Fr Alvin Kimel "The Pontificator" Misses The Point

I sometimes receive new comments on older blog entries. I recently received a comment on one of my blog articles on Alister McGrath. This time Fr Alvin Kimel (aka “Pontificator”) stopped by posting a link as a response. His link-comments can be found here. Now, I’ve never heard of this guy, but I have learned one thing about him: he read my entire post, and completely missed the point.

A few months back, I wrote a few blog entries on Alister McGrath’s book, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification:

Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification- McGrath documents that Augustine misunderstood the biblical term “justification” and thus set the tone for the understanding of the Roman Catholic Church.

Response on McGrath’s Book Iustitia Dei- A look at Catholic usage of McGrath’s book on Justification. A response to the Catholic attempt to show that that the protestant understanding of justification was unknown in church history previous to the Reformation.

The Alleged Roman Catholic Tradition of Justification- An entry showing that there was not “one” tradition of justification before the Council of Trent made its declaration. Also included is a review of Catholic layman Apolonio Latar’s use of Alister McGrath’s book on Justification.

I wrote these entries because I found Roman Catholics love to quote this book as proof Luther introduced a “theological novum” into the history of the Western Church. I guess using McGrath is supposed to prove that the Reformers deviated from the historical Catholic understanding of justification, and a Protestant scholar admits it. Implied in this argument is the proposition that the Roman Catholic Church received their understanding of Justification from the Apostles, and subsequent Church history records the passing on of its understanding to the Church Fathers, and then ultimately to its dogmatic proclamation at the Council of Trent.

Now, I’m not going to re-write these entries here. The interested reader can see my work on McGrath’s book in the above links. Basically, I argued most of the Catholics I’ve come across quoting McGrath haven’t actually read McGrath. They’ve probably just swiped some of his quotes in the service of Mother Church. McGrath’s book is not easy reading, and the statements the Catholics selectively cite also come with a broader context that explains what McGrath means. I think that if a Roman Catholic actually read McGrath’s book, they wouldn’t cite him. He does not establish Rome’s view on justification, and his comments in context do not say what Catholics think they do.

Now, read through Fr Alvin Kimel’s comments. Do his words show that he grasped I was presenting McGrath’s material? No. Does he even attempt to answer or respond to the six questions/conclusions I posed in the blog post? No. Does he attempt to prove I’ve mis-cited McGrath, and Catholics quoting him are accurate? No. The Pontificator did not provide any meaningful response to my blog entry.

But then, I came home today to find the Pontificator’s blog entry now included comments from the peanut gallery. Sure, I realize that’s an uncharitable statement- but I can’t help but see a few more Catholics following along with Kimel in missing the point. Can’t somebody at least read with comprehension? One comment couldn’t even get my name right, calling me, “Swain”. But, my favorite was Jonathan Prejean:

“James Swan himself went to none other than Eric Svendsen and David T. King for help, admitting that he was out of his league in trying to follow McGrath: Augustine and Justification. A bit of “blind leading the blind,” to be sure, particularly given Svendsen’s recent admission that “Patristics is not my field of study, and only marginally an area of interest for me. I make no apologies for not ‘keeping up’ with that field.”

I have to immediately wonder if Mr. Prejean has ever read McGrath’s book on Justification. I’m tempted to say he hasn’t, because if he had, he would probably agree it is a difficult book. One needs to be familiar with Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, as McGrath provides no translations of many citations used throughout the book. I appealed to David King, Eric Svendsen, and others, hoping they had read McGrath’s book. If I had misunderstood McGrath, I wanted to be corrected, I still do. Prejean seems to miss that I actualy care about reading accurately, and interpreting accurately.

Prejean continues:

“The fact is that they don’t know anything about what the Fathers believed, and I wish we had more candid confessions by people like Swan that they more or less don’t know and don’t care. It would save the rest of us who DO know and DO care the bother of interacting with them, except as an example of what the true attitude behind Protestantism is, as was the case with Fr. Al’s post.”

Here it is again- Catholics read what they want to. My question on the Areopagus was about McGrath’s book, and whether or not I properly interpreted it. If Mr. Prejean would like to play in the “same ball field” as I, he could pick up McGrath’s book and let me know if I interpreted McGrath accurately. But no, he really just wanted an opportunity to bash Eric Svendsen on Patristics, so it’s probably best he doesn’t pick up McGrath’s book. I recall hearing Prejean’s call to James White’s Dividing Line Show, and after hearing his inability to answer simple questions, I really want nothing to do with him. I would’ve hung up on him five minutes before James White did.

Guest Blog: Response To a Catholic Critique Of The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation (Part Three)

This is part three of a response to a paper critiquing The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation and The Fullness of Time.

Part one can be found here: Guest Blog: Response To a Catholic Critique Of The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation (Part One).

Part two can be found here.

Iohannes offered to take a look at Frank’s paper, and provide a critique. His response will be posted here in parts. To really appreciate this interaction, it is essential that one actually first reads the paper posted by Frank Ramirez.

************************************

A defense of the Protestant position on Scripture

Here it is needful to demonstrate two things: (a) that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice; and (b) that the testimony of an infallible church is not necessary for the reception of the Scriptures as being, with certainty, the word of God. In both cases it will be possible to give only a cursory overview of the subject matter; but nevertheless, this overview will hopefully provide an accurate depiction of the larger issue.

There are many approaches to proving that the Scriptures are the rule of faith and practice, and a thorough, albeit condensed, treatment of this matter is available in the fifth chapter of A.A. Hodge’s Outlines of Theology. Rather than repeat unnecessarily the breadth of the arguments there presented, here we shall focus only on one argument, which is that “Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.” This does not mean that the word as proclaimed orally in the ministry of Christ and the apostles was without authority. The point is rather that the example of Christ and the apostles shows that for the Church today, “The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, having been given by inspiration of God, are the all-sufficient and only rule of faith and practice, and judge of controversies.”

It was noted at the outset that the Savior’s words in John 5:39 can be read as a command to “search the scriptures.” Even if the imperative reading be rejected in this particular verse, there is abundant witness elsewhere in the Bible to the fact that the Scriptures are the authoritative corpus of divine revelation, and that it is by the standard of Scripture that all teaching is to be tested. To begin with, Christ constantly quoted and appealed to the Scriptures in order to establish his doctrine and defend it against the charges of critics. In this he followed the watchword of Isaiah: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

The practice of Christ shows that the law and testimony, as delivered by the oracles of old, was to be found in Scripture. This is exemplified in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Abraham responds to Dives’ entreaty for his brethren by saying, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” Moses and the prophets, though they had perished long ago, were yet still speaking in Christ’s time through their written testimony. Although oral traditions about the teachings of the prophets may have survived at that time, nevertheless the definitive account of the prophets’ doctrine was in fact the written word. This is shown, for example, in Luke 24:27: “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (cf. vs. 44) When the risen Lord wished to show the disciples ‘all that the prophets had spoken’ about himself, he took them through all the scriptures, since that is where the prophets’ revelation was authoritatively recorded for the church. As Hodge said, it is significant that in his ministry on earth Christ both taught with his own authority and appealed to the authority of Scripture, but nowhere does it appear that he recognized any further rule of faith.

Christ’s practice continued after his ascension, as is shown by the letters and history of the apostles. The apostles not only taught authoritatively as Christ’s ambassadors, but, like their Lord, also frequently made appeal to Scripture. They did not countenance any doctrinal authority not countenanced by Christ. Moreover, as the commendation of the Bereans in Acts 17 shows, the message of the apostles themselves, like all doctrine, was to be judged by Scripture. In the current age, with Christ and the apostles departed, the Church must continue to follow their example. And as was the case with the prophets of old, Christ and his apostles, though not present with us in the body, are yet still speaking to the world, their doctrine having been likewise authoritatively set down for the Church in Scripture.

Thus, in its simplest form, runs one of the arguments for the sola scriptura. This argument may not put to rest every thesis that may be advanced in support of the Roman doctrine of tradition, but it does, at any rate, hopefully give some insight into how the Protestant position may be substantiated. Having addressed the place of Scripture as the rule of faith and life, it is proper now to look at the last matter requiring our attention, namely the basis on which the Christian receives the Scriptures as the word of God. This was already covered at length in the previous discussion, and rather than repeat everything that was said there, it is best here only to restate the Protestant view and to point out the main weaknesses of the claim for the necessity of the Church’s infallible testimony.

Protestants hold that God, in the abundance of His wisdom and mercy, has given men many useful external testimonies to the truth and authority of Scripture. These include the evidence of history and the witness of individual believers, as well as, perhaps most importantly, the testimony of the Church. Furthermore, the written word does itself exhibit magnificent characteristics that foster an impression of credibility. The totality of this evidence is quite weighty, but as the Westminster Confession says, “yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority [of Scripture], is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” In the nature of the case, nothing less than this would be sufficient; and at the same time nothing else could be more persuasive. Calvin puts the matter well in saying:

In vain were the authority of Scripture fortified by argument, or supported by the consent of the Church, or confirmed by any other helps, if unaccompanied by an assurance higher and stronger than human Judgment can give. Till this better foundation has been laid, the authority of Scripture remains in suspense. On the other hand, when recognising its exemption from the common rule, we receive it reverently, and according to its dignity, those proofs which were not so strong as to produce and rivet a full conviction in our minds, become most appropriate helps.[Institutes, Bk. I, Ch. 8]

A defense of this position was made at length in the sixteenth century by William Whitaker in his Disputations on Holy Scripture [pp. 332-358 of the Parker Society edition]. In that work he advanced in meticulous, even scholastic fashion, nineteen arguments in its favor. It is not necessary, however, to argue in this way, nor is it necessary that each of Whitaker’s arguments be accepted; for the strength of the position can be shown through its comparison with some of the simplest teachings of Scripture. In the parable referenced above, Abraham informs Dives that if men “hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Calvin, commenting on the verse, observes that “faith does not depend on miracles, or any extraordinary sign, but is the peculiar gift of the Spirit, and is produced by means of the word.” Just as men will not ultimately believe in Christ until the Spirit gives them eyes to see salvation in Him, so too they will not receive the Scriptures for what they are until the Spirit gives them ears to hear God’s word in them.

It should be remembered that when the ancients heard Christ preaching, they did not have the benefit of the church, infallible or otherwise, telling them to receive his words. Christ simply taught as one with authority, and his word was with power (cf. Mat. 7:29, Mark 1:22, Luke 4:32). It is true both that John the Baptist bore witness to Christ, and that Christ wrought many miracles that showed himself and his message to be from above. But it is also true that, in spite of this impressive evidence, very many people refused to believe. “The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” Christ’s preaching did not produce true faith in any of his hearers until the Spirit unstopped their ears; until He opened their eyes and hearts, and thus illuminated their minds and understandings. It is this illuminating testimony of the Spirit that gives believers the certainty of their faith. Once it is enjoyed, all other testimonies, even the most forceful of them, appear as what they properly are—what Calvin called “secondary helps to our weakness,” or testimonies corroborating “that chief and highest proof,” i.e. “the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit.” And as Owen said, “When our Saviour Christ himself preached, what he spoke was as much the word of God when he spake it as now that it is written.” [Sermon on Luke 16:29] Even as the hearers of Christ had many corroborating testimonies to the truth and authority of his message, so too have we many to the truth and authority of Scripture; but just as their certainty came ultimately from the testimony of the Holy Spirit, so must ours also.

There are other places in Scripture which shed light on this doctrine. Among them is the line in First John: “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.” (vs. 2:20) Regarding this verse, John Murray wrote, “This anointing is an abiding possession and invests believers with discernment of the truth and stedfastness in it.” [The Infallible Word, ed. Stonehouse & Woolley.] For the present purposes, however, it is appropriate now to turn from the positive case in order to respond to an objection. It was asked whether an Old Testament believer would, when accepting the teaching of Isaiah, need to have faith in the prophet in addition to faith in his message. Here the trust had in Isaiah would indeed be an important confirmation of the truth of his proclamation. But in this case as in others, the message was to be received with certainty not so much because the believer heard Isaiah utter it, but because he heard God speaking in what Isaiah uttered. When Paul was in Athens, he was so little esteemed by some of the learned men that they called him a “babbler.” (Acts 17:18) This is an idiomatic rendering of a rather contemptuous word. Yet although Paul was despised, his words to the Athenians and foreigners at the Areopagus did not lose any of their authority or their trustworthiness. In the same way, when Paul first entered the synagogue in a town and began to preach the gospel, he was not immediately recognized as an apostle commissioned by the Lord Jesus. Whatever trust men had in him as a teacher, it was not because of this that they were ultimately led to embrace the good news he brought. They embraced the gospel in the end because God enabled them to see the truth of what Paul preached. It is only after they recognized Jesus as Lord that they could properly recognize Paul as their Lord’s duly appointed herald.

This leads us to the often-made claim that without an infallible church, believers could not have certainty that the Bible they receive is the word of God. Two main responses have been made to this, in order to show it is mistaken. The first is that it seems problematic historically. For the ancient Jews did not have an infallible Church to settle for them the matter of which books were divinely inspired. As Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young said:

How the books were gathered together we are not told. Apparently, no religious council in ancient Israel ever drew up a list of the divine books. Rather, in the singular providence of God, his people recognized his Word and honored it from the time of its first appearance. Thus was formed the collection of inspired writings which are known as the canonical books of the Old Testament. [The Infallible Word]

The key concept here is that “in the singular providence of God, his people recognized his Word.” This is what Protestants hold to be case in the New Testament age, as well. And the historical facts seem to fit well with this thesis. It makes sense that in the absence of a distinct body of tradition that authoritatively resolves the matter of the canon, there may at times, especially early on, have been some disagreements about it. As was suggested previously, it is conceivable that in the days before the cessation of the gift of prophesy, Christians may sometimes have erred in thinking something to have been delivered from God which in fact came only from men (cf. 1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:21) In the same way, Christians may sometimes have erred in their judgments about the canon. Yet if the position of the Church of Rome is correct, it seems peculiar that other very ancient Churches, each claiming to follow the tradition of the apostles, have different canons. It seems also a little strange that the church fathers, who are said to have transmitted apostolic tradition to the later church, did not have a more perfect agreement about the canon.

It might be asked how, if the Protestant position is correct, the Church could ever finally settle on a single recognized canon. Calvin’s remarks on the command to ‘try the spirits’ in 1 John 4:1 may be helpful with this and like questions. The passage is somewhat too lengthy to quote in full, but the most relevant portion is the following:

But here a difficult question arises: If every one has the right and the liberty to judge, nothing can be settled as certain, but on the contrary the whole of religion will be uncertain. To this I answer, that there is a twofold trial of doctrine, private and public. The private trial is that by which every one settles his own faith, when he wholly acquiesces in that doctrine which he knows has come from God; for consciences will never find a safe and tranquil port otherwise than in God. Public trial refers to the common consent and polity of the Church; for as there is danger lest fanatics should rise up, who may presumptuously boast that they are endued with the Spirit of God, it is a necessary remedy, that the faithful meet together and seek a way by which they may agree in a holy and godly manner. But as the old proverb is too true, “So many heads, so many opinions,” it is doubtless a singular work of God, when he subdues our perverseness and makes us to think the same thing, and to agree in a holy unity of faith.

The last sentence is especially interesting. The general consensus on the canon that appears historically is a precious token of divine providence. This consensus is not altogether perfect, and it is not in itself infallible. Nevertheless, given that so many believers have historically testified that God speaks in the recognized books of the Bible, their testimony carries great weight. They were, after all, the people of God, indwelt and guided by the Holy Spirit. Although the testimony of the Spirit is ultimately decisive as the source of the believer’s certainty—for our faith stands not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God—nevertheless, if a man thinks the Spirit leads him away from the consensus reached by the great body of believers, then he should carefully consider whether his perception is correct. There is a time when it is necessary to stand, like Athanasius, against the world. Protestants believe this was the case at the time of the Reformation. The judgment of men, and even of the men of the church, is not infallible, and God’s word must remain the final arbiter of controversies. Nonetheless, believers should treat with a healthy respect the conclusions of their brethren and forebears in the faith.

This brings us to the other weakness of the notion that an infallible church is required for the certainty about the canon. It may be assumed, for the sake of argument, that the Roman Magisterium is infallible in its teaching on the canon. However, even if this were the case, for our certainty about the Scripture to be mediated through the infallible judgment of the Magisterium, it would first be necessary for us to recognize the authority of the Magisterium. We must then ask on what basis a Roman Catholic comes to believe that, as his Catechism says, “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone.” The answer is bound to be similar to the Protestant’s reason for receiving the Scriptures as the word of God. The Roman Catholic believer might indeed be able to point to many objective evidences that support the claim for authority made by the Magisterium. But would he not in the end say, that even after all these important testimonies have been considered, his full persuasion and assurance about the infallibility and divine authority of the Church’s teaching office come from nothing less than work and witness of the indwelling Holy Spirit? Is it not because of this witness of the Spirit that the Roman Catholic believer finds himself, in the last analysis, truly certain that the Roman Church has correctly interpreted the apostolic tradition, while the Greek Church has not?

The same tremendous epistemological weight therefore bears down on the Roman Catholic deciding to accept the judgment of the Magisterium that bears down on the Protestant deciding to receive the books of Scripture. In both cases, although the believer’s conviction may be buttressed by objective evidence, it nonetheless derives its certainty not from anything of this world, but from the voice and agency of the Triune God. Only God Himself can handle the epistemic burden. Only the light of the Spirit can finally illuminate and dispel the twilight of uncertainty.

It is true that both Roman Catholics and Protestants reason in a circle. Being the finite creatures of the infinite God, the situation could not be otherwise. The important question that must be asked is, whose template of beliefs fits reality? Which position can consistently harmonize the facts of Christian faith and experience? As contraries rather than contradictions, it is possible that both sides could be mistaken. But for my part, I firmly believe that one is correct, and hope that this response might show something of the reason.

With Prayer and Respect,

Iohannes

Guest Blog: Response To a Catholic Critique Of The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation (Part Two)

This is part two of a response to a paper critiquing The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation and The Fullness of Time. Part one can be found here: Guest Blog: Response To a Catholic Critique Of The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation (Part One). Iohannes offered to take a look at Frank’s paper, and provide a critique. His response will be posted here in parts. To really appreciate this interaction, it is essential that one actually first reads the paper posted by Frank Ramirez.

************************************

It is appropriate to turn now to the Scriptural evidence cited for the Roman Church’s position. In the interest of brevity some of the verses which were brought forward will have to be left unnoticed, but an attempt will be made to address the weightiest of the proof texts given. As part of the providence of God, the matters now under discussion have been explored extensively by many gifted theologians of the past, and since the true Protestant doctrine is sola scriptura—as opposed to what is sometimes called ‘solo scriptura’—reference will be made to the accounts given by learned commentators: it nonetheless being the reader’s task to judge whether these accounts truly accord with the bible’s teaching, which must remain the final authority.

These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. I Tim. 3:14f

Here is an excerpt from one commentator:

"By holding out to pastors the greatness of the office, he undoubtedly intended to remind them with what fidelity, and industry, and reverence they ought to discharge it. […] Hence we may easily conclude in what sense Paul uses these words. The reason why the Church is called the “pillar of truth” is, that she defends and spreads it by her agency. God does not himself come down from heaven to us, nor does he daily send angels to make known his truth; but he employs pastors, whom he has appointed for that purpose. To express it in a more homely manner, is not the Church the mother of all believers? Does she not regenerate them by the word of God, educate and nourish them through their whole life, strengthen, and bring them at length to absolute perfection? For the same reason, also, she is called “the pillar of truth;” because the office of administering doctrine, which God hath placed in her hands, is the only instrument of preserving the truth, that it may not perish from the remembrance of men."

Who wrote this? The answer is none other than John Calvin, whose words are quoted here in order to show that one need not speak meanly of the church when denying Rome’s claims about infallibility.

Calvin’s explanation of the passage is that Paul reminds Timothy of the high purpose of the church—namely, to hold up and defend God’s truth in the world—so that he and other pastors might be stirred to a great diligence and care in performing their service. If this is the real meaning of the passage, it seems to be something of a stretch to infer that the Church is “the ‘pillar and foundation’ of the Word of God,” as is said in the paper. For the truth that the Church maintains in the world is the truth now contained in Scripture, and it is on this truth that the Church itself rests. As John Owen observed, the church “cannot be so the pillar and ground of truth that the truth should be, as it were, built and rest upon it as its foundation; for this is directly contrary to the same apostle, who teacheth us that the church itself is ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone,’ Eph. ii. 20. The church cannot be the ground of truth, and truth the ground of the church, in the same sense or kind.” [Pneumatologia, Bk. VI, P. 1, Ch. 3]

It should be noted that the allusion to a pillar may involve the church not only holding up the truth, but also holding it out. Matthew Henry’s commentary states:

"The church itself is the pillar and ground of truth. Not that the authority of the scriptures depends upon that of the church, as the papists pretend, for truth is the pillar and ground of the church; but the church holds forth the scripture and the doctrine of Christ, as the pillar to which a proclamation is affixed holds forth the proclamation. Even to the principalities and powers in heavenly places is made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, Eph. 3:10."

The commentator may have spoken somewhat imprecisely in attributing to Rome the notion that the authority of Scripture depends upon that of the church, but notice the statement that “truth is the pillar and ground of the church.” Is this a subtle Protestant attempt to weaken the authority of the church? Certainly not, for it is Chrysostom who said of the church that, “it is this that maintains the faith and the preaching of the Word. For the truth is the pillar and the ground of the Church.” [Homily XI on First Timothy] And therefore, if the foundation of truth upon which a particular church rests begins to crumble, then the pillar which that church is may become unsteady, and may even fall. Recognizing this, Calvin insisted that: “Paul does not wish that any society, in which the truth of God does not hold a lofty and conspicuous place, shall be acknowledged to be a Church.” The text consequently demonstrates that one of the marks of a true church is the maintenance of sound doctrine. For this application of the text, see Article 29 of the Belgic Confession, which lists the distinctive characteristics of the true church.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. II Thess. 2:15

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances [or, traditions], as I delivered them to you. I Cor. 11:2

These verses are best treated together, since both are relevant to the discussion specifically because of the use of the word paradoseis, or traditions. It is important that this word be understood rightly, and for that reason it is helpful to consider an excerpt from J.N.D. Kelly’s work on Early Christian Doctrines.

"At the threshold, however, the reader should be placed on his guard against an ambiguity inherent in the word. In present day idiom ‘tradition’ denotes the body of unwritten doctrine handed down in the Church, or the handing down of such doctrine, and so tends to be contrasted with Scripture. In the language of the fathers, as indeed of the New Testament, the term of course conveyed this idea of transmission, and eventually the modern usage became regular. But its primary significance (cf. paradidonai; tradere), viz. authoritative delivery, was originally to the fore and always remained prominent. Hence by tradition the fathers usually mean doctrine which the Lord or His apostles committed to the church, irrespective of whether it was handed down orally or in documents, and in the earlier centuries at any rate they prefer to employ other words or phrases to designate the Church’s unwritten traditional teaching." [pp. 30f of the Prince Press edition]

This understanding of the word’s meaning is reflected in the way Archibald Alexander responded to the claim that these verses support the Roman Church’s doctrine of tradition:

Now all that is necessary to refute the argument derived from these and such like passages, where the word traditions is used, is to observe, that Paul employs this word in a very extensive sense, to signify whatever doctrines or institutions he had delivered to the churches, whether by his preaching or writing. [...] [I]n the quotation from the second chapter, it is clear, that by traditions, the apostle did not mean merely oral communications, for he explains himself, by saying, “whether by word or epistle.” It is not denied, that Paul delivered many things orally to the churches, as has been already acknowledged. All the instructions given to the churches first planted, were oral, for as yet no gospels nor epistles were written; but the true point in dispute is, whether any article of faith, or any important institution, thus originally communicated, was omitted, when the books of the New Testament were written by divine inspiration. Whether, while a part of the revelation of God, for the use of his church, was committed to writing, another important part was left to be handed down by tradition. That the word tradition, as used by Paul, makes nothing in favour of the doctrine of the Romish church, is evident, because by this word he commonly means such things as were distinctly recorded in the Scriptures. Thus, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, he says, “For I delivered unto you first of all,” where the word for transmitting by tradition, is used; but what were those things which he had by tradition communicated to them? He informs us in the next words, “How that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.” 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4. [cf. I Cor. 11:23ff] [The Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, Part 2, Sect. 17]

Further evidence would therefore be needed to prove the Roman doctrine of tradition. The bare fact that the Apostles taught the first Christians by both spoken and written words does not in any sense require the conclusion that later Christians were to receive God’s final and authoritative revelation of Himself through the twin streams of written books and unwritten traditions, or that, as is said in Dei Verbum (9), “both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.” Protestants do, of course, believe the tradition of the apostles is authoritative, but they also believe that this tradition is now perfectly recorded in the completed Scriptures, to which nothing is to be added as part of the rule of faith and life.

When these verses were cited in the paper, it was said that “the Reformed theologians would respond that these apostolic traditions were what the divine economy required at that time.” But to be clear, the special importance of the spoken word in the earliest days of the Church was due not so much to a deep theological reason as it was to a practical reality—until the New Testament was completed, God’s revelation could not but be spread orally. God made provision for this situation by commissioning the apostles and other special officers, who would be responsible for the initial diffusion of the gospel. Paul’s words in First Corinthians are illustrative here (either directly or indirectly): “...when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” Jonathan Edwards held that the text has in view what he called a “twofold perfect,” and in explaining one aspect of this he said: “The church in its beginning, or in its first stage, before it was strongly established in the world, and settled in its New Testament state, and before the canon of Scripture was completed, was in an imperfect state — a state, as it were, of childhood, in comparison with what it was to be in its elder and later ages, when it should have reached its state of manhood, or of comparative earthly perfection.” [Charity and Its Fruits, Sermon 16] In other words, while it was entirely proper for the Church, in its state of relative childhood, to receive the word of God from the mouths of the apostles, this was not to continue into the age of the Church’s relative maturity, once the Church had been well established, and the whole of God’s revealed will for His Church had been committed to writing.

Two points remain to be addressed with connection to these verses. The first point is that which Thomas Scott noted in his commentary on the verse from Second Thessalonians: “Doubtless Paul’s traditions were worthy of credence and obedience; but how shall we know anything of them, except as they were written for our benefit?” In order to hold that there is an authoritative body of extra-Scriptural apostolic tradition, it is necessary to show that such traditions as it is held to include actually came from the apostles. As Scott wrote, the good news “which Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy were sent to preach to” the Thessalonians “came not to them in word only, but with the power of the Holy Ghost” (cf. I Thess. 1:5; I Cor. 2:4). It appears that God gave a strong witness to the truth of his apostles’ message that he has not similarly given to truth of the alleged body of unwritten tradition. The other point is a response to the (admittedly clever) suggestion in the paper that the Protestant position amounts to shouting, “To hell with Timothy, we want 1 and 2 Timothy!” As should be clear by now, the Protestant position does not diminish the honor or importance of the special officers through whom God delivered the gospel to the early Church. Neither do Protestants, in recognizing the authority of Scripture as the infallible rule of faith and life, in any way rob the church and its pastors of their high importance in Christianity. Recognizing that it is with the feet that the body stands, and that rather using the hands for standing, the body uses them for holding things, does not in any way belittle the hands and their service.

What has been covered thus far should be sufficient for relating the general answer to the Scripture witness offered in the paper. Nevertheless, in order that the case might be more fully presented, it will be beneficial to look briefly at a few more of the Scripture passages that were referenced.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. II Tim. 2:2

This verse should be compared with Paul’s words in the previous chapter: “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.” It is without doubt that the Spirit aids the good pastors set over the church; as it is said in Matthew Henry’s commentary, “Even those who are ever so well taught cannot keep what they have learned, any more than they could at first learn it, without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. We must not think to keep it by our own strength, but keep it by the Holy Ghost.” At the same time, it clearly goes beyond what is written to infer from these verses anything touching the putative infallibility of the church’s teaching office. Regarding the command to “hold fast the form of sound words,” and to pass this on to future generations, this has historically been done, at least in part, through the drafting of creedal statements, which are simply short compendiums of Christian doctrine. These statements are received by the Church as authoritative, not in themselves, but derivatively and in a secondary way because they concisely but accurately present the teaching of Scripture.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Acts 20:28

At this point it should be unnecessary to comment directly on the use made of this verse in the paper. But rather than silently pass by such a wonderful sentence, it seemed proper to quote it and make two observations on it. The first is that it contains a profound statement about how salvation comes to us in Christ; for God purchased His Church with nothing less than His own blood. The second, which must seem quite mundane in comparison, is that Paul here calls ‘overseers’ or ‘bishops’, i.e. episkopoi, the same men who in verse 17 are called ‘elders’, i.e. presbuteroi. Although it may be true that the institution of the monarchical bishop can be traced to very ancient times, the New Testament yet knows nothing of it, and seems rather to contradict it by equating bishops and elders.

These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:25f

This passage has long been used by the Church of Rome to prove, as is maintained in the paper, that Christ promised that the Spirit “would help the Church’s memory.” The old Catholic Encyclopedia identifies it as one of several places in this part of John’s Gospel “which clearly imply the promise of infallibility.” In response to this claim, Protestants do not necessarily deny that this promise can indirectly, in some sense, be extended to all believers. As is said in Matthew Poole’s commentary, “It is one great work of the holy Spirit, to bring the revelations of holy Writ to our remembrance, and withall to [make] clear to us the sense of them, and confirm our faith in them, and chiefly to quicken us to practice what is our duty.” Nevertheless, this is not at all the primary meaning of the passage; for Christ was here addressing his immediate disciples, telling them that they would be helped to remember the things which he himself had spoken to them during their time together.

An old article from Time Magazine [Nov. 1, 1968] describes a book by Roman Catholic Bishop Francis Simons titled Infallibility and the Evidence. This book was extremely controversial because Bishop Simons plainly asserted that, “a scrutiny of the traditional arguments seems to prove that the very structure of infallibility has to be abandoned.” Here is a short excerpt from the article: “Simons cites Jesus' declaration in John 14:26... In Simons' view, the obviously personal meaning of the word remembrance ‘makes the words applicable only to the Apostles.’ Nor is there any hint in the Bible, Simons claims, that the Apostles' successors would inherit more than ordinary providential assistance in interpreting what the Apostles themselves witnessed.” Depending on the context in which it is said, it may go a little too far to assert that the verse is applicable strictly to the Apostles alone. Nonetheless, the basic point remains as something deserving consideration.

This verse is also relevant to a fact that was mentioned several times in the discussion: namely, that Luke “had to sift through the traditions in order to write his Gospel.” Luke may indeed have had to sift through many sources when drafting his Gospel, but it is worth noting that in this process, besides having the benefit of divine inspiration, he also had the benefit of having been the contemporary of the men to whom the promise in John 14:26 was directly given. This is far from being the case with the men who today must interpret tradition as part of Rome’s teaching office.

Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full. II John 12

I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: but I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. III John 13f

These verses were referenced in the paper’s conclusion, not so much as outright proofs of the Roman Church’s doctrine, but as evidence tending to support it. In response it may be said that John’s purpose in coming in person rather than only in letter appears to have been determined more by the nature of pastoral care and Christian fellowship than by the nature of revelation. After all, John explicitly identifies his reason as being “that our joy may be full.” Since unwritten tradition moves men no closer to this end than the written word does, it is somewhat unnatural to read into this text a witness to the Roman position on revelation.

It was also asserted in the paper, again as something on the order of confirmatory evidence for a position already established: “That Moses and the Prophets were to write down everything is clear from the Old Testament writings... In the New Testament, however, these explicit divine commands to inscripturate are totally absent.” Two observations may be made in answer to this. First, in it is logical form it is essentially an argument from silence, and thus its value is doubtful, especially when other more forceful arguments can be made. But further, taking the argument at face value, the premise that the New Testament lacks any command to commit revelation to writing does itself appear questionable. In the opening chapter of the Apocalypse John is twice bidden to write down the vision that he receives (verses 11 and 19). This command to write is then reiterated at various important points in the prophesy (see the instructions to write to the angels of the seven particular churches, as well as 14:13, 19:9, and 21:5). It is true that no equally explicit command is found in the rest of the New Testament. However, it seems fair to infer from the Old Testament examples that such commands to write are more to be expected in prophetic literature than in other genres, and given that the Apocalypse is the only book of its type in the New Testament, it does not seem unusual that a command to write should be found in it but not in the other books.

With this the examination of the biblical witness brought forward in the paper must, for now, conclude, so that there be time to give something toward a defense of the Protestant position on Scripture.

Guest Blog: Response To a Catholic Critique Of The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation (Part One)

Recently a Roman Catholic stopped over here and took part in a lively discussion responding to my entry on Pope Damasus and the Canon of Scripture. He went by the nickname “Pope St. Peter”. His name is Frank G. Ramirez, and hosts a blog entitled, Sancta Mater Ecclesia. He mentioned that he had posted a paper critiquing The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Inscripturation and The Fullness of Time. Also involved in the discussion was a person with the nickname “Iohannes”. Iohannes offered to take a look at Frank’s paper, and provide a critique. His response will be posted here in parts. To really appreciate this interaction, it is essential that one actually first reads the paper posted by Frank Ramirez, and then read the blog entries which will be found here in the next few days.

************************************

Greetings,

With apologies for the long delay, I offer now my response to “Pope St. Peter’s” paper on the Reformed understanding of Scripture. It was not immediately obvious to me what the best way would be in which to structure the following remarks, but in the end it seemed prudent to divide them into three parts: first, an answer to the general line of argument; second, an examination of the Scripture witness adduced for the Roman Church’s position; and third, a brief defense of the Protestant position, as over against that of Rome. I acknowledge that this will not be an exhaustive treatment of the paper and its contents, but I hope that it will serve in some way to advance our discussion toward the end of mutual edification. If there is anything that I pass by in the paper, on which comment is desired, I would gladly respond to it, once the deficiency is pointed out.

The basic drift of the paper appears to be reflected in this passage:

Jesus chastised the Pharisees for not realizing that He recapitulated the Old Testament: “You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they who bear witness to me” (Jn 5:39). In other words, the Word made Text points toward the Word made Flesh. And what happens next? Not Word made Text again! The Word made Flesh points toward His Bride with whom He has become one Flesh. Indeed, the Word became flesh, so that the Two could become one Flesh (cf. Jn 1:14; Eph 5:32)!

Before approaching the real issue, I would observe, as something which will be relevant later on, that the verse quoted from John’s Gospel can be read with the verb ‘to search’ in the indicative mood (as here translated) or in the imperative (as a command to ‘search the scriptures’). The former is the reading commonly given in modern versions, probably because it is thought to flow better with the next verse. Nevertheless, the imperative reading is well supported historically, with both Chrysostom and Augustine following it, as well as the translators of the Authorized Version and the Rheims New Testament. But in any case, it is not with this that we are presently concerned.

All Christians will agree that the written word in the scripture points to Christ the incarnate Word. In the passage above, the particular stress appears to be that the written word in the Old Testament anticipates a new fullness of revelation in Christ. With the coming of Christ, the manner of revelation is changed. For Christ founds his Church, and although he in the flesh is ascended into heaven, he remains present on earth in the body of his beloved, in whom he dwells by the Spirit, and with whom he is most intimately united. This is summarized in the chain depicted in the paper: Logos — Spoken Word — Inscripturated Word — Incarnated Word — Extension of Incarnate Word. (Son) (Patriarchs) (Old Testament writers) (Jesus) (Church) The problem with the Reformed doctrine is therefore that, not recognizing the whole of what is entailed in the culmination of all things in the incarnation of Christ, it does not terminate in Christ and his bride. Instead, mirroring the old covenant paradigm, it returns again to the inscripturated word.

In response, it is readily acknowledged that the coming of Christ constitutes a radical development in the history of revelation. This is the grand truth with which the Epistle to the Hebrews opens: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.” All revelation prior to Christ’s coming, in whatever form it was given, looked forward to him—“to him give all the prophets witness”—and the focus gradually sharpened as his incarnation drew nearer. Then, “when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son,” whose advent marked the beginning of the age in which God’s revelation would at last arrive in its true fullness. In contrast to what went before, this revelation would not be given ‘at sundry times’ or portion by portion; for through the ministry of Christ and his apostles, the faith was indeed “once for all delivered to the saints.” Nor would the diversity of ways in which God spoke to his people in the old covenant continue in the new; “those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people,” as the Westminster Confession says, “being now ceased.”

The coming of Christ is therefore of momentous import in the history of revelation. But the question remains, what is final form of this revelation? It has been contended that the Protestant teaching wrongly terminates in the scriptures, not in Christ and his bride. This, however, is a misunderstanding of the nature of scripture. Scripture is not an end in itself; it is a means, or a vehicle, by and through which God vouchsafed to give his revelation to his people. Just as the scriptures of the Old Testament constantly point men to the coming savior, the scriptures of the New Testament constantly direct men to the incarnate, dead and risen, ascended savior, who will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. Moreover, in pointing men to Christ who in his flesh now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, the scriptures also lead men to the body of Christ on earth, the church, which as the ekklesia is the assembly of all those who have been called out of the darkness into the light of life in Christ.

The Protestant teaching is not that the Scriptures are the whole of Christianity; they have a specific office, which is that of being the only infallible rule of faith and life. They contain without error the whole doctrine taught and proclaimed by the apostles and prophets and Christ himself, which is the foundation of the church (see Eph. 2:20). That the written word is the rule of faith and life does not, however, in any way derogate from Christ, or from his incarnation, from any particular part of Christianity. In fact, there is no reason necessarily to disagree with the assertion made in the paper that “The Word made Flesh points toward His Bride with whom He has become one Flesh.” But it must be borne in mind that Christ, in pointing to the church, points to her as having her own proper office. This office is actively to be the extension of himself in carrying the message he gave the world (which is contained perfectly in the Scriptures) out into the world, teaching all nations, and baptizing them in the name of the Triune God. Is the Church removed from Christianity because its function differs from that of the Scripture? To borrow Paul’s analogy, “If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?” The Scriptures and the Church each have their place in Christianity, and while they are united closely together, their respective functions must not be confounded.

Sproul: "The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books."

"I've read second-hand that R.C. Sproul said Christians have "a fallible list of infallible books." Do you believe this? How does this factor into Protestant certainty?"

R.C. Sproul has made this point multiple times (for those of you familiar with his work, you know he frequently recycles his material). I have at least three sources in which he makes this point. Probably though, the point wasn’t even Sproul’s to begin with. He was the pupil of John Gerstner, and I think this statement was probably originally from the pen of Gerstner.

Don Kistler points out:

"Though Luther did not challenge the infallibility of Scripture he most emphatically challenged the infallibility of the church. He allowed for the possibility that the church could err, even when the church ruled on the question of what books properly belonged in the Canon. To see this issue more clearly we can refer to a distinction often made by Dr. John Gerstner. Gerstner distinguishes between the Roman Catholic view of the Canon and the Protestant view of the Canon in this manner:

• ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW: The Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books.

• PROTESTANT VIEW: The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.

The distinction in view here refers to the Catholic Church’s conviction that the Canon of Scripture was declared infallibly by the church. On the other hand, the Protestant view is that the church’s decision regarding what books make up the Canon was a fallible decision. Being fallible means that it is possible that the church erred in its compilation of the books found in the present Canon of Scripture.

When Gerstner makes this distinction he is neither asserting nor implying that the church indeed did err in its judgment of what properly belongs to the Canon. His view is not designed to cast doubt on the Canon but simply to guard against the idea of an infallible church. It is one thing to say that the church could have erred; it is another thing to say that the church did err.

Gerstner’s formula has often been met with both consternation and sharp criticism in evangelical circles. It seems to indicate that he and those who agree with his assessment are undermining the authority of the Bible. But nothing could be further from the truth. Like Luther and Calvin before him, Gerstner has been an ardent defender of the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. His formula is merely designed to acknowledge that there was a historical selection process by which the church determined what books were really Scripture and what books were not Scripture. The point is that in this sifting or selection process the church sought to identify what books were actually to be regarded as Scripture."

[Source: “The Establishment of Scripture” Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible. (Don Kistler, ed. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), found in the electronic edition of Sproul’s Chapters in Symposium Volumes]

Do I agree with the statement, “The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books”? Yes, because the heart of the statement is only meant to point out that the church is not infallible.

Sproul points out:

“Roman Catholics view the canon as an infallible collection of infallible books. Protestants view it as a fallible collection of infallible books. Rome believes the church was infallible when it determined which books belong in the New Testament. Protestants believe the church acted rightly and accurately in this process, but not infallibly.”[Source: R.C. Sproul, Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology, 58].

For me to admit that the Bible is an “infallible collection” is really only a way of being cornered into admitting the Roman Catholic paradigm of an infallible extra-Biblical authority. Does that therefore mean that I believe the bible contains a book it shouldn’t? No.

I recognize the Christian Church received the Canon. It does not though, create the Canon, or stand above the Canon. In other words, I see no reason to grant the Church infallibility in order for the Church to receive the Canon. The Church was used by God to provide a widespread knowledge of the Canon. The Holy Spirit had worked among the early Christian Church in providing them with the books of the New Testament. This same process can be seen with the Old Testament and Old Testament believers. The Old Testament believer 50 years before Christ was born had a canon of Scripture, this despite the ruling from an infallible authority.

First century Christians had the Old Testament, and had “certainty” that it was the very word of almighty. Clement of Rome frequently quotes the Old Testament. He does so, with the understanding that the words of the Old Testament are the very words of God. He was certain of it, this despite the alleged infallible ruling of either Pope Damaus or Trent. His use of Old Testament passages show a certainty that the words were God’s words. Or, think of Paul’s exhortation to Timothy- Paul notes that from infancy Timothy “knew” the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15): “…and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” How was it Timothy could know the Scriptures were the words of God without an infallible Church council declaring which books were canonical?

Obviously, the notion that an infallible council can only provide Canon certainty cannot be accurate. To expand this, think of all the New Testament writers: they freely quote the Old Testament with the certainty that it was the Word of God. Yet, no infallible source defined the Canon for them. A “source” definitely received the Old Testament Canon, but that “source” was not infallible, nor do I recall Rome arguing that the Jewish Old Testament leadership was infallible. Hence, I see no reason why the entirety of the Bible needs an infallible body to declare the Canon. It wasn’t needed previous to Trent, Damasus, or the pre-Christ Jewish authority.

That being said, how was it that Timothy had “certainty” the Old Testament was the word of God? It is God’s sovereign power that reveals the canon to His church, for His purposes. The people of God are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is they, who are given spiritual life and continually fed by its words. Jesus did this himself, as recorded in Luke 24:45, “Then He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.” As to how a Protestant can have certainty on the Canon, my certainty is in the providence and work of God. Only faith will read the Bible and hear the voice of God. God used means in giving us His Canon, but like the Old Testament believers, those means don’t need to be infallible for one to know they are reading and hearing God’s word.

Christmas Present: The Facts About Luther

“The best ammunition a Catholics can use in a debate with a Protestant is Luther. His is the source/Founder of all 30,000 Protestant Denominations around the world and he was off his rocker.” [Source]
Well, if that's the best ammo, then those doing Catholic apologetics are in big trouble. Most Protestants don't even know who Luther was.

I no longer participate regularly over at Catholic Answers, but I do stop by on occasion. Once again, my least favorite Luther biography came up: Father Patrick O’Hare’s, Facts About Luther. The discussion can be found here- Book: The Facts About Luther. I’ve written about this book often because Roman Catholic laymen repeatedly present it as the definitive biographical source for the life and work of Martin Luther. Below are entries I’ve done on this book:

*The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther(Part One)*

*The Facts About Luther (Part One)*
*The Facts About Luther (Part Two)*
*O'Hare's Facts About Luther: Master Index of Outrageous Quotes *

Defending O'Hare's Facts About Luther

Defending O'Hare's Facts About Luther (Continued)

Catholic Apologist Art Sippo on Father O’Hare’s “Facts About Luther”

Father O'Hare's "Facts About Luther" Revisted


This time, A Catholic Answers participant got a copy for Christmas:

“So I asked and got it for Christmas. It was written in 1916 and DEFINITELY is not done in a tone of ecumenism. The author doesn't mince words or spare the feelings of anybody with a soft spot for him. But he does seem to do a pretty good job of citing his sources, and uses primary sources for the most part (I'm only about 15% through it so far). So far, I'm SHOCKED. I'd always assumed Luther was a well intentioned guy with genuinely sincere faith who went off the rails as an over-reaction to actual corruption and abuses he observed in the church of his day. But so far, I see a proud, two-faced, obstinate sufferer of scrupulosity who refused to take his superiors advice for dealing with his problem (scrupulosity) and instead abused and berated anyone who tried to explain things to him. He appears to have given credence to any ecclesial horror story told to him and calculatedly used the greed and power-lust of the local 'nobility' to avoid suffering consequences from the church. This is nothing like I expected to learn!Obviously, any protestant folks here are going to say this author must be a partisan catholic hack (since Luther is revered as much as a protestant can revere and dead human), but I'm curious to hear the opinions of any catholics who have read this book or have some scholarly knowledge of the period.”

Well, eventually my name came up. I guess I’m really the only one who’s taken the time to deal with this book. I even found a French discussion board discussing this book, and someone brought up my reviews. Let’s work through this paragraph.

1. “It was written in 1916 and DEFINITELY [sic] is not done in a tone of ecumenism. The author doesn't mince words or spare the feelings of anybody with a soft spot for him.”
The book had an early printing in 1916, but it is usually referenced to the updated 1917 version. O’Hare intended it to correspond with the 400th anniversary of Luther’s posting of the 95 Theses. There was a lot of hubbub with the anniversary going on, and O’Hare wanted to get the Catholic side out to the public. Yes, the book does not promote ecumenism. Protestants are heretics, and Luther is their heretical father, leading all Protestants to perdition. This of course, is much different to today’s modern Catholic, who simply sees a Protestant as a Christian who doesn’t have the fullness of the truth. O’Hare closes his book by stating: “May God hold in His hand the hearts of all, and who alone knows the bounds He has assigned to the rebellious sects and to the afflictions of His Church, cause all His wanderers soon to return to His unity! Separation from His Church means, logically and practically, no Church (for them). No Church means no Christianity. No Christianity, among intelligent men, means no religion at all, and no religion means ruin to the souls of men for time and eternity” [Source: The Facts About Luther, 362].

2. “But he does seem to do a pretty good job of citing his sources, and uses primary sources for the most part (I'm only about 15% through it so far).”
No, Father O’Hare actually does a poor job citing sources, and TAN publishers didn’t help the situation at all. Many of O'Hare's citations are incomplete. Many of O'Hare's citations are missing completely. Many of O'Hare's citations are references to Luther's Works in German and Latin- and these are often editions which aren't even available in many instances, or even available to the public (some date back to the 16th Century). None of O'Hare's references are to the standard 55 volume English edition of Luther Works. This set had not been compiled yet at the time he wrote. Many of O'Hare's secondary sources have the same characteristics of his Luther citaitons: incomplete, missing, or referring to works not readily available (he cites works from the 1800's, some in non-English languages as well). It can take me hours to check a single O'Hare quote. At present, I have 3 different sets of Luther's Works, and quite a few secondary sources, as well as access to 5 good college libraries. I also have a small collection of the secondary sources O'Hare used.

3. “So far, I'm SHOCKED. I'd always assumed Luther was a well intentioned guy with genuinely sincere faith who went off the rails as an over-reaction to actual corruption and abuses he observed in the church of his day. But so far, I see a proud, two-faced, obstinate sufferer of scrupulosity who refused to take his superiors advice for dealing with his problem (scrupulosity) and instead abused and berated anyone who tried to explain things to him. He appears to have given credence to any ecclesial horror story told to him and calculatedly used the greed and power-lust of the local 'nobility' to avoid suffering consequences from the church. This is nothing like I expected to learn!”

Of course you’re shocked. Father O’Hare presents a Luther who is not only mad, but morally depraved and corrupt. He asserts that Luther in the Wartburg was in close touch with Satan. Luther lived indecently, decried celibacy and virginity, sanctioned adultery, dishonored marriage, authorized prostitution and polygamy, and was a drunkard and frequenter of taverns who preached his theology in the fumes of alcohol in the midst of his fellow revolutionaries. He attributes to Luther a fickle and cunning character, an inordinate impudence, an unbridled presumption, a titanic pride, a despotic nature, and a spirit of blasphemy; Luther was a blasphemer, a libertine, a revolutionary, a hater of religious vows, a disgrace to the religious calling, an enemy of domestic felicity, the father of divorce, the advocate of polygamy, and the propagator of immorality and open licentiousness.

4. “Obviously, any protestant folks here are going to say this author must be a partisan catholic hack (since Luther is revered as much as a protestant can revere and dead human)…”

Actually, Father O’Hare represents a trend in Catholic Luther scholarship that lasted until the early 20th Century. The trend focused on Luther the person, putting a strong emphasis on vilifying Luther’s character as a means of discrediting the Reformation. The emphasis shifted in the Twentieth Century: Catholics began to study Luther as a sincere religious man and an honest theologian. In regard to Luther being revered by Protestants, I would speculate most don’t know who he is, and confuse him with Martin Luther King. Protestants who respect him realize he was a sinner. No bona fide Protestant argues that Luther was an infallible interpreter, divine authority, or immaculately conceived. We realize Luther was a man of many faults. Yet when he proclaims the gospel, he is absolutely correct because the Bible clearly teaches it. When he speaks out against the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church he is right because history shows this was the case.

One of the responses in the thread sent the Catholic Answers folks over here to some of my O’Hare blog posts. The guy who got the O’Hare book didn’t like that I pointed out typos. Actually, I can’t spell, and rely heavily on spell-check. I think it was a Roman apologist who prompted me to point out typos, way back when.

But what really gave me a chuckle was someone directed folks to read the discussion I had with Catholic apologist Art Sippo on Luther biographies. And, the guy who got the O’Hare book presented this amusing summary:

“Pshew! I got as far as page 4 of the Swan/Sippo thread before it degenerated into a furball. Gross Summarization:

Sippo: O'Hare is OK, but flawed. Better to read work by two other catholic contemporaries (I forget the names already).

Swan: Those guys' analysis of Luther is Freudian psyhcobabble dreck! Read these protestant biographers instead! Or this one by a catholic exNazi. Or this one by a catholic who doesn't seem to notice anything wrong with Luther's life or work.

Sippo: My authors present impeccable sources for their troubling revelations about Luther.

Swan: Yeah, but their analysis of his psyche is questionable. Let's stick with my authors who don't discuss all those embarassing issues yours raises...

Swan seems a smooth debater, but Sippo never seemed to take him to task for his authors' apparent failure to deal with the 'less than virtuous' aspects of Luther's life and writings. What I got out of all that was that I better go back and get those two author's names because Swan either wasn't able or failed to actually attack their actual findings on Luther, just their analysis of his psyche.”

To see what Sippo said about O’Hare, see my blog entry, Catholic Apologist Art Sippo on Father O’Hare’s “Facts About Luther”. Sippo says, “The book needs to be taken with a grain of salt” and “Some of the things it says about Luther are not accurate.” And, “Fr. O'Hare also imputed to Luther certain base motives that I don't think he had.” True, Sippo does say, “Generally, Fr. O'Hare's book is okay”. I would conclude that Dr. Sippo is simply inconsistent. A book “taken with a grain of salt” is not “generally okay.”

The analysis that I simply want Catholics to read Protestant biographies only is inaccurate. So is the charge that I only recommend works by ex-Nazi’s or by Catholics who don’t find anything wrong with Luther. The Catholic authors I recommended do indeed point out negative aspects of Luther, and I mentioned this to Sippo as well. For instance, Lortz holds Luther was a heretic, and also his theology was the result of subjectivism.

The bottom line seems to be that this guy over at Catholic Answers really isn't interested in the "facts about Luther." He's interested in being fueled in maintaining an outdated Catholic polemic.

Pope Damasus and the Canon of Scripture (Part Two)

Previously, I pointed out the inconsistency Roman Catholics face when positing Pope Damasus decreed the final canon of Scripture in the year 382. Recall, the Roman Catholic blog Crossed the Tiber stated:

“It was at the Council of Rome in 382 that St. Pope Damasus decreed the final canon of Scripture. Often, it is said that the Council of Trent codified the canon of Scripture after the reformation, but the evidence points to this early council as the when the canon was finalized. The Council of Trent reiterated the canon in a response to the reformer's revision of the historic canon.”

There are a few key words in this statement, particularly “codified” and “reiterated.” “Codified” is a term pertaining to arrangement in a systematic form. “Reiterated,” means, “to do over again.” What the statement above is saying is that Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome “codified” or “finalized” the final arrangement of the Canon, while the Council of Trent “reiterated” the Canon of Sacred Scripture, or just declared the same thing over. In other words, the Roman Catholic Church, according to this Roman Catholic blogger, needed to say the same infallible thing twice. Perhaps the news of the Canon wasn't disseminated well enough? Or perhaps there was not an infallible pronouncement on the canon for the Roman church, even as late as the 16th Century? It's the later. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states:

According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III Can to Col (New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1967), p. 29).

Here we find two Roman Catholic sources, one reputable, the other an opinion of a layman who swam across the Tiber, saying opposite things. True the Council of Trent was a reaction to issues raised by the Reformers. However, The New Encyclopedia doesn’t make that connection and leaves a bald statement inferring it was within the Roman Church proper that there was “doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books.”  This link gives a good sampling of those rejecting the apocryphal books previous to the Reformation.

I did point some of this out to the Roman catholic blogger.  He responded:

“I certainly wouldn't take my word over the Church's position in any issue! But perhaps, the issue you find here is the language which Trent used regarding the canon vs the language I used in my post. Perhaps Trent was the first Council to use the language "infallible decision" to finally and with its apostolic authority put an end to the debate reignited when the reformers rejected the canon that had been accepted since the early Church Councils. The Catholic Church has always had dissenters within its ranks but at the end of the day, when Rome speaks, that settles it (St Augustine).”

This blogger's comments are like trying to paste two types of Jello together with a thumbtack. Recall in the alleged decree from Damasus, he is reported as saying:

"…the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 

This type of sentiment put forth sounds strikingly like what the Roman Church says "goes." According to the Roman Catholic blogger, the Canon of Scripture was finalized in 382, but needed to be given in infallible decision language at Trent. Are there any qualified Church Historians that state this? The Roman Catholic blogger went on to quote from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:

During the deliberations of the Council there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither--and this is remarkable--in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod. The Council of Trent did not enter into an examination of the fluctuations in the history of the Canon. Neither did it trouble itself about questions of authorship or character of contents. True to the practical genius of the Latin Church, it based its decision on immemorial tradition as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes, and liturgical reading, relying on traditional teaching and usage to determine a question of tradition. The Tridentine catalogue has been given above.

Contrary to this statement from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, there were indeed questions about the Old Testament canon at the Council of Trent. There was a group of scholars at the Council that were considered knowledgeable on this issue. One particular was Cardinal Seripando. The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin explained “…[H]e was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent. These men lobbied for the non-inclusion of the apocryphal books. For more information on this, see: Who Were Some of the Best Scholars At Trent, and What Did They Think of the Apocrypha? 

Even more significant as proof that it wasn’t only Protestants questioning the apocrypha, the very prominent papal legate, Cardinal Cajetan, the very man sent by the Pope to question Martin Luther at Augsburg, likewise denied their canonicity. In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical. Cajetan wrote,

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.

But really, the Roman Catholic Church didn’t first determine the Canon anyway. Eric Svendsen points out:

The [Roman] Catholic Church did not first determine the canon. It was the Eastern Orthodox church that came up with the list of twenty-seven books [of the New Testament canon] first. The consensus by the Eastern church was decided in 367, and the twenty-seven books were included in Athanasius’ Easter letter from Alexandria. This decision was made twenty-six years before [the council of] Hippo. The Western (Roman) church accepted a canon that did not include the book of Hebrews, but eventually followed the East in including all twenty-seven books. In other words, the Roman church relied upon the Eastern Orthodox church for her canon. Far from making an infallible decision, the Roman church, at Hippo and Carthage, simply adopted the decision of the Eastern church. Therefore, the canon that we currently have is the work of the Eastern Orthodox church, which does not claim magisterial infallibility. Catholics must rely on the decision of the Eastern church and cannot claim to have determined the canon themselves.” [Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists (New York: Reformation Press, 1999), p. 66]

Revised February 2026

If you would like to contact me, please leave a comment under one of my blog posts or visit the Beggars All Facebook page and use their Messanger feature.

Because of spam and trolls, Blog posts comments will not appear automatically; they are moderated and potentially approved or deleted.  Facebook comments will typically appear instantly but are also subject to moderation.

Thanks, James

Pope Damasus and the Canon of Scripture (Part One) "The Council of Rome"

I’ve been stopping by a Roman Catholic blog, Crossed the Tiber (run by a person named “Tiber Jumper”). I was interested by their entry, St. Damasus and the Canon of Scripture. This entry asserts:

“It was at the Council of Rome in 382 that St. Pope Damasus decreed the final canon of Scripture. Often, it is said that the Council of Trent codified the canon of Scripture after the reformation, but the evidence points to this early council as the when the canon was finalized. The Council of Trent reiterated the canon in a response to the reformer's revision of the historic canon.”

This canon defined by Pope Damasus includes the Apocryphal books, so it's important for Roman Catholics this early Pope  be seen as credible historical evidence. My questions and critique focuses on the consistency of Roman Catholic paradigms, and the certainty Roman Catholics claim to have. Upon closer scrutiny, it will be shown the distinct position held by this Roman Catholic blogger on the canon is not consistent, nor does the historical record provide any certainty for the beliefs espoused above. 

1. The Council of Rome was not an Ecumenical Council
First of all, Roman Catholics are supposed (and required!) to believe that Conciliar statements which bind all Christians are those put forth by Ecumenical Councils. The Catholic Encyclopedia points out: 

Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.

Was the Council of Rome an Ecumenical Council? No, it was not. It was a local council. Were the decrees issues by this council then infallible binding pronouncements for the universal church? No. The Catholic Encyclopedia states,

“….only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.”

So: in terms of the Council of Rome being a binding council for all Christians, it was not. Here we find that whatever was said at the Council of Rome cannot bind all Christians. Whatever was said at the Council of Rome can provide no certainty for a Roman Catholic. Hence, it cannot be true, in a consistent Roman Catholic paradigm, that the Council of Rome infallibly decreed the final Canon.

2. Did Pope Damasus Speak Infallibly at the Council of Rome?
But the Pope was at the Council of Rome, was he not? Doesn’t this mean what he said at this local council binds the universal church? In the decree on the Canon, Damasus is reported as saying:

“…the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Can it be inferred that the statement on the Canon issued by Pope Damasus is infallible? Here is a rarely cited fact by the defenders of Rome. The statement above, and indeed, the entire statement from Pope Damasus listing the Canonical books, probably didn’t come from him. F.F. Bruce states,

What is commonly called the Gelasian decree on books which are to be received and not received takes its name from Pope Gelasius (492-496). It gives a list of biblical books as they appeared in the Vulgate, with the Apocrypha interspersed among the others. In some manuscripts, indeed, it is attributed to Pope Damasus, as though it had been promulgated by him at the Council of Rome in 382. But actually it appears to have been a private compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century (F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988], p. 97).

This statement from Pope Damasus didn’t actually come from Pope Damasus! As far as I know, there isn’t a written formal record of the proceedings at the Council of Rome to have certainty exactly what was said or decreed. Much historical speculation then surrounds the decree of the Canon by Pope Damasus. The bottom line: Roman Catholics cannot have any certainty on the accuracy of this statement. Of course, they are free to believe it, but they do so on faith, not on historical verification. Thus to be deep in history, is not to be certain that the Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined the Canon in 382.

Revised, February 2026.