Covenant, Canon, and the New Testament Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther: Reason is the Devil's Handmaid

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Luther's Works explain the reference to Frau Hulda:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saint Hippolytus, Antipope, on Pope Callistus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source. (HT: DTKing)

Meet and Greet with John Bugay

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

My favorite posts at Beggars All:

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

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

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

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

Christianity is Growing but Rome is Sinking -- Seminaries from WSC to Dallas to Covenant to Southern Baptist to RTS are really emphasizing both original languages and hermeneutics that work to combine the best of Systematic Theology, Biblical Theology, and Literary theory, along with a healthy respect for the (small-t) tradition of the church. These efforts are going to bear wonderful fruit.

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

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

From Reformation500@WordPress.com

A Few Words About My Method

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

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

How Catholics Misuse Scripture:

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

1 Tim 3:15: The pillar and ground of the truth -- For you Catholics, who are interested in claiming that Christ somehow supernaturally prevents the “teaching office” of the church from erring, stop and think about what that means for a moment. This verse doesn’t even say what you say it says, much less that it means what you say it means.

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

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

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

The nonexistent early papacy

The Spice Woman and the Symmachan Forgeries -- It is no coincidence that the first systematic works of papal history appear at the very time the Roman church’s past was being reinvented for polemical purposes."

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

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

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


Older things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Epistemological Paradigms

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

Defining Perspicuity

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

29. The Clarity of Scripture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Source.)

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

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

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

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

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

He elaborates:

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

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

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

Two Bioethics Book Recommendations

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

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

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

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

Bioethics: A Primer for Christians (Meilaender)

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

Quick, fun blurb on the RC view of the Scripture

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

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

2:38 PM, August 18, 2010 

Rhology said...

Gosh, thanks Alexander.

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

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

2:43 PM, August 18, 2010 

Luther: Reason must be left behind for it is the enemy of faith

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

Christ taught: “ Be therefore, wise as serpents and simple as doves”[Matt 10:16], “You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times?” [Matt 16:3]. Luther teaches: “No good work happens as the result of one’s own wisdom; but everything must happen in a stupor . . . Reason must be left behind for it is the enemy of faith” [Trischreden, Weimer VI, 143, 25-35]. (Underling in the original)

According to this quote, Christ exhorts his hearers to "be wise" [Matt. 10:16]. Matthew 16:13 appears to have Christ saying one can know the signs of the times, but this passage is being used grossly out of context. It is a passage in which Jesus is chastising the Pharisees and Sadducees over their ignorance. By contrast, Luther is quoted as saying good works are the result of stupor, and reason (or wisdom) is the enemy of faith. The caricature being set up is Christ commands people to be wise, while Luther puts forth the bliss of ignorance.

Documentation
It's possible that this Luther quote was plagiarized from this secondary source: Verbum the newsletter of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield, CT, Spring 1985. Note the similarities:

Luther, Exposing the Myth says the quote comes from "Trischreden, Weimer VI, 143, 25-35." There is no such thing as "Trischreden," it's Tischreden. The Tischreden is Luther's Table Talk, a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends, published after his death. There is no such thing as "Weimer," it's Weimar. This is the German collection of Luther's works.  Despite these haphazard spelling errors, if Luther, Exposing the Myth is referring WA TR,  volume VI does contain the Table Talk, WA TR 6:143, lines 25-35 can be found here:

Despite this reference, Luther, Exposing the Myth is actually citing two different statements from Luther. The first sentence, "No good work happens as the result of one’s own wisdom; but everything must happen in a stupor" is not on page 143 of WA TR 6:143. It appears to come from WA TR 1:175, lines 21-22,

This 1532 Table Talk statement has been translated into in English in LW 54:64.  The next sentence, "Reason must be left behind for it is the enemy of faith”" does correspond to statement from WA TR 6:143, lines 25-35 (lines 25-26). To my knowledge, this complete Table Talk statement has not been fully translated into English. Below an English translation has been provided by Thoughts By Brigitte.


Context: Quote #1

The title of this Table Talk says it all: Youth, Not Age, Is Venturesome. The point is that young people are impulsive and prone to get them in to things that older people might not.

No. 406: Youth, Not Age, Is Venturesome December, 1532
“No good work is undertaken or done with wise reflection. It must all happen in a half-sleep. This is how I was forced to take up the office of teaching. If I had known what I know now, ten horses wouldn’t have driven me to it. Moses and Jeremiah also complained that they were deceived. Nor would any man take a wife if he first gave real thought [to what might happen in marriage and the household]. Here Philip said that he had diligently observed that in history great deeds had never been done by old men. “This was so,” said Luther, “when Alexander and Augustus were young; afterward men become too wise. They didn’t do great things by deliberate choice but by a sort of impulse. If you young fellows were wise, the devil couldn’t do anything to you; but since you aren’t wise, you need us who are old. Our Lord God doesn’t do great things except by violence, as they say. If old men were strong and young men were wise it would be worth something. The sect leaders are all young men like Icarus and Phaeton. Such are Zwingli and Karlstadt.  They are novices in the sacred Scriptures” [LW 54:64].

Context: Quote #2

Therefore leave reason at home, because it is the archenemy of faith, if you are fighting sin and death, so that you do not lose the righteousness of Christ or faith (because it [reason] does not know what that is [righteousness of Christ/faith]), but it is always relying on its own righteousness, or when it is doing its best, on the righteousness of the law.

But whenever reason and the law come together (unite) faith then has immediately lost its virginity and purity. For there is no thing which opposes faith more than the law and reason, and you cannot battle them down unless with great effort and work; and yet, it has to be done; they must be conquered, if you want to be saved.

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

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

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

Contra Liccione on the Canon Question

A commenter at CatholicNick's place decided to copy+paste a comment from Dr. Michael Liccione and originally posted at Called to Communion on the question of the canon of Scripture.  The copy+paste begins here.  I offered my critique of the article, which I am going to cut into the comment's text here.


I should think the burden would be on RCC to give some reason to believe that it is in fact infallible.
But first, to prove that it is the only One True Church®.


the teaching that the Tridentine canon is divinely inspired is one that we accept as irreformable

1) This is an ignorant thing to say, since the Tridentine canon passed over at least one book in silence. So your canon of Scr is not closed or complete.
2) Further, for a Sola Scripturist, the canon of Scr is identical to the list of infallible teachings, since only Scr is infallible.
What is Rome's infallible canon of infallible teachings? If you can't provide it, what is Rome's fallible canon of infallible teachings?



You can’t even tell us which visible body counts as “the” Church whose allegedly fallible authority you nonetheless want to cite.

So he just got finished telling us that SS-ists don't think that the church is infallible, that we think the canon is made by a fallible church. And then he rubs it in our faces that we can't claim an infallible church? Um, isn't that what we were saying the whole time?


For if whatever-it-is you call “the Church” could always be wrong

But we don't depend on the church. We depend on and trust in God to make His revelation known. We're theists.


how do you make your case?

My case is found here.


The formation of the canon is the work of God working through the Church.

Prove it by bringing fwd:
1) your infallible canon of infallible teachings;
OR, FAILING THAT
2) your fallible canon of infallible teachings;
OR, FAILING THAT
3) your infallible canon of Scr.

....

which church is “the Church,”

Great question. If you are suggesting that we accept the RCC a priori as the infallible interpreter, please let me know why I should. After all, there's lots of competition out there for that spot! EOC, the Watchtower, the LDS, David Koresh, José Luís de Jesús Miranda, etc. If your response resembles: "Just check which church has the pedigree and the line of apostolic succession," then
1) EOC claims the same thing. How can I know who's right?
2) Is it just your non-authoritative interp that apostolic succession/pedigree are the hallmarks of The One True Church®?
3) If I were in fact to check apostolic succession, wouldn't that be non-authoritative interp on my part? If you proceed to tell me to give up on that personal interp stuff, isn't that begging the entire question?
4) If JW/LDS, for example, is the infallible interpreter, wouldn't their interpretation of church history (including a Great Apostasy and later Restoration) be correct by definition, since it's infallible?



without identifying some church as “the Church” that does the pertinent “work of God,”

But we DO identify it. It is the Church.
But "the Church" here is not "the RCC", b/c the church to which I refer is not identical with the modern RCC. But we're not reliant on the church, we're reliant on God Himself to make His revelation known.



What you give us thereby is only your opinion and that of your particular branch of Protestantism, which does not claim infallibility.

1) False dilemma - it is not true that there is either infallibility or "just your opinion". In between is an educated, argued-for position.
2) The individual RC cannot claim infallibility for himself, so this argument cuts his own position's throat. Simply citing another infallible source doesn't get you anywhere either - SS-ists do that when we cite God as infallible source.
So try as you might, I'm very sorry, but you have no epistemological advantage here in this question.



a fallible church that you can’t even identify with a visible body cannot count as such an authority.

Strawman. We DO identify a visible body - the Church. Doesn't mean it's infallible.

See, we trust our omnipotent, loving God to make His self-revelation known to His people. There is little reason to think this would require that His people be infallible. Indeed, did He not successfully make His Word known to the Old Testament people of God? And what was their infallible interpreter? The Sanhedrin which put Jesus to death? The Sadducees who denied the resurrection in the Eschaton?

We further know it through the impossibility of the contrary. If God has not spoken clearly, sufficiently, and in a way understandable to people, then let us eat, drink, and be merry, for neither today nor tomorrow do we know anything about God, eternal life, atonement, sin, judgment, resurrection, or moral law. Indeed, I'd argue we have no basis for ANY objective epistemology or metaphysics. Such an idea is certainly unlivable, and if one is inclined to argue that its unthinkability is a crutch for weak-minded people, I simply respond that if God did not speak, there's nothing right OR WRONG with being weak-minded.

Luther, Exposing the Myth: Plagiarized?

The wonders of the Internet never cease. I actually found the document from which the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth appears to have been partially plagiarized from: Verbum the newsletter of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield, CT, Spring 1985. It appears that a Roman Catholic website plagiarized a Roman Catholic Newsletter.

Luther: God Moved the Will of Judas?

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading of "Free Will":

“His (Judas) will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as He does all that is in this world” [De servo Arbitrio, against man’s free will].
Elsewhere I've documented that Luther, Exposing the Myth juxtaposes these type of Luther quotes against a Pelagian misinterpretation of Scripture. Luther Exposing the Myth completely ignores Luther's argumentation about necessity and the will. Rather, they set up a Pelagian paradigm which is quite reminiscent of that put forth by Erasmus. Both Luther Exposing the Myth and Erasmus either minimize or ignore grace. With this quote, Luther's position is caricatured to prove God is the author of Judas' sin.

Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth simply points readers to the Latin version of the Bondage of the Will, "De Servo Arbitrio." This is a telling indication that the quote comes from a secondary source. The author of Luther Exposing the Myth probably didn't read this quote in context. I've found a secondary source that lays out the quote in a similar fashion. In Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar's Luther His Life and Work, page 304, it states,

The assertion of God's relation to sin was equally unintelligible to many readers of Luther's treatise. If man lacks free-will, who is it that causes sin? Luther feels that it will not do to hold God directly responsible for sin. He does not assert that there is an immediate impulse to evil originating with God. But, quite consistent with his system, he speaks of the treachery of Judas thus: "His [Judas'] will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as He does all that is in this world."

Grisar documents this quote by referring to his own book, Luther vol. II, p. 282:

In the case of the betrayal of Judas, as Scheel points out, Luther does not mention any necessity "which compelled Judas to act as he did"; Luther seems, at least in certain passages, to look on that act as necessary, only because, having been foreseen by God, it "inevitably occurs at the time appointed." Yet elsewhere he says: "His will [that of the traitor] was the work of God; God by His Almighty Power moved his will as He does all that is in the world." (3)

(3)"Fingat, refingat, cavilletur, recavilletur Diatribe, quantum volet. Si praescivit Deus, Iudam fore proditorem, necessarie Iudas fiebat proditor,nec erat in manu Judae aut ullius creaturae, aliter facere aut voluntatem mutare, licet id fecerit volendo non coactus, sed velle illud erat opus Dei, quod omnipotentia sua movebat, sicut et omnia alia." "Werke," Weim. ed., 18, p. 715 ; " Opp. Lat. var.," 7, p. 263.

Grisar cites "Werke," Weim. ed., 18, p. 715 ; " Opp. Lat. var.," 7, p. 263. Contrary to the documentation of Luther, Exposing the Myth, Both of these are valid primary references. In the later Grisar quote we find his typical interpretation of Luther. Grisar actually gets it right by noting Luther did not charge God directly responsible for the sin of Judas and that the passages in question presents Luther arguing for the betrayal of Judas "having been foreseen by God" therefore "inevitably occurs at the time appointed time." But in typical Grisar fashion, the Luther quote in question is used to show Luther contradicted himself by stating Luther "elsewhere says..."

By using Grisar's references to the WA edition, the quote can be cross-referenced in the English versions of the Bondage of the Will. The quote appears on page 213 of the Packer / Johnston translation and on page 185 of LW 33.


Context

Packer / Johnston translation

The fancy about necessity of consequence and of the thing consequent was refuted earlier. Let the Diatribe invent and go on inventing, let it quibble and quibble again—if God foreknew that Judas would be a traitor, Judas became a traitor of necessity, and it was not in the power of Judas or of any creature to act differently, or to change his will, from that which God had foreseen. It is true that Judas acted willingly, and not under compulsion, but his willing was the work of God, brought into being by His omnipotence, like everything else. It is a principle of clear, unassailable truth that God does not lie or make mistakes. There are no obscure or ambiguous words here, even though all the most learned men of all ages should be so blind as to think and affirm the contrary. However much you may boggle, yet your conscience, and everybody's conscience, is convinced, and bound to confess, that, if God is not mistaken in what He foreknows, then what He foreknows must necessarily come to pass. Otherwise, who could believe His promises, and who would fear His threatenings, if what He promised or threatened did not necessarily ensue? How can He promise or threaten, if His foreknowledge deceives Him, or can be obstructed by our instability? The supremely clear light of certain truth stops all mouths, ends all questions and gives victory over all the subtleties of evasion.

LW 33

But these are all signs of a mind under conviction and rashly struggling against invincible truth. That figment about the necessity of consequence and of the consequent has been refuted above. Diatribe may pretend and pretend again, quibble and quibble again, as much as she likes, but if God foreknew that Judas would be a traitor, Judas necessarily became a traitor, and it was not in the power of Judas or any creature to do differently or to change his will, though he did what he did willingly and not under compulsion, but that act of will was a work of God, which he set in motion by his omnipotence, like everything else. For it is an irrefutable and self-evident proposition that God does not lie and is not deceived. There are no obscure or ambiguous words here, even if all the most learned men of all the centuries are so blind as to think and speak otherwise. And however much you boggle at it, your own and everyone else’s conscience is convinced and compelled to say that if God is not deceived in what he foreknows, then the thing foreknown must of necessity take place; otherwise, who could believe his promises, who would fear his threats, if what he promises or threatens does not follow necessarily? Or how can he promise or threaten if his foreknowledge is fallible or can be hindered by our mutability? Clearly this very great light of certain truth stops everyone’s mouth, puts an end to all questions, ensures the victory over all evasive subtleties.

Conclusion
According to Luther, if God foreknows something, that "something" will come to pass. The quote itself appears in a context in which Luther makes this point both before and after it occurs. When Luther states the will of Judas was brought into being like everything else, he's simply stating a truth that all that is, ultimately is so because God brought human reality into being. The question as to the origin of sin (how Satan and man fell into sin) is, as Roman Catholic scholar Harry McSorley points out, "bypassed" (Luther: Right or Wrong?, p. 342). For Luther, the sin of Judas is the responsibility of Judas.

In The Bondage of the Will, Luther goes into greater detail about Judas a few pages later. Note his emphasis on the appeal to necessity of time in regard to the betrayal of Judas:

Two Kinds of Necessity: The Case of Judas
But now how beautifully [Erasmus] preserves freedom together with necessity when she says: “Not all necessity excludes free will, since God the Father necessarily begets the Son, and yet begets him freely and willingly, for he is not forced to do so.” I ask you, are we now disputing about coercion and force? Have we not plainly stated in so many of our books that we are speaking of the necessity of mutability? We know that the Father begets willingly, and that Judas betrayed Christ by an act of will; but we say this willing was certainly and infallibly going to occur in Judas himself if God foreknew it. Or if what I am saying is still not understood, let us have two sorts of necessity, one of force with reference to the work, the other of infallibility with reference to the time; and let anyone who listens to us understand that we are speaking of the latter, not of the former; that is to say, we are not discussing whether Judas became a traitor involuntarily or voluntarily, but whether at a time preordained by God it was bound infallibly to happen that Judas by an act of his will should betray Christ.

But see what Diatribe says here: “If you look at the infallible foreknowledge of God, and his immutable will, Judas was necessarily going to turn traitor, and yet Judas could change his mind.” Do you really understand what you are saying, my dear Diatribe? Leaving aside the fact that the will can only will evil, as was proved above, how could Judas change his mind so long as the infallible foreknowledge of God remained? Could he change God’s foreknowledge and make it fallible? Here Diatribe gives up; she deserts the standard, throws away her arms, and quits the field, making out that the discussion has to do with Scholastic subtleties about the necessity of consequence and consequent, and she has no desire to pursue such quibbles[LW 33: 192-193].

What does it matter to me if free choice is not compelled, but does what it does willingly? It is enough for me that you grant that it must necessarily do what it does willingly, and that it cannot do anything else, if God has foreknown it. If God foreknows that Judas will turn traitor, or that he will change his will to betray, whichever God has foreknown will necessarily come about, or else God will be mistaken in his foreknowing and predicting, which is impossible. For this is the result of the necessity of consequence, i.e., if God foreknows a thing, that thing necessarily happens. That is to say, there is no such thing as free choice. This necessity of consequence is not obscure or ambiguous, and even if the doctors of all the centuries were blind, they would be forced to admit it, since it is so manifest and certain as to be palpable. But the necessity of the consequent, with which they console themselves, is a mere phantom and diametrically opposed to the necessity of consequence. For example, there is a necessity of consequence if I say: God foreknows that Judas will be a traitor, therefore it will certainly and infallibly come about that Judas will be a traitor. In face of this necessity and consequence, this is how you console yourself: But because Judas can change his will to betray, there is therefore no necessity of the consequent. How, I ask you, do these two statements harmonize: “Judas can will not to betray” and “It is necessary that Judas should will to betray”? Do they not directly contradict and oppose one another? He will not, you say, be compelled to betray against his will. What has that to do with it? You have been speaking about the necessity of the consequent, and saying that it is not implied by the necessity of consequence, but you have said nothing about the compulsion of the consequent. The question you were supposed to answer was about the necessity of the consequent, and you give an example about the compulsion of the consequent; I ask for one thing, you give me another. This comes of your being only half awake and not noticing how completely useless that device of the necessity of the consequent is [LW 194-195].

Luther's view of necessity is quite complex. Luther clearly says Judas did not betray Christ in the sense of necessity of force or violence. Rather, he appeals to a necessity of time, that if God knows something is going to happen, it will indeed happen. This type of distinction isn't even at odds with Romanism. For instance, Roman Catholic scholar Harry McSorley's in-depth treatment of De Servo Arbitrio, Luther Right or Wrong? argues as much. This isn't to suggest Luther's view as expressed in the Bondage of the Will is entirely in harmony with Roman Catholicism. Even McSorley points out it is not. However, with this particular quote, Luther Exposing the Myth is using a quote out of context, that when placed back in context, doesn't necessarily contradict Roman Catholicsm. True, Luther's view of providence and the hidden God is distasteful to many (including many Lutherans), but in this instance, the quote being used is part of an argument simply asserting that if God knows something is going to happen, it will.

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

Roman Catholic Delusions - 2

lozeerose has responded here to my earlier post and the post is quite long. That's the way it goes sometimes, so let's see what comes of it.
First, let's recall that lozeerose told us earlier:

if there is only one God (in this case the Holy Spirit), then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of Scripture? Also, if you are inspired by the Holy Spirit and I as well, then how is your interpretation valid and mine not?

Don't forget that this is a conversation-killer. Once we start talking about "well, that's just your interpretation!", there is nothing else to say, from either side. Either you admit that God is capable of revealing Himself in such a way as to be comprehensible to people or you don't. Either you admit that people can speak in such a way as to be comprehensible to others or you don't. Unfortunately this doesn't cover the issue of human diversity and sin. It is not necessarily the author's fault when a reader distorts, misunderstands, neglects parts of, ignores parts of, is ignorant of other parts of, or twists his text. Much less God's fault.

Also, I deny the premise - neither of us are inspired by the Holy Spirit. And only one of us is illumined by the Holy Spirit, and it ain't him.

Finally, let us remember that part of lozeerose's thesis can be pushed right back on him. If there is only one God (in this case the Holy Spirit), then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of Magisterial declarations? Also, if you are inspired by the Holy Spirit and I as well, then how is your interpretation of Magisterial declarations valid and mine not?
Does he answer the question? Let's take a look.

(Sidenote - this discussion originally branched off of a discussion on the topic of the permissibility of divorce, so I'll be skipping over those parts. For a biblically-sound and actually quite enlightening discussion of the biblical teaching on divorce, listen to John MacArthur's sermon series on the topic as he weaves it together with church discipline. RCs would do well, also, to listen to it so they could learn what the words "church discipline" mean.)

If you were to examine these verses, removing your own prejudices (difficult for any person) and place them in context you will note that Scripture does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings.

1) I have examined them many times.
2) They do not, when EXEgeted, lead the unbiased reader to place his entire faith and spiritual heritage in a church to be founded sometime in the authors' future, in a city thousands of miles away, under a man who usurps the Holy Spirit's rightful title of "Vicar of Christ", who contrary to all biblical indications is the sole exception to the biblical "only God is infallible" rule, who tells us to worship dead people, and who adds works (which we can't perform) and legalistic extra dogmas (like the Assumption of Mary) to the Gospel. If you want to EISEgete that stuff in there, of course, nobody can stop you, but let's not act like it's derived from the text.
3) Notice the voice of fideistic devotion to Rome. Rome is automatically and by default above examination and judgment by the Scripture, b/c lozeerose assumes that Rome's teaching cannot contradict Scr.

After all, the Bible is a Catholic book.

I don't even know what this means. Does he mean it was written by the Roman Church? That would be indefensible. Does he mean little-c "catholic", but his finger reflexively held down the Shift key? Does he genuinely not know the diff between little-c "catholic" and big-C "Catholic"? Or does he simply not care?
And since he told us earlier that he intended "to approach you both on your Sola Scriptura level", does he think that making such crucial distinctions is unimportant?

you and Vox make the assumption that the Church teaches that individuals cannot interpret Scripture on their own.

Actually, that's what lozeerose just finished telling us himself. And what CatholicNick was telling us before that.

What it prohibits is the acceptance of interpretations that are contrary to Church teaching.

Which means precisely what we said.
And, as noted above, is the statement of an unthinking drone, who refuses to put the Scripture above his church.

Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament (John 6 for one)

1) Note how he inconsistently presumes us to be able to interp John 6 properly.
2) Even though John 6 has very little to do with the Eucharist.
3) And even though the Roman Eucharist is actually heretical by both our standards.

I cite these passages because they themselves are cited in the Catechism

1) So now an individual can understand the CCC, eh? But moreso than the Bible, apparently.
2) Does he ever stop to ask himself whether the CCC is in fact correct to cite them?

If, by reading Scripture, your interpretation lends to a contradictory understanding then you are definitively wrong concerning this truth and must reconsider in order to truly call yourself a Christian (see the account of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:27-39).

It is difficult to know what the Acts 8 psg is supposed to tell us.
1) Philip was not an apostle, and so is not part of the supposed "apostolic succession" of the Magisterium.
2) And he was an individual anyway. When we cite individual early church writers that disagree with modern Roman dogma, what do we hear? "He was just speaking as a private theologian" or some other line of turtle droppings. I guess I missed where "infallible ex cathedra" indicators appear in the Acts 8 psg. Maybe lozeerose can point it out to us. In fact, just look at further down his post - I pointed out where Irenæus disagreed with lozeerose's statement, and lozeerose drops him in the trash can - " I will comment on this by stating that just because St. Irenaues was a Father of the Church, it does not make him or his writings infallible. Saints are not infallible, just holy."
3) Sola Scriptura is not: A claim that the Bible contains all knowledge; A denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth; A denial that other Christians can help those less knowledgeable to understand the Scr; A denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
4) The eunuch didn't tell Philip that he had no idea what the psg said. He asked for clarification on ONE THING.
5) And that was very plausibly b/c he didn't know the story of Jesus' earthly ministry, death, and resurrection. Philip did know it. We in modern times hardly have that excuse.

If I include Church docs it is to provide you with Church teachings in her own words.

Which he expects me to understand. Else he wouldn't cite them. This is treading awfully close to disingenuousness.

This is why it is important to read Church documents so that you and/or I can scrutinize her teachings against Sacred Scripture

That's rich. Didn't he just finish telling us that "you will note that Scripture does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings"?

You cannot have Church docs without Scripture.

Sure you can. Church docs on the Assumption of Mary, Mary as Co-Redemptrix... in fact, virtually the entire edifice of Mariolatry is built on an entirely different foundation than Scripture, simply b/c Scr knows nothing of the Marian dogmas.

Remember that the Bible is not the end-all, be-all of the Word of God.

Perhaps lozeerose could make a positive case for why he thinks the Word of God is also found elsewhere. And how that fits in with Mark 7:1-13. And why the Apostle Paul never directed us to this other Word of God, but only to Scr.

2Thess 2:15

Does lozeerose prove that the word of mouth is different in content than the letter mentioned? That the tradition mentioned there is distinct from the Scripture?

Rhology: If you are suggesting that we accept the RCC a priori as the infallible interpreter, please let me know why I should. After all, there's lots of competition out there for that spot! EOC
lozeerose: You must look at history.

1) How would that help? Do I have any reason to think that lozeerose wouldn't simply say "you will note that history does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings"?
2) Which is how all of these bodies I mentioned operate. Bring up historical teachings that disagree with their modern dogma, and alluvasudden they're written out, assigned to "just a private theologian" status. Or part of the "Great Apostasy" or something. And it all makes sense - if the modern body is infallible, then history, just like Scripture, says what the modern infallible body says it means. No means of correction is possible.

Remember I mentioned above that I pointed out where Irenæus disagreed with lozeerose's statement, and lozeerose drops him in the trash can - " I will comment on this by stating that just because St. Irenaues was a Father of the Church, it does not make him or his writings infallible. Saints are not infallible, just holy."
That's why it's intellectually dishonest for someone in lozeerose's position to tell me to verify RCC's claims against history.

the first ecumenical council was the Council of Jerusalem where Matthias was elected to take the place of Judas (Acts 1:20, 25-26)

1) Where does the Scr refer to the Acts 1 meeting as a "council"?
2) Why do other RCs refer to the "Council of Jerusalem" as that which occurrs in Acts 15? After all, if there is only one God (in this case the Holy Spirit), then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of Scripture? Also, if lozeerose is inspired by the Holy Spirit and other RCs as well, then how is his interpretation valid and others' not?
3) Matthias wasn't elected at all.
Acts 1:23So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
4) Uh oh - we have a problem.  lozeerose has just told us that Matthias was elected.  No doubt other RCs, who actually take the time to read the passage, would tell us that Matthias was, for example, chosen by lot.  lozeerose disagrees with other RCs.
5) We have another problem. 
From here:  He (Peter) headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26)
From here: After Judas’s death the eleven apostles convened; the Holy Spirit chose Matthias to take Judas’s place
From here:  The one exception to this was Matthias, who replaced Judas. He was confirmed in office by God (Acts 1:24-26), and, though he did not receive his commission from Christ in person, he was a witness to Christ's ministry (1:15-23).
From here: Matthias was chosen as apostle by the other apostles to replace Judas Iscariot. This choice was, according to the Acts of the Apostles, made directly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Once elected, he was treated exactly as one of the original Twelve.

The problem is twofold:
a. 3 of the 4 articles cited here get it wrong.  Where does the Acts psg give any indication that Matthias was "elected"?  Will lozeerose dare to tell us that when Acts says "the lot fell to Matthias", since The Church has apparently spoken, it actually means "Matthias was elected"?  It's not as if the psg is unclear, and it inspires that much less confidence in RCs' exegetical abilities that they mix up something this simple.
b. These RC documents don't agree with each other on this question.  And, again, it's not as if the Acts psg is unclear.  Further, it will not solve lozeerose's problem to appeal to "they're just private theologians" here, since he has repeatedly claimed unity in the RCC, and that multiplicity of conflicting interps = disunity, which he decries.  Judging by his own standards in this very simple exegetical question, RCC shoots a big fat fail.

Not sure what your getting at here, but again, the Church does not prohibit personal interp, just warns us that personal interp can lead to error and as such if your interp is contradicts the Church then you can rest assure your interp is wrong.

Throughout this whole post, lozeerose shows no recognition of the obvious fact that you still have to engage in personal interp to understand Magisterial declarations. So, if we apply his ultra-skeptical (when convenient for him and for Rome) epistemological position consistently, it's all a matter of "if your interp of Scr contradicts your interp of what RCC says". How does that get him or anyone anywhere? The guy whose interp of Magisterial docs differs from mine could simply say "Nuh uh, the Church said this"...

Both the JW and LDS, and even yourself, presuppose many things concerning Scripture and even the Church.

And the RC doesn't? More disingenuous special pleading.

infallibility is not something the Church invented; it is a characteristic that was conveyed on her by Jesus via the Holy Spirit (Matthew 16:16,18; 28:20, Luke 10:16, John 14:26; 16:13, 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 John 2:27, Acts 6:10; 15:28).

What good do all these citations do anyone? Do I have any reason to think that lozeerose wouldn't simply say "you will note that Scripture does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings"?
Since in his mind Scr cannot contradict RC dogma, it is a given, unable to be examined and parsed, that these psgs support RC dogma. You do not have the right to interp these psgs in a way that dissents from RC teaching.

That is why these two sects must go outside of Scripture to claim a type of infallibility (they do not proclaim is like the Catholic Church does, as far as I know) and why Protestant churches don’t even attempt it.

Actually, their methods of claiming infallibility seem to be exactly the same as RCC's. Trumpet their infallibility, then when challenged on an indefensible point, retreat to special pleading.
An LDS example - The Bible says God "knows of no other god". LDS response - "the infallible Prophet tells us that it doesn't mean that"; or alternatively "this was not translated correctly".
A JW example - The WatchTower claimed the world would end in 1914. When it didn't, it just hoped people would ignore the failed prophecy and hastily redefined what they really meant back then, but the world would end in the 70s, etc. If challenged on that, just retreat to "your church is apostate".
A RC example - claim "the ancient and constant faith of the universal church" affirms a doctrine like Vatican I did of papal infallibility. Then when an ancient dissenting voice is brought fwd to demonstrate this statement is ludicrous, retreat to "he was just speaking as a private theologian"; or alternatively "I can show you dozens of pages of (out of context) church fathers affirming the doctrine", as if "constant" and "universal" allow for exceptions.

You are spot on except that I do not wrestle with the interplay of unity vis-a-vis disunity that is obviously expected and anticipated in the passages you cite especially the Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20-26.

That's already been dealt with and dismissed.

The Catholic Church, as an institution, does not exhibit doctrinal disunity

1) Uh oh.
2) Uh oh again.
3) See above for the slipup with respect to Matthias.
4) Is lozeerose really unaware of the rampant liberalism at work within official RC circles?  And by official, I mean "not mostly-anonymous RC laymen bloggers, but actual priests and Vatican staff and theologians".
5) And there is a multitude of issues on which RCs do not agree.

• Darwinian evolution vs not-Darwinian evolution
• Papal infallibility
• Whether the Virgin Mary died and then was assumed or whether she was assumed before death
• Whether the Pope is subject to Ecumenical Councils
• What mode of predestination is right - ie Molinism vs Augustinian
• Extra ecclesiam nulla salus
• Mass in Latin or in vernacular
• Whether Trent closed the canon or not

etc.
IOW, that claim is empty.

Catholic Church, the Body of Christ, has stood for over 2,000 years without compromising her doctrines.

As I said above, bring up historical teachings that disagree with their modern dogma, and alluvasudden they're written out, assigned to "just a private theologian" status.

Did Judas’ betrayal disprove the divinity of Jesus? No.

That's a funny thing to say.
So, does Lutherans' getting the doctrine of the Eucharist wrong disprove the true biblical doctrine of the Eucharist? I guess, if lozeerose were to be consistent, he'd say no.
Do some Baptists' getting all hot and bothered about teetotalling disprove the true biblical doctrine of the permissibility of imbibing adult beverages (but not getting drunk)? Apparently not.
This concession destroys any argument lozeerose was trying to make about the preferability of RC unity over Protestant chaos.

Rhology: What's more, you're instating an over-realised eschatology. There's a reason why this is not Heaven.
lozeerose: You are aware that eschatology is the study of “last things” right?

Yep, I sure am. The point is that expecting perfect unity on this Earth, before the Eschaton, is chasing the end of the rainbow. "Perfect unity" is the crock o' gold. And since it's a fantasy, most of lozeerose's argument is consigned to the fantastic as well.

How else do you interpret Scripture if not through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

His exegesis of 2 Peter 1:20 is surprisingly, but typically, bad. Interpretation of a prophecy received by an individual church member, is not in view here; rather the emphasis is on the means of God's inspiring the text. Peter says that the prophetic word is yet more certain than his own eyewitness experiences, and goes on to tell us that "no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God".

So every church is its own truth, yet they differ in doctrine?

I have no idea how this question follows from my treatment of 1 Tim 3:15.

Sounds like God is a bit confused.

So apparently, if God's revelation were really clear, there would never be any differences in doctrine. If differences DO occur, it's God's fault.
1) How does lozeerose get there?
2) Since RCC doesn't have unity, this cuts his own throat.

So did lozeerose solve the problem of his own creation, namely "why so many interpretations if there's one God"? Or did he assume that divine revelation and text are actually comprehensible to human beings, thus undercutting one of his main points? Come to think of it, did he write a blogpost, expecting it to be comprehensible to human beings? After all, if there is only one lozeerose, then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of his blogpost? If I were to remind him that his blogpost actually consisted of various methods for eating a grilled dogpoop sandwich, is that a valid interpretation? Who are you, mere unauthoritative, fallible, private individual, to tell me it does not in fact deal with the topic of dogpoop? He's not one of those Sola Scripturists, is he?