for clarity.)
Even
if that can be proven it was from Athanasius himself, it is just his private
opinion. It carries no weight at all as authoritative. We can accept the good
and Biblical things from the fathers, and reject the man-made traditions and
opinions as just that. They are not infallible. Only Scripture is infallible.
Back to issues of Tradition, Canon, Sola Scriptura, church, and the Trinity:
Rod and another Roman Catholic commentator mention sacred tradition, and as we all know, their main text for that is 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
Sacred tradition of the apostles was all eventually written
down. 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; (very early epistles - 51-52 AD - it is reasonable
to assume that the things he was teaching orally and not written down yet at
the time, were later written down in other letters like Romans, Colossians, the
pastoral epistles, etc.) 1 Corinthians 11:2; 15:1-9, Jude 3. The harmonization of sound exegesis of passages such as Jude 3 (the faith was once for all delivered to the saints), 2 Peter
1:3-4 (His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness); and John 17:8 (Jesus praying to the Father, "the words You gave Me, I have given to them" - to the disciples), John 17:17 (Your Word is truth), John 14:26 (the Holy Spirit will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you), and John 16:13 (The Holy Spirit will guide you into all the truth), with 2 Tim. 3:16-17 (All Scripture is God-breathed; and is sufficient to equip the man of God for every good work), and 2 Peter
3:16 (Peter considers all of Paul's letters as Scripture), and Hebrews 1:1-3 (in the last final days, God has spoken decisively and finally through His Son) - all of these together strongly implies that everything we need was written down for
us, and that with the death of the apostles, there will be no more revelation.
A Roman Catholic claims that the Trinity is only known through later tradition (meaning the interpretation of the church, in RC understanding), church councils and creeds.
Athanasius speaking of the Holy Trinity - well, since the Holy
Trinity is scriptural and we Protestants agree with that, and Athanasius was writing against the heresies of the Arians, Sabellians, and Tropici, that is not a good
example of something that becomes particularly Roman Catholic that Protestants
disagree with, that is called as part of the "Rule of Faith" or
"the Tradition". The Rule of Faith or "the tradition"
spoken of by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius are all doctrinal
statements based on the organization around the Trinity, that are similar to
the Apostles Creed, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, etc. that Protestants
agree with that are in infallible Scripture.
On
the "canon" of Scripture. All of the 27 NT books and letters were
God-breathed / inspired, the moment they were written from around 45 AD to 96
AD, with most written before 70 AD. They were individual scrolls written to
different places by different authors and from different areas. The form of a
codex was not even in existance in the first century. A simple codex - flattening out the sheets of papyri and tying more than one book together -
which later became basis for book making with a binding. 'canon"
originally just meant "standard", "rule", "law"
before it came to mean "list". They were canon or standard already
because they were God-breathed at the time of the writing of them in the first
century. Just because it took time to even know about them(some areas would not
have known about every NT book until enough time passed for all the areas to
communicate with one another about all the different books), then discern them
all as Scripture, and then gather them together in one "codex", does
not make that in itself some sort of infallible act. It is true and correct,
but it was a natural part of a process of history. Irenaeus and Tertullian
(around 180-220 AD) list most all of the 27 NT books in their writings. Before
then, we just don't have anyone writing the volume that they wrote to quote
from all or most of the books. What we have that is extant from writers earlier
than those 2 are very small works and short letters. (Clement of Rome,
Ignatius, Polycarp, Didache, Hermas, Justin Martyr)
Although the word Trinity, and homo-ousias (same substance) and
hupostasis (for person of the 3 persons formula for the Trinity) are not words
for the Trinity in the NT (though hupostasis is used for Jesus' nature/ being
in Hebrews 1:3, the word was later adopted for the person that is
"existing under" the one substance (ousia); although those words are
not employed in the text of the NT in the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine
is Biblical in that the concept and doctrine is taught by harmonizing all that
Scripture says about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (and based on
Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Matthew 3:13-17, and others). That is
the proper role of theological development, or proper interpretations, which
the Roman Catholic Church calls tradition also. (beyond the revelatory
traditions that were apostolic, as in 2 Thess. 2:15 and 1 Cor. 11:2, etc.)
There is proper doctrinal and theological development, and then there is
improper (additions, corruptions), which is what the RC dogmas about Mary
(beyond the ones Protestants agree with such as the Virgin Birth of Christ),
Popes, indulgences, purgatory, penances, trafficking in relics, prayers to Mary
and dead saints, priests, ex opere operato powers, Transubstantiation, etc. -
these are man-made traditions that are not in the early centuries and not
biblical.
If you go back and look at the context of De Decretis (Defense
of the Nicene Definition) 27, it is all about explaining Scripture. "this
view was transmitted from Father to Father" just means the proper
interpretation of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity, which Athanasius
explains and Protestants agree with that. Athanasius (about 300-373 AD)
mentions Origen, who was about a century before him. (250 AD) The quote does
not go against Sola Scriptura, it merely is testifying that the Nicene Creed
was Biblical. He was condemning Arianism and Sabellianism (Modalism) and
Protestants agree with that. So that quote is not saying Creeds or Bishops or
fathers are above Scripture, it is only saying that the fathers properly
interpreted the Scriptures on that issue - the issue of the Deity of Christ and
the Trinity, which is all Biblical.
The To Serapion, On the Holy Spirit, against the Tropici heretics, 1:28 quote, is in Athansius' work on the Holy Spirit
against the heretical group called the Tropici, and if you look at the context
of that also, he is quoting Scripture about the Deity of the Holy Spirit, and
the Trinity, and so the Tradition, the teaching and faith of the universal church
at the time was the sound doctrine about the Trinity, which Protestants agree
with, so that, (and the other quotes) do not exalt some extra-Biblical
tradition above Scripture, but rather are expressing the proper interpretation
of infallible Scripture.
Here is more of the full quote: (It is all based on Matthew
28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14, and Ephesians 4:6:
28. But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very
tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which
the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the
Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a
Christian, and should no longer be so called. There is, then, a Triad, holy and
complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, [based on
Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14] having nothing foreign or external mixed with it,
not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative;
and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one. The
Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of
the holy Triad is preserved. Thus one God is preached in the Church, ‘who is
over all, and through all, and in all’ [ Ephesians 4:6] — ‘over all’, as
Father, as beginning, as fountain; ‘through all’, through the Word; ‘in all’,
in the Holy Spirit. It is a Triad not only in name and form of speech, but in
truth and actuality. For as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one
that is and God over all. And the Holy Spirit is not without actual existence,
but exists and has true being. Less than these (Persons) the Catholic Church
does not hold, lest she sink to the level of the modern Jews, imitators of
Caiaphas, and to the level of Sabellius. Nor does she add to them by speculation,
lest she be carried into the polytheism of the heathen. And that they may know
this to be the faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending
forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying:
‘Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ [ Matthew 28:19 ] The Apostles went,
and thus they taught; and this is the preaching that extends to the whole
Church which is under heaven. (Athanasius, To Serapion, against the Tropici heretics, Book 1:28, Translated, intro, and notes by C.R. B. Shapland.)
It
is the same principle for the other 2 quotes; they are not exalting some kind
of extra-biblical man made tradition over Scripture, but Athanasius is saying
the proper interpretation of Scripture about the Deity of Christ and the
Trinity is passed down by the fathers.
Athanasius' work Decretis or Defense of the Nicene Definition you
can find it at
www.ccel.org
www.newadvent.org
Prayers to the dead:
A Roman Catholic commenter claims that praying to the dead is early and good.
No; Scripture is clear and forbids praying to the dead. Pray only to God. The angel rebuked John several times for worshiping the angel. Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9.
The issue of Mary:
Mary is more honored by us (Protestants) by teaching what Scripture says about her and her faith and humility, but that she admitted she was a sinner and needed salvation ( Luke 1:46) and that Jesus was born of the virgin. (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-37; chapter 2) Matthew 1:25 is clear - "until" 'εως 'ου = heos hou = "until, and after that, no more". Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus. Matthew 12:46-47; 13:55-56; Mark 3:32; 6:3; John 7:5-10; Luke 8:19-20; Galatians 1:19
Praying to Mary and thinking she is a co-mediatrix, is a clear violation of 1 Timothy 2:5 - for there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ . . .
In later centuries, the church was wrong on over-exalting Mary and praying to her and having icons and statues to her later. The New Eve statements (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian) are not a big deal. God used her as the channel / instrument to bring the Messiah into the world.
But the other stuff about Mary, which developed later, especially after Athanasius, Totally wrong. Mary was a godly woman and Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, but she was not perpetual virgin and we should not pray to her. Prayers to her are later anyway, but they are still wrong. She was not sinless, nor Immaculately conceived, nor bodily assumed. These are all man-made traditions.
"Theotokos", as originally meant, about Jesus being God from conception (and thus pre-existent before the conception in the womb of Mary) was right; but Nestorius was right in that people will get the wrong impression and think Christians are saying Mary brought God into existence, which is exactly what Muslims thought by hearing this, and even to this day, the Muslims still misunderstand and think Christians worship Mary and over-exalt Mary and the Qur'an thought Mary was part of the Trinity because of your church's error and man-made traditions. (The Qur'an, Surah 5:116, with 5:72-78) puts Mary, Jesus, and God as the Trinity, with Surah 4:171 - "say not three", etc.)
A Roman Catholic asks, "How do you think the Church Fathers read the Scriptures regarding Our Lady?
Many of them said she sinned. Origen, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria
Tertullian said she had a normal marriage after Jesus was born. She was not perpetual virgin.
Basil the Great:
Basil commented on the sword of Luke 2:35-36 stating, “Even you yourself [Mary], who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword” (Basil of Caesarea, Letter, 260, 9 italics mine).
Cyril of Alexandria (A. D. 376 – 444) also taught that Mary sinned in severe ways thereby holding to a position in opposition to an immaculate conception:
“For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: ‘I conceived Him That is mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass? and how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How was it that He did not prevail over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?" The woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought” (Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 12).
1 Clement, elders and bishops, and NT priests and Latin:
One RC wrote: I mean, up until the late 4th century, the Epistle of St. James had not even been quoted in the west.
Actually, 1 Clement 23:3 seems to be combination of James 1:8 and 2 Peter 3:4, and Clement of Rome is western, and dated at 96 AD. Also a strong case for patristic witness to 2 Peter.
Even if it can be proven Athanasius did write the Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, it is just his opinion. It just does not sound like him, when I read his other writings.
You are right, I am not infallible; but neither is any human - no bishop of Rome or "Pope" was ever infallible, not matter how much your RC Church claims it.
Only Scripture is infallible (as opposed to interpretations later in history, non-apostolic traditions, creeds, church councils, bishops, priests, etc.), because it is revelation from God, and only God is infallible. Since God is infallible and perfect, it is a function of His attributes; and Scripture is His Word, therefore Scripture is infallible. Since man makes mistakes, he and Popes and bishops cannot be infallible, since they are human.
An RC commenter seemed to claim I was saying that 1 Clement taught Sola Scriptura. I did not say 1 Clement taught Sola Scriptura, rather I was responding to his claim that the epistle of James was not even quoted in the west until the late 4th Century.
One RC wrote: I mean, up until the late 4th century, the Epistle of St. James had not even been quoted in the west.
And my answer was: Actually, 1 Clement 23:3 seems to be combination of James 1:8 and 2 Peter 3:4, and Clement of Rome is western, and dated at 96 AD. Also a strong case for patristic witness to 2 Peter.
1 Clement (96 AD) is actually proof that each church had a plurality of elders, and understood that the office of elder and overseer (bishop) was the same. 1 Clement 42-44. This confirms the clear teaching of Scripture in Titus 1:5-7 (elder and bishop same office/person); Acts 14:23 (elders - plural - for each church); 1 Peter 5:1-4 - each elder is to oversee and shepherd (pastor) the flock. Peter is "fellow-elder", not a Pope nor a "bishop over all other bishops", (a false doctrine that came along centuries later.) Acts 20:17 (elders) - Acts 20:28 - each elder is to oversee and shepherd the flock. Clement does not claim any special office for himself, never says "I am Pope" or "bishop over bishops" and writes "from the church at Rome" "to the church at Corinth". He was right to rebuke the schism and rebellion in the Corinthian church for deposing the elders because of jealousy, for they had no good reason to rebel against their church elders.
There was no hierarchy of one bishop over the college of elders, until Ignatius, who comes a few years after Clement. ( Ignatius, around 107-117 AD) Even so, it was a practical practice, Jerome around 400 AD, agrees that bishops are elders and elders are bishops, and calls what Ignatius and others after him did, as "custom", rather than revelation/in Scripture. (commentary on Pastoral Epistles).
The problem in Latin Christianity (later, Tertullian and Cyprian) was the conflating of the term of priest in the OT with the idea of elder in the NT. A priest in the OT (Kohen) was translated in the NT and Clement as heireus, priesthood as heirosunaes 'ειρωσυνης (in 1 Clement 43:2, which you quoted). In the NT, an priest is the Greek word heireus / 'ειρευς where that word in 1 Clement is derived. The Hebrew for that was Kohen כהנ and yet both Hebrew and Greek had other words for "elder" ( Greek: presbuteros / πρεσβυτερος ). There was another Latin term for those that offered the sacrifices in the temple (the priests). Latin = sacerdos, where we get "sacerdotal" from.
But in English and in Roman Catholicism, the elder/ presbuteros and the priest / Sacerdos got combined into "priest" because they (what later became Roman Catholicism exemplified in the Mass and Transubstantiation - mainly developed from 800s AD to 1215 AD) wanted to combine the ideas of offering sacrifices with the office of elder. But in the NT, there is no sacerdotal office in the NT church, as Jesus was and is our mediator/ high priest, and priest according to the order of Melchizadek (Hebrews 5, 7) and He offered the last and final sacrifice, Himself. And when the NT does refer to priests and priesthood, aside from Christ, it is talking about all believers in Christ who are priests who offer spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving to God. (1 Peter 2:5-10; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10) There is no special NT office of priests for the churches, as it was for Israel in the OT.
Since elder in the NT was NOT a sacerdos, it was wrong for the Latin development of the word into priest, rather than to keep the two words separate and clear.
Clement is pointing out that there was jealousy, envy and strive over the OT priests in the OT times; and there was jealousy and strive against the elders/bishops in the church of Corinth, but he is not saying that elders/bishops are priests like in the OT. The Corinthians were wrong to allow the presbyter-overseers to be deposed, and Clement rightly rebukes them for that; but Clement was not teaching any mono-episcopate or NT priesthood; and he clearly affirmed that elders and overseers (episcopos, translated sometimes as "bishop") are the same office, just as Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Acts 14:23; and Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3, 5 show. The NT, 1 Clement, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas show that the earliest NT and earliest in church history local church government was a plurality of elders and they were all expected to be shepherds (pastors) and overseers and there was no mono-episcopate; and definitely no "bishop over all other bishops". The mono-episcopte developed from Ignatius onward, and it grew to a bishop over a larger area, and then, centuries later, evolved into the claims of the bishop of Rome (as "Pope"), but the East never accepted such a claim.
He clearly teaches that they are the same office, if you read 1 Clement 42 to 44 fairly.
especially this section of paragraph 44:
"For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behavior from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honor." I Clement 44:4-5
Conclusion: Rod is wrong.
Those early pious beliefs or side comments (like using the word Eucharist, or "Catholic" or the "Mary as the New Eve" comments by Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr, or the respect shown to Polycarp's bones, or that they seem to teach baptismal regeneration, or the mono-episcopate from Ignatius onward, or the conflating of the Latin creation of the word priest from the Greek presbuteros that developed, etc.) by early church fathers that RC developed into later dogmas, are not things that mean a complete apostasy of the whole church in the early centuries (Constantine or a little later) at that time. The church existed even in the time of Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, though it has drifted far and was full of corruption. The real apostasy does not come until the Council of Trent in 1545-1563.
"It is true that the best apologetics can be given only when the system of truth is well known. But it is also true that the system of truth is not well known except it be seen in its opposition to error."- Cornelius Van Til
"The Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were heard."- John Calvin
Luther's Works
A Collection of On-line Resources For All Your Luther Needs
"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!"- John Calvin
“Let nobody suppose that he has tasted the Holy Scriptures sufficiently unless he has ruled over the churches with the prophets for a hundred years. Therefore there is something wonderful, first, about John the Baptist; second, about Christ; third, about the apostles...“We are beggars. That is true.” - Martin Luther
This is the best book available on Sola Scriptura. For Protestants, it will help you understand and defend sola scriptura. For Roman Catholics, this book will help you understand exactly what Protestants mean by sola scriptura... rather than what you think it means!
Posts
