I recently re-listened to the first White / Staples debate on Sola Scriptura: Is The Bible the Only Infallible Rule of Faith? This debate is from 1996. If you listen to this debate, you'll hear references to an earlier discussion between James and Tim on the Bible Answer Man show. I had never heard this before, so I tracked it down: The Roman Catholicism Debate on BAM (White vs Staples - I). This is a lively discussion as well. It's an inexpensive downloadable mp3. Since it's an old recording, for best sound results, lower the bass frequencies and raise the highs.
I mention this old discussion because it serves as a reminder that Dr. White was interacting with Roman apologists long before many of us even cared. His argumentation back in 1996 (probably a lot of it compiled without the Internet or "e books" or gizmos) was excellent, both in this discussion, and in his debate with Tim.
Addendum #1
In the BAM discussion, you'll hear a basic outline of the White vs. Staples Purgatory debate, many years before the debate actually happened. This is the 2010 debate Catholic Answers has no interest making available.
Addendum #2
During this 1996 BAM show, Iron Sharpens Iron host Chris Arnzen called in to explain to Tim Staples how to beat the "old" James White in debate. Click to hear the answer.
Showing posts with label Team Apologian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Team Apologian. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Thursday, January 05, 2012
The Argumentation for Mary's Perpetual Virginity by Epiphanius
Originally posted on the aomin blog, 9/04/08
Argument #1- Mary's title is "Virgin"
6.1 Why this ill will? Why so much impudence? Isn't Mary's very name (i.e. "Virgin") a testimony, you troublemaker? Doesn't it convince you? Who, and in which generation, has ever dared to say St. Mary's name and not add "Virgin" at once when asked? The marks of excellence show from the titles of honour themselves. (2) For the righteous received the honors of their titles appropriately for them and as it became them. "friend of God" was added to the name, "Abraham," and will not be detached from it. The title, "Israel," was added to "Jacob" and will not be changed. The title "Boanerges," or "sons of thunder," was given to the apostles and will not be discarded. And St. Mary was given the title, "Virgin," and it will not be altered, for the holy woman remained undefiled. Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 78. Against Antidicomarians, 15,4 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 604-605.
Argument #2- Mary wasn't entrusted to Joseph for marriage
7.2 To begin with, when it fell to the Virgin's lot to be entrusted to Joseph she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. (3)He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony (Ibid.p. 605).
8.2 So we are told in the Gospel, for it says, "Mary, his espoused wife;" it didn't say, "married wife" (Ibid. p. 606).
Argument #3- Joseph was to old to have children with Mary
7.5 For how could such an old man who had lost his first wife so many years before, take a virgin for a wife? (Ibid.).
8.4 In the first place, the course of nature entirely confutes them. An old man of over eighty did not take a virgin as a sexual partner to begin with; she was committed to his protection. (Ibid., p. 606).
8.5 If even today (many of the faithful) strive to remain virgin, pure and continent in his name, wasn't Joseph more faithful? And Mary herself, "who," as scripture says, "pondered all things in her heart?" After a dispensation of that sort, as such greatness and importance (how could it not be wrong) for an elderly man to have relations once more, with a pure and honored virgin, a vessel which had contained the Uncontainable and had received such a mystery of a heavenly sign and man's salvation? (Ibid., p. 607).
10.5 But nowhere have we heard that Joseph fathered (more) sons. Indeed, he did not live many years after his return from Egypt, for it was the Savior's forth year, while Joseph was over eighty-four when he arrived from Egypt. And Joseph survived for another eight years; and Jesus in his twelfth year, as it says in the Gospel according to Luke, he was sought for on their journey to Jerusalem, when he could not be found on the road (Ibid., p. 608).
20.3 For even if it was expected that the Virgin would have relations with Joseph, an impossibility because of his age, the holy scriptures show us in advance, and confirms our notion, (to) convince (us) that, although the thing is possible despite the sacred childbirth, no man(may) ever again approach the Virgin for sexual relations- convincing us in the same way in which the angel convinced Joseph that his suspicion was unfounded (Ibid., p. 616).
Argument #4- The "brothers of Jesus" are children from Joseph's first wife
7.5 Joseph was the brother of Cleopas but the son of Jacob surnamed Panther; both of these brothers were the sons of the man surnamed Panther. (6) Joseph took his first wife from the tribe of Judah and she bore him six children in all, four boys and two girls, as the Gospels according to Mark and John have made clear [Mark 6:3; John 19:25] (Ibid. p. 605).
Argument #5- Mary's alleged other children are not named in the Bible
9.1 Where can I not find proof that the Virgin remained pure? For a starter, let them show me that Mary bore children after the savior's birth! Let these designers and reciters of deceit and mischief make the names up and give them! But they can't show them because she was still a virgin and perish the thought, had no sexual relations! (Ibid., p. 607).
Argument #6- Interpretation of "and he knew her not"
17.7b "And he knew her not." For how could he know that a woman would receive so much grace? Or how could he know that (the Virgin) would be so highly glorified? (8) He knew that she was a woman by her appearance, and her womanliness by her sex, and knew that her mother was Ann and her father Joachim, that she was related to Elizabeth, that she was of the house and lineage of David. But he did not know that anyone on earth, especially a woman, would be honored with such glory. (9) He did not know how wondrous she was until he had seen "that which was born of her." But when she gave birth he also knew the honor God had done her, for it was she who had been told, "Hail, thou art highly favored, the Lord is with thee" (Ibid. p. 614).
In all of these arguments, one is hard pressed to find Biblical support. Some of the argumentation is very similar to material found in the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal source. Epiphanius doesn't argue that the brothers of Jesus are cousins, as most of the current pop-apologists do. Rather, his view is that these are children from Joseph's previous marriage. This would be a minority view among Roman Catholics today. Epiphanius states that incorrect views on Mary's virginity stem from ignorance of the sacred scriptures. I would not deny Epiphanius knew scripture, I would though argue his incorrect views on Mary are the result of poor exegesis and tradition being foisted onto the Biblical text, rather than letting the text speak for itself.
Many Roman Catholic websites will refer to the early church father Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403) as a source to substantiate early traditions concerning Marian doctrines. For instance, on Mary's perpetual virginity, This Rock Magazine, December 1991 and This Rock Magazine, February 2002 use him as historical support. Recently I posted an argument for Mary's perpetual virginity from Epiphanius. I'd like to share a few more of his arguments in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity. While it may be true that a particular church father held a Marian view similar to what Rome teaches today, Catholic apologists rarely explain the reasoning or differences between the current view and the ancient view. The argumentation used by ancient writers rarely matters for Catholic apologists. It cannot be denied that Epiphanius believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, but would the modern Catholic apologist grant the validity of Epiphanius's argumentation?
Epiphanius states, "For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that [Mary] had marital relations after the Savior's birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turn them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head." Well so far, these words could be from a host on Catholic Answers Live. Let's take a look at the argumentation used and see how Biblical it is. Below are six arguments from Epiphanius in support of Mary's perpetual virginity.
Epiphanius states, "For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that [Mary] had marital relations after the Savior's birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turn them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head." Well so far, these words could be from a host on Catholic Answers Live. Let's take a look at the argumentation used and see how Biblical it is. Below are six arguments from Epiphanius in support of Mary's perpetual virginity.
6.1 Why this ill will? Why so much impudence? Isn't Mary's very name (i.e. "Virgin") a testimony, you troublemaker? Doesn't it convince you? Who, and in which generation, has ever dared to say St. Mary's name and not add "Virgin" at once when asked? The marks of excellence show from the titles of honour themselves. (2) For the righteous received the honors of their titles appropriately for them and as it became them. "friend of God" was added to the name, "Abraham," and will not be detached from it. The title, "Israel," was added to "Jacob" and will not be changed. The title "Boanerges," or "sons of thunder," was given to the apostles and will not be discarded. And St. Mary was given the title, "Virgin," and it will not be altered, for the holy woman remained undefiled. Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 78. Against Antidicomarians, 15,4 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 604-605.
7.2 To begin with, when it fell to the Virgin's lot to be entrusted to Joseph she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. (3)He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony (Ibid.p. 605).
8.2 So we are told in the Gospel, for it says, "Mary, his espoused wife;" it didn't say, "married wife" (Ibid. p. 606).
7.5 For how could such an old man who had lost his first wife so many years before, take a virgin for a wife? (Ibid.).
8.4 In the first place, the course of nature entirely confutes them. An old man of over eighty did not take a virgin as a sexual partner to begin with; she was committed to his protection. (Ibid., p. 606).
8.5 If even today (many of the faithful) strive to remain virgin, pure and continent in his name, wasn't Joseph more faithful? And Mary herself, "who," as scripture says, "pondered all things in her heart?" After a dispensation of that sort, as such greatness and importance (how could it not be wrong) for an elderly man to have relations once more, with a pure and honored virgin, a vessel which had contained the Uncontainable and had received such a mystery of a heavenly sign and man's salvation? (Ibid., p. 607).
10.5 But nowhere have we heard that Joseph fathered (more) sons. Indeed, he did not live many years after his return from Egypt, for it was the Savior's forth year, while Joseph was over eighty-four when he arrived from Egypt. And Joseph survived for another eight years; and Jesus in his twelfth year, as it says in the Gospel according to Luke, he was sought for on their journey to Jerusalem, when he could not be found on the road (Ibid., p. 608).
20.3 For even if it was expected that the Virgin would have relations with Joseph, an impossibility because of his age, the holy scriptures show us in advance, and confirms our notion, (to) convince (us) that, although the thing is possible despite the sacred childbirth, no man(may) ever again approach the Virgin for sexual relations- convincing us in the same way in which the angel convinced Joseph that his suspicion was unfounded (Ibid., p. 616).
7.5 Joseph was the brother of Cleopas but the son of Jacob surnamed Panther; both of these brothers were the sons of the man surnamed Panther. (6) Joseph took his first wife from the tribe of Judah and she bore him six children in all, four boys and two girls, as the Gospels according to Mark and John have made clear [Mark 6:3; John 19:25] (Ibid. p. 605).
9.1 Where can I not find proof that the Virgin remained pure? For a starter, let them show me that Mary bore children after the savior's birth! Let these designers and reciters of deceit and mischief make the names up and give them! But they can't show them because she was still a virgin and perish the thought, had no sexual relations! (Ibid., p. 607).
17.7b "And he knew her not." For how could he know that a woman would receive so much grace? Or how could he know that (the Virgin) would be so highly glorified? (8) He knew that she was a woman by her appearance, and her womanliness by her sex, and knew that her mother was Ann and her father Joachim, that she was related to Elizabeth, that she was of the house and lineage of David. But he did not know that anyone on earth, especially a woman, would be honored with such glory. (9) He did not know how wondrous she was until he had seen "that which was born of her." But when she gave birth he also knew the honor God had done her, for it was she who had been told, "Hail, thou art highly favored, the Lord is with thee" (Ibid. p. 614).
In all of these arguments, one is hard pressed to find Biblical support. Some of the argumentation is very similar to material found in the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal source. Epiphanius doesn't argue that the brothers of Jesus are cousins, as most of the current pop-apologists do. Rather, his view is that these are children from Joseph's previous marriage. This would be a minority view among Roman Catholics today. Epiphanius states that incorrect views on Mary's virginity stem from ignorance of the sacred scriptures. I would not deny Epiphanius knew scripture, I would though argue his incorrect views on Mary are the result of poor exegesis and tradition being foisted onto the Biblical text, rather than letting the text speak for itself.
Friday, December 02, 2011
Calvin Said What?
Originally posted on the aomin blog, 02/23/2007
It's been a while since Tiber Jumper's Crossed The Tiber has been in the spotlight. Every so often, this Catholic convert provides quotes from the Reformers. It amazes me how Catholic converts become so seemingly fluent in Reformation history and writings (I do wonder, though, how much of the Reformers writings actually are read prior to Catholic conversion). This time, John Calvin gets center stage as a supporter of the Roman Catholic view of baptism. Calvin's position is said to be so similar to the Catholic Catechism that he could have written this:
Calvin goes on to discuss the Lord's Supper, saying, "When we come to that holy table, we must assure ourselves that our souls are nourished with the spiritual food which we see not, and that our faith must mount up unto heaven, there to be joined with our Lord Jesus Christ. Here we have to note that when the Scriptures speak unto us of the signs which we have in us according to God's ordinance, the very truth of them is present with them. That is, the sacraments are signs of a spiritual reality." For Calvin, somehow in the mystery of the Lord's Supper by the power of the Spirit, Christ does not come down from Heaven but we are taken up to heaven, and there we commune with our ascended Lord himself. Similarly in baptism, the sign points to the actual spiritual reality of our mortification and renewal in Christ, as well as being symbolic of all our sins being washed away, even those committed after baptism.
In Sermon 200, Calvin goes on to criticize the Roman practice of baptism. He points out that the practice of "charming" the water before baptism is meaningless and an invention of men. In the Institutes, Calvin says that the water itself is not what is important: ."..[B]aptism promises us no other purification than through the sprinkling of Christ's blood, which is represented by means of water from the resemblance to cleansing and washing. Who, therefore, may say that we are cleansed by this water which attests with certainty that Christ's blood is our true and only laver? Thus, the surest argument to refute the self-deception of those who attribute everything to the power of the water can be sought in the meaning of baptism itself, which draws us away, not only from the visible element which meets our eyes, but from all other means, that it may fasten our minds upon Christ alone" (Institutes IV:15:2).
"The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. Sacramental grace is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1129).Rome's view holds sacraments infuse grace into a person: "The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1131). Now, whether or not you agree with Calvin's view of the sacraments, his view definitely was not that of the Roman Church. Tiber Jumper says, "We Sacramentalists in agreement with the writings of the Early Church and Sacred Scripture insist that a little water does indeed regenerate a person." Well, Calvin does not agree. Calvin says,
"The schools of the Sophists have taught with remarkable agreement that the sacraments of the new law (those now used in the Christian church) justify and confer grace, provided we do not set up a barrier of mortal sin. How deadly and pestilential this notion is cannot be expressed and the more so because for many centuries it has been a current claim in a good part of the world, to the great loss of the church. Of a certainty it is diabolical. For in promising a righteousness apart from faith, it hurls souls headlong to destruction. Secondly, because it draws the cause of righteousness from the sacraments, it binds mens pitiable minds (of themselves more than enough inclined to earth) in this superstition, so that they repose in the appearance of a physical thing rather than in God himself" (Institutes IV:14:14).
"Now, it is clear how false is the teaching, long propagated by some and still persisted in by others, that through baptism we are released and made exempt from original sin, and from the corruption that descended from Adam into all his posterity; and are restored into that same righteousness and purity of nature which Adam would have obtained if he had remained upright as he was first created. For teachers of this type never understood what original sin, what original righteousness, or what the grace of baptism was" (Institutes IV: 15:10).Crossed The Tiber used an obscure Calvin quote to base his comparison. The quote is from Calvin's 200th Sermon on Deuteronomy 34, preached July 15, 1556. My copy is in old English, and I don't think a contemporary English version exists. What amazes me about Roman Catholics is their ability to locate obscure quotes, rather than simply reading major available works. Calvin wrote many pages on the sacraments. Rather than citing a rare book few have, citing him from the Institutes would be my chosen method. The quote is filled with theology, and unless one does the work to understand Calvin, it could be easily misconstrued. Tiber's obscure Calvin quote is as follows (emphasis his):
"So then we must ever come to this point, that the Sacraments are effectual and that they are not trifling signs that vanish away in the air, but that the truth is always matched with them, because God who is faithful shows that he has not ordained anything in vain. And that is the reason why in Baptism we truly receive the forgiveness of sins, we are washed and cleansed with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are renewed by the operation of his Holy Spirit. And how so? Does a little water have such power when it is cast upon the head of a child? No. But because it is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ that the water should be a visible sign of his blood and of the Holy Spirit. Therefore baptism has that power and whatsoever is there set forth to the eye is forthwith accomplished in very deed." John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, p. 1244Note the bolded words this Catholic convert picked out. This is a perfect example of seeing what one wants to in a text, and not having any idea of what Calvin is talking about. In context, the quote is not saying grace is dispensed through the sacrament. Rather, Calvin held that spiritually we are washed and cleansed with the blood of Jesus. The water serves as a visible sign of a heavenly reality.
Calvin goes on to discuss the Lord's Supper, saying, "When we come to that holy table, we must assure ourselves that our souls are nourished with the spiritual food which we see not, and that our faith must mount up unto heaven, there to be joined with our Lord Jesus Christ. Here we have to note that when the Scriptures speak unto us of the signs which we have in us according to God's ordinance, the very truth of them is present with them. That is, the sacraments are signs of a spiritual reality." For Calvin, somehow in the mystery of the Lord's Supper by the power of the Spirit, Christ does not come down from Heaven but we are taken up to heaven, and there we commune with our ascended Lord himself. Similarly in baptism, the sign points to the actual spiritual reality of our mortification and renewal in Christ, as well as being symbolic of all our sins being washed away, even those committed after baptism.
In Sermon 200, Calvin goes on to criticize the Roman practice of baptism. He points out that the practice of "charming" the water before baptism is meaningless and an invention of men. In the Institutes, Calvin says that the water itself is not what is important: ."..[B]aptism promises us no other purification than through the sprinkling of Christ's blood, which is represented by means of water from the resemblance to cleansing and washing. Who, therefore, may say that we are cleansed by this water which attests with certainty that Christ's blood is our true and only laver? Thus, the surest argument to refute the self-deception of those who attribute everything to the power of the water can be sought in the meaning of baptism itself, which draws us away, not only from the visible element which meets our eyes, but from all other means, that it may fasten our minds upon Christ alone" (Institutes IV:15:2).
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Seventy Percent of Roman Catholics Do Not Understand The Eucharist
Originally posted on the aomin blog, 04/15/2009
Seventy percent of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist? There's that anti-catholic James Swan again, making stuff up about the one true church. Everyone knows, those who are members of the one true church have the benefit of the infallible magisterium. The papacy has God-given authority keeping Catholics unified!
Actually, what most who may think this about me don't realize is I probably read more Roman Catholic books at this point than Protestant books. I certainly listen to more Catholic broadcasts than Protestant. This particular fact was not something I made up. It comes from the April 6, 2009 broadcast of Catholic Answers Live. Catholic apologist Jim Burnham devoted an hour on "How to Defend and Explain the Eucharist." You can listen to Jim's statistics in this short clip. Jim says in part,
In this period of economic crisis, many companies are evaluating their work plan, trying to find ways in which their company is failing and losing money. I submit, If your alleged infallible teaching magisterium is working as Burnham describes, you may want to evaluate the effectiveness of upper management at this point.
Seventy percent of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist? There's that anti-catholic James Swan again, making stuff up about the one true church. Everyone knows, those who are members of the one true church have the benefit of the infallible magisterium. The papacy has God-given authority keeping Catholics unified!
Actually, what most who may think this about me don't realize is I probably read more Roman Catholic books at this point than Protestant books. I certainly listen to more Catholic broadcasts than Protestant. This particular fact was not something I made up. It comes from the April 6, 2009 broadcast of Catholic Answers Live. Catholic apologist Jim Burnham devoted an hour on "How to Defend and Explain the Eucharist." You can listen to Jim's statistics in this short clip. Jim says in part,
"Poll after poll in recent years has confirmed that more and more Catholics are mistaken... they have misguided views about the Eucharist. it used to be everybody understood that the Eucharist was Jesus. it was the true flesh and blood... the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine. And now more recent polls suggest that sometimes up to fifty percent depending on how the question is phrased, sometimes as many as seventy percent of Catholics can't identify that core Catholic belief..."So, if I were to ask seven out of ten Catholics to explain the Eucharist, according to Burnham, I'd probably get a few different answers, or maybe even seven different answers. Here again we find a simple truth, typically ignored by Catholic apologists. Catholic apologists will repeatedly claim a Christian relying on the Bible as his sole infallible authority will produce confusion. They claim one must have another infallible authority, the Papacy. Yet, here is one of their key doctrines, what Burnham calls, "the crown jewel" of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist, and seven out of ten Catholics are confused on it.
In this period of economic crisis, many companies are evaluating their work plan, trying to find ways in which their company is failing and losing money. I submit, If your alleged infallible teaching magisterium is working as Burnham describes, you may want to evaluate the effectiveness of upper management at this point.
Monday, November 07, 2011
Reformed Tiber Swimmers
Originally posted on the aomin blog, 07/01/2010
Here's yet another converts tale. A Reformed person swimming the Tiber has made a fallible decision to submit to a self-proclaimed infallible authority. He set out four possible authority options to submit to now that he's decided to leave his Reformed church. The one that appealed to him is the following:
The problem for Roman Catholics is compounded even more, because the church also says 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 Catholic Encyclopedia states, ''the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached." Note the words of Roman Catholic theologian, Johann Mohler: "Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined." [Source: Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism: Exposition of the doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolic Writings, trans James Burton Robertson (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1997), p.296].
As to a "a magisterium that is supernaturally protected from error" our Tiber swimmer needs to answer fundamental questions. Isn't this simply a presuppositional claim? On what basis does one determine a church is infallible? It is merely assumed. All sola ecclesia groups assume their authority. In regards to Romanism, when asked how the Roman Catholic Church can establish her authority, notice it's most often proved by the testimony of the Scriptures. That is, they will rarely admit to simply assuming it. Rather they quote a handful of Biblical proof-texts. This is a circular argument. Roman Catholics prove the authority of the Scriptures by the Church, and the authority of the Church by the Scriptures.
In regard to being sure he's got the right interpretation once he joins Romanism, once again he ignores the simple fact that it's his decision to trust in Romanism. He'll never be able to escape himself and his own fallible decisions. His certainty will always be a fallible certainty because he's fallible. He continues:
This paradigm also suffers from ignoring the church of the Old Testament. God's people were able to discern God's voice and work, this without an infallible magisterium. They knew which books were Scripture (Romans 3:2) without the aid of any infallible authoritative conciliar declaration. Christ and the apostles held the Jews responsible for knowing and properly interpreting the Scriptures. Never once is it recorded in Scripture that the Jews complained that they didn't have an infallible magisterium. It was assumed by the New Testament writers that God's truth was clear.
As conversion stories go, this one was a typical example of someone who bought the claims of Roman Catholicism without applying the same scrutiny to Romanism. It's one thing to tear down sola scriptura, it's quite another to apply the same scrutiny to Romanism. If one is going to argue against the sole infallible authority of Scripture, they should at least work just as hard to apply the same standards of scrutiny to their new infallible authority. Let's try to point this Reformed Tiber swimmer back to the right shore. I'm fairly confident he'll be reading this, so he can begin with this Primer On Roman Catholic Epistemology. He can follow this up with a positive defense of sola scriptura.
Here's yet another converts tale. A Reformed person swimming the Tiber has made a fallible decision to submit to a self-proclaimed infallible authority. He set out four possible authority options to submit to now that he's decided to leave his Reformed church. The one that appealed to him is the following:
Submit to a form of Christianity that does not subscribe to Sola Scriptura and which has a interpretive authority which can plausibly claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, so as to remove myself as the authority.The submission to that authority still rests on private judgment, the very thing scorned throughout this conversion story (read it for yourself). Other infallible authorities make claims that their authority rests on plausibility. Who decides which infallible authority is plausible? Why it's none other than our potential convert. Rather than removing himself as the authority, he makes himself his own authority in choosing the correct infallible interpreter. He continues:
This makes the most sense. Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology takes into account the fact that people will disagree about the content of Divine revelation. Not that disagreement implies errancy or fallibility, but without a magisterium that is supernaturally protected from error, there is no way for me to be sure I am getting the interpretation that is the right one.It may make sense in theory, but in practice our convert is still left with a Bible to interpret. Neither of these alleged authorities has done a good job in infallibly interpreting the content of divine revelation. A while back I mentioned how Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples stated "There is a lot of freedom with regard to the interpretation of Scripture." Tim affirmed that even the verses infallibly defined by the Roman Catholic Church "are left open to other interpretations as long as you don't deny that which has been infallibly interpreted." How many verses has Rome defined? 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 the church also says 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 Catholic Encyclopedia states, ''the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached." Note the words of Roman Catholic theologian, Johann Mohler: "Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined." [Source: Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism: Exposition of the doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolic Writings, trans James Burton Robertson (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1997), p.296].
As to a "a magisterium that is supernaturally protected from error" our Tiber swimmer needs to answer fundamental questions. Isn't this simply a presuppositional claim? On what basis does one determine a church is infallible? It is merely assumed. All sola ecclesia groups assume their authority. In regards to Romanism, when asked how the Roman Catholic Church can establish her authority, notice it's most often proved by the testimony of the Scriptures. That is, they will rarely admit to simply assuming it. Rather they quote a handful of Biblical proof-texts. This is a circular argument. Roman Catholics prove the authority of the Scriptures by the Church, and the authority of the Church by the Scriptures.
In regard to being sure he's got the right interpretation once he joins Romanism, once again he ignores the simple fact that it's his decision to trust in Romanism. He'll never be able to escape himself and his own fallible decisions. His certainty will always be a fallible certainty because he's fallible. He continues:
If I am able to toss out the 7th ecumenical council (as nearly all Protestants do) because it doesn't match my interpretation, where will the tossing out stop? If church councils themselves are to be judged by a 21st century layman, theologically untrained, and unordained Christian like me, what is the point then of church councils other than to provide some really good advise from some really great men from the history of our faith? If they were not being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit in these councils, with the expectation that all believers should submit to their decisions, then what use are they other than to help me form my own interpretation to submit to? The ecclesiologies that claim to have living, breathing successors of the apostles which are Divinely gifted with the ability to define doctrine in certain situations are the only ecclesiologies that make sense.I have nothing against the church meeting in council, but this type of argument assumes more than some of the early councils did. Did they think they were infallible? This is pure anachronism. The Fathers did not profess to be the standard of truth, either in or out of council.
This paradigm also suffers from ignoring the church of the Old Testament. God's people were able to discern God's voice and work, this without an infallible magisterium. They knew which books were Scripture (Romans 3:2) without the aid of any infallible authoritative conciliar declaration. Christ and the apostles held the Jews responsible for knowing and properly interpreting the Scriptures. Never once is it recorded in Scripture that the Jews complained that they didn't have an infallible magisterium. It was assumed by the New Testament writers that God's truth was clear.
As conversion stories go, this one was a typical example of someone who bought the claims of Roman Catholicism without applying the same scrutiny to Romanism. It's one thing to tear down sola scriptura, it's quite another to apply the same scrutiny to Romanism. If one is going to argue against the sole infallible authority of Scripture, they should at least work just as hard to apply the same standards of scrutiny to their new infallible authority. Let's try to point this Reformed Tiber swimmer back to the right shore. I'm fairly confident he'll be reading this, so he can begin with this Primer On Roman Catholic Epistemology. He can follow this up with a positive defense of sola scriptura.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Luther for Dummies
Originally posted on the aomin blog, 9/14/07
Whenever I go to the local bookstore, there seems to be a new volume in the "For Dummies" series. I have yet to see a "Luther For Dummies" volume, but there is The Complete Idiot's Guide To The Reformation and Protestantism. The question of good Luther books has been asked of me often, and it is not answered simply.There isn't one simple book like "Luther For Dummies" or "The Idiot's Guide To Martin Luther."
I consider myself a student of the Reformation rather than an expert. Recently, one of the guys from Triablogue asked me for my Luther recommendations, so in the spirit of friendly blog etiquette, and considering who was asking me, I figured I'd finally oblige the question. As a student, I can only point to those resources that have helped me (that is, until I get down to business and write my own book on Luther!).
Recently I was reading a book from 1959 that stated there were over 3000 biographies and studies on Luther. Now in 2007, I would probably be in error if I said the number is double. It is probably much more than that. I have lost count of how many Luther and Reformation books are in my own collection. I point this out because it is no easy task to navigate through the multitudes of books written on Luther. Why are there so many books on Luther? Besides the fact of his impact on church history and western civilization, Luther's actual written corpus is immense. It can sometimes seem as if everything he actually said was written down. This keeps biographers and theologians very busy.
With these considerations in mind, I'd like to offer my recommendations. Note, I have laymen in mind (If you're a scholar, you don't need my recommendations!). This is only a partial list, and a simple list. It is intended to give people a few reliable texts to begin learning about Luther and the Reformation.
Of course, the best thing to do is actually read Luther. This is much easier than it used to be. You can actually purchase Luther's Works on CD-ROM. The CD contains the 55-volume American edition. The price for the CD has been going down over the years as well. For those of you who want just a taste of Luther's writings, there is a good anthology edited by Timothy Lull, Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Lull does an excellent job of collecting key texts, and presenting key snippets from Luther's Works. There is also an older anthology edited by John Dillenberger, Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings.
One of the most fascinating and helpful resources is What Luther Says by Ewald Plass. The book contains 1700 pages of quotes by Martin Luther arranged topically. This book is a masterful topical arrangement of Luther's opinion on a myriad of subjects: everything from practical matters to in-depth theological issues. There are 5,100 quotations on more than 200 subjects. A thorough index links to hundreds of other subjects. This book isn't cheap, but it is well worth it. Also this book makes a great gift for your pastor. There is a smaller volume similar in nature called A Compend Of Luther's Theology by Hugh Kerr. It is out-of-print, but easy to track down, and inexpensive.
Though these anthologies are great introductions, I always recommend people begin by reading some of Luther's Sermons. Recently, Baker books republished seven volumes of these entitled The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther. The set is inexpensive. I recommend this as a starting point because it gives one a feel for the pastoral heart and care of Luther. His sermons are much easier to read than his theological treatises, and will challenge and inspire you.
As to basic historical biographies of Luther, I recommend two books that compliment each other. The first is Roland Bainton's Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. The book is straightforward, and though criticized for being too lenient on Luther, it is a highly reliable historical work. The second is Heiko Oberman's Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. This biography is more daring. It presents more of a "Luther, warts and all". As with Bainton's book, the historical and biographical information is set forth accurately.
Here are some interesting historical treatments. Robert Kolb's Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero traces Luther's impact on Lutheranism, and explores the way Lutherans have understood who Luther was. Some early Lutherans went as far as calling him a Prophet. Martin- God's Court Jester by Eric Gritsch tackles some of the controversial subjects surrounding Luther, like the folly of using psycho-history to interpret Luther's life. Richard Stauffer has an interesting little book called Luther As Seen By Catholics, tracing the way Catholics have understood Luther for the past few hundred years. Similarly, if you can track it down, Luther Examined and Reexamined: A Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Reevaluation by W.H.T. Dau gets into debunking the slanderous accusations Catholics have leveled against Luther.
But most people never move beyond the biographical with Luther. Luther was a theologian, and had distinctive theological paradigms. For the simplest overview of his theology, Steve Paulson has written Luther For Armchair Theologians, with the layman in mind. The book is by far the easiest text available on Luther's theology. For an advanced detailed treatment, The Theology of Martin Luther by Paul Althaus is, in my opinion, the definitive overview of Luther's theology. It is an in-depth analysis of Luther's thought, fully indexed, and documented with citations from primary sources. But the book that really takes Luther's theology and makes it practical is Gerhard O. Forde's, On Being A Theologian Of The Cross: Reflections On Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518. This book endeared me to Luther, and really challenged the way I do "theology." Forde clearly puts forth what Luther meant by the theology of the cross. Out of all the books listed above, this would be my favorite, and the one I would promote as required reading.
Again, these are only a few texts I have found helpful. I should really do a follow-up entry on books you shouldn't read on Luther. I can mention one immediately: The Facts About Luther by Father Patrick O'Hare. This book is quite popular with Catholic laymen. It is poorly researched, and filled with distortion. I have spent a lot of time with this book, and can prove my case.
Addendum 09/30/11
Here's a few more.
For the most in-depth treatment of Luther, Martin Brecht's massive volumes are really the standard in terms of bibliography. They are now available for purchase by Google E-books for a meager price (here's an example).
For one of the best overviews I've ever come across on the different interpretations of Luther throughout history, Roman Catholic scholar John P. Dolan's History of the Reformation, A Conciliatory Assessment of Opposite Views (New York: Desclee Company, 1964) is extremely useful. Dolan is the author of the Luther entry in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, an entry far different than that in the old Catholic Encyclopedia.
If you've followed my blog entries, you've noticed how smitten I was by another Roman Catholic scholar's book: Franz Posset, The Real Luther. This was probably the most interesting Luther book I've read in years.
One my picks above, The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, appears to have gotten a bit more expensive.
These are only a few books among many. Keep in mind as well, Concordia has been releasing one new volume of Luther's Works each year. They've put out two so far, both were volumes of sermons. Both books are well worth the investment. The newest volume should be out soon.
I consider myself a student of the Reformation rather than an expert. Recently, one of the guys from Triablogue asked me for my Luther recommendations, so in the spirit of friendly blog etiquette, and considering who was asking me, I figured I'd finally oblige the question. As a student, I can only point to those resources that have helped me (that is, until I get down to business and write my own book on Luther!).
Recently I was reading a book from 1959 that stated there were over 3000 biographies and studies on Luther. Now in 2007, I would probably be in error if I said the number is double. It is probably much more than that. I have lost count of how many Luther and Reformation books are in my own collection. I point this out because it is no easy task to navigate through the multitudes of books written on Luther. Why are there so many books on Luther? Besides the fact of his impact on church history and western civilization, Luther's actual written corpus is immense. It can sometimes seem as if everything he actually said was written down. This keeps biographers and theologians very busy.
With these considerations in mind, I'd like to offer my recommendations. Note, I have laymen in mind (If you're a scholar, you don't need my recommendations!). This is only a partial list, and a simple list. It is intended to give people a few reliable texts to begin learning about Luther and the Reformation.
Of course, the best thing to do is actually read Luther. This is much easier than it used to be. You can actually purchase Luther's Works on CD-ROM. The CD contains the 55-volume American edition. The price for the CD has been going down over the years as well. For those of you who want just a taste of Luther's writings, there is a good anthology edited by Timothy Lull, Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Lull does an excellent job of collecting key texts, and presenting key snippets from Luther's Works. There is also an older anthology edited by John Dillenberger, Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings.
One of the most fascinating and helpful resources is What Luther Says by Ewald Plass. The book contains 1700 pages of quotes by Martin Luther arranged topically. This book is a masterful topical arrangement of Luther's opinion on a myriad of subjects: everything from practical matters to in-depth theological issues. There are 5,100 quotations on more than 200 subjects. A thorough index links to hundreds of other subjects. This book isn't cheap, but it is well worth it. Also this book makes a great gift for your pastor. There is a smaller volume similar in nature called A Compend Of Luther's Theology by Hugh Kerr. It is out-of-print, but easy to track down, and inexpensive.
Though these anthologies are great introductions, I always recommend people begin by reading some of Luther's Sermons. Recently, Baker books republished seven volumes of these entitled The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther. The set is inexpensive. I recommend this as a starting point because it gives one a feel for the pastoral heart and care of Luther. His sermons are much easier to read than his theological treatises, and will challenge and inspire you.
As to basic historical biographies of Luther, I recommend two books that compliment each other. The first is Roland Bainton's Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. The book is straightforward, and though criticized for being too lenient on Luther, it is a highly reliable historical work. The second is Heiko Oberman's Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. This biography is more daring. It presents more of a "Luther, warts and all". As with Bainton's book, the historical and biographical information is set forth accurately.
Here are some interesting historical treatments. Robert Kolb's Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero traces Luther's impact on Lutheranism, and explores the way Lutherans have understood who Luther was. Some early Lutherans went as far as calling him a Prophet. Martin- God's Court Jester by Eric Gritsch tackles some of the controversial subjects surrounding Luther, like the folly of using psycho-history to interpret Luther's life. Richard Stauffer has an interesting little book called Luther As Seen By Catholics, tracing the way Catholics have understood Luther for the past few hundred years. Similarly, if you can track it down, Luther Examined and Reexamined: A Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Reevaluation by W.H.T. Dau gets into debunking the slanderous accusations Catholics have leveled against Luther.
But most people never move beyond the biographical with Luther. Luther was a theologian, and had distinctive theological paradigms. For the simplest overview of his theology, Steve Paulson has written Luther For Armchair Theologians, with the layman in mind. The book is by far the easiest text available on Luther's theology. For an advanced detailed treatment, The Theology of Martin Luther by Paul Althaus is, in my opinion, the definitive overview of Luther's theology. It is an in-depth analysis of Luther's thought, fully indexed, and documented with citations from primary sources. But the book that really takes Luther's theology and makes it practical is Gerhard O. Forde's, On Being A Theologian Of The Cross: Reflections On Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518. This book endeared me to Luther, and really challenged the way I do "theology." Forde clearly puts forth what Luther meant by the theology of the cross. Out of all the books listed above, this would be my favorite, and the one I would promote as required reading.
Again, these are only a few texts I have found helpful. I should really do a follow-up entry on books you shouldn't read on Luther. I can mention one immediately: The Facts About Luther by Father Patrick O'Hare. This book is quite popular with Catholic laymen. It is poorly researched, and filled with distortion. I have spent a lot of time with this book, and can prove my case.
Addendum 09/30/11
Here's a few more.
For the most in-depth treatment of Luther, Martin Brecht's massive volumes are really the standard in terms of bibliography. They are now available for purchase by Google E-books for a meager price (here's an example).
For one of the best overviews I've ever come across on the different interpretations of Luther throughout history, Roman Catholic scholar John P. Dolan's History of the Reformation, A Conciliatory Assessment of Opposite Views (New York: Desclee Company, 1964) is extremely useful. Dolan is the author of the Luther entry in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, an entry far different than that in the old Catholic Encyclopedia.
If you've followed my blog entries, you've noticed how smitten I was by another Roman Catholic scholar's book: Franz Posset, The Real Luther. This was probably the most interesting Luther book I've read in years.
One my picks above, The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, appears to have gotten a bit more expensive.
These are only a few books among many. Keep in mind as well, Concordia has been releasing one new volume of Luther's Works each year. They've put out two so far, both were volumes of sermons. Both books are well worth the investment. The newest volume should be out soon.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Reminding Patrick Madrid of Rome's Blueprints
Originally posted on the aomin blog, 8/13/09
As far as I know, it was Patrick Madrid who popularized the description "blueprint for anarchy" in describing sola scriptura. Recently, Madrid posted Techno Apologetics: The "Sola Scriptura" Baptists-Can't-Dance Mix. He includes a mocking video against Dr. White. He also links to his oft-refuted article,The White Man's Burden. Yes, it's professional Catholic apologetics at its best, a dance mix video, and an article that was entirely dismantled by Dr. White.
In his recent blog article, Madrid states,
Robert Sungenis recently stated Rome's scholars are worse than Protestant liberals. Jimmy Akin recently chastised the interpretation of his priest saying, "This isn't exegetical rocket science." Steve Ray had some similar problems with a priest and concludes the church is "Always reforming, always in need of reform." Mark Shea accuses Robert Sungenis of lying. Sungenis says Scott Hahn misunderstands of the whole issue of justification. Over on the Catholic Answers forum, they recently had a heated discussion as to whether Scott Hahn teaches "prima scriptura." Tim Staples says he went to a mass in which the priest led the church in "the wave." Jimmy Akin says you can pray to whoever you want to, even if they aren't saints. Art Sippo says Mary should be Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces. Patrick Madrid disagreed with him. Karl Keating states, "Many Catholics are confused because some priests tell them contracepting is immoral, while others tell them the practice is morally neutral; some priests speak as though Mary had only one child, while others imply that she was the mother of the 'brethren of the Lord', some priests correctly explain the meaning of the Real Presence, while others refer to the Eucharist as only a symbol. Priests are authority figures, and lay people expect them to know and teach the faith accurately- not a safe assumption nowadays." Jim Burnham stated on Catholic Answers that Seventy percent of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist.
I could go on and on. I didn't even mention any of my "We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary " posts. In those posts, you can see that Catholic apologists disagree with each other when they interpret the Bible. Then there are the big issues, like evolution. If you want to see diversity of opinion, simply try and nail down a Catholic apologist or a Catholic theologian on it. You would think Catholic theologians could at least be unified on Luther and the Reformation. Some say Luther was sent by Satan, others think he wasn't such a bad guy.
Shall we conclude that an infallible interpreter + infallible tradition + infallible scripture = harmony? The facts speak for themselves. I've got to believe by this point that Mr. Madrid is aware that this is a false argument. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source. If he wants to argue differences among Protestants means anarchy, he should be willing to first clean up his own house before pointing any fingers, or posting dance mix videos.
As far as I know, it was Patrick Madrid who popularized the description "blueprint for anarchy" in describing sola scriptura. Recently, Madrid posted Techno Apologetics: The "Sola Scriptura" Baptists-Can't-Dance Mix. He includes a mocking video against Dr. White. He also links to his oft-refuted article,The White Man's Burden. Yes, it's professional Catholic apologetics at its best, a dance mix video, and an article that was entirely dismantled by Dr. White.
In his recent blog article, Madrid states,
"By the way, the 'Sola Scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy!' line that Mr. White quotes contemptuously in this montage (actually, I think he may have quoted it contemptuously in our 1993 Sola Scriptura debate in Chula Vista, CA) is something I have been saying for years."Contemptuously? The audio recording speaks for itself as to who responded and interacted politely, and who did not. It was actually Mr. Madrid in the 1993 sola scriptura debate who said in closing,
There is confusion reigning among Protestantism, all of them claiming to go by the Bible alone and none of them being able to meet entirely on what the Bible means. Now Jesus, pardon me, Paul said in I Corinthians 1:10, "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." Sola scriptura has been a blueprint for anarchy, folks. Just trace the historical record back to the time of the Reformation and look at all the competing sects that have arisen.Remember, if the argument you're using works just as well against your own position, it's best not to use that argument. Over on my own blog, I have my own occasional feature called, Blueprint for Anarchy. What I've been doing is simply keeping track of all the times I come across Rome's zealous defenders disagreeing with each other, or pointing out the lack of clarity within Roman Catholicism as well as the confusion.
Robert Sungenis recently stated Rome's scholars are worse than Protestant liberals. Jimmy Akin recently chastised the interpretation of his priest saying, "This isn't exegetical rocket science." Steve Ray had some similar problems with a priest and concludes the church is "Always reforming, always in need of reform." Mark Shea accuses Robert Sungenis of lying. Sungenis says Scott Hahn misunderstands of the whole issue of justification. Over on the Catholic Answers forum, they recently had a heated discussion as to whether Scott Hahn teaches "prima scriptura." Tim Staples says he went to a mass in which the priest led the church in "the wave." Jimmy Akin says you can pray to whoever you want to, even if they aren't saints. Art Sippo says Mary should be Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces. Patrick Madrid disagreed with him. Karl Keating states, "Many Catholics are confused because some priests tell them contracepting is immoral, while others tell them the practice is morally neutral; some priests speak as though Mary had only one child, while others imply that she was the mother of the 'brethren of the Lord', some priests correctly explain the meaning of the Real Presence, while others refer to the Eucharist as only a symbol. Priests are authority figures, and lay people expect them to know and teach the faith accurately- not a safe assumption nowadays." Jim Burnham stated on Catholic Answers that Seventy percent of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist.
I could go on and on. I didn't even mention any of my "We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary " posts. In those posts, you can see that Catholic apologists disagree with each other when they interpret the Bible. Then there are the big issues, like evolution. If you want to see diversity of opinion, simply try and nail down a Catholic apologist or a Catholic theologian on it. You would think Catholic theologians could at least be unified on Luther and the Reformation. Some say Luther was sent by Satan, others think he wasn't such a bad guy.
Shall we conclude that an infallible interpreter + infallible tradition + infallible scripture = harmony? The facts speak for themselves. I've got to believe by this point that Mr. Madrid is aware that this is a false argument. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source. If he wants to argue differences among Protestants means anarchy, he should be willing to first clean up his own house before pointing any fingers, or posting dance mix videos.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Systematic Theology and Catholic Converts
Originally posted on the aomin blog, 9/16/07
I've been reading Van Til's An Introduction To Systematic Theology. Van Til notes systematic theology seeks to offer an ordered presentation of what the Bible teaches about God. He says "the study of systematic theology will help men to preach theologically. It will help to make men proclaim the whole counsel of God. Many ministers never touch the greater part of the wealth of the revelation of God to man contained in Scripture. But systematics helps ministers to preach the whole counsel of God, and thus to make God central in their work."
Here was the point that I found most interesting:
Van Til states, "We have already indicated that the best apologetic defense will invariably be made by him who knows the system of truth of Scripture best." I would modify this a bit and make it a negative: "the best converts to false gospels will invariably be made by those who know the system of the truth of Scripture least."
Addendum 9/20/11
I don't recall writing the above post, but I still find it to be true for a number of garden variety converts. There have been times I've dealt with people who are quite biblically knowledgeable, yet a serious heresy is being entertained. As I've considered what would lead these people to embrace such deviant theological positions, Van Til's words certainly ring true: there was a lack of a strong systematic theology.
There will of course be those that were previously catechized (or even had theological training) who convert to this or that. In fact, now we have the CTC blog which props up people from my own tradition that have made their way across the Tiber. CTC appears to be primarily picking people that were more than simply pew sitters in Reformed churches. As I've read through (or listened to) Roman Catholic conversion stories though, more often than not, one can usually sense a lack of systematic theology.
I've been reading Van Til's An Introduction To Systematic Theology. Van Til notes systematic theology seeks to offer an ordered presentation of what the Bible teaches about God. He says "the study of systematic theology will help men to preach theologically. It will help to make men proclaim the whole counsel of God. Many ministers never touch the greater part of the wealth of the revelation of God to man contained in Scripture. But systematics helps ministers to preach the whole counsel of God, and thus to make God central in their work."
Here was the point that I found most interesting:
"It is but natural to expect that, if the church is strong because its ministry understands and preaches the whole counsel of God, then the church will be able to protect itself best against false teaching of every sort. Non-indoctrinated Christians will easily fall prey to the peddlers of Russellism, spiritualism and all of the other fifty-seven varieties of heresies with which our country abounds. One-text Christians simply have no weapons of defense against these people. They may be able to quote many Scripture texts which speak, for instance, of eternal punishment, but the Russellite will be able to quote texts which, by the sound of them and taken individually, seem to teach annihilation. The net result is, at best, a loss of spiritual power because of loss of conviction. Many times, such one-text Christians themselves fall prey to the seducers voice."Of course, I had the converts to Roman Catholicism in mind, rather than Russellites. I wonder how many of these Catholic converts actually attended churches that proclaimed the whole council of God? A question I would ask is how many Catholic converts previously went to churches with strong systematic confessions of faith, like the Westminster Confession, and how often were they taught the confession, like in a Sunday School class, and how well did their minister cover all the doctrines in the confession of faith? I would expect some rather weak answers.
Van Til states, "We have already indicated that the best apologetic defense will invariably be made by him who knows the system of truth of Scripture best." I would modify this a bit and make it a negative: "the best converts to false gospels will invariably be made by those who know the system of the truth of Scripture least."
Addendum 9/20/11
I don't recall writing the above post, but I still find it to be true for a number of garden variety converts. There have been times I've dealt with people who are quite biblically knowledgeable, yet a serious heresy is being entertained. As I've considered what would lead these people to embrace such deviant theological positions, Van Til's words certainly ring true: there was a lack of a strong systematic theology.
There will of course be those that were previously catechized (or even had theological training) who convert to this or that. In fact, now we have the CTC blog which props up people from my own tradition that have made their way across the Tiber. CTC appears to be primarily picking people that were more than simply pew sitters in Reformed churches. As I've read through (or listened to) Roman Catholic conversion stories though, more often than not, one can usually sense a lack of systematic theology.
Friday, September 16, 2011
The Perspicuity of 2 Maccabees 12 on Purgatory?
Originally posted on the aomin blog, 03/03/2009
Recently Dr. White pointed out the gulf between Catholic scholarship and popular Catholic apologists. I recently read a Roman Catholic explanation of purgatory by Zachary Hayes ("a noted Franciscan theologian and Bonaventure scholar, OFM, of the Sacred Heart Province, is a retired professor of systematic theology at the Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, where he taught for thirty-seven years" [source]). Reading Hayes was far different than reading the usual suspects that have taken it upon themselves to interpret Rome. Many of the current Catholic apologists look at Biblical texts and simply assume they clearly prove purgatory. Hayes argues quite differently.
Let's leave the apocrypha debate aside for a moment and look at the verse Catholic apologists say unambiguously teaches purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12: 41-46. The argument goes, if Luther didn't throw 2 Maccabees out of the Bible, Protestants would have to admit the passage clearly teaches purgatory.
When Karl Keating addresses this text in Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), he first asserts "Scripture teaches that purgatory exists" (p. 193) and then among a few proof texts, he bolsters his claim with: "Then there is the Bible's approbation of prayers for the dead: 'It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they might be loosed from their sins' (2 Macc 12:46)." In his book What Catholics Really Believe he states, "Unless it refers to Purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12:46 makes no sense" (p. 90). In his book, Answer Me This! (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 2003), Patrick Madrid states, "The doctrine [of purgatory] is expressed clearly in the Old Testament book of 2 Maccabees 12" (p. 204). The New Catholic Answer Bible [Wichita: Fireside Catholic Publishing, 2005] insert answers the question "Is Purgatory in the Bible?" by stating, "The writer of 2 Maccabees praises the offering of prayers and sacrifices for the dead (see 12:38-46). Why do the departed need such assistance from us? So that their sins 'might be blotted out' (12:42)" (Insert H2). In the book, A Biblical Defense Of Catholicism [MS Word Version, 2001] the author has a section entitled "Scriptural Evidence for Purgatory." The account described in 2 Maccabees 12:39-42, 44-45 is said to "presuppose purgatory" (p.128).
On the other hand, Zachary Hayes states the Council of Trent maintained the passage provides a scriptural basis, but they were reading the passage with "the mindset of late medieval people" [Four Views On Hell (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1996), p. 103]. He contrasts this with contemporary Roman Catholic exegetes, and these see these verses differently, as "evidence for the existence of a tradition of piety which is at least intertestamental and apparently served as the basis for what later became the Christian practice of praying for the dead and performing good works, with the expectation that this might be of some help to the dead" (pp. 104-105). Modern Catholic exegetes conclude:"Since the text seems to be more concerned with helping the fallen soldiers to participate in the resurrection of the dead, it is not a direct statement of the later doctrine of purgatory" (p. 105).
These statements must not be construed to imply Hayes denies the relevance of these passages for purgatory. He argues for purgatory from tradition, and uses the classic acorn and oak tree analogy. "Is there some basis in the Scriptures for the doctrine of purgatory, or is there not? If we are looking for clear and unambiguous statements of the doctrine, we will look in vain... we might better ask if anything in Scripture initiated the development that eventually led to the doctrine of purgatory" (p.104). Hayes says of current Catholic scholarship,"Thus, Roman Catholic exegetes and theologians at the present time would be inclined to say that although there is no clear textual basis in Scripture for the later doctrine of purgatory, neither is there anything that is clearly contrary to that doctrine" (p.107).
In their zeal to win converts, current Catholic apologists think that simply citing a verse will be enough to win converts. When they're challenged to exegete a passage, texts like 2 Maccabees 12 become minefields. For instance, an alleged "Biblical Defense of Catholicism" of this text boils down to saying Jewish people prayed for the dead and Jesus never corrected this belief as an error of the Jews, nor did he deny a "third state" in the afterlife (p.128). When faced with the fact that those being prayed for in 2 Maccabees were idolaters, therefore dying in mortal sin, Catholic Answers states (via This Rock [this link works!]),
Overall, even though disagreeing with Hayes as to the positive origin and affirming development of Purgatory, there was something fundamentally more honest in reading his analysis as compared to the Catholic apologists cited above. Hayes seems to realize that simply assuming the conclusion of what one wants to prove Biblically becomes tenuous in light of history. For Hayes, elements of Purgatory are found in 2 Maccabees 12, but as to purgatory proper, it was the result of development begun at the level of popular piety. For Catholic apologists, the text simply means purgatory.These are two very different approaches.
Let's leave the apocrypha debate aside for a moment and look at the verse Catholic apologists say unambiguously teaches purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12: 41-46. The argument goes, if Luther didn't throw 2 Maccabees out of the Bible, Protestants would have to admit the passage clearly teaches purgatory.
When Karl Keating addresses this text in Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), he first asserts "Scripture teaches that purgatory exists" (p. 193) and then among a few proof texts, he bolsters his claim with: "Then there is the Bible's approbation of prayers for the dead: 'It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they might be loosed from their sins' (2 Macc 12:46)." In his book What Catholics Really Believe he states, "Unless it refers to Purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12:46 makes no sense" (p. 90). In his book, Answer Me This! (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 2003), Patrick Madrid states, "The doctrine [of purgatory] is expressed clearly in the Old Testament book of 2 Maccabees 12" (p. 204). The New Catholic Answer Bible [Wichita: Fireside Catholic Publishing, 2005] insert answers the question "Is Purgatory in the Bible?" by stating, "The writer of 2 Maccabees praises the offering of prayers and sacrifices for the dead (see 12:38-46). Why do the departed need such assistance from us? So that their sins 'might be blotted out' (12:42)" (Insert H2). In the book, A Biblical Defense Of Catholicism [MS Word Version, 2001] the author has a section entitled "Scriptural Evidence for Purgatory." The account described in 2 Maccabees 12:39-42, 44-45 is said to "presuppose purgatory" (p.128).
On the other hand, Zachary Hayes states the Council of Trent maintained the passage provides a scriptural basis, but they were reading the passage with "the mindset of late medieval people" [Four Views On Hell (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1996), p. 103]. He contrasts this with contemporary Roman Catholic exegetes, and these see these verses differently, as "evidence for the existence of a tradition of piety which is at least intertestamental and apparently served as the basis for what later became the Christian practice of praying for the dead and performing good works, with the expectation that this might be of some help to the dead" (pp. 104-105). Modern Catholic exegetes conclude:"Since the text seems to be more concerned with helping the fallen soldiers to participate in the resurrection of the dead, it is not a direct statement of the later doctrine of purgatory" (p. 105).
These statements must not be construed to imply Hayes denies the relevance of these passages for purgatory. He argues for purgatory from tradition, and uses the classic acorn and oak tree analogy. "Is there some basis in the Scriptures for the doctrine of purgatory, or is there not? If we are looking for clear and unambiguous statements of the doctrine, we will look in vain... we might better ask if anything in Scripture initiated the development that eventually led to the doctrine of purgatory" (p.104). Hayes says of current Catholic scholarship,"Thus, Roman Catholic exegetes and theologians at the present time would be inclined to say that although there is no clear textual basis in Scripture for the later doctrine of purgatory, neither is there anything that is clearly contrary to that doctrine" (p.107).
In their zeal to win converts, current Catholic apologists think that simply citing a verse will be enough to win converts. When they're challenged to exegete a passage, texts like 2 Maccabees 12 become minefields. For instance, an alleged "Biblical Defense of Catholicism" of this text boils down to saying Jewish people prayed for the dead and Jesus never corrected this belief as an error of the Jews, nor did he deny a "third state" in the afterlife (p.128). When faced with the fact that those being prayed for in 2 Maccabees were idolaters, therefore dying in mortal sin, Catholic Answers states (via This Rock [this link works!]),
"They died fighting in a battle to defend Israel from pagans. Thus it seems that they were fundamentally doing the right thing (defending Israel from paganism) even though they were somewhat tainted with it themselves. In this mixed state they may well have been guilty of venial rather than mortal sin, like the case of a Christian who wears a good-luck charm while still having a fundamental commitment to following God."I'm reminded of a certain Biblical story in which a certain "ark of God'' was about to fall, and a person "reached out toward the ark of God to take hold of it," and God struck him down, and how someone at Catholic Answers would explain this. Regardless, 2 Maccabees says their idolatry caused the loss of their lives (2 Macc. 12:40). The text says nothing about prayers for these soldiers to exit purgatory, rather it had to do with resurrection (12:43-45). Further, Catholic apologists have to struggle with historical studies like Jacques Le Goff's The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981] in which he points out that "at the time of Judas Maccabeus- around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period- prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews (p. 45).
Overall, even though disagreeing with Hayes as to the positive origin and affirming development of Purgatory, there was something fundamentally more honest in reading his analysis as compared to the Catholic apologists cited above. Hayes seems to realize that simply assuming the conclusion of what one wants to prove Biblically becomes tenuous in light of history. For Hayes, elements of Purgatory are found in 2 Maccabees 12, but as to purgatory proper, it was the result of development begun at the level of popular piety. For Catholic apologists, the text simply means purgatory.These are two very different approaches.
Monday, September 12, 2011
"We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #2
Originally appeared on the aomin blog, 01/28/2009
Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth. I'll post their interpretations as I come across them.
In this MP3 clip, Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin was asked if the offering of Issac by Abraham in Genesis 22 was in accord with "reason":
Jimmy Akin Interprets Genesis 22
Instead of consulting "Tradition," Akin first consults the philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard (so much for consulting the Church Fathers). Ironically, Kierkegaard wasn't a Roman Catholic, but was raised a Lutheran. Akin explains Kierkegaard's interpretation of the offering of Isaac as "If God says Abraham should offer Isaac on the alter, then it's morally legitimate for Abraham to do that." In case this interpretation isn't satisfactory, Akin provides another: "He [God] is also showing Abraham and his descendants that you shouldn't commit child sacrifice because God stops him [Abraham] from actually slaying his son.... There could be an object lesson here that child sacrifice is ultimately not what God wants."
The most interesting aspect of Akin's answer on this passage is his lack of mentioning Christ, as well as the ram caught in the thicket. Rather than locating my old copy of Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, notice how others in church history like Augustine have interpreted the passage:
Was the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham in accord with "reason"? Akin is right, there is an object lesson here. If one keeps in mind the entire Bible has Christ as it's central focus, one has found the "reason" for Genesis 22.
Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth. I'll post their interpretations as I come across them.
In this MP3 clip, Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin was asked if the offering of Issac by Abraham in Genesis 22 was in accord with "reason":
Jimmy Akin Interprets Genesis 22
Instead of consulting "Tradition," Akin first consults the philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard (so much for consulting the Church Fathers). Ironically, Kierkegaard wasn't a Roman Catholic, but was raised a Lutheran. Akin explains Kierkegaard's interpretation of the offering of Isaac as "If God says Abraham should offer Isaac on the alter, then it's morally legitimate for Abraham to do that." In case this interpretation isn't satisfactory, Akin provides another: "He [God] is also showing Abraham and his descendants that you shouldn't commit child sacrifice because God stops him [Abraham] from actually slaying his son.... There could be an object lesson here that child sacrifice is ultimately not what God wants."
The most interesting aspect of Akin's answer on this passage is his lack of mentioning Christ, as well as the ram caught in the thicket. Rather than locating my old copy of Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, notice how others in church history like Augustine have interpreted the passage:
"And on this account Isaac also himself carried to the place of sacrifice the wood on which he was to be offered up, just as the Lord Himself carried His own cross. Finally, since Isaac was not to be slain, after his father was forbidden to smite him, who was that ram by the offering of which that sacrifice was completed with typical blood? For when Abraham saw him, he was caught by the horns in a thicket. What, then, did he represent but Jesus, who, before He was offered up, was crowned with thorns by the Jews?" [source]
"But let us rather hear the divine words spoken through the angel. For the Scripture says, "And Abraham stretched forth his hand to take the knife, that he might slay his son. And the Angel of the Lord called unto him from heaven, and said, Abraham. And he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, and hast not spared thy beloved son for my sake." It is said, "Now I know," that is, Now I have made to be known; for God was not previously ignorant of this. Then, having offered up that ram instead of Isaac his son, "Abraham," as we read, "called the name of that place The Lord seeth: as they say this day, In the mount the Lord hath appeared." As it is said, "Now I know," for Now I have made to be known, so here, "The Lord sees," for The Lord hath appeared, that is, made Himself to be seen. "And the Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham from heaven the second time, saying, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord; because thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thy beloved son for my sake; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess by inheritance the cities of the adversaries: and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." In this manner is that promise concerning the calling of the nations in the seed of Abraham confirmed even by the oath of God, after that burnt-offering which typified Christ. For He had often promised, but never sworn. And what is the oath of God, the true and faithful, but a confirmation of the promise, and a certain reproof to the unbelieving?"[source]
Was the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham in accord with "reason"? Akin is right, there is an object lesson here. If one keeps in mind the entire Bible has Christ as it's central focus, one has found the "reason" for Genesis 22.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
"We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #1
Originally appeared on the aomin blog 01/06/2009
Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium help one interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth . I'll post their interpretations as I come across them.
In this first installment, Catholic apologist Tim Staples explains Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."
Listen to Tim's interpretation of Romans 5:12, here.
Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium help one interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth . I'll post their interpretations as I come across them.
In this first installment, Catholic apologist Tim Staples explains Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."
Listen to Tim's interpretation of Romans 5:12, here.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
The Canon as Infallible Sacred Tradition
Originally appeared on the aomin blog, 03/20/2010
"How do you know that the Holy Scripture is all you need? What tells you that? Might you need a God-led authority (like the Roman Catholic Church) to tell you that?" This was a question I recently came across from the depths of cyberspace. It's a question sharply aimed against sola scriptura, but it's a false question attacking an incorrect understanding of sola scriptura. Underlying this question is the assumption that the Sacred Scriptures are not enough to function as the sole rule of faith for the church. There must be something else a believer needs, like an infallible magisterium.
One part of this question is indeed true: if God's voice of special revelation is found somewhere else besides the Bible, Christians are obligated to seek out that voice, and follow it with their entire heart, soul, mind, and strength. Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture. The burden of proof then lies on those who claim God's infallible voice is somewhere else besides the Scriptures. If God's infallible voice is extant today somewhere else, sola scriptura is refuted. If God's voice is found in an infallible magisterium or unwritten traditions, sola scriptura is refuted.
This is why those of us defending sola scriptura constantly ask those attacking it to produce what they claim to have. If they have God's special revelation elsewhere, throw it on the table and let's get a good look at it. For those of you who've listened to Dr. White's debates on sola scriptura, this is his pen example. In his old debate with Patrick Madrid on sola scriptura, Dr. White held up his pen and said:
The first problem with this argument is that it goes to battle alone. If I quote a verse from the Bible, I can also have that verse joined by the entire text from which the verse is found. When someone uses the canon as an example of God's voice in Sacred Tradition, the entire contents of Sacred Tradition still hides back up in the hills. Roman Catholics can't produce what they claim to have. They aren't even unified as to whether Sacred Tradition is simply the same material as found in the Bible, or if it's information of another kind. One bucket of water in a desert is not proof that a large lake is just over the mountain.
The second problem is a misunderstanding by Roman Catholics as to what the canon list is. The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation. It is Scripture which Christians believe inspired, not a knowledge of the canon which is inspired. The church has discovered which books are canon, they haven't infallibly determined them to be canon. For a detailed explanation of this, track down a copy of Dr. White's book, Scripture Alone, chapter five.
Third, Roman Catholics have often jumped on R.C. Sproul's statement that the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. The statement itself originates from Sproul's mentor, John Gerstner. This statement is not an admission that there is an error in the canon. It is a statement simply designed to acknowledge the historical selection process the church used in discovering the canon. By God's providence, God's people have always identified His Word, and they didn't need to be infallible to do so. Remember that large set of books in your Bible before the Gospel of Matthew? The church had the Old Testament, and believers during the period in which the Old Testament was written also had God's inscripturated word, this despite a lack of magisterial infallibility.
Fourth, there is no reason to assume church infallibility in order for the church to receive the canon. That is, there is no reason to assume God's voice of infallible pronouncement via an infallible magisterium. I recognize the Christian church received the canon. It does not though infallibly create the canon, or stand above the canon. The church was used by God to provide a widespread knowledge of the canon. The Holy Spirit had worked among the early Christian church in providing them with the books of the New Testament. This same process can be seen with the Old Testament and Old Testament believers. The Old Testament believer fifty years before Christ was born had a canon of Scripture, this despite the ruling from an infallible authority.
First century Christians had the Old Testament, and had "certainty" that it was the very word of almighty. Clement of Rome frequently quotes the Old Testament. He does so, with the understanding that the words of the Old Testament are the very words of God. He was certain of it, this despite not having the alleged infallible ruling of an infallible authority. His use of Old Testament passages show a certainty that the words were God's words. Or, think of Paul's exhortation to Timothy. Paul notes that from infancy Timothy "knew" the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15): "and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." How was it Timothy could know the Scriptures were the words of God without an infallible church council declaring which books were canonical?
Obviously, the notion that an infallible authority can only provide canon certainty cannot be an accurate explanation of Christian reality. Think of all the New Testament writers. They freely quote the Old Testament with the certainty that it was the Word of God. Yet, no infallible source defined the canon for them. A "source" definitely received the Old Testament canon, but that "source" was not infallible, nor do I recall Rome arguing that the Jewish Old Testament leadership was infallible. There is no logical reason why the entirety of the Bible needs an infallible authority to declare the canon. It wasn't needed previous to Trent, Damasus, or the pre-Christ Jewish authority.
How was it that Timothy had "certainty" the Old Testament was the word of God? It is God's sovereign power that reveals the canon to His church, for His purposes. The people of God are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is they, who are given spiritual life and continually fed by its words. Jesus did this himself, as recorded in Luke 24:45, "Then He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." As to how a Protestant can have certainty on the canon, my certainty is in the providence and work of God. Only faith will read the Bible and hear the voice of God. God used means in giving us His canon, but like the Old Testament believers, those means don't need to be infallible for one to know they are reading and hearing God's word.
If sola scriptura isn't sola, this certainly isn't proven by Roman Catholic claims or argumentation. If Roman Catholic have God's voice somewhere else other than the Scriptures, they need to prove it. Till then, I'll stick with that which is God breathed and which can thoroughly equip a believer (2 Tim. 3:16). I'll stick with that which is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
"How do you know that the Holy Scripture is all you need? What tells you that? Might you need a God-led authority (like the Roman Catholic Church) to tell you that?" This was a question I recently came across from the depths of cyberspace. It's a question sharply aimed against sola scriptura, but it's a false question attacking an incorrect understanding of sola scriptura. Underlying this question is the assumption that the Sacred Scriptures are not enough to function as the sole rule of faith for the church. There must be something else a believer needs, like an infallible magisterium.
One part of this question is indeed true: if God's voice of special revelation is found somewhere else besides the Bible, Christians are obligated to seek out that voice, and follow it with their entire heart, soul, mind, and strength. Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture. The burden of proof then lies on those who claim God's infallible voice is somewhere else besides the Scriptures. If God's infallible voice is extant today somewhere else, sola scriptura is refuted. If God's voice is found in an infallible magisterium or unwritten traditions, sola scriptura is refuted.
This is why those of us defending sola scriptura constantly ask those attacking it to produce what they claim to have. If they have God's special revelation elsewhere, throw it on the table and let's get a good look at it. For those of you who've listened to Dr. White's debates on sola scriptura, this is his pen example. In his old debate with Patrick Madrid on sola scriptura, Dr. White held up his pen and said:
If our debate this evening was that I was going to stand here and say that this is the only pen of its kind in all the universe, how would I go about proving it? Well, the only way I could prove the statement "there is no other pen like this in all the universe," is if I looked in all of your purses, and all of your shirt pockets, and in all the stores in the world that carry pens, and look through all the houses, and all over the planet Earth, and the Moon, and the planets in the Solar System, and in the entire universe, looking for another pen like this. And, of course, I could not do that. But it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go out, get a Cross Medallist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine, and say, "See! Another pen, just like yours!" and he's won the debate.
In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality, and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than depending upon an illogical demand; or, he must demonstrate the existence of "the other pen." That is, he must prove to us what the Council of Trent said was true. I quote, "It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were, from hand to hand."An argument like this is pointed directly at what Romanism claims to have: God's voice elsewhere besides the Sacred Scriptures. Most often those defending Romanism claim to have God's voice in Sacred Tradition. Getting them to throw this Tradition up on the table to take a look at is the problem. Typically only one thing is thrown up on the table as Sacred Tradition, the canon of Sacred Scripture. The canon is said to be an example of God's voice of special revelation outside the Bible.
The first problem with this argument is that it goes to battle alone. If I quote a verse from the Bible, I can also have that verse joined by the entire text from which the verse is found. When someone uses the canon as an example of God's voice in Sacred Tradition, the entire contents of Sacred Tradition still hides back up in the hills. Roman Catholics can't produce what they claim to have. They aren't even unified as to whether Sacred Tradition is simply the same material as found in the Bible, or if it's information of another kind. One bucket of water in a desert is not proof that a large lake is just over the mountain.
The second problem is a misunderstanding by Roman Catholics as to what the canon list is. The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation. It is Scripture which Christians believe inspired, not a knowledge of the canon which is inspired. The church has discovered which books are canon, they haven't infallibly determined them to be canon. For a detailed explanation of this, track down a copy of Dr. White's book, Scripture Alone, chapter five.
Third, Roman Catholics have often jumped on R.C. Sproul's statement that the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. The statement itself originates from Sproul's mentor, John Gerstner. This statement is not an admission that there is an error in the canon. It is a statement simply designed to acknowledge the historical selection process the church used in discovering the canon. By God's providence, God's people have always identified His Word, and they didn't need to be infallible to do so. Remember that large set of books in your Bible before the Gospel of Matthew? The church had the Old Testament, and believers during the period in which the Old Testament was written also had God's inscripturated word, this despite a lack of magisterial infallibility.
Fourth, there is no reason to assume church infallibility in order for the church to receive the canon. That is, there is no reason to assume God's voice of infallible pronouncement via an infallible magisterium. I recognize the Christian church received the canon. It does not though infallibly create the canon, or stand above the canon. The church was used by God to provide a widespread knowledge of the canon. The Holy Spirit had worked among the early Christian church in providing them with the books of the New Testament. This same process can be seen with the Old Testament and Old Testament believers. The Old Testament believer fifty years before Christ was born had a canon of Scripture, this despite the ruling from an infallible authority.
First century Christians had the Old Testament, and had "certainty" that it was the very word of almighty. Clement of Rome frequently quotes the Old Testament. He does so, with the understanding that the words of the Old Testament are the very words of God. He was certain of it, this despite not having the alleged infallible ruling of an infallible authority. His use of Old Testament passages show a certainty that the words were God's words. Or, think of Paul's exhortation to Timothy. Paul notes that from infancy Timothy "knew" the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15): "and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." How was it Timothy could know the Scriptures were the words of God without an infallible church council declaring which books were canonical?
Obviously, the notion that an infallible authority can only provide canon certainty cannot be an accurate explanation of Christian reality. Think of all the New Testament writers. They freely quote the Old Testament with the certainty that it was the Word of God. Yet, no infallible source defined the canon for them. A "source" definitely received the Old Testament canon, but that "source" was not infallible, nor do I recall Rome arguing that the Jewish Old Testament leadership was infallible. There is no logical reason why the entirety of the Bible needs an infallible authority to declare the canon. It wasn't needed previous to Trent, Damasus, or the pre-Christ Jewish authority.
How was it that Timothy had "certainty" the Old Testament was the word of God? It is God's sovereign power that reveals the canon to His church, for His purposes. The people of God are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is they, who are given spiritual life and continually fed by its words. Jesus did this himself, as recorded in Luke 24:45, "Then He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." As to how a Protestant can have certainty on the canon, my certainty is in the providence and work of God. Only faith will read the Bible and hear the voice of God. God used means in giving us His canon, but like the Old Testament believers, those means don't need to be infallible for one to know they are reading and hearing God's word.
If sola scriptura isn't sola, this certainly isn't proven by Roman Catholic claims or argumentation. If Roman Catholic have God's voice somewhere else other than the Scriptures, they need to prove it. Till then, I'll stick with that which is God breathed and which can thoroughly equip a believer (2 Tim. 3:16). I'll stick with that which is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Saturday, July 31, 2010
"We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary (Master List)
For all of Rome's protests and her insistence upon the need to submit to the 'unanimous consent' of the fathers, as well as her own official definitive meanings of holy Scripture, there are no specific infallible interpretations to which anyone can point! Dogmatic assertions do not make for proof. At the end of the day, no matter how often the claim is made, it is still nothing more than a claim, because Roman apologists cannot produce the actual rule for which they argue. [David King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I, Battle Creek: Christian Resources, 2001, p. 226]
Roman Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible and history correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible.
It doesn't take all that long to find material for these entries. Since Rome doesn't do all that much in actually infallibly interpreting Bible verses, the material is plentiful. The irony of course is that Rome's apologists actually chastise non-Romanists for interpreting the Bible.
Very few texts have in fact been authoritatively determined and there consequently remain many important matters in the explanation of which sagacity and ingenuity of Catholic interpreters can and should be freely exercised…” [Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.60, first column (as cited by David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001), 223].
The number of texts infallibly interpreted by the Church is small…It has been estimated indeed that the total of such texts is under twenty, though there are of course many other indirectly determined [Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.59, second column ((as cited by David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001), 224].
...the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of Biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress. A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skillfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack [PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, On The Study Of Holy Scripture (Encylical Of Pope Leo XIII, November 18, 1893].
But very few indeed are the Scripture texts of which the Church authorities have defined the meaning, and even there, their intervention has generally been to say what Scripture does not mean, otherwise leaving open what it does [Maurice Bévenot, S.J. See his chapter 'Scripture and Tradition in Catholic Theology' in F.F. Bruce and E.G. Rupp, eds., Holy Book and Holy Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), p. 181. He repeats himself on p. 183.]
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.]
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #1: Romans 5:12
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #2: Genesis 22
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #3: Romans 8:35-39
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #4: Luke 10:16
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #5: 1 John 5:16-17
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #6: Luke 16:19-31
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #7: 1 Peter 3:18-20
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #8: Romans 3:28
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #9: Revelation 12:1-2
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #10: Romans 3:28 (TurretinFan)
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #11: James 5:16
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #12: John 6:53
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #13: Galatians 2:11-16
The Unofficial Roman Catholic Apologist Guide to Church History #1: The Apocrypha
Roman Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible and history correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible.
It doesn't take all that long to find material for these entries. Since Rome doesn't do all that much in actually infallibly interpreting Bible verses, the material is plentiful. The irony of course is that Rome's apologists actually chastise non-Romanists for interpreting the Bible.
Very few texts have in fact been authoritatively determined and there consequently remain many important matters in the explanation of which sagacity and ingenuity of Catholic interpreters can and should be freely exercised…” [Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.60, first column (as cited by David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001), 223].
The number of texts infallibly interpreted by the Church is small…It has been estimated indeed that the total of such texts is under twenty, though there are of course many other indirectly determined [Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.59, second column ((as cited by David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001), 224].
...the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of Biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress. A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skillfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack [PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, On The Study Of Holy Scripture (Encylical Of Pope Leo XIII, November 18, 1893].
But very few indeed are the Scripture texts of which the Church authorities have defined the meaning, and even there, their intervention has generally been to say what Scripture does not mean, otherwise leaving open what it does [Maurice Bévenot, S.J. See his chapter 'Scripture and Tradition in Catholic Theology' in F.F. Bruce and E.G. Rupp, eds., Holy Book and Holy Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), p. 181. He repeats himself on p. 183.]
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.]
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #1: Romans 5:12
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #2: Genesis 22
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #3: Romans 8:35-39
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #4: Luke 10:16
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #5: 1 John 5:16-17
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #6: Luke 16:19-31
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #7: 1 Peter 3:18-20
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #8: Romans 3:28
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #9: Revelation 12:1-2
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #10: Romans 3:28 (TurretinFan)
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #11: James 5:16
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #12: John 6:53
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #13: Galatians 2:11-16
The Unofficial Roman Catholic Apologist Guide to Church History #1: The Apocrypha
Thursday, June 19, 2008
I'm assuming most of you read the aomin blog, and have seen Turretinfan's article, "The Canon was NOT Decided at Nicaea!"It is a great entry! It's wonderful that Turretinfan's writings will be getting a much wider audience. Turretinfan has been a great help to me on my own blog, finding tidbits of information that have helped me construct some of my blog articles. The man has an incredible knack for research, tied with a deep love for God and truth....the perfect combination! Dr. White, in my opinion, picked one of the best researchers/bloggers/apologists to join Team Apologian when he picked out Turretinfan! Make sure also to bookmark Turretinfan's blog.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Team Apologian
Here are my last few entries for Team Apologian:
7/14/07 The July 2007 Berean Call Top 10 The July top 10 list of why Dave Hunt's Berean Call should change its name to something else. Quotations from the July issue of The Berean Call.
07/09/2007 The Scriptural Roots of Catholic Teaching? A brief review of The Scriptural Roots of Catholic Teaching by Chantal Epie (New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2002), subtitled, How the Bible Proves the Truth of the Catholic Faith.
07/07/2007 Five More Luther Myths
06/30/2007 Ten Martin Luther Myths
06/24/2007 Desperate Sophistry
6/20/2007 Romans 3:2 And The Apocrypha (Part 2) Catholic apologist Gary Michuta has released a new book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. This is a part two of my examination of his interpretation of Romans 3:2.
06/18/2007 Deacons, Elders and...Luther
06/08/2007 Romans 3:2 And The Apocrypha (Part 1) Catholic apologist Gary Michuta has released a new book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. This is a part one of my examination of his interpretation of Romans 3:2.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Team Apologian
Here are my last few entries for Team Apologian:
5/30/07 The Closing Of The Old Testament Canon- I've been going through Catholic apologist Gary Michuta's new book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. The entry looks at Michuta's discussion of Rabbi Akiba and the closing of the Old Testament canon.
5/25/07 Checking In With The Other Side Of The Tiber- I regularly visit Roman Catholic blogs and websites to see what the apologists are up to. Here are a few highlights.
5/25/07 Svendsen-Pacwa debate review- A link to a review.
5/25/07 Two Contradicting Points Equals a Refutation- Dr. Sippo and Mr. Michuta pat each other on the back while saying two different things.
5/21/07 I Won't Read It, But It Must Be a Lie! -A review of a Catholic Answers thread.
5/20/07 Gary Michuta, Sirach, and the Threefold Division of the Old Testament-I've been going through Catholic apologist Gary Michuta's new book, Why Catholic bibles Are Bigger (Michigan: The Grotto Press, 2007). The first bit of evidence the book covers is the usage and citations of the apocryphal Book of Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus) and its impact on the canonical status of the apocryphal books.
5/15/07 Gary Michuta, Josephus, And The Cessation of Prophecy-In his book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, Catholic apologist Gary Michuta Argues Protestant apologists misuse these words from the Jewish historian Josephus: "It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time..."
5/14/07 Checking In With The Other Side Of The Tiber-I regularly visit Roman Catholic blogs and websites to see what the apologists are up to. Here are a few highlights.
Also noteworthy:
Alan Kurschner:
New Book: A Heart for God's Glory (5/30/07)
Pyromaniac Byzantine Scribes Destroying God's Word? Oh My! (5/28/07)
Jeff Downs:
The Deity of Christ (5/24/07)
Convert or Die! (5/16/07)
Mormon History and Jerald (and Sandra) Tanner (5/14/07)
New Perspective on Paul - Introductory Material (5/14/07)
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Who Talks About The 5 Points All Day Long?
I just found this tidbit:
"...I'm not going to try to explain my understanding of Justification, or what I think is the understanding that many Calvinists hold. Many of the most outspoken Calvinists of our day draw a line in the sand between Calvinists and everyone else, and say things like, "We preach the true Gospel; any derivation from it means that it is a false gospel." If you don't believe me, just go read the blogs/websites/books by James White and everyone who follows him like a messiah, including Colin Smith, Mike Porter, Alan Kurschner, Jeff Downs, James Swan, and the dozens of guys who hang out in an IRC chatroom hosted by AOMin and talk about the 5 points all day long: http://aomin.org/"
Hmmm... I wish i had time to talk about Reformed theology all day long, but I have a job and a family. That being said, I rarely do blog entries on Calvinism, nor I do I hang out in a chat room for long periods of time, nor do those whose names appear above. Also, if you do stop into ProsApologian Chat, the topics can vary from the sublime to the.... well, let's just say the topics vary.
If you're curious about the guy who wrote this comment, see his blog entry on John 6 and The Potter's Freedom.
"...I'm not going to try to explain my understanding of Justification, or what I think is the understanding that many Calvinists hold. Many of the most outspoken Calvinists of our day draw a line in the sand between Calvinists and everyone else, and say things like, "We preach the true Gospel; any derivation from it means that it is a false gospel." If you don't believe me, just go read the blogs/websites/books by James White and everyone who follows him like a messiah, including Colin Smith, Mike Porter, Alan Kurschner, Jeff Downs, James Swan, and the dozens of guys who hang out in an IRC chatroom hosted by AOMin and talk about the 5 points all day long: http://aomin.org/"
Hmmm... I wish i had time to talk about Reformed theology all day long, but I have a job and a family. That being said, I rarely do blog entries on Calvinism, nor I do I hang out in a chat room for long periods of time, nor do those whose names appear above. Also, if you do stop into ProsApologian Chat, the topics can vary from the sublime to the.... well, let's just say the topics vary.
If you're curious about the guy who wrote this comment, see his blog entry on John 6 and The Potter's Freedom.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Team Apologian
Here are my last few entries for Team Apologian:
Gary Michuta, Josephus, and the Twenty-Two Books of the Hebrew Bible- A mini-review of the canon citation of Josephus as explained by Catholic apologist Gary Michuta. (5/9/07)
Checking Facts on the Reformers- A look at the difficulty in engaging a Catholic apologist in dialog. One Romanist is now publishing books with facts probably nott even researched. (4/26/07)
Checking In With The Other Side Of The Tiber- I regularly visit Roman Catholic blogs and websites to see what the apologists are up to. These are a few highlights. (4/19/06)
C. Gordon Olson on John Calvin and the Gift of Faith-C. Gordon Olson presents a fair amount of historical analysis in Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism. Coming under scrutiny is none other than John Calvin. One curious historical tidbit by Olson is the implication Calvin did not believe faith is the gift of God given to a specific chosen people. (4/17/07)
Having A Laugh With Catholic Apologist Mark Shea- A blog entry from Catholic apologist Mark Shea demonstrates the difference in purpose between Catholics and Protestants. Mark took some shots at Dr. White's work on the recent Jesus Tomb controversy. (4/16/07)
C. Gordon Olson: Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism- A look at C. Gordon Olson's book, which is a repackaging of the the anti-reformed arguments of Norman Geisler and Laurence Vance, combining them with an allegedly "inductive" and exegetical Biblical work. (4/15/07)
Envoy's Fixation- The Envoy discussion board will not allow links to Alpha and Omega Ministries, yet they are fixated on the aomin blog. The Envoy crowd are fixated on Alpha and Omega Ministries because the materials and arguments put forth are effective, and they know it. (4/13/07) Update: Another Wonderful Example of the "Charity" of Mr. Bradley.
Catholic Apologist Art Sippo on the 1 Esdras Problem-A quick look at the problems of Esdras and Catholic apologist Art Sippo's evaluation. (4/11/07)
Also noteworthy:
William Webster: A Further Response to Gary Michuta and John Betts on 1 Esdras (4/23/07). I took the time to format this response from William Webster for the aomin blog. As usual, Mr. Webster has provided excellent work in refuting the claims made by Gary Michuta and John Betts.
Alan Kurschner:
Dean Burgon and His Phantom Manuscripts (4/19/07)
Jeff Downs:
The Cult of Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda (4/10/07)
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Team Apologian
Here are my last few entries for Team Apologian:
Silence and the Problem of Catholic Canon Certainty- A look at the implications of Catholic apologist Gary Michuta's view that the debated book of Esdras was passed over in silence by the Council of Trent. (4/9/07)
Gary Michuta Says: Read My Book- Catholic Apologist Gary Michuta joins the Envoy bunker and posts a response to William Webster on Esdras. (4/4/07)
Is William Webster Telling The Truth?- A look at the charge William Webster was lying about the edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia which contains a statement from Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo, against the canonicity of the apocrypha. (4/3/07)
Six Points On Luther's "Epistle of Straw"- Almost five hundred years after the fact, Roman Catholics still scrutinize Martin Luther. One the most popular quotations from Luther is the infamous "epistle of straw" remark, directed at the canonicity of the book of James. It really is amazing how frequently this citation appears. It is usually brought forth as proof one must believe an infallible church authored an infallible list of infallible books. Without this, one subjectively decides which books are canonical, like Martin Luther supposedly did in the sixteenth century.If you find yourself in dialog facing this quote, there are a few facts and arguments you should know. (4/3/07)
Go Ahead, Speak Your Mind on Envoy, Just Don't Link to aomin.org - I got booted off the Envoy boards for posting a link to aomin.org. (3/28/07)
And They All Lived Happily Ever After? - Robert Sungenis and the Catholic apologetic bond of unity. (3/26/07)
Also noteworthy:
Jeff Downs:
Augustine, Schaeffer, Van Til (4/7/07)
Revelation and Reason (3/30/07)
Counterfeit Christianity: The Basics (3/26/07)
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Team Apologian
Here are my last few entries for Team Apologian:
And They All Lived Happily Ever After?- A short review of the recent controversy surrounding Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis (3/26/07)
Alister McGrath, Justification, and Theological Novums- A quick look at Alister Mcgrath's comment on the Bible Answer Man show on justification (3/22/07)
Interpreter of Gnostic Texts: Simcha Jacobovici- The author of The Jesus Tomb proves he has trouble reading the Gospel of Thomas (3/19/07)
The TQ Fan Club Speaks- Kevin Johnson liked one of my articles, go figure (3/15/07)
Gnostic Sources: The New Complete Version of Biblical Studies- A look at the picture of Jesus put forth by The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a gnostic writing (3/15/07)
Parallel Methodology: The Tomb of Jesus and Roman Catholic Apologetics-The similarities of methodology put forth by the Jesus Tomb directors and Catholic apologetics (3/14/07)
Also noteworthy:
Alan Kurschner: 3 Steps to Reviewing and Improving NT Greek Grammar and Vocabulary
Jeff Downs: Counterfeit Christianity: The Basics
Colin Smith:
Predestination in Islam: The Doctrine Stated
Predestination in Islam: Dr. Norman Geisler's Critique
Predestination in Islam: A Reformed Critique
Witnessing to Muslims--an Important Point to Remember
Teacher Fired for Encouraging Critical Thinking
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
