Review of Rod Bennett’s book, Four Witnesses, Part 2

For Part 1, see here; and be sure to sure the initial review at Amazon, if you have not read that yet.

Again, there are the seven sections of Rod Bennett’s book:

1.  Introduction

2.  Clement of Rome

3.  Ignatius of Antioch

4.  Justin Martyr

5.  Irenaeus of Lyons

6.  Afterward

7.  Ancient Catholic Teaching and Catholic Teaching Today

Here in Part 2, we will focus on the Introduction and some aspects in the section on Clement of Rome. 

Introduction:

Page 11 – Rod is wrong about the meaning of Sola Scriptura.   “Raised in a strong, Bible-believing branch of Protestant Evangelicalism, I was taught to glory in the famous Reformation rallying cry of “Sola Scriptura” – the fiery conviction that the Bible and the Bible alone constitutes the basis for Christian belief.”

This may be the sentiment and mis-understanding that Rod, in his experience, felt, and this is a very common idea about what Sola Scriptura is, but it is incorrect.  Rather “Sola Scriptura” says that the Bible is the only infallible rule for faith, doctrine, and practice for the church.  It does not say it is the “only” basis for Christian belief; rather it is the  “only infallible rule”.   So, Protestants believe in secondary authorities that are good and useful, but not infallible, such as local church elders/teacher/pastors/overseers, whose ministry is to teach the Scriptures properly and interpret the Scriptures properly(but we can never claim that any human is infallible); also consulting church history, historical theology, great writers and theologians of the past, ancient creeds, ancient councils, doctrinal statements, good exegetical commentaries. 

Page 11 – When discussing the various Evangelical groups and churches Rod was a part of, he talks about the Evangelical spirit of always seeking to base things on the pure New Testament Church.  He states,  “Not one of them had ever sent me back to any first or second-century documentation for evidence.”

Except the New Testament books –all 27 of them, are first century documents.  Maybe he should have written “any other first or second century documentation for evidence.”

“Gap Theory” of the early church – p. 12-13 – Rod’s point here is true; too many Evangelicals are ignorant of church history and think there is a great gap between the finishing of the NT and the Reformation in 1517.  Some know about Constantine in 312-313 AD and the Council of Nicea in 325 and Augustine in 400; the Crusades in 1095-1299; the Spanish Inquisition of the 1400s, and then Luther in 1517.   I have learned a lot by being challenged by Roman Catholics in early church history; and it has strengthened my faith in Jesus Christ and His written word, and in a balanced view of church history in “letting the early church be the early church.” (Dr. James White)

p. 13 – “I let the spirit of their pure and undefiled Christianity wash over me like a bath.”  -  The problem is that Rod left out a lot of material in recounting these 4 early writers, especially from 1 Clement and Irenaeus. 

p. 14 -  Seems to imply that the early church fathers were more clear than the Scriptures themselves. 

Tells his purpose on page 17 – “In so doing this my goal has been (as far as possible) to let the early church speak for herself.”

1 Clement  (pages 25-93)

page 25 – quotes from I Clement 7:4-5, but does not mention any of the actual contents of the letter of 1 Clement until page 83.

On pages 83-93 is where he actually gets into the letter of 1 Clement.  Why did he wait so long to actually get into the letter of 1 Clement?

Seems to spend pages 25-83 to try and establish historical background from other writings, like Eusebius, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Epistle to Diognetes, and the Didache – Rod seems to imply that the issue in 1 Clement was doctrine and Gnosticism, rather than what I Clement actually says, which is the rebellion and schism by some was from pride, arrogance, and jealousy that caused a group of younger men to rebel and depose the elders who were properly appointed as elders/overseers .  He tries to show that Gnosticism was the issue in Rome in Clement’s time, but Clement never mentions Gnosticism as the cause of the schism and rebellion in his letter.  While it seems true that Marcion went there around 140 AD, and maybe others earlier than that, that issue is not the issue that Clement is addressing.  Clement mentions the sin of jealousy numerous times at the beginning of his letter and toward the end, as the cause of the disunity and schism, but Rod does not mention the jealousy issue very much, except at the end when merely quoting 1 Clement.  Clement mentions pride and rebellion, jealousy, but not so much about fighting false doctrines of the Gnostics. 

Rod makes some good use of Eusebius, the Didache, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and the Epistle to Diognetus; and also I appreciated his use of Tacitus, the famous Roman historian, one of the great historical evidences for Jesus Christ outside of the New Testament writings.  (pages 73-74, Four Witnesses)

As we mentioned in Part 1 of the Review of Four Witnesses,  on page 87, Rod stops the quote of 1 Clement 44 as precisely the exact place that would show that overseers/bishops (Greek: επισκοποι - episcopoi ) is the same office as elders (Greek: πρεσβυτεροι - presbuteroi).  This is clear in the earlier New Testament writings, such as Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; 1 Timothy 3, 1 Peter 5:1-5, Philippians 1:1.  Even other very early non-canonical writings confirm this, such as the Didache 15, and Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 26, no. 5.

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.

Rod, used a different translation than the one above, but stopped the quote here on page 87 of his book.

You can look at the standard ccel.org translation here.

The quote continues:

“For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.  Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behavior from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honor. “ 1 Clement 44

Subtle shots against Sola Scriptura

In this section on 1 Clement, he takes several shots at Sola Scriptura by mentioning that the New Testament canon was not completely known, discerned, collected under one cover, or decided upon yet.  Yet the books already existed, being written between 48-69 AD and 80-96 AD.  Some scholars even argue that all the 27 NT books were written before 70 AD.  Sometimes, it even seems that Rod implies that the NT books and letters did not even exist until the 4^th Century. 

p. 54 – “the church had been preaching the gospel, saving souls, and founding congregations all over the Near East for at least ten years before a single line of the New Testament was written.”  While this is technically true, it seems the way it is framed is to make the reader downplay the importance of the written word.  But no Protestant Evangelical denies that anyway.  In fact we have no problem with oral preaching and the passages that speak of “tradition” – the truths that were passed down by oral teaching – 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6; 1 Corinthians 15:1-3, 1 Cor. 11:1-2, 2 Timothy 2:2, Jude 3.  Properly understood, there is no contradiction of these passages that mention "tradition" to Sola Scriptura, and there is no evidence that any of the later man-made Roman Catholic traditions were a part of these passages; none at all.  Especially when we consider that 1 and 2 Thessalonians, along with Galatians, are the earliest letters of Paul, and he obviously taught the same gospel as he later wrote down in Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, etc. and so the "tradition" that he mentions is all later written out for us in later epistles/books.  

Moreover, in the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which mentions "traditions", 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, teaches us what the content of those traditions were:

"But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.  It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Interesting that the apostle teaches the doctrine of election here in verse 13 - "for salvation" and he calls it "gospel" in verse 14.  Later, he would flesh these doctrines out more in Romans chapter 9 and Ephesians chapter 1.  So much for Roman Catholic "traditions" in 2 Thessalonians 2:15!

p. 55 – “So what filled this crucial role in the first century Church – a Church where the Word of God for Christians would not be fully known for literally centuries?”  

This is also technically true; but at the time of Clement in 96 AD, the NT books were all written and existed individually.   Even the book of Revelation, most scholars believe, was probably written around this time.  (But personally, I think a good case is made that even Revelation was written before 70 AD.) 

The NT books just were not brought together under one “book cover” yet.  In fact, books as we know them today, with a binding, did not even exist at that time.  Each book and letter of the NT were individual separate rolled up scrolls.  The codex form (sheets bound together) only started coming into being in the second century, and many scholars argue that it was the Christians in the second and third centuries that made the codex form in more wide usage.  There were plenty of canonical lists consisting of the four gospels and Paul’s letters beginning around 160 AD.  The Muratorian Canon consisted of the four gospels, Acts, all 13 of Paul’s letters, the book of Revelation, 1 – 2 John and Jude.  Only James, Hebrews and 1 and 2 Peter are not mentioned.  Clement mentions 1 Corinthians in his letter – 1 Clement 47 – “take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul . . . “  (Rod quotes this on page 88 of his book).  Even then, Clement exhorts the Corinthians to read the inspired letter to the Corinthians where Paul discusses the disunity issue and the groups that were fighting over whose teacher they liked better, whether Paul, or Peter, or Apollos, or even Christ.  (1 Corinthians chapters 1-4)  In the very context of the problem of disunity and which teacher certain groups followed, the inspired apostle models Sola Scriptura in principle as the way to solve the problem of arrogance, pride, competition and a spirit of jealousy over teachers, with the words, “do not go beyond what is written” in 1 Corinthians 4:6; and Clement seems to agree. 

Again, on page 55 – “What kept the body of Christ from falling into doctrinal chaos in a world where most (if not all) believers lived their entire lives without even knowing what the New Testament was?”  Again, Clement quotes from OT and NT passages, and the emphasis is on jealousy, pride, disunity, and rebellion as the cause of the problem he is addressing in 1 Clement.  A protestant would agree that that group of young men had no right to depose the duly appointed elders from their office.  There is just no contradiction between Protestantism and 1 Clement on the matter of church government and leadership. 

p. 61- “Eventually, these Apostles will commit the commands of the Lord and Savior to writing, in their letters, in books, and in strange accounts of their prophetic dreams and revelations.”  But Rod had just quoted 2 Peter 3:2 – “remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandments of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.”  2 Peter had to have been written around 66-67 AD, before Peter was executed by Nero in 67 AD.  Maybe Peter dictated it to a disciple of his from prison just before he was executed.  In that letter, Peter calls “all of Paul’s letters, “Scripture” – 2 Peter 3:16.  So all of Paul’s letters and for sure the 3 synoptic gospels and Acts were already written by this time, along with 1 Peter.  These are almost 30 years before Clement. 

p. 62 – “Yet even now, with the Bible still an unfinished symphony for years to come, the holy gospel of Jesus abides safely just where Jesus Himself deposited it – in the hearts of the men He called friends.”    This again is the true in the sense of the books being collected together and put together in one binding, but it is not true as to their existence.  Rod seems to emphasize that Clement had nothing to go by except the claim that he was taught by Peter himself and everything was all oral and in their memories and hearts. 

Rod emphasizes Simon Magnus and Gnosticism, by using Irenaeus’ and Justin Martyr's (pages 49-56) statements about Simon Magnus, but Clement makes no mention of this issue at all. 

p. 62 – “. . . the proud city of Rome must learn to look where Clement looked – to the simple man to whom the Good Shepherd said, “Feed My sheep.”   Rod is trying to build the case that the deposit of correct doctrine was in the person of Peter, in his office as bishop of Rome or "Pope", in Rome, passed on to Clement, and that that was the solution to the problem of disunity and Gnosticism at the time of 1 Clement.  Rod seems to imply that Clement is a "living voice" of authority and can solve the disunity problems by commanding obedience.  

This is somehow supposed to imply some kind of Papacy and apostolic succession, it seems, in Rod’s understanding.  Of course, Protestants agree with Peter’s doctrine and faith, as it is expressed in Matthew 16:16 ("You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God"), 1 and 2 Peter, the gospel of Mark, and in his preaching and actions in the book of Acts.  There is nothing in these records that indicate Peter appointed a one bishop ruler, that would have a higher jurisdiction of authority than the other bishops and presbyters, or that He was infallible or “the first Pope” or even “the bishop of Rome”.  Peter may have come in and out of Rome, as a traveling evangelist/missionary/apostle, and was probably martyred there around 66-67 AD by Nero, but He was an apostle and called himself “a fellow elder” in 1 Peter 5:1.  That shows that he viewed himself as equal to other elders in a local church and is another evidence the early church government was a plurality of elders/overseers for each local church.  (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-7) 

p. 79 – After recounting the traditions of the death of the apostles, especially Peter being crucified upside down by Nero around 66-67 AD, Rod states, “Clearly this was a crucial moment in Church History.  Her living links with Jesus were passing away, and she was still without a complete, authoritative Bible.”   Interesting that Peter in his second letter, written from prison most likely, did not mention his successors or any kind of Papacy or him appointing a one man “mono-episcopate” and Peter did not say – “listen to my successor bishop of Rome” in his letter.  Instead Peter kept saying, in 2 Peter 1:12-18 and 2 Peter 3:1,  “this is the second letter I am writing to You” and “by doing this, by writing this letter, I am being diligent so that after I am gone, you will have something that can stir up your sincere minds and remember the truth.  I have written about this principle several times before.  

This, 2 Peter 1:12-18 and 3:1, is clear evidence against any kind of Papacy or Roman Catholic sense of a successor in a mono-episcopate from Peter himself in the church in Rome, or any kind of infallibility doctrine, or any kind of superior jurisdiction of leadership of Peter being passed on. 

p. 11 – working from a wrong definition of “Sola Scriptura”, he seeks to build his case based on this mis-understanding, the whole rest of the way throughout his book.

p. 14 – says the early church is clear and unambiguous.  He seems to imply that the Scriptures are less clear.

p. 29 – “how can they know?” (the truth) –  from pages 27 to page 32 – It seems that Rod seeks to establish that Peter is the key on how the disciples would know the truth after Christ is gone by Jesus’ statement – “feed My sheep” in John 21:15-17. (page 27)

Roman Catholics seem to imply that Clement taught their version of apostolic succession in his time.  This is not correct. 

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behavior from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honor. “ 1 Clement 44

Jason Engwer commented on 1 Clement 44:

“Why would Evangelicals disagree with such a concept of apostolic succession? Clement was writing to the church of Corinth in a context in which the leaders being opposed hadn't done anything wrong. Who would deny that there should be an ongoing succession of church leaders in such a context? He isn't addressing what should happen if the leaders would become corrupt, though his comments suggest that he would allow exceptions if corruption was involved. And the fact that some churches, such as Corinth, were founded by apostles doesn't imply that every church must have a line of bishops going back to the apostles. The only way to make this passage in Clement of Rome inconsistent with Evangelicalism is by reading assumptions into the text that neither the text nor the context implies.

And it should be noted that the Roman church at the time of Clement probably didn't have a monarchical episcopate. See here and here, for example. Just after what I've quoted from Clement above, he refers to those who hold "the episcopate" as "presbyters", and earlier he had referred to only two offices, bishops and deacons (First Clement, 42).”

“The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”  (1 Clement 42) 

 The last quote that Clement makes is from the LXX translation of Isaiah 60:17.  Interestingly, the two offices of bishops and deacons are mentioned in The Didache 15, another very early non-canonical document (usually dated between 70-120 AD), and shows the earliest local church government was a 2 office leadership, not three.  Namely, overseers/bishops and deacons.  Philippians 1:1 also says the same thing:  overseers (επισκοποις - episcopois - plural) and deacons. 

So, it is very interesting that 1 Clement is one of the earliest, if not the earliest (96 AD) (if the Didache was written after 96 AD) non-canonical document and teaches:

1.  That local church government has 2 offices, not three, and that elders (presbuterous) is the same office as overseers or “bishops” (episkopois) (1 Clement 42, 44)

2.  I Clement has a passage that teaches that justification is by faith alone, and goes against seeing justification being based on one’s own righteousness.  (1 Clement 32)  (more on that in part 3)

Indeed, in regard to local church government in the early church,

James White wrote some time ago,

“For example, Roman Catholic scholar Joseph F. Kelly wrote in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (1992, p. 2), “The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.”  This is echoed by Protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelly who wrote:“In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent. “  (J. N. D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 6).“When speaking of Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Telesphorus, and Hyginus (to A.D. 142), Kelly consistently notes the same thing: there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome at this time.
“When Ignatius wrote to the church at Rome, did he address this monarchical bishop?  No.  In fact, his letter to the Romans is the only one where he does not address the bishop by name.  This is considered strong testimony by most scholars in support of what J.N.D. Kelly said above.” (James White, Exegetica: Roman Catholic Apologists Practice Eisegesis in Scripture and Patristics – Vintage, re-blogged, January 6, 2013)
 

More evidence that bishop and presbyter were originally one and the same church office:

Jason Engwer wrote:

“Roger Beckwith comments:

"Other fourth-century writers, besides Jerome, who continue to recognize that bishop and presbyter were originally one, include Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia." (Elders In Every City [Waynesboro, Georgia: Paternoster Press, 2003], n. 13 on p. 24)”

"When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself." (Jerome, Letter 146:1)

In that same blog article, Jason Engwer provides two quotes by Jerome that are really telling as to the issue of presbyters and bishops being the same office.  These were supplied by David King, co-author, with William Webster, of the 3 volume set, Holy Scripture:  The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith.

"A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.’" (Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, “Commentary on the Epistle to Titus”, PL 26:562-563)

And:

"Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person. Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common, following the example of Moses, who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people. We see therefore what kind of presbyter or bishop should be ordained." (Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:563)

Dr. White cited these Jerome passages in his response to Paul F. M. Zahl, who argued for the Anglican-Episcopal -mono-episcopate church government.  (Perspectives on Church Government:  Five Views of Church Polity, Edited by Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman; Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2004, p.251-252)

John Bugay has done some excellentwork in his articles at Triablogue on the non-existant Papacy 

and 

Brandon Addison has an extensive review of Lampe’s work on the early evidence for no mono-episcopacy in Rome.   

Moreover, Clement himself never claims that he is a "mono-episcopate" - a one man authority of a bishop over the church at Rome.  In his letter, he clearly states, "The church of God . . . at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth".  This is fully compatible with Protestant ecclesiology, but not with Roman Catholic ecclesiology. 

"The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied."  1 Clement, 1:1

So, overall, Rod makes a very weak case for Roman Catholicism from the letter of 1 Clement.  

For anyone considering reading Rod Bennett's book, or any other Roman Catholic book on early church history and the early church fathers, one should at least avail themselves of these resources:

The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, William Webster

Canon Revisited, by Michael J. Kruger

See also Dr. Kruger's blog:  Canon Fodder

Holy Scipture:  The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, by David King and William Webster

Scripture Alone, by James White

Sola Scriptura, edited by Don Kistler

Historical Theology, by Gregg Allison

History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff  (online at www.ccel.org) 

Oxford Dictionary of Popes, by J. N. D. Kelly 

and the various links to other books and websites in the article above.  

Origin of the term "Protestant"

I had always thought that the the etymology of the term "Protestant" was primarily religious. The term referred to those original 16th Century people that stood against Roman theology. I recently came across the following little tidbit from Alister McGrath about the origin of the term. It came about when six German princes and fourteen representatives of imperial cities.... "protested."  McGrath notes the term came about due to the Second Diet of Speyer of the Holy Roman Empire (1529) which met to primarily discuss impending Islamic armies.

 McGrath states:

The second Diet of Speyer was hurriedly convened in March 1529. Its primary objective was to secure, as quickly as possible, a united front against the new threat from the east. Hard-liners, however, saw this as a convenient opportunity to deal with another, lesser threat in their own backyards. It was easy to argue that the reforming movements that were gaining influence throughout the region threatened to bring about destabilization and religious anarchy. The presence of a larger number of Catholic representatives than in 1526 presented conservatives with an opportunity they simply could not ignore. They forced through a resolution that demanded the rigorous enforcement of the Edict of Worms throughout the empire. It was a shrewd tactical move, with immense strategic ramifications. Both enemies of the Catholic church—Islam and the Reformation—would be stopped dead in their tracks. Outraged, yet ultimately powerless to change anything, six German princes and fourteen representatives of imperial cities entered a formal protest against this unexpected radical curtailment of religious liberty. The Latin term protestantes (“protesters”) was immediately applied to them and the movement they represented.

 McGrath, Alister (2009-10-13). Christianity's Dangerous Idea (Kindle Locations 182-183). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. (Kindle Locations 174-183).

My initial Review of Rod Bennett's book, Four Witnesses (Part 1)

My initial review of Rod Bennett's book, Four Witnesses at Amazon.    Please read the review at Amazon first.  (April 17, 2017:  I noticed my review is no longer there at Amazon.  I wonder what happened?) Fortunately, I saved a copy on my computer. 

Addendum:  My review is still there; but see explanation below at Apologetics and Agape"

Reprinted here at "Apologetics and Agape".

 I will be improving upon this, Lord willing, as time allows.

This book and my friend's conversion to Rome in 1996 was one of the main reasons I sought to understanding early church history and the early church fathers better, and apologetic answers to the issues that Rod was bringing to me.  A few months after I returned from the mission field in Turkey, he called me (I think, it was sometime early in 1996 ? I cannot remember exactly) and invited me and my brother to his house.   I had just been reading R. C. Sproul's book, Faith Alone.   It was a real shock when he announced he was converting to Roman Catholicism.  We then had 8 years (1996-2004) of informal debates by sometimes 5 hour discussions, lunches, emails, phone calls, etc.  Then, sometime in 2004, Rod told me he did not want to "debate" or discuss theology anymore.  I was motivated to find answers, even though I basically knew that Roman Catholicism was wrong; I was seminary trained afterall (smile), and thought I had a fairly good grasp of church history.  However, 3 courses in church history does not adequately prepare one for these arguments that most Evangelicals had never heard before.  Rod was using a lot of Cardinal John Henry Newman and his "development of doctrine hypothesis" and other former Evangelical Protestants like Scott Hahn and similar arguments that other Roman Catholics, both former Evangelicals and cradle Catholics make, like Jerry Matatics, Jimmy Akin, Patrick Madrid, Mitch Pacwa, Robert Sungenis, Tim Staples, Peter Kreeft, Kenneth Howell, the Surprised by Truth book series, Karl Keating, Catholic Answers, etc. were making.  That is what motivated me to find Dr. White's materials, web-site, and debates (around 1996), and James Swan's work here, and other good answers by William Webster, David King, Eric Svensen, R. C. Sproul, John Bugay, and Jason Engwer, Steve Hays, and others at Triablogue, Keith Matthison, Turretinfan's blog, and Michael Kruger's material on the canon.  Since that time, there has emerged other Evangelicals converting to Rome, such as the Called to Communion web-site and other folks like Jason Stellman and Frank Beckwith, also making the same basic arguments.

A lot of the issues of church history, also came up when I was witnessing to Muslims.  Muslims have questions about the canon, the early church, and the doctrine of the Trinity.  The convergence of these issues and connections to Roman Catholic claims made the subject very interesting to me and strengthening in dealing with Muslims in evangelism and apologetics.

I have waited a long time to publish this, because I never wanted to hurt Rod personally, and, the biggest reason, is that I also felt I really needed to study the issues deeper.   I hope anyone and everyone who comments will keep the discussion to the issues and not go ad hominem or bombast on either side.

I will delete any comment I think is mocking or bombast or ad hominem or off topic.  Another reason I have not done this before is that I personally think some on my side are too hot-headed and mocking; and that is not a good witness for Christ. 

As an additional note, I really appreciate what Dr. White has been saying recently on recent Dividing Line programs;  to some other Reformed folks who go overboard against Arminians and Charismatics and those that are not balanced when dealing with Muslims and Islam.  We need to both stand for the truth and be godly in our behavior.  Let that be a warning. 

 Please pray for Rod Bennett.  If and when Rod sees this, I hope he will see my efforts are focused on doctrines and principles and issues, historical facts, and not ad hominem attacks.

The book is basically 7 parts:

1.  Introduction

2.  Clement of Rome

3.  Ignatius of Antioch 

4.  Justin Martyr

5.  Irenaeus

6.  Afterward

7.  Appendix:  Catholic Teaching in the Early Church and Catholic Teaching Today

 This book has been promoted by Roman Catholics in these years since it came out as a basic introduction to the early church fathers and early church history and is widely acclaimed by most everyone who has read it.  There were not many negative reviews of the book before mine, at Amazon.  I am unaware of any other reviews of the book.   

You will see in my initial review, I focus on the material in his sections in Clement and Irenaeus that Rod left out, that if he had included that other material (just let the quotes go a little bit farther), the argument would favor a more Protestant way of understanding early church history.  

I believe that there are good answers to the claims theses Roman Catholics make for the early church.   The early church was not Roman Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox, nor Protestant, but "catholic" (universal).  As Dr. White has said many times, "we can let the early church be the early church".  Except for baptismal regeneration, none of the dogmas or doctrines that Rome claims were there, were actually there, in the same way that Rome promotes them today.  (Baptismal regeneration is the one belief in the early church that seems to be there; but without the ex opere operato RC take on it; but, even then, I sincerely believe that the early comments and interpretions on John 3:5 and Titus 3:5, and related passages, etc. were wrong on that issue.  It was a wrong interpretation of the Biblical texts.)  We discussed that issue before at length.  And let's not beat that horse again here, please.  Just becasue the early church used the words "catholic" or "eucharist" or "tradition" or "bishop", etc. does not mean what Rome claims they mean.  

Did Luther Deny Faith Alone in Favor of Faith and Works for Justification?

I came across these links written by a "California litigation attorney in practice for thirty years" who studied "Classical Greek and Latin and achieved designation as a Classical Language Scholar":

Did Luther in 1537 Condemn Paul As A False Prophet?

Preface

Did Paul Negate The Law's Further Applicability?

The author of these links claims "Luther radically but quietly changed his salvation-doctrine by 1541. At that point, he too rejected faith alone as sufficient for believers." What appears to be meant is that early on Luther held that faith alone saves but then went on to hold salvation is attained by a combination of faith and works. Sometimes this author refers to this as "double justification" (and also he calls it the view of Erasmus). The author best explains what he's talking about by documenting Tyndale's supposed abandoning of faith alone for faith alone initiating salvation and then subsequently works must join faith to complete the process. If works do not accompany faith, salvation is lost. The works are keeping the law obediently. Of Luther, the author states:

"Faith alone was all that was required to receive God’s forgiveness at all times, according to the young Luther."

"Did Tyndale turn Luther around to accept double justification, and abandon faith alone as justification of a believer? Yes, he did."

The author argues that Luther had great respect for Tyndale, and it was Tyndale's influence on Luther that provoked him to change his doctrine of faith alone for that of faith and works:

Could that tremendous respect have moved Luther to himself change his own doctrine on faith alone? It most certainly appears to be the best explanation for what happened to Luther in mid-1531 to the end of his life. The evidence can be found in four primary places: (1) the Catechisms of 1531; (2) Luther’s revolution on his view of the Mosaic Law in 1537; (3) the Lutheran agreement proposed at the Regensburg Diet of 1541; and (4) the actions of Luther’s close aid, Melancthon, in 1548 after Luther’s death, where he led the Lutheran Church to accept double justification as official doctrine from 1556 to 1580. (It was overturned in 1580.)

A thorough response to the information presented by this author would take quite some time, and in essence, it has already been achieved by Edward Engelbrecht's recent book, Friends of the Law. Englebrecht works historically through Luther's career and analyzes his comments on the use of the law. One particular writing from Luther singled out by Engelbrecht is a sermon originally appearing in Luther's popular 1522 Winter Postil, Epistle For New Year's Day (Galatians 3:23-29). There Luther says,

Thus faith redeems us from the Law not in a bodily way, so that we go here and the Law goes there, and thus we part ways from each other so that we are never under it. Rather [faith redeems us in such a way] that we have done enough [to satisfy] its demands. We now know and have what [the Law] wants us to know and have, namely, the Holy Spirit, who causes us to love it. The Law does not want to be worked, and it is not content with works; it wants to be loved and is satisfied with love. without love it would not set us free nor be paid off. Thus we had to remain uder it with all our loveless works; we had no peace in our conscience toward it; it always punished us as sinners and transgressors, and threatened us with death and hell- until Christ came and gave us His Spirit and love through faith which is preached in the Gospel. Then we were set free from the Law, so that it never demands, never punishes, but lets the conscience rest, never terrifies with death and hell, and has become our friend and companion. (LW 76: 12-15)

In other words, a person who is saved by faith alone is given the Holy Spirit, and that Spirit changes the heart from a Law hater to a Law lover.  Luther says a bit later that whoever believes by faith in Christ "puts Him on":

Therefore, faith is such a great thing that it saves and justifies a person, for it brings him all the blessings in Christ, in which the conscience takes comfort and trusts. Because of that it must become happy in Christ, eager to do all good and avoid all evil. It never fears death or hell or any evil, since it is very richly clothed in Christ. That is what "satisfying the Law" and "never being under it" means, for the Holy Spirit is there with clothes for the soul, which results in a completely different person. (LW 76:20-21).

Many more examples could be provided, and as I've read Luther, this has been the position I've found consistently throughout his writings. Certainly Luther believed that faith alone saves, but he never taught that faith and the Holy Spirit leave a person enslaved to their sins and haters of God and His Law. Of the early Luther Engelbrecht states,

[Luther] emphasized that justification changed the believer's attitude toward and use of Moses so that the believer no longer keeps the Law from compulsion. The Law, kept by Christ, could now be kept by those who were righteous through Christ... The believer has a new status by grace through faith so that he may now look upon the natural, moral law as a friend. He becomes a living tables of Moses and keeps the Law both inwardly and outwardly without constraint. (Friends of the Law, p.89).

I found the author of the links in question because he had cited one of my blog entries. I suggest that if he feels the need to respond to this entry, he throw this tadpole back and focus on Engelbrecht's study.

Luther Placing Values on Biblical Books

Further musings from the Catholic Answers Forum:

Today, 7:15 am

Re: Protestant Canon Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  Hi Jon, Jon, the fact of the matter is that Luther judged Scripture and put a “different value” on some books of the NT in relation to other books. In addition, what Luther really did wasmake distinctions on the basis of what he thought was the ‘relative authority’ of various books of the NT. These things cannot be denied.  God Bless You Jon, Tim . You're right. Luther had distinct personal view of books, based on his very Christocentric view. Nothing wrong with that. I have a remarkable strong liking for the Prayer of Manasseh. I disagree with some of the things Luther said about James. I am more inclined and find more personal value in Isaiah and the other prophetic books of the OT than I find in books such as 1 and 2 Kings. I've made these distinctions in my personal piety. Nothing wrong with these, either. But, Tim, if you have different preferences, by all means, you are welcome to them. Jon

Today, 10:28 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 743 Religion: Reformed

Re: Protestant Canon Quote: Originally Posted by JonNC  You're right. Luther had distinct personal view of books, based on his very Christocentric view. Nothing wrong with that. What's interesting about placing different values on books of the Bible is that in theory, it isn't all that radical, and is typically done to some degree, either intentionally or unintentionally by most people committed to the Bible. For instance, I can recall conversations about justification in which a protestant will gravitate around Romans and a Catholic will gravitate around one of the four gospels. Each thinks the Biblical book they're utilizing is more important on the subject at hand and is clearer on the issue at hand. This is simply placing value on individual Biblical books. This is what Luther did. All the books of the Bible testified to Christ, some more clearly than others. Here there should be no disagreement (that the entirety of the Scriptures testify to one unifying theme: Jesus Christ). Shouldn't anyone claiming to be "Christian" have a "Christocentric view" of the Scriptures? Here there should be no disagreement either that certain books will present Christ and the way of salvation clearer than in other books. That's really the heart of what Luther was getting at. One can argue that he didn't work it out correctly (i.e., his opinions on James, etc.), but in theory, I think he was spot on.

Luther: The Biblical Text Never Mattered?

Further musings from the Catholic Answers Forum:

Today, 10:56 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 743 Religion: Reformed

Re: Protestant Canon Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  “But the text never mattered much to him (Luther). If he did not have (when preaching), the Pauline words, “The just shall live by faith,” he could readily extract the same point from the example of the paralytic in the Gospels, whose sins were forgiven before his disease was cured.” Bainton, pg. 361 This is a startling admission from an unusually pro-Luther biographer. Luther was so intent on ‘discovering’ SBFA in as many places as he could ‘find’ it that he had to ‘find’ it where it didn’t exist. The comment “the text never mattered much to him” should be troubling to Protestants, especially with respect to Luther as a translator of Sacred Scripture, or as a judge of books of the Bible. I'm not troubled by Bainton's quote. Bainton's Here I Stand is arguably the most popular of all Luther biographies in English (perhaps though not the best), and is available free on-line if you snoop around for it. In context, Bainton was saying that Luther could find Paul's explicit theology that "The just shall live by faith" (Romans 3:28) implicitly in the Gospels. That's why Bainton gave the example of the paralytic. Both Protestants and Catholics have a systematic theology. It shouldn't be surprising when a preacher of either persuasion finds unifying themes implicitly where they're presented elsewhere explicitly. That's all Bainton was getting at. Bainton goes on to point out immediately that Luther also exegeted Scripture in his sermons beyond finding the heart of the gospel: Quote: Luther's sermons followed the course prescribed by the Christian year and the lessons assigned by long usage to each Sunday. In this area he did not innovate. Because he commonly spoke at the nine o'clock service, his sermons are mostly on the Gospels rather than upon his favorite Pauline epistles. But the text never mattered much to him. If he did not have before him the Pauline words, "The just shall live by faith," he could readily extract the same point from the example of the paralytic in the Gospels, whose sins were forgiven before his disease was cured. Year after year Luther preached on the same passages and on the same great events: Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, Pentecost. If one now reads through his sermons of thirty years on a single theme, one is amazed at the freshness with which each year he illumined some new aspect. When one has the feeling that there is nothing startling this time, then comes a flash. He is narrating the betrayal of Jesus. Judas returns the thirty pieces of silver with the words, "I have betrayed innocent blood," and the priest answers, "What is that to us?" Luther comments that there is no loneliness like the loneliness of a traitor since even his confederates give him no sympathy. The sermons cover every theme from the sublimity of God to the greed of a sow. Having read Luther's sermons for quite a few years now, I can testify to the truth of what Bainton is saying. Certainly Luther located the theme that "The just shall live by faith" often in his sermons, but he did far more.

Discussion about Sola Scriptura at a Muslim Blog

Discussion about Sola Scriptura at a Muslim blog.  

Muslims are using Roman Catholic arguments to cast doubt on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the basis for the canon.   They then use the arguments against Sola Scriptura and the Canon to cast doubt on reliability of the NT books themselves.  I noticed this a long time ago in evangelism with Muslims. And then when I started listening to Dr. White's debates and reading his books, and visiting regularly his web-site sometime in 1996- 2004,  (when it had these articles on Roman Catholicism), I noticed it even more in the details of Roman Catholic agruments and how Muslims would bring up the same objections as regards the canon and Sola Scriptura and church history details.  

I remember when Dr. White started sharing why he was going into debating Muslims - because a lot of the apologetic issues are the same on the history of the text of the Bible, textual variants, inerrancy, the canon, Sola Scriptura, church history, etc.   His experience with Roman Catholics, King James Only advocates, Mormons, atheists, and others had prepared him for defending the faith against Muslims. Dealing with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals prepared him for dealing with Muslim objections to the Trinity. 

Jonathan Doyle is a Roman Catholic.  If I recall correctly, he is a traditionalist Roman Catholic, one who holds to the Tridentide Latin Mass as binding, sees the "no salvation outside of the church" as binding and Vatican 2 was wrong to soften that tradition, and probably disagrees with a lot of Vatican 2 and the modern Popes since that time.  But he has not shared the exact details of his views on those issues.

There are other comments since I grabbed this much of the discussion.  Most people know this, but in case this is the first time you are reading here, Paul Bilal Williams is an English convert to Islam. (see his story at his blog, linked above.)

1. Jonathan Doyle
2. January 12, 2014 • 8:18 am

   For once I fully agree. From the Catholic point of view, the Christian religion existed before the Gospels even started to be written, so it is absurd to claim one is based on the other.

   Reply ↓
   • 
     

     Paul Williams
     

     January 12, 2014 • 10:28 am

     the Catholic position is certainly more historically accurate and plausible than the evangelical.

     Reply ↓
   • 
     

     Ken Temple
     

     January 13, 2014 • 3:26 pm

     Sola Scriptura never says that the Christian religion did not exist from 30 AD to 48 AD or did not exist until 96 AD, the common date for believing all the NT books were written by that date. Most were written before 70 AD.

     Protestants who hold to Sola Scriptura agree that the church existed in that period of 30-96 AD, while the Scriptures were being written; and oral preaching and teaching (God-breathed tradition) of the gospel was authoritative – 2 Thess. 2:15.

     Reply ↓
     • 
       

       Paul Williams
       

       January 13, 2014 • 5:42 pm

       Ken who decided which books were to go into the Bible? And by what authority to do reject the Bible commonly accepted by the early church? Who elected you a Protestant Pope or are you self-appointed?
3. 
   

   Ken Temple
   

   January 13, 2014 • 4:44 pm

   The anti-thesis principle against the thesis principle of Sola Scriptura is the claim of the Roman Catholic Church is that the Pope is infallible, and that was not proclaimed as dogma until 1870. This is very late in history, and totally absent from the early centuries of church history. The RC claim is also that only it as a church is infallible and infectible – before the dogma was proclaimed in 1870, the church and bishops and councils, etc. were infallible in doctrinal decisions and interpretations.

   Sola Scriptura is only saying that only the Bible is infallible; the Pope and the church are not infallible; and there are many different definitions of what “tradition” is. Some traditions are derived from Scripture and good; others are not.

   Protestants believe in church and church authority to teach and interpet the Scriptures properly. (Ephesians 4:11-12; 1 Timothy 3:14-16; 2 Timothy 4:1-7; 2 Tim. 2:2) It is the Roman Church that claims only it has the right and authority to interpret the Scriptures and that it is always infallible in her interpretations and decisions.

   When that Roman Church started adding other doctrines to “the faith” and claimed that they were from the apostles, like penance instead of repentance, purgatory, indulgences, NT priests, ex opere operato priestly powers, Transubstantiation, the treasury of merit, good works as meriting salvation, prayers to dead saints, relics, icons, statues and people praying to those inanimate objects, exalting Mary too much in prayer and praise – those things eclipsed the teaching of justification by faith alone, especially in Romans and Galatians and the gospel of John and is totally consistent with James 2; – when the RC Church was more exposed for making mistakes and adding doctrines not found in the Scriptures(Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Calvin, etc), the fall-back position was Sola Scriptura, that Luther relied on, in order to back up authority for protesting against the false doctrines that the RCC had been slowly adding through the centuries.

   Reply ↓
   • 
     

     Ken Temple
     

     January 13, 2014 • 4:52 pm

     In fact there was no such thing as a Papal office in the early church. Even Gregory in 601 AD, the bishop of Rome, rebuked John of Constantinople for claiming he was “Universal Bishop”. Cyprian (lived 200-258 AD), bishop of Carthage, in 258 AD, along with 86 other bishops from around the Christian world, rebuked Stephen, bishop of Rome, for claiming that he was “bishop over all the other bishops”.

     See here for the 7th Council of Carthage, where Cyprian, Firmillian, and 85 other bishops condemn Stephen, the bishop of Rome, for his arrogant claims.

     http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.vi.i.html

     Reply ↓
4. 
   

   Paul Williams
   

   January 13, 2014 • 5:43 pm

   ‘Sola Scriptura is only saying that only the Bible is infallible’

   What is the scriptural evidence for this claim?

   Reply ↓
   • 
     

     Ken Temple
     

     January 13, 2014 • 6:29 pm

     The principle of Sola Scriptura is not explicit in one verse, but the principle is derived theologically from bringing many texts together in a harmonized and consistent way.

     2 Timothy 3:16 – since all Scripture is God-breathed, then it is infallible.

     Jesus said to test traditions by the word of God, the Scriptures – Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-23.

     The “only” is implied from these passages, because the only other atlernatiive is man and his interpretations, and additions to Scripture; therefore only the Scriptures are infallible, not man. Therefore the Pope and councils and other traditions are not infallible, since they are man made. The early E. creeds (Nicea, Constantinople, Apostles, Athanasian) and 4 ecumenical councils were right because the doctrinal decisions were based on Scripture, not tradition. They are secondary sources of authority, along with local church elders/teachers/pastors/overseers, but they are not infallible.

     John 17:17 – Jesus said to the Father – “Thy Word if truth”. John 17:8 – the words from the Father to Jesus, then to the apostles and later the Spirit would bring all things to their remembrance and lead them into all the truth – John chapters 14, 16. Psalm 119 – 176 verses on the truthfulness of God’s Word.

     Only God is infallible. (not man)
     God spoke through prophets and apostles.
     the Prophets and apostles wrote the Word of God down in Scriptures.
     God cannot lie.
     So, the Scripture are also infallible.
     When traditions are tested and questioned, the Scriptures overrule them; therefore only the Scriptures are infallible, since man is not infallible and his interpretations and traditions therefore are not infallible.
     Traditions (oral teaching and preaching during the process of the time of en-Scripturation – 30-96 AD) of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; I Cor. 11:2, 1 Cor. 15:1-9; Jude 3; Galatians 1:6-9) are infallible because the Scriptures say that they are. (in those contexts – also 1 Thessalonians 2:13 – the preaching of the gospel / word of God was accepted not as the word of men, but as the word of God.

     The unbiblical traditions of the Roman Catholic Church were man-made traditions not in Scripture at all, not even implicitly.

     The doctrines like the Trinity are Scriptural because they correctly derive from Scripture, in a consistent and harmonized way.

     Reply ↓
     • 
       

       Paul Williams
       

       January 13, 2014 • 6:31 pm

       I don’t agree that “only” is implied at all anywhere in the Bible – its a very weak argument Ken. And it was not believed by Christians till the likes of Luther came along. The bizarre thing is that the Bible does not even claim to be the Word of God so why should it be the only authority!

       Ken who decided which books were to go into the Bible? And by what authority to do reject the Bible commonly accepted by the early church? Who elected you a Protestant Pope or are you self-appointed?
5. 
   

   Ken Temple
   

   January 13, 2014 • 6:36 pm

   Does the Bible ever say that the elders/teachers/pastors that the apostles appointed to lead the churches would ever be infallible?

   No.

   Therefore since we know God and His Word are infallible and man is not infallible, then by logic, only God’s Word is infallible as oppossed to man’s interpretations of the Scriptures.

   Therefore, the “only” in “Scripture Alone is the final and infallible rule of faith and practice for the church” is implied.

   Reply ↓
6. 
   

   Ken Temple
   

   January 13, 2014 • 6:42 pm

   They did not “decide” but they discerned and testified which ones were God-breathed and already existed, being written between 48-96 AD.

   Irenaeus (200 AD)
   Tertullian (200 AD)
   Origen (250 AD)
   Athanasius (died in 373 AD)

   rightly discerned which Scriptures were already in existence and God-breathed. (Though Irenaeus and Tertullian did not mention a few of the lesser known books. They are silent on Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and 2-3 John, and Irenaeus is silent on Jude, but Tertullian approves of Jude)

   Reply ↓
   • 
     

     Paul Williams
     

     January 13, 2014 • 6:47 pm

     so if they “discerned and testified which ones were God-breathed” why do you reject their Bible? You are not very consistent!

     Reply ↓
     • 
       

       Ken Temple
       

       January 13, 2014 • 7:07 pm

       I am talking about the 27 New Testament books – Origen’s list (I mentioned that in a previous post in another one of your articles here) around 250 AD is the same as Athanasius’ list in 367 AD as to the canon.

       Athanasius did not approve of most of the Apocrypha Jewish books written between 300-100 BC – his list does include Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah as part of Jeremiah as “one book”; but he did not approve of Maccabees and the others that the RC claims is infallible), and neither did Jerome. Jerome was one of the few who actually investigated the Jewish canon by going to Israel and living among the Jews there and learning Hebrew. His investigations confirm the list of the OT canon that was meant in Luke 24:44; Luke 11:51 (“from the blood of Abel” = Genesis, “to the blood of Zechariah” = the Zechariah killed in 2 Chronicles 24 – the last book written in the OT and Jews to this day still have that one as the last book in their canon, written around 430 BC); and Romans 3:2. (“the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God”). Josephus in Against Apion 1:8 also confirms the correct OT canon as the same as the Protestant OT canon. So we have Jesus, Josephus, the Jews, and Jerome on our side of that argument.

       Even Gregory “the Great”, bishop of Rome, around 601-604, wrote against the Apocrypal books, as did Cardinal Cajetan, who oppossed Luther in 1518-1521 – they said, “the judgment of Jerome on those books is the correct doctrine.”
7. 
   

   Ken Temple
   

   January 13, 2014 • 6:46 pm

   “Who elected you Protestant Pope?”

   There is no such thing as a “Papal office” in Scripture, nor in early church history – the concept started gaining traction only after the split between the Eastern Orthodox Church vs. The Roman Catholic Church (1054 AD) and it grew from there. It is completely absent from the first 600 years of early church history.

   So, there is no such thing as a “Protestant Pope” either. The concept is a false concept.

   
   

Luther Throwing James in the Fire, the Canon, and Heresy

Further musing from the Catholic Answers Forum:

Today, 11:14 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member   Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 741 Religion: Reformed

Re: Protestant Canon Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  The throwing in the fire comment was not disrespectful? If not then what could be? There are at least two sources I'm aware of in which Luther is said to have wanted "to throw James in the fire." The first statement is a Tabletalk reference, which means Luther didn't write it, but is something he is reported to have said. The second statement comes from a 1542 writing in which it isn't clear at all that the actual book of James is in question, but rather a statue of Saint James. Regardless, the statements reflect Luther's frustration with his catholic critics who relied on James 2. Where I would fault Luther here is not for his fire / stove comment (which is nothing more than polemics), but rather the ease in which he gave up on the consistent harmonizing of James with Paul as a response to the critics. In the same context of the second statement, Luther admits to having interpreted James 2 previously according to the sense of the rest of scripture. In fact, one can actually find Luther presenting the typical protestant harmonization of James and Paul. Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  There was relatively little disagreement on the canon until the Reformation, when Luther chose to question literally everything, showing very little deference to all those who had come before him. I've seen this particular topic debated endlessly over the years. As far as I can tell in terms of the Intertestamental books. there were two traditions running concurrently through the church, one accepting them, one rejecting them (I've seen both traditions argued as the prevalent one). This is why there were a group of excellent scholars at Trent arguing to exclude them. In regard to the New Testament books, I would agree that there probably was 'relatively little disagreement." What I think provoked 16th Century theologians like Cajetan, Luther, Erasmus, etc. was the recovery of Greek and Hebrew. Cajetan for instance, came under heavy attack from the Paris theologians for relegating the Latin Vulgate as inferior to the Hebrew and Greek. Cajetan questioned the authenticity of a number of New Testament Bible passages, and in his criticism he invoked Jerome's authority as support. To sum it up, the reason for questioning the New Testament canon during the 16th Century had a lot to do with the recovery of the original Biblical languages. Certainly Luther went a step further and attached a theological criteria, but once again there were no dogmatic parameters in place to prevent this. Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  In addition, the Church grants those rights to the Doctors which it sanctions. Luther WAS sanctioned by the Church as a Doctor of Sacred Scripture. But then, beginning with his being released from his vows as a monk by Staupitz in 1518 (I think), and culminating with his excommunication from the Church, Luther no longer was a Catholic sanctioned Theologian. He was judged to be an unrepentant heretic and as such, from the time of his excommunication, he no longer had any rights a Catholic, not even as a lay Catholic. First, Trent never condemned Luther by name. That is, there is no infallible dogmatic pronouncement against Luther. In other words, a Catholic has no official judgment on Luther to which he is bound. This is why there is such a thing as Catholic Luther scholarship. Second, Jimmy Akin has an interesting article called "Identifying Infallible Statements." In that article he points out that Exsurge Dominae was not infallible, nor was Luther condemned for violating infallibly defined dogmas. Third, the Edict of Worms was decreed by Charles V deeming Luther a heretic, but to my knowledge, the statements of Charles V are not considered infallible by the Catholic church. Pope John Paul II exhorted his hearers one time to "meditate, in truth and Christian charity" on the Reformation period. This suggests to me that the same sort of allowances made for the theological errors of Erasmus and Cajetan could be extended to Luther on the extent of the canon. John Paul went on to say that the event of the Reformation can be "understood and represented better" when those of us in later centuries can look back and reflect on what happened What JonNC has been demonstrating is that if one takes the time to look at the actual historical situation of Luther's canon, he was certainly not alone. To allow Cajetan and Erasmus a free pass while condemning Luther on this issue could, in the minds of some people, demonstrate double standards or an underlying unjustified bias. "Where polemics have clouded the view, the direction of this view must be corrected and independently by one side or the other."- John Paul II on Luther and the Reformation

Martin Luther, Reformer of Bowling

I've not heard this one before:

Bowling as we know it began in Germany sometime during the fifth century. People pretended that the pins were devils and they used a round rock or heavy ball as a weapon to knock them down. If successful, it indicated they were overcoming the temptations of the devil in their lives. If not, their lives still had too many sins. The number of pins used varied from three to seventeen. Martin Luther is credited with deciding on nine pins. In the 1800s, because bowling (or platzbahnkegln as it was then called Germany) was used for gambling, it was outlawed. But the law specified nine-pin bowling. Players added a 10th pin to avoid being illegal. A life-size diorama at the International Bowling Museum and Hall of Fame in St. Louis portrays Martin Luther bowling on the single lane at the side of his home. A brochure from the museum states that Luther, an avid bowler, “once preached a sermon that proclaimed Christians ‘strive for perfection in life. But when we roll a gutterball, all is not lost.’”

I have no idea if all this is true or not, but it certainly appears to be true that the Bowling Museum had the picture of Luther at one time. The museum is no longer in St. Louis, it's in Texas. Brecht notes that "Luther had a bowling alley built for the amusement of  his students in their spare time, and he occasionally participated in the game himself."

Addendum (ht: Carl Vehse): From a comment below, the quote in the pamphlet reads,"He [Luther] once preached a sermon which, if put into bowling vernacular, proclaimed we all strive for perfection in life. But if we roll a gutterball, all is not lost." So, the "quote" appears to be a loose paraphrase of something Luther is alleged to have said.

Addendum #2 (1/30/14)
This blog post was linked to by Gene Veith with his entry, Luther and Bowling? See the subsequent discussion. Carl Vehse noted my citation of Brecht (Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 1521-1532 [Fortress Press, 1994, p. 432]), and also included Brecht's accompanying footnote:

Weimarer Ausgabe (Weimar Edition): D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesammtausgabe (Dr. Martin Luther's Works: Critical Collected Edition), Briefwechsel (Correspondence), Volume 6: 199-200. Tischreden (Table Talk), Vol. 1, No. 261; Vol. 2, No. 1494.