Review of Orthodox Catholic Bible Commentaries (David W. Emery)

The wonderful Bernard Orchard commentary, recently reformatted and reprinted by my friend Daniel Egan.

David W. Emery is my co-worker on the Coming Home Network Forum.

* * * * *

Catholic biblical commentaries seem to be burgeoning everywhere these days, and since a forum member recently asked for information about what was available and recommendable, I have compiled the following list.

The king of Catholic scripture commentaries these days seems to be the Navarre Bible, based on the Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition and published in the US by Scepter Publishers. It comes in three sizes: small, medium and large. These are entirely separate works designed for different purposes and different levels of readership. The small (Compact) and medium (Expanded) New Testament commentaries are a single volume each, the latter being rather hefty. The large size edition, covering the entire bible, comes in multiple volumes, which can be purchased separately. The New Testament is available in 12 paperback volumes or three hardback volumes. The Old Testament comes in seven hardback volumes. Beginning in March 2010, a paperback series of the Old Testament will also be published. Pre-orders are already available for Genesis and Exodus.

Small (relatively speaking — at over 700 pages it’s not thin!) and inexpensive, but adequate for casual personal use: Navarre Compact New Testament. I don't know the exact pedigree of this text, but it appears to be a freely adapted and condensed version of the Expanded New Testament.

For most Catholics interested in penetrating the meaning of scripture, I can recommend the 1066 page, oversized and hefty Navarre Expanded New Testament as a good balance between brevity and completeness. Coincidentally, an electronic text which I purchased several years ago included a Spanish edition of the entire work, both Old and New Testaments, so I am already familiar with the work. I can recommend it as tightly written, proceeding section by section rather than verse by verse, and relating the biblical text directly to Catholic doctrine and practice wherever possible, with generous use of authoritative quotes given the compactness of the text.

There remains the big multi-volume set, suitable for the serious student. Without being technical, this version is thorough, including longish quotes from the fathers and doctors of the Church, the saints and the Church’s magisterial texts to illustrate and explain the meaning of scripture topic by topic, passage by passage, verse by verse, and sometimes even word by word. It also includes essays on the various books of the bible and general biblical themes.

The Navarre multi-volume series standard presentation is a 10 volume hardbound set covering the entire bible. But the New Testament portion remains available in paperback volumes (I bought mine a decade ago, when this was the only version offered) with the full commentary spread across in 12 individual books (under $20 each). Beginning in March 2010, paperback editions of the Navarre Old Testament volumes will begin to appear. Pre-orders for Genesis and Exodus are already being taken by the publisher. This paperback series puts at least portions of the multi-volume commentary within reach of most Catholics in the US.

Meanwhile, over in California, Ignatius Press is at long last going to release its one volume edition of the Ignatius Study Bible New Testament in April 2010. This work is based on the Revised Standard Version – Second Catholic Edition, and its price will be very reasonable, about $30. Pre-orders are $20 on Amazon. This will be much more popular than their current pamphlets, which are reasonable for study groups but nickel and dime you to death if you want to delve into more than a few individual books of the bible.

Scott Hahn is the general editor and one of the authors of this amply annotated bible from Ignatius. It is somewhat more scholarly in tone than the Navarre offerings, but still not all that technical. Good brain fodder, although not a full-blown commentary. At this point, only one question remains: Given that it took eight years to bring the single volume New Testament to press, will they ever publish a complementary Old Testament commentary?

By contrast, an interesting niche product is the commentary by Cornelius a’Lapide, an extraordinary 17th century Catholic scholar from the Netherlands. The first four volumes of a projected 30+ volume publishing venture, on the four Gospels, have already been published. They are evidently not available as separate volumes, and the set of four is frightfully expensive for what is envisioned as a initial outlay. Fortunately, it is also possible to purchase online access to an e-book version of the work for a small fraction of that cost.

a’Lapide’s voluminous writings investigate many curious details of ancient, medieval and renaissance biblical interpretation, including arguments from science, history, philology and other disciplines. He also cites the Fathers of the Church at nearly every turn, allowing a broad view of the ancient wisdom.

There is one last recently initiated work that has some merit, although it is based on ICEL’s New American Bible. The NAB's virtues and weaknesses have been discussed thoroughly in other forum threads. Here, I will only point the reader to what one well-known Catholic scholar, author and apologist, Fr. Peter Stravinskas, recently had to say about his experience working for ICEL in one of their liturgical translation projects back in the day when the NAB was also being engendered.

This new NAB-based series is called Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. It is a new publication still in formation, with only a few volumes out so far. Its forte is that it includes solid Catholic scholars such as Mary Healy and George Montague. Authors for forthcoming volumes include Edward Sri, Curtis Mitch, Scott Hahn and Peter Williamson. With such a line-up, this may turn out to be a worthwhile project in spite of its foundation text.

An online resource that I find of considerable value, even though it is a rather old (19th century) translation, is the Catena Aurea, a compendium of pertinent passages from the Fathers of the Church on the Gospels edited by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. (The listing is on the right side, under Biblical Commentaries. Note that this website lists a wide variety of works by St. Thomas, including a number of his own scriptural commentaries, which are in themselves a valuable resource.) The Catena Aurea is also available in newly re-typeset book form for those who prefer it.

Also online is the old (17th century English) Haydock commentary, available online here. It’s also available in book form (unfortunately from a schismatic traditionalist source) for about $125 for those who think it worth the price. Some people swear by it, others swear at it; I suppose ecclesiastical politics have something to do with that. If the Douay-Rheims version, Counterreformation and archaic language are not your thing, you can pass. I use the free electronic text as a secondary resource.

For sheer scholarship (rather more like the typical Protestant commentaries that many of us are familiar with), you can’t beat A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Bernard Orchard — commonly known as the “Orchard Commentary.” This is a single hefty volume (unabridged dictionary size) of rather small type which covers the entire bible, following the Douay-Rheims version. It was published in 1950, and all known copies are from the early to mid-50s. It is a collector’s item, running between $100 and $200 a copy, depending on condition.

[My additional note: The New Testament portion of this commentary was recently reprinted at Lulu by a friend of mine, Daniel Egan. It costs $39.95 for 451 large pages. The print is larger, too: 11 pt. instead of 8 pt.]

Another collector’s item — this time aimed at the layman — is the original Jerusalem Bible of 1970, with its extensive notes. I have my personal copy of this, which I actually bought back in 1970 when it was hot off the press. It’s a two volume edition. I’ve heard that, depending on condition, this set brings about $50 to $100 from used booksellers these days. These notes are more like the Navarre Compact Edition in size, but are completely different and one of the few post-Vatican II biblical scholarship resources that remained orthodox. A few years ago, the publisher re-issued a Reader’s Edition of the Jerusalem Bible (to be distinguished from the New Jerusalem Bible, which is a separate work), but sadly, this edition does not contain the notes.

Speaking of post-Vatican II commentaries and lack of orthodoxy, I recommend staying away from the Jerome Biblical Commentary (featuring Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, Roland Murphy and several other notorious personages of the period), the Collegeville Bible Commentary (Daniel Durken, Barbara Reid, Terrence Keegan, Daniel Harrington, et al) and practically anything else that was published between 1970 and 1995.

There is a wealth of scholarship and wisdom in most of the works listed above, and there seems to be something for just about anyone who has a need for a deeper understanding of scripture, no matter what his current level of knowledge. But let us keep in mind that we will be judged, not on what we know, but on what we do. So if someone has to make a choice, it is more important to be a Christian than to study about being a Christian. The Church is the one who teaches; listening is, therefore, far more important than reading.

* * *

As an adjunct to this thread on the various scriptural commentaries, I believe it will be profitable to provide some samples of what one can expect in each work. For the biblical text, I have chosen today’s Gospel Reading from the Mass (Latin Rite, Ordinary Form, Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle C), Luke 5:1–11, regarding the miraculous catch of fish.

As will become evident, there are two different approaches to the explanations given. One is traditional, explaining the meaning of the passage first according to the literal sense, then according to the spiritual sense, highlighting the doctrine of the Church; the other is scientific, informing as to cross references, the words being used and their definitions, explanations of how the narrative fits into the chronology given elsewhere, etc.

It should be noted that, according to Catholic tradition, there are four senses of scripture: the literal, the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical. See Catechism of the Catholic Church §115–119 for an explanation.

One may say that both kinds of information — the scientific and the doctrinal/spiritual — are helpful, but the really needful one is the traditional understanding of the text, because it is this one which correlates everything to what the divine revelation — the raison d’etre of the bible — is proposing for our belief and commitment. It is also the doctrinal and spiritual meaning of the text which will ultimately be useful to the follower of Christ, and it is for this reason that the Catholic Church requires its pastors to preach from the scriptural readings of the liturgy: to increase and confirm the faith, and to lead Christians forward on the path of life and salvation.

Where possible, I have chosen passages in each work which seem to me to stand out as both characteristic of the work and providing some striking insight.


From the Catena Aurea:

Augustine: Now the circumstance of the nets breaking, and the ships being so filled with the multitude of fishes that they began to sink, signifies that there will be in the Church so great a multitude of carnal men, that unity will be broken up, and it will be split into heresies and schisms.…

Theophylactus: The other ship [of the two originally on the shore, the first being that of Simon Peter, representing the Church of the Jews,] is the Church of the Gentiles, which itself also (one ship being not sufficient) is filled with chosen fishes. For the Lord knows who are His, and with Him the number of His elect is sure. And when He finds not in Judea so many believers as He knows are destined to eternal life, He seeks as it were another ship to receive His fishes, and fills the hearts of the Gentiles also with the grace of faith. And well, when the net broke, did they call to their assistance the ship of their companions, since the traitor Judas, Simon Magus [cf. Acts 8], Ananias and Sapphira [cf. Acts 5], and many of the disciples, went back. And then Barnabas and Paul were separated for the Apostleship of the Gentiles [cf. Acts 13:2].…

Cyril: But Peter beckons to his companions to help them. For many follow the labors of the Apostles, and first those who published the writings of the Gospels, next to whom are the other heads and shepherds of the Gospel, and those skilled in the teaching of the truth.

Theophylactus: But the filling of these ships goes on until the end of the world. But the fact that the ships, when filled, begin to sink, i.e., become weighed low down in the water (for they are not sunk, but are in great danger), the Apostle explains when he says, In the last days perilous times shall come; men shall be lovers of their own selves, etc. (2 Timothy 3:1–2) For the sinking of the ships is when men, by vicious habits, fall back into that world from which they have been elected by faith.

From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 3. Why is it mentioned that there were two ships; that one of them was Simon Peter’s, that Christ went into that one, and sat down in it, and sitting he taught out of that ship? No doubt, answer many of the ancient commentators, to shew that the Church was figured by the bark of Peter, and that in it is the chair of Christ, a permanent authority, prefigured by Christ’s sitting down, and the true word of God.…

Ver. 6. When Christ commanded Peter to let go the net, as great a quantity of fishes were taken as this Lord of the land and sea wished. For the voice of the Lord is the voice of power, at the command of which, in the beginning of the world, light and every created thing sprang into existence. This it was that so much astonished Peter. (St. Gregory of Nazianzus, chap. xxxi.)

The net is broken, but the fishes are not lost, because the Lord preserves his servants among the scandals (schisms and heresies) of his enemies. (Ven. Bede)

From the Navarre Bible Expanded New Testament (translated from the Spanish version I have on hand):

The four Gospels testify that the call [of the Apostles] took place at the beginning of [Jesus’] public life, and all four recall the compelling voice of Christ and the immediate response of the disciples. However, Matthew and Mark posit that call as the initial act of Jesus’ ministry, thus emphasizing the identification of the disciples with their master; Luke, on the other hand, has it as part of Jesus’ brief ministry in Capharnaum and tied to a certain incident between the Lord and these particular Apostles.…

As the narrative plays out, it brings to light what is to be the mission of the Church: in their own name the disciples will wear themselves out and obtain no fruit (v. 5); on the other hand, under the banner of Christ’s mission, the fruit will actually exceed expectations (vv. 6–10). “Duc in altum! This word re-echoes for us today as well and invites us to remember the past with gratitude, to live the present passionately and to open ourselves up to the future with confidence: ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and always’” (John Paul II, Novo millennio ineunte, n. 1).

From the Navarre Bible multi-volume commentary:

5:3. The Fathers saw in Simon’s boat a symbol of the pilgrim Church on earth. “This is the boat which according to St. Matthew was in danger of sinking and according to St. Luke was filled with fish. Here we can see the difficult beginnings of the Church and its later fruitfulness” (St. Ambrose, Expositio Evangelii sec. Lucam, in loc.). Christ gets into the boat in order to teach the crowds — and from the barque of Peter, the Church, he continues to teach the whole world.…

This whole passage refers in some way to the life of the Church. In the Church the bishop of Rome, Peter’s successor, “is the vicar of Jesus Christ because he represents him on earth and acts for him in the government of the Church” (St. Pius X Catechism, 195). Christ is also addressing each one of us, urging us to be daring in apostolate.…

From the Ignatius Study Bible:

5:5 at your word: Though exhausted from a night of unsuccessful fishing, Peter places his faith in Christ, despite the apparent odds against catching anything.

5:8 I am a sinful man: Peter’s imperfections seem magnified to him in the presence of divine holiness (Gen 18:27; Is 6:5; CCC 208).

5:10 James and John: Zebedee’s sons enjoy a close relationship with Jesus (8:51; 9:28). you will be catching men: Peter’s occupation points to his future mission, when Christ will send him and the other apostles to preach the gospel (Mt 28:18–20; Jn 21:15–17). Peter himself will play a leading role among the Twelve (22:31, 32; Acts 1:15–20; 2:14–40; 15:7–11).

From A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (Orchard):

The thought of the Spirit of God dominating the primeval waters, the Creation, the subjection of creatures to man (cf. Ps 8), man’s loss of this power through sin (cf. Rom 8:18–23), Peter’s failure and our Lord’s success: all this leads up to the conclusion that Jesus stands in very special relationship to God. It is worth noting that the first disciple called by our Lord begins with an avowal of sinfulness; though Jesus has cured the sick and reigned over the lower nature, his true mission is to cast out sin and make God reign in the souls of men. Despite Peter’s declaration he is called to be assocated with the work of Christ. But the force of the incident is this: that Peter and his fellow-disciples are to remember that the plan and method of that work are of God’s design.

From the original 1970 Jerusalem Bible:

5.1–11. In this narrative, Lk has combined: 1. A topographical note and an incident about Christ’s preaching, vv. 1–3; this section resembles Mk 4:1–2 and 1:16, 19; 2. The episode of the miraculous catch, vv. 4–10a, which is like that of Jn 21:1–6; 3. The call of Simon, vv. 10b–11, which is related to Mk 1:17, 20. Luke’s purpose in placing a period of teaching and miracle before the call of the first disciples was to make their unhesitating response less surprising.

5:3. In Lk, Simon does not receive the name Peter until 6:14.

5:10. Partners: The “companions” of v. 7 [and v. 9]. Andrew is not mentioned because he is in Simon’s boat (note the plural pronouns in vv. 5, 6, 7) which is the central piece in Luke’s picture.

By way of comparison, I will append here some of the notes from the New American Bible, 1998 edition (this is the second revision; the liturgical version used in the Ordinary Form Mass in the US being the third revision), to point out the difference in the kind and level of scholarship. Note that the NAB Notes are based strictly on textual considerations and wander far afield in their speculations, taking no heed of historical evidence or Catholic doctrine and tradition. This reduces the notes to, at best, something less than useful, and at worst, misleading the reader into trackless wastes.


From the New American Bible Notes:

This incident has been transposed from his source, Mk 1:16-20…. By this transposition Luke uses this example of Simon’s acceptance of Jesus to counter the earlier rejection of him by his hometown people, and… Luke creates a plausible context for the acceptance of Jesus by Simon and his partners. Many commentators have noted the similarity between [this incident] and the post-resurrectional appearance of Jesus in Jn 21:1-11. There are traces in Luke’s story that the post-resurrectional context is the original one: in v 8 Simon addresses Jesus as Lord (a post-resurrectional title for Jesus — see Lk 24:34; Acts 2:36 — that has been read back into the historical ministry of Jesus).…

Calvinist Romance (Nothing Like Christian Humor . . .)

I got this in my e-mail, from an agnostic (Edward Babinski). LOL

Is Former Catholic Apologist David Waltz Following a Theological Trajectory That Will Ultimately End Up in Mormonism?

I see only two options for one who is a committed Christian: the RCC (for one who maintains continuity), or the CoJCoLDS [Mormonism] (for those who believe in a “great” apostasy). . . . But, and I want to be clear on this, if I have made a wrong choice, I am quite sure God will let me know; and I say this because I [am] a committed disciple of truth.

(David Waltz, Catholic Answers Forum, 12-16-04)


I have previously written twice about David Waltz and his publicly expressed difficulties in the last two months:

Clarifying Some Points of David Waltz's Present "Doctrinal Limbo" Status (Including Discussion of the Holy Trinity and the Definition of "Christian")

Dialogue With David Waltz on Infallibility and Development in Relation to Early Creeds and Councils (Particularly, Christology and Homoousion)

I've spent the last month or so dialoguing with David Waltz and also with those whom he says have influenced his present opinions to some extent (e.g., anti-Catholic Jason Engwer), and others of his circle of friends, of various theological opinions. By and large, I have enjoyed the vigorous discussion. It has been both cordial and challenging (though Engwer ignored about 88% of my arguments, as I demonstrated).

David Waltz is now openly questioning of Church teaching concerning infallibility and development of doctrine, and even speculating (in a very subtle and sophisticated fashion) about whether the Catholic (and Orthodox and Protestant) doctrine of God might be erroneous, or just one of many permissible options. As it turns out, sadly, this is nothing new for Mr. Waltz.

Enemies of the Catholic Church have been (predictably) exploiting the situation, as allegedly indicative of both the falsity of Catholic teaching (anti-Catholic Protestants have seized upon this) and/or the inherent illegitimacy of Catholic apologetics (as the Presbyterian polemicist Tim Enloe has been asserting, in his usual boorish, dronelike manner). Some have used it as a pretext to bash the use of conversion stories as an indication of the truth of Catholicism.

It is important to point out that some people may in fact be examples of insufficiently converted Catholics. This is no reflection of either Catholic apologetics or the truths of Catholic theology, but rather, merely of one person's intellectual difficulties, as an isolated case.

It is my opinion, after studying a great deal of Mr. Waltz's past utterances online about a variety of related topics, that he is most likely on the road to becoming a Mormon. I think he may be trying to "argue himself" into it, much like Cardinal Newman argued himself into Catholicism via his theory of development. Whether he knows this himself in his heart at present, is another question, and one beyond my purview. We must take people at their word. Mr. Waltz states that he is searching and in transition at present. But, like the person seriously considering Catholicism, I imagine that he may have a pretty good idea of where his search could possibly end up (given all the background thinking documented below), but is not yet certain.

Be those things as they may, the signs of a definite direction (at the very least) or strong tendency are, I think, abundant. We orthodox Catholics have every right to analyze what Mr. Waltz has been saying in public these past eleven years. If he wants to now put dogmatic Catholic teaching up to debate and open skepticism, then by the same token we can defend that. He desired for this to be a public discussion. I didn't have a clue that any of this was going on, before his announcement in early January that he could no longer in good conscience be a Catholic. I didn't seek this out. I assuredly don't enjoy it. But I have a certain duty as an apologist.

Like I have stated before, I have nothing against the man personally. I am far less familiar with him and his ideas than many apologist-types online have been, these past eight years (as I see now from doing some research on the background). I have no "personal stake" in the matter. But in any event we have to stand up for what we believe is the truth. It has been made a public matter; thus, here we are as orthodox Catholics expressing our point of view as well. And facts that seem to have been greatly downplayed ought to be laid out for all to see, so we can have a much better idea of additional reasons why David Waltz is in theological crisis. If one fully doesn't understand where a man is coming from, after all, how can constructive discussion proceed?

* * * * *

Here is a summary of what I see as troubling indications that David Waltz may in fact end up as a Mormon:

1) 1700 Mormon books in his personal collection. We are what we eat. Sometimes, when we study a topic in great depth (in this case, a heresy), we can become convinced by it.

2) Praise of Mormon apologetics (in their own publications and in Christian venues); particularly that of Dr. Barry Bickmore.

3) A pronounced dislike of counter-cult efforts of both Protestants and Catholics (characterized as "anti-Mormon").

4) A background of being raised as a Jehovah's Witness.

5) An insufficient understanding of the definition of Christian, so that he seems to think Mormons are at least as worthy of the title (if not more so) than Protestants.

6) A viewpoint whereby Mormon schemas of Church history are more plausible than Protestant ones; hence, he appears to have ruled out Protestantism already, as a Christian option.

7) A willingness to entertain the notion that the Mormon conception of "the Trinity" is within the scope of valid theological ideas.

8) Concentration on theosis or deification as a theme in the fathers, but misdefined in a way that supposedly would entail their being consistent with heretical Mormon notions of men becoming gods, or God.

9) Questioning of the Catholic clarification that Mormon baptism is invalid.

10) Defense of well-known Jehovah's Witnesses like Greg Stafford, over against Catholic and Protestant critiques.

11) Expression of the opinion that Arian interpretations of Scripture are as valid or respectable as trinitarian ones.

12) Seeming rejection of the essential clearness and material sufficiency of Holy Scripture: as if Mormon theology is as plausible an interpretation of biblical data as Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic.

13) Denial of the Transcendence of God and Assertion That Men Become God(s).

14) Assertion That Worship of Jesus Has "Little," If "Any" Biblical Support.

I shall now present evidence for each of these propositions from David Waltz's own words. His words will be indented. Footnotes will be bracketed and in smaller, blue font:

1) 1700 Mormon books in his personal collection

I am not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I have been investigating the church since 1987. . . . (My personal library has grown to more than fourteen thousand volumes, including more than sixteen hundred that are LDS-related.)

("A New Look at Historic Christianity," FARMS Review [Mormon publication]: Volume - 12, Issue - 2, Pages: 165-80; A review of Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity, by Barry R. Bickmore [Ben Lomond, Calif.: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999]; Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2000; cf. more compact version, "A Look At Barry Bickmore's Book From a Non-LDS Perspective," 1999, published on the Mormon FAIR site)

I have been an ardent student of Mormonism since 1987. It has been my intent, from the beginning of my studies, to be as objective as humanly possible in my examination. I have seriously studied Mormonism from many different angles. In the process, I have accumulated more than 1,700 books on Mormonism, including more than 150 anti-Mormon books. Add to this my collection of BYU Studies, Dialogue, Sunstone, and the vast majority of FARMS publications, and one could say I have a fairly substantial Mormon collection. I guess word of my studies has "gotten around," . . .

("Back to School," on the Mormon FAIR site, 2002)

I have now read the BoM [Book of Mormon] 6 times cover-to-cover, and each subsequent reading starts with considerably different presuppositions). . . . During my trip I decided to pay a visit to Temple Square (my first), but on my way there I noticed a large Deseret bookstore across the street. Given my passion for books, I went there first and ended up purchasing enough books to fill an entire suitcase! Thus began my studies into Mormonism and the LDS Church—1,700 plus LDS books later, the study continues…

(Blog, 11-19-07)

2) Praise of Mormon apologetics (in their own publications and in Christian venues); particularly that of Dr. Barry Bickmore

I find it very interesting that Bickmore has organized and put into print many of the themes that I have seen in my personal reading of the early church fathers. . . .

Enter Barry Bickmore's book. Is there strong evidence that distinctive LDS doctrine had its counterpart in the early church? The honest investigator, after reading this book, must come to a positive conclusion. . . . It is my opinion that Bickmore has accomplished what he set out to do. . . .

Bickmore has certainly demonstrated that many teachings of the LDS Church were present in writings of the early church fathers. Some of the evidence that Bickmore has presented is from confessedly heretical groups, but the majority has been gleaned from what most would call the "orthodox" fathers. . . . Latter-day Saint scholars can appeal to the early church fathers for support on many of their doctrines.

("A New Look at Historic Christianity," FARMS Review [Mormon publication]: Volume - 12, Issue - 2, Pages: 165-80, 1999; see additional info. under #1 above)

3) A pronounced dislike of counter-cult efforts of both Protestants and Catholics (characterized as "anti-Mormon")

I find it equally interesting that anti-Mormons who compare LDS doctrines with those of the early church fathers either ignore or gloss over much of the evidence.

("A New Look at Historic Christianity," FARMS Review [Mormon publication]: Volume - 12, Issue - 2, Pages: 165-80, 1999; see additional info. under #1 above)

I have been asked to contribute to FAIR's review of McKeever and Johnson's Mormonism 101. . . . It was my hope that this book would build upon the recent Evangelical/Mormon dialogue of Blomberg and Robinson [Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997) ], and the excellent reviews of their work in Farms Review of Books. [Reviews of Blomberg and Robinson, How Wide the Divide?, Farms Review of Books, Vol. 11.2 (Provo, Utah: 1999) ] . . . Did the book live up to my expectations? I was less than fifteen minutes into the book when any hope of an objective, academic look at Mormonism had all but disappeared. Alas, the book, now in my hands, was nothing more than another ill-conceived, subjective, polemical, anti-Mormon publication. . . .

Once the historical data that I will present is honestly examined, I believe it will become clear that McKeever and Johnson's approach to Mormonism is severely flawed; and importantly, their approach is a double-edged sword, which when turned on Evangelicalism, inflicts a much greater wound.

("Back to School," on the Mormon FAIR site, 2002)

[Note: Co-author of the book in question, Eric Johnson, has written an extensive reply to David Waltz, on the Mormonism Research Ministry website site]

I picked up a small book titled, Mormon Claims Answered, by Marvin W. Cowan (I now believe this work to be unscholarly, anti-Mormon drivel—one of hundreds!), . . .

(Blog, 11-19-07)

4) A background of being raised as a Jehovah's Witness

. . . I had been raised (as a Jehovah's Witness) . . .

(Blog, 11-19-07)

. . . the faith I was born into (JWs) . . .

(Blog, 6-6-08)

. . . I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness (4th generation) . . .

(Blog, 3-23-09)

[this section is not an instance of the genetic fallacy or some ad hominem attack. It's a simple recognition that our background can affect us much more than we know. Many of us have changed our views (I have, several times), but the longer we believed something, the less likely it is that it will have little long-lasting effect. A serious JW background will harm anyone, as so many false beliefs are involved, and constantly hammered into the followers of the system. And so we do see some remnants, I think, of his former allegiance; especially, I submit, in some important ways in which he approaches Scripture from the outset -- more on that below]

5) An insufficient understanding of the definition of Christian, so that he seems to think Mormons are at least as worthy of the title (if not more so) than Protestants

The cry I have read and heard over and over again from the anti-Mormon camp is that Mormonism is not "historic" or "orthodox" Christianity. But, as Newman pointed out in the above quotation, neither is Protestantism. My reading of the early church fathers has forced me to concur with Newman's assessment. And yet Cunningham's assessment of Roman Catholicism is equally telling, "What ever be the Christianity of the New Testament, it is not Romanism. If ever there was a safe truth, it is this, and Romanism has ever felt it."

[William Cunningham, Discussions on Church Principles Popish, Erastian, and Presbyterian (1863; reprint, Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991), 48.]

. . . To my knowledge, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only body of Christian believers who currently practice baptism for the dead (see pp. 218—27).

("A New Look at Historic Christianity," FARMS Review [Mormon publication]: Volume - 12, Issue - 2, Pages: 165-80, 1999; see additional info. under #1 above)

The two authors of Mormonism 101 begin their book with a quote from Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine:

Mormonism is Christianity; Christianity is Mormonism; they are one and the same, and they are not to be distinguished from each other in the minutest detail. Mormons are true Christians; their worship is the pure, unadulterated Christianity authored by Christ and accepted by Peter, James and John and all the ancient saints.

^[Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001), 9.]

Now, what is wrong with this statement? I would hope McKeever and Johnson believe that the form of Christianity which they practice "is the pure, unadulterated Christianity authored by Christ." If they do not believe this, then perhaps they had better choose another form of Christianity from the more than 30,000 denominations that exist today.

. . . should not all honest Christian's [sic] believe that the form of Christianity they practice is, in fact, the purest form Christianity? . . .

Continuing on page 11 McKeever and Johnson seem to make reference to the book How Wide the Divide? when they write, "Some Mormon apologists have even declared that the divide between Christianity and Mormonism is not all that wide." Actually, that is the joint conclusion of Craig Blomberg, an Evangelical Christian, and Stephen Robinson, a Mormon. Although they found many points of agreement, they also acknowledged that all differences have not been settled. But, of course, this can be said of all Christian denominations. . . .

Having examined the attempts by McKeever and Johnson, in Chapter One, used to "prove" that Mormonism is not Christian, I think it is safe to say that they have failed miserably. . . .

If one truly adheres to the Protestant principles of "private judgment" and "sola scriptura," one cannot, in all honesty, exclude Mormonism as Christian.

("Back to School," on the Mormon FAIR site, 2002)

. . . the overall worldview of Mormonism has more in common with the ECF’s than the Protestant worldview.

(Catholic Answers Forum, 12-16-04)

6) A viewpoint whereby Mormon schemas of Church history are more plausible than Protestant ones; hence, he appears to have ruled out Protestantism already, as a Christian option

I will also demonstrate that McKeever and Johnson's brand of [Evangelical Protestant] Christianity has no greater claim to "historic," "orthodox," pre-Nicene Christianity than Mormonism.

("Back to School," on the Mormon FAIR site, 2002)

Enter Joseph Smith Jr. and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Apologists for the LDS Church very early on realized that the Protestant position had serious deficiencies in their historic paradigm, one of which included the contention that it is impossible to derive true authority from an apostate church; as such, what was needed was not a mere reformation, but rather, a restoration based on a divine, authoritative, calling by Jesus Christ (or one of His authorized authorities). I cannot help but agree that such an assessment is a valid one, and submit that an objective reflection on this issue of apostasy yields but two consistent options: either the Church founded by our Lord in the first century did not apostatize (and was protected from such via divine assistance); or if it did apostatize, a divine restoration was needed.

(Blog, 8-15-07)

7) A willingness to entertain the notion that the Mormon conception of "the Trinity" is within the scope of valid theological ideas

Anti-Mormon critics are quick to accuse Latter-day Saints of teaching polytheism—they add that Trinitarianism is monotheistic. What they neglect to tell us is that Unitarians (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) have leveled the same charge of polytheism against Trinitarians. Bickmore does a very good job in this chapter of addressing the complex issues pertaining to the doctrine of the Godhead. Al though in my experience many Latter-day Saint writers have not been clear on this subject, Bickmore gives us an excellent presentation of the Godhead in LDS thought and then finds several parallels in early Christian writings. . . .

I fully concur with this assessment and will add that when one closely examines the doctrine of God and Jesus Christ in the early church fathers of the second and third centuries, one is hard pressed to find Trinitarianism—what one does find is diversity.

("A New Look at Historic Christianity," FARMS Review [Mormon publication]: Volume - 12, Issue - 2, Pages: 165-80, 1999; see additional info. under #1 above)

Closing out page 11 we read, "The logical question should be, Can an individual or organization willfully deny or distort the basics of the Christian faith and till(sic) be considered Christian?" I strongly believe that this is not the "logical" question that needs to be asked. The question that must first be addressed is, "What are the basics of the Christian faith?" I think I know what McKeever and Johnson believe they are-doctrines such as the Trinity, sola scriptura, sola fide, and sola Christi.

Such answers, however, raise many questions. First, what form of the Trinity do McKeever and Johnson hold to? Do they affirm the "eternal generation" of the Son? Was the Son begotten before all time, or at his incarnation? Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, or the Father alone? Do they hold that the Father alone is autotheos? Does the Son owe his existence to the Father? Are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit real persons (i.e., three centers of self-consciousness), or are they three relative modes of being? Is there a technical difference between ho theos and theos as used by the early Church Fathers? . . .

Now virtually all Mormons and Evangelicals who have compared the two groups' teachings on the doctrine God know that differences exist, but the real question one must ask is, "Are the differences great enough to exclude one of the above groups from the Christian religion?" To assist honest-hearted readers in making that decision, we are going to have to look at what Christians have believed about God, Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity throughout the last 1,900 years. . . .

I am claiming that there are many common points of contact between the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead and the early Church Fathers. . . .

If Mormons are polytheists, then so are the early Church Fathers.

("Back to School," on the Mormon FAIR site, 2002)

What ever differences exist between Catholic and Mormons on this issue, the fact remains that both maintain that a 3 member Godhead is the creator, and that man is created in the image of God. While Mormons tend to blur the distinctions, Catholics tend to blur the image.

(Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board, 3-15-05)

. . . there have been some interesting develops in recent LDS theology that moves their doctrine of the Godhead much closer to ‘mainstream’ Christian thought—see:

Blake Ostler’s Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity.

And, David Paulsen’s Are Mormons Trinitarian.

(Blog, 7-6-09)

8) Concentration on theosis or deification as a theme in the fathers, but misdefined in a way that supposedly would entail their being consistent with heretical Mormon notions of men becoming gods, or God

Next Bickmore discusses the doctrine of deification (i.e., man becoming God). After a brief presentation of the LDS view, Bickmore turns to the writings of the church fathers. Before proceeding, I must say that, as one who is not LDS, I have been somewhat troubled by the immense number of passages in the church fathers that promote the doctrine of deification. As Bickmore points out, the later fathers began to qualify what deification meant or did not mean, but the vast majority of the pre-Nicene fathers established no guidelines on the matter for their readers.

Bickmore gives his readers more than twenty citations from the church fathers that teach the doctrine that men can become gods. To this number I could add at least another thirty quotations from my personal notes on the church fathers that teach the same doctrine. I think the citations speak for themselves, . . . unless one is willing to completely ignore and discard the unified teaching of the early church fathers on the doctrine of deification, the honest reader must seriously look at either the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Eastern Orthodox Church as maintaining the truly "historic" teaching on this important doctrine.

("A New Look at Historic Christianity," FARMS Review [Mormon publication]: Volume - 12, Issue - 2, Pages: 165-80, 1999; see additional info. under #1 above)

. . . many of the same Christians who have embraced the concept that Jesus Christ is divine, then fail to make a similar connection with God's other sons, His adopted sons, His sons by grace. We have seen in this chapter [of a book he wrote] that the very same concepts used to describe the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ are in fact the same concepts used to describe the relationship between redeemed mankind and Jesus Christ. Consistent, honest, reflection forces one to conclude that if Jesus Christ truly shares in God's divine nature, then so too God's adopted sons (His sons by grace: i.e. redeemed mankind). This belief that redeemed mankind truly shares in God's divinity is the essence of the doctrine of theosis, and as we have seen, is the clear teaching of the Bible.

My understanding is this: there is little difference in the actual doctrine of deification between Catholics and Mormons (IMO a greater difference exists between Catholics and the EO). However, there does exist differences (at least for the vast majority of Mormons) between Catholics and Mormons as to what constitutes the attributes of God. This means that though both Catholics and Mormons teach that the redeemed will become God by grace (i.e. God will bestow all of His attributes on the redeemed), the end result is different (IMO -- though some of my Catholic brothers will disagree with on this).

(Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board, 3-15-05)

In my book I discuss the fact that Jesus Christ is the image of God, and as such, many Christians argue that He is God; but when we then move to the fact that mankind is also the image of God (as well and the image of Christ), those same Christians begin to back-peddle (so-to-speak). [Though I believe that Jesus Christ is God by nature, while the redeemed become God by grace.]

So, to make a long story short, I believe God will one day deify redeemed mankind to the level, being, ontology, of God [by grace]. I have personally found no official Catholic documents that currently would exclude this conclusion.

(Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board, 3-15-05)

Jesus Christ, the Son, is the image of God the Father (Col. 1:15), and as such He is God. . . . The construct seems quite simple to me: the Son is the image of the Father, so he is equal to the Father; glorified, redeemed Christians will be "conformed" to the image of the Son, so they will become equal to the Son (by grace, of course).

(Concerned Christians forum, 3-8-06)

Deification is simply union with God/Christ. The final result of this wondrous union is reception of God attributes/fullness -- to become one with God and Jesus Christ. . . . This "fullness of God" will include eternal life, immortality, holiness, perfection, glory, sitting on God's throne, partaking of the divine nature, a fullness of knowledge, etc. So in a nutshell, the Biblical basis for deification lies in God bestowing His attributes upon His adopted Sons; to live the life that God lives in eternity with Him, His Son, and His Holy Spirit.

(Concerned Christians forum, 3-29-06)

I want to make it clear that I too believe in a difference between the relationship that God the Father has with God the Son, and that with His adopted Sons: God the Son is God by nature, while the adopted Sons are God by grace. (This difference cannot be minimalized; indeed, in must be stressed.)

(Concerned Christians forum, 4-11-06)

9) Questioning of the Catholic clarification that Mormon baptism is invalid

Response to Fr. Luis Ladaria, S. J.'s clarification of the Catholic Church's decision (through the Congregation for the Doctrine of faith in 2001: then headed by Cardinal Ratzinger: Pope Benedict XVI) to regard Mormon baptism as invalid:

I would like to point out that all of the above LDS teachings are from non-official sources (i.e. they are not contained in the recognized LDS canon of Scriptures). As to whether or not they are ‘official’ teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I do not believe that they are—even though they have been, and are, widely held (the evidence I have complied to support this view is quite extensive—but, it lies beyond the scope of this thread to present it at this time).

. . . the problem is that Ladaria and the CDF concluded (right or wrong) that: “The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix.”

(Blog, 7-3-09)

10) Defense of well-known Jehovah's Witnesses like Greg Stafford, over against Catholic and Protestant critiques

As for the phrase “various cultists”, I am somewhat disappointted that Jeff includes Greg Stafford in such a category, for an objective reading of his published works sure seems to place Mr. Stafford outside the bounds of a “cultist”.

(Countercult Apologetics blog, 8-2-07)

11) Expression of the opinion that Arian interpretations of Scripture are as valid or respectable as trinitarian ones

Greg [Stafford], a neo-Arian (and NOT a Unitarian in the more historical sense), raises some serious questions, that from a stricly “Biblical” sense, cannot be resolved. Fact is, a neo-Arian/Eusebian interpretation is a valid intepretation of the appropriate Bibical texts—though, of course, not the ONLY valid one.

(Countercult Apologetics blog, 8-2-07)

I am surprised because I have read pretty much all that Greg has written, and his writings are certainly not from the mindset of a brainwashed cultist. Greg clearly thinks for himself, as such, I think it is not only ‘bad form’, but a misuse of term itself when he is labeled as a “cultist”. . . . As for automatically labeling a person a cultist who is not a Trinitarian, this is a practice that seems to have originated with the late Walter Martin, and has been adopted by pretty much all of his ‘offspring’ in the “counter-cult” culture. But, most Christian scholars know better than to throw around the term “cultist” in such a loose fashion, and prefer to reserve the term for the followers of religious leaders like David Koresh.

(Countercult Apologetics blog, 8-2-07)

[Dave: That would come as news to, e.g., evangelical Protestant Jan Karel van Baalen, who wrote The Chaos of Cults in 1938, objecting to such groups and belief-systems as Mormons, theosophy, Christian Science, and Jehovah's Witnesses. I would submit that the traditional word heresy is pretty much an equivalent for heterodox belief-systems falsely claiming to be Christian. Anglican A. H. Barrington wrote a book in 1898, entitled, Anti-Christian Cults: An Attempt to Show That Spiritualism, Theosophy, and Christian Science Are Devoid of Supernatural Powers and Are Contrary to the Christian Religion. Dr. Walter Martin's famous book, The Kingdom of the Cults, was published in 1965. He was a great man, whom I once had the privilege to meet]

I have often confided in my theological friends that if I held to the principal of sola scriptura that I would probably be a Homoiousian, or a Homoian Arian (I am Trinitarian due to Tradition, more precisely, Nicene and post-Nicene Tradition).

(Blog, 9-15-08)

12) Seeming rejection of the essential clearness and material sufficiency of Holy Scripture: as if Mormon theology is as plausible an interpretation of biblical data as Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic

Though I personally believe that Jesus Christ was/is fully God, I do not believe that any one Biblical text, in and of itself, clearly teaches this.

(Concerned Christians forum, 4-11-06)

In all honesty, I truly believe that Bible is not clear on this; as such, a good argument can be made for either limited deification, or for full deification.

(Concerned Christians forum, 4-12-06)

I do want to make it clear that I believe in the full divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but not because of John 8:58.

(Concerned Christians forum, 4-12-06)

I was constantly reminded that the doctrine of the Trinity was CLEARLY taught in the Bible. . . . My understanding of the Evangelical doctrine of perspicuity is that the Scriptures are clear on the “essentials”. It is also my understanding that Evangelicals believe the doctrine of the Trinity is one of those “essentials”. Now, I would like to explore this issue—is the doctrine of the Trinity clearly (i.e. explicitly) contained in the Scriptures? . . . are the scriptures “clear” concerning the doctrine of the Trinity? When one honestly examines history, and the current state of Evangelical theology, one must conclude that it is not “clear”. IHMO, to maintain that the scriptures are “clear” on this issue is to radically change the meaning of the word “clear”.

(Blog, 6-6-08)

My 30 plus years of study into the Bible (as well as the Church Fathers and theology) has certainly taught me that the belief/statement there exists a “clear testimony of Scripture to the truth of the Trinity” is not based on objective evidence—the ‘facts’ present something quite different.

(Blog, 3-23-09)

Yes, Scripture is CLEAR, but only to those who embrace the Catholic regula fidei. . . . Once again, Scripture is CLEAR, but only for those who have embraced the true regula fidei.

(Blog, 11-7-09)

13) Denial of the Transcendence of God and Assertion That Men Become God(s)

Attempts have been made by some to empty Irenaeus view of deification of its full import (i.e. Irenaeus really meant the redeemed become like God, not God.) However, some scholars are quite willing to let the texts speak for themselves and refuse to allow a preconceived theology distort what he really said. . . . our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself . . .

(ZLMB: A Forum Sounding Board for Academicians, Apologists, and Skeptics Interested in things LDS, 4-18-04)

Those who attempt to limit what the redeemed become to merely some of Christs divine attributes are reading something into the text (and the thought) of Irenaeus that just is not there.

(ZLMB: A Forum Sounding Board for Academicians, Apologists, and Skeptics Interested in things LDS, 4-21-04)

You said that "God will bestow all of His attributes on the redeemed" and that "God will one day deify redeemed mankind to the level, being, ontology, of God" how do your beliefs compare with the following Catholic teaching?

318 No creature has the infinite power necessary to "create" in the proper sense of the word, that is, to produce and give being to that which had in no way possessed it (to call into existence "out of nothing") (cf DS 3624). [ link ]

The context of the above quote from the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (p. 84) is emphasizing God's unique role as Creator of our universe and all that is within it. It is focusing on the fact that the very existence of every creature is owed to God. However, this does not exclude the possibility that our infinite God, if He so chooses, can bestow the attribute of infinite power upon redeemed mankind.

Interestingly enough, section 314 states that we do not understand the ways of God because we now have only "partial knowledge". Yet it also clearly states that this partial knowledge will "cease" when we see God "face to face". (Quoting 1 Cor. 13:12). The same passage states that in the future redeemed mankind will "know even as also I am known". God's knowledge is infinite, ours is currently finite, the passage strongly indicates that our knowledge in the future, by grace, shall be as God's.

(Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board, 3-16-05)

. . . if believers receive the same glory from Jesus that God gave to him then why are we not already "what He essentially is and does"?

(Concerned Christians forum, 3-16-06)

Well, certainly Trinitarians argue that the sense/meaning of "one God" does not limit the number of persons who are God. With this in mind, there is a question I think needs to asked: if the one God chooses to bestow ALL of His attributes upon His adopted Sons, what will these Sons become?

(Concerned Christians forum, 3-30-06)

I believe other passages strongly indicate that ALL of God's attributes are involved, not just some.

(Concerned Christians forum, 3-31-06)

. . . we have been seated with Christ and yet in the future shall actually be seated on God's throne. In a nut-shell, we have been transformed, yet are being transformed, and in the future (heaven) shall be fully transformed. . . . I suppose if one understands that the phrase "Bible-based" is heavily influenced by differing hermeneutics, then I would have to say yes, and side with the motif "as God is, man may be." (BTW, this is not merely the "privilege of LDS"; but is a very Catholic/Orthodox understanding of the Scriptures.)

(Concerned Christians forum, 4-11-06)

I personally lean in the direction of full deification, and this for two important reasons: first, the language used to describe the relationship between God the Father and God the Son is same kind of language used to describe the relationship between God the Son and the redeemed Sons; and second, we have what is called parallelism to describe the Incarnation and redemption motif: God became man, that man might become God. I believe that Jesus became 100% man, if this is accepted then the parallel concerning deification would mean that redeemed mankind becomes 100% God: yet one important distinction remains: Jesus Christ's person was divine and remained divine when He became 100% man; redeemed mankind's person is human, and remains human even if fully deified.

And one last thought: can our omnipotent God fully deify us if He chooses to do so?

(Concerned Christians forum, 4-12-06)

14) Assertion That Worship of Jesus Has "Little," If "Any" Biblical Support

So, in ending, that Jesus, the long awaited Messianic king, the eschatological “Son of Man”, the great Prince, et al. receives proskuneō should come as no surprise. However, to then deduce that this act denotes an act of worship directed to the one true God, is to jump to a conclusion that has little (any?) Biblical support.

(Blog, 5-7-09)

This assertion that worship of Jesus as God is absent in the New Testament, is manifestly false. I refuted such a thing almost thirty years ago now, in the course of my studies about Jehovah's Witnesses. Even if we discount most or all of the instances of proskuneo (and there were many), and follow the Jehovah's Witness mentality that this was not true worship, but mere courtly honor, etc., there is much more relevant data (passages are KJV):

JOHN 5:23 That all {men} should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

PHILIPPIANS 2:9-11 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: (10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of {things} in heaven, and {things} in earth, and {things} under the earth; (11) And {that} every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ {is} Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

HEBREWS 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

REVELATION 5:8 . . . the four beasts and four {and} twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. {cf. Rev 4:10, 7:11}

REVELATION 5:12-14 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, honour, and glory, and blessing. (13) And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, {be} unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. (14) And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four {and} twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. (cf. Rev 4:9,11, 7:12, Rom 11:33, Col 2:6-7)

REVELATION 7:9-12,15-17 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; (10) And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. (11) And all the angels stood round about the throne, and {about} the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, (12) Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, {be} unto our God for ever and ever. Amen . . . (15) Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. (16) They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. (17) For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

In the New Testament, the Greek word for "worship," proskuneo, is used 22 times to refer to worship of the Father, five times of divine worship without specification, and 14 times in reference to worship of Jesus. Proskuneo is also explicitly defined, both in Revelation 4:10-11 and 7:11-12, since both passages define the worship of God by virtue of describing the words directed to God in praise and worship (". . . worshipped God, saying . . .").

Every Greek word (eleven in all) applied to God the Father in this fashion in Revelation is applied to Jesus as well (eucharistia is used of Christ in Colossians). One word, ploutos, is applied to Jesus only in Revelation, and to the Father in Romans 11:33. There can be no stronger evidence that Jesus is to receive worship equally with His Father, thus making Him equal to the Father, and no less than fully God:

Greek: Pipto English (KJV): Fell down before
Father: Revelation 4:10, 7:11
Jesus: Revelation 5:8

Eulogia (Blessing)
Father: 5:13, 7:12
Jesus: 5:12-13

Doxa (Glory)
Father: 4:9,11, 5:13, 7:12
Jesus: 5:12-13

Sophia (Wisdom)
Father: 7:12
Jesus: 5:12

Time (Honour)
Father: 4:9,11, 5:13, 7:12
Jesus: 5:12-13

Dunamis (Power)
Father: 4:11, 7:12
Jesus: 5:12

Kratos (Power)
Father: 5:13
Jesus: 5:13

Ischus (Might)
Father: 7:12
Jesus: 5:12

Axios (Worthy)
Father: 4:11
Jesus: 5:12

Lambano (Receive)
Father: 4:11
Jesus: 5:12

Ploutos (Riches)
Father: (Romans 11:33)
Jesus: Rev 5:12

Eucharistia (Thanksgiving)
Father: 4:9, 7:12
Jesus: (Colossians 2:6-7)

Furthermore, by strong implication, Revelation 7:11-12 can be said to apply equally to Jesus as well, since the "Lamb" is mentioned in the immediate context (7:10,17). Revelation 7:11 states, ". . . fell before the throne . . . and worshipped God," while Revelation 7:17 informs us of, "the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne . . ."

Noel Paul Stookey: Pathetic Libertarian, Ethical Relativist Justification of Legal Abortion

Paul Stookey (left): Standing Up For the "Little Guy" in the Proud Liberal Activist Tradition?

Noel Paul Stookey is the "Paul" of the folk trio Peter, Paul, and Mary. I was saddened to learn tonight that Mary Travers passed away last September 16th from side effects of leukemia (the same thing that was the cause of death for my brother Gerry in 1998, after I had been a bone marrow donor a few years earlier). I usually hear about these things, being an avid music collector, but somehow I missed that.

I knew that Paul Stookey was some sort of evangelical Christian. I used to have an album of his (c. 1976) where he sang Christian songs. But I have also read that Peter, Paul, and Mary had done concerts for the pro-abortion (so-called "pro-choice") cause. I wondered, then, how Paul squared this sort of thing with his Christian faith, and looked around to see if there was anything on the Internet about that. I found a piece he wrote that is posted on his website, and dated 1992.

It's amazing and very disturbing to read (because he seems to "get it" and not get it at the same time), but this is what the bankrupt philosophy of libertarianism leads to: a worldview whereby each person supposedly lives in a bubble and doesn't affect anyone else or the society they live in by the choices they make: even if they include the slaughter of the most innocent and helpless of human beings. The murdered child is still alive. His or her horrendous suffering is over with now. It is our society and each one of us in it that also die a little bit each time a life is snuffed out with the full sanction of law and our own implicit consent, because we continue to allow this outrage to continue.

Libertarianism (which is rampant in both political parties, and probably also in the tea party movement) and ethical relativism are so widespread in our day and age that they can even affect the views of a person like Stookey: seemingly a thoughtful, conscientious, and likable fellow, who claims to be a disciple of Jesus. Here are excerpts of what he wrote:

Given the complexity of the multi-leveled concerns that make up the abortion 'issue', it is understandable then that one of the common assumptions within the Christian community is that to allow the Roe vs Wade decision to stand is tantamount to giving 'permission for murder'. But we need to be reminded that the Roe vs Wade decision is not a ruling about the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of abortion. It is more particularly a high court's considered opinion as to whether, and to what degree, a person's moral accountability is to God or to the state. . . .

I do believe that even the most oppositional of perspectives are healed within God. Many would call this 'faith', though after over twenty years as a Christian I find it many times to be just as much a 'trust based on past experience'. Still, call it what you will, by virtue of this trust/faith, I have come to accept some significant concepts as Truth.

For instance, I hold as true that the uniqueness of personhood is present at conception though it is a fact that a child in the womb is NOT physically separate from the mother. However, while I may feel spiritually certain that a mother and child ARE each known uniquely in the Mind of God, it is after all MY certainty and possibly not that of the woman actually bearing the child.

Therefore it seems that what is understood as True for one of us may not be necessarily understood as True for another until such time as another's faith allows. And, while pregnancy may represent a joy and a promise to one, it very well may be an overwhelming responsibility and danger to another. . . .

It is lamentable that the 'unborns' die daily; victims of a battle that began before their conception. But coercion, violence, selfishness, manipulation and ignorance will not cease simply because we pass a law forbidding them. One cannot engender within another heart, by the passage of a law, the understanding of the preciousness of life or a vision of pregnancy in its miraculous nature anymore than the granting of a marriage license can produce a 'desire' to make a marriage work.

Some things we must learn for ourselves...

Dialogue With David Waltz on Infallibility and Development in Relation to Early Creeds & Councils (Particularly, Christology and Homoousion)

David Waltz was a Catholic (and an apologist online) from 2002-2009. Recently he announced that he can no longer accept all Catholic teachings in good conscience, citing infallibility and development of doctrine as the areas that particularly trouble him. I gave the background and discussed related areas of concern in my previous post, Clarifying Some Points of David Waltz's Present "Doctrinal Limbo" Status (Including Discussion of the Holy Trinity and the Definition of "Christian"). This friendly dialogue is basically a continuation of that one, and was drawn from recent combox discussions at David Waltz's blog, Articuli Fidei. His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

[Rory, a Catholic friend of David's] I am very interested in Dave W's answers to Dave A. That is why I asked over in the other thread about whether the trouble for him starts in 1950, 1870, 1854, or 325.

In terms of the issue of infallibility pertaining to Ecumenical Councils (and/or Papal), it starts with Nicene Council of 325. I will try to get to reasons why I adopt this position ASAP. In your 01-20-10, 12:43PM post you wrote:

The use of "Christian groups", on the other hand, could easily be construed as a broad ecumenical, somewhat sloppy usage. There is a sense in which one can say "Christian heretics" insofar as certain groups came out of Christianity, and not another religion. It's the same for Islam (Black Muslims, the Islamicist terrorists) and other religions. For the Orthodox Jew Christianity is a Jewish heresy.

In any event, the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy (and most Protestants who still hold to classic theistic doctrine) have all determined that these groups are outside of Christianity. Even if Fr. Chilson believes as you do, so what? He would simply be wrong, in light of what historic orthodoxy has decreed. Why put so much stock into what he says?

I merely cited Fr. Chilson as an example of a Catholic scholar who disagrees with your position.

But he may not. I'm not sure that he does, because his language was a bit ambiguous. You may be right. I don't know for sure. But he seems to have sent mixed signals in that passage: probably due to the desire to be as charitable as he could.

[see the previous dialogue referred to at the top, for further details]

My position is that of the Church on this matter, since in Vatican II, it was presupposed that "Christian" is one who is validly baptized and accepts the orthodox formulation of trinitarianism. I showed that to Rory and he has already conceded the point.

The current understanding of extra ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur among Catholic scholars exhibits differing interpretations, and the only ‘recent’ interpretation that has been ‘offically’ condemned (at least to my knowledge) is Feeneyism.

Who can possibly be saved and who is properly classifiable as a Christian are two completely different issues. I take a very broad view of who might be saved, according to Romans 2, even before we get to what the Church says about it. I have gotten into several debates with Calvinists over this very issue.

At the same time, we can't get sloppy about the definition of "Christian" and "Christianity" because those are fundamental issues and supremely important. We must be very clear about that.

Be that as it may, I currently neither endorse, nor condemn, Fr. Chilson’s understanding.

Okay. As you presented his citation, however, it was clearly in favor of a broader interpretation of the word "Christian" -- which I don't think is sustainable in light of clear Church pronouncements about both the Trinity and baptism.

In my opinion, the development of the doctrine of the Trinity is THE classic (historic and doctrinal), ‘model’ which all theories of DD [development of doctrine] must come to grips with. To not discuss the development of Trinitarianism is to begin the discussion/dialogue from a significantly flawed position.

Of course it is part of development, being the doctrine of God. Cardinal Newman dealt with these issues in Chapter Four, sections 1 and 2 of his Essay on Development, and wrote an entire book on the Arians. He has not overlooked the issue at all.

Further, I submit that your question, “What would need to be done to establish the Trinity as true”, is not THE question that needs to addressed, but rather, what should be asked is: Which FORM of the Trinity is the “true” one?

What are the options? Arians don't believe in the Trinity at all, having reduced Jesus to a creature. Is the Mormon conception of God in play, too? What do you think the choices are? What does the Bible teach about God (in its admittedly less developed level)?

For instance do you maintain the Son was begotten from the Father’s substance (ousia), or from the Father’s person (hypostasis); do you subscribe to Boethius’ classic definition of “person”, or some other; is the Son autotheos; do you believe that the Father is the fons totius divinitatis—these are but a few of the many questions that should be addressed.

I accept all that the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches, including the doctrine of God. I accept the notion that I as one person cannot figure all these things out on my own: that there were many thousands of great Christian minds all through the centuries -- fathers, saints, doctors, popes, great theologians, philosophers -- that worked out these issues with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and a Church specially protected by God.

So, perhaps you can now better understand why I was a bit hesitant in addressing your questions before I left on my vacation—as I said earlier, your questions are, in my opinion, too complex for simple yes/no answers.

And I continue to assert that at least some of the questions are simple enough to allow an easy answer yay or nay; namely, "is Jesus God?" and "is the Holy Spirit God?"

You imply above (I think) that you accept at least some form of the Trinity. Do not any variations of the Trinity, as you see them, presuppose that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God? There may be all these fine details, as you allude to, but it is still a God in three Persons, no? The word means "Tri-unity" after all.

[Edward Reiss, Lutheran apologist] Regarding Arians and their teaching Christ is a creature, that needs to be qualified. If you read the Arian Creeds they sound quite orthodox except for a couple of concepts snuck in. For instance, they believed that while Christ was begotten, he was begotten before all times to in effect he is eternal, because time began after the Father begot him. They also had no problem calling him God of God etc. IOW, the heresy is a lot more subtle than "They said Jesus was a creature..." For some Arian creeds see here.

Your take is not what patristics experts hold: for example, J. N. D. Kelly. Describing the beliefs of Arians about Jesus, he wrote:

. . . the Son must be a creature . . . Whom the Father formed out of nothing by His mere fiat. . . . He is a perfect creature, and not to be compared to the rest of creation; but that He is a creature, owing His being wholly to the father's will, follows from the primary fact that He is not self-existent . . . He must belong to the contingent order.

"Secondly, as a creature the Son must have had a beginning. 'We are persecuted', Arius protests, 'because we say the Son has a beginning whereas God is without beginning.' 'He came into existence', he writes in the same letter . . . Nevertheless, although 'born outside time . . . prior to His generation He did not exist'. Hence the familiar, monotonously repeated Arian slogan, 'There was when He was not . . .. The orthodox suggestion that He was in the strict sense eternal, i.e., co-eternal with the Father, seemed to Arius to entail presupposing 'two self-existent principles' . . . which spelt the destruction of monotheism."

(Early Christian Doctrines, 1978 ed., 227-228; Kelly goes on to provide much more evidence, including more citations from Arius)

Jaroslav Pelikan argues precisely the same in The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), p. 196):

The Logos . . . was ranged among the things originated and created, all of which were fundamentally different from God in essence. In the ontological distinction between Creator and creature, the Logos definitely belonged on the side of the creature -- yet with an important qualification.

Other creatures of God had their beginning within time, but the Logos began 'before times.' . . . Although the Logos was a creature, he was 'not as one of the creatures,' for they were created through him while he was created directly by God. He was 'made out of nothing.'

This is precisely what Jehovah's Witnesses (today's Arians) teach. I have been aware of that for almost 30 years (and for nine years before I became a Catholic). You tell me nothing new.

My casual mention that Arians believed Jesus was a creature, was, then, exactly right. There is nothing wrong about it. He is "God's greatest creation," etc. (as JWs say) but He is still therefore a creation and a creature. And that is blasphemy and rank heresy and extraordinarily in conflict with Holy Scripture and traditional orthodox Christology.

I think it is important to note that what has termed “Arianism”, needs to be qualified, because the so-called “followers” of Arius split into at least 3 different camps (and there is also the teachings of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his disciples which have been labeled by some as “Arian”, but should be termed “Eusebian”). Of the three major theological schools which came out of the initial Arian controversy (Anhomoian/”Neo-Arian”, Homoian, and Homoiousian/“Semi-Arian”), only the Anhomoians retained the teaching the Logos/Son was a “creature”.

Precisely, the issue is more than Arians teaching Christ is a creature. The heresy was very subtle. I would also point out that not all the orthodox started out as "homoousians".

Of course it is, but you are now removing my passing statement out of its context. All I said was that Arians couldn't be considered trinitarians, because they "reduced Christ to a creature." If He is a creature, He is not God; therefore, trinitarianism goes out the window. I was referring to Arians, not Semi-Arians, in the first place.

One could argue (no?) whether the latter two groups are properly classifiable under Arianism, since they are almost orthodox and rejected an essential element of Arianism. Going from Jesus being a creature, to being uncreated is a huge essential change.

In this new thread, I will attempt to address two issues: first, my affirmation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed; and second, one of the important reasons why I have difficulty affirming the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils.

. . . without getting into “fine details”, I would like to, yet once again, make it crystal clear that I do in fact “accept at least some form of the Trinity.”

Moving on the second issue, the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils, it is the promulgation of the two respective creeds mentioned in the title of this thread that raises one of the important reasons why I have difficulty in affirming infallibility. I will now attempt to outline the evidence(s). Fact 1 - Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 deletes portions of the Nicene Creed of 325, even though we read from the “Definition of the faith” of the council of Chalcedon in 451 that:

…we have renewed the unerring creed of the fathers. We have proclaimed to all the creed of the 318 [i.e. Nicene Creed of 325]; and we have made our own those fathers who accepted this agreed statement of religion—the 150 who later met in great Constantinople and themselves set their seal to the same creed.

(Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Volume 1, Norman P. Tanner, S.J. editor, 1990, p. 83.)

Fact 2 – The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 is not “the creed of the 318” [i.e. Nicene Creed of 325]. Fact 3 – “No copy of the council’s doctrinal decisions, entitled τομος και αναθεματισμος εγγραφος (record of the tome and anathemas), has survived.” (Ibid., p. 21.) Fact 4 – “The Second Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, was not originally a general council”. (Joseph Pohle, The Trinity, English trans. Arthur Preuss, 1912, p. 129.) In summation, we have a creed from an “Ecumenical” council, that “was not originally a general council”, altering (by deletion) the Nicene Creed of 325; and the 4th Ecumenical council erroneously declaring that the creed promulgated at council of Constantinople in 381 was “the same creed” that was promulgated at Nicea in 325. I submit that such evidence(s) (and the above is only one such example) make the teaching of the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils untenable.

Creeds develop along with everything else. Development is not contradiction, but consistent thought-processes, from simple to more complex.

P.S. I want all to know that this thread should not be construed as an attack directed at Dave Armstrong; for the record, I sincerely appreciate the substantial effort/work that Dave has produced since the posting of my 01-06-10 announcement, and shall be looking forward to his (and everyone else’s) comments.

Understood and appreciated. Nor is anything I have written to be construed as an attack on you. We're simply having theological discussion.

* * *

If by "trinitarianism" you mean to say that the range of options that come under this doctrinal umbrella can include belief-systems such as Arianism and Mormonism (or other heresies like Sabellianism), then I must again profoundly disagree. They are impossible to harmonize with trinitarianism.

Simply because to state that Jesus is “God” (as well as the HS) does not make one a Trinitarian; as you know, many Arians and Unitarians (and, of course, Mormons) have/do call Jesus “God”.

Classically speaking (i.e. creedal), Trinitarianism is the teaching that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as three eternal, distinct persons (hypostasis), all share one divine essence/substance (ousia). Anyway, I am not an Arian, and certainly not a Socinian—I am a Trinitarian.

* * *

[For those who would like to explore these issues a bit more deeply, I highly recommend that you read R.P.C. Hanson’s treatment, found in his The Seach for the Christian Doctrine of God, pp. 812-820.]

I looked over Hanson (what was available on the Google reader: about 70% of it), and he confirms what I already said:

. . . most of these twelve differences [between the two creeds] have no significance at all.

(p. 816)

We can, I believe, conclude with fair confidence that those who drew up C and those who knew of its existence and probably taught and used it for the next fifty years did not think of it as a new, separate, creed from N, but simply as a reaffirmation of N, an endorsement of what it really meant by means of a little further explanation . . . the fathers of the ancient church were not concerned about the exact wording of formulae, even of official formulae, so much as with their content. If they were assured that the content of one statement was virtually or in effect the same as that of another, they did not mind if the original structure of shape or origin of one of them was different from that of the other . . . N, of which C was a re-affirmation. C did not in their eyes cancel N, but rather enhanced it.

(p. 820)

Precisely how I would argue it. Creeds develop, too. Development is not contradiction. Problem solved, if you value this guy's opinion. If there is no contradiction, then obviously infallibility is not affected by what is merely an imaginary problem. Frankly, I think it is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Thanks much for taking the time to read Hanson’s contribution (hope that some day you will be able to read the entire book). I have no problem with the development of doctrine and the creation of new creeds to clarify and crystallize DD; my difficulty lies with the alteration of already established creeds—creeds that are considered infallible by Catholics and the EO.

You miss the point. Some words being altered doesn't necessarily mean that the belief-system is altered. This is what Hanson was trying to say. The Apostles' and Nicene and Athanasian Creeds do not "contradict" each other simply because they are worded differently. They are all consistent with the apostolic Catholic faith. The four Gospels don't "contradict" one another. Luke doesn't "alter" Mark or Matthew. John doesn't "contradict" the Synoptics. Many atheists, of course, claim that they contradict each other. Insofar as you argue as they do, in such a manner, you are adopting their same fallacies: claiming contradictions where there are none. This ought to trouble you; not the fact that Creeds word things differently.

. . . I am quite sure that Hanson’s assessment of what was going through the minds of “those who drew up C” is spot-on, but for me, such an attitude is much too cavalier, especially when one keeps in mind that C was produced by a distinctly regional council of only 148/149 bishops.

But you make that judgment on private judgment grounds. How do you decide as an individual that the decisions made by the Church: that have become the Mind of the Church and results of a patristic consensus, are "cavalier"?

You can do that if in fact you adopt the rule of faith of Protestants, which allows such judgments of historic Catholicism and her authoritative decisions all the time (themselves quite "cavalier"), but then what are you left with?

If you are reluctant to adopt Protestantism in some form, on other grounds, where do you go? Arianism? Mormonism? But you are trinitarian, so those options are ruled out. What is left? Traditional Anglicanism? Orthodoxy accepts the authority of the early councils, so you can't go there, either, if you start to doubt them.

This sort of skepticism leads to nowhere, and that is what you must face, as I don't believe you want to end up nowhere, without faith, and left only with your private judgment, which is infinitely more arbitrary than anything you are criticizing.

You care too much about truth to end up with nothing, and abject skepticism. That is evident. So we must warn you of what inevitably lies ahead, should you continue down this dangerous path, before it is too late.

There is already a loss of supernatural faith, once one starts doubting the tenets of the faith, and that is the scariest thing of all, because we are then left on our own, in our own logical and analytical powers (heaven forbid!) and that is not sufficient to attain to Christian faith, since the stream can't rise above its source. It'll never get there without divine help, and that is what is being spurned when we start doubting the faith, and on manifestly inadequate grounds.

It's a battle for your soul, David. I don't mean to sound harsh or judgmental at all. I'm simply providing a Catholic point of view and noting that the stakes are very high.

I cannot begin to convey to you (and so many others), the sincere appreciation I have as it pertains to your concerns about my eternal welfare—truth be known, I too have concerns! I want to be 100% sure that I have embraced “the faith once and for all delivered unto the Saints”. One of the biggest reasons why I am sharing my research on the internet is to elicit important feedback on my thoughts and reflections—I am deeply grateful for not only your contributions, but also for the many others who have taken time to share their thoughts with me.

* * *

. . . Hanson penned:

We find plenty of passages in pro-Nicene writers in the second half of the fourth century expressing weariness with creeds and a desire to be satisfied with N.

(p. 819)

I do not wish to convey that the four “facts” I provided in the opening post of this thread in and of themselves provide ‘proof’ against the doctrine of council infallibility, they are rather troubling “cracks” that appeared in the earliest stages of the formation of councils and creeds. I started with those four “facts” to lay the foundation for future posts that will examine the historicity of early the councils and creeds—the why and how some councils came to be recognized as Ecumenical/Universal, even though originally they were not such.

But they are not, I submit, troubling at all! Even the source you provided verifies that. I don't see the "troubling 'cracks'" that you see. If this is the sort of thing you actually start with as a premise, and move on from there, then it is a castle made of sand. You haven't even established (by any stretch of the imagination) that this is a solid difficulty in the Catholic position.

Before I begin working on the material for a new thread, I wanted to respond to one more quote of Hanson’s that you provided:

most of these twelve differences [between the two creeds] have no significance at all.

(p. 816)

I agree with Hanson; however, he also wrote:

The alterations which may be significant are the omissions by C of ‘that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father (iii), originally in N; the new clause in C ‘and there will be no end of his kingdom’ (x); the considerable addition to the article on the Holy Spirit (xi); and the omission of N’s anathemas…The omission of ‘that is, of the substance ousia of the Father (iii) has caused much heart-searching among scholars.

(p. 817)

Tanner seems to agree with Hanson on some key points:

Scholars find difficulties with the creed attributed to the council of Constantinople. Some say that the council composed a new creed. But no mention is made of this creed by ancient witnesses until the council of Chalcedon; and the council of Constantinople was said simply to have endorsed the faith of Nicea, with a few additions on the holy Spirit to refute the Pneumatomachian heresy. Moreover, if the latter tradition is accepted, an explanation must be given of why the first two articles of the so-called Contantinopolitan creed differ considerably from the Nicene creed.

(Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Volume 1, Norman P. Tanner, S.J. editor, 1990, p. 21 – bold emphasis mine.)

My response remains the same: two creeds can be different in wording and emphasis without being essentially different; one or the other can add, omit, or reiterate concepts without necessarily contradicting the other, just as the four Gospels do, and the later creed can develop the earlier. The demand that they be precisely, exactly the same, and have no differences whatsoever, even in linguistic or grammatical matters, is a modern hyper-rationalistic mentality imposed upon ancient texts. This appears to me what you are falling prey to. As Hanson explained, it was not regarded that way at the time (nor does the Bible generally manifest this concern about technical detail and minutiae).

You cited Hanson:

The alterations which may be significant are the omissions by C of ‘that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father (iii), originally in N; . . . The omission of ‘that is, of the substance ousia of the Father (iii) has caused much heart-searching among scholars.

(p. 817)

Here are the "Nicene" and "Constantinopolitan" creeds compared side-by-side in Philip Schaff's Creeds of Christendom:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father; . . .

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

This you pose as a problem, because of the omission in the later creed of the bracketed portion of the earlier.

I did? I know I am getting old, but when did I do so? I quoted Hanson who stated: “The alterations which may be significant are the omissions by C of ‘that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father (iii), originally in N”.

In the later anathemas of the original N, we find that “hypostasis”/person and “ousia”/substance are treated as identical. If we allow the creed formulated at Constantinople to be a correction/clarification of N, then the omission is a ‘considerable’ one (as Tanner suggests). How so? We have later historical issues that arose which may very well be related to this omission, and the “semantic confusion” that surrounded the Nicene period (see Hanson, ch. 7, pp. 181-208). One of these issues needed to be resolved as late as the 13th century. Abbot Joachim, a student of Peter Lombard, accused Lombard of being a heretic. From the 4th Lateran Council we read:

We therefore condemn and reprove that small book or treatise which abbot Joachim published against master Peter Lombard concerning the unity or essence of the Trinity, in which he calls Peter Lombard a heretic and a madman because he said in his Sentences, "For there is a certain supreme reality which is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, and it neither begets nor is begotten nor does it proceed". He asserts from this that Peter Lombard ascribes to God not so much a Trinity as a quaternity, that is to say three persons and a common essence as if this were a fourth person.

4LC then affirms:

We, however, with the approval of this sacred and universal council, believe and confess with Peter Lombard that there exists a certain supreme reality, incomprehensible and ineffable, which truly is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, the three persons together and each one of them separately. Therefore in God there is only a Trinity, not a quaternity, since each of the three persons is that reality -- that is to say substance, essence or divine nature-which alone is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds. Thus there is a distinction of persons but a unity of nature. Although therefore the Father is one person, the Son another person and the holy Spirit another person, they are not different realities, but rather that which is the Father is the Son and the holy Spirit, altogether the same; thus according to the orthodox and catholic faith they are believed to be consubstantial. For the Father, in begetting the Son from eternity, gave him his substance, as he himself testifies : What the Father gave me is greater than all. It cannot be said that the Father gave him part of his substance and kept part for himself since the Father's substance is indivisible, inasmuch as it is altogether simple. Nor can it be said that the Father transferred his substance to the Son, in the act of begetting, as if he gave it to the Son in such a way that he did not retain it for himself; for otherwise he would have ceased to be substance. It is therefore clear that in being begotten the Son received the Father's substance without it being diminished in any way, and thus the Father and the Son have the same substance. Thus the Father and the Son and also the holy Spirit proceeding from both are the same reality.

The omission of C was now added back into this new statement of faith by 4LC; and the equating of the hypostasis/person with ousia/substance in N, is now emphatically denied.

Does not this raise, at the very least, SOME question(s) concerning the actions of the regional (originally) council which convened in Constantinople in 381?

But is it such a difficulty that we must posit actual contradiction? No; and the reason is because the same concepts are taught in each, anyway; or, I should say, the two are harmonious in their assertions.

One way we know this is from "begotten" (present in both). If this is the scriptural monogenes, then it is dealing in large part with the notion of "same essence or substance". For example, Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, for John 1:14:

The glory was like, corresponds in nature to, the glory of an only Son sent from a Father. It was the glory of one who partook of His divine Father's essence . . .

Or, W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (under "Only Begotten"):

He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. This necessitates eternity, absolute being . . .

In fact, the earlier version of the creed actually defines "only-begotten" in exactly this fashion ("the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God"), while the second adds this very clause: "only-begotten". Therefore, if one knows the meaning of "only-begotten Son of God", to define it further is not strictly necessary; thus, omitting a definition of a thing already known and understood in the previous clause, is not only not a contradiction, but not even necessary in terms of both logic and content (because it omits merely a clarifying parenthesis that adds nothing essentially new to what already was).

The so-called "problem" then, that some scholars have with this, is just an academic exercise and relative triviality. It may be interesting historiographically, as to exactly why it occurred (academics thrive on technical minutiae) -- I'm as intellectually curious as the next guy -- , but it poses no problem in terms of faith and continuity of consistent development, as I think I have shown.

Secondly, the phrase "very God of very God" remains in the later creed, and this includes, by nature, the notion of the substance and essence of God, as part of all the divine attributes.

Thirdly, the later creed retains "being of one substance with the Father" which is saying basically the same thing as "of the essence of the Father".

These three considerations taken together demonstrate, I contend, that there is no problem here at all with dogma or infallibility. I spoke to that generally before, now I have spelled out with specificity why I believe it to be the case.

* * *

I shall end this post with a thought provoking selection from the pen of St. Augustine:

Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this address. You mad Donatists, whom we desire earnestly to return to the peace and unity of the holy Church, that you may receive health therein, what have ye to say in answer to this? You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?

(On Baptism, II.3-4 – NPNF 4.427)

The Augustine quote I already dealt with in my recent replies to Jason Engwer. My explanation was that he meant by "correct" not "correct what was dead wrong in earlier councils," but rather, "develop the thought of earlier councils." I suspect that if we were to examine whatever his word in Latin was for correct, that it would allow such an interpretation. We also can consult the immediate context. It supports, I think, what I am saying:

even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, . . .

This is development of doctrine. We know that St. Augustine believed in that from other of his utterances, too [see the St. Augustine section of my paper: Historical Development in the Understanding of Doctrinal Development of the Apostolic Deposit) ]. I think that is perfectly plausible as a counter-argument to what you are trying to contend. I don't simply argue it because I am a Catholic and therefore can't say otherwise. I say this because I truly think it is the most reasonable interpretation.

In English, the word correct can have such a meaning. Merriam-Webster Online gives as a third definition:

to alter or adjust so as to bring to some standard or required condition.

For example, we might speak of a "course correction" whereby the direction was basically right, but was fine-tuned even further, for more accuracy. This is very much like development of doctrine.

First, I want to thank you for culling the discussions between us from the combox, and placing them into a new thread on your blog—well done.

Second, as for the Augustine quote, I believe that your interpretation MAY be ‘correct’ (no pun intended), however, I must in all honesty maintain it is not the only one that is viable. The flow of the selection begins with “superior position” of “the sacred canon of Scripture”,

Material sufficiency and biblical inspiration . . .; this does not prove anything whatever with regard to some supposed quasi-sola Scriptura position in Augustine. That's so patently obvious that I deliberately didn't waste time answering it.

and then moves on to lesser authorities which undergo correction when, “anything contained in them which strays from the truth”. In my humble opinion, one can argue that the primary axiom for correction stems from that “which strays from the truth.” But, I do not wish to be dogmatic on this . . .

No one disputes that bishops can be corrected by councils, and local councils by ecumenical councils.

Question: do you believe that my understanding of what Augustine meant is an impossible interpretation, or that yours is merely a better one?

It is possible prima facie and in the realm of "all conceivable possible scenarios." But things do not occur in isolation. We don't just have this one statement from Augustine as to his beliefs about authority.

Agreed! Now, with this in mind, how often does Augustine appeal to a plenary council? How often does he appeal directly to Scripture? Further, to better understand what Augustine meant in the quote we have been discussing, would it not be wise to establish which councils he was referring to as the “plenary Councils”, and then establish which previous PCs needed to be ‘corrected’/freed from faults by the subsequent ones?

You want to take this, based largely on the one word "corrected" and make out that now St. Augustine thinks that ecumenical councils are not infallible. You wish to argue precisely (i.e., methodologically) as do the Protestant pseudo-scholars William Webster and David T. King when they deal with the fathers, and Jason Engwer alongside them (as he made this same exact argument).

I strongly disagree Dave—my online written record concerning the Church Fathers is at odds with the vast majority of the views propagated by Webster and King (can’t speak on this concerning Jason, for I have read very little of his writings).

That is hanging far too much on one citation. Therefore I looked into the word being used (which turned out to be emendari). When we say that an amendment to the constitution is added, we don't hold that this is a contradiction of the Constitution; we say it is an expansion or "development" (if you will).

I own Lewis and Short’s massive revision (2,019 pages) of the Fruend-Andrews “Latin Dictionary”; the following is their definition:

“to free from faults, to correct, improve, amend” (p. 641)

This resolves little (if anything)…

* * *

Here is the Latin for St. Augustine, On Baptism, II. 3-4:

3. 4. Nunc se, si audent, superbae et tumidae cervices haereticorum adversus sanctam humilitatem huius sermonis extollant. Insani Donatistae, quos ad pacem atque unitatem sanctae Ecclesiae remeare, atque in ea sanari cupimus et optamus, quid ad haec dicitis? Vos certe nobis obicere soletis Cypriani litteras, Cypriani sententiam, Cypriani concilium: cur auctoritatem Cypriani pro vestro schismate assumitis, et eius exemplum pro Ecclesiae pace respuitis? Quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam canonicam, tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, certis suis terminis contineri, eamque omnibus posterioribus episcoporum litteris ita praeponi, ut de illa omnino dubitari et disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quidquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit: episcoporum autem litteras quae post confirmatum canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribuntur, et per sermonem forte sapientiorem cuiuslibet in ea re peritioris, et per aliorum episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem doctioremque prudentiam, et per concilia licere reprehendi, si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est: et ipsa concilia quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt, plenariorum conciliorum auctoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere: ipsaque plenaria saepe priora a posterioribus emendari; cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, et cognoscitur quod latebat; sine ullo typho sacrilegae superbiae, sine ulla inflata cervice arrogantiae, sine ulla contentione lividae invidiae, cum sancta humilitate, cum pace catholica, cum caritate christiana?

Looks like the key phrase is posterioribus emendari, so we already have a better, more accurate idea, I think, of what St. Augustine truly meant.

We see that the various related Latin words that start with "emend" can carry the developmental meaning I have posited: "amendment," "improvement," "purifying," "perfect," etc., in the online Latin Perseus lexicon, for Latin words starting with "emend".

Moral of the story: don't hang your argument on one word. This reminds me of the wooden, context-free Protestant arguments from the simple presence of adelphos / brother in Scripture, supposedly proving that Jesus had siblings, as though "brother" even in English doesn't have a wide range of meanings, as adelphos does in Greek.

I am honestly at a loss as to why you think a sustained dialogue concerning the meaning of the word “correct” is productive. I do not disagree that “to correct” CAN mean to clarify and/or add to something previous. As such, I saw no reason to interact with you and/or lexicons on this. Why argue over a point I concede?

I made two additional arguments: from the following context ("things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid") that strongly suggests development rather than contradiction; and St. Augustine's espousal of doctrinal development elsewhere. These are crucial in order to understand his utterance in this case. But you ignored both things.

The fathers have to be interpreted in context and in light of their other writings, just as the Bible has to be interpreted in context and in light of its entire teaching, minus single words and supposed prooftexts ripped out and used in isolation.

What St. Augustine states in the present citation under consideration ("correct" / Latin, emendari) is quite similar to what he wrote about development in other places. Hence, my contention that this interpretation of "correct" / emendari is the most plausible one. We can make informed decisions as to the superiority of one "possible" option over another. We don't have to be left hanging in the cold winds of uncertainty. Linguistics is not an exact science, but context and cross-referencing make it a question of lesser and greater degrees of probability. If this is an objection to the Catholic notion of infallibility, it is certainly an exceedingly weak one.

So you see no significance in his words right after "correct" / ememdari that seem to me to clearly be talking about development of doctrine, not correction of contradictions in earlier plenary councils?

Do you deny that he is discussing development there?

How often does he appeal directly to Scripture?

Tons of times, as I do. What is the point? What does that have to do with anything? Now you're back to the Webster / King / Engwer methodology again, whereby any conceivable difficulty, no matter how weak when examined, supposedly shows that the contrary proposition is somehow profoundly questionable and no longer worthy of allegiance, and no better than the "difficulty" brought forth to counter it.

This is a fundamental error of method that you seem to have fallen prey to. It's a dead-end. Keep doing that and you may very well end up not only out of Christianity, but out of theism altogether, because if you insist on being skeptical about everything you see, where does it end? As was alluded to by Rory earlier, if you consistently apply this sort of skeptical mindset, it will sooner or later be applied to the Bible, just as all theological liberals eventually take to hacking the Bible to pieces and treating it merely as a piece of ancient anthropology and myth.

Back to the absolute necessity and primacy of supernatural faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit . . .

In other words, all of us can continue to discuss relative minutiae and all kinds of technical philosophical, theological, and historical details, but if you don't also examine your first premises and overall methodology, then you will not solve any of the problems of allegiance that you are trying to resolve for yourself.

I'm not saying to not do the technical discussions, but I urge you to also examine your presuppositions going in. The relentless skepticism you have chosen doesn't lead anywhere, because it is reactionary. You have to develop a pro-active viewpoint, wherever you end up.

Your hostility to the infallibility of ecumenical councils precludes Catholicism and Orthodoxy as options, until you resolve it. So you are already a Protestant by default, or else "nothing" (some sort of vague unclassified theist who remains trinitarian) until you resolve the question of authority.

At this point I would be absolutely delighted to see you espouse some form of Protestantism, because to me it is a distinct possibility that you could lose Christian faith altogether if you keep going down this road, following this in-the-end deadly method of inquiry.

You could very well be writing over at, e.g., Debunking Christianity a year from now, giving your deconversion story. Why would I say that? Well, because I have read many of those (and have refuted some of them), and many started their journey into unbelief precisely as you are doing now: questioning many things, but not being quite as willing to entertain the prospect that the many "difficulties" suggested can be refuted by more plausible alternatives. They exhibit the same sort of skeptical mindset. We are (or will become) what we eat.

I feel that it is supremely important that you be warned of these dangers before it is too late. This is not a "Catholic thing" I am talking about now: it is a "Christian thing" and even a "theistic thing."

If you want me to address specific arguments, I am certainly willing to do so, but ONE at a time. May I suggest that you start with the argument on the top of your list.

Sure. Why don't you now interact with my reply to your two scholarly quotations regarding supposedly troubling differences between the two creeds? You presented your argument twice; I replied twice in two different comboxes (pasting one from the other, in hopes that it would be dealt with), and you didn't reply to my arguments twice.

I compared the texts and gave several distinct but related arguments as to why I think there is no problem whatever. One can always disagree, but your "problems" were directly dealt with, reasoned replies were given, and I think they deserve at least minimal consideration on your part, since you threw out the questions and I made some attempt to answer them.

I understand your time is limited, too (whose isn't?), but I remind you that I wasn't among the ones who bombarded you with 1200 e-mails. I have confined myself to direct replies to your publicly posted material, that you have made time to write, and where you have stated interest (reiterated recently) in contrary opinions.

It seems that you are under the impression that the bulk of my difficulties with infallibility rests with the changes THEMSELVES of Nicene creed by the regional council of Constantinople. If I have given you this impression, I sincerely apologize. Before proceeding on to those changes (which, in and of themselves do not constitute a ‘proof’ against infallibility), I want to make it clear it was the PROCESS involved that I find particularly troubling (and even this, does not, by itself, constitute a ‘proof’ against infallibility, rather it sets the stage/foundation for future actions/processes that I find suspect).

How Leading Online Anti-Catholic Apologist Steve Hays "Argues" #2 (The Sad Case of Lutheran Edward Reiss)

Recently, I noted how Hays trashed fellow Catholic apologist Scott Windsor. He seems to think that repeated, juvenile personal attack is entirely within the range of permissibility in Christian theological discourse, and sees nothing wrong with it whatever (almost as if the ethical teachings of the NT don't exist, or don't apply to him).

I've also recorded how he resumed his already savage attacks against yours truly, even leading to his decision to start systematically deleting my comments made there, when they became too much for him. Then he started rationalizing and defending his descriptions of me as "evil" (recently reiterated by his stating that I have an "evil character"). It appears that no one in his circles is holding him accountable for this. So he will continue to embarrass the anti-Catholic efforts (already intellectually pitiful) to "win friends and influence people."

I think it is important to document how some of the leading figures in the anti-Catholic Protestant world "argue." They quite often launch massive amounts of insults and personal attacks. To me, this obviously suggests at least one and/or two things: 1) they have little to offer by way of rational reply, and 2) the opponent has hit a nerve, and so they lash out (which, in effect, is merely a variation of #1).

Hays constantly argues against lay Catholic apologetics, as if it is not permitted by the Catholic Church (it is), and Catholic accountability (we do have priests and bishops, etc.). Yet he appears to be not all that accountable himself. We don't know what church he attends, or how active he is there; how much his pastor (if he even has one) knows about the garbage he regularly spews out on his blog.

Hays remains a somewhat mysterious figure. It's difficult to find out anything about him. I have tried again today. I found an online book edited by him (along with James Anderson), called Love the Lord With Heart and Mind. He talks about his life and Christian influences on pages 51-96. On p. 153 we are blessed with some badly-needed personal and professional information:

Steve Hays is a Christian blogger, creative writer, contributor to the Chalcedon Report, and Teaching Assistant to John Frame at Reformed Theological Seminary. He double-majored in History & Classics at Seattle Pacific University. He’s an MAR candidate at Reformed Theological Seminary.

If that is true, he would appear (at age 50) to be a frustrated academic. The book was "published" (if we can even call it that) in 2008, with a second edition in 2009. But a web page for a person Hays interviewed for his book mentions that Hays was, at the time of the interview, "then teaching assistant at Reformed Theological Seminary" (as if he is no longer there).

The latest sad and bizarre case involves Hays' exchanges with Lutheran apologist Edward Reiss. One must appreciate the humor here, too. Reiss wrote on his blog, describing the surreal encounter with Hays:

Steve interestingly mentioned "nuance" in his latest post. Well, if he wants his claims to be treated with nuance he should practice what he preaches and not make each of his new posts sound like they have no relationship to what was discussed before and force a conversation which has stretched over more than a week into an un-nuanced side show. it is quite interesting how I went from being "...Edward Reiss, an adroit and thoughtful Lutheran apologist" to a liar while maintaining the same argument all along. I have been saying pretty much the same thing all along so I didn't change at all.

Now, here is a documentation of Hays' usual quick progression into personal insult:

* * * * *

28 January 2010

I’ve been having a friendly discussion with Edward Reiss, an adroit and thoughtful Lutheran apologist.

30 January 2010

But elsewhere you admit that baptism is no guarantee of salvation. So that statement is duplicitous.

30 January 2010

You’re dissimulating. . . . Once again, you’re dissimulating. . . . Once more, you’re dissimulating. . . . Once again, you’re dissimulating . . . Once more, you’re dissimulating.

30 January 2010

You deliberately misrepresent the “Calvinist system” . . . That’s a malicious distortion of what I said. . . . You respond by giving a deviously butchered version of what I actually said. . . .

It’s a good thing that you’re a Lutheran layman rather than a Lutheran pastor. What you’re trying to do here, which is truly despicable, is to exploit someone’s vulnerability to score theological points. I guess it’s all the same to you if you drove someone to suicide to score points. . . . But do not, I repeat, do not abuse this individual’s anxiety as a pretext to score theological points.

You’d make a lousy pastor. You have no capacity to listen to the individual across the table. Instead, you try to stamp everyone with your cookie-cutter bromide regardless of what they specifically told you.

30 January 2010

Once again, you’re dissimulating. . . . Is there some reason you can’t honestly represent what people tell you? Do you always try to win a debate at any cost, by any expedient? . . . Now you prop up one duplicitous statement with another duplicitous statement. So you made a very deceptive statement. . . . You then respond with a bait-and-switch . . . Once more, you’re dissimulating.

1 February 2010

. . . you have a habit of dishonestly reducing the Reformed grounds of assurance to subjective grounds . . . You’re using a vulnerable individual as a theological football to score points. Yes, that’s despicable. . . . Is there something about Lutheran theology that makes you that utterly sociopathic? . . . If Lutheranism is that callous and tone-deaf to the rudiments of pastoral theology, then to hell with Lutheranism.

4 February 2010

Since Reiss is fairly intelligent, it’s striking that he continues to raise such unintelligent objections to Calvinism. There’s a willful refusal on his part to acknowledge and address basic distinctions.

At this point it’s very hard to credit Reiss with even a modicum of honesty. He habitually misrepresents the Reformed position . . . Why do Lutherans like Reiss think it’s permissible to chronically lie about a position they disagree with? Is mendacity a moral imperative in Lutheran ethics?

4 February 2010

Does Reiss suffer from a mental block? How did he possibly get that from the passage he quoted? . . . Doesn’t Reiss know the difference between a conditional promise and an unconditional promise?. . . Why does Reiss feel the need to dissemble about what the Confession explicitly states?

So, once again Reiss misrepresents the Confession . . . He can’t bring himself to honestly state or summarize what the Confession actually states. Instead, we’re always treated to his deceptive half-quotes and deceptive summaries. Why does he feel it necessary to indulge in blatant falsehoods about Calvinism? . . . Why can’t Reiss even register these elementary distinctions?

5 February 2010

Lying Lips (title of post) . . .

Lutheran epologist Edward Reiss continues his campaign of disinformation. What’s so odd about this is that all my replies are in the public domain, so nothing could be simpler than to compare his misrepresentations with what I actually said.

So how does Reiss respond? With his simplistic, utterly dishonest representation of what I actually said. . . . It would take a very sharp scalpel to peel away all the layers of falsehood that Reiss is piling on.

Imagine if President George W. Bush Had Made a Mispronunciation This Stupid (and Three Times) . . .

Without further ado, here is the video . . .

Inspired and Infallible Prophets, Infallible Popes, Biblical Higher Critic Charles Adolphus Row, and Anglican Anti-Catholic George Salmon

George Salmon

A friend of mine, Vlastimil Vohanka (Catholic), brought to my attention one Charles Adolphus Row, author of the 1887 book, Future Retribution: Viewed in the Light of Reason and Revelation, were he rails against hell, the fall of man, the importance and binding nature of the Athanasian Creed, baptismal regeneration, and a number of other Christian doctrines. George Salmon (1819-1904) was an Anglican anti-Catholic who used fallacious, weak arguments as well in fighting against the Church. Vlastimil's words will be in blue, Row's in red, and Salmon's in green.

* * * * *

The issue I‘m interested is: how can we prove that God promised (by the words of Jesus, right?) to the church that He will protect her teaching (Magisterium, both ordinary and extraordinary, both popes and councils) from error under the complex conditions defined, e.g., by the 1st (and the 2nd) Vatican Council?

The fully developed theory of infallibility cannot be "proven" -- it is a matter of faith. But the principles behind it can be. I deal with various facets of infallibility on my Papacy page. As usual, it is an accumulation of many individual evidences and indications that make it compelling.

(It‘s relevant for my dissertation on the principle of dwindling probabilities in analytic philosophy of religion and apologetics. More generally, the theme of the dissertation is: can we construe a good argument showing that the contents of the Christian, or even Roman Catholic, faith are probable on the body of public evidence?)

All the evidence taken together make it exceedingly "probable" (from a standpoint of human reason alone. I think Newman's Essay on Development remains the best treatment of the overall case from the historical perspective.

2. The Anglican theologian and mathematician George Salmon, in his book The Infallibility of the Church (1899; available at archive.org), on p. 442, suggests an interesting objection: suppose that no pope ever taught an error under the conditions defined by the 1VK;

Which is, of course, true: none ever issued binding proclamations contrary to the received faith.

yet, some popes (Liberius, Honorius, and even others) vehemently supported theological errors; thus, even if formally no pope was an erroneous teacher, some popes were erroneous guides for many Catholics:

... the Christian world was not concerned with the thoughts of Liberius but with his acts ; and they who were guided by them would find themselves ranged against Athanasius and on the side of his opponents.

Catholics know enough to not equate holders of an office with the dignity of the office itself (when they fall short). We're not like Protestants, who, too often, slavishly follow leaders (Calvin, Luther) no matter how foolish their teachings.

And not to go through a host of other cases ... where the Christian world avoided heresy by following some guidance different from that of the bishop of Rome,

I deny that there were a host of such cases.

Honorius may have had in his heart, if you choose to say so, the most orthodox abhorrence of Monothelism. But all this supposed internal [or formal] orthodoxy does not alter the fact that in his capacity of guide he did all that in him lay to lead the Christian world into that heresy.

Then Protestants are in a tremendous mess, when we look at all the heresies that Luther and Calvin espoused.

So it remains proved that even if it were possible to demonstrate that no bishop of Rome had ever entertained sentiments [or formally proclaimed doctrines] that were not most rigidly orthodox, still the pope is not an infallible guide.“

This, of course, changes the definitions. Infallibility applies to what is dogmatically proclaimed, not everything a pope does, or perfection on a human level. So Salmon fights a straw man.

See B. C. Butler's refutation of Salmon.

What would be your answer, Dave?

Those are my short ones. The topics you bring up are far too complicated to answer adequately in a short space, so I'll have to refer you to my papers.

3. Are there some good reasons to think that the "keys" given to Peter and his successors would guarantee for each of them (i) papal formal infallibility (as defined by the 1VK) and would NOT guarantee for each of them (ii) protection against their own massive erroneous influence in the substantial matters of faith? Thanks!

There are solid biblical reasons why we think the keys confer a sublime authority:

The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter & the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant) (+ Part II)

Protestant Scholars on Mt 16:16-19 (Nicholas Hardesty)

I noted you defend the claim that the OT prophets were infallible when speaking what they regarded as the "word of the LORD." An interesting, probably Anglican, 19th century theologian Charles Row has something relevant to say, especially on pp. 55-63 of his book Future Retribution.

He argues there that even in the NT "when a prophet spake in the congregation, the others who possessed the prophetic gift were to sit by and discern the nature of his utterance. This implies that they were to determine how far it was in conformity with the Divine Spirit, or how far a human element was mixed up with it."

According to Row, the same holds, a fortiori, for the OT prophets. What would you say?

According to the OT, the prophet was to be judged by whether his prophecies came true or not. If they did not, he was regarded as a false prophet and stoned. That was the criterion of truthfulness, and a strong motivator for a person to be sure he was a prophet before claiming that!

I would say the NT covenant was fundamentally different insofar as all were now filled with the Holy Spirit; thus had much more of a power of discernment than the masses under the Old Covenant.

Therefore, the standard then was simply whether a person spoke verifiable truth or not.

I guess Row would reply that generally even sayings of the authentic prophet, a receiver of real revelation, and confirmed by fulfilled prophecies, must be sifted -- even when they present them as the word of the LORD.

[he then presents a long series of Row citations in consecutive combox entries: one / two / three / four / five]

I am deeply interested in your reply (and deeply sorry for the length of the comments). No cavils. Just FQI (fides quaerens intellectum).

Many things going on here. You wrote:

Your argument, Dave, is that some of the OT prophets were infallible; so, a fortiori, popes and councils are infallible. Row seems to me to have it the other way round -- early Christian prophets were fallible, their sayings had to be sifted; so, a fortiori, the OT prophets were fallible, their sayings had to be sifted, too -- even when they presented them as the word from the LORD:

The argument is not that simplistic. I have never presented it in that way. I explained exactly what I think the nature of the argument is, and its strength, at the end of chapter three of my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths. I made roughly the same arguments in another paper of mine, still online:

Biblical Evidence for Papal and Church Infallibility

In a nutshell, the argument is (as I stated in my book):

“If prophets spoke with inspiration, then popes can plausibly speak infallibly, since the latter is a far less extraordinary gift than the former.” Or, from a different angle: “if those with lesser gifts can do the great thing (inspired utterance), then those with greater gifts can certainly do the lesser thing (infallible utterance).”

Certain parts of the argument are indisputable. There were prophets in the OT. These did speak the Word of the Lord, which was not only infallible, but in retrospect, inspired, too, insofar as they are now recorded in inspired Scripture.

It's a simple analogy: there is such a thing as a de facto infallible person in the OT; there also is such a thing in the NT. The presence of false prophets in both covenants does not nullify that. It simply means there are false prophets! The true ones do not cease to exist because there are fake ones; imitators.

I am arguing for the existence of infallible authority; not the non-existence of fallible authority or illegitimate authority. Both can clearly exist simultaneously. Therefore, the presence of such fakers (freely conceded) constitutes no disproof at all of my analogy.

This guy Row clearly doesn't believe in biblical inspiration. He manifests the typical liberal understanding of biblical writings, according to an anthropological notion of biblical development. Hence, for him, all Bible writers were strictly pawns of their times.

He makes basic category mistakes, such as that God commands evil, because of a certain manner of speaking in the Bible whereby God's providence is referred to as allowing evil in the free acts of men. Atheists and "higher critical" types often misunderstand this because they assume the Bible was written by dumb, ignorant men way back when, who couldn't possibly have expressed such a sophisticated concept. But so they do. And at the same time, these critics routinely misunderstand the nature of multifaceted biblical literature. I've written about this:

Supposed Contradiction Between 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 (God or Satan as Cause?)

On the Alleged Contradictions of 2 Samuel 24, and 1 Chronicles 21 and 27 Did God Harden Pharaoh's Heart? (Does God Positively Ordain Evil?) (vs. atheist "DagoodS")

The other basic hermeneutical aspect that he fails to understand is anthropomorphism and anthropopathism, whereby God represents Himself as having human emotions or various physical characteristics by analogy, so He could be understood. I've written about this, too:

The Catholic Dogmas of God's Immutability and Transcendence of Time

God's Immutability, Omniscience, Timelessness, & Impassibility / Anthropomorphism / Can God "Change His Mind"? Does God Have "Emotions"?

Church Fathers on the Immutability, Simplicity, Atemporality, and Impassibility of God

Biblical Evidence for Anthropopathism and God Condescending to Human Limitations of Understanding

Four Arguments Against God "Changing His Mind," From Existing Catholic Dogmas, and One Regarding "Divine Emotion"

These two things alone explain much of what troubles him. Because of the false premises involved, he'll go around (as these types of minds always do) spouting off scores of alleged biblical contradictions. At times I have dealt with these charges, and have debated atheists who think they are experts on the Bible but who are, in fact, abysmally ignorant of many things biblical.

It's okay for a time, but one can only devote so much time to playing ring around the rosey with those who are operating on false first principles. These principles have to be thoroughly examined first, or dialogue will accomplish nothing whatsoever. It'll be a wild goose chase. Solve one proposed biblical "problem" and the skeptic will simply come up with a hundred more, ad infinitum . . . Such a person needs to learn the nature of biblical literature, and how to do proper exegesis. But if one approaches the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog, there is little motivation to do that. And that is one of the fundamental problems in the first place.

Dialogue With a Catholic on the Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture, & the Definition of Christian in Relation to the Holy Trinity , Part 2

Ruins of Hagia Sophia in present-day Iznik, Turkey (ancient Nicaea), where the first ecumenical council met in 325 A. D. (photo credit: David Trobisch; Trip to Turkey)

Follow-up to Part One with the same title. This is a discussion with a Catholic named Rory. I think it is a good and fruitful exchange, with true interaction back and forth. His words will be in blue. My older cited words will be in green; his older words in purple.

* * * * *

I decided to put my comments to our discussion over at Dave W[altz].'s board here. I may post it there too. I am afraid I do not know how to transfer the dialogue in a way that is pleasing to the eye and easy to follow. If you care to do so, feel free to use italics, colors, or any other tools that you think might make for more clarity for any readers.

I am doing so now. Thanks for your thoughtful and extensive reply. I am enjoying our conversation. I hope you are, too.

My comment to Crimson Catholic which favored Islam, Mormonism, or Bahai claims were regarding the viability of Restoration vs. Reformation claims. My presumption was for the searcher who is for one reason or another, not considering the Catholic claim.

I find it an extraordinary position, especially having studied Jehovah's Witnesses in great depth (without ever dreaming of joining them), and having familiarity with evangelicalism and Catholicism both, from firsthand allegiance.

I have been Catholic since 1995. I continue to grow more and more satisfied that by God's grace, I have found the fulness of truth, the ordinary means of salvation, and an attachment and affection for the Catholic Church that I could not have expected. I love the Church. Yes. I do. She is beautiful as is befitting the Bride of Christ.

So do I, and I always love to hear others express their love for the Church, too. We ought to love Holy Mother Church, just as we love God and Holy Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, and other human beings.

That has to be put aside when comparing the claims of non-Catholics who claim to be replacing, reforming, or restoring what is lost in the assumption that the Catholic Church is not what I believe her to be. Given such a context, I find that the word you chose to describe my position, extraordinary, is perfect. I realize that my position is not the ordinary one. Catholics seem to assume that the most viable vehicle for salvation, if it is granted for sake of argument that the Catholic Church is not what she claims, is that vehicle which most closely resembles her. I vigorously disagree that this "ordinary position" is merited. With much deliberation, I have taken an "extraordinary position".

I understand that, and thanks for the further clarification. I still think (for reasons I have given) that it is far less plausible to consider Mormon or JW claims as superior to Protestant ones, even if Catholic (and/or Orthodoxy) are methodologically or hypothetically removed from the equation).

For the record, I said something in response to Crimson Catholic about how I could sooner evaluate Islam, Bahai, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. before considering Protestantism. It would not be fair to Crimson Catholic to take this isolated sentence as his final word on the merits of Protestantism. I more or less changed the focus in my comment to something that he either did not see, or was not interested in discussing, which is fine. I am the one who redirected the discussion.

Okay. We all make comments that may sound extreme, if taken in isolation. I know I have, many times, and if these are taken out of context, it is even more of a problem.

My reply intended no disrespect to the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. I am glad that most thoughtful Protestants accept it.

That's good to know. Yet by taking this position, you appear to lower the relative importance of the Trinity. That is what baffles me about it.

I see why you might think that my argument favoring the possible truth claims of non-Trinitarians over non-Catholic Trinitarians might be confusing.

What I was saying is that if I was similarly seeking the true faith, I would have to dismiss Protestantism because of the way they claim to arrive at Nicene dogma.

Since when is the way we arrive at a truth more important than attaining to the truth itself? It's more important to accept and understand trinitarianism than it is to possess some semblance of tradition in one's view. One has to do with the very nature of God Himself; the other with a rule of faith and authority. To me, it is no contest between the two.

If I were not Catholic, I would not have any reason to favor Nicene dogma. What you call "some semblance of tradition", as though it is extrinsic to the doctrine of the Trinity, seems to me to be a necessity. I do not even know why I would accept the books which have been claimed as Scripture by Protestants.

I was presupposing some familiarity with Scripture, and acceptance of it as what it is. If issues of the canon are brought in, then the discussion is, of course, far broader.

So even if I agree that the Nicene Trinity would be clear from studying those documents, I would be troubled. That is a good part of why I would be concerned that I couldn't get past the canon and on to the question of the Trinity as a non-Catholic.

Without the Bible, then it would be purely an authoritarian and much more subjective issue. The entire epistemological grounds would shift. That is another distinct discussion, which is far less important to me. I was much more interested in your seeming position of Scripture being unclear enough to not be able to discern trinitarianism in it. That is what I profoundly disagree with.

I would agree that if one is at sea, the most important thing is to be in the ship. Whether you were born in it, were dragged from the water, or bought a ticket, the main thing is to not be swimming.

A good analogy . . .

So I am glad that Protestants accept 66 of our books, that they agree with us for the most part about the Trinity, and most importantly share Catholic baptism with us entitling them to the name of Christian.

Which was pretty much my entire point as to why I would go to them a thousand times before I would become an Arian or a Mormon . . .

Nevertheless, if I were searching for the true faith, I would consider the Protestant way of being in the boat as incompatible with how God would direct the true faith.

This is largely the distinction between ecclesiology and theology proper (i.e., of God). Ecclesiology is very important, but, I would contend, considerably less so than our theology of God. In other words, if a group can't get their doctrine of God right, they are disqualified as a serious consideration for allegiance on that grounds alone.

I would see them as stowaways, borrowing from those who are carrying them along, and who are the owners, crew, and pilots of the ship.

I agree. Chesterton compared Protestants to Robinson Crusoe: always going back to the ship to get more stuff, so that they can survive. But at least they are borrowing from the right source, aren't they? An Arian conception of Jesus, whereby He is not God; did not rise bodily, etc., is not borrowed from Catholicism at all (let alone the Bible). It is heretical and blasphemous.

This might be a helpful picture of why "the way" Protestants become Trinitarian would be essential in evaluating whether or not I wanted to ride in the ship they are in. I think I would be susceptible to the cries of the Restorationists who would be accusing them of riding in a borrowed vessel.

Okay; I understand better where you were coming from now, but I still think it is putting both method and ecclesiology too high in the overall scheme of things.

But here, if I am not mistaken, I recall that you would be in agreement with them, that even apart from Catholic authority, you would arrive at Nicene dogma from Scripture alone.

I didn't say exactly that. This is a complex issue. I've written more about it than anything else, including a book recently [link], critiquing sola Scriptura. My position, briefly stated, is the following: 1) Scripture, is, by and large, clear, in its treatment of theological doctrines. The truth can be obtained by proper study. I've done this myself, many times, in Scripture study on various topics, and my experience has always been the same, for thirty years now.

Even if Dave Armstrong is capable, in my opinion, relatively few of the faithful are so able.

I'm not nearly that pessimistic. Surely it takes a basic understanding of hermeneutics and Christian theology, but when I first studied the Trinity in depth in 1982, I had only been truly serious about Christianity for less than two years, and had learned under orthodox Protestant teachers for five. With the aid of Nave's Topical Bible and the cross-referencing of my leather-bound NASB Bible, I learned a ton of things. I have a knack for organization of material and systematic thinking, that was helpful, but it was not all that difficult to clearly see what the Bible taught. I had read the whole Bible by that time and had a fair grasp of its overall outline and teaching: that was my main background.

If without hearing a priest/catechist explain in what way the Father is greater than the Son, I think I would conclude that John 14:28 teaches that Christ is not as fully God as His Father.

One would do that if the passage is interpreted on a surface-level, yes. But the Bible is not a "surfacey" document. Those who approach it in that way are bound for trouble. And that gets back to a Church and Tradition that provides the parameters of orthodoxy, tying into biblical interpretation. So a passage like John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I" -- for those unfamiliar with it by memory) needs to be seen in a context of other related passages and the ton of verses that indicate the deity of Christ: the less clear is interpreted by the relatively more clear passages.

Sure, the truth can be obtained by "proper study". But proper study involves Apostolic Tradition as well as concordances, commentaries, and other tools besides the Bible.

Ultimately it does; I agree. But when I approached the study, it was basically all Bible and the knowledge that "the Trinity is true biblical doctrine" -- vaguely tied in at that time, to historic Christian teaching, which I knew was trinitarian. But even if I had started off with trinitarianism as merely a hypothetical assumption (possibly true, possibly false) to be tested in the Bible, I'm convinced that I would have seen that it is clearly taught there. The evidence is simply too overwhelming to conclude otherwise.

I learned firsthand from experience of how Arians (JWs) approached the Bible, too. By 1983 I was witnessing to the JWs: going to Kingdom Halls, talking to them on the street, etc. I could see full well that their basis for Arianism and the demotion of Jesus to a creature was based on a few pet prooftexts, and those exegeted in a goofy, illogical, incoherent manner. They wanted nothing to do with the many hundreds of prooftexts that I had amassed from the Bible.

This is the problem. If one picks a few pet verses that falsely appear to teach a certain thing, then they will be led astray. I saw them doing this. Again and again, I challenged them to look at my passages and give me an alternate explanation that was more plausible than trinitarianism: to have a real discussion of competing truth claims, but they refused every time, even when I said ten elders could come to my home if they wished, to engage in the debate, as long as I was allowed to present my side.

If the whole Bible is considered as a harmonious whole, the truth is laid out fairly straightforwardly. I agree that there are still complexities, but I disagree that it is extremely difficult to arrive at truth of trinitarianism by reading the Bible. Other truths are more difficult to find (Mariology, communion of saints, various aspects of ecclesiology, development of doctrine, etc.), but not trinitarianism. That's my position.

So soon as a priest interprets John 14:28, we are moving beyond sola scriptura.

A priest is not strictly necessary. Bible study tools are more than enough to show that it implies no inequality between Jesus and God, anymore than Philippians 2:5-7 (the kenosis) does:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, [6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. [RSV]

I think the Nicene dogma of the Catholic is obtained by proper study. But I doubt that the Nicene dogma of the Protestants makes sense for one seriously considering joining their number.

It certainly did for me, back when I was an evangelical cult researcher. I was happy to subscribe to the Creed as part of C. S. Lewis' "mere Christianity."

Proper study would lead to both Rome and The Trinity.

And that is where my studies led me! But operating basically from the Bible alone, it is far easier to arrive at trinitarianism than Catholic ecclesiology, for the simple reason that there is much more data in the Bible about the Trinity than there is about ecclesiology: which is a thing that developed a great deal after the biblical period. I didn't arrive at Catholicism by the Bible alone: I had to talk to folks who could defend Catholicism from reason and history as well. I wasn't converted by the Bible alone. I started defending Catholicism from the Bible shortly after I converted, in order to better understand the biblical basis myself, and to explain it to Protestants, who would respect biblical reasoning.

What made me a Catholic was moral issues: particularly contraception (having been a pro-life activist) , development of doctrine, and a study of what went on in the "Reformation" from a Catholic, as well as a Protestant perspective. My big issues were papal infallibility and the Inquisition and Crusades. I saw all of these as plain symptoms of catholic corruption, excess, and lust for power. Learning about development resolved the infallibility issue in my mind.

Proper study (which would include an historical perspective) could never in my opinion, lead to the Trinity by itself.

I don't see how you could say that. It's in the Bible, and it is part of apostolic tradition, as defined at Nicaea and other early councils, at the same time many other doctrines (including the canon of the Bible) were being developed in their final form). Acceptance of the Holy Trinity is not a matter of fideism or blind faith. It is tied in directly with the claims of Jesus to be God: a thing which is able to be ascertained as a matter of history. He was either lying or not. This is Lewis's "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" trilemma.

If the Catholic Church was false, because they didn't hold to Luther's doctrine at the time of the Reformation, they didn't hold to it at the Council of Nicea either. So why would I think that unregenerated Catholic bishops would be anyone that I want to agree with?

I agree that without the Bible, the rationale for such a choice would be totally changed. But in our initial conversation I presupposed familiarity with the Bible. But to hold that a Catholic bishop is unregenerate ids already assuming hostile anti-Catholic assumptions that come largely fro Protestantism. A person unfamiliar with traditional Protestant polemics (or the Bible and the notion of regeneration itself) would likely not think in those terms.

This is why, if the Catholic Church was wrong, I would expect the truth to lie somewhere less dependent upon the Catholic Church for its beliefs than the Protestants. I would be open to reevaluating everything the Catholic Church ever taught as Muslims and Mormons do.

I think this is a good insight. Assuming Catholicism is wrong through and through, then Protestantism goes with it: as a corrupt break-off movement. So does Orthodoxy. And then we're back to square one: now no form of historic trinitarian Christianity is true, so what do we choose? I believe I would choose Judaism in that instance. Take Jesus right out of it, if Christianity is false, rather than redefine Him, as Mormons and Muslims do. He's still an historical figure Who has to be reckoned with.

2) Scripture is materially sufficient: it contains all Christian doctrines, either explicitly, implicitly, or by direct deduction from doctrines in the above two categories.

This is my understanding of what the Church teaches too.

So we agree on that.

3) But Scripture is not formally sufficient (i.e., it is not alone the rule of faith). Formal sufficiency is the position of sola Scriptura; material sufficiency is distinct from that.

Yes. To be understood better, I should add that without the proper background, the Ethiopian eunuch was lost in Scripture. He needed some man to guide him. That is how I now understand all of the Scriptures.

I've used that passage as an argument against perspicuity. But on the other hand, there were not abundant Bible aids and reference books as there are now. I don't disagree that guidance is needed. Of course it is. I'm saying that such guidance can also come in the form of good books about hermeneutics, exegesis, and theology.

Proper study involves moving away from invocations to God to enlighten you from Bible study alone.

Authority is absolutely necessary in the final analysis. But can many truths be arrived at by a person with the Bible alone? Yes, I think they can. The Bible is not utterly mysterious, as if it is as undecipherable as Egyptian hieroglyphics. When we are that pessimistic about the clearness of Bible teaching, we fall into the stereotypes of what Protestants habitually think of Catholics: biblical illiterates, mindlessly following whatever the Church teaches them. We "demote" the Bible. That is not at all required by the Catholic position. All we do is bring in Church and tradition as the other two legs of the stool. The Bible isn't lowered; it is merely placed in its proper position vis-a-vis Church and Tradition (where it places itself). All are of a piece. They all serve to transmit to us "God's Word."

4) Massive use of Scripture in apologetics or systematic theology is not identical to sola Scriptura (making it the only formal and infallible authority). I specialize in biblical evidences for Catholic doctrine. But it is a serious mistake to assume that by dong this, somehow I am adopting anything remotely like the principle of sola Scriptura. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm doing what the fathers did: they usually argued from Scripture first, in fighting heresy, but ultimately they appealed to tradition and the Church and apostolic succession as their ace in the hole. I don't appeal only to Scripture in my apologetics, because I also specialize in development of doctrine, history of doctrine, and have written books about the fathers, Luther, and Calvin also.

I am familiar with your method, as you say, insomuch as it is in imitation of the fathers. I do not oppose it. The only thing that I don't like about it is when I see Catholics apparently forgetting that we eventually have to pull out the hole card.

Since I do that, it is a moot point. I use Scripture first, in argument with a Protestant. If I am then challenged as to historic pedigree (since many Protestants argue that the fathers are closer to Protestantism than to Catholicism) then I argue on that plane. If the evidences there are relatively slight or subtle or scarce, then I argue on the plane of doctrinal development. The two questions of "what does the Bible teach?" and "what did the fathers teach?" are entirely distinct, with "what body more closely resembles patristic thought?" being a third distinct issue. I'm quite happy to discuss all these things. Protestants, however, rarely even want to do so with Catholics who are able to argue these things. That is a bigger difficulty than actually defending our views on all three scores.

I can see how a Baptist interprets John 6 with a reliance upon Jesus saying that His words are "spirit" as though he is speaking figuratively. I don't think that is the best interpretation. Of course not. I am Catholic. But I used to believe that and I am not going to talk him into thinking that his belief makes no sense. I try to show that there is another interpretation that also "makes sense". Obviously, I think ours makes a lot more sense, but I try to make him see that without "a man to guide him" (an apostolic man, by the way), he has no way to know which interpretation is the correct one.

Again, it can be done strictly by cross-referencing. I've written quite a deal about it:

John 6 (Eucharist): the Plausibility of Literal Interpretation, Based on Extensive Analogical Cross-Referencing and Insufficient Counter-Arguments [most relevant presently, to establish what I am contending]

Lack of Faith in the Substantial, Physical Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as Parallel to Doubting Thomas & the Disciples Who Forsook Jesus (John 6)

Dialogue With Calvinist "Pilgrimsarbour" on the Nature and Purpose of Parables in Relation to John 6 and the Eucharist

Counter-Reply to a Protestant Take on John 6 and the Eucharist (vs. C. Michael Patton)

In fact, most Catholic apologetic (or plain theological) works, in dealing with John 6, take exactly this approach. Then they argue it from history and overwhelming consensus for the real presence in the fathers. What they don't generally do is simply appeal to Church proclamations, in trying to defend the Catholic eucharistic position. They don't because I think it is understood that such an approach would be unsatisfying to a Protestant, but also to a lesser degree to a Catholics, who (often) want reasons why the Church believes what it does, not proclamations apart from the rationale. Vatican II stressed discussing Catholicism with Protestants in terms that they can relate to and understand. And that is the Bible. Thus, I am following the recommended method from the most recent ecumenical council, which expresses the Mind of the Church. I am within that in using the method that I use.

The Protestant doesn't care what the Church says about it, because he is not yet convinced of the unique authority of the Catholic Church. But if we can show him from the Bible alone that John 6 is literal, and that a non-literal interpretation makes little sense, then we have a far greater prospect of persuading him.

5) Though I think Scripture is clear on doctrine, for the most part, and definitely I think Arianism and other errors of that sort can be amply refuted from it, alone, nevertheless on the practical level of folks having different interpretations of Scripture, the Church is also necessary to authoritatively interpret. And this is done in the framework of tradition and apostolic succession.

Agreed.

6) With regard to, e.g., Arianism, clearly, many people through history have misinterpreted Scripture and have come to that conclusion. They can be refuted from Scripture (I have done so, and would be happy to do so again here, if someone wishes to defend Arianism), but because Scripture Alone has proven to be a failure through history, the Church also has to proclaim orthodoxy.

I shared my previous experience as a Protestant, failing to be able to decide between those who I considered the most able expositors of Scripture. Often, a doctrine rises and falls upon the difficulty of whether the language should be understood figuratively or literally. Such fine nuances are rarely able to be decided by appeals to Scripture without some outside authority (the Ethiopian's man to guide him). I came to the Church by way of confusion and a figurative tower of Babel. What a relief it was to not be alone anymore with Is. 53 for the eunuch, and for me to have help with every teaching of Scripture.

There is plenty of help in many ways within broad Protestantism. Most of the Bible reference books I use to this day are Protestant, and they are generally excellent and not in opposition to Catholic teaching. The problem is that Protestant denominations do contradict each other, though, as you note. I think the fault there lies in their faulty rule of faith, not in the Bible being radically unclear.

I never considered Arianism. I still haven't. During all those years of flailing in Protestantism for doctrinal certainty, I never questioned the Trinity. I am of course familiar with the major passages that lead down that road though. David Waltz was with me during those Protestant years. He is a former Jehovah's Witness who has always said that from a sola scriptura approach, he could be Arian. I have always accepted his evaluation as being compatible with my previous experience.

That may be true in his own case, as far as allegiance, but I contend that he cannot in any way, shape, or form, defend Arianism from Scripture. If he thinks differently, I would be happy to dialogue with him and let him try to prove that Jesus is not God. That is an unenviable task if there ever was one: to try to prove that from Scripture.

I still have to wonder if you Dave A., are underestimating sola scriptura Arianism.

I think it collapses in a pitiful pile of mush, if it is ever compared side-by-side with trinitarianism. People can arrive at it from Scripture alone, but it is invariably (in my understanding) due to basic misunderstanding and bad exegesis and insufficient cross-texting.

Nevertheless, it would be a purely academic exercise for me, and I am besides incapable of arguing such a view.

I want to see what David says when he gets back: how he would answer all my questions. I think that his background and extensive dialogue with Mormons are likely clouding his judgment as to whether Catholicism is true. There appear to possibly be aspects that he has never sufficiently resolved in his mind.

Dave, I am sorry. These comboxes are really hard to work in. I am spending more time dividing all this up than I did writing. Ugh.

In the future, if you like, you can send me your replies by e-mail (apologistdave [at] gmail [dot] com), and I'll post them in this current format. The text limits in Blogger are frustrating. I don't think I can change those.

7) I also acknowledge that we all come to Scripture via a preexisting grid or bias, and that we benefit from hindsight. We have 2000 years of apostolic succession and Catholic pronouncements. Someone in the third or fourth century was much less equipped to know all that we know now. Trinitarianism was far less developed, so when they approached Scripture, it was that much more likely that they would come to an erroneous conclusion. And so they did. Arianism was refuted by Nicaea and the few councils afterwards.

I enthusiastically agree. But as a sola scriptura Protestant, I understood myself as obligated to put all of this aside. I understand that there are some in the Reformed camps who find it necessary to affirm what they call tradition, as distinct from Tradition.

Many strains of Protestantism give considerable credence to historic Christian teaching (while reserving the right to judge it by Scripture): Anglicanism, Methodism, at least some Lutherans, Presbyterianism (Calvin claims to be following the fathers, just as Luther did). What you describe is more so the Anabaptist or ahistorical tradition within Protestantism. It is the extreme position, or what some call solo Scriptura.

The small case letter doesn't make it sola scriptura. Protestants still use teachers and tradition with a small "t". Why? If Scripture is perspicuous (clear), and our only authority, why not hand everyone a Bible, tell them to read, and get out of the way?

Because the Bible itself talks about tradition, a Church, and Christian authority, and they know this full well, and agree with it (which is why they have pastors and creeds and confgessions).

This is another part of why I couldn't be anything but a Catholic (or Orthodox, which for sake of this discussion is the same thing) Trinitarian. Most Protestants are NOT sola scriptura.

I think you are defining it way too narrowly. The position is not that the Bible is the only authority, but that it is the final and only infallible authority.

I could go on and on about this, but that will suffice for now, as a summary of my position. I vehemently reject sola Scriptura, and perspicuity in the exact form that Protestants conceive it. But I think Scripture is pretty clear overall. If it were not, systematic theology would be very difficult for anyone to do.

I think we are pretty close Dave A. Is systematic theology not difficult? Heh.

It's not easy, but it is easier than many people think, in my opinion.

Anyway, I am not trying to change your mind on anything. I appreciated the time and consideration your replies to me took and want to return the favor by clarifying my position with the possibility that I might have something useful for you.

I am enjoying the discussion very much. Thank you. I think it is good for us to do on many levels.

It is becoming clearer to me why most faithful Catholics, including you, think Reformation movements are more viable options than the Restoration movements. It is because of a shared belief in a higher degree of confidence than I currently have regarding the clarity of Sacred Scripture, when Apostolic Tradition and the Catholic magesterium are set aside.

And also (primarily) because of the centrality of the Trinity and of baptism. You seem to think Scripture is far more difficult to correctly interpret than I do.

You may lack confidence in Scripture. Perhaps you have studied it relatively less (I don't know), but in any event, you have not properly understood my own position (and so perhaps you may possibly be misunderstanding other Catholics on this score). I haven't lowered tradition and the magisterium at all. I simply specialize in use of Scripture in my apologetics. I'm a student of the Bible. I love it. Nothing gives me more joy than studying it, in greater and greater depth. I was collecting this very day, passages about the general resurrection. It's wonderful. I wouldn't trade my life as a writer and apologist for anything. I have the luxury of the time to study the Bible a lot as part of my vocation.

I have spent a bit of time in Scripture too. I was an unordained minister who started his own church, eventually calling it Berean Bible Church. I always preached expository sermons. I went through a book of the Bible word for word. Its harder to ignore the "hard passages" when you go that way. I think God was leading me.

Then we have had very different experiences with regard to how we view the Bible. Interesting. The main thing is that we are now Catholics.

One of the biggest problems I had as a young preacher was knowing what to speak on. It was easy to ride the same hobbyhorse all the time. This was solved when I decided to quit making up sermons and to teach the Bible. Being a truck driver has its advantages too, but not necessarily the same as yours and what mine used to be! Heh. I know this: There is nothing so fruitful for your own soul as Bible study done for the sake of teaching to others. God bless you in your vocation as a Catholic.

Well thank you, and God bless you in all that you do. All work is honorable and God's work, as long as no violation of God's moral teaching is entailed.

. . . by demonstrating the Trinity (and particularly the deity of Christ), Arianism is thus shown to be false (therefore, also implausible, since false)." . . . I don't see how you can hold that Scripture can teach truth, but not by the same token condemn error, when that error is directly contrary to the truth that is able to be proved therein. You can't have one thing and not the other, if these conditions hold.

Okay. I get what you are saying here. Let me explain. Most Christians who stay in one particular ecclesiastical environment don't know what the other side is saying. They are unfamiliar with biblical arguments in favor of something other than what enthuses them. They read the Scriptures through one lens.

That's generally the case, yes.

Maybe an example could illustrate. I went to a Baptist Bible school. Baptists are real good at coming [up] with names of mockery for those who differed with us. Baptismal regenerationists could be called "water dogs". Pedobaptists might be known as "baby sprinklers". I cannot speak for other schools, but we never, ever examined what the other side said.

That would explain a lot of anti-Catholic ignorance.

It wasn't until I came across a book by a Presbyterian named Duane Spencer who showed that the best arguments for pedobaptism include an understanding of the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision. Wow. I was bowled over. I had no idea that pedobaptists associated it with circumcision.

Calvin did that himself. I had a similar experience reading Presbyterian eschatology (Oswald Allis and others) when I was still a dispensationalist, and critiques of the historical origin of the rapture (Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the 1830s, as I recall).

Now I was a pastor. I had people come to my church with all kinds of various background and I had to become familiar with other viewpoints or be ignorant. But the vast majority of Protestants don't know anything the counterarguments to their beliefs.

Sounds familiar. The same is true for Catholics, too, of course, except for (mostly) those of us who are converts (i.e., who converted for some actual reason other than to get married to a cute Italian Catholic or something).

The Bible does disprove error if it proves Apostolic truth, but most Protestants lack familiarity with important Apostolic truths and some truths are much harder to detect than you say (and I grant for sake of discussion) the Trinity is.

I already agreed to that above, yes.

The truth can be hidden from them. Believer's baptism was the only kind I could detect in probably 20 cover to cover devotional readings and untold hours of other kinds of study the 66 Book Protestant canon.

We all see things through a grid or a framework. When the framework changes, all of the beliefs go along with them. If the foundation crumbles, the house crumbles, with all that is in it.

From all this time in the Scripture alone, my denial of pedo-baptism was plausible. When I became familiar with the theory which attaches a covenantal relationship between infants and the Church, I realized I might have missed something. Both were now plausible in my mind, and without an appeal to the "ace card", I couldn't tell a Baptist he was disproven from the Bible alone.

But between the circumcision argument and entire households being baptized, I think that is sufficient argument from the Bible alone. You could also argue that the majority of Protestants also believed in it, based on Scripture alone as their ultimate authority. I used to believe in adult baptism myself (I got "baptized" at age 24 in a warm Assembly of God bathtub). But when I finally read the (biblical) arguments for infant baptism, they made perfect sense to me.

It would be difficult I think to persuade me that it is infidelity to deny the Nicene Trinity, the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of our Lady, pedo-baptism, or Transubstantiation from the Scriptures alone.

I disagree in the case of the Trinity. It is too obvious, from literally hundreds of Scriptures. The divinity of the Holy Spirit is relatively more difficult to establish, but it still is able to be demonstrated, with enough cross-referencing. I did it myself, as I said, way back in 1982:

As I said above, I am ill-equipped to argue what I tend to believe about the plausibility of Arianism sola scriptura. I would be happy to be persuaded that the Trinity is more obvious than I have assumed. I know it is what I see, from literally hundreds of Scriptures too. I will concede this point for now.

I agree that the Assumption and Immaculate Conception are very difficult to see in Scripture Alone, but I have constructed wholly biblical arguments for both. It takes some doing, but it is not impossible.

Okay.

Infant baptism is not that hard to show (from the baptism of entire families and the analogy to circumcision).Transubstantiation is a much higher development of Real presence, which is itself easy to demonstrate in Scripture.

I already shared my understanding of why I can see the error of believer's baptism only is "plausible" from Scripture alone. If this view is incompatible with what the Church says about the clarity of Sacred Scripture, I repent as a dumb convert and a knucklehead.

As I said before, I'm not sure exactly what the Church says about perspicuity. I'm mainly going by my own firsthand experience in doing biblical research, and in the course of my apologetics.

For me, your position draws too near to sola scriptura.

Then you have not understood it properly. Perhaps (hopefully) you better understand it now, after I have clarified. Protestants don't "own" Scripture, and I will refuse to my dying breath, to adopt the notion that anyone who concentrates on Scripture study must necessarily adopt sola Scriptura or even elements of it. Even thinking in these terms plays into Protestant errors.

Heh. I didn't know you had written a book about it. Maybe I should read it?

I'll send you a free copy in MSWord or PDF if you like. Just drop me an email. Here is the link to the book page, learn more about it.

In truth, I think this era of Catholic Bible study tends to fail to appreciate how non-Catholic communities interpret Scripture. Dispensationalism and Reformed covenant theology can square off and brilliantly defend themselves without laying a glove on the other guy. I find the Scripture wholly adequate for Catholic apologetics too. But my opinion has been that more is needed for going on the attack, for polemics, which is also sometimes necessary.

Okay; fair enough.

Maybe it is just a question of different strategies. My aim is to turn them from sola scriptura. I do this by showing the plausibility of my own beliefs beside their own. I suppose I try to reproduce in them the confusion this once caused in me with the hopeful result that they will run with open arms to the Catholic faith and her "ace cards".

There is nothing wrong with comparing the plausibility of systems. I rather like that method, too. I have a concern, though, that Catholics are perceived as blindly adopting Catholicism by fideistically accepting the Church as providing all answers, irregardless of the Bible. I think it is supremely important that we show that the Bible is a thoroughly Catholic document: that Catholics have nothing whatever to fear in a deeper examination of the Bible and comparison of beliefs side-by-side.

It would be interesting to me to see exactly what you think Scripture does teach about the Blessed Trinity, if you think it is so unclear on the matter. Do you think it is difficult to find explicit proofs even of Jesus' divinity, with passages like, e.g., John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9, along with many others, and every attribute of God the Father also attributed to Jesus (excepting,. of course, the possession of a body)?

Oh, Dave A. John 1:1 is completely adequate for me.

Good. I couldn't tell how unclear you thought it was the first time around. You have clarified a lot as we have continued to dialogue.

I know of several lesser known ways to deal with John 14:28 besides that Our Lord may have been speaking of His created nature. Are you familiar with St. Hilary's view of the matter as outlined in his sermon on Psalm 138 (139)?

No.

I tend toward that...but it doesn't matter. I am not an Arian! Please. I have never been close and intend, by God's grace to never expose myself to that which would lead me to such error.

I wasn't trying to imply that you were an Arian or even inclined in that direction; only arguing that I think that Scripture Alone is quite sufficient to refute Arianism. With David it may be another story. I need to learn a lot more about what is troubling him to see if there is any way I can help him -- by God's grace -- work through his difficulties.

Oh yes. I want to follow her when it comes to anything she teaches. I gladly relinquish my previously expressed private opinion that the Apostles' Creed is the most reasonable guide to who should qualify as Christian. If not infallibly, I have seen now that the Church has certainly officially used the word in connection with Trinitarian baptism. I trust I have explained why I still perceive non-Trinitarian Restorationist movements to be more viable options for the one who rejects Rome. I still say that if I were non-Catholic, I could sooner be Mormon than Methodist.

I understand a lot better what you mean now, but I continue to disagree.

It was probably for that reason that I wished to extend the use of the word "Christian" to the Mormon. I will need to find another way of expressing how I find their claims to truth to be more satisfying than those of John Wesley for instance. But I will in future refrain from representing myself as a Catholic, calling them Christian.

Good. No doubt most are sincere, good, well-meaning people, with good morals and traditional values. But according to the definition of historic Christianity, they cannot possibly qualify as a species of it.

So what makes you think that you can arbitrarily reject how the Church defines "Christian" and "separated brethren" on the one hand, yet claim to follow her tradition and authority all down the line, over against a fellow like me who is supposedly too close to the Protestant position, in how I approach Scripture? You're still picking and choosing what you will believe from the Church and what you will not.

Not now! And not then either really. Not in spirit. Any opinions I have ever offered since Easter of 1995, have been subject to the judgment of the Catholic Church. I hadn't adequately looked into the way the Church defined "Christian". I think most of what followed after this centered on what I have just now conceded.

Fair enough. I admire your willingness to change your mind. Excellent.

So, God bless and goodnight Irene (couldn't resist) [name on his daughter's Google account]. LOL

Heh. God bless and good afternoon Irene to you! You're probably too young to remember Jo Stafford?

I know a lot of old music but I don't know much about her. I know Goodnight Irene from Leadbelly and The Weavers.

I got a 4 CD set for Christmas with a great version of Goodnight Irene. What a voice. Doris Day, Rosie Clooney, and Peggy Lee each had styles. Jo just sang, and she did all kind of styles, and as good as any of those three great and more popular ladies. Anyhow, I am not that old. I am Woodstock generation bored with what came after.

I'll have to check her out. Last night I listened to Patti Page's bestselling songs, and she was superb. Now I have a new interest in 50s female pop music: an area I have never known much about, even though I am an avid music collector. Thanks for the recommend. I'm 51, by the way: old enough to remember seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan and to experience the whole 60s musical golden era.

Thanks again for the engaging discussion.

"No Gay Gene," Says Leading Psychiatrist from Johns Hopkins University

Dr. Paul R. McHugh (a Catholic) was the Henry Phipps professor of psychiatry, director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and psychiatrist in chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital from 1975 to 2001. The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine named him distinguished service professor in 1998.

See his bibliography and list of peer-reviewed journal articles (both posted on a site quite hostile to Dr. McHugh).

The following are excerpts (all his words) from an interview posted at The Living Church News Service website (1-26-10):

* * * * *

[Evidence from longitudinal studies suggests] that gender identity disorder may well be something imposed upon people out of their wish to live the roles, and the lives, within their social cluster. . . . there is no gay gene. And there are factors more influential than biology. If you are a man and you grow up in a rural environment, you are four times less likely to have homosexual relationships than if you grow up in a metropolitan area. That’s not left-handedness. If you are a lesbian, you are much more likely to be college-educated. That’s not something that happens at conception. My point is that we now know that the environment is very important.

It really is amazing … I mean, 50 years ago [homosexual behavior] was a crime, and now we’re talking about [same-sex marriage]. Anyone who wants to stick with the tradition is accused of being a biblical literalist or a homophobic racist, because, in part, of the more fundamental change in our society towards permissiveness, that is, easy divorce, cohabitation and concubinage, abortion, pornography … and euthanasia. The issue of the homosexual is not separate … it’s all part and parcel of the pandemonium that the permissive movement has brought. We have just licensed all kinds of behavior.

. . . what has happened with the permissive movement is that it has picked up the Freudian confusion of desire and love, making them the same. . . . there is this confusion of desire and love. [Homosexuality] is erroneous desire.