Erasmus was Wrong, Luther was Right, Says Roman Catholic Scholar

Would a Roman Catholic theologian ever side with Luther against Erasmus on whether the will is free or not? Yes.

The book pictured to the left is Catholic Scholars Dialogue With Luther (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1970). Yes, it's my copy. The book is an anthology of chapters from Roman Catholic theologians on aspects of Luther. One chapter is entitled Erasmus versus Luther- Compounding the Reformation Tragedy by Harry J. McSorley, C.S.P. Around the time of the writing of this chapter, Father McSorely had written an entire critique of Luther's battle with Erasmus: Luther Right or Wrong? An Ecumenical Theological Study of Luther's Major Work, The Bondage of the Will.

While Father McSorley doesn't agree with all of Luther's argumentation in the Bondage of the Will, he does stand with Luther in condemning the position argued by Erasmus. Remember, it was the Papacy that prodded Erasmus to engage Luther and write De libero arbitrio.

I found many of McSorley's comments honestly revealing. The following are but a small sample:

First, Erasmus shows little appreciation of the genuine meaning of Luther's thesis of the unfree will, namely, that the will of fallen man apart from grace is totally incapable of doing anything for salvation, totally unfree to do anything that is good in God's sight. Instead of coming to grips with this biblical concept of man's slavery to sin, Erasmus concentrates his attention on the secondary, non-biblical supporting argument which Luther used in the Assertio--the argument from the absolute necessity of all events (p.111).

Secondly, and more unfortunately, we find the leading scholar of the Roman Church doing a bad job in presenting the Church's teaching on free will. Erasmus defines free will as "the power of the human will by which man can apply himself toward or turn himself away from the things which lead to eternal salvation." This is a seriously defective definition of free will. Instead of defining free will in terms of the ability to choose between certain alternatives, Erasmus defines free will in terms of salvation--without mentioning grace. Erasmus gives no hint in his definition that man the sinner is enslaved to sin until he is liberated by grace. The definition is surely one of the "extraordinary blunders" which, according to P. Hughes, characterize De libero arbitrio (p.112).

A third striking fact about De libero arbitrio is Erasmus' unawareness that the Church, centuries before, had taken an official stand against a modified version of Pelagianism that came to be known, late in the sixteenth century, as Semipelagianism. Erasmus was not alone in his unawareness of the Second Council of Orange (529 A.D.) and its confirmation by Pope Boniface II in 531. As H. Bouillard has pointed out, the decrees of Orange II were in some way lost during the middle ages and are cited by no authors from the tenth until the mid-sixteenth centuries. This did not mean that the doctrine of Orange II was lost. Such biblically oriented theologians as Bernard, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and Gregory of Rimini, who recognized Augustine as their theological master, especially in the doctrine of grace, were all agreed that the sinner is a slave to sin unless he is liberated by the prevenient grace of Christ. Thomas, without knowing of the decrees of Orange II, was even able to say that it is a "truth of faith" that the very beginning of faith is in us from God (p.112).

Now, several years after his excommunication, Luther finds the leading Catholic intellectual saying that the following Neo-Semipelagian position is a tenable option: ". . . [H]aving not yet received the grace which forgives sin, man can, by his natural powers, perform works which, as they say are morally good, by which justifying grace is merited not de condigno but de congruo..." (p.113).

Erasmus reveals his total unawareness of the Church's rejection of Semipelagianism in the Hyperaspistes, his lengthy response to Luther's reply to him in De servo arbitrio. Of the Ockham-Biel opinion, Erasmus says that as far as he knows it has not been rejected by the Church (p. 113).

Further, developing the concept of "natural" or "common" grace that he had mentioned in De libero arbitrio, Erasmus distinguishes a "human faith, " which is "a type of knowledge preparatory to the light of faith, "from a "faith which through grace justifies." Then he explains: ". . as there are degrees of justice, so there are degrees of gifts until you reach that which is merely natural. But even this is grace, since God is the author of nature. Thus Augustine is needlessly afraid of saying that the initium gratiae arises from man." Erasmus seems completely unaware that Pelagius had said exactly the same thing to Augustine: free will is a donum Dei; therefore no other donum is necessary! In this sense Pelagius could also say as Erasmus does: "We ascribe everything to God's goodness" (p. 113-114).

We have not compared Erasmus' opinion to the teachings of Orange II and Trent in order to indict Erasmus as a heretic. His unawareness that the Church had once taken a definitive stand in favor of the doctrine of fallen man's bondage to sin exculpates him from the charge of formal error or heresy. That the decrees of the Second Council of Orange went astray and that a new form of the old Semipelagian error arose among late medieval theologians would seem to be more than anything else the result of negligence in the exercise of the Church's teaching office (p.114).

As for Erasmus, it is sufficient to point out that his views on grace and free will are not normative for Roman Catholics. The Catholic commitment to the grace of God is recorded above all in Scripture and in the Councils of Orange II, Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II.Secondly, in De servo arbitrio Luther presents the most powerful biblical argument for fallen man's bondage to sin that the Church had heard since St. Augustine. Such a reformation proclamation was truly needed in the first quarter of the sixteenth century. It is no exaggeration to say that until the Council of Trent reaffirmed what was taught by the Second Council of Orange, Martin Luther was one of the few theologians in Germany who unhesitatingly defended the biblical and Catholic teaching on man's bondage to sin. He proclaimed that fallen man could do nothing whatever without grace to prepare himself for salvation. This he did at a time in which many, many Catholics - -including Erasmus--had either lost this truth or were uncertain about it" (p.117).

R.C. Sproul and the Neurosis of Luther

Recently I came across the following from R.C. Sproul:

Luther's chronic stomach troubles have also been linked to a psychosomatic problem. His neurotic phobias all seemed to go directly to his stomach, destroying his digestion [R. C. Sproul, The Holiness of God (Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 2000), p. 78].

I'm quite fond of Sproul's Holiness of God book. If I recall, it was this lecture from Sproul in which I first encountered a deeper presentation of the life of Luther. The lecture is basically the same Luther content presented in Sproul's later book. I remember listening to the lecture while driving to a friend's house. I was so riveted by Sproul's presentation, I didn't want to exit the car before hearing it to the end. Now here I am years later, still involved with basically the same material on a regular basis.

The entire chapter from which this quote is taken is available here. It is indeed a worthy read.

If one were to simply isolate this quote from the context, one misses the thrust of Sproul's argumentation. From the quote above, one sees only Sproul describing the image of Luther as a man with neurotic phobias. If one though reads the entire chapter, quite a different image takes shape.

The neurotic phobias which precede this quote are described by Sproul as "the fear of violent death as an expression of divine judgment and punishment" (p.77). Along these lines, Sproul recounts Luther's thunderstorm experience (via Bainton's rendition) which drove him to the monastery (p. 76-77).

After the quote in question, Sproul goes on to describe Luther's deep belief in the reality of Satan. For the modern mind, Luther appears quite unstable. Sproul states though,

The Satan stories are ripe with fodder for practicing psychologists. They see in these accounts two indications of mental imbalance. On the one hand Luther is thought to have suffered from hallucinations and on the other from delusions of grandeur that the Prince of Darkness would single him out as his favorite target.Yet from the vantage point of church history it should not surprise us to think that in the sixteenth century satanic energy might most strongly be focused on Martin Luther (p.78).

Sproul then describes another frequent episode from Luther's life which is supposed to prove his neurotic instability: Luther's celebration of his first mass. Sproul uses Luther's own explanation of his apparent neurotic behavior as to why he was paralyzed by the words, "We offer unto thee, the living, the true, the eternal God":

At these words I was utterly stupefied and terror-stricken. I thought to myself, “With what tongue shall I address such majesty, seeing that all men ought to tremble in the presence of even an earthly prince? Who am I, that I should lift up mine eyes or raise my hands to the divine Majesty? The angels surround him. At his nod the earth trembles. And shall I, a miserable little pygmy, say ‘I want this, I ask for that’? For I am dust and ashes and full of sin and I am speaking to the living, eternal and the true God (p.80).

A key episode of Luther's alleged insanity and neurosis for Sproul is the trial at Worms. Sproul recounts Luther's famous "Here I Stand" speech and the says:

The words of a crazy man? Perhaps. The question is raised how one man dare stand against pope and emperor, councils and creeds, against the entire organized authority of Christendom. What arrogance there must be to contradict the finest scholars and the highest officials of the church, to set his own powers of mind and biblical interpretation against that of the whole world. Is this egomania? Is it megalomania? Are these the musings of a biblical genius, a courageous saint, or the ravings of a maniac? Whatever the verdict, this lonely stand, for good or for evil, divided Christendom asunder.

As important as this event was to the church and to the personal history of Martin Luther, it was not the chief reason future scholars would judge Luther insane. There was something even more extraordinary, more morbid, indeed macabre, about the man. It had to do with Luther’s behavioral patterns while he was a monk in the monastery (p.84).

Then Sproul examines Luther's behavior in the monastery. He explores Luther's drive to be "the perfect monk" by his indulgence in severe forms of self-flagellation and obsession with confessing sin. Sproul states:

Here it is! Here is the aspect of Luther that has most brought the verdict of insanity. The man was radically abnormal. His guilt complex was unlike anyone’s before him. He was so morbid in his guilt, so disturbed in his emotions that he could no longer function as a normal human being. He could not even function as a normal monk. He was still running from the lightning bolt (p.79-80).

Stopping here in The Holiness of God would lead one to think the earlier quote which began this blog entry is vindicated: Sproul indeed thought Luther suffered from neurosis. Sproul though states:

Some theorists argue that a person may have a more accurate view of reality when they are insane than when they are sane. We think of the anxiety-stricken man who goes to the psychiatrist and complains that he is so paralyzed by fear that he cannot attend a church picnic. When the psychiatrist probes, the man explains that he could be involved in a car crash on the way to the picnic, be struck by a poisonous snake while at the picnic, be hit by lightning if a storm comes up, or choke to death on a hot dog.

All of these fears represent sober possibilities. Life is dangerous business. Nowhere are we safe from a multitude of life-threatening dangers. Howard Hughes, with all his millions, could not find an environment where he was totally safe from the attack of hostile germs. The psychiatrist cannot prove that all picnics are safe. The man’s perception of all the things that could go wrong is accurate, but he is still abnormal, because he has lost the defenses we normally carry with us that enable us to ignore the clear and present dangers that surround us every day.

One aspect of Luther’s background and personality is often overlooked by the psychological analysts. They miss the point that before Luther went to the monastery he had already distinguished himself as one of the brightest young minds in Europe in the field of jurisprudence. Luther was brilliant. There was nothing wrong with his brain. His grasp of subtle and difficult points of the law made him a standout. Some heralded him as a legal genius.

It has been said many times that there is a fine line between genius and insanity and that some people move back and forth across it. Perhaps that was the problem Luther had.

He was not crazy. He was a genius. He had a superior understanding of law. Once he applied his astute legal mind to the law of God, he saw things that most mortals miss.

Luther examined the Great Commandment, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your strength, and your neighbor as yourself.” Then he asked himself, “What is the Great Transgression?” Some answer this question by saying that the great sin is murder, adultery, blasphemy, or unbelief. Luther disagreed. He concluded that if the Great Commandment was to love God with all the heart, then the Great Transgression was to fail to love God with all the heart. He saw a balance between great obligations and great sins.

Most people do not think that way. None of us keeps the Great Commandment for five minutes. We may think that we do in a surface way, but upon a moment’s reflection it is clear that none of us loves God with our whole heart or our whole mind or our whole strength. No one loves his neighbor as he loves himself. We may do everything in our power to avoid thinking about this at a deep level, but there is always that nagging sense in the back of our minds to accuse us of the certain knowledge that in fact we violate the Great Commandment every day. Like Isaiah, we also know that no one else keeps the Great Commandment either. Herein is our comfort: Nobody is perfect. We all fall short of perfect love for God, so why worry about it? It doesn’t drive sane fellows to the confessional for six hours a day. If God punished everyone who failed to keep the Great Commandment, He would have to punish everyone in the world. The test is too great, too demanding; it is not fair. God will have to judge us all on a curve.

Luther didn’t see it that way. He realized that if God graded on a curve, He would have to compromise His own holiness. To count on God doing so is supreme arrogance and supreme foolishness as well. God does not lower His own standards to accommodate us. He remains altogether Holy, altogether righteous, and altogether just. But we are unjust and therein lies our dilemma. Luther’s legal mind was haunted by the question: How can an unjust man survive in the presence of a just God? Where everyone else was at ease in the matter, Luther was in agony:

Do you not know that God dwells in light inaccessible? We weak and ignorant creatures want to probe and understand the incomprehensible majesty of the unfathomable light of the wonder of God. We approach; we prepare ourselves to approach. What wonder then that his majesty overpowers us and shatters! [Roland Bainton, Here I Stand (NAL, 1978).] (p.87-88).

Summing up the chapter, Sproul recounts Luther's discovery of "The just shall live by faith" as the solution to Luther's encounter with the holiness of God. Sproul concludes:

“The just shall live by faith.” This was the battlecry of the Protestant Reformation. The idea that justification is by faith alone, by the merits of Christ alone, was so central to the gospel that Luther called it “the article upon which the church stands or falls.” Luther knew that it was the article by which he would stand or fall. Once Luther grasped the teaching of Paul in Romans, he was reborn. The burden of his guilt was lifted. The crazed torment was ended. This meant so much to the man that he was able to stand against pope and council, prince and emperor, and, if necessary, the whole world. He had walked through the gates of paradise and no one was going to drag him back. Luther was a Protestant who knew what he was protesting. Was Luther crazy? Perhaps. But if he was, our prayer is that God would send to this earth an epidemic of such insanity that we too may taste of the righteousness that is by faith alone (p.94-95).

Once again, the lesson is to be careful with context. The "chronic stomach troubles" which began this entry were, according to Sproul, symptoms of a neurosis which ultimately was the neurosis of Luther's acute understanding and encounter with the Holiness of God.

The super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority

louis said:
It's almost as if he thinks those scripture passages are perspicuous or something.
He also evidently thinks he understands Marbury v. Madison, but unless an infallible interpreter explained it to him, I'm not sure how he can.

Paul Hoffer said:

Louis, your comment about perspicuity is ill-placed. There are many doctrines (or at least broad outlines) upon which most Christians can agree upon (sic). Where the perspecuity (sic) of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them? Fortunately, the Scriptures does point to the fact that through the intervention of God Himself, a magisterial authority was established that people could take such disputes to. 

Paul Hoffer, your comment about perspicuity is ill-placed. There are many doctrines (or at least broad outlines) upon which most Christians can agree. Where the perspicuity of Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Romanists of different opinions as the Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the (in)errancy of the Scripture, at what point in the development of the unborn baby it's OK to decapitate and dismember the baby, to what extent the Church should have material wealth, etc. How does reliance on Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" help when both parties rely upon them?

One wonders whether Paul will be so quick to tell us that the Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" do point to the fact that through the intervention of God Himself, a super-Magisterial magisterial authority was established to which people could take such disputes.  And then when there are disputes about what the super-Magisterial magisterial authority says, whether Paul will posit a super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority.  And then whether he'll later posit a super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority...

What is really ironic is that in this kind of argumentation that Paul uses here and that RCs ignorantly use all over the place, they echo atheists as well.  Here's a recent example:
Whateverman said:  It matters that other Christians wouldn't agree with your attribution (of God's influence) because that demonstrates the subjectivity of the assertion.
My response there:  You know, there are ppl who think they can float by Yogic meditation. Their mistaken thoughts of gravity's application does not mean that gravity is subjective. You're making man the measure of truth. I'd recommend making logical argumentation the measure of truth, myself.


And that's what I'd recommend for our Romanist friends like Paul Hoffer.  For one thing, when you argue like an atheist, but you're a theist, and when you denigrate the clarity of what God spoke, just like atheists do, shouldn't that raise a bit of a red flag?

"We believe the fifth Marian Dogma will help protect us from disasters"

News from Zenit: A Marian Offense for Benedict XVI

"Some might argue that because of the existing attacks on the Holy Father, the last thing he should do is to spark more controversy with a Marian dogma on Mary's spiritual motherhood. But Catholic history and faith combine to show that when the Church has faced its greatest battles, whether it be Roman persecutions in the early centuries, battles from foreign invaders at places like Lepanto and Vienna in later centuries, or secular and media assaults in the third millennium, going to Mary with conviction and fortitude effects a release of grace that empowers, protects, and sanctifies the Church in ways that only can only be described as supernatural.

Could we not be facing a parallel situation in our own day, with the world’s secular media and even some mistaken members of the Church are clamoring for the resignation of our beloved Holy Father amidst international ecclesiastical crisis?

Perhaps we need the same Marian remedy, when all human efforts of diplomacy and justice seem to be far from sufficient for the present crises facing the Church and the Papacy -- a Marian proclamation which recognizes Mary’s roles of intercession and in so doing, brings them powerfully and historically into full action for our Church and for our Pope today."

Also related: The Pope's recent prayer to Mary (May, 2010)

Mother most gentle,
you know each one by name,
you know each one’s face and personal history,
and you love them all
with maternal benevolence
that wells up from the very heart of Divine Love.

Yahweh says no need for a Magisterium

Here's a clear allusion from the Old Testament -- God's own testimony about the perspicuity of Scripture.

There is a clear allusion in this one passage (a) that the Lord formed the Church, and (b) that His Word is open and understandable. The proximity of these two elements is a clear rebuke to those who say that God's word is not clear, and that somehow a Magisterium is needed to interpret it:

"I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I did not speak in secret,
in a land of darkness;
I did not say to the offspring of Jacob,
'Seek me in vain.'
I the LORD speak the truth;
I declare what is right.

"Assemble yourselves and come;
draw near together,
you survivors of the nations!
They have no knowledge
who carry about their wooden idols,
and keep on praying to a god
that cannot save.
Declare and present your case;
let them take counsel together!
Who told this long ago?
Who declared it of old?
Was it not I, the LORD?
And there is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none besides me.

"Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn;
from my mouth has gone out in righteousness
a word that shall not return:
'To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear allegiance.'

"Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me,
are righteousness and strength;
to him shall come and be ashamed
all who were incensed against him.
In the LORD all the offspring of Israel
shall be justified and shall glory."

(From Isaiah 45:18-25)

Note what commentator J. Alec Motyer says: "the world vision of verses 14–17 is to be understood in the light of revelation. In quiet rebuke of the allegation (Is. 45:15) that he 'hides himself', the Lord asserts that he never spoke in secret (lit. 'under cover'): his word was openly available; nor in a land of darkness where one might lose one's way: his word was intrinsically plain and straightforward; and it led them straight to himself: his word was not in vain, [it was] solid ground not shifting sand. What he said was truth and right: the former is 'righteousness', conformity to the absolute norm of divine truth; the latter is 'plain, straightforward', without deviance or duplicity.

(from J. Alec Motyer, "Isaiah," Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 290-291)

God’s word does not need a Magisterium to interpret it. He does not speak “under cover”. His word was intrinsically plain and straightforward; it leads straight to himself.

The Morning Star of the Reformation

A popular Roman Catholic tactic is to claim Luther was a doctrinal innovator. Since Luther’s doctrinal beliefs are without precedent, his claims should be rejected (or so the argument goes).

An immediate observation is that this merely assumes the Scriptural evidence is in favor of Catholicism. However, we will dispense with the Scriptural matter, as that is not our focus, and proceed to the matter of the post-Scriptural historical record; the idea that Luther was doctrinally novel with respect to church history suffers from a serious defect—it is irreconcilable to historical facts. The Reformation, bursting forth as it did in the sixteenth century, was part of a tradition of earlier reformers who, like many of the prophets of the Old Testament, were crushed under the obstinacy of the reigning religious authorities.

This essay will sketch a brief biography of one such early reformer, John Wycliffe, with particular attention paid to a few of his more significant doctrinal positions. As will be shown, Wycliffe’s experience with the corruption of the Catholic Church led him to some of the same moral and doctrinal conclusions Luther would endorse some 130 years later. Indeed, that “John Wycliffe and his followers anticipated many of the key-doctrines of Protestantism has never been in dispute.”¹ Some of these moral and doctrinal conclusions include: a preference for the authority of Scripture over and against papal primacy, a move toward Sola Fide, a rejection of transubstantiation, and a concern for a vernacular translation of Scripture.

Wycliffe’s Early Life, Education at Oxford and Political Career

John Wycliffe (c. 1324-1384), who is perhaps best known for inspiring vernacular translations of Scripture, was an Oxford educated professor who strongly denounced the moral and spiritual failings of fourteenth century Catholicism. The similarities in his work and life to later Protestant reforms have earned him the exemplary title “Morning Star of the Reformation.”

His early life is shrouded in mystery. This is due not only to Wycliffe’s lack of autobiographical materials, but also to the posthumous treatment the early reformer received at the Council of Constance (1414-1418). Here Wycliffe was officially declared a heretic and his body ordered to be exhumed and burned with his works. The embarrassment caused by this event to his staunchly Catholic family was of no small consequence, and all traces of his life and work were subsequently erased from his town of origin.²

What we do know is that Wycliffe was born c. 1324 somewhere in Yorkshire, England. He later came to Oxford, eventually earning not only a doctorate, but widespread recognition for his rigorous logic and scholarly learning.³ His interests, however, were not limited to academia; he left Oxford in 1371 to serve the interests of British royalty, first as a diplomat, and later as a polemicist.⁴

His service to the crown left him disillusioned with the political process, which, at the time, was deeply wedded to the affairs of the Church. To help finance his war with Milan, Pope Gregory XI had demanded 100,000 florins from England, in addition to a regular tribute already being paid. Wycliffe initially participated in these negotiations and refused to bow to Gregory’s demands, but his uncompromising stance eventually had him removed from the discussions. After his removal, his fellow diplomats were bribed with “prestigious and lucrative offices in the English Church,” and they signed a treaty giving enormous concessions to Gregory.⁵

This marked the end of Wycliffe’s direct participation in the political process and he returned to Oxford to write and preach about the various reforms he thought the Church so desperately needed. Since Wycliffe targeted the hypocritical opulence of the clergy, he earned friends within the ranks of royalty, who wished to use his theological arguments for their own ends and devices. This, however, earned him the attention of the Gregory XI, who eventually condemned many of his criticisms and repeatedly attempted to have him brought to trial.⁶

Wycliffe’s View of Scripture as the Final Authoritative Norm

In the same year the Great Schism (1378-1417) began, Wycliffe published The Truth of Sacred Scripture. This treatise contained principles quite similar to the later Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura. Wycliffe’s view of authority had developed such that he “sought to ground all his reforms in the authority of Scripture, arguing that it is the highest authority for every Christian. It provides the test of all Church councils and of the claims of religious experience.”⁷

The Great Schism not only raised Wycliffe’s view of Scripture, but served to further diminish the legitimacy of the papacy in his eyes:

At this time, his position also grew more radical. The scandal of the Great Schism encouraged this, and he began teaching that the true church of Christ is not the pope and his visible hierarchy, but rather the invisible body of those who are predestined to salvation—a point he drew from Saint Augustine of Hippo. Although it is impossible to know exactly who has been predestined, there are indications that many ecclesiastical leaders are in truth reprobate. Towards the end of his life, Wycliffe declared that the pope was among those who were probably reprobate.⁸

Heiko Oberman has also argued that Wycliffe held to the scholarly concept of Tradition I.⁹ (Tradition I has been summed as: “Scripture was the sole source of revelation; that it was the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; that it was to be interpreted according to the regula fidei.”¹⁰) Whether Tradition I squares completely with the later doctrine of the Reformers, Wycliffe’s views, especially in light of his writings on the papacy, can safely be claimed as much closer to the later Reformers and incompatible with the then prevailing view of Roman primacy.¹¹

Anticipation of Sola Fide

Although Wycliffe’s doctrine precedes Luther’s in many ways, the connection is less clear with Sola Fide.¹² However, as Bruce Shelley explains, Wycliffe can still be said to have at least anticipated the Reformer’s later articulation:

The long-range significance of Wyclif’s teaching on dominion lies in its link with the Reformation. It was the English reformer’s way of emphasizing the spiritual freedom of the righteous man. He is a professor of ‘a dominion founded on grace.’ ‘God gives no lordship to his servants without first giving Himself to them.’ Every man, therefore, priest or layman, holds an equal place in the eyes of God. This personal relation between a man and God is everything; character is the one basis of office. The mediating priesthood and the sacrificial masses of the medieval church are no longer essential. Thus Wyclif anticipates Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone. Both men destroy the medieval barriers between the individual and God.¹³

The Rejection of Transubstantiation

As he neared the end of his life, Wycliffe began to question the doctrine of Transubstantiation.¹⁴ He came to rejected it because it was:

a denial of the principle manifested in the incarnation. When God was joined to human nature, the presence of the divinity did not destroy the humanity. Likewise, what takes place in communion is that the body of Christ is indeed present in the bread, but without destroying it. In a ‘sacramental’ and ‘mysterious’ way, the body of Christ is present in communion. But so is the bread.¹⁵

Here is where Wycliffe was most controversial, as his views contradicted the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). Many then dismissed him as heretical, although he still officially died in communion with the Church. As mentioned above, it was not until the later Council of Constance that he was condemned.

A Translation for the Commoner

Like Luther, Wycliffe was concerned with providing a translation of Scripture that the common person could read. While the extent to which he was directly involved in the process is unknown, “we need have no qualms about referring to the Wycliffite Bible, for it was under his inspiration and by his friends and colleagues that the work was done.”¹⁶

Gonzâles explains Wycliffe’s rationale for a commoner’s translation and the subsequent inspiration it gave his followers:

According to Wycliffe, it is true that Scripture is the possession of the church, and that only the church can interpret the Bible correctly. But this church that owns Scripture is the body of all who are predestined, and therefore the Bible ought to be put back in their hands, and in their own language. It was because of this claim that Wycliffe’s followers, after his death, saw to it that the Bible was translated into English.¹⁷

While Wycliffe’s translation was not based on Greek or Hebrew manuscripts (but the Latin Vulgate), the spirit of Luther’s later vernacular translation is still quite apparent.

_____________________________
1 Arthur Dickens, The English Reformation (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991), 46.

2 William Estep, Renaissance and Reformation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1986), 59.

3 Justo Gonzâles, The Story of Christianity, Volume I: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (New York: HaperCollins Publishers, 1984), 346.

4 Ibid., 346.

5 Estep, Renaissance and Reformation, 63.

6 Ibid., 61.

7 Anthony Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 125.

8 Gonzâles, The Story of Christianity, 347.

9 Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 371-378.

10 Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001), 85.

11 Cf. John Wycliffe, On the Truth of the Holy Scripture, trans. Ian Christopher Levy (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 2001).

12 Cf. Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 180-187.

13 Bruce Shelly, Church History in Plain Language (Word Publishing, 1995), 226.

14 Ralph Keen, The Christian Tradition (Lanham: MD, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008), 176-177.

15 Gonzâles, The Story of Christianity, 347.

16 F.F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English (Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, 1979), 13.

17 Gonzâles, The Story of Christianity, 347.

Cardinal Newman, Miracle Worker

"Absurd" Attack on Newman Miracle Condemned

Article Falsely Portrays Cardinal as Liberal Dissident

BIRMINGHAM, England, MAY 11, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The Birmingham Oratory is condemning recent accusations that a miraculous healing attributed to the intercession of Cardinal John Henry Newman, who will be beatified in September, was a fake.

In a press release today, the oratory stated that the accusatory article, written by John Cornwell and published two days ago by the Sunday Times, is "seriously flawed."

The miracle that was approved last July by Benedict XVI as a step in the cause of Cardinal Newman's canonization was the 2001 healing of Deacon Jack Sullivan of the Boston, Massachusetts, area.

Sullivan had a debilitating back injury that interrupted his diaconal studies and threatened to leave him paralyzed. After praying for the intercession of Cardinal Newman, he experienced an immediate healing from the pain, and doctors stated that there was no medical explanation.

In Sunday's article, Cornwell attempted to demonstrate that the healing was not miraculous, but rather medically explicable due to surgical treatment that Sullivan received.

He suggested that Benedict XVI and the Congregation for Saints' Causes "conspired to suppress the truth about Sullivan's healing to portray it as medically inexplicable," the oratory communique noted.

"The suggestion is absurd," it added. "The Church's procedures have been faithfully adhered to and everything is in the public domain."

Misleading

The communiqué asserted that Cornwell's arguments, quoting "experts" in order to claim that "improvements in Sullivan's underlying condition can flow from purely natural influences," are "very misleading."

Members of the Birmingham Oratory, which was Cardinal Newman's community, underlined the "instantaneous, complete and lasting" cure of Sullivan after his prayer six days after his surgery.

"Nothing in the expert testimonies adduced by Cornwell show that such a recovery, in such a time period, can be attributed to surgery, or natural causes in general," it added.

In fact, the communiqué noted that Cornwell clearly states his agenda: "discrediting Pope Benedict XVI and Papal teaching, to promote a 'progressive' view of Cardinal Newman as a 'dissident,' above all concerning individual conscience in relation to the teaching of the Catholic Church in faith and morals."

It added, "The Pope however is the leading authentic interpreter of Newman's teaching on conscience, which Cornwell and other 'progressive' Catholics misunderstand and misrepresent."

Members of the oratory warned that this attack "is not only unfounded, but another attempt to recruit Newman to the factional cause of 'liberal' Catholicism."

They affirmed, "Newman's doctrine of conscience, in fact his lifelong contribution to Christianity as both an Anglican and a Catholic, are in opposition to the rejection of authority in faith and morals which 'liberal' Catholics are determined to promote."

The oratory stated its plans to publish another article later this week in order to give more details about the "failings of Cornwell's arguments."

Purgatory Explained by Greg Boyd?

This clip was sent over to my e-mail. The ending of this does sound very much like an argument in favor of purgatory. It would be interesting to hear the whole presentation and not just this ten minute clip.

Zwingli Resources

Selected Works of Huldrich Zwingli, (1484-1531) The Reformer of German Switzerland, translated for the First Time from the Originals, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1901).

Selected works By Ulrich Zwingli translated for the First Time from the Originals, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1901).

The Latin works and the correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli, Volume 1 By Ulrich Zwingli, American Society of Church History

The Latin works and the correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli Volume 2 : together with selections from his German works (1912)

Zwingli and Bullinger By Geoffrey William Bromiley

Patrick Madrid on Zwingli's Bible and the Removal of the Apocrypha

Here's a tidbit from Patrick Madrid's book Answer Me This! (Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, 2003) p.176.

The Catholic Church did not add [the Apocryphal books] at the Council of Trent. Rather, it was the early Protestant reformer Ulrich Zwingli who most notably deleted the Deuterocanonical books from his edition of the Bible.

I wasn't aware Zwingli actually single-handily produced a translation of the Bible. I assume Mr. Madrid is referring to The Zürich Bible, which was a project Zwingli was involved with, though by no means the mastermind behind it (like Luther was his German Bible). Leo Jud is typically the man credited for the majority of the project. As far as I know, Zwingli wasn't responsible for any of the translation, though a preface is attributed to him with reservations.

Did the Zürich Bible delete the Apocrypha? No.

The first edition of the Swiss-German Bible was published in six volumes (Zurich, 1527-29), the fifth of which contains the Apocrypha. The title page of this volume states, "These are the books which are not reckoned as biblical by the ancients, nor are found among the Hebrews." A one-volume edition of the Zurich Bible, which appeared in 1530, contains the apocryphal books grouped together after the New Testament [source]

Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta says this about the Zürich Bible:

The Alsatian Zwinglite, Leo Jud, produced a translation of Scripture known as the Zurich Bible (1531). The Deuterocanon is included in an appendix titled "Apocryphi." Jud justifies his inclusion of the appendix so that those who read them and like them will not complain about their absence. He claims to have followed the Fathers in that they did not include the Deuterocanon among the Holy Scripture. However, Jud states,

... [Y]et they [the Deuterocanon] contain much which in no way contradicts the biblical writings, faith and love, and some things which are founded in God's word.

Completed in 1531, three years before the publication of Luther's bible, the Zurich Bible matches Luther's translation in contents and order. Another preface of the Zurich Bible, commonly ascribed to Zwingli, states that the Apocrypha is not highly esteemed, being less clear and accurate that the Protocanon, although the books contain much that is true and useful. Zwingli leaves it up to the reader to divide the good from the bad. Like Jud's preface, Zwingli states that the Apocrypha has been included in the Zurich Bible "so that no one may complain of lacking anything, and each may find what is to his taste.

-snip-

In the 1543 edition of the Latin Zurich Bible, the title of the Apocryphi appendix was changed to "Church Books" (Ecclesiastici Libri). The preface states:

Church Books which the Church always held to be holy books, worthy for the pious to read. Yet they were not given equal authority with the canonical writings. Our forefathers wanted them to be read in the churches, but not drawn on to confirm the authority of faith (articles of faith). So they were called apocrypha, a word which is not in every respect appropriate or suitable for them. They had no validity among the Hebrews, but were brought to light again among the Greeks." [Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p.257-258].

Evangelization as a Sales Pitch & Clash of the Titans Update

Here's a person who thinks the "I swam the Tiber" apologetic method is troubling:

Evangelization as a Sales Pitch
Of course, there's another side of the story:

Patrick Madrid is Evil

Without any guidelines from Rome, I guess they'll just have to fight it out.

Here's an update on the Sungenis vs. Shea struggle for apologetic dominion- The Catholic Answers folks are weighing in:

"I like Sungenis. I think that it's become something of the "in" thing to do to make swipes at more conservative members of the faith such as him. But then who's the first person everybody turns to when the next James White debate comes up?"

"Dr. Robert Sungenis is the best Catholic apologist by far. We need more like him."

"I like Mark Shea and Robert Sunngenis. They've both done good work for the church. I think they both have their character flaws (who doesn't?) that show up every so often. I'm disappointed in both of them that they can't conduct this discussion in a charitable way without resorting to fifth-grade antics."

"Sungenis is a crackpot who never paid the money he owed to all the people who whipped his bottom in his "geocentrism challenge" years ago. He had actual, for-real NASA guys wiping the floor with his ignorant self. We all watched it go down. He's a weirdo. Ally yourself with weirdoes and crackpots at your own risk."

Dr. Robert Sungenis is the best Catholic apologist by far. We need more like him.- Good Lord, you're serious, aren't you? We need MORE geocentrist, crackpot apologists? Just exactly what do you think the mission of an apologist is? To bring derision upon the Church by confirming the most outlandish suspicions and worst prejudices of non-Catholics in secular society?

"People don't take swipes at [Sungenis]because it's the "in" thing. They take swipes at him because they think he's wrong, or even crazy, or even (in my admittedly non-Catholic perspective) the proponent of revoltingly evil beliefs (no, I'm not talking about geocentrism--that's somewhere between wrong and crazy!)."

But then who's the first person everybody turns to when the next James White debate comes up?- "The fact that he doesn't have anything better to do than argue with a self-important, cold-hearted Reformed pontificator is hardly to his credit. (Just as the fact that I spend so much time on this website is not exactly to mine--though there are many people on this website much more worth spending time with than either White or Sungenis.)"

"If Mark Shea tempts [Sungenis] to sin, he should not be reading or responding to his blogs."

The Spirit of the Roman Church

Paul had to caution them in Romans 16: "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions [Greek: "dissensions"] and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet."

The emperor Claudius had ejected "the Jews" from Rome for "fighting" over "Chrestus". Even in Paul's day, there was tension. Clement alluded to "jealousies" at the time of Peter and Paul, that led to their deaths.

Throughout the first half of the second century, the Roman church was led by a network of presbyters in a network of house churches, and these presbyters fought among themselves as to who was greatest. I've quoted Hermas from "The Shepherd of Hermas as saying, "They had a certain jealousy of one another over questions of preeminence and about some kind of distinction. But they are all fools to be jealous of one another regarding preeminence.”

This fighting continued on and on.

"In 235, two rival bishops of Rome, Pontianus (230-235) and Hippolytus (c.217-235) were exiled from the city by the emperor Maximin 1 because of street fighting between their followers." (Roger Collins, "Keepers of the Keys of the Kingdom," pg. 25)

and …

"Because of the house-church system, such rival bishops could co-exist for as long as they had the backing of some of the city's many Christian groups. But the divisions usually resulted in violent clashes between the partisans of the two claimants, and in all cases the imperial government intervened to end the bloodshed and to send one or both of the rivals into exile, as happened in 235, and would do so again in 306/7 and 308." (Collins 26)

Note that in 150 they were fighting, and in 235 they were fighting, and in 306-308 they were still fighting. See a pattern? These last two incidents mentioned were during the fierce period of persecution known as "the Great Persecution," brought on by the emperor Diocletian and continued under his successors, until Constantine.

The pattern continued; as I mentioned, Damasus, "a man of much practical shrewdness and self-assertive energy" (Shotwell and Loomis, pg 595), became pope as his followers "launched an assault on the Julian basilica, seizing control of it after three days of streetfighting. When the backers of Ursinus (Damasus's opponent) occupied the Liberian basilica, it too was stormed. In the aftermath of the fighting, a neutral contemporary reported that the bodies of 137 men and women were found in the church." Collins 52). This last datum was originally reported by Owen Chadwick, "Catholicism and History: The Opening of the Vatican Archives, Cambridge 1978, pgs 110-116.

This is one reason, Matthew Bellisario, why your 19th century historians are not likely to have the whole story of the early papacy.

I doubt that we have it now, but we know more today than "the faithful" did in the 19th century.

The nonexistent early papacy

I've made a few comments in a thread over at Green Baggins, and I thought I'd pass some of that along here, in a somewhat edited form.

The “succession lists” of the bishops of Rome were created after the fact, for apologetic purposes, using names that were known to have existed in the various sees. Paul Johnson cites a number of successions in various cities that are a total mess. Irenaeus’s is probably the “cleanest” list. He uses a list created by Hegesippus (166 ad). But Irenaeus’s list has definite problems as well. “Peter and Paul founded and organized the church at Rome,” he says. But Peter’s presence can barely be attested there, whereas Paul has quite a bit of biblical history in Rome.

1 Clement is not much aware of Peter’s activities in Rome (“many trials”), but he knows and relates great detail about Paul: “seven times in chains … driven into exile … stoned … preached in the east and west … having reached the farthest limits of the west … testimony before rulers …” (96 ad?, 1 Clement 5)

Marcion in 144 faced only “presbyters and teachers,” in the synod that was challenging him, even though he had donated more than 200,000 sesterces to the church there, and it was being returned to him. If someone had donated $200,000 to your church, and you had to return it, would you be there? Or would you allow a session of your elders to handle it? The authority in those years was merely “presbyters and teachers.”

William Lane, in his essay “Roman Christianity during the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva,” from the volume “Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome” (Donfried and Richardson), notes:

Ignatius and Hermas provide evidence that even in the first decades of the second century Rome was not centrally organized under the administrative authority of a single bishop. In six of his seven [thought to be legitimate] letters, Ignatius insists on the importance of the office of bishop. His silence in regard to this pastoral concern in the Letter to the Romans is explained best by the absence of a monarchical bishop in Rome. Hermas refers only to “the elders who preside over the church.” The existence of several house churches only loosely connected with one another throughout Rome [see also Romans 16] suggests why diversity, disunity, and a tendency toward independence were persistent problems in the early history of the Christian communities in Rome. (213)

It should also be noted that of these presbyters in Rome, Hermas says, they “quarrel about status and honor. (Shepherd of Hermas, Vis. 3.9.7-10; Sim 8.7.4-6). “They had a certain jealousy of one another over questions of preeminence and about some kind of distinction. But they are all fools to be jealous of one another regarding preeminence.”

I’ve cited a document dated from the third century, cited by Daniel William O’Connor, “Peter in Rome,” suggesting that it was Paul, not Peter, who ordained Linus, whose name appears as first in all the succession lists:

This version also contains a list of those ordained by the apostles: “First in Jerusalem, James …. And in Antioch, first, Evodius [ordained] by Peter; and after him Ignatius, by Paul …. And in the Church of Rome, first, Linus [ordained] by Paul; and after him Clement, who was ordained by Peter.” …. The Ethiopic version, preserved by the Monophysite Church of Abyssinia, thus protected the traditional place of Paul in the Roman Church, which had been deemphasized since the beginning of the third century. [This document] reveals some knowledge of a relationship of both Peter and Paul to the Roman Church, but is not specific as to the character of such relationship. The two apostles are not mentioned specifically as either founders or bishops, but simply as apostles. … While the document is late and reflects use of the [apocryphal] Acts of Peter, the dual, undefined leadership of both Peter and Paul in Rome seems to be an echo of a second century tradition such as is found in Clement of Rome and Ignatius.

Shotwell and Loomis write, in the introduction of their work, “See of Peter,” (which discusses virtually every reference or “proof text” that has been used in defense of an early papacy), that

“with reference to the Petrine doctrine, however, the Catholic attitude is much more than a “pre-disposition to believe.” That doctrine is the fundamental basis of the whole papal structure. … That Peter went to Rome and founded there his See, is just as definitely what is termed in Catholic theology a “dogmatic fact.” It has been defined by an eminent Catholic theologian as “historical fact so intimately connected with some great Catholic truths that it would be believed even if time and accident had destroyed all the original evidence therefore.” (Shotwell and Loomis, “See of Peter,” 1927, from the introduction)

And, well, yes, in the intervening years, historical study has very much “destroyed all the original evidence.” I've written extensively about some of the historical research that is simply discrediting Roman accounts of the early church. My hope is to put more of that up for review here, but for now, I'd just like to paint with broad brush strokes.

It is no wonder, as Roger Collins writes, that in the fourth and fifth centuries, after the Roman Bishops had become the focus of attention (because of Constantine), “It is no coincidence that the first systematic works of papal history appear at the very time the Roman church’s past was being reinvented for polemical purposes.” (Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven,” pg 82).

In spite of the forgeries and simply the rewriting of history, Joseph Ratzinger, in his work "Called to Communion," says that the early church "faithfully developed" the primacy.


If anyone thinks I am being a bit overstated, this is from Robert Reymond, “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith,” pg 818:

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.

Not only can Rome's claims NOT be demonstrated from Scriptures, but the historical sources I've found strongly suggest that the papacy was more a case of Luke 14:8: "When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest someone more distinguished than you be invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, 'Give your place to this person,' and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place."

I pray for the day when someone tells the Bishop of Rome, "go sit in a lower place."

Roman bishops, with the full knowledge and consent of the Roman emperors, took, stole, usurped a place of honor in the church that was not theirs. And once the Roman emperors passed out of Rome, the Roman bishops were in a place to twist arms, to commit murder, to put out forgeries in pursuit of their own power.

For example, several times, prior to Constantine, Roman clergy were exiled from Rome because they were fighting over the bishop's seat. Once the emperors were out of the way, "Pope" Damasus could, for example, kill 137 followers of his opponent, with impunity. See Roger Collins, "Keepers of the Keys to the Kingdom" and also here.


The Council of Nicea, no doubt reflecting current understanding of the authority structure in place in the Christian world for nearly 300 years, gave Rome and Alexandria equivalent authority within their respective spheres. The Council of Constantinople explicitly stated that honor was due to Rome because it was the old capital of the empire. Canon 28 of the council of Chalcedon, which essentially repeated what Constantinople had said, was just plain ignored and rejected by Pope Leo I. But by that time, there was no other authority in Rome, secular or otherwise, to suggest otherwise.

I've already alluded to Rome's predisposition to "re-write" history in its own favor, here.


But there is compelling evidence that Roman bishops accepted the honor that was due that city for being the capital, but they lied, killed, and twisted it for their own ambitions.

Are There Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin? (Part Six)

In a Roman Catholic book critiquing John Calvin come the following quotations from John Calvin:

Quote #1
Moreover, the worst of all is, that when once religion begins to be composed of such vain fictions, the perversion is immediately succeeded by the abominable depravity with which our Lord upbraids the Pharisees of making the commandment of God void through their traditions (Mt. 15:3) [IV, 10:10].

Quote #2
What is meant by making the word of God void by tradition, if this is not done when recommending the ordinances of God only frigidly and perfunctorily, they nevertheless studiously and anxiously urge strict obedience to their own ordinances, as if the whole power of piety was contained in them; [IV, 10:10].

These quotes from Calvin are said to be "Denigration of Tradition" (p.18).

Background Context
Earlier in IV, 8, Calvin describes Biblical authority by describing the rule of the church, Moses, Old Testament priests, prophets, and the apostles. He concludes in IV, 8:9 that not even the apostles were free to go beyond the Word, nor are their successors in creating laws necessary for salvation. The main point to grasp is that the Bible does indeed describe authority. It simply doesn't describe the Roman authority that plagued the church of Calvin's day. The papal church claimed an infallible authority, an authority Ford Lewis Battles describes with the heading "in which the pope, with his supporters, has exercised upon souls the most savage tyranny and butchery" by creating extra-Biblical laws necessary for salvation.

Immediate Context
In Chapter 10 of the Institutes Calvin launches into a discussion of Papal laws that were bound upon the church. Calvin declares that the papal laws have gone beyond the Word and enslave consciences. In IV, 10:6 Calvin argues the church has no right to do this. The papacy has no right to command anything apart from God's Word. In IV, 10: 9-18 Calvin argues "Ecclesiastical constitutions authorizing ceremonies in worship are tyrannous, frivolous, and contrary to Scripture" (heading title from Ford Lewis Battles). Specifically in IV, 10: 10 Calvin explains:

Moreover, this evil thing is added, that when religion once begins to be defined in such vain fictions, such perversity is always followed by another hateful depravity, for which Christ rebuked the Pharisees. It is that they nullify God’s commandment for the sake of the traditions of men.

Calvin then goes on to describe these "traditions", these extra-Biblical laws that have been placed on the souls of men:

I do not wish to fight with words of my own against our present lawmakers; let them win, I say, if they can in any way cleanse themselves of Christ’s accusation. But how could they excuse themselves, since among them it is far more wicked to have skipped auricular confession at the turn of the year than to have led an utterly wicked life the whole year through? to have infected their tongue with a slight taste of meat on Friday than to have fouled the whole body with fornication every day? to have moved the hand to honest work on a day consecrated to some saintlet or other than religiously to have exercised all the bodily members in the worst crimes? for a priest to be bound in one lawful marriage than to be entangled in a thousand adulteries? to have left unperformed an avowed pilgrimage than to have broken faith in all promises? not to have squandered something on monstrous, but no less superfluous and unprofitable, pomp of churches than to have failed the poor in their extremity? to have passed by an idol without honoring it than to have treated the whole race of mankind abusively? not to have murmured long senseless words at certain hours than never to have framed a lawful prayer in the mind? What is it to set at nought God’s precept for the sake of their own traditions if it be not this? While commending the observance of God’s commandments only coldly and perfunctorily, they nonetheless zealously and busily urge an exact obedience to their own, as if these contained in themselves the whole force of piety? While requiring that only light amends be made for the transgression of the divine law, they punish even the slightest infraction of their decree with no lighter penalty than prison, exile, fire, or sword.

Calvin then continues this same type of argumentation applying it to ceremonies, observances, and constitutions that have been lawfully enacted by the Roman church. He argues in IV, 10:18 that the Roman constitutions do not go all the way back to the apostles or to "apostolic tradition":

But to trace the origin of these traditions (with which the church has hitherto been oppressed) back to the apostles is pure deceit. For the whole doctrine of the apostles has this intent: not to burden consciences with new observances, or contaminate the worship of God with our own inventions. Again, if there is anything credible in the histories and ancient records, the apostles not only were ignorant of what the Romanists attribute to them but never even heard of it. And let them not prate that most of the apostles’ decrees which were not committed to writing had been received in use and customary practice. The reference is to those things which, while Christ was still alive, they could not understand but after his ascension learned by the revelation of his Holy Spirit.

The Roman Catholic Interpretation of John Calvin

Here is how the Roman Catholic book interpreted and interacts with IV, 10:10:

Quote #1
That has to be analyzed more closely, because Jesus also observed Pharisaical traditions (the true ones), and Paul called himself a Pharisee (in Scripture) three times (Acts 23:6; 26:5; Phil 3:5). There are true and false traditions. Protestants too often condemn all "traditions," as if they have none, and as if there are no true traditions described and sanctioned in Holy Scripture.

Quote 2
To the extent that promulgation of Church laws and divine laws were done in this legalistic, loveless fashion, sin occurred, just as Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their similar hypocrisy and rigid legalism and misplaced emphases (in Matthew 23). But Jesus also upheld the fundamental authority of the Pharisees in the early part of the chapter, just before he condemned their hypocrisy in practice.

Therefore, the presence of hypocrisy (excessive rigidity, legalism, lack of love, etc.), does not in and of itself prove that the laws themselves are invalid, or that the authorities who proclaim them are no authorities at all. Jesus taught this (not just Catholics, later on). We are not at liberty to disagree with Him. Many are prone to the legalistic sins of Pharisaism in its worst sense. That is not by any means confined to Catholics; nor does it disprove any Catholic belief.

Response
As to quote #1, only those traditions that are Biblically sanctioned are to be followed, so it is not true that Protestants condemn all traditions. The Roman church though claims the authority to determine Tradition, and has added extra-Biblical Traditions to the deposit of revelation given by God. It is agreed that the Bible does indeed describe false traditions. In only three instances though is tradition referred to positively (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thes. 2:15, 3:6). This positive apostolic tradition was identifiable. It was not an acorn of obscurity awaiting development or determination by Romanist authority. These apostolic traditions were known by the early church and did not differ in content from what was eventually inscripturated. Commenting on 2 Thes. 2:15 Calvin states:

15. Hold fast the institutions. Some restrict this to precepts of external polity; but this does not please me, for he points out the manner of standing firm. Now, to be furnished with invincible strength is a much higher thing than external discipline. Hence, in my opinion, he includes all doctrine under this term, as though he had said that they have ground on which they may stand firm, provided they persevere in sound doctrine, according as they had been instructed by him. I do not deny that the term paradosis is fitly applied to the ordinances which are appointed by the Churches, with a view to the promoting of peace and the maintaining of order, and I admit that it is taken in this sense when human traditions are treated of,(Matthew 15:6.). Paul, however, will be found in the next chapter making use of the term tradition, as meaning the rule that he had laid down, and the very signification of the term is general. The context, however, as I have said, requires that it be taken here to mean the whole of that doctrine in which they had been instructed. For the matter treated of is the most important of all—that their faith may remain secure in the midst of a dreadful agitation of the Church.

As to quote #2, the Roman Catholic author probably didn't read IV, 10:27. Calvin states that simply because the papacy has abused her people with laws and traditions, this doesn't mean that all laws by which the church is shaped should be erased. Calvin argues that laws are necessary for order, but "They are not to be considered necessary for salvation and thus bind consciences by scruples; nor are they to be associated with the worship of God, and piety thus be lodged in them."

So are the Calvin quotes cited a "denigration of Tradition"? No, they are the denigration of an authority that claims to be infallible that has added to God's revealed truth with false Traditions.

The Shroud of Turin and evolution

Umm, right, so Pope Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, has spoken out in "favor" of the Shroud of Turin, basically saying that it is authentic, that it really is the shroud in which Jesus was wrapped after His crucifixion. 
From here:

Benedict focused in his meditation on the message that the blood stains conveyed, saying the Shroud was "an icon written in blood; the blood of a man who was whipped, crowned with thorns, crucified and injured on his right side.
"The image on the Shroud is that of a dead man, but the blood speaks of his life. Each trace of blood speaks of love and life," Benedict said.
The Vatican to date had tiptoed around the issue of just what the Shroud of Turin is, calling it a powerful symbol of Christ's suffering while making no claim to its authenticity.

 I have two thoughts on this incident.


1) So the Pope is more than happy to come out in support of the theory of evolution because "the scientists" think it's true, and yet when scientists present evidence using very similar methodologies (ie, radiocarbon dating) that the Shroud of Turin is actually only around 800 years old, he ignores it and leads his people in acts of piety that express dissent with the scientific opinion?
And don't try to play the "but there's debate within scientific circles on the Shroud" card.  There's plenty of debate in scientific circles about evolution as well, not to mention a ludicrous amount of logical argumentation against it.  The Pope went with the scientific "academy" then, why the inconsistency now?

2) These and other news articles are careful to say that Benedict "all but endorses its authenticity". 
It is mind-boggling to me that this man would do such a disingenuous thing as to hold a "meditation" in front of this object, modeling meditation on the Cross of Christ, when there's plenty of reason to doubt that it actually is the shroud that wrapped Christ's body for a time.  Further, all the reason to doubt aside, could not the Pope make a pronouncement that it either is or isn't authentic, for sure?  Why dance around the issue?  Does it matter whether the shroud actually wrapped Christ or doesn't it?  When the Pope speaks infallibly, is he right even when the contemporary "scientific establishment" disagrees or not?
It seems very comparable to the RC practice of bowing down and performing acts of religious and worshipful piety in front of and directed toward pictures of dead people.  Outside of icons of Christ Himself and a few specifically-identified elect angels, such as Gabriel and Michael, the RC worshiper has zero guarantee that the dead person to whom he's praying is actually in Heaven.  S/He might be in Hell, or s/he might be in Purgatory.  The Magisterium could clear all that up, but chooses not to, chooses not to get involved in such trivial matters as truth in worship and spiritual meditation. 
It's pathetic, really. How is this the action of a church that is the self-proclaimed "pillar and support of the truth"? 

Sungenis on the State of Roman Catholic Apologetics

....An interesting read from Mr. Sungenis.


Sungenis: "I think it is good, at least compared to what it was about 25 years ago when Catholic apologetics was practically non-existent. But I think it could be much better today if we all banded together and used each other gifts and talents instead of competing with one another. As the saying goes, all ships rise with the tide."

"Overall, I would say that EWTN, Catholic Answers and Hahn-CUF are, for lack of a better term, somewhat milquetoast when it comes to dealing with the more controversial and significant problems occurring in the Church and in the world. My assessment is that they either don’t know where the real battles are or they know and choose to ignore them, and have more or less settled into a politically-correct apologetic."

"I would expect the EWTN-like apostolates to have the lion’s share of the Catholic “apologetics” community, whereas I would expect apostolates like ours to attract the deep thinkers and politically-incorrect crowd. That’s just the nature of the respective animals. But that’s ok. We each have our gifts, strengths and focus. I think God is using us all, but I think He would like to see us all get along much better than we have, and that is what all three groups need to pray for."

Sungenis Vs Shea Revisited

A long time ago in a Roman Catholic galaxy far away, Mark Shea actually contributed material to a book put together by Robert Sungenis. Now....

Mark Shea: Some Evangelicals think they have found Noah's Ark. This is the sort of story that gets nine-day-wonder play in the MSM, is trumpeted as "proof" of the Bible by Fundamentalists whether Evangelical or Conservative Catholic (you watch, it will show up on Bob Sungenis' site along with "Dinosaurs lived alongside man" and "Pyramids prove the flood" articles.


R. Sungenis: John, what can you expect from someone like Mark Shea? I mean, here’s a guy that actually advertises his ignorance and indiscretion right on the top of his own blog with the inane banner: “Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!” Do I need to say more? He thinks he’s being funny but behind every joke there is a pertinent truth. Mark Shea is actually telling us how his mind works. Most of his comments are just knee-jerk reactions that first pass through the “I must be as endearing and accommodating to the world as possible” grid in his brain, which are then spiced up for sale with his usual dose of sarcasm and off-color wit. So I’ll just follow Mr. Shea’s suggestion that what he says about me this time is just another one of his “stupid” comments.

As for the issue itself, Mark Shea, if you don’t already know, is of the school of thought that tries to divest Genesis of as much historically accurate material as possible. You’ll see this in his book Making Senses of Scripture in which Shea tries to tell us that we can minimize biblical history by turning it into little more than spiritual platitudes. Basically, Mark Shea is ashamed of much of what the Bible regareds as historical. Thus, he dismisses most of what occurred in the narratives of Genesis as fanciful accretions. Mark Shea wants his history to be palatable to what the world believes occurred in the past. Additionally, Mark Shea has made no in depth study of “Dinosaurs.

Source

The Pillar and Support of the Truth

One of the ongoing contentions that I will make going forward, Lord willing, is that the Roman Catholic Church is not what it says it is. (Just as a housekeeping note, I prefer to say “Roman Catholic Church” because that is the term favored by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus in his work “The Catholic Moment”. As a shorthand, I will also abbreviate “Roman Catholic Church” simply with the word “Rome” or “Roman”.)

Rome is not what it says it is. I’ve spoofed this notion here, but it’s going to be important to deconstruct each of the various things it claims for itself in order to support my initial contention.


Catholic writers often cite 1 Tim 3:15 in support of indefectibility or infallibility of the church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church itself has made this interpretation an article of faith, most recently in Lumen Gentium 8:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him…

My contention in this posting is that Rome’s official usage of this verse is wrong at best. But what’s worse is that in popular apologetics, Roman apologists are going far beyond what even Rome says in this verse.

One popular Catholic writer said this:

“As Saint Paul taught, the church is ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’ – she does not err. (1 Tim 3:15)”

But is that what Paul tried to say? Is that what he actually said?

It seems to me that for Catholics to try to force their meaning on this phrase is a fundamentally dishonest use of this language.

Daniel Wallace, a professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, has written many textbooks on the Greek language. Here’s what he said:

“Before we can know what a particular text means we must know what it says.”

(From his essay, “Laying a Foundation: New Testament Textual Criticism in the work “Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis”.)


Let's look at the verse in a bit of context (ESV translation):

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

The NASB translation for this phrase is “the pillar and support of the truth.”

It’s important to note the word that gets translated by various translators as “mainstay” (the Vatican website translation), “buttress,” “support”. I’ve also seen “bulwark.”


It’s true that the phrase has the leadership of the church in mind (see Galatians 2). But they are called to “support” “the truth” not in terms of a “teaching authority,” but by their behavior (a notion that should, and does, lead directly into qualifications for elders)

Philip H. Towner, in his (2006) New International Commentary on the New Testament, says that “church of the living God” is not the key phrase, but “household” is. “The church” in Paul’s conception here is “a clarification,” a relative clause” for the truth that the universal church, all members of the church, really comprise “the household of the Living God.”

“Pillar” frequently describes the cloud of God’s presence (Exod 13:21-22; 14;24; 33:9; etc.), and stands metaphorically for leaders (Gal 2:9). In this case, where it combines with “foundation” and functions in respect to “the truth” (i.e. “the gospel”; see 2:3), the sense will be that of visible “support” such as the “pillar” lends to a building. The term translated “foundation” also signifies firmness and steadfastness. Together (perhaps in the sense “supporting foundation”) the two terms depict the church in the combative setting of heresy, as existing to provide a powerful and steadfast support for “the truth.”

LT Johnson, a Catholic commentator, works through the various phrases of this selection. First, of the “church of the Living God” here, the “ekklesia,” he notes that “household of God” is the prime metaphor, “not least because Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy are directed to matters of public concern to the ekklesia, not to matters of domestic economy. That this assembly is one gathered by “the living God” is of first importance thematically (4:10, 5:6) and theologically, for it means that the church does not contain or control God, but is only in service to the one who moves always ahead of humans in surprising yet faithful ways.” Note also that the Catholic definition of "church" is not in view at all in that phrase. (Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, "The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary", Luke Timothy Johnson, p. 231).

The phrase he gives as “a pillar and support for the truth” are the Greek words “stylos kai hedraioma,” which he says are “architectural terms for ‘supports, stays, or pillars.”

The issue for the translator is not the meaning of the terms, but their referent. Are “pillar and support” to be read as in apposition to “church of the living God” or in delayed apposition to “how it is necessary to behave”? Such a delayed appositional phrase [already] appears elsewhere in the letter (1:7). It also makes better sense of the metaphorical point: the community is the oikos, and the members should behave so as to be supports and pillars for it. Such an understanding fits Paul’s other use of stylos for leaders of the Jerusalem community in Gal 2:9. Note also Paul’s use of the adjective hedraios in a plea to his unstable readers in Corinth: “Become steady people (hedraioi ginesthe), not capable of being moved, abounding in the work of the Lord at all times, knowing that your labor in the Lord is not in vain. (1 Cor 15:58). See also the use of stylos with reference to an individual person in Rev 3:12, which functions within the Temple symbolism of that writing.” (231-232)

In his New International Greek Testament Commentary, a commentary series which examines the Greek text, George Knight says it’s not doctrine that’s in view at all, it’s conduct. “So even though building terminology is utilized, since the conduct (of the individuals) in view relates to the interaction of the members of God’s family, modern translations have opted for “household” … The standards of conduct given “are no mere rules of etiquette, they are standards for the house/household that is none other than God’s. They provide directions for conduct in his temple, where he dwells by his Spirit, and they provide directions for relationships among his people.” (180). He says further that “Timothy and the church will conduct their lives appropriately if they remember that they are the home built and owned by God and indwelt by him as the living one, and also remember that they are called on to undergird and hold aloft God’s truth in word and deed.” (182)


Individual members of the household of God “support the truth” by bearing witness to it with their behavior. This is precisely Paul’s exhortation to the church in Romans 12:1-3:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

Paul's illustration of the "church" is first that of a "household." The Vatican usage is wrong. As for the apologist’s comment to which I referred, to suggest that this verse in any way supports the contention that "the church cannot err" is simply misusing this verse, either in total ignorance, or else to the point of dishonesty.

What the verse says is, God’s truth exists; it is the task of the entire church, by its behavior, to lift up the truth of God, to put it on display for the world to see, by their very behavior. The notion that this verse implies some form of “teaching authority” which cannot err is just plain dishonest.

For you Catholics, who are interested in claiming that Christ somehow supernaturally prevents the "teaching office" of the church from erring, stop and think about what that means for a moment. This verse doesn’t even say what you say it says, much less that it means what you say it means.

Keating on Canon Certainty From Local Church Councils

Here's an interesting tidbit from Karl Keating's book Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Fransisco: Ignatius Press, 1988). Chapter two is dedicated to exposing the errors of Lorraine Boettner's book on Roman Catholicism.

Keating documents Boettner's error of attributing the forbidding of the Bible to laymen by the Council of Valencia in 1229. Keating points out this is historically inaccurate. It would be impossible for a council to have occurred at this location at this period in history. Keating does though go the extra mile: he suggests a council which may actually be the source for Boettner's claim.

Keating notes a council was held in Toulouse France in 1229. Keating specifically notes it was not an ecumenical council (p.45). He then goes on to describe the situation which prompted this council to restrict the use of the Bible. He notes, "Their action was a local one" and it "is hardly the across-the-board prohibition of the Bible" Boettner mentioned (pp. 45-46). Problem solved: Boettner confused a local decree with an ecumenical decree binding on the church for all ages. Case closed.

But not so fast... If one skips a bit further down page 46, one finds Mr. Keating correcting Boettner's position that the Roman church added the apocrypha to the Bible in 1546. Keating states,

The fact is that the Council of Trent did not add to the Bible what Protestants call the apocryphal books. Instead, the Reformers dropped from the Bible books that had been in common use for centuries. The Council of Trent convened to reaffirm Catholic doctrines and to revitalize the Church, proclaimed that these books always had belonged to the Bible and had to remain in it. After all, it was the Catholic Church, in the fourth century, that officially decided which books composed the canon of the Bible and which did not. The Council of Trent came on the scene about twelve centuries later and merely restated the ancient position (pp. 46-47).

Keating states "it was the Catholic Church, in the fourth century, that officially decided which books composed the canon of the Bible and which did not." Now if Keating is referring to the councils of Hippo and Carthage, they were provincial councils which did not have ecumenical authority. Neither is the Council of Rome with Pope Damasus helpful. So why is it these local Councils were binding on decreeing the canon, while just a few paragraphs earlier, Keating explains local councils aren't binding on the church for all time?

To make it even a bit more complicated, Tim Staples (who works for Karl Keating as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers) says the canon was dogmatically closed in 1442. Ah, what a tangled web they weave.

Thank you Eric Svendsen for NTRMin.org

I was contacted recently by a person who couldn't access my Reformation papers on Eric Svendsen's Ntrmin.org website. It appears Ntrmin.org has vanished. Ntrmin was one of the best sites for countering Roman Catholic apologetics. Dr. Svendsen graciously hosted some of my longer papers on Martin Luther and the Reformation, as well as providing numerous helpful articles on Roman Catholicism.

The Ntrmin website was around for many years. It also hosted a discussion forum called The Areopagus. It was there I became acquainted with Dr. Svendsen's work, as well as that of Jason Engwer (now of the Triablogue clan), and Pastor David King (author of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith volume 1). I also met a number of other people, many of which I'm still in contact with today. This was all due to the Ntrmin website.

Dr. Eric Svendsen has authored of a number of books of Roman Catholicism. I highly recommend the following:

Upon This Slippery Rock: Countering Roman Catholic Claims to Authority (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2002)

Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2001)

Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists (Lindenhurst, NY: Reformation Press, 1999)

He's also been a guest on the Iron sharpens Iron program discussing these books (free mp3 downloads here).

I'm not sure what Eric's plans are in regard to his website. Perhaps he's decided to phase it out, or perhaps he's rebuilding it. Either way, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Svendsen for the Ntrmin.org website. I've used it often during the years, and I'm grateful for all the work he put into it. It was one of the first sites that I found directly responding to the newer breed of Roman Catholic apologists. If he's decided to take the website down, it will indeed be missed.