The donum superadditum and the doctrine of man: a foundational difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics

At the heart of the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants, there are key differences understandings, both in terms of their understanding of the doctrine of God, but also of the doctrine of Man.

Over at Steven Wedgeworth's Wedgewords, Peter Escalante has, in the context of a discussion about civil authority, given a fairly succinct overview of one of the key differences. I'm not fully prepared to engage in a discussion of all of this -- it involves different concepts of man, and different consequences in terms of the doctrine of justification. But I've been following this excellent discussion, and I wanted to pass it along while it was still fresh in my mind.

It involves Rome's understanding of the donum superadditum with regard to the state that Adam was in before he fell. Briefly, Protestants say that man was "very good," and when he fell, it resulted in a spiritual death, and hence, God's imputation of righteousness and union with Christ is what's required to restore man back to his pristine, pre-fall state. Rome, on the other hand (thanks to Augustine's neopolatonism and some refinement by medieval theologians), holds that, not only was Adam "very good," but that he had some "super-added gift of grace" that he lost in the fall, and it is that "superadded grace" that needs to be restored. Hence the "infusion of grace" in Roman doctrine. [This accounts for the difference in which Calvin described man as "spiritually dead," and hence "totally inable" or "totally depraved," whereas Roman Catholics merely believe that man was "impaired" but with an otherwise full capacity to please God with his own grace-assisted works.]

Peter describes it this way:

For us, man originally had connatural beatitude, and when he fell, the reduced and superficial participation in that beatitude still possible to him, in an extrinsic way, was what we call temporal felicity or civic righteousness. But for RC, original felicity was a donum superadditum, and the status of original creation was thus left unclear, with at the very least a strong suggestion that much of what we think of as creation is in fact the effect of the Fall- an anti-Hebraic gnosticism which marred the thought of the ancient Greek church (and modern EO), and Rome too, though a more Biblical countertendency was present in the West and finally came into full victory with the Reformation. Given that the RC think of the New Covenant as the restoration of the donum superadditum, its relation to the temporal is ambivalent at best and hostile at worst. But for us, the New Covenant a) disables the heteronomous and unattainable Law which measured our alienation, and b) grants full citizenship in the Kingdom of God, simply by trust in Christ and union with Him. This means that the reality of original beatitude is poured into the forms of the creational order, and slowly transforms it spiritually, until all things shall be made new.

There are many, many concepts tied up in this one little paragraph, and it would (and will) take a long time to extract the meaning from them. But the one I want to focus on is that, right from the outset of their understanding of man, Protestants and Catholics differ.

John Fesko, in his "Justification," describes this situation with respect to the "donum superadditum":

It seems as though much of the debate over infused versus imputed righteousness hinges upon the presuppositions of each party. The typical Reformed understanding is that Adam was created upright, or righteous, and that God justified, or declared righteous, the initial creation as well as man in his declaration that everything was "very good" (Gen 1:31). We see the Westminster Larger Catechism echo this point when it states that God created man in "righteousness, and holiness, having the law of God written in their hearts, and the power to fulfill it" (q. 17). By way of contrast, the typical Roman Catholic understanding of Adam's original state holds to the necessity of infused righteousness. Roman Catholic theologians typically hold to the idea of the donum superadditum ("superadded gift"). Medieval Roman Catholic theologians, for example, argue that the donum superadditum was a part of the original constitution of man, that it represented his original capacity for righteousness. We see then, from the outset, that man in his fallen state required infused righteousness in the form of the donum superadditum. If man requires infused righteousness in the prefall state, then he would most assuredly require it in his sin-fallen but redeemed state. The original state of man, then, is an issue that must feature in any dialogues over the question of imputation (John Fesko "Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine" Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, pg 372.)

Michael Horton, too, in his "Covenant and Salvation," expands on this concept greatly. "According to the federal theologians, Adam and Eve were never in a state of grace before the fall. Endowed in their creation with all of the requisite gifts for fulfilling God's eschatological purposes, there was nothing lacking requiring a gracious supplement" (194).

If anyone is interested, Horton develops this topic quite extensively, relying on Bavinck's account.

I've looked into this to some degree, and my hope is to discuss it in great detail once I've worked my way through the early church. But it is one of the key differences, and it is one of the distinctions that the Reformers made -- a (very likely unwitting) Roman misunderstanding and accretion that somehow became the law of the land at Trent.

Exhortation to David Waltz

To David Waltz -
In response to his being open to Bahai'ism and stating that he is "testing the spirits", and "checking the fruits", etc. to see if it is true, etc.

"open to the possibility that "Bahai'ism is true" here;

"testing the spirits" and "checking the fruits" (posted by John at 3:58pm)

David -
How can you "test the spirits" (as if it might be true) of something that is non-Christian from the get-go, (and by nature says that Islam was a further development of Christianity - which is impossible and contradictory) since you just said you believed in the Deity of Christ - doesn't make sense at all!

If you have the Spirit of Christ, you can immediately tell that Bahai'ism is a non-Christian religion and a false system and evil (1 Cor. 2:10-16) and it's desire for unity/peace and its message of universalism/Unitarianism is similar to the ungodly desire for unity at the expense of truth at the Tower of Babel - Genesis 11.

If you know Christ as the only way, the only mediator, Savior, and Lord, (and that necessitates the doctrine of the Trinity and the revelation of Christ and His work in the NT being the "final word" = Hebrews 1:1-3; also Jude 3); why would you want to be "open" to anything else?

Someone who knows Christ truly does not seek anything else. Jesus Christ is the treasure and the goal and the truth and the joy! How can you be hungry or thirsty for something else?

There is nothing to add to Christ.

And also Bahai'ism not only "adds", but has to completely re-interpret everything of the Bible and sound Christian doctrine.

Christ is enough; He is the satisfaction - John 7:37-39

John 4:14
If you have truly drunk the water that Christ gives; you would not thirst for something else - Sola Christus!

"whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst"

The one who has truly drank from Christ, will "Never thirst" again for something else!

John 6:35 (New American Standard Bible)

Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst."

Have you ever considered that you could be falling into the trap described by 2 Timothy 3:7 - "always learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth?"

Aquila and Priscilla, itinerants

Down below, David Waltz presented me with a "contradiction" that, well, let me give him the stage:

Me: First, once again, I have not charged you with “intellectual dishonesty”. Second, I would like to present some of Lampe’s positions which I suspect you (as well as K&K) [Kostenberger & Kruger] would not agree with—which, as you probably know, come via the same methods that Lampe uses to arrive at his historical assessments (e.g. form criticism, redaction criticism, et al.). I shall begin with the following from Lampe’s pen:



“The Pastoral letters presuppose Aquila and Prisca still to be in Ephesus (2 Tim 4:19) while Paul is already in Rome. This is one of the historical inconsistencies found in the Pastorals. 



For example, when Paul moved from Ephesus to Macedonia, by no means did Timothy remain behind in Ephesus, as 1 Tim 1:3 supposes: Acts 19:22; 20:1-4; 2 Cor 1:1; Rom 16:21…



How did the author come to the mistake regarding Aquila and Prisca?>> (Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 2003, pp. 158, 159.)



Now, do you believe that “the deutero-Pauline author” (Lampe’s words/take, not mine) of 1 Timothy made a “mistake regarding Aquila and Prisca”? DO YOU DISAGREE WITH LAMPE?

The issue here seems to be that Lampe doesn't accept that 2 Timothy was actually written by Paul. I don't happen to agree with this particular assessment, but I'm not going to discount all the rest of Lampe's work because of it. As I noted below, Carson and Moo give plenty of good reasons why they do think that Paul wrote all 13 letters attributed to him.

As well, I'm a guy who marks up his books. And I have a sticky-note at this very point with the note "Check references to Paul's travels. A few things on this.

In the first place, Aquila and Priscilla's travels (or non-travels) are not a matter of faith. It well could be that they were precisely where Paul, writer of the Pastorals, said they were.

Second, if Kostenberger and Kruger are in the least bit concerned about it, they are New Testament scholars, and they definitely have the means to check out something like that.

Third, I've checked Towner ("Letters to Timothy and Titus", Grand Rapids, Eerdmans); he outlines their travels through Paul's letters, and he does not even seem to be aware of the problem. After noting that they had "at some point migrated (apparently) from [Asia Minor] to Rome," he notes:

Subsequently, at the time when Claudius had expelled all the jews from the imperial city (Acts 18:2), they came to Corinth. They also appear in Paul's letters (Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19). When Paul was en route back to Syria/Antioch, they all stopped off at Ephesus, where Aquila and Priscilla were left (1 Cor 16:19) and Paul began to preach (Acts 18:26). B the time Paul wrote Romans, the couple had returned to Rome (Rom 16:3). Yet at the time of this writing they had apparently returned to Asia Minor, probably in the vicinity of Ephesus (650-651).

It could be that Aquila and Priscilla, like Paul, became itinerant missionaries, and they could well have settled back in Ephesus where they seem to have started.

So if this is the most significant point of contention that you have found (it is first -- do you lead off with your biggest and best?) -- then what else is there?

Um, really? (But let us pray.)

As sometimes happens, a discussion over a relatively minor matter was (most probably accidentally) expanded into a larger concern through a frank admission.

First of all, our co-blogger Ken let us know that:

David Waltz has not returned to Rome - but he is open to Bahai'ism -
see our discussion here at his website- especially in the comboxes.

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/07/seal-of-prophets-is-there.html

"Me: Yes, I remain open to the possibility that the Bahai Faith is true. . . . "

I actually missed that the first time around.  But it gets better.

David Waltz also said in a comment that Blogger apparently ate (since Blogger has been eating comments left and right today, unfortunately mostly to David's detriment): 

you and Rhology are ‘allowed’ a number of worldview and/or ecclesiastical changes in your respective journeys without the worry of derogatory comments being cast your way, but I, who have made fewer changes than either you or Rho, must constantly defend my spiritual journey

Me: 

Um, unthinking heathen -> atheist -> Christian is not very many changes. 1.5 or so. 

He continued:

If I apply your understanding of “change” I have made NONE—I am, and always have been, a Christian.

Me:  

1) No, you haven't always been. You were born an enemy of God.
2) You were once a Jehovah's Witness. Um, that's not Christian.
3) You were once a Roman Catholic. Not Christian either.
4) I have no idea whether you hold to the biblical Gospel, but my educated guess is that you do not.

So no, I'm sorry; your statement is false.

David: 

If JWs are not Christian, what are they? Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim…

So, in reality, though I had begun by thinking this was a relatively minor issue, it is of a much greater concern to all of us, for David, than I had originally thought.  While defending himself from the occasional questioning regarding his spiritual journey and instability, he has honestly and openly called Jehovah's Witness a Christian religion, and it has been revealed that he thinks Baha'i is a live option in the marketplace of ideas.  Let us indeed pray for David Waltz. 

A Brief Carl Trueman review of "The Heresy of Orthodoxy"

It's one thing to work through the historical situation of the early papacy, and show how the thing was *not* there, not in the Scriptures, not in the belief or practice of the early church. It's quite a different thing to reconstruct what *was* there. And that's one of the things I like so much about this work, "The Heresy of Orthodoxy."

Carl Trueman has written a very brief review of this work that I wanted to pass along:

the authors are both New Testament scholars; and their book tackles the influential thesis of Walter Bauer, that what came to triumph in early Christianity was not some primeval orthodoxy but merely one competing vision of Christianity among a host of others. It just happened to be the one that won…

In such a context, this book is a gem, giving both a summary of the Bauer-Ehrman thesis and offering good, solid evidence of its manifold flaws. In the process, the authors deal with the development of the canon, textual transmission, and the relevant bibliography for those who wish to read further. It also has a very helpful concluding chapter (albeit, in my opinion, too brief -- like young Twist, I wanted more cultural criticism, Beadle Kruger!) on why the work of such as Ehrman and Pagels, with its emphasis on diversity, is so appealing in the contemporary cultural context. The book is also thoroughly footnoted throughout, giving plenty of pointers for further reading. All in all, an extraordinarily helpful volume.

Keep in mind as you're reading this, as you see the words "Bauer/Ehrman thesis" or "the flawed thesis of Walter Bauer," you can substitute "the flawed thesis of Newman's development" or "the flawed assumptions about the earliest church made by Roman apologists today."

The work is a sound, biblical based, historically accurate response to all of those things.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

Here's a Beggar's All voyage into the Twilight Zone. Can someone explain to me why a Pro-Roman Catholic website called Chant Cd.Com would take one of my Luther papers and host it on their website? It's actually an older version of this paper. They removed my name.

Update: I wrote them, and they put my name back on the paper. The reason for hosting my paper? "Wider distribution."

I still say my all-time favorite is when we documented Steve Ray selling Luther's Works.

Luther: Reason is directly opposed to faith

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "On Reason":

“Reason is directly opposed to faith, and one ought to let it be; in believers it should be killed and buried.”[Erlangen, Vol. 44, Pg. 156-157. For more quotes in this regard see: “Three Reformers”, By Jacques Maritan, Pg. 34; Cf. also Jean Janssen, L’Allemagne et la Reforme. (Trans. E. Paris, Plon, 1887-1911), Vol VII, pg 427].

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ exhorted his hearers to use reason, while Luther did the opposite. For Luther Exposing the Myth, Christ exhorts his hearers to "be wise" [Matt. 10:16], while Luther says "reason" should be killed and buried. This quote highlights Luther's denigration of human "reason" (a similar quote was discussed here).

Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth cites "Erlangen, Vol. 44, Pg. 156-157. For more quotes in this regard see: “Three Reformers”, By Jacques Maritan, Pg. 34 ; Cf. also Jean Janssen, L’Allemagne et la Reforme. (Trans. E. Paris, Plon, 1887-1911), Vol VII, pg 427." That's quite a lot of documentation, giving the appearance of extensive research (in three different languages!).

"Erlangen, Vol. 44, Pg. 156-157" refers to the Erlangen Edition of Luther's works. This out of print German / Latin edition of Luther's works was published in the 1800's. Here are pages 156-157. This appears to be the text being referred to:

"Three Reformers”, By Jacques Maritan, Pg. 34" is the work of Roman Catholic scholar Jacques Maritain.  Page 33-34 states,

"Reason is contrary to faith," he wrote in 1536. And a little later: "Reason is directly opposed to faith, and one ought to let it be; in believers it should be killed and buried" [Erl., 44, 157-157 (1537-1540).

Jean (Johannes) Janssen's L’Allemagne et la Reforme VII:427 can be found here. There is a discussion of Luther's view of reason, but the quote under scrutiny is not presented (an English translation of page 427 can be found here).  The quote was probably taken from Maritain's book, as Maritain cites Erlangen 44 as his source when citing this Luther quote.

This Luther quote is located in WA 47:328. It's from Luther's Sermon on Matthew 19:13-15. Luther preached through Matthew 18-24 during the years 1537-1540. Technically, Luther did not write this sermon. The text is based on the notes of Georg Rörer who heard Luther preach the sermon.  This sermon is also available in English, translated in LW 68. The quote can be found  in LW 68:22-23. There is also an English translation of the pertinent context of this quote presented by Ewald Plass, What Luther Says Volume 1 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p. 485-486 (entry 1440).

 In this sermon, Luther expounds on Christ's ascribing the kingdom of heaven to children against Anabaptism. The context is quite revealing as to what Luther means.

Context

Again, they argue: How can children believe, seeing that as yet they have no reasoning power? Thus they add reason to faith. To this Christ answers: This is exactly why children can believe better.They cannot reason. For reason is directly opposed to faith. This is why you must let reason go. It must be killed and buried in believers. But the Anabaptists turn reason into a light of faith so that reason may serve faith as a guiding light. I hold that it does shine forth as smudge in a lantern. Christ wants us to turn into veritable children if we desire to come into the kingdom of heaven. He means that, as all reasoning is, so to speak, still buried in children, so reason is also to be killed in all Christian believers. Otherwise faith has no place in them. For reason opposes faith.

For instance, Scripture says that there is only one God, but that in this one, divine Essence there are three distinct Persons:God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. However, these are one Essence and Substance. Now the Turk presently comes with his reason and asks how it is possible for one to be three and three one. Moreover, say they, in a house there must be no more than one lord and host; just so there must be only one God in heaven. — All this is the language of reason. But in this matter you Christian must become a child and say: Indeed, I cannot comprehend this doctrine; but I must become a child,must let myself be carried, touched, and blessed by Christ, and I must believe it. I must close the eyes of reason and not determine how this is possible or impossible; but I must believe and accept the pure, simple Word. The same thing is true of all other articles of faith. When heathen hear that God's natural Son became man, they say: That is impossible. — No doubt it is if reason is asked for advice. But you must let go of reason in this matter, must pay no attention to it,must entirely kill it; otherwise you will not come into the kingdom of heaven. One cannot grasp or comprehend this matter by reason. You must believe the article that Christ was born man in the fullness of time. You must permit yourself to be carried and led to Christ by the divine Word. Then you will partake of the kingdom of heaven. You must become children. This is the place for little children. Little children Christ carries, fondles, embraces, blesses,and says: Of such is the kingdom of heaven. If, then, I permit myself to be carried, Christ gives me His works and His merit and the kingdom of heaven.

The Turk says the same thing about the Lord's Supper: that mere bread and wine are present in it; and, again, that in Baptism there is simple water, such as is poured over the hand. Really now, says he, should this be called a "washing of regeneration,"as is written in the third chapter of the Letter to Titus? —The matter is ridiculous to them; for one can hardly wash a spoon clean with this water. How, then, is one to bathe body and soul with it? Reason cannot comprehend the articles of faith, including the doctrine of the Sacrament of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Therefore the order is: You must become a child and say: I do not understand this. I do indeed see nothing but water and how it is being poured over a little child. But I will gladly be a fool and a child, and I will believe Him when He says that, through the Word, Baptism has the power and might of regeneration and forgiveness of sins [What Luther Says, 1:485-486 (entry 1440)].

Conclusion
Luther actually is arguing for a doctrine Luther Exposing the Myth would adhere to (infant baptism). The reason why Luther saw "reason" as directly opposed to faith is because it deems the things of God to be absurd nonsense. In a traditional concept of faith, faith is put into something that we can empirically or rationally verify. Luther held that by looking at the God of the Bible, one comes to know a “weak and foolish God,” since this God is not known by wisdom and signs (or by a process we can control). The God of the Bible reveals himself in what “reason” would think is foolishness: God is found in a crib, and on a cross.

Luther though, must not be seen as rejecting human reason. He did teach that God had fashioned His human creatures so we could learn a great deal about Him through empirical ways of learning, but reason was always to play the role of a servant. Hence, when one reads strong statements by Luther against reason, one must keep in mind that Luther valued reason, but it must be the handmaid to theology. It must be the servant. It is not that Luther didn’t understand the use of “reason,” it is simply the fact that “reason” must be kept in its place in theological matters.

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

The most fundamentally honest approach that I can imagine

Has anyone here read D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo's "Introduction to the New Testament"? New Testament scholarship has been, over the last 200 years, one of the most hotly contested areas that one can imagine. And yet, it is hard to imagine that there is a New Testament scholar whose work that Carson and Moo have not interacted with.

Who among us would accept the work of F.C. Baur, or Rudolph Bultmann in its totality? And yet, who would not say that their work had a major effect on the study (and our knowledge) of the New Testament?

There are four letters written by Paul that absolutely no one (who is a serious New Testament scholar) would contest. The most unfriendly kinds of critical scholars that we can imagine hold that, of Paul's letters, at a very minimum, Romans, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians are absolutely, unquestionably written by Paul. To one degree or another, others argue that some or all the rest are pseudepigraphical; usually they argue that they were written by someone in Paul's circle of disciples, in his name.

Yet a scholar like Thomas Schreiner (and with him, Carson and Moo) can not only say that they hold all 13 Pauline epistles as authentic (and the works of 1 and 2 Peter to be authentic as well, for example), they are able to say precisely what the theories are of the scholars who disagree with them, and in the process of stating these other theories as clearly as they can, they also argue strenuously for their own (conservative) positions.

This is the most intellectually honest approach that I can imagine, and it's one that I try to emulate. And as a result of their work, and contra someone like Mark Noll, it's possible to say that conservative, evangelical biblical scholarship is more well-respected in critical circles than it has ever been.

* * *

David Waltz stopped by last night to accuse me of intellectual inconsistency. It's funny, he's always so cheerful with me, who would have guessed that he harbored such doubts?

He said: I still cannot help but suspect that his anti-Roman Catholic bias has some negative ramifications on his research and beliefs.

David, you have got this precisely backwards.

I do not hide the fact that I dislike the Roman Catholic Church. I came out of that organization and religion after a long personal struggle, one that has occupied most of my life.

Briefly, I grew up as "a good Catholic boy" from the ethnic neighborhoods of Pittsburgh; I heard the Gospel® as a young man, and saw it lived out in the lives of some friends -- one good friend from my closest circle was a Baptist, (and yes, we argued religion), and others were from more Charismatic circles. I admired them for their adherence to their faith. I moved around back then (late 70's, early 80's) -- and I moved from Charismatic Catholic circles to Protestant Charismatics, and several years later I landed in a Reformed Baptist church with a pastor who has become a lifelong friend.

Some time later, other friends were starting up a fellowship for "completed Jews," Jewish believers who wished to express that Jesus was their messiah. Don't you know, that fellowship had some serious difficulties determining who was in charge -- who would set the theological theme for that body: the pastor, who had studied at a very fine southern seminary (and whom they brought in just because of that fact), or the church council, among them major donors, in whose homes the fellowship began, and whose large donations helped to secure the mortgage on the building that they purchased.

It was about that time that I went back to the Roman Catholic church, on the ground that "such disputes had been fought and settled in the early church."

I don't mind to say that I was naive at that time. At that time I was devoted enough to have thought I wanted to study to become a priest. Over a several-year period of time, I considered both the diocesan and the religious priesthood -- and at one point I had applied for and was accepted into a local seminary program. Some time later, I married. My wife and I have six children. I attended Opus Dei "Evenings of Recollection" for about two years.

In my lifetime, I have earned the right to have a "bias" against the Roman Catholic Church. My "beliefs" have been shaped by a willingness to give the Roman church far, far more benefit of the doubt than it ever deserved. My "beliefs," far from being shaped by a bias, were forged in the process of having wholly abandoned myself and my life and my family's life into the bosom of "Mother Church," the much vaunted authority of which, the further in I got, seemed to be further and further contrived.

I won't go into details about the Seminarian friend (St. Mary's, Baltimore) who was a daily communicant at the same time I was, whose masses I attended after he was ordained, who put the homosexual moves on me. Nor will I go into details about the parish priest who married my wife and me, who baptized our children, who playfully licked my three-year-old son's face (pretending to be a puppy). I won't go into the details of how he was one of the "pedophile priests" who was at first moved, and only later de-frocked. There are some horrific details that go along with his name, and I could give you his name and you could Google him and find the news stories about him. (And in fact I have sent his name and some links to my friends and fellow bloggers here for corroboration).

* * *

But such issues genuinely are peripheral to the issue at hand. As James Swan often says, if you're going to tell a story, tell the story of Christ -- the Gospels of Jesus, and Paul's Gospel, and Peter's Gospel, and the truthfulness and the trustworthiness and the authority of Scripture.

As for my "research," I read everything that's available that I can get my hands on. I'm a 50-year-old man with a wife and a family -- and some of the folks here know some of the difficulties that my family has been through in recent years. I don't have access to a seminary library, and with it, the research journals that might put a finer and more current touch on some of what I've been reading. I am not a scholar, though I would like to be one. Still, that does not mean I am not taking the most fundamentally honest approach that I can take.

But there is nothing I'm writing, that I am aware of, that is being intellectually dishonest with the materials. If anything, what I am finding is that there is a flood-tide of scholarship that is coming to "anti-Catholic" conclusions -- including the work of such Catholic writers as Raymond Brown, Eamon Duffy, Robert Eno, Francis Sullivan, Klaus Schatz, and others.

One might go so far as to suggest that David Waltz does not understand what it is that he is reading -- the particular conclusions that make a scholar liberal or conservative, or how they arrive at those conclusions. What might be agreed with or disagreed with, and on what basis.

The name Raymond Brown comes up among some of the more traditionalist and devoted Catholic folks, as if Brown was somehow a traitor. But I have (briefly) studied Greek under an individual who knew Brown personally. Raymond Brown was, in my opinion, one of the best friends that some of these conservative Catholics could have. They don't know it, but Brown's method was (a) to study the critical sources and know them the best that he could, while (b) not moving beyond what positions that "the Magisterium" had staked out. In doing this, he was one individual (among others) who prevented Roman Catholicism in its traditional form from sliding completely into the hole that the ultramontanist, ultra-anti-modernist popes dug with their defiant cries of "I AM Tradition" and their anti-modernist oaths. Without scholars like Raymond Brown, the Roman hierarchy would have died the death of a complete laughingstock, drunk on its own imagined sense of authority.

And I'll give you an example of it. Near the end of the Brown/Meier work "Antioch and Rome", Brown was worried that his conclusions would be dismissed because he was too Roman Catholic.

"On both sides many scholars oversimplify the historical situation, agreeing only that for better or worse I Clement had remarkable success in shaping future church thought.

The discussion is not facilitated by the fact that the underlying motif is often a conflicting view of church organization today. The battle offer the unimpassioned pages of I Clement is often a surrogate for a battle between the impassioned descendants of the Reformers and of Trent; and since I am a Roman Catholic, I rather doubt I shall be judged objective about the issue. (pg 177, emphasis in original).

David Waltz said: For instance, John eagerly endorses the critical German scholar Lampe concerning the status of the Roman church/s during the 1st and 2nd centuries, and then thoroughly recommends Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger's The Heresy of Orthodoxy which is at odds with some important conclusions of Lampe.

David, I would like for you to show me where you think I might disagree with Lampe, or where you think Kostenberger and Kruger might disagree with him. Perhaps you're willing to tell me just how the work of these individuals is at odds and then we can discuss the specifics of it, and only then you can genuinely begin to charge me with intellectual dishonesty. Or not.

But I'll do you one better. Kostenberger and Kruger approvingly can cite Baukham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," even though Kostenberger also wrote a substantial (and substantially critical) article taking issue with Baukham's conclusion that someone other than the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.

Such a disagreement neither negates the validity of the rest of Baukham's highly significant work, nor does it make Kostenberger somehow "intellectually dishonest" for both (a) citing Baukham while (b) disagreeing with some of his conclusions. Kostenberger has shown that he is well prepared to talk about where he agrees and where he disagrees with Baukham, and he is well prepared to say exactly why. It is the very same method used by Carson, Moo, and Schreiner that I've alluded to in the opening section of this post.

* * *

David Waltz: the fact that John, James White, and many other epologists are willing to solicit liberal, critical scholarship ONLY when it furthers their aggenda/s, whilst denying the same method to their opponents, is an all too common practice—that you do not discern commonality and/or inconsistency here is a bit troubling...

I've mentioned just recently that there is a confluence in the work of some of these scholars, and I'll give you one more such example, a blatant one at that:

http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/a-positive-view-of-christian-foundations/

Harvey Cox, who no conservative Christian would consider an ally, recently summarized the work of the Jesus Seminar: while setting out to disprove much about history, in the process they proved he was a first century Palestinian Jew who claimed to be God and who was crucified under Pontius Pilate; his disciples fanned out to the world with the story that he was raised from the dead. Cox said:

“Despite widespread discrepancies among the researchers, some things were not contested. All agreed that Jesus really had existed, and that he was a first-century Palestinian Jew living under the heel of a Roman occupation that – like many such occupations before and since – had split its captive people into feuding sects and warring factions. They also agreed that he was a rabbi who taught the imminent coming of the kingdom of God, and gained a following as a teacher and a healer in Galilee, especially among the landless and destitute, but that he aroused the ire of the nervous ruling religious circles and the tense Roman authorities. When he and some of his followers arrived in Jerusalem for the Passover holidays he caused a stir in the Temple, was arrested, interrogated, and executed by crucifixion, a form of death by torture reserved by the Romans for those suspected of subverting their imperial rule. But after his death, his followers insisted that he had appeared to them alive, and they continued to spread his message even in the face of harsh persecution.” (Harvey Cox, “When Jesus Came to Harvard,” ©2004, pgs 18-19).

Even “critical scholarship” is confirming the facts of the life and death of Jesus Christ. We have come a long way since the days when the someone like Bertrand Russell could say that Jesus didn’t even exist.

So yes, I've not failed to cite this aspect of Cox, a thoroughly liberal thinker -- but I am not the one straying into the liberal camp here. Rather, it is Cox who has been forced, by the facts and evidence, to admit such things that the vast majority of his liberal fellows can only cringe at.

This is a Harvey Cox conclusion that we can agree with. But we also know precisely where we would disagree with him. Such is the nature of the confluence of conservative and critical scholarship. And guess what? No one is being intellectually dishonest here.

Whitaker's Eighth Argument

Whitaker's eighth argument defending Sola Scriptura can be summarized (with a small amount of liberty) as follows:

P₁. The oral revelation given to the patriarchs did not require the authority of the Church to authenticate it; the patriarchs believed it upon receiving it by virtue of hearing God speak.

P₂. The written revelation of the canon is of the same kind and authority as the oral revelation given to the patriarchs.

Therefore,

C. The canon does not require the authority of the Church to authenticate it to us; it should be received in the same manner as the patriarchs received oral revelation.

Whitaker seems to draw additional support for the immediate reception of God's words in P₁. from an appeal to Romans 2:15, where Paul says that God's law is written on our hearts. This belief in the law comes, therefore, not from the testimony of the Church. (I would add that this is especially the case since the subject of Romans 2:15 is gentiles who have never heard the law before.) But if the law, which is natural, can be discerned without the Church, how much more the Gospel, which "transcends all nature, and therefore needs some greater kind of confirmation" (the greater confirmation, according to Whitaker, being the Holy Spirit).

I'd add my own support for P₂. by noting that God communicates his Words through ordinary means. The patriarchs either audibly heard God speak to them or used the mind's "ear." In either case, physical processes (for even the latter arguably required some level of brain function) were utilized to obtain mental understanding. There doesn't seem to be a significant or functional difference between this and reading or hearing the Words of God in the written canon. If this process of knowing God's Word was valid for the patriarchs, why would it be invalid for Protestants?

Those who are devoted to the interests of the Vatican....

I came across this nugget after a number of hours trying to track down a context to a Luther quote:

The venerable champions of Protestantism, the Rev. Joseph Mendham and the Rev. George Stanley Faber, repeatedly warn their readers to accept with the greatest reserve and caution any statement, theological or otherwise, of a startling nature from the pen of a Romanist, and to reject it until verified by a careful examination of the originals. But, as their testimony may be deemed partial, I will add the remarkable testimony given in the Translator's preface of Dr. Dollinger's "Fables respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages," a translation undertaken with the sanction of the author,—himself a Romanist. The charge of literary fraud indulged in by Roman Catholic writers is thus delicately expressed :—

"It is impossible to live long among those who are devoted to the interests of the Vatican, or to read much of the literature that is written in support of those interests, without feeling that the conception of truth entertained by those advocates is a saddening travesty of the sacred reality. In some cases the sense of truth, the love of truth for its own sake,— nay, even the very power of discriminating between truth and falsehood,—seems almost lost"!

source and primary source

By the way, the quote I was looking for turned out to be spurious. Of course, not every person in communion with Rome quotes sources poorly. However, in my Luther studies, more often than not, truth is slain in the street.

Covenant, Canon, and the New Testament Church

Now that the fireworks of the last few days have subsided, I've wanted to get back to Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger's (2010) "The Heresy of Orthodoxy" (Wheaton IL: Crossway).

As I noted in a previous post, while the stated topic of this work was to deal with what's known as the "Bauer/Ehrman" thesis, it also has extraordinary implications for Bryan Cross's unique and novel concept of "Ecclesial Deism". As he has noted:

Deism refers to a belief that God made the world, and then left it to run on its own. It is sometimes compared to “a clockmaker” winding up a clock and then “letting it run.” Deism is distinct from theism in that theism affirms not only that God created the world, but also that God continually sustains and governs all of creation.

Ecclesial deism is the notion that Christ founded His Church, but then withdrew, not protecting His Church’s Magisterium (i.e., the Apostles and/or their successors) from falling into heresy or apostasy. Ecclesial deism is not the belief that individual members of the Magisterium could fall into heresy or apostasy. It is the belief that the Magisterium of the Church could lose or corrupt some essential of the deposit of faith, or add something to the deposit of faith.

There are a couple of things wrong with this definition. First, Bryan anachronistically reads the concept of "magisterium" back into the earliest church. He also misunderstands not only what "the church" is (or rather, he superimposes his own impressions back on it, but he also misunderstands (or mis-states) what's actually being promised to "the one true church" in John 16:13.

In reality, it was not a "magisterium" that the earliest church had, but the concept of "covenant", and while the title of this work deals with heresy and orthodoxy, it could, in fact, have been entitled "Canon and Covenant."

The authors not only identify core orthodox doctrines (and locate the church within the doctrines -- not vice versa), but they also describe how the concept of covenant always brought with it the requirement for a written copy of the covenant documents -- which not only were kept in holy shrines, but which were also to be "read publicly at regular intervals."

"The new covenant documents are no exception to this overall pattern," they write. "The religious world of Judaism had already anticipated the reality" not only of God's covenant in Israel, but a "New Covenant" sealed by Christ's blood. And they point to the "clear expectation that this new covenant, like the old covenant, would be accompanied by the appropriate written texts to testify to the terms of the new arrangement that Gd was establishing with his people." So, rather than being an after thought, "the canon is a concept that has been indelibly part of the life of God's people from the very state of the nation of Israel," and thus, they were a part of the thinking of the earliest communities of Christians.

This work is incredibly valuable, as well, in providing a Scripture-based account that's totally at odds with the "ecclesial deism" assumption.

Because this work is so helpful, my hope is to work through this book in a way that is a bit longer than one might expect in a simple review.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction: The Contemporary Battle to Recast the Origins of the New Testament and Early Christianity.

Part 1: The Heresy of Orthodoxy: Pluralism and the Origins of the New Testament

1. The Bauer-Ehrman Thesis: Its Origins and Influence

2. Unity and Plurality: How DIverse Was Early Christianity?

3. Heresy in the New Testament: How Early Was It?

Part 2: Picking the Books: Tracing the Development of the New Testament Canon

4. Starting in the Right Place: The Meaning of Canon in Early Christianity

5. Interpreting the Historical Evidence: The Emerging Canon in Early Christianity

6. Establishing the Boundaries: Apocryphal Books and the Limits of the Canon

Part 3: Changing the Story: Manuscripts, Scribes, and Textual Transmission

7. Keepers of the Text: How Were Texts Copied and Circulated in the Ancient World?

8. Tampering with the Text: Was The New Testament Text Changed Along the Way?

Concluding Appeal: The Heresy of Orthodoxy in a Topsy-Turvy World

Again, while the authors make these points in the context of interacting with the Bauer/Ehrman thesis, point-by-point, I found myself agreeing with them as point-by-point, they address what Roman Catholics continually represent as the key core weakness of Protestantism, "that 'Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible.'"

The Reformers' doctrine of Scripture is not only incredibly biblical, but it is also the case that "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass," including the development of the canon as a means of guiding His one true church into all truth.

Luther: Reason is the Devil's Handmaid

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "On Reason":

“Reason is the devils handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonor all that God says or does”[Against the Heavenly Prophets, On Images and the Sacraments].

This is a Luther quote allegedly denigrating "reason" (a similar quote was discussed here). Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ exhorted his hearers to use reason, while Luther did the opposite.

Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Against the Heavenly Prophets, On Images and the Sacraments" without a page number or any other bibliographic information. It may have been taken from this secondary source: Verbum the newsletter of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield, CT, Spring 1985. Note the similarities:

Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1525) was written against Luther's former colleague Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt. It can be found in WA 18:62-125, 134-214 (Wider die himmlischen Propheten, von den Bildern und Sakramen). It has been translated into English in LW 40. The quote can be found on page 174.


Context
In this treatise, Luther expresses (among other things) his harsh disagreement with Karlstadt over the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Karlstadt held the body and blood of Christ are not in the sacrament. Luther argues against Karlstadt's Biblical argumentation for a number of pages, and then states:

Let this be our answer to the arguments and reasons that Dr. Karlstadt presents for his dream from Scripture. They were threefold. First, a capital letter is found in some books, not all. Second, there was a punctuation mark. Third, the dear touto. What wonderful arguments, which no one would use except such heavenly prophets, who hear the voice of God. A fourth now is, that he cannot present a single verse of Scripture in his favor. This is the most damaging argument and will forever remain so. I shall not overthrow it but will rather strengthen it. Furthermore he teaches us what Frau Hulda, natural reason, has to say in the matter, just as if we did not know that reason is the devil’s prostitute and can do nothing else but slander and dishonor what God does and says. But before we answer this arch-prostitute and devil’s bride, we first want to prove our faith, not by setting forth capitals or periods or touto tauta but by clear, sober passages from Scripture which the devil will not overthrow [LW 40:174].

Luther's Works explain the reference to Frau Hulda:

In Germanic mythology, Frau Hulda is the name of the leader of a group of elfin creatures who were looked upon as the instigators of good and evil among men. Like them Frau Hulda is of a capricious nature, now friendly, now hostile especially in times when disorder arises among men. She may therefore be regarded as a personification of order and clever reasoning. However, in matters of faith Luther looked upon reason as seductive, hence as “the devil’s prostitute.” [LW 40:174, fn 134].

Luther doesn't begin to delve into Karlstadt's arguments from "reason" until later in the treatise (LW 40:192). Luther's arguments presented previously actually use "reason' in the sense that Luther is arguing from a grammatical and exegetical basis. When he attacks Karlstadt for using "reason," he's attacking him for attempting to explain Biblical data rationally. For Luther, reason can only say bread is bread. For Luther though, only the heart of faith can grasp Christ's words concerning the bread "this is my body." The senses will only lead one to believe that bread is bread.

Conclusion
In this instance, Luther actually is arguing for a doctrine Luther Exposing the Myth would adhere to (Christ's presence in the Eucharist). Such is what happens when a context is ignored. This "reason" comment from Luther is one of many similar statements peppered throughout his writings. In the book, The Foolishness of God,  Lutheran theologian Siegbert Becker begins his treatment on Luther and reason with the following comments from Luther: "Reason is a big red murderess, the devil's bride, a damned whore, a blind guide, the enemy of faith, the greatest and most invincible enemy of God." Such comments have been seized upon by many. Becker then contrasts these statements with the following from Luther:

Reason is God's greatest and most important gift to man, of inestimable beauty and excellence, a glorious light, a most useful servant in theology, something divine. [Siegbert Becker,The Foolishness of God (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1999, p. 1].

These later comments have not been seized upon by many. Obviously, there's a lot more going on than Luther Exposing the Myth expresses by using a single out of context quote. Luther Exposing the Myth at least accurately identified the treatise from which it took the quote, Against the Heavenly Prophets, On Images and the Sacraments. Other than that, this obscure quote is a typical propaganda hit: ignoring context, history, and theological presuppositions.

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Saint Hippolytus, Antipope, on Pope Callistus

And it came to pass that the One True Church of Rome, through its medieval adventures in self-love, and though it never changes ("semper eadem"), actually lost touch with an actual early tradition, the ancient rite of baptism, it having become replaced by "no more than a formula recited over the one to be baptized by the priest who administers the sacrament." This is from Joseph Ratzinger in his "Principles of Catholic Theology" (pg 34). Ratzinger goes on to cite Saint Hippolytus on baptism:

"In recent times, to has become no more than a formula recited over the one to be baptized by the priest who administers the sacrament. But this was not always the case. In the early Church it had, evening the fourth or fifth century, the form of a dialogue. According to the Traditio Apostolica of Hippolytus of Rome, which dates from the third century, but is, nevertheless, to a large extent representative also of the earlier form of baptism, the officiating priest asked first: "Do you believe in God the Father, the Lord of all?" To this, the catechumen responded: "I do believe". Thereupon he was immersed in water. There followed a question about the Son, which was similar in content to the christological articles of our Apostles' Creed, and a question about the Holy Spirit, after each of which the catechumen was again immersed in water. He was then anointed with the baptismal oil. It is clear from what has been said that the baptismal formula was, in its oldest form, a confession of faith.

In the context of "ancient unwritten traditions," this is one of those that has been mentioned earlier, although, one might ask, how, if "tradition" and especially "the unwritten traditions of the Apostles" was so important to the early church, how in the world did they lose it?"

I say this to make a point about how highly Hippolytus is regarded -- what an exceptionally fine source he has become of historical information about the early Roman church. Because he is also an exceptional source for other things as well.

Here is a line from Hippolytus that Roman Catholics of our day are not likely to like: "He who is ordained as a bishop, being chosen by all the people, must be irreproachable."

We won't bother to trace either the source or the history of THAT saying at this time, but my point in writing today is to provide the "primary source" for Alexander Greco, who asked for it.

On p. 119 of Lampe, he is quoting a portion of this section from Hippolytus below. Also provided is the Greek text, which is found in Migne among the works of Origen. It seems as if Lampe provided his own translation which differs a little from the translation below which is found in the Schaff series.

Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236): And the hearers of Callistus (bishop, c. 217-22) being delighted with his tenets, continue with him, thus mocking both themselves as well as many others, and crowds of these dupes stream together into his school. Wherefore also his pupils are multiplied, and they plume themselves upon the crowds (attending the school) for the sake of pleasures which Christ did not permit. But in contempt of Him, they place restraint on the commission of no sin, alleging that they pardon those who acquiesce (in Callistus’ opinions). For even also he permitted females, if they were unwedded, and burned with passion at an age at all events unbecoming, or if they were not disposed to overturn their own dignity through a legal marriage (διὰ τοῦ νομίμως γαμηθῆναι), that they might have whomsoever they would choose as a bedfellow, whether a slave or free (εἴτε οἰκέτην εἴτε ἐλεύθερον), and that a woman, though not legally married, might consider such a companion as a husband. Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth (διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν καὶ ὑπέρογκον οὐσίαν). Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church! And some, under the supposition that they will attain prosperity, concur with them. During the episcopate of this one, second baptism was for the first time presumptuously attempted by them. These, then, (are the practices and opinions which) that most astonishing Callistus established, whose school continues, preserving its customs and tradition, not discerning with whom they ought to communicate, but indiscriminately offering communion to all. And from him they have derived the denomination of their cognomen; so that, on account of Callistus being a foremost champion of such practices, they should be called Callistians. ANF: Vol. V, The Refutation of All Heresies, Book IX, Chapter VII.

Greek text: οὗ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ ἡσθέντες τοῖς δόγμασι διαμένουσιν ἐμπαίζοντες ἑαυτοῖς τε καὶ πολλοῖς, ὧν τῷ διδασκαλείῳ συρρέουσιν ὄχλοι. Διὸ καὶ πληθύνονται, γαυριώμενοι ἐπὶ ὄχλοις διὰ τὰς ἡδονάς, ἃς οὐ συνεχώρησεν ὁ Χριστός· οὗ καταφρονήσαντες οὐδέν ἁμαρτεῖν κωλύουσι, φάσκοντες αὐτὸν ἀφιέναι τοῖς εὐδοκοῦσι. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ γυναιξὶν ἐπέτρεψεν, εἰ ἄνανδροι εἶεν καὶ ἡλικίᾳ γε ἐκκαίοντο ἀναξίᾳ, ἠ ἑαυτῶν ἀξίαν μὴ βούλοιντο καθαιρεῖν διὰ τοῦ νομίμως γαμηθῆναι, ἔχειν ἕνα, ὃν ἂν αἱρήσωνται σύγκοιτον, εἴτε οἰκέτην εἴτε ἐλεύθερον, καὶ τοῦτον κρίνειν ἀντὶ ἀνδὸς μὴ νόμῳ γεγαμημένην. Ἐνθεν ἤρξαντο ἐπιχειρεῖν πισταὶ λεγόμεναι ἀτοκίοις φαρμάκοις καὶ περιδεσμεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸ τὰ συλλαμβανόμενα καταβάλλειν, διὰ τὸ μήτε ἐκ δούλου βούλεσθαι ἔχειν τέκνον μήτε ἐξ εὐτελοῦς, διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν καὶ ὑπέρογκον οὐσίαν. Ὁρᾶτε εἰς ὅσην ἀσέβειαν ἐχώρησενὁ ἄνομος μοιχείαν καὶ φόνον ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ διδάσκων· καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις τοῖς τολμήμασιν ἑαυτοὺς οἱ ἀπηρυθριασμένοι καθολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν ἀποκαλεῖν ἐπιχειροῦσι, καὶ τινες νομίζοντες εὖ πράττειν συντρέχουσιν αὐτοῖς. Ἐπὶ τούτου πρῶτως τετόλμηται δεύτερον αὐτοῖς βάπτισμα. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὁ θαυμασιώτατος Κάλλιστος συνεστήσατο, οὗ διαμένει τὸ διδασκαλεῖον φυλάσσον τὰ ἔθη καὶ τὴν παράδοσιν, μὴ διακρῖνον, τίσι δεῖ κοινωνεῖν, πᾶσιν δʼ ἀκρίτως προσφέρον τὴν κοινωνίαν· ἀφʼ οὗ καὶ τὴν τοῦ ὀνόματος μετέσχον ἐπίκλησιν καλεῖσθαι διὰ τὸν πρωτοστατήσαν τῶν τοιούτων ἔργων Κάλλιστον Καλλιστιανοί. Philosophumena sive Omnium Haeresium Refutatio, Liber IX, §12, PG 16C:3386-3387. (This work by Hippolytus is found in Migne among the corpus of Origen).

Source. (HT: DTKing)

Meet and Greet with John Bugay

James has asked those of us who are contributors here to provide a listing of our favorite posts, both here and at our other blogs. So I've taken the time to go through some of my older posts, and having done this for a while, I'm genuinely amazed at the volume of information that I've processed:

My favorite posts at Beggars All:

The See of Peter -- this contains, among other things, a list of links to some of the other posts on the early papacy.

The Birth of the Inquisition -- this link has other links to the selections from Paul Johnson's "History of Christianity".

The Roman Catholic Hermeneutic-- If you're going to interact with Roman Catholics on topics of history or doctrine or Scripture, it's absolutely essential to understand how that institution officially has handled information over the centuries.

The Integrity of the New Testament Canon -- Even though some New Testament writings are said to be pseudepigraphical (and that case is not proven), it is clear that many scholars consider all of the potentially pseudepigraphical works in the NT to be authentic, on a case-by-case basis, there is very good attestation for each of the individual books.

Christianity is Growing but Rome is Sinking -- 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.

The Bryan Cross Method Alert -- I'm convinced that Bryan's method of argumentation is inherently dishonest, and I say why here.

Why I Chose the "Reformation500" Theme -- It's going to be a tremendous opportunity to remember where we came from.

From Reformation500@WordPress.com

A Few Words About My Method

Thumbs up or thumbs down on Rome -- So frequently, the argument is, "Protestantism is lacking in "x"; therefore, Rome is infallible." But that is not the proper way to look at things.

The Unity of the Church -- There is only one church; this selection from A.A. Hodge is a brilliant description of it.

How Catholics Misuse Scripture:

Ratzinger's Dishonesty about Exegesis -- Ratzinger has deceived the reader in two ways here. He has posited a very tight little circle, in which the Roman Catholic Church’s “authority” is based not on argument, not on proof, but on assumptions. And his “bait and switch” upon the word exegesis – beginning to “examine” exegesis and then substituting his own, non-exegetical “controlling function” is fundamentally and extremely dishonest.

1 Tim 3:15: The pillar and ground of the truth -- 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.

John 16:13: On being guided into all truth -- But what does this verse really say? What does it promise? I’ve consulted two commentaries on John, both D.A. Carson (1991) and Andreas Kostenberger (2004) for clarification.

The Real Body of Christ -- Those who want to suggest that “the Church” is somehow the “ongoing incarnation of Christ” ignore the fact that Christ ascended. Having “Christ everywhere” (whether in the Thomistic view of the “sacramental” presence of Christ in the Eucharist” or in some kind of “ongoing incarnation”) ignore, in Calvin’s words, his “specificity as a particular man. Christ everywhere really means that Jesus of Nazareth is nowhere.”

The Catholic Historical Method -- Aiden Nichols, “The Shape of Catholic Theology” (253) notes that for the last several hundred years, according to these popes, “the theologian’s highest task lies in proving the present teachings of the magisterium from the evidence of the ancient sources.”

The nonexistent early papacy

The Spice Woman and the Symmachan Forgeries -- 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."

"One of the Greatest Hoaxes" -- A choice quote from Dr. Robert Reymond on the early papacy.

While History is Confirming Christ, It's Devastating to the Early Papacy -- Conservative Protestants have nothing to fear from a study of history. The same cannot be said of the history of the papacy. The more we know about it, the more its foundations crumble."

Newman's Historical Concession -- In formulating his famous "theory of development," Newman conceded many of the historical details that I've talked about here. Catholics love citing Newman, but some of them don't really know what he said.


Older things:

Why I am not a Roman Catholic -- Roman Catholicism is a false religion. It is headed by an imposter, a man who claims to be something he is not. The Pope is not the Vicar of Christ, he is not the head of the Christian Church, he is not a "Holy Father," and I owe him no fealty, honor, nor respect in the religious sense. Roman Catholicism is a man-made perversion of the truth.

My Main Thesis -- "The Roman Catholic Church is Not What it Says It Is." It claims a lot for itself. But these claims are boastful, false, and worse.

The Turning Point of Modern History -- Schaff's introduction to the history of the Reformation.

A Positive Vision -- there are many true Christians within that body, who are members of Christ in spite of Catholic teaching (certainly not because of it).

Ten theses for Protestant/Catholic dialogue -- from the Cambridge Declaration.

(I've gone through these links fairly carefully, but if you find something that's not working properly, please let me know.)

Epistemological Paradigms

"If you want to compare unity and disunity, compare the adherences to the competing rules of faith."

Defining Perspicuity

In light of a recent discussion with Matthew Bellisario, here is Frame on the perspicuity of Scripture:

29. The Clarity of Scripture

Discussions of Scripture in Reformed theology have often included reflection on certain "attributes" of Scripture, particularly necessity, authority, clarity (or "perspicuity"), and sufficiency....

It is therefore the doctrine of biblical clarity that will occupy our attention in this chapter. The Westminster Confession of Faith formulates this doctrine as follows at 1.7:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

This is a carefully nuanced statement, with important qualifications. It is directed against the attempts in the Roman Catholic Church of the time to keep the laity from studying Scripture on their own. The Roman Church feared that if laymen were to interpret Scripture for themselves, they would come up with unorthodox, even bizarre interpretations of it. That fear, as we can now observe, was not groundless.

However, Scripture itself (as in Deut. 8:3; Ps. 19:7; 119; Matt. 4:4) says that God’s written word is for everybody. We live by it. The Confession, of course, agrees. Nevertheless, the Confession’s statement does not encourage autonomous or lawless Bible study. It does not make every layman an expert in Scripture. It recognizes that not every part of Scripture is equally clear to everybody. Laymen, indeed all Christians, need to watch their step in studying the Bible. There are mysteries in Scripture beyond anyone’s understanding, and there are many things in Scripture that we cannot understand without more knowledge of the languages of Scripture and its cultural background.

So, the Confession also says that those who would study Scripture should be humble enough to seek help. The kind of Bible study it recommends is not individualistic. One should make "due use of the ordinary means." Those ordinary means include the church’s preaching and teaching. That teaching is not, however, as in the Roman church, an inflexible set of conclusions with which all Bible students must agree. Rather, it seeks to guide believers into paths by which we can progress in our knowledge of God, even beyond the levels attained by our teachers.

Prayer and the Holy Spirit are also means available to every Christian in Bible study. Involvement with God himself, the author of Scripture, draws us toward a greater understanding of the truth. So our understanding of Scripture is not directly proportional to the amount of education we have. It is for "not only the learned, but the unlearned."

A further qualification is that this level of clarity does not apply to everything in Scripture. It pertains to "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation." Now in this book, I have opposed distinctions between "matters of salvation" and "matters of cosmology, history, and science" in several contexts. In Chapter 24, 25, and 27 I have opposed the idea that Scripture’s purpose is redemptive in a narrow sense, so that it is not authoritative on other matters, and I will make similar points in regard to the Comprehensiveness and Sufficiency of Scripture. I do not think that Scripture’s purpose can be defined that narrowly, and, given the nature of salvation in Scripture, I don’t think it is possible to draw a sharp line in Scripture between "matters of salvation" and other matters.

Nevertheless, there is a legitimate distinction to be drawn within Scripture between what a person is required to know for salvation and what he is not. Nobody would claim, for example, that a person will go to Hell if he does not understand the difference between guilt offerings and trespass offerings in Leviticus. These are certainly "matters of salvation," but they are not matters one must know in order to be saved. So the Confession is not making the sort of distinction I have been opposing. I would say that everything in Scripture is a "matter of salvation," i.e. significantly related to salvation. But a person can be saved even if he does not know or understand some things in the Bible. The clarity of Scripture pertains to those fundamentals that constitute a credible profession of Christ.

(Source.)

The reason [rooted in history] why the Roman Catholic Church calls it annulment and not divorce

At some level, even the Roman Catholic Church feels it is beholden to its history. In this case, it is beholden to an early bishop of Rome, Callistus, who made a decision that would enable the Roman church to retain its appeal to women from wealthy families.

On the topic of marriage as a sacrament from the earliest times, Peter Lampe notes the origin of the practice by which the Roman church operated outside of civil rules for marriage: "...it is crystal clear in Hippolytus that from aristocratic circles more women than men found their way to Christianity. The disproportion was a social problem that Callistus during his term as Roman bishop (c. 217-22) attempted to solve. The problem undoubtedly had existed since the end of the second century, if not longer.

When women from the noble class were unmarried and in the heat of their youthful passion desired to marry and yet were unwilling to give up their class through a legal marriage, he [Callistus] allowed them to choose a partner, whether slave or free, and to consider him to be their husband without a legal marriage. From that time on the alleged believing women began to resort to contraceptive methods and to corset themselves in order to cause abortions, because, on account of their lineage and their enormous wealth, they did not wish to have a child from a slave or a commoner.

From Peter Lampe, "From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries," pg 119.

He elaborates:

A Christian woman [from a wealthy family] who wished to retain the title "clarissima" had two options. She could marry a pagan of the same social status and forego marriage wtih a socially inferior Christian. Or she could live in concubinage with a socially inferior Christian without being legally married. This second option received the blessings of Callistus in Rome. In this way he prevented two things: mixed marriages with pagans and the social decline of Christian women. Both were in the interests of the community. (121)

This is why Rome can say that it has mastery over marriage -- why, even though a couple may take vows, have any number of children, ask for and pay for an annulment, and voila, "the marriage never existed."

And that's why they can say they don't permit divorce. Because if they were to use the usual sense of the language, then they would have to admit that Callistus's end-run around the usual definition of what was a legal marriage was really an instance of permitting unmarried couples to live in sin. And of course, the pope is infallible. So they're stuck defending this set-up.

Two Bioethics Book Recommendations

@ Alex, you won't have an answer that will sufficiently quench your thirst in the pursiut of truth especially in the issues of LIFE (where the Author of Life is God Himself), WHY? well, because these folks here without admitting (self-denial) - that they lack any organic Apostolic authority to pass, declare and promulgate and make a binding teaching. (viz. artificial contraceptio, gay-marriage, abortion etc)

For Pete's sake they don't even agree with their "founding fathers" so why do we take their word seriously? (Jae, Contra Liccione on the Canon Question, 4:14 PM, August 18, 2010)

As Jae's criticisms remind us, it's a popular strategy for Catholics to assert that Protestants have neither an authoritative nor unified stance on controversial bioethical issues. Whatever problems are to be identified in Jae's approach (and there are several), modern bioethical issues are challenging to navigate. However, this is far from saying that Scripture doesn't provide clear direction on these matters. For lay Protestants interested in working through these issues, I'd like to recommend two books:

Bioethics and the Christian Life: A Guide to Making Difficult Decisions (VanDrunen)

Bioethics: A Primer for Christians (Meilaender)

I think VanDrunen's is the superior of the two (and probably the best book I've read this year), although I still recommend Meilaender's because, among other things, VanDrunen himself draws on the work approvingly.

Quick, fun blurb on the RC view of the Scripture

Alexander Greco said (well, more or less)...

And yet you still can't tell us if this here RC buzzword, this other issue that should be redefined as "annulment in disguise", this other thing that virtually all evangelicals and Reformed reject, this here noble action, this huge RC buzzword, etc. are in keeping with the Gospel. The only reason why you reject homosexuality is because Scripture says so, but even at that point you are at a loss as to why.

2:38 PM, August 18, 2010 

Rhology said...

Gosh, thanks Alexander.

The only reason why you reject homosexuality is because Scripture says so, but even at that point you are at a loss as to why.

Right, b/c "God said so" is not nearly a good enough reason.

2:43 PM, August 18, 2010