Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 51

September 15, 2011

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 8: Biblical Refutation of Whitaker's Eisegetical "Prooftexts" for Perspicuity from the Scriptural Metaphor of "Light"

It's tough to make heads or tails of Protestant circular "reasoning" where sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture are concerned.

See the introductory post, New Upcoming Project: Refutation of William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture on Sola Scriptura.
I am utilizing a copy of the book available at Internet Archive.
Whitaker's words will be in blue. Page numbers will correspond to the above book version.
* * *
. . . In Ps. xix. 9, the word of God is called clear; and Ps. cxix. [119:] 105, it is called a lamp to our feet, and a light to our paths; and Proverbs vi. 22, Solomon says, "The commandment is a lamp, and the law is light." From these and similar places it is evident, that the word is not so obscure as to be unintelligible, but perspicuous and plain. (p. 383)

I'm not sure what Whitaker refers to in Psalm 19. Here is an excerpt:

Psalm 19:7-9 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; [8] the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; [9] the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever; the ordinances of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether.

I don't see anything in this passage that particularly bolsters perspicuity as Protestants define it. In a search of 63 instances of clear in the RSV, I couldn't find a single time it was applied to Scripture. Of course the Bible is a lamp or light; again, this is far from proving distinctive Protestant claims in this regard. We don't hold that it is completely unintelligible in the first place. For one who complains so much about how Catholics fight straw men, Whitaker sure constructs and battles quixotically against many of his own making.

Our third argument is taken from Matthew v. 14, where Christ thus addresses his apostles: "Ye are the light of the world." Therefore, the apostolic doctrine, and consequently the scripture, hath light in itself. . . . I say that those words also ought principally to be understood of the light of doctrine, inasmuch as doctrine is the principal work and fruit of an apostle. (pp. 384-385)
This is quite a stretch, to take a saying of Jesus to the disciples, and make it an argument for the perspicuity of Scripture, because they wrote parts of the Bible, and then to jump from the concept of "light" to all that is involved in perspicuity. But let's grant the validity of this weak argument for a moment. It is then seen that it proves too much for Whitaker's case, for he himself applies it to "the apostolic doctrine," which goes far beyond Scripture Alone, and cannot be shown (in the Bible) to be restricted only to the Bible (e.g., St. Paul's many mentions of "tradition[s]," etc.).

Does Whitaker really want to contend that apostolic tradition "hath light in itself" (the same quality that he has just been arguing is indicative of Scripture's unique status)? To do that is to virtually concede the Catholic argument, which gives authoritative, infallible status to apostolic tradition, passed down in apostolic succession; whereas Protestants deny the same notion. I don't think he has thought this through very carefully before setting it down to paper. But then again, most of his arguments strike me that way. He's not only often fighting straw men, but grasping at straws as well. It's a wonder to behold.

. . . although the living voice of the apostles, when they preached, had more force in it to move the passions of men; nevertheless, in regard of the sum of evangelic doctrine, the same facility and perspicuity appears in their writings. For if "the word of prophecy" be like a lamp, that is, clear and plain, as Peter expressly affirms, 2 Pet. i. 19, (where he understands the writings, not the preaching of the prophets, as we shall afterwards prove,) then certainly the apostolic word must needs be still clearer and more illustrious. (p. 386)
Whitaker here extends more effort to help prove the case of the Catholic "three-legged stool" of authority, in equating the perspicuity of apostolic preaching (which clearly went beyond Scripture and was part of oral tradition, subsequently passed down) with the Bible. How he can fail to notice that he is shooting himself in the foot and defeating himself by arguing in this fashion, is the marvel.

For thus we reason in the fourth place : It is written, 2 Pet. i. 19, "We have a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day-spring arise in your hearts." The prophetic scripture is like a lamp shining in a dark place; therefore, it is illustrious and clear. (p. 386)
This simply doesn't follow. Everyone knows what the metaphor of light overcoming darkness means, but it is not by any means "clear" (pun half-intended) that it entails the whole concept of perspicuity. Whitaker seems to forget what he is arguing in favor of. These passages are supposed to be prooftexts for the perspicuity of Scripture. He had previously carefully, painstakingly defined what he means by that, with vociferous objections to Catholic misunderstandings. He defined it as follows (as we saw in part 5):

Luther, in his assertion of the articles condemned by Leo X., in the preface, says that the scripture is its own most plain, easy, and certain interpreter, proving, judging, and illustrating all things. This is said by him most truly, if it be candidly understood. The same author, in his book of the Slavery of the Will against the Diatribe of Erasmus, writes almost in the beginning, that in the scriptures there is nothing abstruse, nothing obscure, but that all things are plain. And because this may seem a paradox, he afterwards explains himself thus: he confesses that many places of scripture are obscure, that there are many words and sentences shrouded in difficulty, but he affirms nevertheless that no dogma is obscure; as, for instance, that God is one and three, that Christ hath suffered, and will reign for ever, and so forth. All which is perfectly true: for although there is much obscurity in many words and passages, yet all the articles of faith are plain. (pp. 361-362)

This is what he means by perspicuity; therefore, what he is attempting to prove and defend from alleged biblical prooftexts. Now, how does a simple description of Scripture as a "lamp" or a "light" prove all this, or even much or any of it? It doesn't contain that much information! This is very typical in biblical arguments for sola Scriptura: usually it is assumed already what one is ostensibly trying to prove, and the prior belief is merely read into any passage that remotely approximates any part of it. The fact that Scripture gives light has no necessary relation whatsoever to how easy or difficult it may be to understand.

In this instance, we can see by analogy, by following the notion of "lamp" and "light" in Scripture elsewhere, that what I am contending is true. Jesus called Himself the "light of the world." Not only did He do that; He also interpreted what He meant, right after saying it:

John 8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (cf. 1:9: "The true light that enlightens every man . . .")

The "light" from Jesus represents life: eternal life; salvation. When applied to the disciples (Whitaker's prooftext above) I submit that it means the same: they are messengers of this light of eternal salvation: the gospel, the good news of salvation through the redemption and atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross. That's what the "light" means. The source is Jesus, and the light is spread through His disciples and in the revealed word of the Bible (hence the latter is called a "lamp" also). This is a completely different meaning from perspicuity and all that it entails.

Does Jesus calling Himself the "light of the world" mean that every doctrine He taught was clear, one way or another? Not at all. His disciples were often baffled by what He said and taught and did. He explained that He was to suffer and be killed and rise again, and they didn't get it (as we saw in an earlier installment). They didn't understand the Eucharist (just like most Protestants today!). Some of His disciples even left Him because they didn't understand what He was saying about this, or did, and rejected it:

John 6:60-61, 66 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?. . . [66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Men are notorious for not grasping God's message or understanding His actions. But God (like Scripture) is repeatedly called a lamp or light (Ps 27:1; Is 60:19; 1 Tim 6:16; 1 Jn 1:5; Rev 21:23; 22:5). Whitaker's argument thus completely fails; it is shattered by Scripture itself, once again. Ignoring all this perfectly plain Scripture, Whitaker prefers to pretend that what he sees in Scripture is actually there. Wishing something to be true doesn't make it true:

The Jesuit applies precisely the same answer which he used before, namely, that the words of the prophets are compared to a lamp, not because they are clear and plain and easy to be understood; but because then, when they are understood, they give us light and shew us the way to Christ, who is the sun of righteousness. I answer: it is nevertheless certain that scripture is compared to a lamp, because it hath light and clearness in it, which it also shews to men, unless they are either bhnd or turn away their eyes from it, as was said before. For as the sun is obscure to no one, nor a lamp when lit and set in the midst, save to the blind and those who shut their eyes; so also is the scripture. (p. 386)
This is amazing stuff. It's not enough for Whitaker that Jesus Christ, in a plainly analogous use of the metaphor of light, explains His own meaning. That's insufficient. He doesn't care about it. He goes on to make his eisegetical claim that has no apparent support in the Bible itself. It comes from Protestant man-made tradition, in an effort to escape from an authoritative Church and a passed-down apostolic tradition and doctrine (which they -- like heretics all through history -- sadly reject at many points).

Jesus Himself interpreted being a light to mean spiritual life and eternal life (Jn 8:12). St. John does the same in John 1:9. The metaphor is pretty much the same all through Scripture. It is used of John the Baptist. Note how it is interpreted as his giving "testimony" to Christ:

John 5:35-36 He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. [36] But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.

In 1 John, it is again referring to salvation, not "perspicuity":

1 John 2:8-9 Yet I am writing you a new commandment, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. [9] He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still. . . . [12] I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his sake.. . . [14] I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

After Jesus calls His disciples "the light of the world" (John 5:14) -- one of Whitaker's alleged prooftexts -- , He interprets and expands upon its meaning, as well:

Matthew 5:15-16 Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. [16] Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Whitaker somehow misses all this, because he doesn't know how to properly exegete Holy Scripture. It's not a matter of seizing on some word of phrase and making it mean whatever we want it to mean, as if the Bible were clay in our hands, to be shaped however we like (eisegesis). Hence, Whitaker gratuitously concludes that "light" means "perspicuity" and an easy-to-understand Bible.

No! We are following the correct method of biblical hermeneutics that St. Augustine taught (in his treatise, On Christian Doctrine ), and which Whitaker gives lip service to but doesn't really apply. We're allowing Scripture to interpret itself, by comparing relevant passages to each other, and interpreting less clear passages in light of more plain ones. We allow our Lord Jesus the prerogative to explain His own meaning to us. The same is apparently not good enough for Whitaker.

Holy Scripture makes it so crystal-clear that the metaphor of "light" consistently refers to the gospel and salvation (not "broad clearness or plainness of message" or perspicuity), that is states precisely that in no uncertain terms, at least four times. It's so manifestly obvious that even Whitaker (with all his false premises and inability to exegete properly) couldn't possibly miss the meaning of it:

Psalm 27:1 The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? . . .

Isaiah 49:6 he says: "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth."

John 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

Acts 13:47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, "I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth."

The apostle says that it shines in a dark place: therefore it dispels the shades. So the scripture dispels the darkness from our mind, by propounding a clear and luminous doctrine, which refutes our errors and shews to us the certain paths of truth. (p. 387)

It does indeed do so, but not by itself, so that Scripture Alone is formally sufficient to lead men to true doctrine. Interpretation and authoritative teaching is also required, because the same Scripture states as much (as we saw last time).

I'd like to conclude this section with a great observation made by "Adomnan," a regular on my blog:

As I see it, the problem is not so much that heretics misinterpret what is obscure, but that they misinterpret what is plain.. . . it's not (pace Whitaker) the obscure stuff that gets them into trouble so much as the plain stuff. (9-15-11)

We have seen that before our eyes, in how Whitaker used special pleading and extreme rationalization to ignore how Scripture regularly utilizes the metaphors of lamp and light. It's plain as day, but he doesn't comprehend it. How delightfully ironic . . .

Regular Paul Hoffer also contributed a superb analysis in the same combox for the previous installment, in two comments (one / two), of the numerous recorded instances of disputes about the Mosaic Law and the judging of cases and competing claims; thus illustrating yet again that the Law was not plain as day merely by hearing or reading it, and that it had to be studied in great depth, and required trained authorities whose word (like that of a judge today) was unassailable.

The analogy is obviously (once again) to the Catholic Church, and not to Protestant sola Scriptura and perspicuity: with every man (ultimately) for himself, as his own final arbiter.

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 15, 2011 16:50

September 14, 2011

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 7: Church Fathers on the Rule of Faith / Prooftext for Perspicuity (Eisegesis of Deuteronomy 30:11-14) Refuted from Scripture

To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you; thus, since Holy Scripture cannot be mistaken, anyone fearing to be misled by the obscurity of this question has only to consult on this same subject this very Church which the Holy Scriptures point out without ambiguity.

(Against Cresconius I: 33; in Eno, Robert B. Eno, Teaching Authority in the Early Church, Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984, .134)

[L]et the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church . . .

(On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2; NPNF 1, Vol. II, 557)

Note how Augustine never pits the authoritative guidance of the Church in matters of scriptural interpretation, against the individual. he doesn't have to say that the Bible is absolutely obscure; a closed book. Hence, he can speak of "plainer passages" in it. But the rule of faith involves the Church as well as Scripture. It is not Scripture alone. In fact, he is so far from saying that Scripture is absolutely necessary for every Christian that he could write the following (that, it seems to me, no Protestant would ever write):

And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces.

(On Christian Doctrine, 1, 39, 43)

Joe Gallegos' marvelous website Corunum , has a great page on it with many papers detailing the views of the Church fathers on the rule of faith and this general topic. Here are excerpts from his collection on "Private Interpretation":

True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, . . .

(St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,33:8, in ANF, I:508)

For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy.

(St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 7:16, in ANF, II: 553-554)

When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying: 'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [ie., the word of truth] ' (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God."

(Origen, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 46, PG 13:1667)

[A]ll heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and ...make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers....

(St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, 24:63, in NPNF2, XI: 150)

Also from his page, Interpreting Scripture with the eyes of the Church:

It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures.

(St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5, 20:2, in ANF, I: 548)

Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles.

(Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9, in ANF, IV: 357)

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures....Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions[ie. The creed] which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart.

(St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12, in NPNF2, VII: 32)

But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.

(St. Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis,1:28)

But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, . . .

(St. Augustine, On the Trinity, 4, 6:10, in NPNF1, III: 75)

How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent.

(St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, 70, in NPNF2, XI: 152)

And moreover, from his page, Sola Scriptura in the early Church:

Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: 'With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?" For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.

(Tertullian, Prescription Against the Heretics, 19)

Putting aside all Greek literature, they [St. Basil and St. Gregory] are said to have passed thirteen years together in studying the Scriptures alone, and followed out their sense, not from their private opinions, but by the writings and authority of the Fathers.

(Rufinus, Church History, 2:9)

It's always the same. The more one studies the fathers, the more one sees this theme over and over again: not sola Scriptura, but the "three-legged stool" of Scripture-Tradition-Church. That is the rule of faith.

Our opinion is, that the scriptures are not so difficult, but that those who read them attentively may receive from thence advantage and the greatest edification, even laymen, plebeians and the common mass of mankind. (p. 381)

Yes, of course. No one is denying this. But they may also interpret the Bible wrongly, and that is why the Church and apostolic tradition are necessary: to make boundaries of orthodoxy that restrict heretical lines of thought. Once Protestants rejected the infallible, profound authority of Church and apostolic tradition, then the chaos of denominational relativism and discord was inevitable.

This we establish by the following arguments, whereof the first is taken from Deut. xxx. 11, where we read it thus written: "This commandment which I command thee this day is not hidden from thee, nor far from thee: It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall ascend for us into heaven, and take it for us, and tell it unto us that we may do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall pass over for us beyond the sea, and take it for us, and tell it unto us that we may do it? But this word is very nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." From which words it is evident that the scriptures may be easily understood. (p. 381)
It's only evident that this follows for those who already believe it, and do so in the face of other passages that show otherwise. All this proves is that the Law was openly proclaimed and presented to the Jews; not that all the Law (let alone all of Scripture!) is therefore easy and "plain from the words themselves." The latter is a gratuitous assumption smuggled into the text from prior presuppositions (which is what we call eisegesis, or "reading into Scripture" what isn't there). It is clear that the Law was not self-evident, but had to be authoritatively interpreted:

Nehemiah 8:7-8 Also Jesh'ua, Bani, Sherebi'ah, Jamin, Akkub, Shab'bethai, Hodi'ah, Ma-asei'ah, Keli'ta, Azari'ah, Jo'zabad, Hanan, Pelai'ah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places. [8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.

There is no question here (in an obvious, unambiguous passage directly on the topic) that it wasn't understood in and of itself. It only was after it was interpreted for the people by the Levites (appointed as teachers, "who taught the people" -- 8:9), "so that" they "understood" it. They didn't understand it merely upon hearing it, but after authoritative interpretation. What could be more plain than that? It's plain and undeniable Scripture, teaching that not all Scripture is so plain at all. King David had to ask for the same understanding:

Psalm 119:34 Give me understanding, that I may keep thy law and observe it with my whole heart.

He didn't have enough knowledge to "keep" it upon merely hearing or reading it. He required a further understanding to be able to fully comprehend it. it was not just a matter of power and ability, but the mental, intellectual aspect of understanding it in the first place. That's what we saw in the Nehemiah passage above, and the very purpose of the Levites. Hence we see elsewhere:

2 Chronicles 17:7-9 In the third year of his reign he sent his princes, Ben-hail, Obadi'ah, Zechari'ah, Nethan'el, and Micai'ah, to teach in the cities of Judah; [8] and with them the Levites, Shemai'ah, Nethani'ah, Zebadi'ah, As'ahel, Shemi'ramoth, Jehon'athan, Adoni'jah, Tobi'jah, and Tobadoni'jah; and with these Levites, the priests Eli'shama and Jeho'ram. [9] And they taught in Judah, having the book of the law of the LORD with them; they went about through all the cities of Judah and taught among the people. (cf. 2 Chron 35:3)

Deuteronomy 33:10 They shall teach Jacob thy ordinances, and Israel thy law; . . .

[cf. Ezra 7:10: "teach his statutes and ordinances in Israel"; 7:25: "those who do not know them, you shall teach"]

The same was spoken by God to Aaron, Moses' brother:

Leviticus 10:11 and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by Moses.

[being "spoken", i.e., read, was not enough in and of itself. It had to be taught to them]

Moses was the lawgiver; the very person who gave the Law to Israel, and he, too, says that he taught it to them, as opposed to simply reading it:

Deuteronomy 4:1 "And now, O Israel, give heed to the statutes and the ordinances which I teach you . . ."

Deuteronomy 4:5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the LORD my God commanded me . . .

Deuteronomy 4:14 And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances . . .

Deuteronomy 5:1 And Moses summoned all Israel, and said to them, "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your hearing this day, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them.

[the Law was not understood simply by hearing it, but had to be learned]

Deuteronomy 5:31 But you, stand here by me, and I will tell you all the commandment and the statutes and the ordinances which you shall teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess.

[note how God "tells" Moses the laws, but he doesn't merely "tell" the people, as Whitaker would have it; he "teaches" them]

Deuteronomy 6:1 Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the ordinances which the LORD your God commanded me to teach you . . .(cf. Ex 18:16, 20)

We have only to see whether it can be concluded from this place that the scripture is easy: which indeed is plain from the words themselves; first, because it says, that "the commandment is not hidden" . . . (p. 381)
The phrase "not hidden from thee" in KJV and whatever translation Whitaker was using, is rendered "not too hard for you" in RSV. Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament defines the Hebrew word for "hidden" here, pala (Strong's word 6381) as "to be arduous, to be difficult to be done". In other words, it means in this passage that the Law is not too difficult to keep, or too hard to live by or to observe. The meaning is not that it is readily easy to understand without teaching aids. Thus, Whitaker has wrongly interpreted the meaning and his prooftext fails for its purpose of bolstering the notion of perspicuity, since understanding and doing are two different notions.
Gesenius gives as examples of the same word with the same meaning, Genesis 18:14 ("Is anything too hard for the LORD?") and 2 Samuel 13:2 ("it seemed impossible to Amnon to do anything to her"). The clincher is that he lists other passages (Prov 30:18; Job 42:3) where the word is used in a different sense, "to be hard to be understood" (my italics). But that was not the case in Deuteronomy 30:11 (Whitaker's proposed passage). Thus, his little sub-argument completely fails.
next, because it says that there is no need that any one should ''ascend into heaven and declare it unto us, or that we should pass over the sea " and seek it in foreign regions: whereby the sacred writer takes away the excuses which men are wont to make; and concludes that this word is near, in the mouth and in the heart: therefore, it was not unknown. Thus the meaning is, that the will of God was so opened to them in the scriptures, that they could not be ignorant of it, or allege any excuse of ignorance. (pp. 381-382)
This is a rather silly argument, and a classic, textbook case of runaway eisegesis. Deuteronomy 30:11 reads: "neither is it far off" (RSV; NEB has "not too remote"). In other words, the law was in close proximity to the Jews, having been delivered to them, not that it is necessarily "easy to understand." It was easily accessible to read. Hence, the contextual passages, "It is not in heaven" (30:12), and "Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'" (30:13). But Whitaker rushes right in, imposing onto Scripture what is not there, rationalizing it to mean perspicuity, and also ludicrously expanding what is said here of the Law alone, to all of Scripture, which would include the New Testament: at that time more than a thousand years away, in the future.

For if the commandments of God can be easily obeyed, then certainly they can more easily be understood. (p. 382)

This doesn't follow logically; it is two different things. It is common sense to grasp the notion that something might need to be fully explained or understood before it is observed as a law, and that this has no necessary relation to how difficult it would be to do, once understood. A person who had never played Monopoly may think it is very difficult to play because he doesn't yet understand it. He learns it by being taught the rules; after which he discovers that it is easy to play the game. Conversely, something may sound very easy in description, but difficult to do (e.g., walking a tightrope or riding a unicycle or juggling).

The point is that there is no necessary relation. The application of this point in the present instance is to say that the Mosaic Law is not the simplest thing in the world to understand merely by reading it; but that it could still be easy to observe once it has been learned. Scripture shows us that it had to be taught to the people, as we have seen, but Whitaker appears to want to deny all that plain biblical evidence, for the sake of his lost cause.

For it is much more easy to understand God's precepts than to fulfil them; and one cannot possibly do that which he does not understand. (p. 382)
I don't disagree with the broad principle here, but we have to take all the relevant biblical passages together, and it remains established by the same Holy Scripture (as I showed above) that the Law had to be taught; that authoritative teachers needed to interpret it to the people; the masses. The analogy, therefore, is to an authoritative teaching Church; i.e., the Catholic Church, not to a supposed perspicuous Scripture that is readily understood by virtually anyone without need of such teaching.

It is certain that Moses is there speaking of the whole will of God, which is declared in the whole of the word and scriptures, and so that this place relates to the entire scripture. For he carefully exhorts the people to walk in all the ways of the Lord, and keep all his precepts, ceremonies and judgments. (p. 382)
The conclusion doesn't follow. At that time, the Jews had no Bible at all. Even the Pentateuch or Torah (first five books) were only in an oral stage. Therefore, the intention of the author (Moses) at the time he spoke them to his people could not possibly refer to all of Scripture. At best they could only refer to the Law itself, as proclaimed to the people, but in any event, nothing of any of this leads us to believe that Scripture is easy to understand as a general rule. The evidence for that assumption has been lacking in Whitaker's argument, from the start. He is merely assuming what he needs to prove, and utilizing relentless eisegesis (which is standard practice in the inevitably, abominably weak Protestant biblical defenses of sola Scriptura).

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 14, 2011 18:27

September 13, 2011

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 6: The Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture: Bellarmine's Four Scriptural Disproofs and Whitaker's Woefully Inadequate Rebuttals Examined

See the introductory post, New Upcoming Project: Refutation of William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture on Sola Scriptura.
I am utilizing a copy of the book available at Internet Archive.
Whitaker's words will be in blue. Page numbers will correspond to the above book version.
* * *
. . . in order to dispute pertinently against Luther and us, he ought to have shewn some doctrines or articles of faith not openly and plainly set forth in scripture. (p. 367)

In my last installment I showed that the necessity of baptism and the Eucharist for salvation are both plain teachings of Scripture, yet Protestants can't agree on them. Therefore, this is a disproof (presupposing the Protestant state of affairs in actuality) that all articles of the faith are "plainly" set forth in Scripture (since Protestants can't agree on them). We Catholics think they are clear and plain; thus we accept the substantial Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and baptismal regeneration as a necessity of salvation.

But if Protestants can't agree, then it follows that (by their premises) that these teachings must not be perspicuous; therefore, a key plank of perspicuity as Whitaker has defined it, following Luther, is refuted. Or else the Protestant can fall back on the ridiculous "other guy has a lesser measure of the Holy Spirit and can't see the truth" so-called "argument."

Either these two teachings are not plain in Scripture, in which case, Luther and Whitaker are wrong, and perspicuity: a key aspect of sola Scriptura, is false, or they are plain in Scripture, in which case it makes no practical difference in Protestant adoption of beliefs (since they can't bring themselves to agree upon them); therefore, of what use is perspicuity, if it can't even bring about Protestant agreement and consensus?

The conclusion is one of two things: perspicuity is either false or it is so irrelevant and useless that it may as well be false, for all the good it does. Needless to say, neither scenario is very impressive. Catholics, on the other hand, easily achieve doctrinal unity by means of an infallible, authoritative Church (the very thing that sola Scriptura precludes from the outset).

Bellarmine alleges five arguments in order to prove the scriptures to be obscure, which we acknowledge in some places to be true. But let us see of what sort these arguments are. His first argument is taken from the authority of scripture, from which he cites some passages. In the first place he reasons thus: David was ignorant of many things, therefore much more we; consequently, the scriptures are obscure. Now that David was ignorant of many things, he proves from Psalm cxix. [119], where it is said, "Give me understanding, and I will search thy law;" where also the psalmist entreats God "to teach him" his law, to "illuminate his eyes;" and in many places of that same Psalm he ingenuously confesses his ignorance of many things. To the same purpose he alleges what Jerome writes of David, to Paulinus, Ep. 13, de Institit. Monachi: "If so great a prophet confesses the darkness of ignorance, with what night of ignorance do you suppose that we, mere babes and hardly more than sucklings, are surrounded?" From all which he concludes that the scriptures are obscure. I answer, in the first place, these things do not touch the question. There is no one amongst us who does not confess with David, that God is to be constantly besought to teach us his law, to illuminate our hearts, &c. Therefore the example of David is objected to us in vain. Who would believe that these men know what they are saying? Do we indeed affirm that the scripture is so plain, that God needs not to be prayed to to teach us his law, his will, and his word? No one was ever so impious and so mad. Therefore we ought continually to pray with David, that God would give us understanding, that he would open our eyes, illuminate our minds, and teach us himself: otherwise we shall never understand any thing aright. For it is not enough to know the words, the letter or the history, but a full persuasion is required. This it was that David sought, that he might more and more make progress in true understanding and faith. Secondly, David speaks there not principally of the external understanding (for doubtless he knew the letter, and the grammatical and historical sense of most passages), but of that internal full assurance . . . (p. 367)
We readily grant what Whitaker says about the general Protestant belief (Catholics are indeed sometimes prone to misrepresent this), but nevertheless, I submit that the problem is ultimately one of extreme subjectivity: to such an extent that there can never be any conceivable disproof in Scripture of this sort (which is not reasonable: if something is beyond disproof or verifiability). The Protestant simply says (as Whitaker did), "this proves nothing, because we don't deny that Scriptures need to be interpreted."

But I would contend that this amounts to a distinction without a difference, for how is the Protestant to determine when he has received enough teaching aid (that Whitaker concedes is usually needed) to be able to confidently conclude that any given passage is sufficiently "plain," according to perspicuity? In other words, it simply removes the problem one step back; it doesn't resolve it.

If Scripture is sufficiently unclear, so that we need authoritative interpretation, then it makes perfect sense that the Church would serve that purpose (in the sense that it actually does in the Catholic system). The main remaining difference would then be that the Protestant has necessary but non-binding, non-infallible hermeneutical teaching, while the Catholic has infallible scriptural guidance, and a clear parameter and framework of orthodoxy within which Bible passages have to be understood (which Protestants have to a lesser extent also in creeds and confessions).

But if non-binding, non-infallible teaching is necessary and helpful for the Protestant to understand Scripture, yet no reasonable certainty can be obtained, and men differ, of what good is a perspicuous Scripture? Why claim to believe in that at all, if it has to be qualified so much that it is scarcely distinguishable from a Catholic position? It's only as "good" as it allows folks to obtain the supposed "plain" (major doctrinal) truth without error. Thus, the individual Protestant remains at sea in a sense, and cannot arrive at the "clear" meaning of Scripture without any nagging doubts that he "got it wrong."

How, then, is this a superior system to the Catholic one? Whitaker puts his belief out of the range of rational critique by making it so subjective that (it seems that) nothing from Scripture can possibly falsify it. He immediately dismisses every passage that Catholics bring up, to suggest that Scripture is not always so "clear and plain" after all. I don't think he can dismiss Bellarmine's prooftext of Psalm 119 and its implications so easily and cavalierly as he does. Let's take a look at it:

Psalm 119:18-19, 26-34 (RSV) Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. [19] I am a sojourner on earth; hide not thy commandments from me! . . . [26] When I told of my ways, thou didst answer me; teach me thy statutes! [27] Make me understand the way of thy precepts, and I will meditate on thy wondrous works. [28] My soul melts away for sorrow; strengthen me according to thy word! [29] Put false ways far from me; and graciously teach me thy law! [30] I have chosen the way of faithfulness, I set thy ordinances before me. [31] I cleave to thy testimonies, O LORD; let me not be put to shame! [32] I will run in the way of thy commandments when thou enlargest my understanding! [33] Teach me, O LORD, the way of thy statutes; and I will keep it to the end. [34] Give me understanding, that I may keep thy law and observe it with my whole heart.

This is a classic illustration of how (in so many instances) false Protestant tenets are based on illogical or shoddy thinking. The premises are false; therefore, what is built upon them is also false. The house is only as good as its foundation. Whitaker tries to rationalize that it is not understanding per se that King David sought, but full internal assurance (bringing it back -- typically for Protestants -- to the purely subjective aspects again). But it is apparent that this is not the case. David is seeking to learn the thing itself; not to be sure that he has properly learned it. He wants to learn and "understand" various essential aspects of the law. He wants his eyes to be opened to them.

Moreover (to follow Bellarmine's line of thought), if David, a writer of Scripture and one with whom God made a covenant: the forerunner of Jesus Himself, needed this much direct instruction and guidance from God Himself, why is it now impermissible to simply say that the individual needs authoritative (not optional, or relativistic) guidance from Holy Mother Church? Which is harder to believe? If David needed that, why should we think that it is less necessary for every Christian to simply have infallible Church guidance? If the more difficult thing is laid out in Scripture, then surely the less difficult thing by analogy (and direct Bible teaching elsewhere) is not difficult to either grasp or accept.

All of this is going on underneath the surface, at the level of premises and assumptions, yet we are still to believe that Scripture is plain enough for the individual to arrive at all doctrinal truth, with non necessary aid of the Church. Meanwhile, Protestants can agree on virtually nothing except those things where they already agree with Catholics. It doesn't make any sense. The Catholic perspective is far more biblical and logical.

The second passage of scripture which he objects is Luke xxiv. 27, from which place he reasons thus: Christ interpreted the scriptures to his disciples: therefore the scriptures are not easy, but need an interpreter. I answer, in the first place, which of us ever took away the interpretation of scripture? Certainly, none of us; for we all readily confess that the scriptures need interpretation. Secondly, those disciples were crushed and stricken at that time with a sort of amazement, and slow and unapt to understand any thing; so that it is no wonder that they could not understand the scriptures without an interpretation. Thirdly, those who under- stand the grammatical sense of scripture, ought nevertheless to hear the exposition of scripture, to help them to a better understanding. This we never denied. (p. 368)
Whitaker misses the entire point. He rationalizes the passage away with scarcely any consideration at all. This was not simply a case of Jesus giving a little aid, to provide a "better understanding" (as if it were only a master of degree). They had completely gotten it wrong; missed the truth, and in that sense were little better than the hypocritical Pharisees whom Jesus excoriated. Thus, Jesus exclaimed:

Luke 24:25-27 . . . "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

The Suffering Messiah, or "Servant" was a manifest teaching in the Old Testament (most prominent in Isaiah 53) -- even the Jews (historically) understood this, though they thought Jesus wasn't this suffering Messiah -- , yet they didn't get it. It wasn't plain to them, and indeed all of the disciples did not understand that Jesus was to suffer and die for the sins of mankind (see, e.g., Matt 17:22-23; Mk 9:31-32; Lk 18:31-34). Only His mother Mary showed some semblance of understanding. The argument can be made, then, that Old Testament Scripture was not perspicuous on the matter of the redeeming death of Jesus: a central aspect of Christian teaching.

It was so unclear to Jesus' own disciples that they never grasped it till He actually died. But there it is in Isaiah 53. The point is again that it's not a matter of Scripture itself being utterly obscure and some deep mystery that no one can grasp (the Protestant caricature of what Catholics actually believe), but that some considerable number of men will miss even the most plain teachings in it; hence the need for the infallible Church to guide and to prevent men's propensity for getting things wrong and not comprehending things from ruining the very notion of orthodoxy and a revealed truth shared by one and all.

They needed authoritative teaching. Again, it was God Himself doing it; therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that we should merely have authoritative human teachers provide the same necessary aid. In 24:32 they say, "he opened to us the scriptures"; it wasn't a mere teaching aid; it was a matter of black and white. Before, they had no understanding at all, then they did. This is a profound disproof of perspicuity, yet Whitaker is so blinded by his partisan zeal for his cause that he can't see it, right in front of him. It is again about a major doctrine of the faith: the redeeming death of Jesus, which was already taught in the Old Testament.

The scene is repeated even more dramatically with all eleven disciples (minus Judas). He appeared to them, but they did not yet grasp that He was to rise from the dead, even though He had told them He would, several times (Lk 24:36-41). he went on:

Luke 24:44-47 Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled." [45] Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, [46] and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, [47] and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

It had all been written, in what Protestants agree is Scripture (the Old Testament), yet they entirely missed it without Jesus' help (that He had already told them, as He alludes in 24:44). And this had to do with very important things: the Messiah, His redeeming death, the atonement, salvation itself (which was made possible by this means), the Resurrection, repentance and forgiveness of sins, the opening of the gospel and Christianity to the Gentiles, etc. This is extremely important stuff. Jesus' disciples didn't get it. He had to rise from the dead and come back and specifically tell them, explaining the Old Testament scriptures, before they did.

Yet Whitaker and Protestants want us to believe that there is no need for authoritative and binding biblical interpretation from the Church? I don't buy it. The Scripture never suggests such an absurd thing, and often disproves it, as in these passages: cavalierly dismissed by Whitaker almost without any reply. He has not looked at them closely enough. They were not perspicuous to him (!!). Far from being no disproof of the doctrine at all; I find them to be compelling; almost the best conceivable disproofs.

In the third place, he objects to us the case of the eunuch. Acts viii., whom he states to have been a pious man and studious of the scripture; and to prove this he cites the superfluous testimony of Jerome, from his epistle to Paulinus concerning the study of the scriptures. He, being asked by Philip if he understood what he was reading, replied, "How can I understand, unless some man declare it unto me?" Therefore, says Bellarmine, the scriptures need interpretation. I answer, in the first place, we concede that many things in scripture are obscure and need interpretation; therefore this place concludes nothing against us. Secondly, although this eunuch was pious and very studious of scripture, he was yet unskilful and not much familiar with scripture, as is plain from his question; for he asked Philip whether the prophet spoke of himself, or of some other person. Now, we do not say that every thing is immediately plain and easy in the scriptures, so as to be intelligible to every one; but we say that those things which at first seem obscure and difficult, are afterwards rendered easy, if one be diligent in reading them, and bring with him a pure and pious mind. (pp. 368-369)

The same analysis I made above applies to this passage as well. Whitaker can't see that it is a disproof in any way, shape, or form, of perspicuity, because he qualifies it out of existence as a disproof. But it is certainly relevant to the overall discussion. It's fascinating that Whitaker does with the Ethiopian eunuch what he recommends that Protestants do with all who disagree with them: suggest that their understanding is grossly inadequate and that they are, well, stupid, and that they lack the necessary measure of the Holy Spirit. This is what Luther and all the original "reformers" did, and Protestants (at least when pressed) have done it ever since. And again (as always), this is too simplistic of an answer.

Ironically, and amusingly (given the prior passage and subject matter that we looked at), we know that the passage in question was from Isaiah 53. The eunuch didn't understand it, and it's true that it doesn't take much knowledge of the Old Testament to know from context and cross-referencing, that Isaiah was not referring to himself (Acts 8:34), but rather, to the Messiah (Jesus). But then again, the eunuch was in very good company, since (as I have just shown), all of Jesus' disciples also did not understand or grasp in the slightest, Isaiah 53, either. If they had, they would have recognized that it was about Jesus, and a graphic description of His sufferings and death, and of the atonement (gained on the cross) itself. All of this is, I dare say, quite an effective disproof of perspicuity (rightly understood, as Whitaker defines it, after Luther).

Whitaker futilely spins the passage as an indication of the initially difficult biblical passage being rendered easier and comprehensible with a little help. The actual state of affairs is precisely as we saw it was in Luke 24 and Psalm 119: going from literally no understanding or profound misunderstandings to grasping the very notion that is involved. The disciples didn't know that Jesus (the Messiah) was to die and suffer, even though it was foretold in the Old Testament in a number of passages, including Isaiah 53. Likewise, the eunuch didn't know that Isaiah 53 was about Jesus.

In both cases, it was necessary to enlighten on a rather fundamental level. That is a vastly different scenario from what Whitaker describes, in an attempt to special plead the implications of all this away. I'm delighted that he makes such abysmally weak counter-replies, that we can now scrutinize, and in so doing, immensely strengthen the biblical and logical case against perspicuity. I am thankful and delighted for the opportunity that bad opposing arguments offer us!

In the fourth place, he objects to us the words of Peter which are contained in 2 Epistle iii. 16, where Peter says expressly that there are [unreadable Greek] (some things hard to be understood) in Paul's epistles. And the Jesuit bids us observe, that Peter does not say that there are some things hard to be understood merely by the unlearned and unstable, but simply and absolutely [Greek], difficulties; whence he wishes to infer that they are difficult to all, though especially to the unlearned. . . . I answer, first, We concede that some places are hard to be understood: therefore, this passage does not make against us. Secondly, Peter does not say that [Greek], all things, but only [Greek], some things, are hard to be understood. And what if some things be obscure? Yet it follows that the greatest part is plain and easy. Thirdly, Although Peter inveighs against . . . "the unlearned and unstable," who [Greek] "wrest" the scriptures, he nevertheless does not debar them altogether from the reading of the scriptures. (p. 369)

Nor do we do so (as to the last sentence). The Church has opposed bad translations into the vernacular, not all vernacular translations (by a long shot). All the Church is saying is that there is a framework of orthodoxy beyond which the individual exegete cannot go. Protestants lacked this from the start, and so they disagreed on a host of things, making themselves ridiculous and hopelessly chaotic and de facto theological relativists within a generation.

But in his rush to minimize the disproof, Whitaker (this seems to be a trend with him) misses much of the import. We grant all of his qualifications (no problem), but it remains a problem in all Christian circles, of folks running across in Scripture, "things . . . hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction." It is precisely the latter scenario that is the concern of the Church. Again, we are not declaring an utterly dark, mysterious, unfathomable Scripture, but rather (as seen here), one that men too often distort, bringing misery and causing heresy to spring forth, ensnaring many souls.

Lastly, St. Paul was a very subtle and advanced thinker: one of the very greatest of his time. To say that there are relatively few "difficulties" in his teaching is a vast understatement. Protestants have wrangled amongst themselves for 500 years over very many aspects of his teaching. Whitaker can quibble about Peter saying there were "some" things (rather than "many") in his writing "hard to understand" but any exegete who specializes in Pauline theology knows the difficulties involved, in the finer points. Calvinists, for example, think that their full-fledged notion of double predestination, TULIP, is easily found and grasped in Paul's writings, yet amazingly enough, no one saw this teaching for 1500 years till John Calvin and his successors came around and "discovered" it in the perspicuous Pauline epistles. That is merely one example of many doctrines.

Whitaker attacks the honesty of his opponent: St. Robert Bellarmine, proclaiming, "Here the Jesuit betrays his remarkable unfairness, and really singular dishonesty . . . he displays his own extraordinary desire to deceive us." (pp. 374-375) I dealt with this kind of unnecessary silliness in the first part; it need not detain us any further. I simply wanted to document how it always lurks just under the surface of Whitaker's critiques of Catholic arguments. We (incorrigible rascals that we are) always have to be dishonest. It can't possibly be an honest disagreement.

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 13, 2011 14:03

September 12, 2011

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 5: The Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture: Introductory Considerations

The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. [my bolding]

. . . we never said that every thing in scripture is easy, perspicuous, and plain ; that there is nothing obscure, nothing difficult to be understood; but we confess openly that there are many obscure and difficult passages of scripture: and yet these men object to us this, and affirm that we maintain the scriptures to be perfectly easy. . . . But they do us injustice, and openly preach falsehood concerning us, when they affirm us to say that all things in scripture are so plain that they may be understood by any unlearned person, and need no exposition or interpretation. Hence we see, . . . what they say, but falsely say, that we think, that all things are plain in the scriptures, and that they suffice without any interpretation to determine all controversies. Let us now see what our opinion really is. (pp. 359, 361)

This is how perspicuity is generally understood among Protestant thinkers. Note it well, as we must not misrepresent what we oppose, and need to fully understand opposing views before setting out to refute them.

Luther, in his assertion of the articles condemned by Leo X., in the preface, says that the scripture is its own most plain, easy, and certain interpreter, proving, judging, and illustrating all things. This is said by him most truly, if it be candidly understood. The same author, in his book of the Slavery of the Will against the Diatribe of Erasmus, writes almost in the beginning, that in the scriptures there is nothing abstruse, nothing obscure, but that all things are plain. And because this may seem a paradox, he afterwards explains himself thus: he confesses that many places of scripture are obscure, that there are many words and sentences shrouded in difficulty, but he affirms nevertheless that no dogma is obscure ; as, for instance, that God is one and three, that Christ hath suffered, and will reign for ever, and so forth. All which is perfectly true : for although there is much obscurity in many words and passages, yet all the articles of faith are plain. (pp. 361-362)
Well, that's fascinating, seeing that baptism, a pretty important doctrine and practice of Christianity, is subject to notoriously different interpretations in protestant camps (all believing in perspicuity). Luther believed in baptismal regeneration, but the Calvinists did not. He and the Calvinists and the Anglicans all believed in infant baptism, but the Anabaptists and Baptists today do not. Wasn't Scripture clear enough? We are told that it is ("all the articles of faith are plain"), yet all the manifest evidence to the contrary in real life and practice, shows otherwise.

According to Whitaker's earlier reasoning in his book, "the other guy" is wrong because he lacks a fuller measure of the Holy Spirit. But of course this is a hopelessly contradictory state of affairs. Who decides who is right in the first place, and who lacks the Holy Spirit? Each one says this about the other. Who decides where the truth lies, and how? All appeal to Scripture, so obviously, Scripture cannot settle the question itself.

The same thing holds for the Eucharist, and many other doctrines. Luther affirmed the Real Presence. The Anabaptists and Calvinists did not, etc. In a 1996 dialogue with anti-Catholics Eric Svendsen and James White about the alleged (by them), "perspicuous apostolic message," I listed 18 major areas where Protestants cannot agree with each other. I asked both men what the apostles thought about each, and they consistently refused to answer (with good reason). We're left with a scenario where Scripture is supposedly plain (without the authoritative aid of the Church), for all major doctrines, yet Protestants can't resolve many such doctrines, and continue to perpetually disagree. It's rather absurd . . . all they can say about each other is that the "other guys" are blind to the plain teachings of Scripture.

But some persons complain greatly of the obscurity of the things also, so that this distinction of Luther's between the things and the signs of the things may seem to be idle. Luther answers that this occurs, not from the obscurity and difficulty of the things themselves, but from our blindness and ignorance. . . . Furthermore he says, that the reason why so many dispute about the things of scripture is to be found in the perversity and depraved desires of men, especially the sophists and schoolmen, who, not content with the simplicity of scripture, have rendered every thing obscure and intricate by their traps and devices; but that the scripture must not be falsely blamed on account of men's abuse of it. (p. 362)

There's the stock answer that has been used ever since. But it is thoroughly problematic and unsatisfactory, for reasons detailed above.

The state of the question, therefore, is not really such as the papists would have it appear; but our fundamental principles are these: First, that the scriptures are sufficiently clear to admit of their being read by the people and the unlearned with some fruit and utility. Secondly, that all things necessary to salvation are propounded in plain words in the scriptures. Meanwhile, we concede that there are many obscure places, and that the scriptures need explication; and that, on this account, God's ministers are to be listened to when they expound the word of God, and the men best skilled in scripture are to be consulted. So far concerning the state of the question. (p. 364)
Both baptism and the eucharist are necessary to salvation:

Baptism:

Mark 16:16 [disputed manuscript, but still indicates the early Christian, apostolic belief] He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;"

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Romans 6:3-4 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (cf. Romans 8:11, 1 Cor 15:20-23, Col 2:11-13)

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

1 Peter 3:18-21 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Eucharist:

John 6:48-51 I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

John 6:53-58 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

But Protestants notoriously disagree on both of these things necessary for salvation; therefore, it appears that it is not true that Scripture is plain enough for all to agree on matters concerning salvation. It is much easier to hold that there are false premises somewhere, in cases of contradiction, and to go after those. But it is manifest that people may interpret "plain" Scripture and come up with contradictory conclusions.

We should carefully bear in memory the preceding distinctions drawn by Luther; for they are sufficient to obviate almost all the arguments of the papists in this question. (p. 365)

Right. They haven't "obviated" the argument I just made; nor has any Protestant I have ever met in 20 years of Catholic apologetics come up with a rational rebuttal of it.

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 12, 2011 17:09

September 9, 2011

Catholic Apologist "Young Guns" Take Savage Satirical Revenge Against Yours Truly in Hilarious Polemical Shootout, Complete with Appropriate "Gunfighter" Visuals

There you have it, folks! I can laugh at myself (in fact, my wife and four kids assure that that is a rather common occurrence), and I'm a huge fan of satire and spoof, so I rather enjoy this, from the "Catholic UNapologist," Patrick Vandapool (be sure to see the entire paper: I only posted my portion above).

In fact (to pursue the "gunfighter" analogy a bit), the most active anti-Catholic Protestants online (whom we all know and admire) seem to have regarded me as some kind of "gunfighter" or "Billy the Kid" figure for years, and seek to gun me down as soon as I dare set foot in any of their Know-Nothing saloons. Normal conversation is quite beside the point. It's "Kill DA!" That's the object. Hence, it's virtually all insults and mockery as a result (including visuals). They have mastered their Master Luther's propagandistic and smear tactics well.

But this present example is good, legitimate satire, based on a real event, not on lies and genuine contempt, as anti-Catholic mockery invariably is (see an example from Eric Svendsen, associating me with Holocaust denial). James White had his talented caricaturist friend do one of Patrick Madrid being stoned (really funny stuff!), and two of me (dated 4-22-04 and 1-13-05), incorporating various lies and double standards. And we must give honorable mention to Frank Turk's merchandise (t-shirts, mugs, etc.: I was dying to wear one of these shirts to Steubenville for a conference . . . didn't get a chance to yet, but I assuredly would!):

http://images.cafepress.com/product/39586847_240x240_Front.jpg

To be effective and funny, satire has to have facts and truth as its basis, not distortions and falsehoods. James White knows this, because in his first caricature of me, he includes the line, "when truth takes a dive, so do the laughs." Satire in the Bible is always based on an underlying serious truth (such as Jesus' excoriations of the Pharisees, or Elijah mocking the false prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel). Yet White shamelessly lied in the same caricature and the second one. Prejudice mixed with ignorance brings this about. The artist was very talented; it is the content that falls short.

Patrick Vandapool, on the other hand, knows how to do satire. I have enjoyed his humor-with-a-message for some time now, and made a post about it on my Facebook page several months ago. I give his site my very highest recommendation. I hope my readers will visit it regularly.

Oh (almost forgot); this present satire is based on the discussion I had with Devin Rose and other "young guns" (of which Patrick is one) that I documented in a post entitled, "'Young Guns' in Catholic Online Apologetics: How Different Are They from the 'Old Guard'? / Apologetics is Always a Difficult Spiritual Battle". I made my case; discussing some merely minor quibbles I had with the article by Devin Rose. Apparently I argued too vigorously (as is my wont) -- and was only partially successful --, thus opening myself up as fodder for the late-night "Catholic apologist comedian" circuit.

The volume of my writing has always been the target of humor for friends and foes alike. It was mentioned in the article by Rose that the "young gun" apologists were "systematic." So I said that I had over 2600 posts on my blog, and over 50 separate web pages (categories). I wasn't trying to brag (after all, volume alone proves nothing whatever as to substance); I was just making the point that I am quite "systematic" myself (in other words, that this was nothing particularly "new"). So Patrick took that and ran with it, humor-wise. All of that is fine and fair game. I had some fun, myself, with the same theme of how much I write, in a take-off of the Beatles' Paperback Writer, written in 2004, including the lines:

Here's a thousand pages, give or take a few,
I'll be writing more in an hour or two.
I can make them longer if you like the style,
I can crank 'em out and I want to be a blogosphere writer,
Blogosphere writer.

If you really hate it we can have a fight*,
I could write a million pages overnight.
If you must reject it, you can leave my blog
Cuz you need a break and don't want to be a blogosphere reader,
Blogosphere reader.

* tongue-in-cheek reference to my love of challenging, feisty (particularly socratic) dialogue / debate.

I have immensely enjoyed this diversion (perfect for a Friday afternoon). If we start taking ourselves too seriously, we're in big trouble. We Christians have always laughed at ourselves, because we know full well that human beings are fallen creatures, full of foibles and follies and faults. And that is often very funny (alliteration semi-unintentional).

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 09, 2011 10:38

September 8, 2011

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 4: Is Scripture Completely Self-Authenticating and Self-Evidently Inspired in All its Books, so that Each Individual Can Discover the Canon in Isolation from Church Pronouncements?

See the introductory post, New Upcoming Project: Refutation of William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture on Sola Scriptura.
I am utilizing a copy of the book available at Internet Archive.
Whitaker's words will be in blue. Page numbers will correspond to the above book version.
* * *
But now let us come to the examination of the argument itself, to which I return a twofold answer. First, I affirm that the scripture can be understood, perceived, known and proved from scripture. Secondly, I say that if it cannot be perceived and proved in this way, still less can it be proved by the church. (p. 289)
It can be "proved by the church" because we don't deny that Scripture can be known in and of itself; we only assert that men en masse can err, and have indeed erred before authoritative ecclesiastical proclamations on the canon were made. We believe much of what Protestants believe in this regard, about Holy Scripture: just not to the extent that they do (an extent that excludes the key role of the Church and tradition in the Rule of faith). Much of the debate about Scripture itself is a matter of degree, and comes down to the usual "either/or" vs. "both/and" dynamic. Whitaker wants to say, "either the Church or the Bible must be supreme." Catholics reject what we contend is a false dichotomy and say, "why do we have to choose? What logical necessity requires this? Both are supreme, and entirely harmonious."

. . . it is compared to a lamp shining in a dark place, . . . It hath therefore light in itself, and such light as we may see in the darkness. But if the opinion of our opponents were correct, this light should be in the church, not in the scriptures. (p. 289)
This is a prime example of a purely ridiculous, "dichotomous" assertion in Whitaker, that bears no resemblance, in any way, shape, matter, or form, to the Catholic belief it reputedly describes. Whitaker apparently can't comprehend that an authoritative Church can co-exist with, and be in harmony with, Holy Scripture, even though the latter plainly declares that the Church has sublime authority.

There is the greatest perspicuity and light in the scriptures: therefore the scripture may be understood by the scripture, if one only have eyes to perceive this light. (p. 289)

It can indeed, for the most part, but Whitaker stumbles upon the reason why the Church is still needed to guide interpretation: "if one only have eyes to perceive this light." It's precisely because many do not "have eyes" that the Church's guidance is necessary. The Church brings the unity in belief and truth that God desires. It doesn't follow that Scripture is therefore utterly obscure. Everything seems to have to be reduced to extreme opposites and dichotomies in classic Protestant anti-Catholic apologetics. It need not be so at all.

The blind cannot perceive even the light of the sun; nor can they distinguish the splendour of the scriptures, whose minds are not divinely illuminated. But those who have eyes of faith can behold this light. Besides, if we recognise men when they speak, why should we not also hear and recognise God speaking in his word? For what need is there that another should teach that this is the voice of somebody, when I recognise it myself; or should inform me that my friend speaks, when I myself hear and understand him speaking? (p. 290)

Yes; men are perfectly capable (in faith, by God's grace) of perceiving that the Bible is God's Word without necessarily hearing this from the Church. I did it myself as a Protestant. But that is only the beginning. One can believe the Bible is inspired, but proceed to interpret it wrongly. Entire heretical denominations (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Science, United Pentecostal Church, so-called "apostolic" churches, et al) manage to miss, for example, the truth of the Holy Trinity, despite hundreds of indications taken together in the Bible.

Most heresies and cults appeal to Scripture Alone. This has always been the case, because they know that they can't appeal to the unbroken apostolic tradition and Chruch history, that will contradict them at every turn. The Church, therefore, is practically necessary, both for the purpose of determining the canon (parameters) of Scripture and its meaning (interpretation within an orthodox framework of received apostolic tradition). Thus, the Arians appealed to the Bible Alone, while their most vigorous opponents: people like St. Athanasius, also appealed to Scripture to refute the error (as I habitually do in my own apologetics), but decisively to apostolic tradition and apostolic succession, which they felt "clinched the case" against the heretics.

But they object that we cannot recognise the voice of God, because we do not hear God speaking. This I deny. For those who have the Holy Spirit, are taught of God : these can recognise the voice of God as much as any one can recognise a friend, with whom he hath long and familiarly lived, by his voice. Nay, they can even hear God. For so Augustine (Ep. iii.), "God addresses us every day. He speaks to the heart of every one of us." If we do not understand, the reason is because we have not the Spirit, by which our hearts should be enlightened. (p. 290)
This is largely or mostly true. Sin does indeed blind one to spiritual reality and truth. Not having the Holy Spirit (being unregenerate) is the cause of blindness. But the overall analysis is too simple and breaks down (as I have noted countless times in my writing) as soon as two clearly godly, zealous, faithful men disagree. The Protestant "Reformation" was characterized from the beginning by schisms and divisions. I need not catalogue those here; I have many times. It is too simplistic and naive to conclude that every time there is a difference it is because "the other guy" is unregenerate or wicked or blind or willfully obtuse to what is so plain. No; these are honestly-held differences by sincere men seeking to follow God.

Now, the relevant, crucial question is: what does the Protestant do in light of the internal differences in their own ranks, on almost every doctrine except ones where they agree with Catholics? There is no solution in the end, within their presuppositions. Martin Luther was consistent, at least. As soon as someone disagreed with him -- no matter how eminent, e.g., Erasmus -- he concluded that they were rascals, evil, atheists, libertines. He felt this way about Zwingli because that fellow "reformer" denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The Anabaptists were evil and out of the fold and worthy of death because they believed in adult baptism.

Therefore, as a result, Protestants have endless internal divisions, because (if they follow Luther and Whitaker in this respect) everyone is always a wicked knave who disagrees on some point of theology. It makes infinitely more sense to accept the fact that man is inherently limited and prone to error; therefore, God has provided a Church that He specially protects and guides, to proclaim true doctrine, and to condemn false doctrine and heresy. In this fashion, doctrinal unity is achieved. There is a way to definitively divide falsehood from truth.

All of this is, I think, patently, glaringly obvious; yet every time sola Scriptura or Christian authority is discussed, the Catholic must run through this manifest logical and practical deficiency in the Protestant system. We have to reinvent the wheel. If I've done it once, I've done it 150 times, and the Protestant never has an adequate reply, because they have nowhere to go with it. Appealing to Scripture Alone as the final authority inevitably leads to this impasse, when men disagree with each other (each appealing to the same "plain" Scripture).

But now, if it be the word of God which we hear, it must needs have a divine authority of itself, and should be believed by itself and for itself. Otherwise we should ascribe more to the church than to God, if we did not believe him except for the sake of the church. (p. 290)
This doesn't follow. It's not "either/or" (and no doubt some Catholics have fallen into the same bad thinking and have denigrated Scripture too much or made it too mysterious); but Whitaker has now demonstrated that the Church teaches what he claims it does about the Bible. The Bible can be what it is (inspired revelation), while at the same time the Church can play a role in declaring the canon and interpretation beyond which no one can go. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Men need the guidance of the Church as well as the internal guidance of the Spirit. Catholics are not denying the latter; we're only denying that it contradicts or wipes out the former; while Protestants reject the former altogether, as part and parcel of the false tradition of sola Scriptura.

For the truth of the new Testament is shadowed forth in the figures of the old; and whatever things were predicted in the old, those we read to have been fulfilled in the new. Whatever was said obscurely in the former, is said plainly in the latter. (p. 292)
Oh great. I hereby, then, challenge the first Protestant who is able and willing to answer (Whitaker being dead) to tell me what the following "plain" and "perspicuous" New Testament Scripture means?:

1 Corinthians 15:29 (RSV) Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

Or how about this "plain" passage:

Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; [4] and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

What in the world is an angel doing with the "prayers of all the saints"? I thought (so we're told) prayer could only be to God, and no one else (not even in a mediatory, intercessory sense, if they are in heaven)? I wrote an entire book about how Protestants have, historically, futilely attempted to rationalize away Bible passages that appear to be quite "Catholic" and inconsistent with their own views.

Peter confirms Paul's epistles by his authority, 2 Pet. iii. 16, and distinctly calls them scriptures. "The unlearned," says he, "wrest them, as they do also the other scriptures." (p. 292)
Yes, Peter does do that. Isn't it strange, though, how Whitaker misses the other aspect of the passage, showing how the Bible can be misinterpreted (hence the need for the Church to put an end to heretical hermeneutics)? He rushes right past that, and moves on to other prooftexts, as if it is of no relevance to the discussion. The following verse is very instructive also: "You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability." Note that St. Peter is writing to Christians:

2 Peter 1:1-4 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: [2] May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. [3] His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, [4] by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. [. . . , etc.]

This disproves Whitaker's point that it is only the "blind" and unregenerate, wicked folks who may misunderstand or not grasp at all the Scriptures because of those handicaps. St. Peter clearly teaches otherwise, since he warns the very Christians about whom he wrote so glowingly in the beginning of his letter, about being "carried away with the error of lawless men." That was in the context of the previous verse about distorting the meaning of Scriptures. Therefore, it is possible for good Christians to fall into the same error; thus, it is not just "sin" that blinds us to not see Scripture clearly. The good Christian, too, can fall into erroneous interpretation of the Scripture, and/or heresy, if unduly influenced by those already in error. Hence, the need of an authoritative Church.

And this is not, of course, the only passage about the necessity of "official" interpretation of a Scripture supposedly so clear that any right-intentioned person can immediately understand them, solely by the illumination of the Holy Spirit:

Nehemiah 8:8 And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.

Malachi 2:7-8 For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. [8] But you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by your instruction; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the LORD of hosts,

Luke 24:27, 32 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.. . . They said to each other, "Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?"

Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,

Acts 8:30-31 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" [31] And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?". . .

Moreover, at the Jerusalem Council, apostles and elders determined the law henceforth about circumcision for Christians. Peter acted very much like a pope there. After he spoke, no one stated differently. Paul went out and proclaimed the council's decision for observance of his hearers (Acts 16:4). This was authoritative interpretation of Scripture, making what was unclear (did male Gentile Christians need to be circumcised?), clear.

Paul confirms his own epistles by his name, and by his judgment. (p. 292)
He never declares his own letters as Scripture. He knows, however, that he speaks with apostolic authority; akin to the sublime authority of a prophet. Hence, he does not prove from his own words that he is writing Scripture under the inspiration of God. This is merely Whitaker's gratuitous assumption. Even if he did do so, Whitaker has not provided his readers with the actual passage as proof; he simply asserts it (which is no argument). But St. Paul does describe what he passes along as "tradition" (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6) and says that his oral teaching to his followers is as binding and authoritative as his epistles (Phil 4:9; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2). This is not what one would expect at all, coming to the Bible with the prior tradition of men, sola Scriptura.

I would also contend that Paul's constant references to "the message" or "the commandment" or "the truth" or "tradition," etc. presupposes a known doctrinal content. This is where the need for creeds come in: written by men, that summarize the content of the apostolic deposit. The Church confirms true doctrine; not Scripture alone. This is what we saw in the Jerusalem Council and at future councils like Nicaea -- and it is not merely based on "seeing what the Bible has to say" -- not by a long shot. It's not that the Church interprets individually every single passage, but that it provides parameters of orthodoxy, beyond which one may not go.

. . . if any pious persons have yet doubts concerning the scriptures, much more certain evidences may be gathered from the books themselves, to prove them canonical, than from any authority of the church. I speak not now of the internal testimony of the Spirit, but of certain external testimonies, which may be drawn from the books themselves to prove them divinely inspired writings. (p. 293)

There are unarguably many such signs in Scripture itself; we only deny that such manifestations are universal or such that all men (of good will) can agree on the canon. This is hardly disputable because we have proof in history itself: the first four centuries, with men regarded as good churchmen on all sides, disagreeing on some of the books of the Bible (with some holding that non-biblical books were part of the canon). I submit, therefore, that this particular point is beyond all contention. I summarized some of these historical facts in my book, The One-Minute Apologist (pp. 10-11):

St. Justin Martyr (d.c. 165) didn't recognize Philippians or 1 Timothy. The Muratorian Canon (c.190) excluded Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter. The Council of Nicaea in 325 questioned the canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. Even up to the late 4th century, the book of James had not even been quoted in the west. The books of Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation were still being disputed at that late date. Revelation was rejected by St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), St. John Chrysostom (d. 407), and St. Gregory Nazianzen (d. 389). None of this is consistent with the notion that it is easy to determine a biblical book (i.e., an inspired book) simply by reading it. Believers in the early Church (such as St. Athanasius or St. Augustine) were just as zealous for the Bible and Christian truth as Christians today. Yet they often disagreed on this score.

Moreover, we observe that many non-Scriptural books were regarded as Scripture by many important people and lists of canonical books in the early Church. The Gospels of St. Justin Martyr contained apocryphal materials. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache were regarded as Scripture by St. Clement of Alexandria (d.c. 215) and Origen (d.c. 254); so was the Shepherd of Hermas, by St. Irenaeus (d.c. 200), Tertullian (d.c. 225), Origen, and St. Clement of Alexandria. The Muratorian Canon of c. 190 included the Apocalypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon. The well-known Codex Sinaiticus of the late fourth century still included the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. . . .

Are we to believe that the same people in the early Church who developed doctrines like the Holy Trinity, didn't understand which books belonged in the Bible as well as we do today, because they were poor readers or slow to comprehend the relatively obvious? The fact remains that there were disagreements because some books were not all that clearly inspired (and other non-biblical books seemed to be). Indeed, we expect men to disagree; all the more reason to need an authority.

Thus, the Church decided on the issue of the canon in the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397): both influenced heavily by St. Augustine. It is sometimes objected that these were merely local councils. But they were preceded by a Roman Council (382) of identical opinion, and were ratified by Popes Innocent I (405, 414) and Gelasius I (495). The 6th Council of Carthage (419) also concurred.

Whitaker himself (on the same page) mentioned that "we nowhere read that the books of Esther, Nehemiah, and Ezra, were confirmed by the authority of the new Testament." Therefore, they are accepted simply because the tradition of the Jews included them? I guess so. They're mostly historical accounts. Esther doesn't even mention God. One would look in vain in that book for "the majesty of the doctrine itself, which everywhere shines forth in the sacred and canonical books" (p. 293; my italics). Only one book in the New testament claims explicitly that it is inspired (Revelation; see 1:1-3; 22:10, 18-19). That's it. All the rest is human deduction and discernment.

In order, therefore, that we should be internally in our consciences persuaded of the authority of scripture, it is needful that the testimony of the Holy Ghost should be added. And he, as he seals all the doctrines of faith and the whole teaching of salvation in our hearts, and confirms them in our consciences, so also does he give us a certain persuasion that these books, from which are drawn all the doctrines of faith and salvation, are sacred and canonical. But, you will say, this testimony is not taken from the books themselves: it is, therefore, external, and not inherent in the word. I answer: Although the testimony of the Holy Ghost be not, indeed, the same as the books themselves; yet it is not external, nor separate, or alien from the books, because it is perceived in the doctrine delivered in those books . . . (p. 295)
How utterly strange and odd, then (if this be true), that holy and learned men close to the time of Jesus and the apostles, such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and Tertullian didn't get it, like Whitaker and his fellow Protestant revolutionaries "got it" in the 16th century. Even St. Augustine: virtually the patron saint of Protestants (so much do they cite him) accepted the deutoerocanonical (or so-called "apocryphal") books that Protestants reject. Even St. Athanasius (the first to correctly list all 27 NT books, in 367), accepted the canonicity of the deuterocanonical book Baruch.

Everywhere one turns in the first four centuries of the Church, the historical testimony is against these foolish notions that Whitaker tries to put across, in sheer subjectivism. Even after that time, the deuterocanon was almost universally accepted. St. Jerome is the main Church father cited against it, and even he submitted his judgment to that of the Church.

Replying to the Catholic objection that division exists in Protestant ranks, Whitaker now nuances his argument about the Holy Spirit to "degrees":

Nor does it immediately follow, that all who are in error are without the Holy Spirit, because all errors are not capital. Now the reason why all who have the Holy Spirit do not think exactly alike of all things, is because there is not precisely the same equal measure of the Holy Spirit in all; otherwise there would be the fullest agreement in all points. (p. 296; my italics)

This reduces to the same simplistic, unrealistic mentality: disagreement exists? "Well, that is obviously because person B who believes doctrine Y (contradictory of doctrine X) has a lesser measure of the Holy Spirit than person A who believes doctrine X [that I happen to agree with]." Thus, every doctrinal disagreement is chalked up to a person's spiritual state, with those who disagree with us being disparaged as less spiritual. One can see how that state of affairs will quickly become both chaotic and pharisaical (as indeed Protestant history (art least in its more unsavory schismatic and divisive tendency) has affirmed).

But what? Is it only by the testimony of the church, that we know all other points of religion and doctrines of the faith? Is it not the office of the Holy Spirit to teach us all things necessary to salvation? (p. 297)
This is how we know it on our human, fallible level, because God grants the Church the charism of infallibility. The Bible never says that individuals are the final judges of truth; the standards or arbiters of truth, but it refers to "the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Falsehood cannot be the support or pillar of truth; therefore it follows that the Church is infallible. And the Bible gives an account of the Jerusalem Council determining a point of doctrine and practice, regarding circumcision (Acts 15).

The Bible puts the Holy Spirit and the Church together, working for the spread of His truth, in this same council: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:" (Acts 15:28). The Church and the Holy Spirit lead one into truth. Not the Holy Spirit only; not the Church only; not the Bible only; but Church and Holy Spirit, in harmony with Holy Scripture and apostolic tradition (preceded by the legitimate Jewish tradition acknowledged by Jesus in Matthew 5:17 and 23:2-3 and developed by Christianity).

I answer: Therefore men cannot give us this persuasion, but there is need of some higher, greater, more certain testimony than that of man. Now the church is an assembly of men, and is composed of men. (p. 297)
Clever, but of course Whitaker neglects to see that the Church is a rather special assemblage: one that is expressly guided by God. Yes, it is composed of mere "men" (and women), but this was also true of the writers of Scripture. They were men, too. Protestants (and Catholics concur) believe that God could take sinful men and write an inspired, infallible Scripture through them. Catholics also believe a thing that is a less huge claim: that God can also protect from doctrinal error, His Church and make it infallible, even though it is composed of sinful men. If he can do one thing, He can do the other lesser thing (and Scripture reveals that He in fact did both). If one can believe the more extraordinary notion (inspiration and infallibility of the Bible), one can also accept the relatively less extraordinary notion (infallibility of the Church). It all comes about because of God, by His grace and power and omnipotence and providence.

Do you yourself deem him a Christian who denies the whole scripture? Certainly, he replies; for he affirms that some Christians deny the scriptures, such as the Schwenkfeldians, Anabaptists, . . . I answer, our question is about real Christians. These are not Christians truly but equivocally, as the papists are equivocal catholics. (p. 298)
This is fascinating and most illuminating. The Anabaptists are not "real" or "truly" Christians? Their belief was typified by belief in adult baptism. They were the closest to the Baptists of their time. I'm sure James White and other virulently anti-Catholic Baptists today who like to trace themselves back to the Anabaptists would be thrilled to know that Whitaker doesn't even think that Anabaptists are Christians. I guess that's why Whitaker's masters Luther and Calvin had the Anabaptists drowned for their beliefs. Bishop White definitely identifies with the Anabaptists:

There is everything fine and good with celebrating God's goodness to His church in Calvin and all those who have faithfully stood for God's truth over the centuries. But I cannot help but think that Calvin himself would be royally angry about the whole thing. In fact, I'd say he'd probably have some of us flogged and driven out of Geneva! Especially us "Anabaptists," we'd be in deep trouble. (7-10-09)

More than flogged; how about drowned? I must say I relish the delicious irony of Whitaker -- whom White heartily recommends (see the Introduction) -- reading White out of Christianity: thrown out onto the unregenerate dung heap along with us lowly "papists" (whom White despises).

Likewise, Schwenkfeldians are certainly Christians, whatever one may think of them. But Whitaker is ready to kick them out of the fold at the drop of a hat. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, far more tolerant than this, would acknowledge them (and Whitaker and his Anglican cohorts) as brothers in Christ, on the basis of trinitarian baptism.

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 08, 2011 17:07

September 7, 2011

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 3: Relation of Church and Scripture, and the Practical Necessity of an Authoritatively Declared Canon

First Vatican Council (1870)

These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical; not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterward approved by her authority; not because they contain revelation, with no admixture of error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself.

(Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter II)

Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)

The divinely-revealed realities which are contained and presented in the text of sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.

(Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation [Dei Verbum], Chapter III, 11)

The key concept is the divine authorship of the Bible. Since God wrote the Bible, it is inspired revelation, and by no means inferior to Church authority. This notion was expressed at Trent ( Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures ), in a less explicit way than the above two conciliar proclamations:

. . . (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both -- . . .

God being the ultimate author, inspiring the human writers, obviously is a factor that occurs antecedently to any formation of the canon or involvement of men in that regard. It is what makes Scripture what it is: not the proclamation of men. It is what it is prior to the declarations on the canon. The Catholic Church does not pretend to be superior to Holy Scripture.

Rather, to find that view, one must look to various Protestants; particularly Martin Luther (the founder of the entire movement), who made all sorts of snide, disparaging, outrageous remarks about various books, such as Esther, or (notoriously, James, Jude, and Revelation). At least Luther kept these books in his own translation of the Bible and in the canon (perhaps while grimacing and plugging his nose at a few of them). Fellow Protestant "reformer" Huldreich Zwingli, on the other hand, rejected the book of Revelation outright, saying that he "takes no account of it, for it is not a book of the Bible" (Werke, II, I, p. 1569, ed. Schuler; cited by Brooke Foss Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament , sixth edition [1889], Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, p. 487).

So Whitaker falsely chides individual Catholics for views that the Church did not officially espouse, while ignoring the problems in his own Protestant house. What else is new in anti-Catholic polemics?

But other papists now begin to speak with somewhat greater caution and accuracy. Cochlaeus, in his Reply to Bullinger, chap. 2, avails himself of a distinction. He says that the scriptures are indeed in themselves firm, clear, perfect, and most worthy of all credit, as the work of God; but that, with regard to us, they need the approval and commendation of the church, on account of the depravity of our minds and the weakness of our understandings. (p. 277; my bolding)
This is true, and this is likely the sense or at least primary sense of others whom Whitaker cites, who may appear at face value to believe differently. The history of the formation of the canon bears out that, practically speaking, the authority of the Church was needed to settle the issue once and for all. The Bible books are not all self-attesting and self-evidently inspired, which is why there were many differences of opinion on the canon up to the late 4th century. But that is a different question from determinations of what is on a "higher plane": Church or Scripture. Whitaker himself at least shows that one of his opponents Stapleton, asserts this very thing:

So our countryman Stapleton explains this controversy through almost his whole ninth book of Doctrinal Principles. In the first chapter he examines the state of the question; where he says that the question is not, whether the scripture be in itself sacred and divine, but how we come to know that it is sacred and divine: and therefore he blames Calvin for stating the question wrongly, when he says that the papists affirm, that it depends upon the church what reverence is due to scripture. For (says he) the scriptures are in themselves worthy of all reverence, but, with regard to us, they would not by themselves have been held in such honour. This, says he, is a very different thing from making it depend upon the church, what books should be reckoned in the canon of scripture. The one (he adds) relates to the reverence due to scripture in itself; the other to the same reverence in respect to us. (p. 277)

As a good Protestant, however, Whitaker shows his inability to grasp "both/and" notions in his next remark. He has to make a false dichotomy ("either/or" thinking):

But, I beseech you, what is the difference between these two opinions, It depends upon the judgment of the church what reverence is due to scripture; and, It depends upon the judgment of the church what books are to be received into the canon; since that sacred scripture, to which divine reverence is due, is to be found only in the canonical books? The papists affirm the latter opinion; therefore, also the first. (pp. 277-278)
Whitaker confuses two things. The following two assertions (both held by the Catholic Church) are logically and categorically distinct:

1) Reverence is due to all books in Scripture because of its inherent status as a God-breathed, inspired revelation.

2) We know what books are in Scripture primarily because of the authoritative declaration of the Church declaring which books are canonical.

#1 does not necessarily depend on the prior assertion of #2. It can exist apart from it, on its own. And this is what Catholics contend. We assert the practical necessity of #2 and we also assert the inherent state of affairs of #1: Scripture is what it is prior to the Church declaring anything about the canon. Therefore, #1 can be held prior to knowledge of #2.The difference is highlighted by the phrases bolded above: "with regard to us" and "in respect to us." It is the difference between what a thing is in itself and how a given person receives it.

By analogy, a President or a King is what he is. But particular persons may personally encounter them without knowing that it is royalty or the highest executive officer in the land that they are encountering. They don't cease to be what they are based on someone's mistake as to their identification and estate. By the same token, our knowledge of which book is in the Bible and which isn't, has to do with us, but not with the inherent status of a biblical book. The Church declares what is already the case of its own accord, for the sake of the knowledge of the masses (just as we declare the saving message of the gospel). It is a clear and distinct difference between one idea and the other, yet Whitaker can't grasp it, and so collapses the two, and makes out that we are teaching what we do not teach.

Whitaker, almost despite himself, shows that he can almost accept (as "tolerable") the obvious distinction as a legitimate opinion:

To the same effect Andradius also writes, Defens. Trid. Con, Lib. iii., that the church does not give to scripture its authority, but only declares to us how great its authority is in itself. This opinion might appear tolerable, — that scripture is in itself a sacred and divine thing, but is not recognised as such by us, except upon the testimony of the church. But in the second book the same author speaks much more perversely . . . (p. 278)
What he can't personally comprehend (because of hostile presuppositions and illogical thinking), he must first caricature and then put down. This is also a classic anti-Catholic Protestant mentality:

And now we are well nigh in possession of the true state of the question, which is itself no slight advantage: for they speak in so perplexed, obscure, and ambiguous a manner, that one cannot easily understand what it is they mean. Now these assertions might seem not to deserve any severe reprehension, — that the scripture hath authority in itself, but that it cannot be certain to us except through the church. But we shall presently shew where the true steps and turning point of the controversy be. (p. 278)
He goes on to elaborate his opinion:

In the first place, we do not deny that it appertains to the church to approve, acknowledge, receive, promulge, commend the scriptures to all its members ; and we say that this testimony is true, and should be received by all. We do not, therefore, as the papists falsely say of us, refuse the testimony of the church, but embrace it. But we deny that we believe the scriptures solely on account of this commendation of them by the church. For we say that there is a more certain and illustrious testimony, whereby we are persuaded of the sacred character of these books, that is to say, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, without which the commendation of the church would have with us no weight or moment. The papists, therefore, are unjust to us, when they affirm that we reject and make no account of the authority of the church. For we gladly receive the testimony of the church, and admit its authority; but we affirm that there is a far different, more certain, true, and august testimony than that of the church. The sum of our opinion is, that the scripture . . . hath all its authority and credit from itself; is to be acknowledged, is to be received, not only because the church hath so determined and commanded, but because it comes from God; and that we certainly know that it comes from God, not by the church, but by the Holy Ghost. (pp. 279-280)
But Catholics do not dispute the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, either. After all, the Church is made up of men, and in order for men to declare on the canon of Scripture, they must have reasons and knowledge beforehand as to what constitutes Scripture and what does not, and why this is so. And that knowledge includes certain characteristics of inspired books, and internal testimony from the Holy Spirit. Catholic councils possessed the same dynamic that the Jerusalem Council in the book of Acts. The decisions of men were their own, yet authoritatively, infallibly guided at the same time by God:

it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord . . . (15:25; RSV)

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . . (15:28)

We don't deny that at all, but we say that men can get this wrong; therefore, the authority of the Church is practically necessary insofar as some (often, many) men (not all) err without it. It's also necessary for a unified view of the canon of Scripture, so there is no disagreement, as there was in the early centuries, where there are many instances of canonical books not being considered so, and non-canonical books being regarded as Scripture.

As so often, actually, the two positions -- rightly understood on both sides -- are not all that far apart, and not even essentially different. Whitaker states that Protestants do indeed accept the authority of the Church at some (sub-infallible) level, in the determination of the biblical canon. But he emphasizes internal testimony of the Spirit. We don't reject the latter, so there is no huge difference here; only a difference as to relative importance in the overall scheme of things (we emphasize the role of the Church more). But if Whitaker caricatures our position on the relationship of Church authority and Holy Scripture, and then denies that we also hold to internal testimony, then a difference is trumped-up where there is none, and hostility against supposed falsehood generated where it is unnecessary since there is substantial agreement.

Now by the church we understand not, as they do, the pastors, bishops, councils, pope; but the whole multitude of the faithful. For this whole multitude hath learned from the Holy Spirit that this scripture is sacred, that these books are divine. This persuasion the Holy Spirit hath sealed in the minds of all the faithful. The state of the controversy, therefore, is this: Whether we should believe that these scriptures which we now have are sacred and canonical merely on account of the church's testimony, or rather on account of the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit; which, as it makes the scripture canonical and authentic in itself, makes it also to appear such to us, and without which the testimony of the church is dumb and inefficacious. (p. 280)
Note the stark false dichotomy drawn: it's either the testimony of the Church or "the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit." Why must anyone choose between the two? Why can't men acknowledge both? This is what the Catholic Church does, but because Whitaker can't grasp our "both/and" outlook (following the biblical paradoxical worldview) he denies it and falsely attributes to us things we don't believe.

The key is the use of the word "merely" above. He makes out that Catholics believe in the Scripture only, or "merely" because of the Church's "testimony." This is where his fundamental error of analysis lies. He can't comprehend that anyone can hold both things to be true. Yet he understands that his fellow Protestants accept the input of the Church on the matter (though non-infallibly), while at the same time denying that we accept the presence of an internal testimony in men (though some get it wrong, as non-infallible individuals).

Secondly, internal testimony alone is not decisive, since we know from the facts of history in the first four centuries, that these great fathers whom both sides revere (though Catholics more than Protestants) did not in fact come to a total agreement on the canon. The agreement didn't come until the Church declared which books were canonical and which were not. Those are the facts of the matter. We can literally "test" whether his theory actually worked in real life, by examining the centuries before the canon was declared, to see what actually happened.

The reason there is substantial agreement now (apart from the seven disputed books of the Old Testament period) is precisely because the list of canonical books has become an entrenched, unquestioned tradition: so much so that even Protestants automatically, axiomatically accept it.

It's easy to say now (and also in Whitaker's time in the 16th century), with this historic background, which books are biblical, and then argue that each is accepted because of its internal testimony. No; they are accepted because they are listed as the books in the Bibles we purchase. It's as simple as that. And they are listed because the Church determined what the canon was, in history, after four centuries of reflection on the part of Christians (as individuals), who disagreed with respect to many books. In other words, the agreement did not come about wholly spontaneously among the mass of Christians, because of the work of the Holy Spirit in individual souls. It came about because the Church (by means of its grave conciliar deliberations) authoritatively spoke.

Accordingly, as soon as Protestants split off from the Catholic Church, they immediately started questioning some books: thus illustrating again that it was the historic Church that was the "glue" that held the canon together. Luther came close to rejecting four New Testament books and some in the Old Testament, such as Esther; Zwingli rejected Revelation; some Anabaptists threw out Job, etc. The opposition to the seven deuterocanonical books was greatly increased (arguably, Luther didn't like some books because of his acceptance of the heresy of soul-sleep). Therefore, before the declaration of the Church (late 4th century) and after infallible Church authority was rejected, there was inevitable disagreement on the canon.

He [Stapleton] subjoins that the authority of the church respects the scriptures only materially; which he explains to mean, that it is fitting we should obey the judgment of the church, and, on account of its judgment, receive the scripture as sacred. But it would not, says he, be fitting that the truth of scripture, or of other objects of faith, should so depend upon the judgment of the church, as that they should only be true on condition of the church's approving them; but now, says he, the church does not make them true in themselves, but only causes them to be believed as true. Mark ye. The scripture is true in itself, and all the doctrines of scripture are true; but they could not appear true to us, we could not believe the scriptures, unless the church approved the scripture and the doctrines of scripture. Although these things be true in themselves, yet they would not have seemed true to us, they would not have been believed, or (to use Stapleton's expression) received by us, unless on account of the church's approbation. (p. 281)
Again, Whitaker makes the basic category or logical error, in assuming that what Catholics are concerned about as a tendency or strong possibility (men en masse getting things wrong; in this instance, the biblical canon) is meant to be a necessary condition for one and all. The latter is not what we are asserting, as Whitaker should have known by his summaries of his opponents. But he superimposes onto them (and Catholics generally) some of his own views and his own "either/or" bad thinking.

We determine far otherwise, and with far greater truth: for we resolutely deny that we are indebted to the church for this — that the scriptures are true even in respect to us; but we say that our belief of their truth is produced by the testimony and suggestion of the Holy Spirit. (pp. 281-282)
The stark, "either/or" false dichotomy is again expressed . . .

All therefore that the papists allege tends substantially to make the whole authority of scripture depend upon the authority of the church, which nevertheless they deny: yet that this is the real meaning of their opinion is manifest from what hath been already said. (p. 283)
In other words, "the best representatives of our papist opponents deny x, yet nevertheless we assert (in our illogical stupefaction) that they teach x, because we know their doctrines and rationales for them better than they do themselves." Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? We Catholics are so confused that we can't even comprehend our own doctrines, and so we need our Protestant anti-Catholic overlords and superiors to interpret them to us, in their conspiratorial, pseudo-Gnostic wisdom of the "real meaning" of our inscrutable mysteries, so that we can understand what we believe with their necessary help. How charitable of them . . .

St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622), a Doctor of the Catholic Church, who lived shortly after Whitaker, confirms what I have been contending, in his Catholic Controversy , written in 1596:

But here is the difficulty. If these books were not from the beginning of undoubted authority in the Church, who can give them this authority? In truth the Church cannot give truth or certitude to the Scripture, or make a book canonical if it were not so, but the Church can make a book known as canonical, and make us certain of its certitude, and is fully able to declare that a book is canonical which is not held as such by every one, and thus to give it credit in Christendom; not changing the substance of the book which of itself was canonical, but changing the persuasion of Christians, making it quite assured where previously it had not been so. But how can the Church herself define that a book is canonical? — for she is no longer guided by new revelations but by the old Apostolic ones, of which she has infallibility of interpretation. And if the Ancients have not had the revelation of the authority of a book, how then can she know it? She considers the testimony of antiquity, the conformity which this book has with the others which are received, and the general relish which the Christian people find in it.

For as we can know what is a proper and wholesome food for animals when we see them fond of it and feed on it with advantage, so, when the Church sees that the Christian people heartily relishes a book as canonical and gains good from it, she may know that it is a fit and wholesome meat for Christian souls; and as when we would know whether one wine is of the same vintage as another we compare them, observing whether the colour, the smell and the taste are alike in the two, so when the Church has properly decided that a book has a taste, colour and smell — holiness of style, doctrine and mysteries — like to the other canonical books, and besides has the testimony of many good and irreproachable witnesses of antiquity, she can declare the book to be true brother of the other canonical ones.

And we must not doubt that the Holy Spirit assists the Church in this judgment: for your ministers themselves confess that God has given the Holy Scriptures into her charge, and say that it is on this account S. Paul calls her the pillar and ground of the truth [1 Tim 3:15] And how would she guard them if she could not know and separate them from the mixture of other books? And how important is it for the Church that she should be able to know in proper time and season which Scripture is holy and which not: for if she received such and such Scripture as holy and it was not, she would lead us into superstition; and if she refused the honour and
belief which befit God's Word to a holy Scripture, it would be an impiety. If ever then Our Lord defends his Church against the gates of hell, if ever the Holy Spirit assisted her so closely that she could say: It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, — we must firmly believe that he inspires her on occasions of such great consequences as these; for it would indeed be to abandon her at her need if he left her at this juncture, on which depends not only an article or two of our faith, but the substance of our religion. When, therefore, the Church has declared that a book is canonical, we must never doubt but that it is so. We [are] here in the same position.

For Calvin and the very bibles of Geneva, and the Lutherans, receive several books as holy, sacred, and canonical which have not been acknowledged by all the Ancients as such, and about which there has been a doubt. If there has been a doubt formerly, what reason can they have to make them assured and certain nowadays, except that which S. Augustine had [as we said above]: "I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me;" and "We receive the New and the Old Testament in that number of books which the authority of the Holy Catholic Church determines." Truly we should be very ill assured if we were to rest our faith on these particular interior inspirations, of which we only know that they exist or ever did exist, by the testimony of some private persons. And granted that they are or have been, we do not know whether they are from the false or of the true spirit; and supposing they are of the true spirit, we do not know whether they who relate them, relate them faithfully or not, since they have no mark of infallibility whatever. We should deserve to be wrecked if we were to cast ourselves out of the ship of the public judgment of the Church, to sail in the miserable skiff of these new discordant private inspirations. Our faith would not be Catholic, but private. (pp. 110-113 in the above linked version)

Whitaker paraphrases (or quotes?) his opponent Stapleton, and in so doing, shows that he is not arguing as Whitaker would make out that Catholics or the Catholic Church in its official capacity argue:

He bestows his whole ninth book upon this question, and in the fourth chapter of that book commences his reasoning against us in this manner: To have a certain canon of scripture is most necessary to faith and religion. But without the authority of the church it is impossible to have a certain canon of scripture; since it cannot be clear and certain to us what book is legitimate, what supposititious, unless the church teach us. (p. 285)
Note that Stapleton (assuming Whitaker describes his position accurately) is not arguing that no one can ascertain a biblical book at all without the Church, but rather, that no one can be "certain" of the entire canon, and that it cannot be "clear and certain" -- these are two different propositions. Whitaker continually represents our position as supposedly holding that no one can know that Scripture is Scripture, period, unless the Church tells him it is so. But the certitude of faith and knowledge (which can be fallible) are two distinct things. The Catholic argument in this respect has to do with the former, not the latter, and with the practical and historical realities of Christians disagreeing with each other.

Basically, Whitaker misses the nuances and finer points and logical subtlety of Catholic arguments, and is bound by his "dichotomous" mindset (a view typical of Protestantism, so brilliantly examined by Louis Bouyer in his classic work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism ), and so misrepresents them and fights against straw men, insofar as his argument about the canon is concerned. Intelligent, thoughtful men never argue so poorly as when their biases get in the way: clouding their logical judgment.

Because of this, Whitaker sinks deeper and deeper into wars against straw men and caricatures, and so writes downright silly, virtually self-refuting things such as:

I am surprised that Stapleton should have been so stupid as not to see that, if it be God who teaches through the church, the authority of God must be greater than that of the church. He confesses that we are taught by God through the church : therefore, since God is the prime and highest teacher, it is evident that his authority and trustworthiness is the chief. For the church is only his minister, subserves him in giving instruction, and expounds his commands. (p. 286)
It does not therefore follow that because the church knows very well the voice of Christ, the authority of the church is greater than that of Christ. (p. 288)
As if any informed Catholic ever claimed that the Church has more authority than Christ Himself! . . .That's not the issue at all, but it makes great "copy", and makes Catholics look ridiculous, to (supposedly) believe such a patently absurd thing, doesn't it?

Meanwhile, throughout this section, he ignores the real issue, which is: "what to do when men disagree on the canon (or anything else in theology)?" "Who has the final say?" "Whence comes the complete unity and oneness of doctrine that the Bible so often enjoins?" These are practical issues of supreme importance. The Catholic "solution" (which we contend was already the teaching of the Bible) is an infallible Church guided in a unique fashion by the Holy Spirit, and apostolic succession. The Protestant (as Whitaker classically states) ultimately falls back to the individual: the "me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit" mentality. That breaks down as soon as there is disagreement (as there always is), because falsehood and division are not from God: they are from the devil, the father of lies. Jesus said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Is this not all quite obvious? But these inherent difficulties are utterly ignored in this section.

Whitaker at this point turns to the supposedly completely self-attesting nature of Scripture, so that men are in no need of a Church to declare the canon. That falsehood will be critiqued in our next installment.

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 07, 2011 16:11

September 5, 2011

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 2: Views of Tertullian, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine / St. Athanasius on the Old Testament Canon

Chapter I.-The Opinions of Hermogenes, by the Prescriptive Rule of Antiquity Shown to Be Heretical. Not Derived from Christianity, But from Heathen Philosophy. Some of the Tenets Mentioned.

We are accustomed, for the purpose of shortening argument, to lay down the rule against heretics of the lateness of their date. For in as far as by our rule, priority is given to the truth, which also foretold that there would be heresies, in so far must all later opinions be prejudged as heresies, being such as were, by the more ancient rule of truth, predicted as (one day) to happen. Now, the doctrine of Hermogenes has this taint of novelty. He is, in short, a man living in the world at the present time; by his very nature a heretic, and turbulent withal, who mistakes loquacity for eloquence, and supposes impudence to be firmness, and judges it to be the duty of a good conscience to speak ill of individuals. Moreover, he despises God's law in his painting, maintaining repeated marriages, alleges the law of God in defence of lust, and yet despises it in respect of his art. He falsifies by a twofold process-with his cautery and his pen. He is a thorough adulterer, both doctrinally and carnally, since he is rank indeed with the contagion of your marriage-hacks, and has also failed in cleaving to the rule of faith as much as the apostle's own Hermogenes.

Note that Scripture is never specifically mentioned here (though "God's law" is close); let alone equated with the rule of faith. It is antiquity that is the rule of faith. Hermogenes violates it, and in Tertullian's opinion that is more than enough for him to be judged as a heretic and false teacher. The only other time he uses the phrase "rule of faith" in this treatise, it is also not referring to Scripture. Biblical argument is used throughout, of course, in conjunction with his defense of the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), but Scripture itself is not called the "rule of faith" (which was Whitaker's claim):

Chapter XXXIII.-Statement of the True Doctrine Concerning Matter. Its Relation to God's Creation of the World.

But although Hermogenes finds it amongst his own colourable pretences (for it was not in his power to discover it in the Scriptures of God), it is enough for us, both that it is certain that all things were made by God, and that there is no certainty whatever that they were made out of Matter. And even if Matter had previously existed, we must have believed that it had been really made by God, since we maintained (no less) when we held the rule of faith to be, that nothing except God was uncreated. Up to this point there is room for controversy, until Matter is brought to the test of the Scriptures, and fails to make good its case.

Eminent Protestant historian Philip Schaff states that such a view was Tertullian's standard position; thus verifying my "take" above. He specifically deals with what Tertullian meant by "rule of faith":

Besides appealing to the Scriptures, the fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, refer with equal confidence to the "rule of faith;" that is, the common faith of the church, as orally handed down in the unbroken succession of bishops from Christ and his apostles to their day, . . .

Tertullian finds a universal antidote for all heresy in his celebrated prescription argument, which cuts off heretics, at the outset, from every right of appeal to the holy scriptures, on the ground, that the holy scriptures arose in the church of Christ, were given to her, and only in her and by her can be rightly understood. He calls attention also here to the tangible succession, which distinguishes the catholic church from the arbitrary and ever-changing sects of heretics, and which in all the principal congregations, especially in the original sects of the apostles, reaches back without a break from bishop to bishop, to the apostles themselves, from the apostles to Christ, and from Christ to God. "Come, now," says he, in his tract on Prescription, "if you would practise inquiry to more advantage in the matter of your salvation, go through the apostolic churches, in which the very chairs of the apostles still preside, in which their own authentic letters are publicly read, uttering the voice and representing the face of every one. If Achaia is nearest, you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you live near Italy, you have Rome, whence also we [of the African church] derive our origin. How happy is the church, to which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood," etc.

(History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976, from the revised fifth edition of 1910, Chapter XII, section 139, "Catholic Tradition," 525-528)

Therefore, Whitaker has erroneously cited Tertullian. I need not speculate that he did this wickedly and deliberately. Strong bias, a zeal that is capable of partially blinding one, and the delusion of a system built upon false premises are more than enough to account for shoddy citation, without recourse to charges of deliberate dishonesty. I shall show throughout my critiques that Whitaker is in error (factually, exegetically, and logically, as the case may be), not that he is an altogether wicked, incorrigible soul who lies unashamedly in favor of his cause (as he accuses his Catholic opponents).

Cyprian says, in his discourse upon the baptism of Christ : "One will find that the rules of all doctrine are derived from this scripture; and that, whatever the discipline of the church contains springs hence, and returns hither." (p. 27)

I spent well over an hour trying to locate this treatise, so I could read the context of these words. No wonder I couldn't find it: the footnote in Whitaker's book (from more modern translators and commentators) on the same page, states: "This treatise, falsely ascribed to Cyprian, may be found in the works of Arnold of Chartres (Carnotensis)." He lived in the twelfth century. Again, I assume that this was an innocent error and not a malicious one, but in any event, the argument fails (insofar as St. Cyprian is concerned), since it is based on a spurious text.

Chrysostom too, in his 13th Homily upon 2 Corinthians calls scripture the exact balance, and standard, and rule of all things. (pp. 27-28)
Here is that source and the relevant quote:

For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer this to figures and calculation; but in calculating upon facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learnt what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things; which may we all obtain, through the grace and love towards men of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, to the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

In and of itself, this sounds like it could be stated by a sola Scriptura advocate (though it could also be held by a person who believes in the material sufficiency of Scripture, as I and most Catholics do). Remember, though, that sola Scriptura is the view that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith, over against the Church and tradition (for elaboration on the [Protestant] definition, see my Introduction to my first book devoted to sola Scriptura). Therefore, if we see St. John Chrysostom adhering to the binding authority of Church or tradition or apostolic succession elsewhere, then it follows that he does not believe in Scripture alone as the rule of faith (since if he did, he wouldn't have appealed to other non-scriptural sources).

Jason Engwer, an anti-Catholic Internet apologist, has used the same passage for the same purpose. The same tired "patristic falsehoods" are recycled over and over in the anti-Catholic world. It so happens that I have already written a paper demonstrating that St. John Chrysostom did not believe in sola Scriptura. I wrote:

St. John Chrysostom's own position is not sola Scriptura, and this can easily be shown. He also accepts an authoritative oral tradition that isn't (by definition) even written; therefore, the furthest thing from sola Scriptura and the Bible alone as ultimate authority. Furthermore, he grounds such authority in the testimony of Scripture itself (just as I, as a Catholic apologist and critic of sola Scriptura, have done, and would do). To show this is a rather easy matter. In fact, it can be demonstrated from St. John Chrysostom's homilies on other epistles of Paul . . .

And here is the proof from St. John Chrysostom:

Since then he had already admonished them concerning these things when present, and some perhaps listened to him and others disobeyed; therefore in his letter also again, he foments the place, like a physician, by his mode of addressing them, and so corrects the offence. For that he had heretofore admonished them in person is evident from what he begins with. Why else, having said nothing of this matter any where in the Epistle before, but passing on from other accusations, doth he straightway say, "Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you?"

. . . "That ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you." It appears then that he used at that time to deliver many things also not in writing, which he shows too in many other places. But at that time he only delivered them, whereas now he adds an explanation of their reason: thus both rendering the one sort, the obedient, more steadfast, and pulling down the others' pride, who oppose themselves.

(Homily XXVI on 1 Corinthians; commenting on 1 Cor 11:2)

He comments in similar fashion on the related verse, 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

"So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours."

Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken.

(On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)

Concerning the "sacred writers" and St. Paul in particular, he stated:

. . . it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which they have delivered by unwritten tradition.

(On Acts of the Apostles, Homily 1)

For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me."

(Homily III on 2 Timothy - on 2 Tim 1:13-18)

More proofs can be found in the paper aforementioned. Whitaker is guilty of ultra-selective citation and ignoring of many other relevant passages from the same father, that exhibit his full view of authority. It's an extremely common tactic in Protestant "patristic apologetics." Jason Engwer has done this over and over. David T. King and William Webster, authors of a three-volume set on sola Scriptura, do the same thing. It's an entrenched (and, thankfully, easily refuted) methodology.

For the same reason Augustine affirms, that "whatever belongs to faith and moral life may be found in the scriptures" and he calls the scripture the scales, in the following passage: "Let us not apply deceitful scales, where we may weigh what we wish, and as we wish; but let us bring God''s own scales from the holy scriptures," etc. (p. 28)
Whitaker gives us no source, so I will simply refer to a past paper of mine that gave several passages from St. Augustine, showing his acceptance of the binding authority of Church and tradition. See also my debate with Jason Engwer, Part 1, section VIII, on St. Augustine's views.

So Basil calls the sacred doctrine "the canon of rectitude and rule of truth," which fails in no part of perfection . . . (p. 28)
But this proves nothing with regard to sola Scriptura. Scripture is true . . . it always teaches truth.

Whitaker then proceeds to deal with issues of the canon, including an interesting aside on p. 33 where he (on the side of the angels in this instance) noted that Anabaptists ridiculed and rejected the book of Job and thought it non-canonical, on the basis that it was a mere fable or allegory (the latter opinion was held also by Martin Luther, according to some versions of his Table-Talk). He refutes this by citing Ezekiel 14:14, which mentions Job as historical, along with Noah and Daniel, and concludes, "Hence it is manifest that this was a true history, and that the book itself is canonical, and that they who determine otherwise are to be esteemed as heretics."

Bravo! This shows how divided Protestants are: one of innumerable examples. The Anabaptists got it wrong; Luther may have been so wrong (if in fact he thought that Job was a fable, as his contemporary Aurifaber recorded) that Whitaker in effect classified him as a "heretic" in consequence, and the Anglican Whitaker was correct, since he followed orthodox canonical tradition (insofar, that is, as Catholics and Protestants agree on the Old Testament canon, for all but seven disputed books).

It is not my intention in this series to delve into the issue of the deuterocanonical books and Whitaker's treatment, but I wanted to note in passing how Whitaker does not give the full picture of St. Athanasius' views on the topic. He states:

Athanasius says, in his Synopsis: "Our whole scripture is divinely inspired, and hath books not infinite in number, but finite, and comprehended in a certain canon." There was, therefore, at that time a fixed canon of scripture. He subjoins: "Now these are the books of the old Testament." Then he enumerates ours, and no others, and concludes: "The canonical books of the old testament are two and twenty, equal in number to the Hebrew letters." But, in the meanwhile, what did he determine concerning the rest? Why, he plainly afiirms them to be uncanonical. For thus he proceeds: "But, besides these, there are also other non-canonical books of the old Testament, which are only read to the catechumens." Then he names the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit." These," says he, "are the non-canonical books of the old Testament." For Athanasius makes no account of the books of Maccabees. (p. 57)
The actual facts of the matter were not nearly so straightforward or simple. For one thing, when St. Athanasius makes his list of books in the canon (Letter 39), he refers to "Jeremiah with Baruch" (and omitted Esther altogether). Baruch is one of the books of the deuterocanon, or what Protestants call "the Apocrypha." Thus, Whitaker has again misrepresented what a Church father taught. He had said that St. Athanasius (in the passage he refers to) "enumerates ours, and no others." St. Athanasius included Baruch in his canonical list; Whitaker either missed it or ignored this fact. Yet he deals with Baruch on pages 67-70, and never mentions that Athanasius accepted its canonicity. He somehow misses that, while observing, similarly:

. . . I acknowledge that some testimonies are cited from this book by the fathers ; and I add too that some of them believed this piece to be a part of Jeremiah. And, in truth, this book does seem preferable to the rest of the apocrypha: for everything in it, whether we consider the matter or the style, appears more august and suitable to the sacred character than in the other books. Nevertheless, the book is apocryphal, as you shall hear. There is no consequence in this reasoning : Some fathers thought this book a part of Jeremiah, therefore it is a part of Jeremiah. For those fathers were in error, as is manifest. (pp. 67-68)
But St. Athanasius is so esteemed by Protestants, and so often "co-opted" by them (second only to Augustine in this respect), perhaps Whitaker couldn't bring himself to see that he, too, was guilty of this error that he decried. Or this fact was conveniently overlooked (which is perhaps the most charitable view one could take).

My good friend, Catholic apologist Gary Michuta, has written the best book today about the deuterocanon: Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Port Huron, Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007). Here is some additional facts that he discovered regarding St. Athanasius and the canon question:

Athanasius quotes both Baruch and Susanna right along passages from Isaiah, Psalms, Romans, and Hebrews; he makes no distinction or qualification between them [1]. Wisdom also is used as an authentic portion of sacred Scripture . . .:
But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said, 'The devising of idols, as the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the corruption of life . . .' [Ws 14:12] [2]
And later in the same work:
For since they were endeavouring to invest with what Scripture calls the incommunicable name . . . [3]
This reference to the "incommunicable name" comes from Wisdom 14:21 . . .

Athanasius quotes another passage from Wisdom as constituting the teachings of Christ, the Word of God. He undoubtedly uses it to confirm doctrine. [4] In another argument against Arians, he calls both the Protocanonical Proverbs and the Deuterocanonical Wisdom "holy Scripture" . . . [5] . . .

Athanasius also quotes the book of Sirach without distinction or qualification, in the midst of several other scriptural quotations. [6] . . . Athanasius calls the Book of Judith Scripture. [7] Tobit is cited right along with several Protocanonical quotations [8] , and even introduced with the solemn formula "it is written." [9]

[1] Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1.12.
[2] Against the Heathen, 11.1. Emphasis added.
[3] Against the Heathen, 1, 17.3.
[4] On the Incarnate Word, 4.6; 5.2.
[5] Defense Against Arius, 1, 3.
[6] Life of Anthony, 28 and Apology Against the Arians, 66.
[7] Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 2.35 . . .
[8] Defense of Constantius, 17. Tobit is cited after Matthew and Isaiah.
[9] Defense Against Arius, Part 1, 11.

(pp. 110-112; footnote numbering my own)

The great Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce confirms Michuta's analysis:

As Athanasius includes Baruch and the 'Letter of Jeremiah' in one book with Jeremiah and Lamentations, so he probably includes the Greek additions to Daniel in the canonical book of that name, and the additions to Esther in the book of that name which he recommends for reading in church . . .

In practice Athanasius appears to have paid little attention to the formal distinction between those books which he listed in the canon and those which were suitable for instruction of new Christians. He was familiar with the text of all, and quoted from them freely, often with the same introductory formula -- 'as it is written', 'as the scripture says', etc.

(The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 79-80)

See also the related article, Did Athanasius Reject the Deuterocanon?, by Sam Entile.

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 05, 2011 13:15

September 2, 2011

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 1: Dedication and Preface

See the introductory post, New Upcoming Project: Refutation of William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture on Sola Scriptura.
I am utilizing a copy of the book available at Internet Archive.
Whitaker's words will be in blue. Page numbers will correspond to the above book version; section titles (where helpful) will be included also.
* * *

There have been many heretofore, illustrious Cecil, who have defended the papal interest and sovereignty with the utmost exertion, the keenest zeal, and no mean or vulgar erudition. But they who have played their part with most address, and far out-stripped almost all others of their own side, are those men who now, for some years back, have been engaged most earnestly in this cause; a fresh supply of monks, subtle theologians, vehement and formidable controvertists; whom that strange — and, in former times, unheard of — Society of Jesus hath brought forth, for the calamity of the church and the christian rehgion. For when, after that black, deadly, baneful, and tedious night of popish superstition and antichristianism, the clear and cheerful lustre of the gospel had illuminated with its rays some portions of the christian world, attracting, and by its incredible charms at the same time moving all, to gaze on, admire, and cleave to it; on a sudden, these men sprang up to obscure with pestilential vapours, and ravish, if possible, from our view, this light, so hateful to themselves, so hostile and prejudicial to their interests. (Epistle Dedicatory, p. 3; 30 April 1588)

The usual, yawningly and nauseatingly predictable anti-Catholicism . . . Hopefully, empty rhetoric of this sort will be at a minimum in the text itself. This is not, of course, argument, so there is little to say in response to it, other than to register our protest at the slanderous nonsense that is thrown our way.

I could wish that this were the only place in which Bellarmine had shewn bad faith, and that he had not elsewhere also played the Jesuit in matters of no small importance. (Epistle Dedicatory, p. 9)
It seems supremely important to anti-Catholic Protestants, then and now, to always impugn the honesty and motives and personal integrity of any and all Catholic apologists. They can't settle for simply discussing honest disagreements and refraining from disparaging personal remarks. No; the Catholic must be in bad faith, so they tell us, with relentless zeal. I had hoped beyond hope for better, after having read the glowing tributes to Whitaker by today's anti-Catholics, but unfortunately the animus and detestation (beyond theology) is present here, too.

. . . it cannot be doubted, that all who measured religion, not by the decrees of men or their own caprice, but by the standard of the holy scriptures, and were ready to acknowledge and embrace the truth when it was found, would easily reject the rotten devices of the papists, and prefer that sound and wholesome doctrine of the faith, which our churches have drawn from the pure springs of scripture, to their old and idle superstition.
(Epistle Dedicatory, p. 11)

Right. We shall see who is more closely following the Bible, and who is beholden to "decrees of men or their own caprice" as we proceed. That's the purpose of the present project.

There is nothing which truth fears so much as to be prevented from appearing in public, and being exposed to the examination of all men. It would rather have any patron that is not absolutely dumb, than go without defence from the unrighteous calumnies of unjust accusers. One thing only I would have carefully provided. Prudent and grave moderators should preside in this disputation ; who should restrain petulance, repress clamours, permit no breach of decorum, and maintain order, modesty and discipline. (Epistle Dedicatory, p. 11)

Amen! I guess, though, that these "grave moderators" let his immodest dedicatory slip through the ranks, . . . we see the same on Internet discussion boards today: solemn, grave incantations that personal attacks will not be allowed, that are ignored from the first post put up, or ignored for one side and not the other.

Our arms shall be the sacred scriptures, that sword and shield of the word, that tower of David, upon which a thousand bucklers hang, and all the armour of the mighty, the sling and the pebbles of the brook wherewith David stretched upon the ground that gigantic and haughty Philistine. Human reasonings and testimonies, if one use them too much or out of place, are like the armour of Saul, which was so far from helping David that it rather unfitted him for the conflict. Jerome tells Theophilus of Alexandria, that "a sincere faith and open confession requires not the artifice and arguments of words". However, since we have to deal with adversaries who, not content with these arms, use others with more readiness and pleasure, such as decrees of councils, judgments of the fathers, tradition, and the practice of the church; lest perchance we should appear to shrink from the battle, we have determined to make use of that sort of weapons also. And, indeed, I hope to make it plain to you, that all our tenets are not only founded upon scriptural authority, which is enough to ensure victory, but command the additional suffrage of the testimonies of fathers, councils, and, I will add, even of many of the papists, which is a distinguished and splendid ornament of our triumph. In every controversy, therefore, after the sacred scriptures of the old and new Testaments, we shall apply to the councils, the fathers, and even to our adversaries themselves ; so as to let you perceive that not only the ancient authors, but even the very adherents of the Roman church, may be adduced as witnesses in the cause. (Preface, p. 19)
Interesting. In other words, "though decrees of councils, the fathers, tradition, and the practice of the church are ultimately irrelevant (since only Scripture is our rule of faith), we will, nevertheless utilize those things for the sake of argument, so as to meet our opponents on their own ground." Use of and citation of the fathers is not undertaken in order to demonstrate what the historical Church has always believed (as authoritative purveyors of apostolic tradition and apostolic succession), but merely in a purely pragmatic, utilitarian sense -- because Catholics argue in that fashion, therefore the Protestant will "play along" and argue that, if one is to argue about the fathers, they are actually more inclined to the Protestant side than the Catholic one.

This has been the specifically Anglican outlook ever since, and it was also that of Lutherans and Calvinists: at least in their earliest years. At length they basically abandoned the effort to "claim" or "co-opt" the fathers; while the Anglicans (i.e., the "High" or "Anglo-Catholic" portion of them) continued to maintain that the early Church fathers were more like primitive Anglicans than like Catholics, even up to our own time.

In one sense the Catholic apologist does something similar, in these discussions of authority (or indeed, of any doctrine): present as much scriptural argument as possible, knowing that it is the only ultimate authority that the Protestant will respect. But we regard Scripture as divinely inspired revelation, just as Protestants do, so it is not a mere argumentative tactic when we cite it (playing on the other guy's turf). We win the battle of "whether sola Scriptura is true" hands down. It's not true. I have just completed a book that contains 100 biblical arguments against sola Scriptura. It's a house of sand.

We fight against men, and we have Christ on our side; nor can we possibly be vanquished, unless we are the most slothful and dastardly of all cowards. . . . They come against us with sword, and shield, and armour: we go against them in the name of Jehovah of Hosts, of the armies of Israel, whom they have defied. (Preface, p. 20)
How melodramatic (and self-deluded) . . .

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 02, 2011 16:38

Dialogue With Baptist Ken Temple About the Equivalence (in Intent and Purpose) of the Terms Anti-Catholic and Anti-Calvinist

.
.
.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/S2DUXOqs-mI/AAAAAAAAClI/0sJQRTt8JCw/s1600/AfterAnti-Catholicism%28Book%29.jpg

For the record, an anti-Catholic is anyone who disagrees with Dave Armstrong. I know he's got this pretend definition that he pulls out, but when you look at who he calls an anti-Catholic it's pretty clear that it's nothing but a sledge-hammer to use against those he hates.

(anti-Catholic Protestant Peter Pike, 12-14-09)
I actually accomplished something here, and (anti-Catholic) Baptist pastor and missionary Ken Temple (nice guy, as always) conceded at length that there was no essential difference between how these terms are used by both sides. He still thinks the terms themselves are illegitimate, though, whereas I say that they are perfectly kosher and descriptive if defined and used properly. I've held a perfectly consistent position on this matter for years (20, since I was received into the Church), and have written about it many times, as the links at the end of this paper will show. Ken's words will be in blue. This took place in one of my blog comboxes.

* * *
Anyone is welcome to post on my blog: even the anti-Catholics. I have made it known that I don't debate the latter, though, because it is a futile effort. I'm responsible as a steward of my time under God: to use it wisely.

When things get "ugly" in my dialogues, it is invariably with anti-Catholics or extreme "traditionalists"; sometimes with atheists. They come to the table with hostility.

The Anonymous One (TAO): Are you still excluding "anti-Catholics" from possible dialogues?

Yes. I expose antics and talk about some peripheral issues (such as, e.g., how good of a Catholic D'Souza was, with Hays recently), but not any multi-round theological debate. It's a hopeless waste of time, and I value my time very highly.

When I was still willing to debate you guys, back in 2007, and about the definition of Catholicism, you and about six others turned me down, and that is when I gave up altogether attempting to debate with y'all.

If the basic premises cannot be discussed; if no one is willing to do even that, then there is no hope. It will only be ships passing in the night, without ironing out fundamental issues of definition. And that is a waste of time. If it ain't constructive dialogue, I'm not interested.

And why is it that you still question the validity of the description anti-Catholicism (implied by the quotation marks), while at the same time your buddy James White writes posts entitled "The Dark Side of Anti-Calvinism" (8-21-11)? Always the double standard. You can use your "anti" terms but we cannot. Ours is improper; yours is perfectly kosher.

When I stopped debating anti-Catholics, I did, however, make it clear that I would still interact with the arguments of the classic guys (Calvin, Luther et al). Hence, I have books about those two (and lots of articles), I have interacted with Martin Chemnitz, and will soon be taking on William Whitaker and sola Scriptura.

If you can't find Protestants of that same mind today willing to intelligently dialogue, minus the nonsense and personal insults, then you have to go to the dead guys to find solid arguments and to stick to the topic and avoid the sideshow. That's fine with me, since I want my readers to see the substance, and the best exponents of opposing views, not the worst.

"anti-Roman Catholicism" or "anti-Romanism" or "anti-Papalism" is more accurate and is better than calling us "anti-catholics", since that later term is about people and poisons the well so that Roman Catholics would not even listen.

It's like the left that constantly calls almost every conservative a "racist", even though it is about issues and policies and ideas, not about race or racial prejudice.

So at least "the dark side of Anti-Calvinism" is about doctrine, not about people.
The term is about doctrine, not people, as I have reiterated 3,976,483 times. "Calvinist" (or "Protestant") and "Catholic" are similar terms; thus, one can say "anti-Protestant" (meaning against Protestantism) or "anti-Calvinist" (meaning against Calvinism) and also "anti-Catholic" (meaning against Catholicism).

But it's not just against Catholicism, but taking it a step further and reading Catholicism out of the Christianity altogether, which is an absolutely ludicrous, self-defeating, and intellectually suicidal position for any Protestant to take.

Besides, you again exercise a double standard. James White uses "anti-Calvinist" all the time, as a search on his blog quickly reveals. Hence he has an article, "Anti-Calvinist Derangement Syndrome" (7-4-10). But how dare Dave Armstrong use the wicked term "anti-Catholic"!!!! That can never be. It might offend the folks who sit there and say outrageously that a good Catholic cannot possibly be a Christian or be saved, if he accepts and lives by all that the Catholic Church teaches.

Here's many more instances of Bishop "Dr." (???) White, using this terminology:

"anti-Calvinist piece" (12-21-10)

"George Bryson and his anti-Calvinist materials" (12-22-06)

"I find it ironic that Shea will use the 'anti-Catholic' moniker frequently, yet, it is his attitude that is most accurately described as 'anti-Protestant' or anti-Calvinist or however else you'd like to express it." (7-15-09)

"anonymous anti-Calvinist blogger 'Charles' (3-7-06)

"Liberty and its anti-Calvinist crusade" (12-8-06)

"the Hyper Anti-Calvinist crowd" (8-18-11)

"So we will be following the pattern we have established in reviewing anti-Calvinist sermons" (10-10-05)

"the current anti-Calvinist movement in the SBC" (6-8-06)

As usual, Ken, you hang yourself in your own logic (or illogic, I should say). Or you throw logic and consistent standards to the wind and have one standard for your anti-Catholic Protestant cronies and another for us "Romanists."

I will concede that point; that we all should be more careful and it would be better to say things like "that person makes arguments against Calvinism" or "his book or articles are against Calvinism as a system" or "that Evangelical Protestant argues against Roman Catholicism as a system" or "against the doctrines of Romanism", etc.

But I can also see that it is much shorter and easier for both sides to say or write, "anti-Calvinist" or "anti-Catholic"; but I sincerely wish that the focus is on doctrine and arguments rather than people. Somehow, "anti-Catholic" sounds more against people, whereas "anti-Calvinist" sounds more against doctrine. Admittedly, that is just a feeling I get.

But we are all human and not one of us is infallible, as is your Pope; he is not infallible either.
However, the apostle Paul did call false teachers names to their faces - Acts 13:8-10 "you son of the devil", and something similar - Polycarp to Cerinthus - in Irenaeus (I think). So, there is Scriptural basis for that also, and historical tradition, it seems.

That's progress, Ken! Praise God! I am sincerely glad that progress was made on the linguistic front, and that you see that your side does the exact same thing that it has been accusing us of doing these past 16 years (since I first debated White through the mail).

You're just one person, though. Maybe you will cease and desist from irrational objections to "anti-Catholic" and "anti-Catholicism" but I doubt that White, TAO, Hays, Frank Turk, Doe, and all the rest will do so. It's too ingrained. It's gone on so long that I can't envision it ever changing. But hey, anything's possible.

White and others have been saying that I am a bigot, simply because I use an objective term that has been commonly used by scholars (historians, sociologists) since time immemorial. And they give themselves a pass for doing exactly the same thing. I've documented how all these guys use "anti" terms. Bishop White's hypocrisy on this (typically) surpasses that of others by a wide margin.

The right use of language and proper definitions of terms are extremely important.

You are still, unfortunately, missing the fine point of the theological definition of "anti-Catholic". We don't use the term simply for someone who disagrees with Catholic doctrine (Geisler does that, but I don't classify him as an anti-Catholic).

It refers to the notion that Catholicism is not Christian at all, and the view that a good Catholic (one who believes all that the Church teaches and is obedient to it) cannot be a good Christian, or a Christian, period; the idea that we teach a false gospel, and salvation by works, accompanied by all the other lies told about us, implying that we are sub-Christian.

That is anti-Catholicism: the utterly unfounded denial that a thing is what it is (that Catholicism is Christian).

Related Reading

Use of the Term Anti-Catholic in Protestant and Secular Scholarly Works of History and Sociology (vs. "Romans 45")
The Legitimacy of the Term Anti-Catholic as a Noun as Well as an Adjective
Scholarly Use of the Term Anti-Catholicism in Precisely the Way I Habitually Use It (the Theological or Doctrinal Sense)

The Term Anti-Catholic is Widely Used by Scholars of Many Types -- Including Non-Catholics (Will Anti-Catholics Ever Comprehend This?) [includes listing of related papers on the topic of "anti" terminology]

Does the Term Anti-Catholic Have a Proper Theological / Religious Application (as Opposed to Political / Social)? (vs. Frank Turk)

Does the Term Anti-Catholic Have a Proper Theological / Religious Application? Counter-Reply to Frank Turk
"Free grace's" Glaring, Ludicrous Double Standards Regarding Anti-Protestant and Anti-Catholic (see exchange in the comments thread)

Reiterating the Meaning of Anti-Catholic With an Anti-Catholic and Getting Nowhere, As Usual (vs. Peter Pike)
Defense of Scott and Kimberly Hahn's Use of Anti-Catholic in Their Testimony Book, Rome Sweet Home
Fruitful Discussion With a Protestant About the Definition of Anti-Catholicism, Knowing Jesus Personally, and Constructive Dialogue

---------------------------------------------------------------- Our Friend "Carrie" and the Difference Between a "Protestant" and an "Anti-Catholic (Protestant)"
James White Lies About His Supposed Non-Use of "Anti-" Terminology, and in so Doing Commits Blatant Hypocrisy, Exhibits Serious Log-in-the-Eye Disease
Anti-Catholic vs Anti-Catholicism: Is There an Essential Difference? Turretinfan's and Steve Hays' Double Standards and Equivocation

Protest Against Anti-Protestantism

The Wickedness of Christian Division, Anti-Catholicism, and Anti-Protestantism
How Anti-Catholics Can be Catholics' Brothers in Christ

My Utter Condemnation of Anti-Protestantism and of Unwarranted Attacks on James White (Also: The Many Compliments I've Paid White)

Lutheran Confirms That I'm Not an Anti-Protestant

James White's Use of "Anti" Terms and More "Tired" Rhetoric and Anti-Catholic Terminological and Ethical Double Standards
James White Outdoes All With His "Anti" Language
James White's Continued Comical Double Standard on "Anti' Language
James White: Anti-Intellectual? (Double Standards in "Anti" Language Yet Again!)

James White's Continued Idiotic Opposition to Catholic Use of the Term Anti-Catholic

Steve Hays and His Band of Merry Mockers Join the "Anti-Catholic" / "Anti-Calvinist" Terminological Hypocrisy Bandwagon

King David T. King Sez Catholics R the Biggest Anti-Catholics There Is. Huh??!!!
Anti-Catholic "Turretinfan" Joins His Cronies in Exhibiting "Anti" Language Hypocrisy and Double Standards

Eric Svendsen's and Other Anti-Catholics' Inconsistent Use of Anti-Evangelical as a Description of Catholics

More Examples of Eric Svendsen's Hypocritical Double Standards for "Anti" Language

Dialogue on Current Evangelical Anti-Catholicism, Whether Luther and Calvin Were Anti-Catholics, and on the Mass (is it a Christian Service?) (vs. Tim Enloe)

Dialogue With Dr. Paul Owen on John Calvin's Anti-Catholicism (vs. Paul Owen)

Is Lutheranism Officially Anti-Catholic (The Book of Concord and the Catholic Mass)? (vs. "BWL")

The "Moderate" Heinrich Bullinger: More Evidence of Rabid Anti-Catholicism in the Protestant Founders

Is Peter Pike an Anti-Catholic Presbyterian? Yes

Dialogue: Double Standards: The Anti-Catholic Definition of "Christian" (vs. Matthew Bell)

Is Catholicism Christian?: My Debate With James White (+ Part Two)

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 02, 2011 09:31

← Previous 1 2 … 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 … 66 67 Next →

Dave Armstrong's Blog

Dave Armstrong's profile
20 followers

Dave Armstrong isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.