Carrie's "The Semi-Authoritative Catholic Canon"

I came across this post from Carrie looking for something else. It was so interesting, I felt it should be re-posted- James



A popular argument by online Roman Catholic (RC) apologists centers around the certainty of the biblical canon. The RC apologist will ask the Protestant, “how can you be sure you have the right books without the infallible authority of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC)”? Likewise, the RC apologist will claim that the biblical canon taught since Hippo/Carthage and throughout history is the RC canon (with the Protestant canon “missing” books) despite acknowledging Church fathers and theologians who expressed doubts about the deuterocanonical books.

In previous posts we have seen that the vote to make the RC canon an article of faith by the addition of an anathema was not overwhelming supported by the council members at Trent. If the exact contents of the biblical canon was crystal clear throughout history as the RC apologists maintain, and clearly defined by past councils, one would have expected solid support for making the canon an article of faith. Yet that was not the case, why?

If we look at some of the canon discussions that occurred at the Council of Trent both before and after the February 15th vote in 1546 (which according to Catholic historian Hubert Jedin “committed the Council to the wider canon”), we will get a glimpse into some of the uncertainty around the canon. What we will see is what Chadwick described as quoted in a previous post, “In the cold light of finality, the formulas look rigid against Protestants. Seen as the end of a long debate with differing opinions, the formulas have more nuance, more flexibility, than any Protestant hitherto supposed.”

Following on a previous post, after describing the vote on Feb 15th, Jedin goes back to summarize the discussions that occurred in prior meetings leading up to the vote and the final implication:

“This question was not only a matter of controversy between Catholics and Protestants: it was also the subject of a lively discussion even between Catholic theologians. St Jerome, that great authority in all scriptural questions, had accepted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. Thc books of Judith, Esther, Tobias, Machabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which the majority of the Fathers, on the authority of the Septuagint, treated as canonical, Jerome described as apocryphal, that is, as not included in the canon though suitable for the edification of the faithful…The general of the Franciscans Observant, Calvus, dealt thoroughly with the problems raised by Cajetan in a tract drawn up for the purposes of the Counci1. He defended the wider canon, and in particular the canonicity of the book of Baruch, the story of Susanna, that of Bel and the dragon, and the canticle of the three children (Benedicite). On the other hand, he refused to accept the oft-quoted Apostolic Canons as authoritative for the canonicity of the third book of Machabees. The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as "canonical and authentic", belong the the canon fidei, while the deuterocanonical ones, as "canonical and ecclesiastical books", belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly, follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the epithet "canonical" from the deuterocanonical books, yet to use it with certain restrictions.

The tracts of the two generals of Orders show that opinions diverged widely even within the Council. The prestige of the Augustinian general and that of the Bishop of Fano who sided with him, may have prompted Cervini to discuss the whole complex question in his class. It became evident that no one supported the subtle distinction between a canon fidei and a canon morum, though it met with a somewhat more favourable reception in the general congregation of 12 February when several of the Fathers deemed it useful, though not necessary. The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions. The result of the above-mentioned vote of the general congregation of 15 February committed the Council to the wider canon, but inasmuch as it abstained from a theological discussion, the question of differences between books within the canon was left as it had been.” History of the Council of Trent, pgs 56-57

Additional details around the discussion in the general congregation of Feb 12th are provided by Duncker:

“Cardinal Cervini, reporting the previous day's discussion in his Classis, brought up the two points still to be settled : First, whether a distinction is to be made between Sacred Books from which the foundations of our teaching are drawn and those which, though truly canonical, are not so in the same sense as the former (Acts: "not of the same authority") but are received by the Church so that from them the multitude may be instructed, such as the books of Proverbs, Wisdom and so on. This distinction would seem to be pertinent (…Acts:…does not seem off the point), because this question is still much disputed and not yet determined by the Church, though Augustine and Jerome and other ancient writers often spoke of it.

After having mentioned incidentally that Cardinal Pacheco was against this distinction, Severoli (and the Acts) only say that "Although many esteemed it useful and even not less necessary (Acts: 'yet less necessary'), nevertheless the view of several (Acts: Of the majority') prevailed, that this question be left intact to posterity (Acts: 'be omitted and left*) as it was left to us by our Fathers." The General of the Servites, Bonucci, insisted, in his turn, ". . . that this question must surely be left intact (Acts omit this part of his statement) as, in points on which Jerome and Augustine disagree, the Church has not been accustomed to pass judgment (Acts: 'the Synod should not pass judgment, as the Church has not been accustomed to do so').”

…The question was not yet settled, for that same night the Cardinal legates reported to Rome that the point about the degrees of the books of the Old Testament, which had come up during the debate, had still to lie examined, as many of the ancient holy Doctors had said that some were canonical and suited to settle dogmas and that others did not have so much authority but were only "agiographi" (sacred writings).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol 15, pgs 285-286

The implication of the Tridentine decision on the Catholic canon is outlined by F. J. Crehan, S.J.:

“After sharp discussion the Council came to the decision that it received and held in honour pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia, with equal devotion and veneration, the books of Scripture and the divine and apostolic traditions (that is, those coming from Christ or the apostles) which concerned faith or morals. It did not mean that each book of Scripture was inspired in exactly the same way, as some modern theologians have claimed, for the Council was not comparing book with book but the body of Scripture with the body of apostolic tradition. …The further question, whether in the decree of Trent anything should be said about the status of books within the canon (that is, of the deuterocanonical books), was left to one side. Writing on 16 February 1546, the day after the debate, the legates report to Rome that there was general agreement not to enter into that question (Acta, x, 382) and the notice in the official account of the proceedings (Acts, V, 10), recording that there was a majority in favour of putting the books all on an equal footing but that nothing was put into the decree about it, seems to agree with this. The fact that the words pari pietatis affectu recipit do not appear in the decree, but another place, where they establish an equality between Scripture as a whole and Tradition, has led some theologians into a short-sighted attempt to twist the story of the Council. The legates cannot have been mistaken when they wrote that there was agreement not to enter into that difficult matter.” The Cambridge History of the Bible, pgs 199-202

So what does this all mean? First, it shows that the Catholic canon is imprecise in that it potentially contains books that are less authoritative and not adequate for proving dogma. A two-fold Catholic canon is still an open question according to the Council of Trent. Second, this imprecision translates into uncertainty for the faithful as the authority of any one book in the canon has intentionally been left undecided by the Catholic magisterium. Add to this the fact that a few books in the Vulgate were passed over in silence at the Council of Trent (3 & 4 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, Prayer of Manasseh), meaning that these books may or may not be inspired and deserving of a place in the canon, and we are left with an open Catholic canon containing books of potentially variable authority in matters of faith.

Likewise, the Catholic arguments against the Protestant canon as “missing books” or “inconsistent with church history” are also invalid in light of these facts. Where the Catholic Church has left the theological difficulties regarding the canon open, the Protestant canon could be a functional option from a Catholic point of view. As the Thomist, Scotist and Molinist schools of thought are all allowed to coexist in in areas of RC theology that are not precisely defined, a possible position to be held by a Roman Catholic is that the apocryphal books do not establish doctrine, which is quite close to the Protestant position in regard to these books. Jerome’s opinion of the biblical canon has not been rejected by the RCC, and Protestants have simply sided with Jerome as well as others throughout church history.

As such, the certainty that the standard RC apologist claims regarding their biblical canon is far from valid in my mind. The Council of Trent specifically chose not to provide clear answers to historical questions around the canon, leaving Catholics with uncertainty around the level of authority for individual books. The Protestant canon seems to provide far more certainty for understanding doctrine, as we have included in our canon all inspired books of God (none passed over in silence), all of which can be equally consulted in matters of faith (no degrees of authority). So while the "charisma of infallibility" possessed by the Catholic Church has been able to firmly establish the bodily assumption of Mary as dogma, they have been unable to adequately define the authoritative status of the components of Scripture in matters of doctrine. Once again, the facts of history do not align with the lofty claims of RC apologetics.

A Recent Catholic Answers Visit

I came out from the shadows over at the Catholic Answers forums, participating on the subject of the Apocrypha and Luther. I have no idea why I've yet to be banned from Catholic Answers. I've been there since May, 2004. I think I must not be being clear enough. It actually makes me wonder if I'm really presenting the truth in my posts.

Also, for a bit of Romanist love, there is a recent Catholic Answers thread on Dr. White. These typically get deleted by the Catholic Answers moderators once they reach frenzy level. This thread I've dubbed, "the gift that keeps on giving." Every time I go back to visit it, it just keeps getting wackier. Here's a fun little nugget of nastiness:

He then edits the tape and sells it to his followers or anyone gullible enough to buy one. I wonder what would happen to Mr. White if everyone did as Scott Hahn did?

Responding to Ben M on priestly celibacy, with a pinch of sarcasm

Ben M has decided to weigh in on celibacy.  I sinned extensively against the Lord recently by watching the Lost finale, and so I'm feeling a bit saucy.  Hopefully both of my readers will forgive the sarcasm of some of my comments here.


No, that's not what St. Paul meant!

He said "forbid marriage".  RC priests are forbidden to marry.
Interestingly, Paul told us that presbuteroi are supposed to be one-woman men.  Not no-woman men or many-boys men.


a. The Roman Church has NO “doctrine” forbidding anyone to marry - marriage is a sacrament open to all.

Except priests.  Do you think we're idiots or something?


b. God has always called certain individuals to the celibate life in order that they may serve him unreservedly.

What's your point?  That's a matter between the individual and God, not to be mandated by the church.


c. The Church has every right to set rules and conditions pertaining to the priesthood

If you say so.  But they violate the biblical commandment.  Apparently they have "every right" to do that, too.



And currently she has chosen to accept candidates for priestly ordination only from among those who have this gift of celibacy

And if the RCC does it, it has to be right!  B/c Christ founded it!  Matthew 16!  Blah!!!


Why do Protestants forbid celibacy to their clergy, when the very Apostles SS. Peter and Paul and their successors - St. Timothy e.g. - were prime examples of a celibate clergy??

1) You have no proof Timothy was celibate.
2) Paul CHOSE to be celibate.  RCC MANDATES its clergy be celibate.
3) Peter was married.  Fail.
4) Paul was an apostle, not a presbuteros.



Re: perpetual abstinence in marriage is unbiblical - “Else, they cannot be one flesh. 1 Cor 7: 3.”
Well, that’s certainly what, with perhaps a couple of exceptions, Protestants believe.

Yeah, that's so crazy, that Protestants might just believe what the Bible teaches.



(Beza said:) We cannot expect people today to live chastely in a sexless marriage, as if they were ‘new Josephs and Marys.’”

1) Beza is not a Protestant Pope.  I can't believe you people can't get that through your heads.
2) Sexless marriages are indeed violations of the command of 1 Corinthians 7 and the various other descriptions of marriage as "one FLESH".  Hard to be one FLESH when you're --ahem-- not, you know, one flesh.



“The traditional option of maintaining a sexless ‘spiritual marriage’ was anathema to Calvin.”

Awesome.  Good for Calvin.  Another reason to like the guy.


One comment in Beza's biography has not served Calvin well, and that was the suggestion that he and Idelette had a sexless marriage, adhering to chastity.

I can't believe it!  Calvin might have actually been a sinner?
Sorry, we can't allow that kind of trash to sully the pages of this blog.  Our team will have a meeting later to determine whether we should delete this comment and also ban all RCs from commenting.  Forever.


St. Augustine:
“So if you can manage it, you shouldn’t touch your partner, except for the sake of having children.” Sermon 278:9:3,

I can imagine nothing so bizarre to as to suggest that a church writer 3 centuries after the Bible was written might say something unbiblical or incorrect.

Lortz on Luther's First Mass: Proof of Psychosis?

I've been reading The Reformation: A Problem for Today (Maryland: The Newman Press, 1964) by Roman Catholic theologian Joseph Lortz. Lortz's claim to fame was his Luther research. He was a well-respected theologian, known for being one of the first Roman Catholic writers to positively re-evaluate Luther. Previous to Lortz, most Roman Catholic evaluations of Luther were destructive, more or less following in the footsteps of Cochlaeus. Lortz though saw Luther as a fundamentally honest religious man.

While Lortz says many positive things about Luther, he did offers criticisms as well. He still viewed Luther as a heretic, prone to subjectivism, and also sharing guilt (with the Roman Catholic Church) for dividing the church.

That being said, as Jared Wicks says, for Lortz "his criticism was penetrated by amazement over Luther's pulsating spiritual richness, the wide range of his talents, the vastness of his productive labor for the new community, and the concentration of all his thought on God's grace revealed in Christ and transmitted by the Gospel."

To highlight the approach of Lortz, consider this contrast. Recently I took a look at Luther: The Rest of the Story By Ken Hensley. While Hensley post-dates Lortz, Hensley goes backward, returning to destructive criticism of Luther. Hensley evaluates Luther's first mass and determines the fear Luther felt during the mass was fear that was instilled by his own father. After the mass, Luther's father embarrassed his son in front of everyone. At the first mass, Luther claims to have been "without faith" during this period in his life. Luther also mentions that as a devout monk he hated God. These statements question the validity of Luther's call to the monastic life. Luther in essence, needed to learn to cope with his father, he didn't need the monastery. Luther wasn't called by God to be a monk. He was a man with a faulty image of God that wrongly chose the monastic life. Luther's struggle was based on the father he loved, feared, but could please. This transferred to Luther's understanding of God: Luther feared that he could not please God. While Hensley says Luther loved Hans Luther, he hated God and viewed him as angry deity. Thus, Luther's first mass stands as proof of a man with deep psychological issues.

Contrarily, here's how Joseph Lortz describes Luther's first mass (pp. 118-123):

Luther was soon ordained (1506). For every priest, the experience of celebrating his First Mass is of the greatest importance. For a man like Luther, who was so powerfully governed by the emotional level of experience, it was of even greater importance. He has left us a number of accounts of his First Mass. If we take the essential elements of these, we find that according to Luther he was so profoundly moved that he would have been swept from the altar if the assistant priest had not held him back. It may be questioned whether he was really tempted to rush from the altar. Perhaps in later years he was yielding to the tendency to speak in superlatives, but there is no doubt that he was profoundly moved. Luther also tells us why: he was deeply impressed by the nearness of the awesome majesty of God, who is addressed in the Canon as the living and true God.

Luther's experience shows us first of all that he was a religious man, forced to his knees as it were by the tremendous reality of God. We see in his experience something which cannot without some restrictions be called healthy. Does this entitle us to speak of mental illness in his case? We see that he was often profoundly moved, subject to strong depressions, restless at intervals, and, later in life, subject to violent changes of temper. All of this is quite apparent and shows that Luther had a tempestuous character, and that in his soul raged forces that were beyond his power to control. It tells us, too, that we are dealing wits a soul obsessed with anxiety in the face of sin and the divine judgment and caught in the net of scrupulosity. But scrupulosity is a weakness proper to a tender conscience; thus there is no reason to speak of mental illness in the proper sense of the word, at least at the time of his First Mass. This possibility is further excluded when we realize the tremendous amount and the fine quality of the works that Luther produced unceasingly. (Whether one could speak of a psychosis in Luther's case in the more restricted medical sense of the word is a matter for psychiatrists and does not concern us here.) At any rate we should be quite clear about the meaning of "mentally ill." It seems that the rather loosely used schema "manic depressive" (when it is not used in the sense of insanity) can be quite easily verified in the average mentally healthy individual if that individual is unusually sensitive. It is quite easy to say what Luther was not: he was not balanced, moderate or prudent, not restrained; one might say that he was quite uninhibited, that in a typically Germanic way he escapes classification and categorization. His lack of restraint is shown by all sorts of exaggerations; they indicate a violent impulsiveness which extends even to the falsification of objective facts in such impossible forms that the reader is utterly amazed. What Christian conscience will, for example, be able to accept his statement that he preferred Christ to all the devils, because he stood in such deadly terror of Him?

Whether the violent depressions of the year 1527/8 are correctly described by the Danish psychiatrist Paul Reiter as mental illness in the strict sense, is a matter for doctors to decide. But the entire mental structure and the intellectual and spiritual work Luther turned out (as Reiter himself admits), show that mental illness is by no means a sufficient explanation. At any rate it is impossible to declare simply that Luther was mentally ill. If one were so inclined,a whole book could be filled with individual examples which point in the direction of mental illness, but if we are going to keep a just proportion, we would have to match this with ten or more volumes which would positively prove Luther's mental, spiritual, and religious health.
The one conclusion we can come to now from Luther's experience at his First Mass is that he was entirely preoccupied with the anxiety that he felt as, with all his sins, he stood alone before the sovereign majesty of God. It is true that in the Canon, the living and true God is directly addressed, and that the Canon is preceded by the solemn, threefold Sanctus addressed to the divine majesty, but that is not the whole story.

The Preface has nothing of the awesome and exalted tone of the Sanctus; rather this prayer is a great lifting of the mind and heart, a great surge of adoration and praise which embraces heaven and earth and joins the voices of men to the song of the angels, but Luther was unaware of all this.

Furthermore, the Canon itself begins with the wonderful and consoling words: "Te igitur, clementissime Pater,per Jesum Christum, Filium Tuum, Dominum Nostrum, supplices rogamus." That is: "We humbly call upon Thee, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord." God is not addressed as the Judge who threatens to punish all the defects, but as a kind and loving Father. And the sinner approaches the Father not on his own, but through our Saviour, the Mediator, Jesus Christ. This is precisely the formula which Luther will later say contains all of the Christian message, but for some reason Luther did not see it then. He undoubtedly knew these words by heart as he did the rest of the Canon, but did not realize them. He was so deeply involved in those ideas which he had from his early days, the preaching he had heard, the Ockhamist theology he had learned, and above all his own peculiar disposition and correspondingly unique experiences, that he was simply blind to the solution for which he was striving so violently and which was given to him here, word by word.

This was so characteristic of Luther. He could not accept anyone else's solution. He was so individualistic and in a sense so narrow that only solutions of his own appeared valid. Luther was capable of assimilating only those things which were adapted to the peculiarities of his personality. He was an individual in the strictest sense of the word and this influenced his every act; it was the source of both his greatness and his limitations.

Here again we see a fact of primary importance: Luther never really understood the Missal as a compendium of the theology of grace and the sacraments. Some have objected to the emphasis I place on Luther's experience at his First Mass or feel that I make too much depend on this thesis. Luther did finish that Mass and later, at breakfast, he had been able to talk in calm and collected fashion with his father; for years afterwards he continued to celebrate Mass.

The important thing to note, however, is that no one ever asserted that Luther continued in his disturbed state for a long time. (If this had happened, beyond doubt he would have been mentally ill.) But note this: Luther's experience at the time of his First Mass was no isolated or independent event: it is an instance of the disposition which was central to Luther's character and caused him so much trouble. On the one hand he was an introvert, and on the other, he had a one-sided concept of the severity of an avenging God who demanded good works of His creature.

If the experience at the time of the First Mass were unique, the objection would be valid; however, the various observations we have made on Luther's life as a young monk agree in the points mentioned, and reinforce one another. Therefore, there is no question of trying to draw too many conclusions just from the First Mass.

In Luther's experience at the time of his First Mass, the same struggles of conscience appear which beset him in the monastery. Naturally, Luther's later assertions about the unceasing tension he was under are not to be taken too seriously. We know that on occasion he himself described his early life in religion as a calm and peaceful one. But his struggles of conscience were extremely severe. With unending perseverance he tried to get to the bottom of his problems and find a way out. In so doing, he was relentless in the war he waged on himself. We can accuse him of a good deal of imprudence, but we cannot say that he did not take his problems seriously enough. He brought them into the presence of God as he struggled with all his might to reach the complete solution.

Anxiety weighed him down—anxiety at the burden of sin which he saw in himself and which endangered his immortal soul, and made him feel the pains of the damned. (Even if Luther's description of this experience is expressed in terms taken from Tauler and has a rather elaborate literary coloring, still no one can deny that it was part of Luther's objective experience and a burden that weighed terribly on him.)

From the psychological point of view, we have before us a man who was extremely troubled by a serious type of scrupulosity. He had developed a real talent for disputing with himself, bringing forward arguments and counterarguments, and by so doing, tortured himself by running around in circles.

But the religious aspect is more important. Luther experienced his anxiety so terribly, largely because at one and the same time he longed so profoundly for a kind and loving God. To be free from sin and to reach this kind and loving God was Luther's problem and all his powers were directed to this end.


So, will Hensley or Catholic Answers, or any of the other recent Roman Catholic apologists be going out to purchase books by Lortz? My guess is no. My question is this: why are the works of men like Lortz, Wicks, and many other Catholic theologians typically ignored by the modern day Romanist-apologist? There are enough nuggets of negativity in Lortz's book to satisfy a hungry polemicist. One of my guesses is that saying anything even remotely positive about Luther is an admission of Roman Catholic guilt over the Reformation.

Whitaker's Disputations: A Refutation of Stapleton's Arguments on the Authority of the Church (Part 1)

Preliminary Remarks

(For those with limited time, I suggest skipping down to "Whitaker's Refutation of Stapleton's First Supporting Argument" near the bottom of this post. Future entries will likely be significantly shorter.)

We live in an age where Roman Catholic apologists aggressively attempt to convert Protestants to Catholicism. Not only are Protestants in general targeted, but some groups, such as Called to Communion, work to bring Reformed Protestants in particular into submission to Rome.¹

Whitaker lived in a similar age. The Catholic Church, reeling as it did from the initial blast of the Reformation, eventually rallied and issued, among other courses of action, an intellectual response to Protestantism through the Counter-Reformation. As far as Whitaker is concerned, Bellarmine and Stapleton are useful representatives of this effort. Their works set out to refute the distinctive Protestant beliefs and doctrines that Luther and Calvin had developed and refined, and to defend and promote the authority and authenticity of the Magisterium of Rome to define the limits of the canon and to officially interpret Scripture.

It must be noted that the debate has changed in some respects since Whitaker, Stapleton and Bellarmine. There have been a series of Catholic ecumenical councils and authoritative documents produced since the sixteenth century and these have some bearing on the official position of Catholicism since the Counter-Reformation. I do not wish to suggest that Disputations serves as a definitive work on contemporary challenges to Sola Scriptura, even if some of its arguments and discussions will be rather instructive and helpful in addressing them. (Indeed, it seems a variety of the Catholic arguments of the Counter-Reformation have merely been recycled, instead of improved or reformulated in any meaningful sense.)

Yet far from rendering Disputations obsolete in any way, these differences serve an unique purpose in critiquing modern Catholicism. Catholics like to claim a continuous succession from the Apostolic tradition of the Scriptures and early church, yet those readers intimately familiar with the post-Vatican II theological landscape might notice some significant differences between modern, liberal Catholicism and the rather conservative positions of Stapleton and Bellarmine as expressed in Disputations.

With that said, let us look at a dispute Whitaker considers to be not only "difficult and perplexed," but so critical that he does not "know whether there is any other controversy between [Papists and Protestants] of greater importance."²

(Readers will discover that clicking the previous footnote hyperlink will direct them to the location of this quote in the Google version of Disputations. I have endeavored to do this with all relevant footnotes. I hope this will encourage both Protestants and Catholics alike to further research this work of Whitaker.)

The First Controversy: Concerning the Authority of Scripture

The whole of the third section of Disputations deals with the single question of whether the church or Scripture enjoys more authority. This question finds itself fleshed out in whether we need the church to know the canon. If we do, then the Papists will be free to claim that Protestants need the Catholic Church, and specifically the Magisterium, to identify the source of all doctrine. Whitaker summarizes all of this as follows:

The state of the controversy, therefore, is this: Whether we should believe that these scriptures which we now have are sacred and canonical merely on account of the church's testimony, or rather on account of the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit; which, as it makes the scripture canonical and authentic in itself, makes it also appear such to us, and without which the testimony of the church is dumb and inefficacious.³

As to which document or apologist best represents Catholicism on this point, Whitaker selects Stapleton⁴ and summarizes his assertion as follows:

To have a certain canon of scripture is most necessary to faith and religion. But without the authority of the church it is impossible to have a certain canon of scripture; since it cannot be clear and certain to us what book is legitimate, what supposititious, unless the church teach us.⁵

Stapleton is referring here to the difficulty Christians might have in knowing the canon of Scripture without reference to some body identifying it for them. There is some power in this argument. Indeed, forms of Stapleton's argument are still popular, although its particulars and consequences are drawn out in greater detail in our present day than by either Stapleton or Whitaker. While our contenders seem content to merely discuss the truthfulness of the question rather than what effects it has on the Christian (perhaps because all parties already understood what was at stake), modern Catholic apologists assert or suggest that the identification of the canon by the Catholic Church carries with it a validation of the Magisterium as the official interpreter of that canon:

I can show you plenty of [required extra-scriptural traditions which refute Sola Scriptura], but the one that's most likely to get your attention is the canon of the New Testament. That's part of God's revelation to the Church that comes down to us entirely outside of the Bible...Think about it: You must rely on that Tradition to know what the New Testament itself is, and you do accept it, by virtue of the fact that you have a Bible...And remember, too, that those epistles and Gospels are inspired by God himself and were given to the Church through revelation...The Church did not make those books [of the canon] inspired; God did. Similarly, the Catholic Church did not make them 'canonical'; God did, by the very fact that He revealed them. But it's no less true that the Catholic Church received this revelation from God and that the Church – which, don't forget, had been commissioned by Christ to authoritatively teach the meaning of the Inspired Scriptures – was charged with the twofold task of both interpreting Scripture as well as organizing and perpetuating its existence...under the sola scriptura rubric, Scripture exists in an absolute epistemological vacuum, since it and the veracity of its contents 'dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church.' If that's true, how then can anyone know with certitude what belongs in Scripture in the first place? The answer is you can't. Without recognizing the trustworthiness of the magisterium, endowed with Christ's own teaching authority, and the living apostolic Tradition of the Church (1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Tim. 2:2), there is no way to know for certain which books belong in Scripture and which do not.⁶

So the argument has some serious consequences. The claimed conclusion is no less than admitting the Magisterium of Rome is the valid interpreter of Scripture.

Whitaker's Refutation of Stapleton's First Supporting Argument

Stapleton adduces three arguments to support his assertion that we need the church to identify the canon, and thus the authority of the church is greater than the authority of the Scriptures. We will look at the first of these three here, and leave the other two for future posts. The first argument can be written as follows⁷:

P₁ Nothing is more authoritative than God's teaching.
P₂ God teaches only through the church.

Therefore,

C₁ There is nothing more authoritative than the teaching of the church.

(It should be noted that Stapleton equates the church with the Magisterium.⁸)

Whitaker makes a variety of responses, some of which will be noted here (these are not in order as they appear in the text):

1. The only way Stapleton's argument can be truly successful is if he proves that "God and the church are the same thing." (It seems this can't be done without some kind of serious doctrinal error, so Stapleton's argument is rendered fallacious.)

2. Whitaker states an obvious truth--"that the authority of him who teaches is greater than that of him through whom one is taught"--and applies it to Stapleton's argument: Since the church is taught by God, the authority of the church is less than the authority of God. Therefore, there is something more authoritative than than the church. The conclusion is shown to be false.

3. And "it will more correctly follow from this reasoning, that nothing is more certain than the word of God and the scriptures, because it is God who addresses us in his word, and teaches us through his word." Not only is there something more authoritative than the church, but this Authority speaks to us directly through the Scriptures.

4. From this it follows that "we are not bound absolutely to receive whatever the church may teach us, but only whatever it proves itself to have been commanded by God to teach us, and with divine authority." In other words, the church is never free to claim that its doctrinal conclusions are absolute by virtue of its authority. It must demonstrate that it has successfully related the doctrine of God.

And how else could it do this but through Scripture?

Whitaker's counter-argument may be summed as follows:

P₁ The one who teaches is greater in authority than the one who is taught.
P₂ God instructs the church through Scripture.

C₁ Therefore, Scripture is more authoritative than the church.

Here Whitaker accomplishes what Stapleton could not. Stapleton wished, in some sense, to equate the authority of God with the authority of the church. Yet if that relationship belongs to anything, it belongs first and foremost to Scripture. Scripture is God-breathed; the church enjoys no such status.

I suspect this can be considered a critical underlying aspect of any defense of Sola Scriptura: The source of God's specific and explicit instructions to His people is the God-breathed Scripture, not the church.

_____________________________

1. "Our aim is to effect reconciliation and reunion between Catholics and Protestants, particularly those of the Reformed tradition." Called to Communion, "What is the Purpose of Called to Communion?", http://www.calledtocommunion.com/about/ (accessed May 22, 2010).

2. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 275. Readers will find that the pagination of this version matches the Google books version.

3. Ibid., 280.

4. Ibid. Whitaker remarks, "Of all the popish authors, Stapleton hath treated this question with greatest acuteness: we shall, therefore, examine him specially in this debate."

5. Ibid., 285.

6. Patrick Madrid, Answer Me This (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2003), 127.

7. Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture, 285-286. Unless otherwise noted, all of the material in this section is drawn from these pages.

8. "Meanwhile let us see what they mean by this word, the 'church.' Now, under the name of the church the papists understand not only that church which was in the times of the apostles (for Thomas of Walden is blamed on that account by Canus, Loc. Comm. Lib. n. c. 8, and also by Stapleton, Doctrin. Princip. Lib. ix. c. 12, 13), but the succeeding, and therefore the present church; yet not the whole people, but the pastors only. Canus, when he handles this question, understands by the church sometimes the pastors, sometimes councils, sometimes the Roman pontiff. Stapleton, Lib. ix. c. 1, applies this distinction: The church, as that term denotes the rulers and pastors of the faithful people, not only reveres the scripture, but also by its testimony commends, delivers down, and consigns it, that is to say, with reference to the people subject to them : but, as the church denotes the people or the pastors, as members and private persons, it only reveres the scripture. And when the church consigns the scripture, it 'does not make it authentic from being doubtful absolutely, but only in respect of us, nor does it make it authentic absolutely, but only in respect of us.' Hence we see what they understand by the term the church, and how they determine that the scripture is consigned and approved by the church." Ibid., 279.

True Christianity is Growing but Rome is Sinking

This is my somewhat long response to an Orthodox commenter named "John" below:

If there's any group whose future looks endangered, I would say it would have to be traditional Protestantism.

I'll grant you that the mainline denominations have shot themselves in the foot by having latched on to some of the liberal theologies that are out there. That having been said, one can still see true and good growth in Christ throughout the Protestant world.

The thing that gives me the greatest hope is, in general, the advancement in Biblical scholarship. I've been trying to look at that sort of thing, to the best of my ability, and it really does seem to me that the old liberal theologies are passing away, and that seminaries from WSC to Dallas to Covenant to Southern Baptist to RTS are really emphasizing both original languages and hermeneutics that work to combine the best of Systematic Theology, Biblical Theology, and Literary theory, along with a healthy respect for the (small-t) tradition of the church. These efforts are going to bear wonderful fruit. This is not to mention what I've seen coming out of Aberdeen.

If you have the time, take a listen, for example, to Richard Pratt's "Introduction to Pastoral Theology" messages at iTunes.rts.edu. These talk about this confluence in the best possible light. Consider that this information is not only available at Seminaries, but is available now to folks like you and me.

We understand the Scriptures far better today than we ever have -- this includes the ANE background to the OT, and how it relates, all the way through to the New Testament and early church times (the process of collecting the writings and forming a canon. For example, several writers have studied the collection of Paul's letters, and there is good evidence to suggest that this process began during Paul's lifetime.

And further, we're learning more and more about the history of the early church. There are more sources of the writings of the fathers, and more people are studying them.

Yes sure, there is a lot of growth in various parts of the world in what one might call basic Christianity, characterised by very little dogma. Christ died for our sins is about the deepest thing one might hear on a typical Sunday. Not that my aim is to denigrate these groups, but how is that a win for "Protestantism"? Its a win for minimalist Christianity, if that's what you want to promote, but Protestantism? How so?

You have cited the tremendous growth in Christianity -- it is growing tremendously fast in the southern hemisphere. I can't speak to the content of that growth. You called it "Minimalist," in that "the deepest thing one might hear is that Christ died for our sins."

Consider what Paul said to the Corinthians: "And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

You have to consider that this is a sufficient message. This growth is not going to get ahead of God's word. Pratt, whom I mentioned above (a professor at a mainline PCA seminary) also is part of a growing effort to use the Internet to spread good theology throughout the world. Take a look at this:

http://thirdmill.org/

I think this is a tremendous effort, and we'll only see more of this sort of thing in the coming years.

Who has got any figures saying that traditional Presbyterians, Anglicans or Lutherans are picking up big numbers? Or is the message ABC christianity? (Anything But Catholicism) is good?

WSC is trying to foster a movement to "Recover the Reformed Confessions." Have you read any of Scott Clark's work, for example?

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/

I believe this is a tremendously helpful effort -- the idea is to bring to mind the development of the theologies following the Reformation. Keep in mind that it was one thing to understand the need to break from Rome (especially after Rome ossified its opposition to the Gospel at Trent); it was another to form a positive statement of what Biblical Christianity should be.

Ideas have consequences, and these are good and right ideas. But they're not just fermenting around in seminaries. There is a hunger for Christ in the world. God's hand is shaping these theologies and movements, and I believe that the use of the Internet will foster the spread of these good theologies and movements far faster than the printing press was able to influence the Reformation.

You should not look backward, at the "traditional" denominations, except as they're giving form to the movements that I've described above. I'm sure we will see the influence of this sort of thing in the not-too-distant future.

As for "anything but Catholicism," I'd nuance that to say "anything but Roman Catholicism" I do believe there are things we can learn from studying the Greek fathers, but as Robert Reymond has said:

Rome’s exegesis of Matthew 16 and its historically developed claim to authoritative primacy in the Christian world simply cannot be demonstrated and sustained from Scripture itself. This claim is surely one of the great hoaxes foisted upon professing Christendom, upon which false base rests the whole papal sacerdotal system.

"Robert Reymond, “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith,” pg 818.

It does seem to me though, that with recent historical studies of the early papacy, that that institution won't stand in its present form. Because of this research, it seems as if Pope Ratzinger has already started to give away the store, and I'm not the only one to have noticed this:

http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2010/04/ratzinger-denies-big-dogma.html

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.

[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

News From Rome

Looking After a Eucharistic Miracle: Franciscan Recounts His Special Mission in Siena

Here's one I didn't know- If a consecrated host deteriorates, the real presence of Christ disappears. How was this determined? Drop me a comment, and save me some time-

Recap:
Aug. 14, 1730: Eve of the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. That day in all the churches of Siena the priests consecrated additional hosts for those who might wish to receive the Body of Christ the following day. 351 Consecrated hosts stolen during the night.

Aug. 14, 1730: The hosts were returned, unharmed.

The hosts were full of dust and cobwebs. The priests cleaned them with great care. Then there was a day of adoration and reparation. Thousands of faithful arrived in the basilica in thanksgiving for the finding of the hosts. They were not distributed, it seems, because the Franciscans wanted the pilgrims to adore them until the moment they deteriorated (because on being deteriorated, the real presence of Christ would disappear).

But the hosts remained intact. The people began to consider them miraculous and increasingly pilgrims went to pray before them. A few were distributed on special occasions.

Today: 223 hosts remain, in the same state they were in the day they were consecrated.

Interpretation of the priest in charge of "looking after" this miracle:

The Eucharistic miracle of Siena "represents a proof of the love of God for us and the presence to sustain us against doubts, difficulties -- the miracle with which God the Father is helping the Church not to be afraid, to live the presence of her founder sent by the Father to do his will."

"Here two miraculous things happen," explained Father Spring pointing to the hosts consecrated almost three centuries ago. "Time does not exist, it has stopped"; and "composite bodies and organic substances are subject to withering. For these hosts, neither fungus nor elements that break them down subsist. It is a living, continuous miracle. We do not know until when the Lord will permit it."

Erasmus as a Problem, not a Reformation Solution

I recently posted Erasmus was Wrong, Luther was Right, Says Roman Catholic Scholar. In that entry, I took a brief look at Roman Catholic scholar Harry J. McSorley's condemnation of the position argued by Erasmus against Luther on the will.

Erasmus's Diatribe was well received. The Pope, Emperor, and Henry VIII all approved of the work. That's not hard to imagine- when the leading scholar of the day sides against the enemy of the Roman Church, whatever he put forth probably would've been seen as a helpful hand.

It's interesting to note that certain later Roman Catholic scholars have quite a negative perspective on the abilities of Erasmus as a defender of Romanism. For instance, Franz Xaver Kiefl evaluated the debate between Luther and Erasmus and found that Luther understood Christianity on a much deeper level than did Erasmus. He notes Erasmus was a man of Renaissance learning. Kiefl notes the negative impact of the Renaissance on Christianity, and contrarily sees Luther’s positive impact of being God’s “powerful instrument of Providence” in the work of Church “purification”.

Similarly, Roman Catholic scholar Joseph Lortz was troubled by the work of Erasmus. Lortz saw Erasmus as the threat to the Church, not Luther. Lortz explains that this view is not new: during the sixteenth century the papal nuncio Aleander recognized it also:

“There was only one man on the Catholic side who in some measure recognized in time the danger embodied by Erasmus. This was the papal nuncio, Aleander, himself a humanist of some standing... [he said] ‘God forbid that we see fresh papal briefs to Erasmus couched in the same tone as that printed at the beginning of his New Testament and containing an approving explanation by the pope of a work in which he expresses views on confession, indulgences, divorce, papal authority, etc., which Luther has simply to take over. But the poison of Erasmus works even more dangerously…”

“Erasmus at length came into contact with Luther. But Catholics did not see the true Erasmus even in this controversy. They applauded his book on free will, because it contradicted Luther; but they failed to see that the primary aim of the book was to propose an optimistic morality that left little room for grace, sin and redemption" [Catholic Scholars Dialogue With Luther (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1970), p. 7]

In his book The Reformation: A Problem for Today (Maryland: The Newman Press, 1964), Lortz goes into greater detail. Lortz outlines the deficiency of humanism as an interpretive framework by which to do theology. Recall, Erasmus was a leading humanist scholar. Lortz notes,

"Through its contact with antiquity, humanism emphasized the natural powers of man, particularly the power of his will... this new approach was incapable of grasping the real nature of salvation, and the function of grace in the process of salvation was neglected. Both points of view showed dangerous tendancies to interpret Christianity in a moralistic sense, so that humanism became a force that tended to destroy Christianity (p. 64-65).

Lortz though clarifies this in regard to Erasmus:

"Though he did not deny the reality of grace and talked of the insuffiiency of man despite his free will in a most orthodox manner, he did preach Christianity primarily as morality. In the practical order he so emphasized man's own powers of intellect and will that he came dangerously close to moralism.

-snip-

In his disputation on freedom of will, any number of times we are told in the most orthodox fashion, at times quite emphatically, that all of man's powers and gifts come from God, that man must beware of pride and self-sufficiency, that everything a man can do with his intellect and will belongs to God (Diatribe,75). But for one thing, this Diatribe was written by Erasmus as a proof of his orthodoxy, and secondly, the picture of man which Erasmus gives us in his pedagogical and moral tracts, in his letters and by his example, is more to the point. The answer is not too encouraging. At the very least we are forced to assert that he did not draw the practical consequences from his statements that attribute everything to God and His Grace. (p.73)

Of course, Luther pounced on this. Luther saw the inconsistency in the argumentation of Erasmus. Lortz views this inconsistency of Erasmus's position by explaining that he had an underlying skepticism towards dogma. Lortz states,

[Erasmus] has no more concept of dogma as an exact statement of Chrisitan teaching than did the men of the Enlightenment or modern liberal Protestants. No one recognized this fact more clearly and made more of it than Luther in the First Preface to his work Vom geknechteten Willen" (p. 71-72).

-snip-

We must say something more on the adogmatism mentioned before. If, as Erasmus thought, dogma is something superfluous; if, as he thought, the doctrine of Christianity could and should be restricted to a few general points, Erasmus was quite near the erroneous interpretation which would equate Christianity with monotheism. When this is done, Christianity becomes indistinguishable from the other higher religions and thus, relativism is just around the corner.

If all this is true, then we have to agree that Erasmus constituted a grave threat to the Church—not because of the frequently frivolous and mocking criticism he directed at it, but because of his adogmatism, moralism, and relativism.

The pope at the time was the humanist Leo X who had a great regard for Erasmus and was quite unaware of the threat which the latter constituted for the Church. Thus we find the papal delegate Alexander writing from the Diet of Worms in 1521: "For heaven's sake, don't send us any more privileges for Erasmus. The man is doing far more harm than Luther ever can." Luther was precisely the one who recognized and rejected the danger from the quarter of the humanists. With all the violence of his characteristically one-sided approach, Luther turned from the cultural morality he found in the humanists to the religion of faith as he found it in St. Paul [pp. 73-74].

From time to time, I come across Roman Catholic laymen attempting to argue that Erasmus eventually beat Luther in their written debate, or that "Luther met his match." Based on the comments of McSorley and Lortz, I simply don't see how a Roman Catholic would ever want to assert that.

Incarnation, Atonement, and Trinity

Phil Keaggy: The Maker of the Universe (Words by F. W. Pitt)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27GUZsrhxJ8&feature=related

“The Maker of the universe,
As Man for man was made a curse.
The claims of Law which He had made,
Unto the uttermost He paid.
His holy fingers made the bough,
Which grew the thorns that crowned His brow.
The nails that pierced His hands were mined
In secret places He designed.
He made the forest whence there sprung
The tree on which His body hung.
He died upon a cross of wood,
Yet made the hill on which it stood.
The sky that darkened o’er His head,
By Him above the earth was spread.
The sun that hid from Him it’s face
By His decree was poised in space.
The spear which spilled His precious blood
Was tempered in the fires of God.
The grave in which His form was laid
Was hewn in rocks His hands had made.
The throne on which He now appears
Was His from everlasting years.
But a new glory crowns His brow
And every knee to Him shall bow.
The Maker of the Universe”
____________________
I love this song! I love the doctrine and affections and emotion of this song! As Jonathan Edwards would say, "I love the sound doctrine that produces right affections and emotions." It captures the truths of the incarnation, the Deity of Christ, His humility and love and willingness to suffer for us. The incarnation and suffering of the eternal Son of God points to the Trinity, “trinitas in unitas”, “three in one”, as Tertullian wrote. In Against Praxeas, chapter 3.

James White has written, “I love the Trinity! . . . upon reflection, we discover that the Trinity is the highest revelation God has made of Himself to His people. It is the capstone, the summit, the brightest star in the firmament of divine truths. . . God revealed this truth about Himself most clearly, and most irrefutably, in the incarnation itself, when Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, took on human flesh and walked among us.” (The Forgotten Trinity, pp. 13-14)

I agree; I love the song, because I love the Trinity, and I love the incarnation and atonement, and how these truths point us to the God of the Bible, that Christians know; the only God. These truths are beautiful because Truth is beautiful. God is beautiful because He is true. I love God because He first loved me! ( I John 4:10; 19)

God Himself is beautiful because of the perfection of His character and attributes and nature; and the David spoke of "mediating on and beholding the beauty of the Lord" (Psalm 27:4). The Trinity is beautiful because it proclaims that God is one and shows God as loving relationship from all eternity; uncreated, eternal, Sovereign.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God” (John 1:1)

“For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,” (Colossians 2:9)

“. . . Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. “For although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.” (Philippians 2:5-8)

“God, . . .
in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
. . .
And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
“AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”
. . .
But of the Son He says,
“YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.”
(Hebrews 1:1- 3, 6, 8.)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. ( John 1:1-5)

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the one and only Son, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)

In dealing with evangelism with Muslims, one must be prepared in the deep truths of the doctrines of the Deity of Christ, the incarnation, and the Trinity.

Some good books on the Trinity:
1. James White. The Forgotten Trinity. Bethany House Publishers, 1998.

2. Robert Bowman. Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Baker Books, 1989.

3. Timothy George. Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad? Zondervan, 2002. (While I disagree with Timothy George’s recent ecumenism with Roman Catholicism, this book is very good for the theological issues in dealing with Islam.)

4. John Piper. “Contending for Christ Contra Mundum: Exile and Incarnation in the Life of Athanasius”, in Contending For Our All. Crossway Books, 2006. Piper’s chapter on Athanasius speaks to sound doctrine, church history, apologetics, contextualization, hermeneutics, and he addresses the emerging church issue. Highly recommended.

The "Trinitas -Unitas God", “three in One” God is the Sovereign Creator God who is and was relationship from all eternity past. Amazing! Awesome!

The Trinity answers the issue of longing for that connection of relationship with the living God; He is relationship; love from all eternity; Lover, Beloved, and Love in relationship; Father, Son, and Spirit.

The Trinity and incarnation also enters us into answering the issue of suffering and why God has ordained that suffering and evil happen.

Dorothy Sayers, the Anglican writer, wrote an interesting piece, seeking to answer the issue of why God allowed evil to come into the world. Reformed theology speaks of “God ordaining all things” – and when it comes to evil entering the world, we understand “ordaining” as “deciding that it would happen” (Acts 2:22-23; 4:27-28; Ephesians 1:11; Romans 9:22-23, Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; Lam. 3:37-38; Genesis 50:20; Romans 8:28-29) while at the same time not being the one who does the evil. (I John 1:5; Hab. 1:13; Isaiah 6; Titus 1:2) As John Piper has written, "God is not a sinner." While some of Sayer’s statement is not theologically precise, and some is not the best wording; I still think it captures a good apologetic truth for the skeptic and a strength for a young believer growing in theology:

“For whatever reason God chose to make man as he is – limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death – He had the honesty and the courage to take His own medicine. Whatever game He is playing with His creation, He has kept His own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that He has not exacted from Himself. He has Himself gone through the whole of human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation and defeat, despair and death. When He was a man, He played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it well worth while.” (Dorothy Sayers, Creed or Chaos? New York: Harcourt, Brace and Col, 149, p. 4; cited in Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions. Here’s Life Publishers, 1980, p. 153-154.

My Iranian friend Kamyar, who was my second Farsi teacher in 1994, said this to me:

“The two most amazing things about Christianity are:
1. That God, who we were taught in Islam, was far off and aloof, became a man like us, clothed Himself in flesh.”
and
2. That there is a way to be saved from sin and know it and have assurance of it.
“دو چیز خیلی عالی است در مسیحیت
1. که خدا، که ما در اسلام تعلیم یافتیم که خیلی دور از ما می ماند، انسان شد مثل ما شد، و خود را جسم پوشید،
و 2. که یک راهی را وجود دارد برای نجات از گناه و می توانیم آن راه را بدانیم، و اطمینان داشته باشیم
.

A prayer to our Blessed Mother, from us, poor children of Rome

We on the Beggars All team have recently been having some second thoughts about the content we produce, especially given a few posts that have come before along these lines (link 1) (link 2). With that in mind, we got together to adapt the following prayer to reflect our newfound discoveries, that distinctive Roman dogma actually are found in the Holy Scripture:

Preserve me, O God, Mary, and ye saints, for I take refuge in you. I said to Blessed Virgin, “You are my mediator and rescue; I have no good besides you.”

As for the saints who are in the earth and those who have passed on to the heavens (to the latter of whom I speak daily), They are the majestic ones in whom is all my delight.

The joys of those who have bartered for another object of piety will be multiplied; I shall indeed pour out their drink offerings of Messiah's blood, Surely will I take their names upon my lips.

The Blessed Mother is the portion of my inheritance and my cup; You support my lot.

The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places; Indeed, my heritage is beautiful to me.

I will bless my Blessed Mother and the saints who have counseled me; Indeed, my mind instructs me in the night.

I have set my Mother continually before me; Because she is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.

Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoices; My flesh also will dwell securely.

For she will not abandon my soul to Sheol, only to Purgatory (for what are mere billions of years in comparison to eternity?); Nor will she allow her Holy Son to undergo decay.

You will make known to me the path of life; In your presence is fullness of joy; In your right hand there are pleasures forever.

(Hat tip:  Psalm 16)

The great flux away from Rome toward Protestantism

In the comments of the William Whitaker thread, just below here, Truth Unites… and Divides, asked:

Q: What's the highest ranking RC clergy in history (and in recent times, say the last 100 years) to ever convert to Protestantism? Has an RC bishop ever done so?

I don't know the answer to that specific question. I also know that James Swan, our esteemed host, is not a fan of conversion stories (his theory is, "if you want to tell a story, tell Christ's story.") We know, too, that throughout the history of the papacy, very many popes were so very foul that it would have been a travesty to have suggested that they were in any way Christian.

But as for which way the tide is going today, a former Catholic-turned-Presbyterian named Dudley Davis posted this account a while back at PuritanBoard:

There is in truth a great flux away from the Roman catholic church to Protestantism in the United states. 30 million people now in the US define themselves as ex roman catholics; half are unafililiated with no church and 15 million like me are now Protestants. The following are the current statistics from the pew Forum on Religion in The United States...

Catholicism has suffered the greatest net loss in the process of religious change. Many people who leave the Catholic Church do so for religious reasons; two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated say they left the Catholic faith because they stopped believing in its teachings, as do half of former Catholics who are now Protestant. Fewer than three-in-ten former Catholics, however, say the clergy sexual abuse scandal factored into their decision to leave Catholicism.

One-in-ten American adults is a former Catholic. Former Catholics are about evenly divided between those who have become unaffiliated and those who have become Protestant,… The reasons for leaving Catholicism given by former Catholics who have converted to evangelical Protestantism differ in some important ways from those offered by former Catholics who have joined mainline Protestant churches. Most former Catholics who are now evangelical Protestants, for example, say they left Catholicism in part because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings (62%) and specifically because they were unhappy with Catholic teachings about the Bible (55%). …

However the same survey also shows that a majority of those raised protestant are still Protestant. Eight-in-ten adults who were raised Protestant are still Protestant, and about two-thirds of this group (or 52% of all those raised Protestant) are still members of the same family of denominations (e.g. Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) in which they were raised. The other third (28% of all those raised Protestant) are now members of a new family of Protestant denominations. However, one-fifth of those raised Protestant have left Protestantism altogether; most of them are now unaffiliated (13%), with smaller numbers having become Catholic (3%) or members of other faiths (4%)….

The numbers of Protestants having become Catholic is only (3%).

Original source

Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture: An Introduction

William Whitaker (1547-1595) was an Oxford-trained theologian of significant influence and prestige.¹ One of his most important treatises was Disputations on Holy Scripture (hereafter Disputations), a work that set out to explain and defend the principle of Sola Scriptura over and against the arguments of Rome's foremost apologists. Whitaker's Disputations served not only to influence the formulation of the Westminster Confession of Faith, but continues, due in part to the unchanging nature of the debate, to be an important text in the modern controversies between Catholics and Protestants. This series will outline some of the major arguments Whitaker tackled in Disputations, with particular attention paid to those relevant to the present day.

The excellent reputation of Whitaker as a debater and the quality of his Disputations is difficult to deny. Disputations has been "shown by Dr. Wayne Spear to be an important source for the theology of the [Westminster Confession of Faith], particularly the chapter on Holy Scripture."² Furthermore, even Whitaker's theological enemies considered him to be a formidable, even respectable opponent (emphasis and repetition of "I have" in original):

[Whitaker's books] gained for him in his life-time a high character, not only with friends, but with enemies also. 'I have,' says the writer of his life, in Lupton's Protestant Divines, 'I have heard it confessed of English Papists themselves, which have been in Italy with [Cardinal and apologist] Bellarmine himself, that he procured the true portraiture and effigies of this Whitaker to be brought to him, which he kept in his study. For he privately admired this man for his singular learning and ingenuity; and being asked of some of his friends, Jesuits, why he would have the picture of that heretic in his presence? he would answer, Quod quamvis haereticus erat et adversarius, erat tamen doctus adversarius: that, 'although he was a heretic, and his adversary, yet he was a learned adversary'³

This "singular learning and ingenuity" shines forth throughout the text. Whitaker has incisive analytical skills; his application of razor-sharp logic is demonstrated both in his ability to properly represent his opponents' arguments and in his ability to refute them. He also employs sound reasoning in selecting the strongest forms of his opponents' arguments to refute, having no interest in refuting weak versions and claiming an empty rhetorical victory.

Perhaps the most remarkable features of Disputations is its timelessness. A brief scan of Rowland Ward's summary⁴ of the various arguments in Disputations shows its relevance to modern disputes with Roman Catholic apologists:

a. whether or not we should believe the Scripture is canonical solely because of the authority of the church rather than the internal testimony of the Spirit

b. there are obscure places in Scripture, but Scripture is sufficiently clear on the main matters related to salvation, whereas Rome wants to exaggerate the obscurities of the Scriptures so as to keep them from the common people

c. Rome claims interpretation of Scripture is the privilege of the church and that the true interpretation agrees with "the fathers"; we say that an external persuasion arises from Scripture itself but that full assurance comes through the Holy Spirit as the supreme interpreter. The means to be used: Prayer, knowledge of the original texts, nature of the language being expounded, context, comparing the obscure with the plainer passages, comparison with other passages, the analogy of faith, reference to the more skilled

d. whether the books of the OT and NT are a complete and perfect rule of faith or whether unwritten traditions are necessary as well

e. all things necessary to faith and morals may be collected or inferred from Scripture, but Rome denies this

f. the number of canonical books, the claims of the Apocrypha considered and shown to be without canonicity in the strict sense

g. Rome sets up the Latin Vulgate as the authentic version whereas the Protestants affirm the Hebrew and Greek originals

Most of these topics will be covered in the series. Since Whitaker in each topic interacts with multiple arguments, and levels multiple counterarguments of his own, there will be plenty of material to draw from. (I will do my best to make one post a week.)

If you would like to read and search it for yourself, the full English translation of Disputations can be found here.

I've also been informed by John Bugay that Green Baggins will soon discuss and analyze the content of Disputations.

_____________________________

1. A very short biography of Whitaker can be found in the preface to his Disputations.

2. David Coffin, Jr., "The Teaching of the Westminster Confession on the Cessation of Special Revelation," http://www.newhopefairfax.org/files/coffinconfessiononcessation.pdf (accessed May 19, 2010). In his footnotes, Coffin cites a chapter from To Glorify and Enjoy God. A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994). I had hoped to verify the citation before this post, but I was unable. However, the dust jacket of my version of Disputations asserts the same relationship between chapter one of the WCF and Whitaker's work.

3. William Fitzgerald, introduction to Disputations on Holy Scripture, by William Whitaker (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), x.

4. Ibid., iii-vi. For the sake of brevity, this list is not given in exact form. Neither is it strictly in the same order.

A Roman Catholic Look at Causes of the Reformation #1

Joseph Lortz was a German Roman Catholic theologian. He's best known for his work on Martin Luther and the Reformation. In his book The Reformation: A Problem for Today (Maryland: The Newman Press, 1964), he has a chapter entitled "The Causes of the Reformation." One particular "cause" caught my attention. He states,

"When Luther asserted that the pope in Rome was not the true successor of Saint Peter and that the Church could do without the Papacy, in his mind and in essence these were new doctrines, but the distinctive element in them was not new and thus they struck a sympathetic resonance in the minds of many. Long before the Reformation itself, the unity of the Christian Church in the West had been severely undermined" (p. 37).

This type of sentiment is far different than that usually expressed by Roman Catholics. Typically, Luther is the grand innovator that tore the church asunder. Lortz though does something many don't bother to do- he sees a flow to history. In his chapter preceding this statement, he lists a number of ways in which the West was more than ready to grant that the pope in Rome was not the true successor of Saint Peter and that the Church could do without the Papacy. Here's how Lortz explains this comment:

The significance of the break-up of medieval unity in the thirteenth century, but even more during the Avignon period, is evident in the most distinctive historical consequence of the Avignon Papacy: the Great Western Schism. The real meaning of this event may not be immediately apparent. It can be somewhat superficially described as a period when there were two popes, each with his own Curia, one residing in Rome, the other in Avignon. This situation in which both contenders claimed to be pope (at one time the number increased so that many spoke of the "cursed trinity") was in the main corrected by the efforts of the German Emperor Sigismund at the Council of Constance in 1414. These statements are true, but the account they give is sketchy and superficial; they tell us nothing of the real significance of the Schism.

The real significance of the Western Schism rests in the fact that for decades there was an almost universal uncertainty about where the true pope and the true Church were to be found. For several decades, both popes had excommunicated each other and his followers; thus all Christendom found itself under sentence of excommunication by at least one of the contenders. Both popes referred to their rival claimant as the Antichrist, and to the Masses celebrated by them as idolatry. It seemed impossible to do anything about this scandalous situation, despite sharp protests from all sides, and despite the radical impossibility of having two valid popes at the same time. Time and time again, the petty selfishness of the contenders blocked any solution.

The split caused by the Western Schism was far from being merely the concern of theologians; no area of public or private life remained untouched; even the economic sphere was affected, mainly because of disputes in regard to the possession of benefices. Provinces of the Church, religious orders, universities, even individual monasteries and parish houses were divided. For decades, all experienced this profound division in all sectors of daily life. Good people on both sides, even saints, were not only unable to bring about unity, but in their allegiance to one or the other of the contenders they themselves were in sharp opposition. We find, for example, St. Catherine of Siena on the Roman side and St. Vincent Ferrer on that of Avignon. Furthermore, the settlement of the Schism at the Council of Constance did not really solve the problem. The triumph of the Conciliar Theory at Constance, and even more at Basel, extended the life span of the Schism from 1378 to 1448, when it finally came to an end in the person of the Antipope Felix V. The confusion and uncertainty about the valid pope and the true Church is manifest in the amazing twists in the allegiance of Nicolaus of Cusa and Aeneas Silvio dei Piccolomini, later to become Pius II, both of whom had begun by defending the Conciliar Theory in its most radical form.

This was an experience shared by the entire West — one which would leave its imprint in Western consciousness for a long time to come. The memory of this experience was still fresh a century later. It is not too difficult to see the effects of the Western Schism in preparing the way for the doctrines of the Reformation. When Luther asserted that the pope of Rome was not the true successor of Saint Peter and that the Church could do without the Papacy, in his mind and in their essence these were new doctrines, but the distinctive element in them was not new and thus they struck a sympathetic resonance in the minds of many. Long before the Reformation itself, the unity of the Christian Church in the West had been severely undermined (pp. 35-37).