More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
though Protestants distinguish between justification and sanctification, they also insist that they are inseparable.
Roman Catholic theologian Hans Küng, in his influential engagement with Karl Barth’s doctrine of justification, went so far as to assert that the remaining differences are only imaginary: “Protestants speak of a declaration of justice and Catholics of a making just. But Protestants speak of a declaring just which includes a making just; and Catholics of a making just which supposes a declaring just. Is it not time to stop arguing about imaginary differences?”
This is enlightening
Protestants have insisted that the formal cause of justification—that is, the intrinsic component of our justification that it essentially consists of—must be identified as the imputed righteousness of Christ, as opposed to infused or inherent righteousness wrought within us. Simply put, our legal standing before God is not ultimately based on anything within us, but on the external, alien, perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.
Protestants today can happily recognize many justified brothers and sisters within the Roman Catholic Church. As J. I. Packer emphasizes, we are not justified by our theology of justification, but by genuine trust in Christ and his saving work, which both sides affirm.14
though the Reformers’ articulation of justification and sanctification as distinct was fresh, this basic distinction is implicit in the prior tradition (indeed, it seems entailed by the very nature of forgiveness).17 Again, different terminology can conceal the substantial conceptual overlap here. Further, the Protestant emphasis on sola fide as the means of justification has wide attestation prior to the Reformation. In John Chrysostom’s homilies on the epistles of Paul, for example, one finds a clear articulation of justification by faith alone, apart from works, in ways that don’t seem to
...more
The pre-Reformation church did not speak with one voice about justification. Thus, both Roman Catholic and Protestant positions can find precedent in the pre-Reformation church.
In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition.
Stated responsibly, sola Scriptura is a modest doctrine. The core idea is that Scripture is the church’s only infallible rule.
sola Scriptura is essentially the claim that Scripture is the only authority standing over the church that is incapable of error.
the fault line of difference between sola Scriptura and alternative positions is this: Does the church possess any rule other than Scripture that is infallible? Sola Scriptura is simply the conviction that this question must be answered in the negative: Popes, councils, and all other postapostolic organs of the church are fallible.
sola Scriptura is often caricatured as the idea that the Bible is the only authority.
All that is infallible is authoritative, but not all that is authoritative is infallible.
Sola Scriptura does not deny that creeds, catechisms, confessions, and councils function authoritatively. It just maintains that they are not infallible and therefore are placed under Scripture within a hierarchy of authorities.
A second misunderstanding is that sola Scriptura entails that every point of doctrine has to be explicitly taught in the Bible.
Scripture is the only yardstick that cannot err, not the only norm to which you submit or the location in which you find all truth.
The Pharisees themselves most emphatically did not regard their traditions as merely human! On the contrary, they affirmed an oral law from Moses handed down through successive lineage, and they claimed it was comparable in authority to the written law. This amounted to a similar kind of two-source theory to what we find in Roman Catholic Church today. D. A. Carson notes that Pharisees regarded their oral tradition as “having authority very nearly equal to the canon.”
This error—the usurping of divine authority—is not unique to the Pharisees. It will be a perennial temptation for any group that has historical ties to a genuine work of God.
Note this well
quickly after the apostles were gone, early church fathers appealed to apostolic tradition to establish contradictory views. For example, in a dispute concerning the date of Easter arising in the second century, both sides appealed to apostolic tradition to ground their view.24 Eusebius records a letter from Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, claiming that their position on the date of Easter was handed down to them from the apostles, and then records the response from Victor, bishop of Rome, who on the same basis sought to excommunicate churches holding to this position but was restrained by
...more
What practical good is an allegedly infallible magisterium that can evidently be misunderstood for so long, by so many?
Protestants find themselves in a broad agreement on this point with the Roman Catholic position, as articulated at Vatican I: “these books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority . . . but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.”
As Johannes Wollebius put it, “As it is foolish to tell us that the candle receives its light from the candlestick that supports it, so it is ridiculous to ascribe the Scripture’s authority to the church.”3
Infallibility is not necessary for canonization since the church’s responsibility is not constituting Scripture but simply recognizing it.
the church “adjudges the canon only as she is taught so to do by the Spirit of Christ, her Teacher, and by the comparison of Scripture with Scripture—even as a counterfeit letter is proved by comparison with a genuine letter.”
setting sola Scriptura at odds with the process of canonization confuses the recognition of infallibility with the possession of infallibility.
sola Scriptura in no way designates Scripture as the only authority to be obeyed (as opposed to only infallible rule). More basically, sola Scriptura is a framework for the church as such, not for Christians in the apostolic age sitting under the teaching of living apostles, during the era in which Scripture was still being written. When passages like 2 Thessalonians 2:15 are set at odds with sola Scriptura, this simply reflects that the doctrine has been misunderstood.
two broad conceptions of tradition that developed throughout church history. “Tradition 1” sees tradition as indispensable but primarily in the role of supplementing Scripture, not as a separate source of divine revelation. In this view, Scripture must be interpreted in the context of the church and the rule of faith, but it is the sole source of divine revelation. “Tradition 2” sees tradition as a separate source of divine revelation, especially rooted in Christ’s forty days of teaching his disciples between his resurrection and his ascension (Acts 1:3), not written down but allegedly
...more
Understanding the semantic range is vital to properly interpreting the early church writings
even Basil shows concern for the necessity and priority of Scripture. For example, when arguing for the legitimacy of the phrase “with him” in the doxology, Basil appeals to tradition but then immediately adds, “but we are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of Scripture.”20
This is quite important
Protestants reject this schema because tradition is not the inspired Word of God, and when it is made equal to Scripture and the magisterium is put in the role of interpretation, then it is really the magisterium that has ultimate authority. In this way, the church is ultimately untethered from accountability to the inspired Word of God, resulting in, as Keith Mathison puts it, “a Church which is a law unto itself.”21 Protestants have referred to this position with phrases like sola ecclesia and solum magisterium to reflect the concern that the practical effect of this position (if not the
...more
it’s perfectly consistent to accept a high view of tradition and the authority of the church while maintaining that only the Scripture is the infallible rule of the church. Furthermore, when Augustine speaks elsewhere of the importance of following universal traditions, his rationale is that they are likely to go back to apostolic teaching, not that the church itself has acted infallibly.
while erroneous private judgment is a real danger, another danger is far worse: erroneous ecclesiastical judgments. It is one thing to be able to err; it is another to be yoked to error. This is what sola Scriptura seeks to guard against.
That is why sola Scriptura is so important: It involves nothing less than setting the boundaries for what Christianity is. What are the necessary doctrines a Christian is required to accept? Without sola Scriptura, the parameters get widened to encircle all kinds of historical accretions.
People often seem to seek a sense of security by placing their trust in a church’s claims of infallible authority. It is my sincere grief and worry that such people are ultimately misplacing their trust. Sola Scriptura is a summons to place our ultimate trust in God alone rather than in fallible, human claims. The wonderful promise of the gospel is that it is here, in simple faith in the Word of God, that we find the assurance and security our hearts so deeply long for
This happens in evangelicalism by placing trust in a man instead of the word. Looking to a particular personality is like looking to a pope or magisterium
Minimally, the papacy is an office in the church characterized by succession, infallibility, and supremacy. Succession means the office originates with Peter and succeeds to the Roman bishops; infallibility means the pope is capable of speaking infallibly under certain conditions; and supremacy means the pope’s leadership is not merely advisory, but rather constitutes an immediate, universal, and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church.
After all, the New Testament contains an enormous amount of detailed information about the offices of the church. Consider all you can learn from the pastoral epistles alone about the offices of presbyters and deacons. And then we have numerous passages that flesh out the offices of the church specifically with a view to its unity, like Ephesians 4:11–16 or 1 Corinthians 12:27–31. Why is there not a single verse anywhere that ever mentions, “By the way, there is actually a supreme and infallible office above all these others”? This would be rather important information!
What was given to Peter was given to the whole church.”
Historically, there have been three proposals for the identity of the “rock” here after which Peter is named: Christ, Peter himself, or Peter’s confession. However, as is widely recognized, the meaning can be polyvalent; these options are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In the early church, for example, all three options were widely held, with many church fathers combining them. In my view, the best interpretation is one that coordinates all three of these options: The rock is Peter in his confessing Christ.
Augustine’s logic is that the rock is Christ, and since Peter confesses Christ, Peter is the rock in confessing Christ. Thus, Peter is the rock not as the first holder of an ecclesiastical office, but as representing the apostolic confession of Christ. This interpretation is supported by the fact that all throughout the New Testament, Christ is called the rock on which the church is built (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Peter 2:8; drawing from Ps. 118), with the apostles as a group also at times participating in this imagery as well (Eph. 2:20; Gal. 2:9).
As you come to him, the living stone, you become living stones built into a spiritual house (1 peter2)
But for the rest of the Christendom, including not only Protestants but also the Old Catholics and various non-Catholic Eastern traditions, the papacy is arguably the single greatest barrier to unity.
Indeed
The basic idea of apostolic succession is that there is an unbroken line of bishops extending from the present-day church back to the apostles. But in its fuller and more technical expressions, apostolic succession usually involves four tenets: (1) the office of bishop is distinct from the office of presbyter/elder jure divino (by divine right), with those in the former office specifically designated as the successors of the apostles; (2) bishops exercise regional jurisdiction in an overarching hierarchical unity; (3) valid episcopal succession subsists via the laying on of hands from one
...more
the defining characteristic of apostolic succession proper is its exclusivism.
Usually, even those scholars who affirm apostolic succession acknowledge that the distinction between bishop and presbyter—and the notion that the bishop functions in succession to the apostles—itself lacks apostolic authority. The Roman Catholic scholar Francis Sullivan, for example, opens his book on the topic as follows: The question whether the episcopate is of divine institution continues to divide the churches, even though Christian scholars from both sides agree that one does not find the threefold structure of ministry, with a bishop in each local church assisted by presbyters and
...more
we never see a single bishop presiding over any church in the New Testament.
The first testimony of the emergence of a clear distinction between the office of bishop and that of presbyter is found in the letters of Ignatius, who staunchly affirms the authority of bishops. However, Ignatius has no conception of apostolic succession: He nowhere speaks of bishops as successors of the apostles, but instead identifies the presbyters as “in the place of assembly of the apostles.”19 He also characterizes bishops as having a congregational rather than diocesan jurisdiction.
This highlights a common tendency in the church. From a desire to protect from error, an extra biblical stance is taken. This protects from a dangerous error at the gate, but brings in a habit that will gradually disfigure the church. This particular attempt to protect the church slowly led to the papacy and patriarchs. Cessationism leads to naturalistic churches, etc. noble sentiments exists, but it is like running with an injury:you favor one leg to avoid hurting the injured leg more, but this destroys your running form and leads to other injuries in the future.
Over the course of several centuries, the general idea of a succession of ministry from the apostles to bishops gradually tightened into the notion of a transmission of the spiritual grace necessary for valid ministry and sacraments from bishop to bishop through the laying on of hands.
Thus, in significant fourth-century church orders texts (manuals of disciplinary and liturgical rules for the church) one still finds the requirement that bishops be elected by the entire congregation.
Quite an entry for Congregationalism.
Jerome saw the development of the monoepiscopacy as a later decision among the presbyters, designed to fight against schism: “When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself.”
Jerome regards the distinction between bishops and presbyters (priests) as originating among the presbyters themselves, in response to a particular historical circumstance—not at the direction of the apostles, as a permanent feature of the Christian church.
Nothing conspiratorial need be envisioned to make sense of the development of apostolic succession in the early church. Almost every institution goes through rapid institutionalization after its founder or founders are gone. It is the most natural thing in the world that the early church, facing the triple pressures of heresy, schism, and persecution during the tempestuous second century, and in the absence of the apostles, would evolve a more centralized, hierarchical organization.
