Defense of Scott & Kimberly Hahn's Use of Anti-Catholic in Their Testimony Book, Rome Sweet Home

"Pilgrimsarbour" is a friendly Reformed Christian whom I encountered in the last few days. Recent exchanges with him were chronicled on my blog. He asked my opinion about a review he wrote, of Rome Sweet Home. It was a remarkably complimentary review, coming from a Protestant. His main criticism had to do with the use of anti-Catholic in the book. Here is that portion (about 40% of the whole thing) from the review:

Aside from some important differences in doctrine, which are to be expected, Protestants will struggle with the use of the term anti-Catholic. This loaded term with its accompanying connotations appears often throughout the book, and is applied liberally to both Protestants who express negative personal feelings toward Catholics, and Protestants who merely disagree about doctrine, without qualification or distinction. Even Peter Kreeft, on the first page of his introduction to the book says, "I would hate to be an anti-Catholic in debate against these two!" A similar phenomenon can be readily seen in the general culture today, especially in the political realm. For example, conservatives who disagree with the current pending immigration legislation (McCain-Kennedy) which provides amnesty for millions of illegal aliens are told, even by the President, that they are "anti-immigration bigots who hate Mexicans." The purpose of this kind of language in the culture is to shut down dialogue with those who hold opposing viewpoints by making them feel ashamed of their choices and attitudes. There is never a discussion on the merits of their arguments. The word racist has become meaningless since all whites are to be considered racist, without regard to personal attitudes and behaviours. The problem for Catholics is that there are real anti-Catholics online and out there in the world, just as there are real racists. But painting all Protestants with such a broad brush renders the term anti-Catholic as meaningless as the word racist. It's not until the conclusion of the book that the Hahns adopt the neutral term non-Catholics, so it can be done. But it's difficult to understand why such obviously intelligent people would choose language guaranteed to alienate the Protestant reader. Additionally, there is no equivalent use of the term anti-Protestant in apologetics or in the blogs, although that attitude can frequently be found. In any case, the Catholic bloggers have taken hold of this term with a vengeance and are on the precipice of making it meaningless for the purposes of constructive dialogue. The new Catholic apologists are a force to be reckoned with. But if Catholics want to persuade Protestants of the beauty of the Catholic Church, they would do well to drop this "persecuted victim" approach in favour of something much more neutral, if not positively conciliatory.

Today, he further clarified:

The points I was trying to make were:

1) a lament for a declining precision in the English language in general, (hence the rant on the word "racist,") and

2) the inappropriate use (in my view) of the term "anti-Catholic." I felt at the time that it was being used indiscriminately to include anyone who disagreed with the RCC, and not only those who spoke rudely and disparagingly about it. I guess I took it personally because I was trying very hard to hold my convictions but with charity and some measure of conciliation.

It seemed an unfair and very broad brush, and I thought it was a tactic being used to deliberately shut down dialogue, much as that tactic is commonly used throughout society today.

(10 July 2009)

I looked through the book, so that I could form an opinion about this. Here is my response:

* * * * *

Hi Pilgrim,

I just finished scanning the Hahn book for uses of "anti-Catholic." You wrote in your review:

Protestants will struggle with the use of the term anti-Catholic. This loaded term with its accompanying connotations appears often throughout the book, and is applied liberally to both Protestants who express negative personal feelings toward Catholics, and Protestants who merely disagree about doctrine, without qualification or distinction.

I did not find this to be the case at all, and so I wonder how you got this impression. I don't see that the Hahns used the term any differently than I do myself, and you seemed to accept my take on it. Let me give several relevant examples (all Scott Hahn quotes unless indicated as Kimberly's):

my anti-Catholicism sprang from a zeal for God and a charitable desire to help Catholics be Christians.

(p. 6)

[Catholics aren't Christians: classic anti-Catholicism; he is talking about his own past views, not all Protestants, by any stretch]

I wasn't anti-Catholic in a bigoted way -- I was anti-Catholic by conviction.

(p. 7)

[shows that he is not using the word as a synonym for "bigotry" -- what we are often accused of -- since for him the category is much bigger than that, and includes sincere "conviction"]

Among the Presbyterian students, we [he and Gerry Matatics] were the only ones stalwart enough in our anti-Catholicism to believe the Westminster Confession ought to retain a line most reformed people were willing to drop: the Pope is the Antichrist.

(p. 25)

[He is distinguishing his extreme position even from most Presbyterians, let alone Protestants as a whole, thus showing again that he is making the necessary distinctions of category]

Dr. John Gerstner . . . Calvinist theologian with strong anti-Catholic convictions . . . the Roman Catholic Church, which he referred to as "the synagogue of Satan."

(pp. 70-71)

[shows again that anti-Catholicism is an extreme position, to describe Catholics in this fashion; not the position of all Protestants]

Kimberly:

Scott, after all, had been anti-Catholic -- he had thought one could not be a thoughtful Christian and remain Roman Catholic. I, on the other hand, had had a more balanced approach -- Catholics can be Christians, . . .

(pp. 80-81)

[provides a concise definition of how they are using the term: Catholics aren't Christians. Again it shows that they are not using it of all Protestants indiscriminately. Kimberly had many strong, vociferous objections to Catholicism, as I did, from the same position as hers. So clearly, the use of "anti-Catholic" in the book is not a synonym for "all disagreement with Catholicism."]

Close friends became distant . . . The irony was that, not so long ago, I had been far more anti-Catholic than any of them. In fact, most of them did not regard themselves as being anti-Catholic in any way . . .

(p. 97)

[distinction again made between anti-Catholic and ecumenical Protestants]

the toughest brand of anti-Catholic either of us had ever come across before, the ex-Catholic fundamentalist . . . To them I was demon-possessed, so they urged Kimberly not even to listen, since Satan was using me to lure her with his lies. . . . anti-Catholic fundamentalists who were concerned for my salvation . . .

(pp. 122-123)

[Catholics aren't Christians: they're dupes of Satan; need to be saved: hardly a broad, indiscriminate definition]

When, on the other hand, they are referring to Protestants across the board, they use the broader, all-inclusive "non-Catholics" -- as on p. 179. And they are very complimentary:

they do far more with less than many Catholics who have the fullness of Faith in the Church but who are famished and fast asleep.

The glowing way in which Kimberly describes her Presbyterian upbringing (pp. 8-11) clearly shows what they both think of the great majority of Protestants who are not anti-Catholic.

As for Peter Kreeft's remark that you cite: "I would hate to be an anti-Catholic in debate against these two!" -- it carries no necessary sweeping indications. All he was saying (in my take, anyway) was that it would be far more difficult to contend with Scott Hahn coming from an anti-Catholic position, than a standard Protestant position, because it is tougher to prove that Catholicism isn't Christian at all (the anti-Catholic position) than to engage in the usual battles about the papacy, Mary, etc.

Perhaps that explains (at least in part) why seven anti-Catholics turned me down when I wanted to debate the fundamental question of "what is Christianity?" with them.

* * * * *

See the related post:

Fruitful Discussion With a Protestant About the Definition of Anti-Catholicism, Knowing Jesus Personally, and Constructive Dialogue

Antidote to John Calvin's Institutes (IV,9:8-14) [Conciliar Authority / Proposed Conciliar Errors & Contradictions / Images & Idolatry]

See the introduction and links to all installments at the top of my John Calvin, Calvinism, and General Protestantism web page; also the online version of the Institutes. Calvin's words will be in blue throughout. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

Book IV

CHAPTER 9

OF COUNCILS AND THEIR AUTHORITY.

8. Councils have authority only in so far as accordant with Scripture. Testimony of Augustine. Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, Subsequent Councils more impure, and to be received with limitation.

What, then, you will say, is there no authority in the definitions of councils? Yes, indeed; for I do not contend that all councils are to be condemned, and all their acts rescinded, or, as it is said, made one complete erasure.

Okay; this sounds good, and moderate, but how does it work in practice? The Council of Nicaea, for example, made certain decrees. If at length a Protestant today decides that certain of these decrees are falsehoods and insufficiently "biblical" etc., on what basis does he discard them? On his private judgment alone? If that is the case, several problems immediately arise. Why should his single opinion trump that of dozens or hundreds of bishops, as the case may be? Why should we take the opinion of the one over the opinion of the many? But granting that such a scenario is acceptable, now (very often, given internal Protestant division and doctrinal chaos) we have two individuals (say, Luther and Calvin) who reject a council and substitute something else in its place with regard to some theological particular. But they disagree as to the substitute.

Now, then, we have an ancient council that is partially rejected, on the authority of a single individual. Two such individuals might very well disagree on the solution to the "error." Whom do we choose? On what basis? Why should we assume that a lone individual has a superior interpretation of Scripture and theological tradition, over against an assembly of many learned bishops? Or if a group today (some dreaded committee of some denomination) decides to overrule Nicaea or Chalcedon, etc., why should we accept their corporate dogmatic authority more than Nicaea's or Chalcedon's (or Pope Leo the Great's)? We see, then, that it is arbitrary at every turn, and it always, inevitably logically reduces to radical individualism and doctrinal relativism, to reject the traditional understanding of Christian authority. It breaks down as soon as a few penetrating questions are asked. Calvin cannot give answer, but his followers today do scarcely better when confronted with such difficult conundrums, raised by their rule of faith.

But you are bringing them all (it will be said) under subordination, and so leaving every one at liberty to receive or reject the decrees of councils as he pleases. By no means;

To the contrary, by all means . . .

but whenever the decree of a council is produced, the first thing I would wish to be done is, to examine at what time it was held, on what occasion, with what intention, and who were present at it; next I would bring the subject discussed to the standard of Scripture.

Exactly. Calvin thus stands as judge over the council, and this contradicts what he just stated about it not being the case that "every one [is] at liberty to receive or reject the decrees of councils as he pleases." Councils declare that such-and-such a doctrine is biblical and true; Calvin says it is not. And we are supposed to bow and accept his authority as God's Oracle? And he complains about the popes having too much theological pull and power and say?

And this I would do in such a way that the decision of the council should have its weight, and be regarded in the light of a prior judgment, yet not so as to prevent the application of the test which I have mentioned.

That has all sorts of practical difficulties of application, as we shall see again and again.

I wish all had observed the method which Augustine prescribes in his Third Book against Maximinus, when he wished to silence the cavils of this heretic against the decrees of councils, “I ought not to oppose the Council of Nice to you, nor ought you to oppose that of Ariminum to me, as prejudging the question. I am not bound by the authority of the latter, nor you by that of the former. Let thing contend with thing, cause with cause, reason with reason, on the authority of Scripture, an authority not peculiar to either, but common to all.”

Yes; this was the case precisely because Augustine was talking to a heretic, who rejected the authority of Nicaea (just as Protestants selectively do with all councils). Maximinus was an Arian bishop. They had to argue from Scripture because that was what they held in common. That is exactly what I do with Protestants, who reject conciliar infallibility. As a Catholic apologist "being all things to all people," I argue from Scripture 98% of the time, because my Protestant opponents accept the authority of Holy Scripture. I do the same with Jehovah's Witnesses: today's Arians. One must either cite Scripture with them or internal inconsistencies and false prophecies in their own published works.

In this way, councils would be duly respected, and yet the highest place would be given to Scripture, everything being brought to it as a test.

The above example doesn't suffice to prove this, because it was a methodological decision by Augustine, not a rejection of the same council's authority. This is so obvious it is embarrassing to even have to point it out.

Thus those ancient Councils of Nice, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the like, which were held for refuting errors, we willingly embrace, and reverence as sacred, in so far as relates to doctrines of faith, for they contain nothing but the pure and genuine interpretation of Scripture, which the holy Fathers with spiritual prudence adopted to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen.

Excellent. Then we must ask: by what principle are later councils rejected? They were convoked by the same principles and authority as these earlier ones. All of a sudden what was "sacred" authority becomes the opposite? If these councils were protected by the Holy Spirit from error, then it stands to reason that others, convened in the same fashion, were also. But these councils that even Calvin reverences were orthodox because all (by mere coincidence) were confirmed by popes as orthodox.

In some later councils, also, we see displayed a true zeal for religion, and moreover unequivocal marks of genius, learning, and prudence.

Which ones?

But as matters usually become worse and worse, it is easy to see in more modern councils how much the Church gradually degenerated from the purity of that golden age.

Which ones? Which doctrines? And how do we know this with certainty?

I doubt not, however, that even in those more corrupt ages, councils had their bishops of better character.

But by his time, councils had become completely corrupt; so argues Calvin, while rarely producing hard evidences for this alleged total defection from the faith.

But it happened with them as the Roman senators of old complained in regard to their decrees. Opinions being numbered, not weighed, the better were obliged to give way to the greater number. They certainly put forth many impious sentiments. There is no need here to collect instances, both because it would be tedious, and because it has been done by others so carefully, as not to leave much to be added.

How convenient (and disappointing) . . .

9. Contradictory decisions of Councils. Those agreeing with divine truth to be received. Those at variance with it to be rejected. This confirmed by the example of the Council of Constantinople and the Council of Nice; also of the Council of Chalcedon, and second Council of Ephesus.

Moreover, why should I review the contests of council with council?

Because it is absolutely crucial to his ultimately "anti-conciliar" case.

Nor is there any ground for whispering to me, that when councils are at variance, one or other of them is not a lawful council. For how shall we ascertain this?

By seeing what Rome determines, which was always the method (most notably with Chalcedon in 451, over against the Robber Council of 449.

Just, if I mistake not, by judging from Scripture that the decrees are not orthodox.

Men disagree on that. There has to be a final say somewhere.

For this alone is the sure law of discrimination.

But impossible to implement in practical terms without binding human Church authority . . .

It is now about nine hundred years since the Council of Constantinople, convened under the Emperor Leo, determined that the images set up in temples were to be thrown down and broken to pieces. Shortly after, the Council of Nice, which was assembled by Irene, through dislike of the former, decreed that images were to be restored. Which of the two councils shall we acknowledge to be lawful? The latter has usually prevailed, and secured a place for images in churches. But Augustine maintains that this could not be done without the greatest danger of idolatry.

That was what the Mind of the Church decided. Idolatry is always a danger with some people, because it is an internal thing, and folks can always use images wrongly, in an impious or idolatrous fashion, if they so choose. That doesn't make the image wrong in and of itself, as all things can be distorted and misunderstood.

Epiphanius, at a later period, speaks much more harshly (Epist. ad Joann. Hierosolym. et Lib. 3 contra Hæres.). For he says, it is an unspeakable abomination to see images in a Christian temple.

That's odd, seeing that God Himself commanded this for His own temple. The ark of the covenant was certainly an image. It had carved cherubim (Ex 25:22; Num 7:89). God even said this is where He would meet with His people, on the mercy seat between the two cherubim (Ex 30:6). Joshua "fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD" (Josh 7:6). Was this idolatry? The temple had huge images in it, by the express decree of God:

1 Kings 6:23-29 In the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olivewood, each ten cubits high. [24] Five cubits was the length of one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the length of the other wing of the cherub; it was ten cubits from the tip of one wing to the tip of the other. [25] The other cherub also measured ten cubits; both cherubim had the same measure and the same form. [26] The height of one cherub was ten cubits, and so was that of the other cherub. [27] He put the cherubim in the innermost part of the house; and the wings of the cherubim were spread out so that a wing of one touched the one wall, and a wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; their other wings touched each other in the middle of the house. [28] And he overlaid the cherubim with gold. [29] He carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, in the inner and outer rooms. (cf. 2 Chron 3:7; Ezek 41:20,25)

The cherubim were angels (creatures): so use of them as aids in worship is precisely of the sort that Protestants object to in the case of a statue of a saint. But God commanded it. The very holiest places in Judaism (the temple, holy of holies, ark of the covenant) had images. The Bible often mentions praying or worshiping toward the temple (e.g., 2 Chron 6:20-33; Ps 5:7; Ps 28:2; Ps 134:2) or even bowing before it (Ps 138:2) and the temple had images. The temple wasn't a plain white clapboard building, like New England Calvinist churches. Case closed. See much more on physical items as aids of worship in the Bible.

Could those who speak thus approve of that council if they were alive in the present day? But if historians speak true, and we believe their acts, not only images themselves, but the worship of them, were there sanctioned.

The veneration of saints by means of an image is perfectly proper and biblical (as the Catholic Church has determined, lo these many centuries). See my papers:

Biblical Evidence for Relics and the Sacramental Principle

Martin Luther on Crucifixes, Images and Statues of Saints, and the Sign of the Cross

Exposition on the Veneration of Images, Iconoclasm, and Idolatry

Now it is plain that this decree emanated from Satan.

It's not "plain" in the slightest! Calvin has made a foolish, unwarranted, biblical conclusion that all images (not just corruption or inadequate understanding of the use of them) automatically reduce to idolatry. If that is so, then it would make God Himself a liar or incompetent judge of these matters, given the scriptural data outlined above. This was the flimsy rationale used by the early Calvinists to engage in iconoclasm and to smash stained glass and even statues of Jesus Christ, as if Catholics were worshiping plaster rather than our Lord Jesus. This is one of the most curious, odd, altogether stupid manifestations of early Calvinism. It derives far more from Islam than from Hebrew-Christian tradition or the Bible. Historically, it flourished only after the arrival of Islam, because of that religion's strong iconoclasm.

Do they not show, by corrupting and wresting Scripture, that they held it in derision?

Anyone who dies this is deriding Scripture. The dispute is who are the ones doing this? If Calvin takes an absolute view against all Christian images, it is He who wars against Scripture, history, and indeed God Himself. God would be reduced to a Being Who was too dumb to know that what He Himself commanded was idolatry, and against Himself. In other words, either God wouldn't be God, or He would be a self-contradictory, wicked "god" at cross-purposes with himself.

This I have made sufficiently clear in a former part of the work (see Book I. chap. 11 sec. 14).

Not if he offered no ore argument than he has here, which was virtually none at all . . .

Be this as it may, we shall never be able to distinguish between contradictory and dissenting councils, which have been many, unless we weigh them all in that balance for men and angels, I mean, the word of God.

That has already been done. Why should we renounce all this past established history of the Church and her decrees and dogmas, and now place all responsibility on upstart Calvin, and his "idol"-smashing minions? It's as if the past means absolutely nothing. All that past generations of Christians have learned, led by the Holy Spirit, can be nullified by the stroke of Calvin's mighty, All-Knowing pen.

Thus we embrace the Council of Chalcedon, and repudiate the second of Ephesus, because the latter sanctioned the impiety of Eutyches, and the former condemned it.

That is correct. And the key figure who declared as much at the time, was Pope St. Leo the Great. If it were up to the eastern bishops, the heretical Robber Council of Ephesus (449) would have been accepted as truth.

The judgment of these holy men was founded on the Scriptures, and while we follow it, we desire that the word of God, which illuminated them, may now also illuminate us. Let the Romanists now go and boast after their manner, that the Holy Spirit is fixed and tied to their councils.

We do. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 is a superb example of that. I have used Calvin's own method (recourse to Scripture) to show that his aversion to all images is most unbiblical. What does it say of Calvin's exegetical acumen if he could overlook so much plain Scripture?

10. Errors of purer Councils. Four causes of these errors. An example from the Council of Nice.

Even in their ancient and purer councils there is something to be desiderated, either because the otherwise learned and prudent men who attended, being distracted by the business in hand, did not attend to many things beside; or because, occupied with grave and more serious measures, they winked at some of lesser moment; or simply because, as men, they were deceived through ignorance, or were sometimes carried headlong by some feeling in excess.

Did I not predict not far above that Calvin's radical new anti-conciliar principle would eventually chip away at the authority of even those councils he claims to especially revere? It's happening right before our eyes as we read. Everyone understands (if this is Calvin's primary meaning) that there is human corruption in councils. The question is whether any of these human shortcomings corrupt the doctrines promulgated.

Of this last case (which seems the most difficult of all to avoid) we have a striking example in the Council of Nice, which has been unanimously received, as it deserves, with the utmost veneration. For when the primary article of our faith was there in peril, and Arius, its enemy, was present, ready to engage any one in combat, and it was of the utmost moment that those who had come to attack Arius should be agreed, they nevertheless, feeling secure amid all these dangers, nay, as it were, forgetting their gravity, modesty, and politeness, laying aside the discussion which was before them (as if they had met for the express purpose of gratifying Arius), began to give way to intestine dissensions, and turn the pen, which should have been employed against Arius, against each other. Foul accusations were heard, libels flew up and down, and they never would have ceased from their contention until they had stabbed each other with mutual wounds, had not the Emperor Constantine interfered, and declaring that the investigation of their lives was a matter above his cognisance, repressed their intemperance by flattery rather than censure.

This is exactly what I referred to: human flaws and shortcomings were present, but they did not pervert the doctrinal decrees. The same thing applies to the more notoriously immoral popes. God manages to overcome these things by His power and providence.

In how many respects is it probable that councils, held subsequently to this, have erred?

In hundreds of respects, but for the supernatural protection from God, which is the entire point.

Nor does the fact stand in need of a long demonstration; any one who reads their acts will observe many infirmities, not to use a stronger term.

No argument or particulars offered; so I'll pass . . .

11. Another example from the Council of Chalcedon. The same errors in Provincial Councils.

Even Leo, the Roman Pontiff, hesitates not to charge the Council of Chalcedon, which he admits to be orthodox in its doctrines, with ambition and inconsiderate rashness.

Just one part of it, where Constantinople is placed on a level with Rome. Leo vetoed that, saying that Constantinople can never be made an apostolic see. It's history was very recent. Popes were needed to oversee and rule as out of order the mere political pretensions and machinations of men.

He denies not that it was lawful, but openly maintains that it might have erred.

That's why we Catholics believe that ecumenical councils are only valid insofar as the pope agrees to all their decrees.

Some may think me foolish in labouring to point out errors of this description, since my opponents admit that councils may err in things not necessary to salvation.

Indeed.

My labour, however, is not superfluous. For although compelled, they admit this in word, yet by obtruding upon us the determination of all councils, in all matters without distinction, as the oracles of the Holy Spirit, they exact more than they had at the outset assumed.

Some Catholics may be guilty of this; sure. They are wrong.

By thus acting what do they maintain but just that councils cannot err, of if they err, it is unlawful for us to perceive the truth, or refuse assent to their errors?

We claim more for ecumenical councils, not every council whatever. Like the fathers, we accept the received apostolic tradition, as manifest in such councils and made binding.

At the same time, all I mean to infer from what I have said is, that though councils, otherwise pious and holy, were governed by the Holy Spirit, he yet allowed them to share the lot of humanity, lest we should confide too much in men.

That argument doesn't work, since many of the Bible writers were great sinners, too (especially David and Paul). Calvin doesn't conclude that the Bible is questionable because of that. In both instances it is God's protection that overcomes these limitations.

This is a much better view than that of Gregory Nanzianzen, who says (Ep. 55), that he never saw any council end well. In asserting that all, without exception, ended ill, he leaves them little authority.

I tried to locate this but the "Epistle 55"I found had nothing to do with this and was rather short. Without more information, I can't comment further.

There is no necessity for making separate mention of provincial councils, since it is easy to estimate, from the case of general councils, how much authority they ought to have in framing articles of faith, and deciding what kind of doctrine is to be received.

Obviously, more local councils have less general authority.

12. Evasion of the Papists. Three answers. Conclusion of the discussion as to the power of the Church in relation to doctrine.

But our Romanists, when, in defending their cause, they see all rational grounds slip from beneath them, betake themselves to a last miserable subterfuge.

What miserable creatures we are . . . without Calvin's paternal guidance we would all surely be lost!

Although they should be dull in intellect and counsel, and most depraved in heart and will, still the word of the Lord remains, which commands us to obey those who have the rule over us (Heb. 13:17). Is it indeed so? What if I should deny that those who act thus have the rule over us? They ought not to claim for themselves more than Joshua had, who was both a prophet of the Lord and an excellent pastor. Let us then hear in what terms the Lord introduced him to his office. “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then shalt thou make thy way prosperous, and thou shalt have good success” (Josh. 1:7, 8). Our spiritual rulers, therefore, will be those who turn not from the law of the Lord to the right hand or the left. But if the doctrine of all pastors is to be received without hesitation, why are we so often and so anxiously admonished by the Lord not to give heed to false prophets? “Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you; they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord” (Jer. 23:16). Again, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Mt. 7:15). In vain also would John exhort us to try the spirits whether they be of God (1 John 4:1). From this judgment not even angels are exempted (Gal. 1:8); far less Satan with his lies. And what is meant by the expression, “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch”? (Mt. 15:14) Does it not sufficiently declare that there is a great difference among the pastors who are to be heard, that all are not to be heard indiscriminately?

This has all been dealt with previously; not too far above.

Wherefore they have no ground for deterring us by their name, in order to draw us into a participation of their blindness, since we see, on the contrary, that the Lord has used special care to guard us from allowing ourselves to be led away by the errors of others, whatever be the mask under which they may lurk.

This, of course, assumes that the Catholics are wrong. Calvin gives no immediate argument as to why or how, so there can be no cogent reply till he does so.

For if the answer of our Saviour is true, blind guides, whether high priests, prelates, or pontiffs, can do nothing more than hurry us over the same precipice with themselves.

That's right: it's Christ vs. virtually all Catholic clergymen. Calvin's world is one of neat little, well-defined categories: packages all wrapped up in a bow. Catholics are the bad guys and Protestants the noble heroes of the faith and restorers of the gospel.

Wherefore, let no names of councils, pastors, and bishops (which may be used on false pretences as well as truly), hinder us from giving heed to the evidence both of words and facts, and bringing all spirits to the test of the divine word, that we may prove whether they are of God.

Nice rhetoric, but little argument . . .

13. Last part of the chapter. Power of the Church in interpreting Scripture. From what source interpretation is to be derived. Means of preserving unity in the Church.

Having proved that no power was given to the Church to set up any new doctrine,

Which Catholics fully agree with . . .

let us now treat of the power attributed to them in the interpretation of Scripture. We readily admit, that when any doctrine is brought under discussion, there is not a better or surer remedy than for a council of true bishops to meet and discuss the controverted point. There will be much more weight in a decision of this kind, to which the pastors of churches have agreed in common after invoking the Spirit of Christ, than if each, adopting it for himself, should deliver it to his people, or a few individuals should meet in private and decide.

Excellent. Would that Calvin and his followers would live more consistently by this sentiment.

Secondly, When bishops have assembled in one place, they deliberate more conveniently in common, fixing both the doctrine and the form of teaching it, lest diversity give offence.

Very true.

Thirdly, Paul prescribes this method of determining doctrine. For when he gives the power of deciding to a single church, he shows what the course of procedure should be in more important cases—namely, that the churches together are to take common cognisance. And the very feeling of piety tells us, that if any one trouble the Church with some novelty in doctrine, and the matter be carried so far that there is danger of a greater dissension, the churches should first meet, examine the question, and at length, after due discussion, decide according to Scripture, which may both put an end to doubt in the people, and stop the mouths of wicked and restless men, so as to prevent the matter from proceeding farther.

Amen! Again, Calvin will say true and wonderful things, as in these last few sections, but then contradict himself later by appealing to a more strict individualist Christian epistemology and doctrinal / ecclesiological structure.

Thus when Arius arose, the Council of Nice was convened, and by its authority both crushed the wicked attempts of this impious man, and restored peace to the churches which he had vexed, and asserted the eternal divinity of Christ in opposition to his sacrilegious dogma.

Indeed it did, along with the Roman See, which was in the vanguard against Arianism.

Thereafter, when Eunomius and Macedonius raised new disturbances, their madness was met with a similar remedy by the Council of Constantinople; the impiety of Nestorius was defeated by the Council of Ephesus. In short, this was from the first the usual method of preserving unity in the Church whenever Satan commenced his machinations. But let us remember, that all ages and places are not favoured with an Athanasius, a Basil, a Cyril, and like vindicators of sound doctrine, whom the Lord then raised up.

Sadly true; other ages are blessed with schismatics and partial heretics like Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, Bullinger, Oecolampadius, Beza, Cranmer, and the Anabaptists.

Nay, let us consider what happened in the second Council of Ephesus when the Eutychian heresy prevailed. Flavianus, of holy memory, with some pious men, was driven into exile, and many similar crimes were committed, because, instead of the Spirit of the Lord, Dioscorus, a factious man, of a very bad disposition, presided. But the Church was not there. I admit it; for I always hold that the truth does not perish in the Church though it be oppressed by one council, but is wondrously preserved by the Lord to rise again, and prove victorious in his own time. I deny, however, that every interpretation of Scripture is true and certain which has received the votes of a council.

So do we. It has to be a legitimate council in harmony with the pope, and intend to issue a binding decree on faith and morals. There were many illegitimate councils, too. Ephesus in 449 was the supreme example of that. Almost the entire east was prepared to accept it. But the west and the papacy prevailed to maintain orthodoxy. With the advent of Protestantism, sadly, the course of orthodoxy was not so fortunate.

14. Impudent attempt of the Papists to establish their tyranny refuted. Things at variance with Scripture sanctioned by their Councils. Instance in the prohibition of marriage and communion in both kinds.

But the Romanists have another end in view when they say that the power of interpreting Scripture belongs to councils, and that without challenge. For they employ it as a pretext for giving the name of an interpretation of Scripture to everything which is determined in councils. Of purgatory, the intercession of saints, and auricular confession, and the like, not one syllable can be found in Scripture.

This is massively untrue:

Biblical Evidence For Invocation of Angels For Intercessory Purposes / Asking For Dead Men's Intercession, and Their Prayers For Us

Biblical Evidence for Purgatory: 25 Bible Passages

Biblical Evidence For Purgatory and Analogous Processes (50 Passages)

Biblical Evidence for Formal Forgiveness of Sins and Absolution (Confession)

But as all these have been sanctioned by the authority of the Church, or, to speak more correctly, have been received by opinion and practice, every one of them is to be held as an interpretation of Scripture. And not only so, but whatever a council has determined against Scripture is to have the name of an interpretation.

Individuals can just as easily declare that their view is the "biblical" one. Calvin does this all the time. I do it myself (most people who do any theology at all, do it), but the difference is that I submit my judgments to that of the Church, and where I differ from the Church, I submit my understanding to her.

Christ bids all drink of the cup which he holds forth in the Supper. The Council of Constance prohibited the giving of it to the people, and determined that the priest alone should drink. Though this is diametrically opposed to the institution of Christ (Mt. 26:26), they will have it to be regarded as his interpretation.

There is a straightforward biblical argument for it, right from St. Paul: Biblical Evidence for the Distribution of One Species in Holy Communion.

Paul terms the prohibition of marriage a doctrine of devils (1 Tim. 4:1, 3); and the Spirit elsewhere declares that “marriage is honourable in all” (Heb. 13:4).

Paul also assumes and defends celibacy in those who want to fully devote themselves to the Lord:

Clerical Celibacy: The Biblical Rationale

The Irrational Antipathy of Luther, Calvin, and Other Protestants to Clerical Celibacy

Having afterwards interdicted their priests from marriage, they insist on this as a true and genuine interpretation of Scripture, though nothing can be imagined more alien to it.

It's plain as day in 1 Corinthians 7. Jesus also refers to "eunuchs" for the sake of the kingdom.

Should any one venture to open his lips in opposition, he will be judged a heretic, since the determination of the Church is without challenge,

That is, the Church, in direct accordance with plain words of our Lord Jesus and St. Paul . . .

and it is unlawful to have any doubt as to the accuracy of her interpretation.

Not if it is a tradition that has historical and biblical pedigree . . .

Why should I assail such effrontery? to point to it is to condemn it. Their dogma with regard to the power of approving Scripture I intentionally omit. For to subject the oracles of God in this way to the censure of men, and hold that they are sanctioned because they please men, is a blasphemy which deserves not to be mentioned.

Scripture always has to be interpreted by men. The only question is who will do this, and how binding it will be.

Besides, I have already touched upon it (Book 1 chap. 7; 8 sec. 9). I will ask them one question, however. If the authority of Scripture is founded on the approbation of the Church,

It is not. It is what it is, prior to the Church's approval:

Does the Catholic Church Think it is Superior to the Bible, and its Creator?

The Canon of Scripture: Did the Catholic Church Create It Or Merely Authoritatively Acknowledge It?

will they quote the decree of a council to that effect? I believe they cannot.

Of course not, because it is not what we believe.

Why, then, did Arius allow himself to be vanquished at the Council of Nice by passages adduced from the Gospel of John?

Because the Gospel of John is quite sufficient to refute Arianism.

According to these, he was at liberty to repudiate them, as they had not previously been approved by any general council. They allege an old catalogue, which they call the Canon, and say that it originated in a decision of the Church. But I again ask, In what council was that Canon published?

The councils of Carthage in 393 and 397.

Here they must be dumb.

Really?

Besides, I wish to know what they believe that Canon to be.

The legitimate, genuine, inspired books of the Bible.

For I see that the ancients are little agreed with regard to it.

All the more reason for an authoritative Church to acknowledge what the canon is and to end the discussion. Bingo!

If effect is to be given to what Jerome says (Præf. in Lib. Solom.), the Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the like, must take their place in the Apocrypha: but this they will not tolerate on any account.

St. Jerome submitted his judgment to that of the Church: just as every good Catholic does. Catholicism is not a "magisterium of scholars and Bible commentators" but of priests, bishops, councils, and popes.

Biblical Evidence for the Patristic Analogy of Mary as the Ark of the (New) Covenant

Here are the actual biblical passages where this notion was drawn from (taken from the first draft of my upcoming book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths):

Luke 1:35 (RSV)And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

The Greek word for overshadow is episkiasei, which describes a bright, glorious cloud. It is used with reference to the cloud of transfiguration of Jesus (Mt 17:5; Mk 9:7; Lk 9:34) and also has a connection to the shekinah glory of God in the Old Testament (Ex 24:15-16; 40:34-38; 1 Ki 8:10). Mary is, therefore, in effect, the new temple and holy of holies, where God was present in a special fashion. In fact, Scripture draws many parallels between Mary, the “ark of the new covenant” and the ark of the (old) covenant:

Exodus 40:34-35 Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting, because the cloud abode upon it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

The Greek Septuagint translation uses the same word, episkiasei, in this passage.

1 Kings 8:6-11 Then the priests brought the ark of the covenant of the LORD to its place, in the inner sanctuary of the house, in the most holy place, underneath the wings of the cherubim. For the cherubim spread out their wings over the place of the ark, so that the cherubim made a covering above the ark and its poles. And the poles were so long that the ends of the poles were seen from the holy place before the inner sanctuary; but they could not be seen from outside; and they are there to this day. There was nothing in the ark except the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, where the LORD made a covenant with the people of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. And when the priests came out of the holy place, a cloud filled the house of the LORD, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD.

More direct parallels occur as well:

2 Samuel 6:9 And David was afraid of the LORD that day; and he said, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?”

Luke 1:43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

* * *

2 Samuel 6:15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the horn.

Luke 1:42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!”

* * *

2 Samuel 6:14,16 And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. . . . King David leaping and dancing before the LORD . . .

1 Chronicles 15:29 And as the ark of the covenant of the LORD came to the city of David, Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window, and saw King David dancing and making merry . . .

Luke 1:44 For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.

* * *

2 Samuel 6:10-11 So David was not willing to take the ark of the LORD into the city of David; but David took it aside to the house of O'bed-e'dom the Gittite. And the ark of the LORD remained in the house of O'bed-e'dom the Gittite three months . . .

Luke 1:39,56 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, . . . And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her home.

Further reflection on “holy places” and “holy items” brings out the meaning of the striking parallel symbolism. The Temple and Tabernacle were holy, and this was especially the case with the holy of holies, where the ark was kept. God was said to dwell above the ark, between the two cherubim (Ex 25:22). The presence of God always imparted holiness (Duet 7:6; 26:19; Jer 2:3). The furnishings of the Tabernacle could not be touched by anyone, save a few priests, on pain of death (Num 1:51-53; 2:17; 4:15).

This was true of the holiest things, associated with God and worship of God. The high priest only entered the holy of holies once a year, on the Day of Atonement (Num 29:8). The Jews would tie a rope to his leg in case he perished from improper behavior (Lev 16:2,13), so they could pull him out. This was true of the ark itself. Uzziah merely reached out to steady it when it was toppling over, and was struck dead (2 Samuel 6:2-7). Others died when they simply looked inside of it (1 Sam 6:19; cf. Ex 33:20).

This is how God regards people and even inanimate objects that are in close proximity to Him. Thus, Mary, as the ark of the new covenant, Theotokos (“bearer of God”): the one who had the sublime honor of carrying God incarnate in her womb, had to be exceptionally holy to do so.

* * * * *

See also:

Mary as Ark of the Covenant, in the Church Fathers and the Bible (Steve Ray, Pat Madrid, and Others) [Links Page]

Fruitful Discussion With a Protestant About the Definition of Anti-Catholicism, Knowing Jesus Personally, and Constructive Dialogue

This occurred (amazingly enough) on the anti-Catholic John Q. Doe's blog. The links will be provided for each comment. "Pilgrimsarbour's" words will be in blue:

* * * * *

Hello Mr. Armstrong,

May I ask you to delineate, in a very specific way, the difference between an "anti-Catholic" Protestant opponent and those Protestant opponents who are not "anti-Catholic?" I'm not asking for names, I'd just like to get a better sense of what Catholics consider to be "anti-Catholic." Thank you.

Respectfully,

Pilgrimsarbour

(7-8-09)

Hi Pilgrim,

Sure. The anti-Catholic believes that Catholicism is not a Christian system of theology. They think Catholics deny the very gospel of grace and that an observant Catholic is (in all likelihood) unregenerate. The usual things accompanying this would be to hold that Catholicism is akin to paganism and that it is Pelagian (works-salvation). The Mass is also considered rank idolatry.

The majority of Protestants are not anti-Catholic at all. They recognize Catholics as fellow Christians and believers in the Body of Christ, while they disagree with the usual issues of dispute between Catholics and Protestants, and obviously consider Protestantism a preferable Christian option. That is what I used to believe as an evangelical Protestant.

Does that answer your question?

(7-9-09)

Greetings Mr. Armstrong,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

My Catholic upbringing militates against the idea that I was not, in at least some sense, a believer in Christ while a member of the RCC.

On the other hand, there is sufficient biblical and internal witness to evidence, in my view, that I did not, in fact, know Him as I ought. Nor do I believe it likely that had I continued in Catholicism I would have come to know Him as I ought.

However, the Reformed principles regarding election and predestination, of which you are undoubtedly aware, comfort me that believers will be found throughout the world and in history having been members of all kinds of Christian denominations, including the RCC.

Now I may, perhaps, stand to look like a double-minded coward to some here whom I respect, but I cannot at this time in good conscience claim that Catholics are not Christians. I do, however, hold very strong convictions which I will defend should I be asked to give an account of my beliefs.

So once again, thank you for your response. And now the obligatory back-handed compliment: At least you're not a Mormon asking me if I think you're a Christian. ;-)

Blessings in Christ,

Pilgrimsarbour

(7-9-09)

Hi Pilgrim,

Then you are not an anti-Catholic in my book at all. I'm delighted to hear it.

I came to know Jesus personally as Lord and Savior as an evangelical Protestant, after a profoundly life-changing evangelical conversion in 1977, after six months of deep depression. That relationship has deepened since my conversion to Catholicism.

One can discuss "Christianity" in a strictly doctrinal sense (as I was doing, and tend to usually do; especially in a discussion like this about the terminology of "anti-Catholic") and/or in the sense of personal discipleship, which is equally important, but more difficult to discuss objectively, because by nature it is a subjective and spiritual, internal, deeply personal thing. Nominalism and lukewarmness can be found anywhere. I saw plenty of it in my Protestant days and I certainly see a lot of it in Catholic circles.

So I fully agree that there are many Catholics (just as there are many Protestants) who do not know Jesus "as they ought to." There are tons of hypocrites on both sides. I disagree, however, that it is required for one to become a Protestant in order to experience this personal relationship. If anyone thinks otherwise, The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis will quickly disabuse him. I have posted relevant excerpts from that spiritual masterpiece (written in the 15th century, before Protestants supposedly "restored the gospel").

I even wrote a paper proving that all the basic notions expressed in a Campus Crusade Four Spiritual Laws tract, are found in every Catholic Mass.

You're a brave man to express what you did on this [John Q. Doe's] blog, and I respect you for it. You'll probably be subjected to all sorts of pressure now, and viewed as a "double-minded coward" and compromiser by some who read this. And above all, you will be suspect because you were friendly and acted normally towards me, which is the ultimate kiss of death in many Protestant Internet circles. I hope they aren't too hard on you. :-)

(7-9-09)

And now the obligatory back-handed compliment: At least you're not a Mormon asking me if I think you're a Christian. ;-)

LOL That's funny. My first major research as an apologist was starting in 1981, when I studied and wrote about Jehovah's Witnesses, in connection with a local evangelical counter-cult ministry. In 1982 I wrote a paper about the name-it-claim-it errors of Copeland, Hagin et al, which is online on my site (as is my final JW paper). My only radio appearance as a Protestant was talking about JWs one night in 1989, on WMUZ: the largest Christian radio station in metro Detroit. That can be heard on my site as well.

I haven't learned nearly as much about Mormonism, but I have engaged in a debate with a Mormon elder, and the only known photograph of me personally evangelizing, is with the Mormons at the Ann Arbor Art Fair in 1989, a year before I became a Catholic.

(7-9-09)

Hi Pilgrim,

Hi Dave A.,

Thanks again for your response regarding my question about your use of the term anti-Catholic.

You're very welcome. Thanks for asking me to explain further, rather than going right to mocking, as if I have no rational, defensible reason whatever for my usage (which is the common reply in these environs, as we see in this very thread).

You piqued my curiosity because I have had dealings with Catholics in the past regarding their use of the term. Unfortunately, I think the comments back and forth generated more heat than light; I confess to being quite perturbed by one fellow's impugning of my motives for desiring dialogue with Catholics. It got kinda ugly.

Well, there are all types on the Internet. Unfortunately, on both sides, terminology of these hot-button issues is often confused. Just as many Protestants (and Catholics) don't properly understand the meaning of sola Scriptura, so many Catholics misunderstand and abuse the term anti-Catholic and often use it as a synonym of "bigot" or as a club to attack anyone with an honest disagreement with Catholicism. And so it is abused, like so many theological terms. Whether this occurred in the discussion you refer to, I don't know till I look at it. If it did, I'd be the first to agree that the term was used wrongly and perhaps uncharitably.

It started with a new dialogue in response to my review of Scott and Kimberly Hahn's book Rome Sweet Home back in June of 2007. If you are at all interested (I'm sure you're quite busy) you can read the review and comments here. [ link ]

I would be very interested, as I have written a lot about the term and how it is properly used in theological discourse. Does this mean I can reply too? :-)

Although I had many positive things to say about the book, what was zeroed in on were my comments about the use (and what I deem to be the abuse) of the term anti-Catholic used throughout the book. I had picked up on this phrase in my online travels over the 10 months or so prior to my review. It was these comments that caused all the hubbub with one person in particular.

Well, chances are I would agree with Scott's take, but perhaps he overused the term. I'd have to look and see what was written that you objected to.

Sadly, in addition, a dear friend from college days was wounded deeply by my statements in the review and the wound is unlikely to be healed anytime soon. He thought I was saying that most or all instances of real anti-Catholicism have been manufactured, or at least overblown, which is not what I was saying at all. But let the reader decide.

That's sad. It's tragic when anyone has to divide over religious issues; especially when both parties are Christians.

The follow-up post, in which I attempted to fully answer the questions posed to me by "Joseph" is here, [ link ] should you (or anyone here) be interested.

I will definitely check them out, as time permits: perhaps as early as later tonight.

Thanks for your time,

And yours. God bless.

Dave

(9 July 2009)

Hi Pilgrim,

I read your review [of Scott Hahn's Rome Sweet Home], which I thought was good and fair, though at the end I thought you dwelt a bit too much on the terminology issue. I suppose that is fair game, though, if that was your biggest objection to the book. A review can only deal with so much. I appreciate the many positive things said. That is rare in Protestant reviews of Catholic books. When I get such a positive review of one of my books from a Protestant, it is usually from a traditional Anglican.

You didn't cite any specific examples of Scott's use of "anti-Catholic" so I'll look through the book to see if I would have the same opinion as you about overuse and inaccurate use.

For now, I wanted to point out one matter of fact. You wrote:

Additionally, there is no equivalent use of the term anti-Protestant in apologetics or in the blogs, although that attitude can frequently be found.

This is untrue (especially in the case of James White), and I have documented it many times myself. Oftentimes, the same person who complains loudest about the term "anti-Catholic" uses equivalent "anti" terms themselves. It's okay for them, but not okay for us, even though (as I have also shown three times now) there is a long history of scholarly use of "anti-Catholic" among historians, sociologists, etc.

Here are my papers demonstrating all this:

James White (one / two / three / four)

Turretinfan (TAO)

Eric Svendsen (one / two)

Tim Enloe

James White alone has used all of the following terms:

anti-Calvinism
anti-Calvinist
anti-Calvinistic
anti-Christian
anti-Lordship
anti-Reformed
anti-Lutheran
anti-Baptist
anti-Baptists

Eric Svendsen often uses "anti-Evangelical" and has also used:

anti-biblical
anti-Reformed
anti-Baptist (applied in one post to Tim Enloe)

Turretinfan has used:

anti-KJV
anti-YEC
anti-Calvinist (hundreds of times)
anti-soveriegntist [sic]
anti-Reformed
anti-Christian

Moreover, there is widespread use of "Romanist," "Romish," "Popish," "Papist," etc.: all clearly derogatory terms, and yet there seems to be no attempt to stop using those terms, which are not at all in use in scholarly circles, as "anti-Catholic" continues to be used.

(10 July 2009)

See also, uses in John Q. Doe ("anti-Luther" is common):

For example:

He based his opinion on the work of two recent anti-Reformed writers: Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1999) and C. Gordon Olson’s Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: An Inductive Mediate Theology of Salvation (New Jersey: Global Gospel Publishers, 2002).

[ link ]

This book belongs to the vilifying anti-Luther tradition that I've often commented about.

[ link ]

It's the same effect that the modern day anti-Luther Roman Catholic webpages have on me. They provoke me to research.

[ link ]

Used as a strong dose of anti-Protestant prejudice, Roman Catholic laymen frequently refer to this book.

[ link ]

Check out this anti-Calvinist "rubber ball thrower" . . .

[ link ]

A look at C. Gordon Olson's book, which is a repackaging of the the anti-reformed arguments of Norman Geisler and Laurence Vance,. . .

[ link ]

Thanks for checking out the review. I will say that I did write that two years ago. Since then I have come to see the term anti-whatever used all over the net, so it is a bit dated in that regard.

As it is, though, I do not have a problem with the word "anti" as such. Therefore any lack of clarity is my fault. . . .

But I thank you for your comments and would be interested to know if you thought I was conveying that incidents of anti-Catholicism were exaggerated as opposed to the idea that term itself was being used abusively. As I indicated before, some did take it the wrong way.

(10 July 2009)

I completely agree with the first commenter [on your thread] Theo (I think I know him):

Thus you may find even among the most otherwise thoughtful individuals, a penchant for quickly assuming the worst of critics, sometimes taking their "hatred of Catholics" for granted. When people develop such delicate sensitivities, they tend to see things in an us-vs.-them mindset, where "they" are anti- "us." Obviously, this is vastly unfair. . . . especially in the blogosphere one can find many truly anti-catholic people that for whatever reason propagate blatantly false or misleading trash. But truly, there are vastly more who simply either honestly disagree or honestly misunderstand. It is incumbent upon we who might be sensitive to actively look for Christ in all who disagree with us.

I've often noted, myself, how anti-Catholics will claim that Catholics "hate the gospel" or "hate the Bible," or hate the person making the charge, etc. For example, Turretinfan:

Yes, Steve Ray hates James White . . . because Dr. White preaches the Truth and exposes the errors and delusions of Rome. May we all be labelled and despised by those who hate the truth, . . .

(9-24-07)

Or David T. King:

I already have a very low view of the integrity of non-Protestants in general, . . . most of you are too dishonest to admit what you really think.

(6-5-03, on Eric Svendsen's Areopagus board)

Or Eric Svendsen:

RC apologists will do or say just about anything--true or not--to advance their cause. They engage in the strategy of deception regularly.

(4-27-03, Areopagus board)

Then there are Catholics who make dumb, extreme statements about Luther. I recently strongly criticized Catholic apologist Matthew Bellisario (often active on this blog) for doing that (to no avail).

Joseph, in your combox, led the discussion astray when he wrote, "I have come to detect what I think is a passive aggressiveness towards devout Catholics in your tone." That is mind-reading, and I haven't detected it in you (quite the contrary).

He did say, though (not to excuse the above at all), that neither you nor your friend are anti-Catholics, so he is making the fine distinctions, too. But on the Internet, motivations and internal dispositions are often rashly speculated about. One sees it repeatedly on this very thread, directed towards me. Then he gets even more insulting and personal:

That is why I post on your blog. I don't think you are sincere about your desire to dialogue. Rather, I think that your posts regarding Catholicism are really just passive aggressive attacks on Catholics who respond.

I think this is sinful speculation on your motives. It's wrong. I can certainly relate to being the recipient of such foolishness, because it happens to me all the time (and again, can be seen in several of my critics in this very thread). I found your answers to the pointed questions in your second thread that you referenced perfectly acceptable and sincere.

I don't have this impression that your friend had, at all. I find it a pleasure to dialogue with you. You were kind to me in this thread, and a breath of fresh air. How ironic that he questions your sincerity in your desire to dialogue . . .

You wrote:

Nevertheless, I am happy to discuss theology with you anytime. If you can concentrate your efforts on a discussion of issues rather than on personal attacks, we will do well.

Amen! How often I have thought that myself! But this is mostly why I have given up trying to debate anti-Catholics. It's mostly personal attacks, and when there is a halfway rational discussion, it is fatally hampered by relentlessly hostile premises that they are unwilling to discuss (hence my challenge to debate the definition of Christianity, which was scornfully rejected). This stuff obviously happens on both sides all the time, and it is our responsibility (those of us who detest these tendencies) to do a better job, by example.

I agree again with Theo (from what I know so far) when he defended you, on the basis of having met and observed you.

Joseph again goes on the attack and in my opinion, sins, by stating (among many other unsavory things): "I find your debate tactics deceptive."

So that is my take on your article and reactions to it. I agree with you that you were commenting on abuse of the term and not trying to minimize anti-Catholicism itself, where it occurs, even though I think you exaggerated far too much with regard to the Hahns' own use of the term. I did not find it to be the case that they were guilty of overuse and broad, sweeping use, without proper qualifications.

If you can show me otherwise from their book, I'd be interested in seeing that.

I would be honored and privileged to dialogue with you anytime, and you are very welcome to comment on my blog. You're the sort of Reformed Christian I've always sought out and have occasionally been able to dialogue with on the Internet, but sadly, not very often.

God bless,

Dave

(7-10-09)

Hi Pilgrim,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. This has truly been a pleasure.

Thanks for taking the time to both read the review and to go back over the Hahn book. That would have required an inordinate amount of time for me to do. What's your secret?

I dunno. I think I have some "speed reading" abilities if I am looking for particular things. I can spot them quickly. If something interests me, I seem to work faster, too.

You've made some very good points here.

Cool.

I do think now that I was not paying careful enough attention to the context of the term's usage. I was reading into it what I thought it consistently meant.

Fair enough. We all often do this, I think.

But it seems to me that my broad brush analogy still applies in the sense that the term anti-Catholic, as you've demonstrated here, carries with it several meanings depending on the context in which it is used:

I agree. Because it is a complex issue, it stands to reason that a two-word description would have within itself several possible shades of meanings, as with most words.

1) one opposed to the Roman Catholic system but reserves judgment as to the salvific condition of the individual; interacts with opponents respectfully

This gets to the question of subjective vs. objective criteria of what a Christian is. Because the Protestant believes that salvation is already attained, most will want to surmise whether this momentous event has happened in the life of a person. Then the Calvinist / Arminian thing comes into it, too. I understand this. I, too, had a radical life-changing experience in 1977, and again in 1980, when I was, I firmly believe, further filled with the Holy Spirit. Catholics believe that baptism regenerates: a real change takes place: one is incorporated into the Body of Christ. So these are all big discussions.

I think in the end we can only sensibly discuss the issue across the board on a more objective, theological basis: on the creedal level. I usually use the Nicene Creed as a criterion for the definition of a Christian. On this basis, Catholics clearly would be Christians. You said this yourself, so you clearly accept it. But if we speculate on the present spiritual state of individuals, we have no certainty, and it goes round and round. John Calvin said we cannot be certain who is of the elect; even ourselves. Luther struggled with that, too. And both believed in assurance of salvation in some sense, over against an Arminian / Catholic / Orthodox understanding.

When a Calvinist clearly forsakes the Reformed faith, and is deeply into sin and outward rebellion against God, Calvinist theology requires that he or she is now defined as having never been a Christian or saved or justified or regenerated at all. But it then follows that those who thought he or she was in the past were wrong, and did not have certainty at all. So we just don't know with absolute certainty. We can only go, therefore, by what a person claims to believe, in judging whether they are Christians.

2) one opposed to the Roman Catholic system and who sincerely believes Catholics cannot, in any way, be Christians; interacts with opponents respectfully

This is what I would consider the central definition. The categories forbid Catholics from being Christians. A consistent, obedient, orthodox Catholic cannot possibly be a Christian. To be a good Catholic is to be no Christian. To be a Christian is to be a bad (heterodox) Catholic. Most anti-Catholics, following Calvin and Luther, will leave a tiny loophole for the Catholic individual to have a chance to still be saved. But this is virtually despite the Catholic Church. If one is a Catholic and understands Church teaching and adheres to it, they are out of the fold, by this mentality. Some (like an Baptist preacher friend of mine I once worked for briefly, and another guy: one of my best friends), will contend that a former evangelical Protestant like myself was clearly saved, and so therefore (from eternal security) could not have fallen away, even having become Catholic.

3) one who believes Catholics are not in any way Christians; one so opposed to the Roman Catholic system and the individuals involved in it that he actively bears false witness against them and behaves in a disingenuous, bigoted or slanderous way toward them

My own definition of anti-Catholic has no connection whatsoever to behavior. It is strictly theological. Historically and in scholarly circles, the term is often used of intolerant people, Know-Nothings, advocates of violence and denial of Catholic rights, etc. But scholars also use it in a strictly theological sense, as I do.

That said, most anti-Catholics I have met have been extremely rude and insulting, and in my opinion, very bad witnesses of Christ in terms of outsiders observing how they act, because they exhibit so little love and attempted understanding of others. That's my experience, but I still don't take any of that into account in my use of the word "anti-Catholic." One could be an anti-Catholic Protestant who is a perfect gentleman, or an ecumenical Protestant who is an arrogant jerk; human beings always being subject to sinfulness and temptations to insult those who differ.

Now that I understand that the term can be used in different ways at different times depending on the context, I'll be less inclined to be taken aback by it until I get further along in discussion with that person, at which time I can make a judgement.

I think context is supremely important, yes, and a person's self-report. I have discussed this issue for many years now, and have explained my position countless times. But those who are already hostile don't care. They don't want to hear it, and they remain hostile, and misrepresent my own oft-stated opinions. I can't prevent that, but I can make it easy for anyone to find out what my true position is.

I don't mind being called anti-Catholic if the person saying it has definition no. 1 in mind; at least, that's what I would like to think about myself.

I think it is an unhelpful, improper use. I don't think you are one at all.

But it can be very difficult to tell in talking to a theological opponent, especially in the online environment.

Asking one to define their terms is quite necessary, especially in this case.

I also think that these definitions can apply equally to the term anti-Protestant, given the proper revision of the wording.

Most "anti-Protestants" in an analogical sense to my definition of anti-Catholic, are "traditionalist" Catholics, who wrongly think that Catholicism requires such a view; also some are "traditionalist" Orthodox.

There is, however, an additional element involved in the Catholic Church's official pronouncements regarding Protestantism. And there remains for me a tension between the anathemas of Trent and the "separated brethren" language of Vatican II so that I don't really know for certain where I stand in the eyes of the RCC.

This is very poorly understood also. See my papers:

The Catholic Understanding of the Anathemas of Trent and Excommunication

How Catholics View Protestants

Your comments regarding Joseph were also helpful. Unfortunately, his comments only served to solidify what I thought the only definition of anti-Catholic could be: Catholics think Protestant theological opponents, in general, hate them, think them fools and idiots, and are out to deceive them at every turn. Joseph seemed unprepared for any other contingency and so could not accept any kind of sincerity on my part. As you can see, I finally had to drop the issue entirely and move on.

He does not accurately represent authentic Catholic thought on this topic at all. Go with what Theo and I are expressing to you. It's infinitely more hopeful and "sunny" and it is the Mind of the Church. Ecumenism has developed rapidly in the last 50-100 years and I am delighted to see that.

I do think it has been useful to talk about these matters, especially considering that there seems to have been a good deal of bad blood on the blogs over the years.

Me, too. This has been one of the best dialogues I've had the pleasure to participate in, in memory.

May the Lord use whatever may be good and right in our conversation to the edifying of His people.

Amen and Amen!

* * * * *

See the related post:

Defense of Scott & Kimberly Hahn's Use of Anti-Catholic in Their Testimony Book, Rome Sweet Home

Antidote to John Calvin's Institutes (IV,9:1-7) [Nature of Councils / Bible & Tradition / OT Corruption & "Sin" Argument / Pope = God?]

See the introduction and links to all installments at the top of my John Calvin, Calvinism, and General Protestantism web page; also the online version of the Institutes. Calvin's words will be in blue throughout. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

Book IV

CHAPTER 9

OF COUNCILS AND THEIR AUTHORITY.

1. The true nature of Councils.

Were I now to concede all that they ask concerning the Church, it would not greatly aid them in their object. For everything that is said of the Church they immediately transfer to councils, which, in their opinion, represent the Church.

And Calvin thinks they do not?

Nay, when they contend so doggedly for the power of the Church, their only object is to devolve the whole which they extort on the Roman Pontiff and his conclave.

Maybe they simply want to defend the way it had been for 1500 years? Since Calvin can't accept that the historic Church was Catholic, and not even remotely "Protestant," he must search for nefarious motives somewhere and make out that Catholic arguments are mere power plays.

Before I begin to discuss this question, two points must be briefly premised. First, though I mean to be more rigid in discussing this subject, it is not because I set less value than I ought on ancient councils. I venerate them from my heart, and would have all to hold them in due honour. But there must be some limitation, there must be nothing derogatory to Christ.

And this clause "some limitation" is a loophole big enough for a truck to drive through, as we'll see again and again, as we proceed.

Moreover, it is the right of Christ to preside over all councils, and not share the honour with any man. Now, I hold that he presides only when he governs the whole assembly by his word and Spirit.

No man can preside at all? How can there be order or protocol if this is the case?

Secondly, in attributing less to councils than my opponents demand, it is not because I have any fear that councils are favourable to their cause and adverse to ours.

Of course not . . .

For as we are amply provided by the word of the Lord with the means of proving our doctrine and overthrowing the whole Papacy,

As we know, the papacy has long since been overthrown and Calvinism reigns supreme everywhere . . .

and thus have no great need of other aid, so, if the case required it, ancient councils furnish us in a great measure with what might be sufficient for both purposes.

Here is the familiar (but thoroughly erroneous) claim: that the ancient councils and fathers supposedly provide plenty of evidence for Protestantism; over against Catholicism.

2. Whence the authority of Councils is derived. What meant by assembling in the name of Christ.

Let us now proceed to the subject itself. If we consult Scripture on the authority of councils, there is no promise more remarkable than that which is contained in these words of our Saviour, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” But this is just as applicable to any particular meeting as to a universal council. And yet the important part of the question does not lie here, but in the condition which is added—viz. that Christ will be in the midst of a council, provided it be assembled in his name. Wherefore, though our opponents should name councils of thousands of bishops it will little avail them; nor will they induce us to believe that they are, as they maintain, guided by the Holy Spirit, until they make it credible that they assemble in the name of Christ: since it is as possible for wicked and dishonest to conspire against Christ, as for good and honest bishops to meet together in his name.

That's correct; for example, the Robber Council of 449. But of course, the same criticism applies to various Protestant assemblies that adopted false doctrine. In the end, the discussion will always have to reference Scripture and prior received Tradition in order to determine true and false councils (and we contend, also, that popes have to ratify the decisions of true ecumenical councils).

Of this we have a clear proof in very many of the decrees which have proceeded from councils. But this will be afterwards seen. At present I only reply in one word, that our Saviour’s promise is made to those only who assemble in his name. How, then, is such an assembly to be defined? I deny that those assemble in the name of Christ who, disregarding his command by which he forbids anything to be added to the word of God or taken from it, determine everything at their own pleasure, who, not contented with the oracles of Scripture, that is, with the only rule of perfect wisdom, devise some novelty out of their own head (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18).

And of course this is circular reasoning:

1) Catholics declare doctrine X that I disagree with.

2) Doctrine X is unscriptural.

3) Why is X unscriptural? Because I disagree that it is scriptural. My interpretation says that it is not scriptural.

4) I know my interpretation is correct because it disagrees with the Roman interpretation, which is a tradition of men, because it is a novelty devised out of their heads, rather than from Scripture.

Etc., etc. The circularity can be demonstrated in a number of ways, but this shall suffice for now.

Certainly, since our Saviour has not promised to be present with all councils of whatever description, but has given a peculiar mark for distinguishing true and lawful councils from others, we ought not by any means to lose sight of the distinction.

Indeed. Not every council is true or Spirit-led.

The covenant which God anciently made with the Levitical priests was to teach at his mouth (Mal. 2:7). This he always required of the prophets, and we see also that it was the law given to the apostles.

Of course, but by the same token, this also establishes authoritative teaching that is ultimately undermined by the individualistic notion of private judgment, and the denial of infallibility to the Church, and rejection of apostolic succession, etc.:

Exodus 18:20 and you shall teach them the statutes and the decisions, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do.

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

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

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; 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. 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.

2 Chronicles 35:3 And he said to the Levites who taught all Israel and who were holy to the LORD, . . .

Ezra 7:6,10-11 this Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the law of Moses which the LORD the God of Israel had given; and the king granted him all that he asked, for the hand of the LORD his God was upon him. . . . For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach his statutes and ordinances in Israel. . . . Ezra the priest, the scribe, learned in matters of the commandments of the LORD and his statutes for Israel:

Nehemiah 8:7-8,12 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.
And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. . . . And all the people went their way to eat and drink and to send portions and to make great rejoicing, because they had understood the words that were declared to them.

Acts 8:27-28, 30-31,34-35 And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch . . . seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah . . . So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” . . . And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus.

Acts 15:22,25,28 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, . . . it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, . . . For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . .

Acts 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

Ephesians 3:10 . . . through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

2 Peter 1:20 . . . no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

2 Peter 3:15-17 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

On those who violate this covenant God bestows neither the honour of the priesthood nor any authority. Let my opponents solve this difficulty if they would subject my faith to the decrees of man, without authority from the word of God.

Obviously, both sides claim scriptural support. The argument has to be an exegetical one, not a "your dad's uglier than mine" name-calling, schoolyard level. It is not the case that Catholics ignore Scripture in setting forth their theological views (agree or disagree), as Calvin would have it. But it sounds good, and he loves the black-and-white contrast, with the Catholics always being wicked and evil and unbiblical, so he continues to use the technique.

3. Objection, that no truth remains in the Church if it be not in Pastors and Councils. Answer, showing by passages from the Old Testament that Pastors were often devoid of the spirit of knowledge and truth.

Their idea that the truth cannot remain in the Church unless it exist among pastors,

It stands to reason, does it not, that if doctrinal truth is to be maintained, that someone in leadership must maintain it, no? If God is truly preserving His Church, this will always be the case, at least with some of the leaders. The Church can never completely fall away (institutionally) from truth. Calvin seems to think this is the case with Catholicism, but this is contrary to Jesus' promises.

and that the Church herself cannot exist unless displayed in general councils,

Acts 15 would seem to bear that out. Even Paul the Apostle went around proclaiming the binding decrees of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 16:4 above).

is very far from holding true if the prophets have left us a correct description of their own times. In the time of Isaiah there was a Church at Jerusalem which the Lord had not yet abandoned. But of pastors he thus speaks: “His watchmen are blind; they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs which never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way” (Isa. 56:10, 11). In the same way Hosea says, “The watchman of Ephraim was with my God: but the prophet is a snare of a fowler in all his ways, and hatred in the house of his God” (Hosea 9:8). Here, by ironically connecting them with God, he shows that the pretext of the priesthood was vain. There was also a Church in the time of Jeremiah. Let us hear what he says of pastors: “From the prophet even unto the priest, every one dealeth falsely.” Again, “The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them” (Jer. 6:13; 14:14). And not to be prolix with quotations, read the whole of his thirty-third and fortieth chapters. Then, on the other hand, Ezekiel inveighs against them in no milder terms. “There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls.” “Her priests have violated my law, and profaned mine holy things” (Ezek. 22:25, 26). There is more to the same purpose. Similar complaints abound throughout the prophets; nothing is of more frequent recurrence.

Israel went through many periods of more or less complete corruption; this is obvious. But we are in a new dispensation now, after the appearance of our Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ: the Incarnation, redeeming death, Resurrection, and Ascension. We are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and have the power of the sacraments, and we have God's promises of guidance and protection. All of that makes the situation after Christ quite different from before the time of Christ. We see the massive change, for example, in the conduct of Peter, before and after he was filled with the Holy Spirit. Before Pentecost, even the immediate disciples of Jesus were a pretty poor, miserable lot, barely understanding what Jesus was teaching them and failing to understand even the purpose of Jesus' death on the cross.

After Pentecost, they went out joyously, and triumphantly conquered the world. Yet Calvin would have us believe that nothing whatever was changed from the Old Covenant times and corrupt priests in Israel? It is often thought by Calvin and Protestants that Catholics are stuck in a rut of the Old Covenant (supposedly believing in works-salvation, etc.: which mainstream Judaism did not and does not hold, rightly understood). But here it is obvious that the Catholic position is the progressive one, while Calvin's Old Covenant redux position is regressive, and lacks faith in the power of God in the New Covenant, and in God's promises for His Church, built upon Peter himself.

Moreover, this whole line of reasoning would prove too much, because if the idea is that corruption is well-nigh universal, then Calvin's own version of "church" would be every bit as much subject to the same thing, and there would be no reason to believe that Protestantism is at all superior to Catholicism (if we stick strictly to the "sin" argument). Arguing from sin and corruption never accomplishes much, for this very reason. Calvin can try to maintain that Protestants are singularly freed from corruption and sin and religious nominalism, but it's a futile effort.

If he wishes to argue a lesser claim: that institutional offices in the Church are null and void because of widespread corruption (real or imagined), then this, too, mitigates against his own position, as he was not opposed to abolition of all Church offices and positions whatever. The entire argument he wishes to make at this juncture is a dead-end. It accomplishes nothing whatsoever.

4. Passages from the New Testament showing that our times were to be subject to the same evil. This confirmed by the example of almost all ages.

But perhaps, though this great evil prevailed among the Jews, our age is exempt from it. Would that it were so; but the Holy Spirit declared that it would be otherwise. For Peter’s words are clear, “But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily will bring in damnable heresies” (2 Peter 2:1). See how he predicts impending danger, not from ordinary believers, but from those who should plume themselves on the name of pastors and teachers.

Of course there are false teachers. There were heresies and schisms all through Church history (with Protestant itself being one of the largest, insofar as false doctrines were promulgated). But we are contending that the near complete apostasy Calvin claims is the case with the Catholic Church was neither a fact, nor predicted in the Bible.

Besides, how often did Christ and his apostles foretell that the greatest dangers with which the Church was threatened would come from pastors? (Mt. 24:11, 24). Nay, Paul openly declares, that Antichrist would have his seat in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4); thereby intimating, that the fearful calamity of which he was speaking would come only from those who should have their seat in the Church as pastors.

This is lousy exegesis of 2 Thessalonians 2:4, because (as we saw before) there, the Antichrist is "proclaiming himself to be God":

2 Thessalonians 2:3b-4 . . . the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, [4] who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

No pope has claimed such an absurd thing, and demanded worship of himself over against any other "god or object of worship". If Calvin thinks otherwise, let him prove it. He offers no proof: only empty rhetoric, as usual. In context, all of this seems to occur, too, not long before the Second Coming:

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming.

As we know, it has been almost 500 years now since the "Reformation" began and here we still are, with probably a good deal more days still to go before the end of the current epoch. I see nothing in the Bible about the Antichrist reigning for 500 years. I see things about three-and-a half and seven years, in the book of Revelation, but nothing like 500 years. So Calvin's scenario is refuted on those grounds alone. He appeared to expect a Second Coming very soon, and the destruction of the papacy. He and his followers have been severely disappointed on both scores.

And in another passage he shows that the introduction of this great evil was almost at hand. For in addressing the Elders of Ephesus, he says, “I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29, 30).

This is always the case. There are always false teachers out and about, including the deceptive ones who infiltrate churches. We'll always have heretics (like the poor) with us.

How great corruption might a long series of years introduce among pastors, when they could degenerate so much within so short a time? And not to fill my pages with details, we are reminded by the examples of almost every age, that the truth is not always cherished in the bosoms of pastors, and that the safety of the Church depends not on their state.

All true, but this is not the extreme, total defectibility that Calvin adheres to, so it is neither here nor there and doesn't prove his contentions. It's a non sequitur, no matter how many times he repeats it.

It was becoming that those appointed to preserve the peace and safety of the Church should be its presidents and guardians; but it is one thing to perform what you owe, and another to owe what you do not perform.

The Catholic Church is alive and kicking, now , as it was, then. But there isn't much left of orthodox Calvinism . . .

5. All not Pastors who pretend to be so.

Let no man, however, understand me as if I were desirous in everything rashly and unreservedly to overthrow the authority of pastors.

Understood (Calvin retains some measure of authority and institution; especially when he -- like Luther before him -- gets to be boss and proclaim true theology), but the interior logic of private judgment will undermine both the authority of pastors, as well as individual denominations as a whole. The Protestant can always split to another denomination if he doesn't like something, or if he is (in rare cases) being disciplined. No Protestant can tell another Protestant that they don't have a right to do so. That would be a joke. On what grounds would they argue? "We have the fullness of Christian truth over against all those other denominations"? That would be hardly distinguishable from the Catholic claim to unique fullness, and so it is self-defeating in the end. Protestant epistemologies and self-justifications are always and inherently at war with the various Protestant ecclesiologies.

All I advise is, to exercise discrimination, and not suppose, as a matter of course, that all who call themselves pastors are so in reality.

How true. This was true in Calvin's own case. But if doesn't even know that he has no legitimate authority, he is hardly the one to advise others on how to identify false pastors!

But the Pope, with the whole crew of his bishops, for no other reason but because they are called pastors, shake off obedience to the word of God, invert all things, and turn them hither and thither at their pleasure;

The wicked rascals . . . not a one of them knows a thing about true theology or discipleship.

meanwhile, they insist that they cannot be destitute of the light of truth, that the Spirit of God perpetually resides in them,

As Calvin blithely assumes in his own case . . .

that the Church subsists in them, and dies with them, as if the Lord did not still inflict his judgments, and in the present day punish the world for its wickedness, in the same way in which he punished the ingratitude of the ancient people—namely, by smiting pastors with astonishment and blindness (Zech. 12:4).

The OT "Church" never completely died out; nor will the Catholic Church. It doesn't "die" by being cynically redefined by someone self-interested in setting up his own "pseudo-church". It continues because God promised that it would be so. Period. End of that discussion! The Church is indefectible; so says Holy Scripture.

These stupid men

Ah; nice touch. Now the lowly papists are stupid as well as relentlessly wicked and evil.

understand not that they are just chiming in with those of ancient times who warred with the word of God. For the enemies of Jeremiah thus set themselves against the truth, “Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet” (Jer. 18:18).

That's us Catholics: the enemies of Jeremiah!

6. Objection, that General Councils represent the Church. Answer, showing the absurdity of this objection from passages in the Old Testament.

Hence it is easy to reply to their allegation concerning general councils. It cannot be denied, that the Jews had a true Church under the prophets. But had a general council then been composed of the priests, what kind of appearance would the Church have had? We hear the Lord denouncing not against one or two of them, but the whole order: “The priests shall be astonished, and the prophets shall wonder” (Jer. 4:9). Again, “The law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the ancients” (Ezek. 7:26). Again, “Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them,” &c. (Micah 3:6). Now, had all men of this description been collected together, what spirit would have presided over their meeting?

Not a very good one; I agree. But I have already explained why these examples of Old Testament corruption are non sequiturs.

Of this we have a notable instance in the council which Ahab convened (1 Kings 22:6, 22). Four hundred prophets were present. But because they had met with no other intention than to flatter the impious king, Satan is sent by the Lord to be a lying spirit in all their mouths. The truth is there unanimously condemned. Micaiah is judged a heretic, is smitten, and cast into prison. So was it done to Jeremiah, and so to the other prophets.

Indeed. Men are sinners. If it weren't for God's grace, there would be no hope for any religous assembly whatever (including Calvin's); let alone the Church of God.

7. Passages to the same effect from the New Testament.

But there is one memorable example which may suffice for all. In the council which the priests and Pharisees assembled at Jerusalem against Christ (John 11:47), what is wanting, in so far as external appearance is concerned? Had there been no Church then at Jerusalem, Christ would never have joined in the sacrifices and other ceremonies. A solemn meeting is held; the high priest presides; the whole sacerdotal order take their seats, and yet Christ is condemned, and his doctrine is put to flight. This atrocity proves that the Church was not at all included in that council.

Obviously not, as it opposed Christ Himself (at least not insofar as this particular ruling was concerned). Calvin's difficulty, however, is that Jesus recognized the continuing authority of the Pharisees, and even told His followers to do what they teach them to do (Matthew 23:1-3). This shows that there was authority and truth retained, even within a corrupt institution (one that Jesus excoriated shortly after He said this), not that there was an absolute corruption, leading to a complete downfall or cessation of what once was. Paul recognized the authority of the high priest, even at his trial; even called himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:1-6). The early Christians worshiped at both synagogues and in the Temple.

But there is no danger that anything of the kind will happen with us. Who has told us so? Too much security in a matter of so great importance lies open to the charge of sluggishness. Nay, when the Spirit, by the mouth of Paul, foretells, in distinct terms, that a defection will take place, a defection which cannot come until pastors first forsake God (2 Thess. 2:3), why do we spontaneously walk blindfold to our own destruction?

Christians should always be vigilant against falsehood and heresy and schism. Paul warned more about divisions than he did about almost anything else.

Wherefore, we cannot on any account admit that the Church consists in a meeting of pastors, as to whom the Lord has nowhere promised that they would always be good, but has sometimes foretold that they would be wicked. When he warns us of danger, it is to make us use greater caution.

This is obvious. A true council has to produce true doctrine. The tree is known by the fruit. Calvin, on the other hand, goes so far as to claim that even the Catholic "tree" has ceased to exist; let alone produce any good fruit. He's taken the axe to the entire Church and has offered nothing of any particular legitimacy or authenticity to take its place. Whatever was true in Calvinism was merely retained from Catholicism (which is yet another proof that Catholicism had some measure of life in it, since it had preserved so much that even the so-called "Reformers" never dreamt of getting rid of). Self-contradictions abound in Calvin's position.

Biblical Evidence for Infused Justification

Alister McGrath: eminent Protestant Church historian

[From The One-Minute Apologist, pp. 82-83, but this is a combination of my original manuscript version, with some changes made in the final edit of the the book: a bit different from and longer than the final edited version in the book -- since all had to be condensed into two pages there]

SALVATION

Justification is external and imputed, not internal or "infused"

God only declares us righteous, based on the death of Jesus on the cross

The One-Minute Apologist Says:

This is not the teaching of the Bible, and is a radical change from the doctrine that had been believed in the Church from the earliest times.

Catholics believe that justification and sanctification, like faith and works, are organically connected, and two aspects of the same thing, but Protestants think that sanctification is separate from justification, because (so they argue) it has nothing directly to do with salvation; rather, God declares the sinner “righteous” and instantly saved (justified) on the basis of the shed blood of Christ on his behalf. The justified person then proceeds to do grace-produced good works in thankfulness to God for His free grace, but they have nothing to do with salvation; only actual personal holiness or righteousness.

Catholics, on the other hand, regard the sanctification as part and parcel of a process of salvation. It’s not an optional “add-on” to salvation; it is central to it. Here are some biblical indications of an actual cleansing and removal of sins, rather than a declaration that sins are “covered over”:

Acts 15:9 (RSV): “[A]nd he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.”

Acts 26:18: “[T]o open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’”

1 Corinthians 1:2: “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, . . .”

1 Corinthians 6:11: “[Y]ou were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

1 Peter 1:2: “[C]hosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood . . .”

2 Peter 1:9: “For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.”

Note that in 1 Corinthians 6:11, justification and sanctification are placed together, and both in the past tense. Sanctification is also a past event in 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Peter 1:2, and 2 Peter 1:9. But Protestants say that sanctification is a present and future process. Acts 15:9 and 26:18 tie sanctification to faith and justification, not works (as in Protestantism). Sanctification is the foundation for progress in the spiritual life, as st. Paul suggests in his farewell to the elders of the church in Ephesus:

Acts 20:32: "And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified."

A Protestant Might Further Object:

But what about Romans 5:19: “by one man’s obedience, many will be made righteous.” Doesn’t that clearly teach imputed or forensic, declared justification? It speaks of people being made righteous, simply on account of Christ.

The One-Minute Apologist Says:

In that same verse, St. Paul speaks of the Fall, by which “many were made sinners.” Yet original sin’s effects on humanity were real and internal, and Paul draws an analogy between its effects and righteousness.

Thus it makes no sense to regard the sin as actual, but the righteousness as merely declared. Also, in verse 17. Paul connects “the abundance of grace” and “the free gift of righteousness,” suggesting again that sanctification is directly related to justification, not separated from it.

The words and analogies that we find used throughout the Bible strongly suggest this “transformational” justification, not simply a declaration or imputation of righteousness. In 1 Chronicles 21:8, for example, God is asked to “take away the iniquity of thy servant.” King David, in his famous Psalm of profound repentance, does not separate sanctification from justification:

Psalm 51:1-2, 6-7, 9-10: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy steadfast love; according to thy abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! . . . Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. . . . Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.”

St. Paul and the author of Hebrews teach the same organic closeness of justification and holiness, righteous, or sanctification: “if the root is holy, so are the branches” (Rom. 11:16); “For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are” (1 Cor. 3:17); “. . . we should be holy and blameless before him” (Eph. 1:4); “And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him,” (Col. 1:21-22); “God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling, . . .” (2 Tim. 1:8-9); “Therefore, holy brethren, who share in a heavenly call, . . .” (Heb. 3:1).

In like manner Christ in us is said to be the hope of glory. Christ then is our righteousness by dwelling in us by the Spirit: He justifies us by entering into us, He continues to justify us by remaining in us. This is really and truly our justification, not faith, not holiness, not (much less) a mere imputation; but through God’s mercy, the very presence of Christ.

Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman

(Lectures on Justification)

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ’sanctification’ or ‘regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . . The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on. In addition to differences regarding how the sinner was justified, there was now an additional disagreement on what the word ‘justification’ designated in the first place. The Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic church’s definitive response to the Protestant challenge, reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification, and censured the views of Melanchthon as woefully inadequate . . . the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther’s thought . . . .

Alister McGrath (Protestant Church historian)

(Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109; emphases in original)

Protestant Exegesis Profoundly Affected Historically By Polemical Overreactions to Catholic Positions (Example of Matthew 16:18: Peter as the "Rock")

D. A. Carson: Eminent Protestant Exegete

[ source ]

Matthew 16:18 (RSV) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

This curious phenomenon was one of the central themes of my book, The Catholic Verses (2004). I wrote in its Introduction:

No one comes to the Bible as a completely impartial and objective "observer" or reader. We all approach it, whether consciously or unconsciously, with some sort of preexisting theology, or at least a disposition towards a certain viewpoint. It is impossible not to do this. It is part of the very nature of the thinking process. . . .

I shall contend throughout this book that - far too often - Protestants do not take all of Scripture into account, and that they are guilty of eisegesis (reading into Scripture one's own presuppositions), or seriously erroneous exegesis, at least as often as Catholics are, if not more frequently. . . .

I hasten to add - and emphasize to the greatest degree - that these tendencies of bias and subjectivism and subconscious influence of denominational traditions do not necessarily entail a deliberate attempt to ignore or to twist Scripture. Every serious student of the Bible comes to the biblical text with a theological framework, in order to interpret it and make sense of it in its entirety. This is proper and right, and no one should have any objection to it. . . .

. . . without questioning (at all) the sincerity or integrity of Protestants, I shall now proceed to offer a critique of common Protestant attempts to ignore, explain away, rationalize, wish away, over-polemicize, minimize, de-emphasize, evade clear consequences of, or special plead with regard to "the Catholic Verses": 95 biblical passages.

In Chapter Four, on the papacy, I commented specifically on historic Protestant exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19:

Many Protestants are uncomfortable with Matthew 16:18-19, first because of its extraordinary implications for St. Peter's preeminence as the supreme earthly head of the Church, or Pope; which he was appointed by our Lord Jesus himself. The Church, according to Jesus (and in the Catholic view), is built upon Peter. In the figure and leadership of Peter in the Bible, the Catholic Church sees a primitive (later highly developed) model for Church government and papal headship.

(pp. 55-56)

Historically, the standard polemical response of Protestants to the phraseology of rock was to contend that it referred only to Peter's faith, not Peter himself. In that way, the institutional element of the charge from the Lord to St. Peter is avoided. If faith is the exclusive key to the meaning, then Peter can be viewed as merely a representative of a general principle, rather than unique in the sense of institutional, concrete leadership and jurisdiction.

(p. 56)

Somewhat surprisingly, the consensus among Protestant commentators today (including such eminent scholars such as R. T. France, D. A. Carson, William Hendriksen, Gerhard Maier, and Craig L. Blomberg), is that rock indeed refers to Peter himself, not his faith. They try to evade any further "Catholic" implication, though, by denying the notion of papal succession -- that Peter as rock applies to Peter alone.

(pp. 57-58)

Here we are concerned with St. Peter as the proclaimed leader of the Church. The finer points and particulars of such an office require another discussion entirely. Scarcely any biblical passages contain a fully developed doctrine. That is as true of the papacy and ecclesiology as it is of any Christian theological construct.

(p. 58)

Situations like this usually arise when the Catholic exegetical argument is (quite arguably) superior to any Protestant alternative, and when (as in the present instance) the basic Catholic contention has become the consensus position of prominent biblical commentators across the board:

Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter's faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.

(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985 edition, "Peter," Micropedia, vol. 9, 330-333. D. W. O'Connor, the author of the article, is himself Protestant and author of Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical and Archaeological Evidence [1969] )

Catholics have been contending all along that Peter himself was the "rock": not his confession of faith; nor Jesus Himself. Now it is widely accepted that this is indeed what the passage teaches. But for centuries, many (most?) Protestant commentators denied this, and it looks they did so primarily due to mere polemical reaction against the Catholic claim and Catholic dogmatic beliefs about the papacy, in part built upon this passage.

This is not just my opinion, but that of several prominent Protestant exegetes, past and present, as I will now demonstrate. These eminent Bible scholars maintain that the passage is very clear, and was only interpreted otherwise out of polemical reaction to the Catholic exegesis. If this can occur (rather strikingly) with regard to Matthew 16:18, who knows how prevalent the same tendency has been elsewhere in Protestant exegesis, wherever issues arise that are key to the Protestant-Catholic dispute?

Ironically, while Catholics are routinely accused of eisegesis, it looks like Protestants have committed quite a bit of it themselves, in their rush to distance themselves from Catholic exegetical viewpoints. To "prove" that a passage has no "Catholic" implications whatsoever, many Protestant commentators have been quite willing to special plead and engage in outright eisegesis. I provided dozens of examples of this in The Catholic Verses. Here I need only cite Protestants chastising fellow Protestant commentators, to prove my point that it occurred:

Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for.

(Presbyterian Albert Barnes, Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, Philadelphia: 1832; see larger excerpt)

* * * * *

The application of the promise to St. Peter has been elaborately impugned by Dr. Wordsworth. His zeal to appropriate the rock to Christ has somewhat overshot itself. In arguing that the term can apply to none but God, he will find it difficult surely to deny all reference to a rock in the name Peter. To me, it is equally difficult, nay, impossible, to deny all reference, in "upon this rock," to the preceding word Peter. Let us keep to the plain straightforward sense of Scripture, however that sense may have been misused by Rome.

(Anglican Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, four volumes, London: Rivingtons, 1868; reprinted by Baker Publishing Group, 1983, Vol. 1, p. 319; see larger excerpt)

* * * * *

As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that 'upon this rock' means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at the present day be attempted, but for the fact that the obvious meaning has been abused by Papists to the support of their theory. But we must not allow the abuse of a truth to turn us away from its use; nor must the convenience of religious controversy determine our interpretation of Scripture teaching.

(p. 355)

The Protestant reluctance to admit that the rock means Peter really plays into the hands of the Romish controversialists. It favors the impression that conceding that point would be conceding all that the Romanist claims . . . Now to take Peter as the rock is certainly the most natural and obvious meaning. And to make this the life or death issue is to give the Romanist a serious polemical advantage. In general, it is a great principle of Biblical interpretation to take the most obvious meaning of any phrase, unless it would thus yield a sense hopelessly in conflict with the unambiguous teaching of other passages.

(p. 357)

(Baptist John Albert Broadus, Commentary on Matthew, 1886; reprinted by Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Classics, 1990; see larger excerpt)

* * * * *

In view of the background of verse 19 . . . one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter.

(Methodist William F. Albright, and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1971, Vol. 26, 195, 197-198)

* * * * *

Attempts to interpret the "rock" as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.

(Presbyterian David Hill, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, editors, The New Century Bible Commentary: London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972, 261)

* * * * *

On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . .

(Baptist D. A. Carson; in Frank E. Gaebelein, general editor, Expositor's Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke [Matthew: D. A. Carson], 368)



R. T. France [ source ]

It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the 'rock' here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus' new community . . . which will last forever.

(Anglican R. T. France; in Leon Morris, general editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, Vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

* * * * *

The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock (e.g., most recently Caragounis) seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.

(Presbyterian Donald A. Hagner, "Matthew 14-28," in David A. Hubbard and others, editors, World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b; Dallas: Word Books, 1995, 470)

See also the excellent, copiously documented article by fellow Catholic apologist Nicholas Hardesty: Protestant Scholars on Mt 16:16-19.

Passover in Judaism: "Past Events Become Present Today" (Analogy to the Sacrifice of the Mass) / "Remember" in Scripture

[ source ]

I have heard that Jews celebrating Passover believe that the past becomes present. As such, the Catholic sees a similarity to our notion of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and Jesus' death on the cross becoming present, and in a very real sense, transcending time altogether. We also believe that the Last Supper, where the Holy Eucharist was initiated, was a Passover meal. Many common notions could be explored with regard to the development of traditional Jewish understanding and Christian belief that is related to these in some fashion. For example, one ecumenical Jewish site stated:

The Jewish conviction that at the Seder past events become present today is something that can resonate strongly with Catholics. The Catholic concept of anamnesis corresponds to the Hebrew term zecher. Both refer to the use of ritual to make the past a lived present reality.

The Hebrew word zecher (in Strong's Concordance, zakar or zeker: words #2142-2145), are usually translated as remember or remembrance, or related terms. It seems to have a connotation of more than a mere remembrance. The thing remembered has a direct relation to the present. For example:

Exodus 2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

God "remembering" the covenant "made" it present insofar as it was still in force, thus enabling the Jews to win a battle. Of course, for God to "remember" anything is an anthropomorphism: God using expressions that human beings will understand. Since God knows everything at all times, to say that He "remembers" cannot be taken literally. If it were, this would imply a limitation of God's knowledge. But this is how it is often expressed: God "remembers" the covenant, which is very much a present (or eternal) thing, so that past and present are in effect merged:

Genesis 9:15-16 I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. [16] When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth."

Exodus 6:5 Moreover I have heard the groaning of the people of Israel whom the Egyptians hold in bondage and I have remembered my covenant.

Psalm 106:45 He remembered for their sake his covenant, and relented according to the abundance of his steadfast love.

Ezekiel 16:60 yet I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish with you an everlasting covenant.

1 Maccabees 4:10 And now let us cry to Heaven, to see whether he will favor us and remember his covenant with our fathers and crush this army before us today.

Luke 1:54 He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy,

Luke 1:72 to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant,

The "remembrance" is perfectly harmonious with being "present" and "eternal." It's the classic biblical, Hebraic "both/and" outlook. Less "sacramental" Protestants, on the other hand, often draw the conclusion that because the terminology of "remembrance" is used in the Last Supper and the Mass, that, therefore, the Eucharist is solely a thing of the past, to be reflected upon, with mere symbolism of bread and wine (or grape juice), as opposed to being a present reality, and the actual Body and Blood of Christ under the outward appearance of bread and wine: a miracle.

The Passover was a way for the Jews to remember, or make again present, the Exodus and deliverance from Egypt. Thus, when it was instituted, Moses stated:

Exodus 13:3-10 And Moses said to the people, "Remember this day, in which you came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage, for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place; no leavened bread shall be eaten. [4] This day you are to go forth, in the month of Abib. [5] And when the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, which he swore to your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, you shall keep this service in this month. [6] Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a feast to the LORD. [7] Unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days; no leavened bread shall be seen with you, and no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory. [8] And you shall tell your son on that day, `It is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.' [9] And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand the LORD has brought you out of Egypt. [10] You shall therefore keep this ordinance at its appointed time from year to year."

Likewise, the Sabbath was an ongoing observance, but the word "remember" is applied to it:

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

To "remember" all the commandments is to keep them in the present, and always:

Numbers 15:39-40 and it shall be to you a tassel to look upon and remember all the commandments of the LORD, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to go after wantonly. [40] So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God.

Psalm 103:18 to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments.

Psalm 119:55 I remember thy name in the night, O LORD, and keep thy law.

There was a spiritual, moral aspect to remembering, with regard to present conduct:

Deuteronomy 9:7 Remember and do not forget how you provoked the LORD your God to wrath in the wilderness; from the day you came out of the land of Egypt, until you came to this place, you have been rebellious against the LORD.

Deuteronomy 15:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

Deuteronomy 16:12 You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt; and you shall be careful to observe these statutes.

Deuteronomy 24:18,22 but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this. . . . [22] You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I command you to do this.

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

2 Peter 3:2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.

Jude 1:17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Revelation 3:3 Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you.

God "remembers" our acts of worship and prayers:

Exodus 28:29 So Aaron shall bear the names of the sons of Israel in the breastpiece of judgment upon his heart, when he goes into the holy place, to bring them to continual remembrance before the LORD.

Exodus 30:16 And you shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting; that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the LORD, so as to make atonement for yourselves.

Psalm 20:3 May he remember all your offerings, and regard with favor your burnt sacrifices! [Selah]

Acts 10:31 saying, `Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God.

"Remembering" God is virtually a synonym for reverence and worship of God:

Psalm 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in Sheol who can give thee praise?

Psalm 22:27 All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.

Isaiah 17:10 For you have forgotten the God of your salvation, and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge; therefore, though you plant pleasant plants
and set out slips of an alien god,

Jonah 2:7 When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the LORD; and my prayer came to thee, into thy holy temple.

Tobit 1:12 because I remembered God with all my heart.

Given all this background, the institution of the Holy Eucharist can now come into clearer focus:

Luke 22;19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." [25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

The Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass are present realities, not just bare symbolic, abstract thoughts. The Jewish Passover has this characteristic also. Rabbi Yossi Kenigsberg explains:

. . . on no other Jewish holiday are we instructed to have a formalized dialogue and discussion recollecting the relevant historical events of the time. Why did our sages provide us with the Haggadah text and prescribe this lengthy and detailed analysis of our Egyptian experience?

Besides celebrating our physical emancipation from slavery, on Pesach we also commemorate the anniversary of Jewish nationhood and identity. Since the Exodus represents the genesis of our Jewish collective identity, it is vital that we do everything possible to discover and reaffirm our Jewish consciousness at this juncture. In order to achieve this, we must feel a connection to our Jewish past, present and future. The objective of the seder and the Haggadah format is to facilitate the opportunity for us to develop an acute sense of affiliation with the past, present, and future of the Jewish experience. . . .

Throughout the trials and tribulations of Jewish history, God continuously intervenes on our behalf and we are confident that His divine protection will always embrace us. The fusion of the past, present, and future that we created on those first nights of Pesach will provide for us and for our children a glimpse into eternity.

In a book specifically about the Passover celebration, Martin Sicker provides further relevant insight (all emphases in original):

The Haggadah then continues with a statement that is also found in the Mishnah that calls upon each participant in the Seder to share vicariously in the experience of the Exodus.

In every generation one is obliged to view oneself as though he [personally] had gone out from Egypt. As it is said: And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt (Ex. 13:8).

The Haggadah then amplifies this teaching, providing an appropriate biblical prooftext in support of its elaboration.

The Holy One, blessed is He, did not redeem only our ancestors, but also redeemed us along with them. As it is said: And He brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which He swore unto our fathers. (Deut. 6:23).

. . . The Mishnah calls upon each participant in the Seder to make an intellectual leap across the millennia and thereby to share directly in the experience of their ancestors.

(A Passover Seder Companion and Analytic Introduction to the Haggadah, IUniverse, 2004, p. 104)

Another Jewish source concurs:

By participating in the Seder, we are vicariously reliving the Exodus from Egypt. Around our festival table, the past and present merge and the future is promising.

Rabbi Dan Fink provides another eloquent explanation:

Our sages taught: “In every generation, it is incumbent upon us to see ourselves as if we, too, went out from Egypt.” Pesach is not about remembering the distant past; it is about re-experiencing that past in the present time. It is not the story of our ancestors long ago; it is our story. Our challenge is to consider what enslaves us — anything and everything from money to television to old, stale habits — and find ways to free ourselves from those burdens. The Hebrew word for Egypt, mitzrayim, means “a narrow place.” This spring festival of deliverance is the time of our own liberation, an opportunity to renew ourselves.

So this year, don’t ask, “When do we eat?” Savor the journey rather than kvetching your way to the destination. Find creative ways to make your seder a living, breathing experience of redemption. Raise other, better questions: “What can I do to change the world this year? What still enslaves me? How can I help hasten the redemption of others still in bondage?” It’s not about the food. It’s about the freedom. Experience it this year.

Citing some of the same passages from the Talmud, Jewish educator Jennie Rosenfeld wonderfully expresses the same notions:

. . . it is particularly difficult to imagine how anyone so historically removed from the Egyptian exile can personally experience the redemption from Egypt in the same way that the Jewish slaves experienced it. . . . If we use this season in order to tap into our personal need for redemption in the here and now, we can either vicariously relate to or truly experience yetziat mitzrayim (exodus from Egypt) in our own lives. . . .

One type of holiness is kedushat hazman, holiness of time; the time of year in which miracles occurred in the past has within it the potential for future miracles. Jewish holidays both commemorate past miracles and contain the kedushat hazman, the temporal holiness, which we can access to effect miracles now. . . . by believing in the miracle of yetziat mitzrayim, we can experience it again now in our personal lives. Every individual can tap into this season in order to leave his/her personal meitzar (place of narrowness or confinement) or mitzrayim. The fact that Pesach occurs in the spring, the season in which nature renews itself and the flowers begin to blossom, foreshadows this potential for personal growth.

These fascinating aspects of the Jewish self-understanding of Passover have obvious analogical implications relative to the Catholic Mass. The great Catholic writer Karl Adam exclaimed:

The Sacrifice of Calvary, as a great supra-temporal reality, enters into the immediate present. Space and time are abolished. The same Jesus is here present who died on the Cross. The whole congregation unites itself with His holy sacrificial will, and through Jesus present before it consecrates itself to the heavenly Father as a living oblation. So Holy Mass is a tremendously real experience, the experience of the reality of Golgotha.

(The Spirit of Catholicism, translated by Dom Justin McCann, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1954; originally 1924 in German, 197)

In conclusion, here are my thoughts, from my (1996) book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 99-100):

Some verses in Revelation state that the "prayers of the saints" are being offered at the altar in the form of incense (8:3-4; cf. 5:8-9). But the climactic scene of this entire glorious portrayal of Heaven occurs in Revelation 5:1-7. Verse 6 describes "a Lamb standing as though it had been slain." Since the Lamb (Jesus, of course) is revealed as sitting in the midst of God's throne (5:6; 7:17; 22:1,3; cf. Matt. 19:28; 25:31; Heb. 1:8), which is in front of the golden altar (Rev. 8:3), then it appears that the presentation of Christ to the Father as a sacrifice is an ongoing (from God's perspective, timeless) occurrence, precisely as in Catholic teaching. Thus the Mass is no more than what occurs in Heaven, according to the clear revealed word of Scripture. When Hebrews speaks of a sacrifice made once (Heb. 7:27), this is from a purely human, historical perspective (which Catholicism acknowledges in holding that the Mass is a "re-presentation" of the one Sacrifice at Calvary). However, there is a transcendent aspect of the Sacrifice as well.

Jesus is referred to as the Lamb twenty-eight times throughout Revelation (compared with four times in the rest of the New Testament: John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19). Why, in Revelation (of all places), if the Crucifixion is a past event, and the Christian's emphasis ought to be on the resurrected, glorious, kingly Jesus, as is stressed in Protestantism (as evidenced by a widespread disdain for, crucifixes)? Obviously, the heavenly emphasis is on Jesus' Sacrifice, which is communicated by God to John as present and "now" (Rev. 5:6; cf. Heb. 7:24)

Open Forum

Please be courteous and charitable.

Antidote to John Calvin's Institutes (IV,8:10-16) [Calvin's Anti-Catholic Propagandizing / Radical Individualism / Tradition and the Bible]

See the introduction and links to all installments at the top of my John Calvin, Calvinism, and General Protestantism web page; also the online version of the Institutes. Calvin's words will be in blue throughout. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

Book IV

CHAPTER 8

OF THE POWER OF THE CHURCH IN ARTICLES OF FAITH. THE UNBRIDLED LICENCE OF THE PAPAL CHURCH IN DESTROYING PURITY OF DOCTRINE.

10. The Roman tyrants have taught a different doctrine—viz. that Councils cannot err, and, therefore, may coin new dogmas.

But if this power of the church which is here described be contrasted with that which spiritual tyrants, falsely styling themselves bishops and religious prelates, have now for several ages exercised among the people of God, there will be no more agreement than that of Christ with Belial.

Nice melodramatic, rhetorical touch . . . this is how mere propaganda (as opposed to cogent rational argument and demonstration) proceeds.

It is not my intention here to unfold the manner, the unworthy manner, in which they have used their tyranny;

Of course there is no antecedent question considered: whether Catholics en masse are indeed "tyrants." Calvin has said so, after all.

I will only state the doctrine which they maintain in the present day, first, in writing, and then, by fire and sword.

Ah, yes. And we all know that Protestants never hurt a flea, right?

Taking it for granted, that a universal council is a true representation of the Church,

. . . which is what the Christian Church had always taught . . .

they set out with this principle, and, at the same time, lay it down as incontrovertible, that such councils are under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot err.

That was the case with the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:25,28-29), and all true councils. Why would Calvin think that this state of affairs is no longer applicable in the Church? Jesus (John, chapters 14-16) said we would have the Holy Spirit to guide us. Has Calvin lost faith in that ongoing guidance? It is a spectacle to behold such continual lack of faith in God's promises and manifest examples in Holy Scripture. Man-centered outlooks descend to that level. When one puts one's faith in God, to guide sinful men for His sovereign purposes, it's very different. Calvin wants to emphasize God's sovereignty, which is good, but seems to repeatedly deny it when it comes to examining how God leads men for His sovereign purposes.

But as they rule councils, nay, constitute them, they in fact claim for themselves whatever they maintain to be due to councils.

It's not circular reasoning, as he implies, but a biblical notion, as just shown.

Therefore, they will have our faith to stand and fall at their pleasure, so that whatever they have determined on either side must be firmly seated in our minds; what they approve must be approved by us without any doubt; what they condemn we also must hold to be justly condemned.

That is, whatever is believed by all, everywhere, from the beginning (apostolic succession). Calvin cleverly makes out that there is some sort of "epistemological equivalence" between the Protestant rejection of so many Catholic doctrines, and the Catholic position which had been consistently maintained for 1500 years. That is ludicrous in and of itself. But it plays well to the crowd, in making out that it is supposedly a matter of "arbitrary Catholic dogmatism and power vs. biblical Protestantism." It's superb propaganda, but it is nonexistent reasoning.

Meanwhile, at their own caprice, and in contempt of the word of God, they coin doctrines to which they in this way demand our assent, declaring that no man can be a Christian unless he assent to all their dogmas, affirmative as well as negative, if not with explicit, yet with implicit faith, because it belongs to the Church to frame new articles of faith.

The Church had always done this. Why should it cease now? Even granting Calvin's perspective that his alternative Christian worldview and "system" is equally plausible as the Catholic Church, it is foolish to condemn the very notion of an enforced orthodoxy (by anyone), since, after all, Calvin's "church" acted in exactly the same way, sometimes to the point of death for those who disagreed. What he needs to do is show how some Catholic doctrine or other is false, from Scripture and history and reason. But that is too much work. Empty rhetoric suits his purposes just fine. The Institutes is nothing if not preaching to the choir and riling up the true believers to oppose Harlot Rome.

11. Answer to the Papistical arguments for the authority of the Church. Argument, that the Church is to be led into all truth. Answer. This promise made not only to the whole Church, but to every individual believer.

First, let us hear by what arguments they prove that this authority was given to the Church, and then we shall see how far their allegations concerning the Church avail them.

Great! Let's do that, and let's especially look to see what allegedly superior alternative Calvin offers.

The Church, they say, has the noble promise that she will never be deserted by Christ her spouse, but be guided by his Spirit into all truth. But of the promises which they are wont to allege, many were given not less to private believers than to the whole Church. For although the Lord spake to the twelve apostles, when he said, “Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Mt. 28:20); and again, “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever: even the Spirit of truth” (John 14:16, 17), he made these promises not only to the twelve, but to each of them separately, nay, in like manner, to other disciples whom he already had received, or was afterwards to receive.

That will only compound Calvin's epistemological problems, if he wishes to minimize the corporate nature of Christianity (as Protestantism always tends to do, by nature). Then he will have to show how individuals possess the fullness of truth, over against institutions, and that opens up a bunch of cans of worms that have no resolution whatsoever within the Protestant presuppositional framework. Calvin has not yet denied the doctrine of a teaching, disciplining Church, so in a way he is at cross-purposes with himself in making these points.

When they interpret these promises, which are replete with consolation, in such a way as if they were not given to any particular Christian but to the whole Church together, what else is it but to deprive Christians of the confidence which they ought thence to have derived, to animate them in their course?

This is ludicrous, because if Church-wide belief is rejected, why is it that Protestants (including Calvin himself) maintained creeds and confessions? Obviously there is a sense in which the individual has to yield to truths larger than he himself, in his little subjective world, or else we'd have as many creeds as there are Christian brains, just as Luther disdainfully observed, about "as many sects as there are heads." This line of reasoning goes nowhere. It's doomed to failure, every time. It defeats the purpose of Calvin's own book, here under consideration, if the next Christian can simply say, "that's just Calvin's opinion. What does it have to do with me? It undermines my confidence in Christ to determine my own doctrines; therefore, I reject it as irrelevant. I have the Holy Spirit, and my Bible. Who needs Calvin?" Etc., etc. If a person's "argument" undermines the very words he is writing, then we must step back and see what went wrong: what premise is questionable.

I deny not that the whole body of the faithful is furnished with a manifold variety of gifts, and endued with a far larger and richer treasure of heavenly wisdom than each Christian apart;

Good; but his argument ultimately undercuts these truths.

nor do I mean that this was said of believers in general, as implying that all possess the spirit of wisdom and knowledge in an equal degree: but we are not to give permission to the adversaries of Christ to defend a bad cause, by wresting Scripture from its proper meaning.

Meaning according to whom? Calvin? If he decides, then his dogmatism is even more objectionable than what he decries as Catholic dogmatism, because it is both more arbitrary and dogmatic, insofar as he is just one man, acting alone (whereas even popes act according to prior tradition and the current Mind of the Church). And (quite obviously) we have to figure out who is right when Protestants disagree (as they always, invariably do). Who has the Spirit? Who is "unbiblical"? Does Calvin's opinions trump even Luther's when they disagree?

Omitting this, however, I simply hold what is true—viz. that the Lord is always present with his people, and guides them by his Spirit. He is the Spirit,not of error, ignorance, falsehood, or darkness, but of sure revelation, wisdom, truth, and light, from whom they can, without deception, learn the things which have been given to them (1 Cor. 2:12); in other words, “what is the hope of their calling, and what the riches of the glory of their inheritance in the saints” (Eph. 1:18). But while believers, even those of them who are endued with more excellent graces, obtain in the present life only the first-fruits, and, as it were, a foretaste of the Spirit, nothing better remains to them than, under a consciousness of their weakness, to confine themselves anxiously within the limits of the word of God, lest, in following their own sense too far, they forthwith stray from the right path, being left without that Spirit, by whose teaching alone truth is discerned from falsehood. For all confess with Paul, that “they have not yet reached the goal” (Phil. 3:12). Accordingly, they rather aim at daily progress than glory in perfection.

But folks who are equally led by the Spirit do in fact arrive at different interpretations of this Scripture. Authoritative dogma and boundaries are always required, for that reason. God knew this, which is why He set up an authoritative teaching Church. not a system of individualistic subjectivism, which is far more a secular Enlightenment or Romantic or eastern religious concept than a biblical one.

12. Answers continued.

But it will be objected, that whatever is attributed in part to any of the saints, belongs in complete fulness to the Church. Although there is some semblance of truth in this, I deny that it is true. God, indeed, measures out the gifts of his Spirit to each of the members, so that nothing necessary to the whole body is wanting, since the gifts are bestowed for the common advantage. The riches of the Church, however, are always of such a nature, that much is wanting to that supreme perfection of which our opponents boast.

More lack of faith . . . we must never seek for the ideal that is discussed in Scripture. God is too weak to accomplish that with sinful men, so thinks Calvin (and indeed, all Protestants, by virtue of their system and what they deny).

Still the Church is not left destitute in any part, but always has as much as is sufficient, for the Lord knows what her necessities require. But to keep her in humility and pious modesty, he bestows no more on her than he knows to be expedient.

Another way of saying that "God is not powerful enough to bring about doctrinal certainty" . . .

I am aware, it is usual here to object, that Christ hath cleansed the Church “with the washing of water by the word: that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle” (Eph. 5:26, 27), and that it is therefore called the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). But the former passage rather shows what Christ daily performs in it, than what he has already perfected. For if he daily sanctifies all his people, purifies, refines them, and wipes away their stains, it is certain that they have still some spots and wrinkles, and that their sanctification is in some measure defective.

Catholics don't deny this, but we also don't deny, as Calvin does, that the goal and the ideal is always there to progress toward.

How vain and fabulous is it to suppose that the Church, all whose members are somewhat spotted and impure, is completely holy and spotless in every part?

How is that any more objectionable than Calvin's own imputed justification, in which God declares someone who is obviously still a sinner, righteous? This is a rather strange argument for Calvin, of all people, to make. He's the one who formally separated sanctification from justification and from salvation itself.

It is true, therefore, that the Church is sanctified by Christ, but here the commencement of her sanctification only is seen; the end and entire completion will be effected when Christ, the Holy of holies, shall truly and completely fill her with his holiness. It is true also, that her stains and wrinkles have been effaced, but so that the process is continued every day, until Christ at his advent will entirely remove every remaining defect.

And, by the same token, and by analogy, the same applies to the individual. It is Catholics who teach progressive sanctification as part and parcel of justification, but Calvin denies that. So his argument is again at cross-purposes with itself.

For unless we admit this, we shall be constrained to hold with the Pelagians, that the righteousness of believers is perfected in this life:

Pelagians denied the absolute necessity of God's grace to accomplish righteousness and salvation. Catholics do not (as Calvin often wrongly denies).

like the Cathari and Donatists we shall tolerate no infirmity in the Church.

These groups were condemned by the Catholic Church, so it is odd for Calvin to attempt to make them similar to Catholicism.

The other passage, as we have elsewhere seen (chap. 1 sec. 10), has a very different meaning from what they put upon it. For when Paul instructed Timothy, and trained him to the office of a true bishop, he says, he did it in order that he might learn how to behave himself in the Church of God. And to make him devote himself to the work with greater seriousness and zeal, he adds, that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. And what else do these words mean, than just that the truth of God is preserved in the Church, and preserved by the instrumentality of preaching; as he elsewhere says, that Christ “gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;” “that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, who is the head, even Christ”? (Eph. 4:11, 14, 15) The reason, therefore, why the truth, instead of being extinguished in the world, remains unimpaired, is, because he has the Church as a faithful guardian, by whose aid and ministry it is maintained.

Indeed! This is a good statement, but Calvin fails to consistently apply it. He asserts it here, but fights it somewhere else, and often he does both within the span of a few paragraphs.

But if this guardianship consists in the ministry of the Prophets and Apostles, it follows, that the whole depends upon this—viz. that the word of the Lord is faithfully preserved and maintained in purity.

Yes; it requires faith that God can bring this about, even though He is working with sinful men. Calvin lacks that faith. Catholics who accept all that the Church teaches possess it.

13. Answers continued.

And that my readers may the better understand the hinge on which the question chiefly turns, I will briefly explain what our opponents demand, and what we resist. When they deny that the Church can err, their end and meaning are to this effect: Since the Church is governed by the Spirit of God, she can walk safely without the word; in whatever direction she moves, she cannot think or speak anything but the truth, and hence, if she determines anything without or beside the word of God, it must be regarded in no other light than if it were a divine oracle.

The Catholic Church doesn't create dogmas with no regard for Scripture. If Calvin wishes to assert the charge, why doesn't he document it? But we've seen again and again that he doesn't trouble himself to do that. It's not necessary to do in propagandizing efforts. Mere statements suffice, whether true or false. People will believe them if they are unwilling or unable to do their own independent research, and above all, if they are predisposed to be hostile towards the Catholic Church, as Calvin is.

If we grant the first point—viz. that the Church cannot err in things necessary to salvation—

For a change, Calvin makes a necessary qualification of the Catholic claim to infallibility.

our meaning is, that she cannot err, because she has altogether discarded her own wisdom, and submits to the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the word of God. Here then is the difference. They place the authority of the Church without the word of God;

That is casually assumed without being demonstrated. We make no such dichotomy. Calvin does because he thinks in "either/or" terms: for him, if there is true Church authority, this must somehow inexorably be opposed to Scripture in some essential fashion. It's simply not true.

we annex it to the word, and allow it not to be separated from it.

Again, this remains to be proven. Calvin makes the claim, but lots of folks folks make lots of claims. The proof is in the pudding.

And is it strange if the spouse and pupil of Christ is so subject to her lord and master as to hang carefully and constantly on his lips? In every well-ordered house the wife obeys the command of her husband, in every well-regulated school the doctrine of the master only is listened to. Wherefore, let not the Church be wise in herself, nor think any thing of herself, but let her consider her wisdom terminated when he ceases to speak.

Now Jesus the Head is set against the Body of Christ, the Church. That makes a lot of sense? Obviously, they work together, however one construes the Church. But Calvin must create a false dichotomy. Jesus is Head of the Church; therefore the pope cannot be an earthly head. Jesus is Head of the Church; therefore, His Body, the Church, must be at odds with Him, etc.

In this way she will distrust all the inventions of her own reason; and when she leans on the word of God, will not waver in diffidence or hesitation but rest in full assurance and unwavering constancy.

Amen! Competing Protestant sects sure do not exhibit a characteristic of "constancy," do they?

Trusting to the liberal promises which she has received, she will have the means of nobly maintaining her faith, never doubting that the Holy Spirit is always present with her to be the perfect guide of her path. At the same time, she will remember the use which God wishes to be derived from his Spirit. “When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). How? “He shall bring to your remembrance all things whatsoever I have said unto you.” He declares, therefore, that nothing more is to be expected of his Spirit than to enlighten our minds to perceive the truth of his doctrine. Hence Chrysostom most shrewdly observes, “Many boast of the Holy Spirit, but with those who speak their own it is a false pretence. As Christ declared that he spoke not of himself (John 12:50; 14:10), because he spoke according to the Law and the Prophets; so, if anything contrary to the Gospel is obtruded under the name of the Holy Spirit, let us not believe it. For as Christ is the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets, so is the Spirit the fulfilment of the Gospel” (Chrysost. Serm. de Sancto et Adorando Spiritu.) Thus far Chrysostom. We may now easily infer how erroneously our opponents act in vaunting of the Holy Spirit, for no other end than to give the credit of his name to strange doctrines, extraneous to the word of God,

Again he assumes what he needs to prove . . . it's very easy to "argue": "my opponent advocates a pack of lies." It's the easiest thing in the world to claim. But to prove that each disputed belief is a falsehood and a lie is another thing entirely. Often Calvin refuses to even attempt the latter. He'll make the charge without the slightest attempt at proof.

whereas he himself desires to be inseparably connected with the word of God; and Christ declares the same thing of him, when he promises him to the Church. And so indeed it is. The soberness which our Lord once prescribed to his Church, he wishes to be perpetually observed. He forbade that anything should be added to his word, and that anything should be taken from it. This is the inviolable decree of God and the Holy Spirit, a decree which our opponents endeavour to annul when they pretend that the Church is guided by the Spirit without the word.

Who ever claimed that the Catholic Church was somehow opposed to the Bible? I'd love to see that demonstration, but as usual, Calvin does not provide us with evidence of his claim. This portion is remarkably inept and inadequate. I can't see that anyone would be impressed with it, except the one who is already a "true (Calvinist) believer" and inclined to a prior anti-Catholicism.

14. Argument, that the Church should supply the deficiency of the written word by traditions. Answer.

Here again they mutter that the Church behoved to add something to the writings of the apostles, or that the apostles themselves behoved orally to supply what they had less clearly taught, since Christ said to them, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now” (John 16:12), and that these are the points which have been received, without writing, merely by use and custom. But what effrontery is this?

There is plenty of evidence in Scripture that there were traditions passed down, not all of which were contained in Scripture itself. I've already noted that, with links to hard evidences of same, and so won't repeat myself.

The disciples, I admit, were ignorant and almost indocile when our Lord thus addressed them, but were they still in this condition when they committed his doctrine to writing, so as afterwards to be under the necessity of supplying orally that which, through ignorance, they had omitted to write? If they were guided by the Spirit of truth unto all truth when they published their writings, what prevented them from embracing a full knowledge of the Gospel, and consigning it therein?

Inspiration works despite the shortcomings of the instrument used.

But let us grant them what they ask, provided they point out the things which behoved to be revealed without writing. Should they presume to attempt this, I will address them in the words of Augustine, “When the Lord is silent, who of us may say, this is, or that is? or if we should presume to say it, how do we prove it?” (August. in Joann. 96)

Yes; that is true as a general statement. It doesn't prove that there is no such thing as oral tradition. Augustine accepts oral tradition himself, after all:

. . . the custom, which is opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings.

(On Baptism, 5, 23:31; NPNF 1, IV, 475)

St. Augustine does not set apostolic succession against Scripture, as Calvin does:

[I]f you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all.

(Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 33:9; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 345)

And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants.

(On Baptism, 4, 24, 31; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 61)

But why do I contend superfluously?

Good question!

Every child knows that in the writings of the apostles, which these men represent as mutilated and incomplete, is contained the result of that revelation which the Lord then promised to them.

Catholics do not do this. Scripture often points to traditions outside of itself, that are yet true. Therefore, to hold such a view is not to hold to a "mutilated and incomplete" Bible. It is to hold to all that the Bible itself asserts. The Protestant, like Calvin, who denies that there is such a thing as a Tradition described and fully accepted in Scripture, is the one who is mutilating Scripture, because he selectively disbelieves part of that same Scripture. He doesn't accept all of it, in its totality. He picks and chooses (the literal meaning of "heresy").

15. Argument founded on Mt. 18:17. Answer.

What, say they, did not Christ declare that nothing which the Church teaches and decrees can be gainsayed, when he enjoined that every one who presumes to contradict should be regarded as a heathen man and a publican? (Mt. 18:17.) First, there is here no mention of doctrine, but her authority to censure, for correction is asserted, in order that none who had been admonished or reprimanded might oppose her judgment.

I agree, with regard to this passage.

But to say nothing of this, it is very strange that those men are so lost to all sense of shame, that they hesitate not to plume themselves on this declaration. For what, pray, will they make of it, but just that the consent of the Church, a consent never given but to the word of God, is not to be despised? The Church is to be heard, say they. Who denies this? since she decides nothing but according to the word of God.

This is a clever use of the redefined notion of "Church" that Calvin has brought in. In effect, he argues: "No one is denying Church authority because the Church is what I now say it is; therefore it is true and to be followed."

If they demand more than this, let them know that the words of Christ give them no countenance. I ought not to seem contentious when I so vehemently insist that we cannot concede to the Church any new doctrine; in other words, allow her to teach and oracularly deliver more than the Lord has revealed in his word.

Catholics agree insofar as we believe in material sufficiency of Scripture and the completeness of the apostolic deposit. We disagree insofar as we think there is development of existing, scriptural doctrines, and infallible Church authority.

Men of sense see how great the danger is if so much authority is once conceded to men.

Here again is the hostility to the idea of God using sinners as His instruments, for His purposes. Calvin doesn't have faith enough to believe that God could do that. And so he has to radically reshape the doctrine of the Church, to reflect his own lack of faith in God's power and promises.

They see also how wide a door is opened for the jeers and cavils of the ungodly, if we admit that Christians are to receive the opinions of men as if they were oracles.

Every writer of Scripture was an oracle because he wrote inspired words. If one can believe in that miracle, as Calvin does, the gift of infallibility requires less faith. Yet he rejects the latter, as it it were at all impossible for God to accomplish. Apostles already spoke with extraordinary authority. Why not the Church? Why does Calvin not grasp these elementary factors?

We may add, that our Saviour, speaking according to the circumstances of his times, gave the name of Church to the Sanhedrim, that the disciples might learn afterwards to revere the sacred meetings of the Church. Hence it would follow, that single cities and districts would have equal liberty in coining dogmas.

This more convoluted reasoning. The Sanhedrin governed all of Israel, not just Jerusalem. Jesus acknowledged their authority, even over Christians (Matthew 23:1-3). He didn't say they could "coin dogmas." The Catholic Church develops doctrine, and at length makes more particulars binding, so as to protect the faithful from heresy. Calvin has no objection to that when it regards a doctrine he accepts: like the Holy Trinity. He only starts disliking it when it entails Catholic doctrines that he doesn't like.

16. Objections founded on Infant Baptism, and the Canon of the Council of Nice, as to the consubstantiality of the Son. Answer.

The examples which they bring do not avail them. They say that pædobaptism proceeds not so much on a plain command of Scripture, as on a decree of the Church. It would be a miserable asylum if, in defence of pædobaptism, we were obliged to betake ourselves to the bare authority of the Church; but it will be made plain enough elsewhere (chap. 16) that it is far otherwise.

I think there are some plain indications in Scripture (Calvin himself makes some excellent analogies between circumcision and baptism, following and drawing out Paul's reasoning); yet, the fact that there is dispute of biblical teaching on baptism, and the existence of Baptists and others, who do not see infant baptism at all in Scripture, necessitated Church authority in some sense. Christians of different stripes couldn't manage to come to agreement. That is always the problem.

In like manner, when they object that we nowhere find in the Scriptures what was declared in the Council of Nice—viz. that the Son is consubstantial with the Father (see August. Ep. 178)—they do a grievous injustice to the Fathers, as if they had rashly condemned Arius for not swearing to their words, though professing the whole of that doctrine which is contained in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets. I admit that the expression does not exist in Scripture, but seeing it is there so often declared that there is one God, and Christ is so often called true and eternal God, one with the Father, what do the Nicene Fathers do when they affirm that he is of one essence, than simply declare the genuine meaning of Scripture?

Calvin is basically correct, I think. Yet there were nuances expressed at Trent that brought out and expanded upon the meaning of Scriptural Christology.

Theodoret relates that Constantine, in opening their meeting, spoke as follows: “In the discussion of divine matters, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit stands recorded. The Gospels and apostolical writings, with the oracles of the prophets, fully show us the meaning of the Deity. Therefore, laying aside discord, let us take the exposition of questions from the words of the Spirit” (Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 1 c. 5). There was none who opposed this sound advice; none who objected that the Church could add something of her own, that the Spirit did not reveal all things to the apostles, or at least that they did not deliver them to posterity, and so forth.

Correct; but it proves nothing one way or the other.

If the point on which our opponents insist is true, Constantine, first, was in error in robbing the Church of her power; and, secondly, when none of the bishops rose to vindicate it, their silence was a kind of perfidy, and made them traitors to Ecclesiastical law. But since Theodoret relates that they readily embraced what the Emperor said, it is evident that this new dogma was then wholly unknown.

It is all easily understood as the acceptance of biblical inspiration and sufficiency, while not ruling out authoritative interpretation and development of dogma. It's a non-issue that Calvin is vainly trying to exploit in order to make polemical hay.