Go See the Great Catholic Film Bella, Opening This Weekend

I've heard nothing but rave reviews about this movie: and not just from Catholics and other Christians. It was a winner at the Toronto Film Festival (People's Choice award). I won't tell you much more about it. Check out the official website for Bella and an article and review from Thomas Peters at the American Papist blog.

It's important to view the film now because that helps to determine if it will have a run for more than two weeks at theatres. Tell your friends and family. Spread the word . . .

Quarterback Brett Favre and Wife Deanna: Committed Catholics

See the interesting article from Catholic Online.

James White Readily Grants Possible Legitimacy to the Flimsiest "Evidence" That Padre Pio Faked His Stigmata

From the "I thought I'd seen everything" department:

Reformed Baptist anti-Catholic apologist Bishop James White has reported on a Telegraph article alleging that St. Padre Pio faked his stigmata with carbolic acid. Of course he doesn't let his readers know that he would (I think it is safe to say) deny virtually any reported Catholic miracle (if not all of them) because he thinks the Catholic Church is a false church with a counterfeit gospel, led by the devil, leading people to hell (and -- I don't know; it wouldn't surprise me -- he may also be a cessationist regarding the continuing of miracles after the apostolic period). That's the presupposition he starts from, and that more than likely determines his public response to this article beforehand: before he even reads it or considers whatever "evidence" is offered.

After ridiculous comments about Catholic beliefs on saints and asking their intercession (including the potshot: "note the response to even daring to suggest that Padre Pio might just have been faking his alleged godliness"), White briefly presents the basis of the charge and then mocks supposed quick (and implied, improper or illegitimate) dismissal of Catholics of the charges:

[article] The new allegations were greeted with an instant dismissal from his supporters. The Catholic Anti-Defamation League said Mr Luzzatto was a liar and was "spreading anti-Catholic libels".

[White] That can't be how anyone would respond to such an allegation, is it? Surely not! I mean, we have documented repeatedly how fair and even handed Roman Catholic apologists are in responding to criticism and refutation, so this is truly amazing, isn't it? Excuse me while I extract my tongue from my cheek.

Apparently it never occurred to him that the impulse behind such charges is probably much the same as the nefarious skeptical intention behind things such as the "Da Vinci Code": that he himself (along with at least two Catholic authors that I know of) has opposed. That's fine and dandy, on the principle of "my enemy's enemy is my friend." Never mind an examination of whether the charges have any substance: just accept it and assume the distinct possibility of guilt as charged because it is against the Catholic Church: that Beast that White despises. Here is the profound "proof" presented from a lady named Maria De Vito:

"Padre Pio called me to him in complete secrecy and telling me not to tell his fellow brothers, he gave me personally an empty bottle, and asked if I would act as a chauffeur to transport it back from Foggia to San Giovanni Rotondo with four grams of pure carbolic acid.

"He explained that the acid was for disinfecting syringes for injections. He also asked for other things, such as Valda pastilles."

That's it! We're supposed to believe that Padre Pio was lying through his teeth about the reason for obtaining the acid? That's enough for White to think it is serious evidence of possible fraud, I guess. The charge is made: a beloved saint is spoken of as if he were a liar and deceiver, and White thinks that is compelling enough to mock a denial of it, as rash and unreasonable. After all, according to him, Catholics lie all the time about theology (I've been accused personally by White of "knowing deception") so why not a saint? Even the article stated:

It was examined by the Holy See during the beatification process of Padre Pio and apparently dismissed.

Anyone who knows anything at all about the Catholic canonization process (as well as that regarding any miracle or apparition, etc.) knows how rigorous and exacting it is. In fact, this is the origin of the term "devil's advocate": the person in such procedures who is a sort of prosecutor against the cause of someone being considered for sainthood. Is White actually foolish and silly enough to think that the Church didn't examine this instance of the stigmata with the greatest care? I wouldn't put it past him, given his oft-shown profound ignorance of Catholic teaching and practice.

Another article in The Independent provides some further relevant information:

A doctor sent by the Vatican to examine them concluded that the wounds were probably caused and maintained artificially. To test the hypothesis he bound the wounds and sealed the bandage to prevent it being tampered with. But on examination a month later the doctor was nonplussed to find that the wounds had failed to heal.

The article notes that Padre Pio had written: "I am in need of 200g or 300g of carbolic acid for sterilising. I pray you to send it to me on Sunday." And based on this compelling "evidence" some pharmacist concluded: "My thought was that the carbolic acid could be used by Padre Pio to procure or further irritate wounds on his hands."

What further proof is needed? Is that not compelling? It's not as if use of carbolic acid (aka phenol) for such purposes is immediately suspect. It was standard practice in those times (this was an incident from 1919). For example, note the article, "Antisepsis and Sterilization," from the online Encyclopedia of Public Health:

Joseph Lister (1827–1912) experimented with carbolic acid dressings and continuous carbolic acid sprays during surgical operations in the mid-1860s. He reported a reduced incidence of gangrene and mortality. He eventually abandoned carbolic acid around 1890 when Koch demonstrated heat to be more effective than chemicals for sterilizing instruments, and when Ernst von Bergmann (1836–1907) achieved better results through cleaning techniques for operating rooms, instruments, patients, and surgeons.

"Influx" model carbolic spray, copper and brass with wood handle, by Matthews, London, ca. 1870. From the collection of the Warren Anatomical Musuem. [source]

Another article on the history of antiseptic procedures notes:

Through his research, Lister had heard that 'carbolic acid,' a coal-tar derivative used to preserve railway tracks and ships' timbers, was effective in controlling typhoid, which was spread in sewage, and in curing cattle of parasites. By cleaning wounds and dressing his patients with carbolic acid, Lister was able to keep his hospital ward in Glasgow free of infection for nine months. Lister's cloud of carbolic spray drenched the whole area, surgeon and all, and so killed the bacteria before they had a chance to invade the wound.

Much more fair-minded and reasonable than White's presuppositional-driven anti-Catholic knee-jerk bigotry is the outlook expressed by a woman, Chrissie, in a Physics Forum discussion thread on the stigmata:

Regarding Padre Pio, the saint from Italy (1912) whose bleeding from palms, etc is well documented. I don't deny his symptoms, at all. What does cause me to feel some skepitism, coming from a medical/nursing background, is that the areas where the bleeding occurs seems to be areas where blood vessels meet up in a network of capillaries to send the blood back up to the heart and lungs to be re-oxygenated. Because the actual blood flow has also been very well documented in this type of "stigmata", I wonder if there may be a physiological underpinning - a disease process that we just aren't familiar with at this time. Padre Pio, himself, describes feeling very tired prior to the onset of this bleeding, which is consistent with a decrease in oxygenated blood flow to the body and brain. That we don't know why it occurs does not give us the right to say that "it just doesn't occur", or "its impossible", or "he's lying". That is truly arrogant, is it not?

Now, it's true that she is not seeming to accept the possibility of the miraculous, but this is an intermediate position that is far more charitable than immediate recourse to the charge of lying, based on altogether insufficient evidence, that is almost White's stock-in-trade these days.

The same thread directed readers towards a fascinating article, "An Unusual Case of Stigmatization," by Marco Margnelli, from Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1999, 461-482, which noted that the stigmata "in this century it has also appeared in Protestants . . . several cases" (p. 461) and "whereas in the past the phenomenon was observed only in Europe, in this century there have also been cases in the United States, Canada, Latin America, Africa and India" (p. 462) After describing general characteristics of the stigmata, the author concludes:

None of these characteristics (particularly the sudden appearance/disappearance and absence of suppurative phenomena) can be explained by the usual laws of general pathology and pathological anatomy . . . (p. 463)

The Italian woman who is the main topic of this article, Anna Maria T., has been extensively studied under scientific conditions. For example:

From March 1995 until July 1995 Anna Maria was examined eight times: every first Friday of the five months (March 3, April 7, May 5, June 2, July 7), Good Friday (April 14) and twice in free periods when no stigmatic marks were visible (May 27 and June 16). Further observations were made on July 2 and 3, and on August 6 and 7, 1998. On each of these occasions :

(1) Color photographs of the stigmatic marks, normal close-ups and also
highly magnified close-ups were taken.

(2) Infrared photographs of the palms and the backs of the hands were
made.

(3) Prints of the entire hands and detailed sets of fingerprints using triketohydrinden
hydrate were taken.

(4) The electrodermal activity of all the fingers of both hands was studied.

(5) A plethysmographic study of all the fingers of both hands was made.

In addition Anna Maria underwent a psycho-spiritual interview and the tests
of Rorschach and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. These examinations were recorded on video.

As Anna Maria had stated, the shape, size, color and entity of the stigmatic
marks varied from one month to another. (pp. 470-471)

[physiological details are then provided by the author]

The author concluded:

With regard to the possible productive mechanisms, an effort has been made, as is usual in these cases, to gather together the elements that exclude fraud and disease, and any possible ones that could indicate a psychosomatic nature of the marks. As has already been stated, the preliminary data seem to make it improbable that Anna Maria could cause the lesions herself. As far as the possibility of a psychosomatic genesis is concerned, the examinations carried out demonstrate sympathetic hyperactivity indexes only within the reddened areas themselves, while the sympathetic functions of the rest of the hands (sweating, symmetry of the electrodermal responses and vasoconstrictor reflexes) always appear within the norm. To complete the observations an hourly assessment of the microcirculatory activity needs to be made on the Thursday night preceding the first Friday of each month. As far as the hypothesis of a miracle is concerned, it is not within my competence to make any judgement.

Another article (from Zenit) contains the scientific descriptions of Dr. Nicola Silvestri (I cite excerpts):

From the medical point of view, the stigmata cannot be considered as wounds or sores, because they do not heal even when treated. They neither become infected nor do they decompose; they do not degenerate in necrosis, and do not exude a bad odor. They bleed and remain constant and unaltered for years, against all laws of nature.

The Church is strict when it comes to these phenomena. It has pronounced itself in a rather limited number of cases only after rigorous studies and controls by doctors and theologians.

[A] multiplicity of theories have been proposed by different schools that attempt to deny the supernatural character of the stigmata. However, none of these hypotheses can stand up to objective and scientifically rigorous criticism. Neither medicine nor psychology, nor intransigent positivists like Jean-Baptiste Dumas, have been able to deny the reality of the phenomenon.

If the stigmata depended on natural forces, they would have appeared in all ages and the description would be found in medical literature. However, it was not until the 12th century, when they appeared in St. Francis' body, that there was reference to the stigmata.

By their internal and external characteristics, the real stigmata studied to date are outside all the laws that regulate physiopathology and must be considered as phenomena of a supernatural character.

The author continues:

The Church exacts certain conditions before recognizing the validity of stigmata. The wounds must all appear at the same time; they must cause considerable modification of the tissues; they must remain unaltered despite medical treatment; they must cause hemorrhages; and they must not result in infections or suppuration, or in instant and perfect healing.

There are at least 80 saints and blessed whose stigmata have been validly documented, the doctor said. Although the Church recognizes the phenomenon, it does not oblige the faithful to believe in it as a dogmatic or doctrinal fact.

It so happens that I also recently saw an extraordinary movie about St. Padre Pio's life: Padre Pio: Miracle Man. I was profoundly moved by it, and consider it the best religious movie I have seen, second only to my perennial favorite, Jesus of Nazareth (that was a key factor used by God to help make me decide to seriously devote my life to Jesus as an evangelical Protestant in 1977). In the movie you see the persecution that the great man had to undergo: most of it from within the Church (as with almost all saints), including ludicrous charges that he was having sexual relations with several women. At one point his confessional was bugged. How sad. Even Pope John XXIII was a skeptic, so recent articles have stated.

This will probably become a big stink in the months to come. It appears to have been the successor in a propagandistic / sociologically anti-Catholic sense of the same mentality that went after Mother Teresa, because she experienced the dark night of the soul (as if that is unusual for saints and other holy people to experience: it is common knowledge). Entire books have been written about this phenomenon, such as the one by St. John of the Cross.

If people don't want to believe in some supernatural phenomenon, they will always find some "reason" not to do so, no matter how implausible and ridiculous. It's simply the human condition. It is one thing to be intelligently skeptical of any claim. The Church certainly does that, and I do myself (very much so); quite another to be prejudiced against the supernatural on philosophical or emotional grounds, and to thus automatically discount every alleged incident as a fraud, hallucination, or what-not.

"Top Bible Verses Revealed"

Psalm 23 in the original 1611 Authorised Version ("King James")

Interesting stuff. I received an e-mail about the website Top Verses.com:

Sydney, Australia, October 22, 2007 - The most popular scriptures have been revealed after an internet survey of 37 million Bible references. The survey results rank every Bible verse by popularity . . .

Top Verses ran the survey in August 2007 by counting how often every Bible verse is
referenced in web pages across the internet. The 31,101 verses were ranked by the
results. As well as listing top verses overall, the site uses the results to rank Bible books
and chapters.

* * *

Results

Top 10 Verses

Verses are taken from the NIV

1. John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

2. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

3. John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

4. Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

5. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

6. Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.

7. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

8. Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

9. 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

10. Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Top 10 Books

_ Ephesians

_ James

_ Titus

_ 1 John

_ 2 Peter

_ John

_ Philippians

_ Colossians

_ Romans

_ 1 Peter

Top 10 Chapters

_ 2 Peter 1

_ Psalm 1

_ John 2

_ James 4

_ Romans 12

_ Isaiah 53

_ John 3

_ Romans 1

_ James 1

_ Acts 1

* * * * *

My own favorite Bible verse, by the way, is Romans 8:28: "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose." (RSV) My favorite biblical book is the Gospel of John. My favorite chapter is Isaiah 53 (the amazing, moving prophecy about the rejection of Jesus as Messiah and the crucifixion).

What are your favorites?

Church Fathers vs. the "Reformation Pillar" of Faith Alone (Sola Fide) [Including "Revised Protestant Standard" Variant Readings]

St. Ambrose Baptizing St. Augustine

Short excerpts (except for the citations from Protestants) from the second chapter of my upcoming book, The Church Fathers Were Catholic, entitled, "Salvation, Justification, Penance, and Related Issues". "Revised Protestant Standard" ["RPS"] readings (with all abominable Catholic corruptions eliminated and biblical notions installed) -- also added presently -- will be in purple.

Protestant Definitions of Justification by Faith Alone

Justification, as thus defined, is therefore a declarative act, as distinguished from an efficient act; an act of God external to the sinner, as distinguished from an act within the sinner's nature and changing that nature; a judicial act, as distinguished from a sovereign act; an act based upon and logically presupposing the sinner's union with Christ, as distinguished from an act which causes and is followed by that union with Christ.

(Augustus Strong [Baptist], Systematic Theology, Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1967 -- originally 1907 -- p. 849)

(1) Justification is an instantaneous act and not, like sanctification, a continued and progressive work.

(2) Justification is an act of grace to the sinner, who in himself deserves condemnation.

(3) . . . It does not produce any subjective change in the person justified. It does not effect a change of character, making those good who were bad, those holy who were unholy. That is done in regeneration and sanctification . . . It is a forensic or judicial act . . . It is a declarative act in which God pronounces the sinner just or righteous . . .

(4) The meritorious ground of justification is not faith; we are not justified on account of our faith, considered as a virtuous or holy act or state of mind. Nor are our works of any kind the ground of justification . . . The ground of justification is the righteousness of Christ . . . including His perfect obedience to the law as a covenant and His enduring the penalty of the law in our stead and in our behalf.

(5) The righteousness of Christ is in justification imputed to the believer. That is, it is set to his account, so that he is entitled to plead it at the bar of God, as though it were personally and inherently his own."

(Charles Hodge [Presbyterian], Systematic Theology, abridged one-volume edition by Edward N. Gross, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988 -- originally 1873, 3 volumes -- p. 454)

Grace and works are antithetical . . . Grace of necessity excludes works of every kind, and more especially those of the highest kind, which might have some show of merit. But merit of any degree is of necessity excluded if our salvation be by grace . . .

The sins which are pardoned in justification include all sins, past, present, and future. (Ibid., 458, 461)

For further definitions and analysis of these issues, from both Catholics and Protestants, see my paper, Reflections on Justification.

Anti-Catholic Apologist Jason Engwer's Opinion on the Church Fathers

Is the Catholic Church resting on the firm historical ground on which it claims to be resting? Contrary to some misleading quoting of church fathers and a lot of history revision on the part of Catholic apologists, the doctrines that are unique to the Roman Catholic Church not only contradict scripture, but also contradict what many of the early church fathers believed. The historical record is at odds with what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church doesn't represent historic Christianity, as instituted by Jesus and the apostles. Catholicism is a false religion that came into being centuries after the time of Christ and the apostles, and has only gotten more heretical with the passing of time.

When the beliefs of the earliest church fathers are examined, what's found is much closer to evangelical beliefs than Catholic beliefs. Even among the later church fathers, who might be considered closer to Catholicism, there are a lot of differences between what those church fathers believed and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

. . . The church fathers often disagreed with one another, and some of them held views that were similar to what the Catholic Church teaches. But their views on some of the most controversial issues today (salvation, church government, Marian doctrine, etc.) were non-Catholic. It was only after centuries of gradual departure from what Jesus and the apostles taught that the Catholic Church came into being.

. . . The intent of this article isn't to suggest that the early church fathers are as authoritative as the Bible, but rather to demonstrate that even in the territory the Catholic Church claims as its stronghold (post-apostolic tradition), Catholicism fails to live up to its claims. Not only does the Bible stand in condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church, but the early church fathers do as well.

[ link ]

James White (King of the Anti-Catholics): Opinion on St. Augustine

The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached . . . Augustine and Calvin, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the system of grace . . .

( "Dave Hunt vs. Charles Haddon Spurgeon" )

It does not seem that any discussion of ancient theology can be pursued without invoking the great name of Augustine. But surely by now Roman controversialists should be aware that Augustine is no friend of their cause.

( "Whitewashing the History of the Church" )

Clement of Rome (d. c. 101)

Let us take Enoch, for example, who was found righteous in obedience and so was taken up and did not experience death. (Letter to the Corinthians / First Clement, 9: 3; Lightfoot / Harmer / Holmes, 33; cf. 11:1; 12:1)

[RPS alternate reading: "Enoch, for example, who was found righteous because of his faith alone and God's imputed righteousness"]

Abraham, who was called “the Friend,” was found faithful in that he became obedient to the words of God. (Letter to the Corinthians / First Clement, 10: 1; Lightfoot / Harmer / Holmes, 33)

[RPS: ". . . was found faithful in that he exercised faith alone and was therefore declared righteous"]

Take care, dear friends, lest his many benefits turn into a judgment upon all of us, as will happen if we fail to live worthily of him, and to do harmoniously those things which are good and well-pleasing in his sight . . . It is right, therefore, that we should not be deserters of his will. (Letter to the Corinthians / First Clement, 21: 1, 4; Lightfoot / Harmer / Holmes, 40)

[RPS: ". . . a judgment upon all of us, as will happen if we fail to have faith alone. But to do harmoniously those things which are good and well-pleasing in his sight has nothing to do with justification . . . It is right, therefore, also to believe that we cannot possibly be deserters of his will"]

Since, therefore, all things are seen and heard, let us fear him and abandon the abominable lusts that spawn evil works, in order that we may be shielded by his mercy from the coming judgments. For where can any of us escape from his mighty hand? And what world will receive any of those who desert him? (Letter to the Corinthians / First Clement, 28: 1-2; Lightfoot / Harmer / Holmes, 44)

[RPS: ". . . let us fear him with faith alone, in order that we may be shielded by his mercy from the coming judgments. . . . And no world will receive any of those who desert him, because it is not possible to desert God"]

Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self-controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words. (Letter to the Corinthians / First Clement, 30: 3; Lightfoot / Harmer / Holmes, 44-45)

[RPS: ". . . being justified by faith and not by works."]

All, therefore, were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous actions which they did, but through his will. And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which the almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Letter to the Corinthians / First Clement, 32: 3-4; Lightfoot / Harmer / Holmes, 45-46)

[RPS: the committee for the RPS has approved this passage as written, because they believe that it "proves" that Clement held to justification by faith alone, just as Luther and Calvin did. They have concluded also that virtually all the other passages here cited -- because they contradict this one, so they say -- were corrupted by later Catholic additions. Somehow by the grace of God, however, this passage escaped untouched. Praise God! His truth always gets through somehow, despite the efforts of wicked, unregenerate men!]

The good worker receives the bread of his labor confidently, but the lazy and careless dares not look his employer in the face. It is, therefore, necessary that we should be zealous to do good, for all things come from him. For he forewarns us: “Behold, the Lord comes, and his reward is with him, to pay each one according to his work.” He exhorts us, therefore, who believe in him with our whole heart, not to be idle or careless about any good work. (Letter to the Corinthians / First Clement, 34: 1-4; Lightfoot / Harmer / Holmes, 46-47)

[RPS: The one who exercises faith in faith alone receives the bread of his profession of belief confidently, but the catholic* dares not look God in the face. It is, therefore, necessary that we should be zealous to believe in faith, for all things come from him. For he forewarns us: “Behold, the Lord comes, and his reward is with him, to pay each one according to his faith.” He exhorts us, therefore, who believe in him with our whole heart, to understand that good works have nothing to do with justification, which is by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone for the glory of God alone, in Protestant sectarian churches alone **though none of the five "alones" are alone."

* The committee is divided as to the translation of the word used here. Manuscripts differ. Some suggest that unregenerate is the proper word; others have papist and Romanist. In deference to current usage, the committee (i.e., by a very slight majority and a registered protest by the minority) decided upon catholic as the best word to use. Use of a capital "C" was also controversial and discussed with great vigor, but by a vote of one, the uncapitalized c won out.

** the words following do not appear in all manuscripts; nevertheless the committee has decided upon this later manuscript tradition because they feel that it is a helpful clarification of the peculiar Protestant "alone but not alone" slogans and terminology]

Let us therefore make every effort to be found in the number of those who patiently wait for him, so that we may share in his promised gifts. But how shall this be, dear friends? If our mind is fixed on God through faith; if we seek out those things which are well-pleasing and acceptable to him; if we accomplish those things which are in harmony with his faultless will, and follow the way of truth, casting off from ourselves all unrighteousness and lawlessness, covetousness, strife, malice and deceit, gossip and slander, hatred of God, pride and arrogance, vanity and inhospitality. (Letter to the Corinthians / First Clement, 35: 1-5; Lightfoot / Harmer / Holmes, 47)

[RPS: ". . . if we exercise the faith that is well-pleasing and acceptable to him; if we believe those things which are in harmony with his faultless will, and follow the way of faith alone, casting off from ourselves all belief that good works or infused righteousness have anything to do with justification"]

Let us, therefore, join with the innocent and righteous, for these are the elect of God. (Letter to the Corinthians / First Clement, 46: 4; Lightfoot / Harmer / Holmes, 54)

[RPS: "Let us, therefore, join with those whom God has granted imputed righteousness, for these are the elect of God"]

Blessed are we, dear friends, if we continue to keep God’s commandments in the harmony of love, that our sins may be forgiven us through love. For it is written: “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will reckon no sin, and in whose mouth there is no deceit.” (Letter to the Corinthians / First Clement, 50: 5-6; Lightfoot / Harmer / Holmes, 56)

[RPS: "Blessed are we, dear friends, if we continue to believe in faith that our sins may be forgiven us through God's extrinsic declaration, though still present. For it is written: “Blessed are those whose iniquities are declared null and void and nonexistent, and whose sins are covered, so that God acts as if they are not there at all. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will reckon no sin, and in whose mouth there is no denial of justification by faith alone”]

[S]urely will the one who with humility and constant gentleness has kept without regret the ordinances and commandments given by God be enrolled and included among the number of those who are saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory to him for ever and ever. Amen. (Letter to the Corinthians / First Clement, 58: 2; Lightfoot / Harmer / Holmes, 61)

[RPS: "Surely will the one who, despite a lack of humility and gentleness has believed without regret that faith alone makes the way straight for the salvation given by God, so as to be enrolled and included among the number of those who are saved through Jesus Christ in faith alone by grace alone and not by works alone, or any works all, because, as Holy Scripture teaches us: 'no one does what is righteous, no, not one,' and 'all our deeds are as filthy rags, lest anyone should boast'"]

Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 110)

[T]hose who profess to be Christ’s will be recognized by their actions. For the Work is not a matter of what one promises now, but of persevering to the end in the power of faith. (Letter to the Ephesians, 14:2; Lightfoot / Harmer / Holmes, 91)

[RPS: "Those who profess to be Christ’s will be recognized by their profession of faith alone"]

Justin Martyr (d. 165)

[E]ach man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions. (First Apology, Chapter XII; ANF, Vol. I, 177)

[RPS: "Each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to whether he professes faith alone or not"]

[F]or not those who make profession, but those who do the works, shall be saved, according to His word: . . . (First Apology, Chapter XVI; ANF, Vol. I)

[RPS: "For those who make profession of faith alone, not based on doing works, shall be saved"]

[T]hey who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. (First Apology, Chapter XLIII; ANF, Vol. I)

[RPS: "They who choose faith alone have worthy rewards, and they who refuse to proclaim it are eternally lost"]

So that if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God: . . . not as you deceive yourselves, and some others who resemble you in this, who say, that even though they be sinners, but know God, the Lord will not impute sin to them . . . how can the impure and utterly abandoned, if they weep not, and mourn not, and repent not, entertain the hope that the Lord will not impute to them sin? (First Apology, Chapter CXLI; ANF, Vol. I)

[RPS: "Even though they be sinners, but know God, the Lord will not impute sin to them"]

Irenaeus (d. 202)

God has given that which is good, and those who do it will receive glory and honor because they have done good when they had it in their power not to do so. But those who do not do it will receive the just judgment of God, because they did not do good when they had it in their power to do so. (Against Heresies, IV, 37, 1; commenting on Romans 2:7; Bray, 59; ANF, Vol. I: 519)

[RPS: "those who accept God's gift of faith alone will receive glory and honor, not because they have done good, which is a separate category of sanctification, that has nothing to do with justification by faith alone"].

This able wrestler, therefore [having just cited Paul in 1 Cor 9:24-27], exhorts us to the struggle for immortality, that we may be crowned, and may deem the crown precious, namely, that which is acquired by our struggle, but which does not encircle us of its own accord . . . (Against Heresies, IV, 37, 7; ANF, Vol. I)

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)

[W]hen we hear, “Thy faith hath saved thee,” we do not understand Him to say absolutely that those who have believed in any way whatever shall be saved, unless also works follow . . . No one, then, can be a believer and at the same time be licentious . . . those that have been
glorified through righteousness. (Stromata / Miscellanies, Chapter XIV; ANF, Vol. II)

[RPS: "those who have believed shall be saved, apart from any works . . . a believer can at the same time be licentious, because God imputes righteousness and overlooks the sin . . . glorified through imputed, not actual righteousness"]

Tertullian (d. 225)

A good deed has God as its debtor, just as an evil has too . . . . Further, no deed but an evil one deserves to be called sin, . . . (On Repentance, Chapter II; ANF, Vol. III)

[RPS: "God has no debts to anyone because that would deprive Him of His glory . . . all deeds done by the unregenerate are evil and sinful"]

Hippolytus (d. 236)

He, in administering the righteous judgment of the Father to all, assigns to each what is righteous according to his works . . . the justification will be seen in the awarding to each that which is just; since to those who have done well shall be assigned righteously eternal bliss, and to the lovers of iniquity shall be given eternal punishment. (Against Plato, 3; ANF, Vol. V, 222-223)

[RPS: "what is righteous according to God's imputed justification . . . the justification will be seen in the awarding of eternal bliss to those who have proclaimed faith alone"]

Origen (d. 254)

[B]elievers are to be instructed not to think that it is enough merely to believe [lacking fruit]; they ought to realize that the just judgment of God will reward each one according to his works. (Commentary on Romans [2:5]; Bray, 57-58)

[RPS: "God will reward each one not according to his works but according to whether he accepted salvation by grace through faith alone"]

Let no one think that someone who has faith enough to be justified and to have glory before God can at the same time have unrighteousness dwelling in him as well. (Commentary on Romans [4:2]; Bray, 109-110)

[RPS: "Let everyone think that faith alone is enough to be justified despite unrighteousness dwelling in everyone, which is overlooked by God because all have fallen short of the glory of God and no one does good"]

Cyprian (d. 258)

There is need of righteousness, that one may deserve well of God the Judge; we must obey His precepts and warnings, that our merits may receive their reward. (On the Unity of the Church, 16; ANF, Vol. V, 423)

[RPS: "There is need of faith alone, that one may deserve well of God the Judge; no one can perfectly obey His precepts and warnings, and there is no such thing as merit"]

Lactantius (d. 320)

[W]e may either lose that true and eternal life by our vices, or win it by virtue. (Divine Institutes, 7:5; ANF, Vol. VII, 200)

Hilary of Poitiers (d. 368)

Election, therefore, . . . is a distinction made by selection based on merit. (On Psalm 64 [65], section 5; Jurgens, I, 386)

[RPS: "Election has nothing whatsoever to do with human 'merit'"]

Athanasius (d. 373)

[E]ach one will be called to judgment in these points--whether he have kept the faith and truly observed the commandments. (Life of Antony; NPNF 2, Vol. IV, 205)

[RPS: "Each one will be called to judgment based on whether he believes in faith alone, apart from truly observing the commandments, which are part of sanctification, not justification"]

Basil the Great (d. 379)

In like manner they which have grieved the Holy Spirit by the wickedness of their ways, . . . shall be deprived of what they have received, their grace being transferred to others; . . . meaning complete separation from the Spirit. (De Spiritu Sancto, chapter 15; NPNF 2, Vol. VIII)

[RPS: "No one can be deprived of the grace that they have received, or be separated from the Spirit, because God decrees all such things and declares who will persevere from eternity"]

It is yours according to your merit to be “ever with the Lord” . . . (De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter 28; NPNF 2, Vol. VIII)

[RPS: "It is yours not according to merit at all to be 'ever with the Lord'"]

Gregory Nyssa (d. 394)

[F]aith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation . . . (Homilies on Ecclesiastes, 8; Jurgens, II, 45-46)

[RPS: "Faith without works is sufficient for salvation"]

Ambrose (d. 397)

Nor again is any one more blessed than he who is sensible of the needs of the poor, and the hardships of the weak and helpless. In the day of judgment he will receive salvation from the Lord, Whom he will have as his debtor for the mercy he has shown. (On the Duties of the Clergy, Book I, 11, 39; NPNF 2, Vol. X)

[RPS: "Nor again is any one more blessed than he who believes in faith alone and has justification imputed to him apart from all righteousness and works. In the day of judgment he will receive salvation from the Lord"]

But the sacred Scriptures say that eternal life rests on a knowledge of divine things and on the fruit of good works. (On the Duties of the Clergy, Book II, 2, 5; NPNF 2, Vol. X)

[RPS: ". . . eternal life rests on justification by faith alone and not on the fruit of good works"]

John Chrysostom (d. 407)

“Is it then enough,” saith one, “to believe on the Son, that one may have eternal life?” By no means. . . . let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation . . . Since though he has said here, “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life,” . . . yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. (Homily XXXI, 1, On John 3:35-36; NPNF 1, Vol. XIV)

[RPS: "It is enough 'to believe on the Son, that one may have eternal life?' By all means. . . . let us believe that the knowledge spoken of is sufficient for our salvation . . . we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation"]

Here Paul stirs up those who had fallen away during the persecutions and shows that it is not right to trust in faith only. For God's tribunal will demand deeds as well. (Homilies on Romans, 5; commenting on Romans 2:7; Bray, 59; NPNF 1, Vol. XI: 362)

[RPS: "Here Paul stirs up those who cannot possibly fall away even during the persecutions, and shows that it is right to trust in faith only. For God's tribunal has nothing to do with deeds"]

Hence I beseech you, let us be zealous in practicing those very deeds (by no other way, in fact, is it possible to be saved) . . . (Homilies on Genesis 47,18; commenting on Romans 2:13; Bray, 66; Deferrari, Vol. 87: 24)

[RPS: "I beseech you, let us be zealous in proclaiming justification by faith alone (by no other way, in fact, is it possible to be saved)"]

For what he saith is this, "Your salvation is not our work alone, but your own as well; . . . for not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us. (Homily on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians; on 2 Cor 1:6-7; speaking as if from St. Paul’s perspective; NPNF 1: Vol. XII, 277)

[RPS: "For what he saith is this, "Your salvation is God's work alone, and not at all your own . . . for through believing only cometh your salvation, not through the suffering and enduring the same things with us"]

[L]et us have a regard for our own salvation, let us make virtue our care, let us rouse ourselves to the practice of good works, that we may be counted worthy to attain to this exceeding glory, in Jesus Christ our Lord . . . (Homily IV on Ephesians 2:10; NPNF 1: Vol. XIII, 68)

[RPS: "Let us acknowledge that we have nothing to do with our own salvation, and that the practice of good works, though praiseworthy in themselves, likewise have nothing whatsoever to do with being counted worthy to attain to this exceeding glory"]

Jerome (d. 420)

God created us with free will, and we are not forced by necessity either to virtue or to vice. Otherwise, if there be necessity, there is no crown. As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal. (Against Jovinian, Book II, 3; NPNF 2, Vol. VI)

[RPS: "God predestined us from all eternity to fall from grace and thus no longer have free will, and thus we are forced by necessity either to virtue or to vice. Without necessity, there is no crown"]

Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428)

Paul . . . said it in order to counter those who concluded from this that anyone who wished to could be justified simply by willing faith. (Pauline Commentary From the Greek Church; commenting on Romans 3:28; Bray, 104-105)

[RPS: "Paul said it in order to teach that anyone who wished to could be justified simply by willing faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone by Scripture alone"]

Augustine (d. 430)

But if someone already regenerate and justified should, of his own will, relapse into his evil life, certainly that man cannot say: “I have not received’; because he lost the grace he received from God and by his own free choice went to evil. (Admonition and Grace [c. 427], 6,9; Jurgens, III, 157)

[RPS: "Someone already regenerate and justified cannot possibly relapse into his evil life, because of the grace he received from God; therefore he has no free choice to return to evil and can only be saved"]

Now, if the wicked man were to be saved by fire on account of his faith only, . . . then faith without works would be sufficient to salvation. But then what the apostle James said would be false. (Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love, Chapter XVIII, paragraph 3; NPNF 1, Vol. III)

[RPS: "Now, the wicked man can only be saved on account of his faith only, . . . faith without works is sufficient to salvation, and what the apostle James said was false"]

Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle's statement: "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law," have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. (A Treatise on Grace and Free Will; Chapters 18; NPNF 1, Vol. V)

[RPS: "Intelligent persons, with regard to the apostle's statement: "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law," have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works"]

[E]ven those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, . . . the apostle himself, after saying, "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;" saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them . . . "Not of works" is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has moulded (that is, has formed and created) you. . . . grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God "shall reward every man according to his works." (A Treatise on Grace and Free Will; Chapter 20; NPNF 1, Vol. V)

[RPS: "Good works of ours are not recompensed with eternal life, and are opposed to the grace of God, . . . the apostle himself believed, of course, that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them . . . it is not true that God "shall reward every man according to his works"]

Wherefore, even eternal life itself, which is surely the reward of good works, the apostle calls the gift of God . . . We are to understand, then, that man’s good deserts are themselves the gift of God, so that when these obtain the recompense of eternal life, it is simply grace given for grace. Man, therefore, was thus made upright that, though unable to remain in his uprightness without divine help, he could of his own mere will depart from it. (Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love, chapter 107; NPNF 1, Vol. III)

[RPS: "Eternal life itself is surely not the reward of good works, the apostle calls the gift of God. We are to understand, then, that man’s good deserts are themselves the gift of God, and have nothing to do with the recompense of eternal life, because that would be contrary to grace and justification by faith alone. Man cannot of his own mere will depart from God's grace"]

This must not be understood in such a way as to say that a man who has received faith and continues to live is righteous, even though he leads a wicked life. (Questions 76.1; commenting on Romans 3:28; Bray, 105; Defferari, Vol. 70, 195)

[RPS: "This must be understood in such a way as to say that a man who has received faith and continues to live is righteous through imputed justification, even though he leads a wicked life"]

He who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but He does not justify you without your willing it. (Sermons, 169, 3; Jurgens, III, 29)

[RPS: "He who made you without your consent also justifies you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, and so justifies you without your willing it"]

Someone says to me: “Since we are acted upon, it is not we who act.” I answer, “No, you both act and are acted upon; and if you are acted upon by the good, you act properly. For the spirit of God who moves you, by so moving, is your Helper. The very term helper makes it clear that you yourself are doing something.” (Sermons 156, 11; Jurgens, III, 28)

[RPS: "Someone says to me: 'Since we are acted upon, it is not we who act.' This is correct, because one cannot both act and be acted upon (it must be one or the other); and if you are acted upon by the good, you act properly, by necessity, and cannot do otherwise (Martin Luther and John Calvin will also understand this very well 1100 years after I die). For the spirit of God who moves you, by so moving, is your Helper. The very term helper makes it clear that you yourself are not doing anything"]

[N]either is the law condemned by the apostle nor is free will taken away from man. (On Romans 13-18; commenting on Romans 3:20; Bray, 96; Landes, 5, 7)

[RPS: "The law is condemned by the apostle and free will is taken away from man"]

Theodoret (d. 466)

Well-doing is for a time, but the reward is eternal . . . Paul wanted to show that there are many rewards for those who are good. (Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans; commentary on Romans 2:7; Bray, 60; Migne PG 82 col. 69)

[RPS: "Well-doing is for a time, but only justification by faith alone receives the reward that is eternal . . . Paul wanted to show that there is an eternal reward of salvation for those who proclaim belief in justification by faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone, without any of the four 'alones' actually being alone, but only proclaimed as such and imputed to the believer alone by God alone through Christ alone . . ."]

Overviews of Patristic Soteriology

If any one expects to find in this period [100-325], or in any of the church fathers, Augustin himself not excepted, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, . . . he will be greatly disappointed . . . Paul's doctrine of justification, except perhaps in Clement of Rome, who joins it with the doctrine of James, is left very much out of view, and awaits the age of the Reformation to be more thoroughly established and understood.

(Philip Schaff, HCC 2, 588-589)

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, 'justifying righteousness' is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former 'justification' and the latter 'sanctification' or 'regeneration.' For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .

The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon's concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on . . .

The Council of Trent . . . reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification . . . the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther's thought . . . .

Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process . . .

(Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109, 115; emphasis in original)

[O]ne can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . .

For Augustine, justification included both the beginnings of one's righteousness before God and its subsequent perfection -- the event and the process. What later became the Reformation concept of “sanctification” then is effectively subsumed under the aegis of justification. Although he believed that God initiated the salvation process, it is incorrect to say that Augustine held to the concept of “forensic” justification. This understanding of justification is a later development of the Reformation . . .

. . . a feature in Augustinianism which Protestants will no doubt find interesting is that God may regenerate a person without causing that one to finally persevere [City of God, 10.8] . . .

Augustine does not deny the freedom of the human will . . . He resisted the notion of double predestination, which argues that God not only decides to elect some to eternal life but also actively predestines others to eternal destruction . . .

. . . the distinction between justification and sanctification -- which came to the fore in the Reformation -- is almost totally absent from the medieval period . . .

Like Augustine, Aquinas believed that regeneration occurs at baptism . . . he held that not all the regenerate will persevere . . . Aquinas believed that humankind is unable to initiate or attain salvation except by the grace of God . . . he is completely dependent on God for salvation . . .

Whereas the Reformers distinguished forensic justification and progressive sanctification, Augustine and Aquinas did not . . .

Augustine never held the doctrine of 'double' predestination . . . and actually argued against it . . .

Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification. Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is made righteous by God's grace, as compared to extrinsic justification, by which a sinner is forensically declared righteous (at best, a subterranean strain in pre-Reformation Christendom). With Luther the situation changed dramatically . . .

(Norman Geisler, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, co-author Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 502, 85, 89, 91-93, 99, 222; emphasis in original)

Sources

Bray, Gerald, editor [Thomas C. Oden, general editor of series), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament VI: Romans, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Deferrari, R.J., editor, Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, 86 volumes, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947 --.

Jurgens, William A., editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers, three volumes, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970 and 1979 (2nd and 3rd volumes).

Landes, P.F. editor, Augustine on Romans, Chico: California: Scholars Press, 1982.

Lightfoot, Joseph B. & J.R. Harmer, translators, The Apostolic Fathers, second edition; edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989; first edition by Lightfoot originally published in 1891 (London: Macmillan & Co.).

Roberts, Alexander & Sir James Donaldson, editors, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (“ANF”), ten volumes, originally published in Edinburgh, 1867, available online.

Schaff, Philip, editor, Early Church Fathers: Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers Series 1 (“NPNF 1”), 14 volumes, originally published in Edinburgh, 1889, available online.

Schaff, Philip & Henry Wace, editors, Early Church Fathers: Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers Series 2 (“NPNF 2”), 14 volumes, originally published in Edinburgh, 1900, available online.

Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325 (“HCC 2”), Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976, from the revised fifth edition of 1910, available online.

Lutheran-Catholic Group Dialogue #2: The Nature of the True Church and Authoritative Christian Tradition / Questions on Institutional Separation

Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, with Luther's grave in the foreground

See the Introductory post.

Pastor Larry A. Nichols (Lutheran - Missouri Synod, or "LCMS") is the author of several books, including Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions, and the Occult (Zondervan Publishing House, 1993, with George A. Mather & Alvin J. Schmidt), Masonic Lodge (Zondervan, 1995; with George A. Mather & Alan W. Gomes), Discovering the Plain Truth: How the Worldwide Church of God Encountered the Gospel of Grace (Intervarsity Press, 1997; co-author George A. Mather), and Encyclopedic Dictionary of World Religions (2006; with George A. Mather & Alvin J. Schmidt). He has also written many journal articles.

Pastor Benjamin O. Maton (Lutheran - Missouri Synod ["LCMS"] ) pastors two congregations: in Ashaway, Rhode Island and New London, Connecticut.

Throughout the dialogue, my words will be in plain black, Pastor Nichols' in blue, Pastor Maton's in green, their combined words in purple, and former Lutheran, now Catholic Johnny Montalvo's in orange.

* * * * *

Jesus taught concerning Church discipline that if a brother refuses to hear the Church’s verdict on a dispute, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. Mathew 18:15-20. This is also taught in the Law of Moses. However, in Deuteronomy17: 8-13 the sentence is harsher. This binding and loosing Authority by the Church was given to her by God and should be taken very seriously. I would like to know by what authority did Luther have to start his own church after he was excommunicated for refusing to listen to the Church?

Here is our response to your first question. We collaborated on the answer.

This lead question in our debate contains false assumptions which, if they were not challenged, would immediately concede the very thing that we are attempting to debate in the first place, namely, the nature of the Church, where is the one true Church?

The above question would have made sense neither to Luther nor to his 16th century papal opponents. It seems it is asked from the (unfortunate) perspective of the fractured denominationalism of post-reformation Christendom -- a time when disgruntled pastors and laity up and desert their communion for whatever reason and “start their own Church” in a space rented from the local Elks’ Club. Whether such a state of affairs is to blame on Lutheran ecclesiology, we can debate somewhere down the road.

For now, let it suffice to say that from the perspective of the 16^th century combatants it was not a matter of being in this Church or that Church. It was a matter of being the Church or not the Church (or perhaps Church or anti-Church or Church or the “devil’s Church” as Luther would say in good 16th century polemical fashion). Since the Church is the product of the Gospel and the outcome of the evangelical mission of the Triune God, one could (or can) as little “start a new Church” as one could gin up a new gospel (“let him be anathema!”) or alter God ( “who changest not”). The question in not then, “by what authority did Luther (or whoever, whenever) start his own Church.” The question is “who is the Church.” On that Luther and the Lutheran reformers could not be clearer.

Johnny’s question assumes that Luther was convinced that he suddenly, or perhaps gradually, found himself in a false Church or that somehow or other, the Church that used to be the true Church at some point became a false one to which he now needed to step outside of and start a new one.

We cannot read anywhere in Luther or in the Confessions where the Reformer(s) ever came to this conclusion. In the Preface to the Augsburg Confession, one reads where the Lutherans refer to their adversaries as “papists” or “the papacy” or “Romanists,” or “our party” verses “their party,” etc. But one does not find references to we, the true Church, addressing the Roman Catholic Church as the false Church. This was simply not part of the consciousness of the day and to conclude so would be anachronistic, at best. Luther did, however, eventually reach the conclusion that the papacy was the antichrist foisted upon the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of which she need rid herself of.

When the Lutherans (excluding Luther himself), made the presentation of the Augsburg Confession in 1530 to the Emperor, at the Emperor’s request, they were not doing so because they now wanted to start a new Church. Not at all! This was never their understanding nor was it their intention. They wanted rather, to present a confession of the truth and point out where the Papacy had erred and veered off the path from the apostolic tradition and the rule of faith. We in turn pose the question in reverse of Johnny’s question: “By what authority did the Papists jettison the teaching of the apostles and start a new Church?” This is the underlying question that was being presented at Augsburg in 1530.

At the conclusion of the both part of their foundational confession before the emperor at Augsburg in 1530 the Evangelical princes affirmed that there was nothing in their confession “that departs from the Scriptures or the catholic faith.” The confession is replete with such language.

Seven years later as it was becoming increasingly clear that the pope would never call a truly free universal council of the Church to which the Lutherans would be invited as full participants to debate on the basis of Scripture rather than as heretics prostrate before the pope, Luther penned his Smalcald Articles where he says plainly, “We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and frankly they are not the Church.”

Earlier in those same articles Luther rejects the pope’s excommunication both theologically -- the pope’s excommunication counts for nothing because in forbidding the gospel to be freely preached he is not a true bishop, and jurisdictionally -- at most the pope is the bishop of the Church at Rome and those who willingly attach themselves to him and so has no authority to excommunicate someone from the universal Church.

The Augsburg Confession is not a document that signaled the beginning of a “new Church” with a cornerstone marked “1530.” It is a glorious statement of true catholic and apostolic teaching. Where are the words of the AC not catholic or apostolic? On the other hand, where is the sale of Indulgences for example, or the popular practice of the day to gaze at relics anywhere a part of the apostolic tradition? Where do we see any support for Indulgences among the writings of the Church Fathers, even those most sympathetic to legitimizing the papacy? Clearly, the AC is a true presentation of the doctrine of the blessed apostles.

If we have written clearly, we are left now to discuss the nature of the true Church.

This was the complete joint reply of Pastors Nichols and Maton. I thank my esteemed brothers in Christ for the succinct statement and the opportunity to interact with it. I'm afraid that it is impossible to respond with similar brevity, from a Catholic perspective, because we also believe that a number of assumptions made here are by no means self-evident. Part of the difficulty in Catholic-Lutheran dialogue is that words and concepts are often defined differently. We can only try to do our best to clarify and make the proper distinctions.

What strikes me above all in this reply is a seeming contradiction (perhaps, however, I have misunderstood some finer nuances). On the one hand, it is stated:

one could (or can) as little “start a new Church” as one could gin up a new gospel . . . or alter God . . .

Johnny’s question assumes that Luther was convinced that he suddenly, or perhaps gradually, found himself in a false Church or that somehow or other, the Church that used to be the true Church at some point became a false one to which he now needed to step outside of and start a new one.

But one does not find references to we, the true Church, addressing the Roman Catholic Church as the false Church.

How is the preceding statement (and Luther's common rhetoric of the "devil's Church" etc.) not in contradiction to the following cited statement from the Smalcald Articles?:

We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and frankly they are not the Church.

The Smalcald Articles (XII: Of the Church) continues:

. . . nor will we listen to those things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid. 2] For, thank God, [to-day] a child seven years old knows what the Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd.

What is this, if not a claim that what was known as the Catholic Church was indeed not the true Church? Even a child knows what the Church is, so Luther informs us (and it is defined in an invisible sense). Luther, in fact (I must respectfully disagree) made many such statements (that I have compiled elsewhere) "addressing the Roman Catholic Church as the false Church". Here are just a few clear examples of a "true church vs. false church" scenario (with some additional words of Luther not included in my previous paper):

From: Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage (1541), translated into English in Luther's Works, 55 volumes, Philadelphia: Fortress Press (also Concordia Publishing House), 1955 -, General editors: Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) / Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55). This was a polemical piece against the Catholic (and corrupt) Duke Heinrich (or Henry) of Braunschweig / Wolfenbuttel. It is reprinted in Volume 41 of Luther's Works, pp. 179-256; translated by Eric W. Gritsch:

[T]hey allege that we have fallen away from the holy church and set up a new church. This then is the answer: since they themselves boast that they are the church, it is for them to prove that they are. If they can prove it with a single reason (I don't ask for more), then we shall give ourselves up as prisoners, willingly saying, "We have sinned, have mercy upon us." But if they cannot prove it, they must confess (whether they like it or not) that they are not the church and that we cannot be heretics since we have fallen away from what is not the true church. Indeed, since there is nothing in-between, we must be the church of Christ and they the devil's church, or vice versa. Therefore it all turns on proving which is the true church.

(pp. 193-194)

"But what if I prove that we have remained faithful to the true, ancient church, indeed, that we are the true ancient church and that you have fallen away from us, that is, the ancient church, and have set up a new church against the ancient one?" Let us hear that!

(p. 194)

We have proved that we are the true, ancient church . . . Now you, too, papists, prove that you are the true church or are like it. You cannot do it. But I will prove that you are the new false church, which is in everything apostate, separated from the true, ancient church, thus becoming Satan's synagogue.

(p. 199)

. . . yet you still want to be honored as the church. Besides, the private mass is one of the worst abominations, whose harm and trouble can neither be measured nor fathomed. With it you have built the devil a new church and worshiped him, thereby turning into murderers of souls, just like Moloch, the devourer of children.

(p. 203)

We are certainly the true, ancient church, without any whoredom or innovation.

(p. 205)

If they are not the church but the devil's whore that has not remained faithful to Christ, then it is irrefutably and thoroughly established that they should not possess church property.

(p. 220)

But Luther seems to contradict himself. He will make these sorts of statements, but then qualify them with others:

We acknowledge not only that you have, with us, come from the true church and been washed and made clean in baptism . . . but also that you are in the church and remain in it.

(pp. 209-210)

It is true that the true ancient church with its baptism and the work of God still remains with you, and your god, the devil, has not been able to obliterate it entirely.

(p. 210)

He may have in mind the distinction between the visible and invisible church, but that can't totally reconcile the extremity of his statements.

Now, when I cite Luther, Lutherans will invariably "inform" me of something I already know: that Luther is not the norm of Lutheran theology, but rather, the confessions in the Book of Concord comprise that rule. But we don't find much better rhetoric there, either. For example, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession rather absurdly compares the Catholic mass to the worship of Baal:

Carnal men cannot stand it when only the sacrifice of Christ is honored as a propitiation. For they do not understand thew righteousness of faith but give equal honor to other sacrifices and services. A false idea clung to the wicked priests in Judah, and in Israel the worship of Baal continued; yet the church of God was there, condemning wicked services. So in the papal realm the worship of Baal clings -- namely, the abuse of the Mass . . . And it seems that this worship of Baal will endure together with the papal realm until Christ comes to judge and by the glory of his coming destroys the kingdom of Antichrist. Meanwhile all those who truly believe the Gospel should reject those wicked services invented against God's command to obscure the glory of Christ and the righteousness of faith.

(Article XXIV: "The Mass," in The Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore Tappert, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House / Muhlenberg Press, 1959, 268)

Martin Luther, in the Smalcald Articles (part of the Book of Concord), states:

Besides, this dragon's tail -- that is, the Mass -- has brought forth a brood of vermin and the poison of manifold idolatries.

(Part II, Article II: "The Mass," in Tappert, ibid., 294)

And in the same section, Luther rails:

The Mass in the papacy must be regarded as the greatest and most horrible abomination because it runs into direct and violent conflict with this fundamental article. Yet, above and beyond all others, it has been the supreme and most precious of the papal idolatries . . .

. . . Will the Mass not then collapse of itself -- not only for the rude rabble, but also for all godly, Christian, sensible, God-fearing people -- especially if they hear that it is a dangerous thing which was fabricated and invented without God's Word and will?

The Mass is again called an "abomination" in the Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration, Article VII: "Lord's Supper"; Tappert, ibid., 588). The implications of this jaded view are wide-ranging, as I've stated:

[Y]ou [i.e., Lutherans] would be in the incoherent, odd position of agreeing that Catholicism is Christian, despite the fact that its central rite is utterly non-Christian (and, far beyond that, anti-Christian, as it is idolatry, blasphemy, etc.).

The difficulty for Lutherans on this point is the fact of widespread patristic belief in eucharistic sacrifice (i.e., the Mass). Lutheran historian Jaroslav Pelikan, in his study of patristic doctrinal development, concluded:

By the date of the Didache [anywhere from about 60 to 160, depending on the scholar]. . . the application of the term 'sacrifice' to the Eucharist seems to have been quite natural, together with the identification of the Christian Eucharist as the 'pure offering' commanded in Malachi 1:11 . . .

The Christian liturgies were already using similar language about the offering of the prayers, the gifts, and the lives of the worshipers, and probably also about the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, so that the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ never lacked a liturgical frame of reference . . .

. . . As Irenaeus's reference to the Eucharist as "not common bread" indicates, however, this doctrine of the real presence believed by the church and affirmed by its liturgy was closely tied to the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Many of the passages we have already cited concerning the recollection and the real presence spoke also of the sacrifice, . . . One of the most ample and least ambiguous statements of the sacrificial interpretation of the Eucharist in any ante-Nicene theologian was that of Cyprian . . . "the passion of the Lord is the sacrifice that we offer" [Ep. 63.17]

. . . Liturgical evidence suggests an understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whose relation to the sacrifices of the Old Testament was one of archetype to type, and whose relation to the sacrifice of Calvary was one of "re-presentation," just as the bread of the Eucharist "re-presented" the body of Christ.

(The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), University of Chicago Press: 1971, 146-147, 168-170)

Protestant historian Philip Schaff concurs:

In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim.

. . . The Catholic church, both Greek and Latin, sees in the Eucharist not only a sacramentum, in which God communicates a grace to believers, but at the same time, and in fact mainly, a sacrificium, in which believers really offer to God that which is represented by the sensible elements. For this view also the church fathers laid the foundation, and it must be conceded they stand in general far more on the Greek and Roman Catholic than on the Protestant side of this question.

. . . In this view certainly, in a deep symbolical and ethical sense, Christ is offered to God the Father in every believing prayer, and above all in the holy Supper; i.e. as the sole ground of our reconciliation and acceptance . . .

. . . We pass now to the more particular history. The ante-Nicene fathers uniformly conceived the Eucharist as a thank-offering of the church; the congregation offering the consecrated elements of bread and wine, and in them itself, to God. This view is in itself perfectly innocent, but readily leads to the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, as soon as the elements become identified with the body and blood of Christ, and the presence of the body comes to be materialistically taken. The germs of the Roman doctrine appear in Cyprian about the middle of the third century, in connection with his high-churchly doctrine of the clerical priesthood. Sacerdotium and sacrificium are with him correlative ideas,

. . . The doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass is much further developed in the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers, though amidst many obscurities and rhetorical extravagances, and with much wavering between symbolical and grossly realistic conceptions, until in all essential points it is brought to its settlement by Gregory the Great at the close of the sixth century.

. . . 2. It is not a new sacrifice added to that of the cross, but a daily, unbloody repetition and perpetual application of that one only sacrifice. Augustine represents it, on the one hand, as a sacramentum memoriae, a symbolical commemoration of the sacrificial death of Christ; to which of course there is no objection. But, on the other hand, he calls the celebration of the communion verissimum sacrificium of the body of Christ. The church, he says, offers (immolat) to God the sacrifice of thanks in the body of Christ, from the days of the apostles through the sure succession of the bishops down to our time. But the church at the same time offers, with Christ, herself, as the body of Christ, to God. As all are one body, so also all are together the same sacrifice. According to Chrysostom the same Christ, and the whole Christ, is everywhere offered. It is not a different sacrifice from that which the High Priest formerly offered, but we offer always the same sacrifice, or rather, we perform a memorial of this sacrifice. This last clause would decidedly favor a symbolical conception, if Chrysostom in other places had not used such strong expressions as this: "When thou seest the Lord slain, and lying there, and the priest standing at the sacrifice," or: "Christ lies slain upon the altar."

3. The sacrifice is the anti-type of the Mosaic sacrifice, and is related to it as substance to typical shadows. It is also especially foreshadowed by Melchizedek’s unbloody offering of bread and wine. The sacrifice of Melchizedek is therefore made of great account by Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, and other church fathers, on the strength of the well-known parallel in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

. . . Cyril of Jerusalem, in his fifth and last mystagogic Catechesis, which is devoted to the consideration of the eucharistic sacrifice and the liturgical service of God, gives the following description of the eucharistic intercessions for the departed:

When the spiritual sacrifice, the unbloody service of God, is performed, we pray to God over this atoning sacrifice for the universal peace of the church, for the welfare of the world, for the emperor, for soldiers and prisoners, for the sick and afflicted, for all the poor and needy. Then we commemorate also those who sleep, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God through their prayers and their intercessions may receive our prayer; and in general we pray for all who have gone from us, since we believe that it is of the greatest help to those souls for whom the prayer is offered, while the holy sacrifice, exciting a holy awe, lies before us.

This is clearly an approach to the later idea of purgatory in the Latin church. Even St. Augustine, with Tertullian, teaches plainly, as an old tradition, that the eucharistic sacrifice, the intercessions or suffragia and alms, of the living are of benefit to the departed believers, so that the Lord deals more mercifully with them than their sins deserve.

(History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig, 1910, 492, 503-504, 506-510; see further primary documentation by visiting the link provided)

Likewise, the same description of patristic belief in this regard is made by another prominent Protestant reference:

It was also widely held from the first that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice, though here again definition was gradual . . . In early post-NT times the constant repudiation of carnal sacrifice and emphasis on life and prayer at Christian worship did not hinder the Eucharist from being described as a sacrifice from the first . . .

From early times the Eucharistic offering was called a sacrifice in virtue of its immediate relation to the sacrifice of Christ.

(The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd edition, 1983, 476, 1221)

Patristic historian J.N.D. Kelly argues essentially the same thing also, citing Justin Martyr, the Didache, and Irenaeus. For Kelly's citation and further evidences and related links, see Part III of my dialogue with a Lutheran historian on this very question. I have digressed a bit to examine the question of the Sacrifice of the Mass to make a very important point. Lutherans are simply incorrect about the history of this matter. The contradiction can be logically stated as follows:

1. Lutherans claim to be the ancient Church, and to adhere to and preserve ancient precedent, as represented by the 16th century Lutheran "reform".

2. Lutherans (following Luther) assert that the Catholic Church headed by the pope in Rome is not the ancient Church and has departed from ancient precedent.

3. Lutherans (following Luther) argue that one prime example of this departure is the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, which is (so they allege) an invention of men, idolatry, blasphemy, and an abomination (hence, the widespread prohibition of the mass in Lutheran territories early on, and the self-serving justification for theft of Catholic church properties).

4. Lutherans argue that the Church fathers did not hold to this doctrine; therefore they reject it as an innovative corruption.

5. But in fact, the Church fathers did hold this doctrine, quite widely, according to non-Catholic historians, Pelikan, Schaff, Kelly, and The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.

6. Therefore, these facts support the Catholic position on the Sacrifice of the Mass, rather than the Lutheran denial of it (and considerable biblical indication can also be brought to bear).

7. I assert, furthermore, that this is but one example of many where the Church fathers are strong witnesses for the claim that the Catholic Church is indeed the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

8. Conclusion: John Henry Cardinal Newman: "to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."

This contradiction that we see in Luther (Catholics and Catholicism are and aren't truly Christian), also runs through the Book of Concord. I do completely agree that both sides thought there could only be one true Church. It was not like today, where "Church" has had to necessarily become a far more abstract concept because of the scandalous multiplicity of denominations and sects (Luther, of course, despised sectarianism as much as anyone).

In practical terms, however, it is pretty much a distinction without a difference, because competing claims of being the one "Church" create a state of affairs in which ecclesial oneness becomes impossible. Both sides claim superiority, but both cannot be right. Thus, in my opinion, the truly fundamental and crucial question reduces to:

"Which side: the Catholics, or the Lutherans, has a more reasonable, plausible, biblical, historically defensible claim to being the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church? They can't both be right, where they contradict, so how does one choose between the two, and on what basis?"

From the Catholic perspective, it is necessarily the case that if Catholic theology and ecclesiology is correct, Lutheranism is a competing ecclesiological claim; in effect, a claimed "new Church" (and as we have seen, Lutherans return the favor and charge of someone coming up with a "new Church"). We understand that Lutherans perceive themselves as reforming the one historic Church and not radically departing from it. But we must respectfully reject that contention, under the weight of scrutiny.

That gets to the heart of Johnny's (I think, extremely relevant) question. Sure, he is assuming Catholic ecclesiology in his question, but how could he do otherwise (Lutherans assume theirs, too)? Our position is that these things were understood -- as we understand them -- prior to Luther's time. Luther was the one who wanted to change the definitions, or change horses in midstream, so to speak. Therefore, it is incumbent upon him and upon Lutherans to prove that their new conceptions of ecclesiology are more defensible than the traditional Catholic outlook.

Luther and the early Lutherans couldn't merely assert previously unacceptable notions. All of this has to be argued. Both sides claim to be going back to the patristic heritage of the early Church, as I stated last time. That is always what this discussion comes down to. We contend that Lutherans cannot (consistently and comprehensively) do this, and Lutherans say the same of us. Both sides recognize the high importance of precedent. For example, Luther wrote:

This testimony of the universal holy Christian Church, even if we had nothing else, would be a sufficient warrant for holding this article [on the sacrament] and refusing to suffer or listen to a sectary, for it is dangerous and fearful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, belief, and teaching of the universal holy Christian churches, unanimously held in all the world from the beginning until now over fifteen hundred years.

(Martin Luther, in the year 1532; from Roland H. Bainton, Studies on the Reformation [Boston: Beacon Press, 1963], p. 26; primary source: WA [Werke, Weimar edition in German], XXX, 552)

I would contend at length that Luther radically contradicted himself on this score, because he cannot demonstrate that all the Lutheran distinctives were in line with this "unanimous testimony." This is rather easily shown. I managed to identify (in a paper of mine) no less then fifty areas where Luther departed from received Christian tradition and doctrine in his three treatises of 1520 alone, all prior to the great confrontation of the Diet of Worms in 1521. Brief allusion was made to "heretics prostrate before the pope." Yet I ask readers to stop for a moment and ponder just what the Catholic Church of that time was asked to accept in the face of Luther's challenge (Protestants rarely consider this). I wrote in that paper:

I have summarized how he was heterodox by 1520, . . . this is not a discussion of whether Catholic teaching is right or wrong, but rather, whether Luther was "heterodox" or "heretical" by that same teaching (i.e., whether the Church was at least self-consistent in excommunicating him, or whether it was a power play unrelated to truth or Luther's actual - or falsely-imagined - heresy).

It is absolutely evident that Luther was heretical and that the Church was under no obligation to even contend with him at the Diet of Worms in 1521. Since it was obvious that he was teaching heresy, it was equally obvious that the Church should demand that he recant, renounce, and cease doing so. He refused, because he knew more than the Church (as he in effect implied, many times). But no Protestant body would have acted any differently, then or now, in the face of dozens of rejections of its own stated dogmas.

. . . Is that enough [the 50 departures, just listed] to justify his excommunication from Catholic ranks? Or was the Church supposed to say, "yeah, Luther, you know, you're right about these fifty issues. You know better than the entire Church, the entire history of the Church, and all the wisdom of the saints in past ages who have believed these things. So we will bow to your heaven-sent wisdom, change all fifty beliefs or practices, so we can proceed in a godly direction. Thanks so much! We are forever indebted to you for having informed us of all these errors!!"

Is that not patently ridiculous? What Church would change 50 things in its doctrines because one person feels himself to be some sort of oracle from God or pseudo-prophet: God's man for the age? . . .

No sane, conscious person who had read any of his three radical treatises of 1520 could doubt that he had already ceased to be an orthodox Catholic. He did not reluctantly become so because he was unfairly kicked out of the Church by men who would not listen to manifest Scripture and reason . . .

Therefore, the Church was entirely sensible, reasonable, within her rights, logical, self-consistent, and not hypocritical or "threatened" in the slightest to simply demand Luther's recantation of his errors at the Diet of Worms in 1521, and to refuse to argue with him (having already tried on several occasions, anyway), because to do so would have granted his ridiculous presumption that he was in a position to singlehandedly dispute and debate what had been the accumulated doctrinal and theological wisdom of the Church for almost 1500 years.

That is the Catholic perspective, and it is rarely heard or discussed in these terms, because most such discussions are conducted with Protestant starting assumptions granted beforehand, without argument or examination. But from this perspective, by what authority did Luther make his claims? He had none. He was simply an Augustinian monk. One has to virtually agree with Luther's own self-perception as a sort of prophet who has an absolutely unique message to bring to the Church. But why should anyone do that? Because he cites Scripture? Obviously, Catholics could do that, too (though, granted, the Catholics in his time were not particularly known for their piety or biblical acumen; that would come later in the century after a revival took place).

Everyone cites Scripture for their side. How does one decide who is right when they disagree? This is one of the truly insuperable difficulties that all Protestants have. It's not just the Catholic-Protestant divide. Luther soon found himself in vigorous, passionate disagreement with the Anabaptists and the sacramentarians: all of whom cited Scripture just as he did. Lutherans disagreed with the Calvinists on free will issues and the nature of the Eucharist and baptism. All appealed to Scripture. Calvin was every bit as confident and supposedly "unanswerable" in his Institutes as Luther had been in his many treatises. Who decides who is right?

That is, of course, the prerogative of the Church (1 Timothy 3:15; the Jerusalem Council in the book of Acts). But if one redefines the Church to simply one's own set of assumptions, without reference to established precedent (read, Christian or apostolic "tradition") then it is logically circular. This is what heretics had done all through history. Precisely for that reason, the Church Fathers always appealed, not just to Scripture (and they certainly did that) but to apostolic succession and the authority of the Church.

Tradition (always in harmony with Scripture) was the final arbiter as to who was heretical and who was orthodox. And so it was in Luther's day as well. That is why the Catholics appealed to past precedent and the authority of the Church, based on apostolic succession. That was the patristic and the Catholic method of determining truth. We followed ancient precedent; Luther wanted to change that by adopting (almost by default, because he really had no other option) the method and rule of faith of sola Scriptura, that had always been the method of the heretics (Arians, for example, appealed to plenty of Scripture and were countered with Scripture and the ongoing tradition of the Church that Jesus was God, not a creature).

Finally, it was claimed by Pastors Nichols and Maton that the Lutheran Augsburg Confession of 1530 was "a glorious statement of true catholic and apostolic teaching. Where are the words of the AC not catholic or apostolic?", and that it was "a true presentation of the doctrine of the blessed apostles." Well, it certainly wasn't a true presentation of catholic, patristic doctrine concerning the sacrifice of the mass, as we have seen above (and that is one answer to their question that I have already provided in detail).

Nor could even Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon come to full agreement on matters connected with the Augsburg Confession, as indicated by a series of letters between them at the time of the Diet of Augsburg. Melanchthon, true to his more conciliatory, mild character, took a much different approach than Luther:

He sweated over every portion of the Apology, for he wanted to state the core of evangelical doctrine without alienating the Roman Catholics.

(Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer, Clyde Leonard Manschreck, New York: Abingdon Press, 1958, 182)

The nature of the Mass was a dividing point all along, and indicates the contradictory nature of the Lutheran position, that was claiming to be a continuation of "catholic history" but in fact was an innovation, if it didn't even retain the central act of Christian worship, according to all those centuries from the time of Christ to 1517. Melanchthon biographer Manschreck subtly notes this disconnect:

Melanchthon's letters that Sunday afternoon, June 19, to Myconius, Luther, and Camerarius show that he thought the entire dispute might be settled by correcting abuses. Melanchthon believed that the evangelical movement in Germany was a product of the vital spirit of the old Latin church, that the fundamental doctrines of justification by faith were not anything new but a reassertion of the heart of the Christian gospel, which in the centuries of church development had become obscured by ecclesiastical observances. In casting these aside Melanchthon believed the evangelicals were adhering to the pristine practices of the church, as reflected in Scripture and the early fathers, particularly Augustine. To Valdes he was trying to show that the reformation practices were in accord with the old canonical rules and compliant with genuine catholic Christianity, and ought, therefore, to be tolerated and encouraged by the Emperor.

But something happened. Although the evangelicals attended the early morning mass, June 20, as requested . . . not a single evangelical representative participated in the ancient, mysterious rites. Charles showed his displeasure, but the Protestants seemed to have determined upon another course of action.

(Manschreck, ibid., 190)

Luther (as we would fully expect) was far less conciliatory than Melanchthon. He wrote to the latter on 28 or 29 June 1530:

I have received your Apology, and I am wondering what you mean when you say you desire to know what and how much we may yield to the Papists? According to my opinion, too much is already conceded to them in the Apology . . . I am ready, as I have always written to you, to yield up everything to them, if they will only leave the Gospel free.

(Ibid., 195)

Luther seems to have thought (far differently than Melanchthon) that reconciliation with the Catholics was impossible. Indeed, Manschreck noted that "Historians writing on the Augsburg Confession usually criticize Melanchthon as childish if not traitorous for his activity during this period" (p. 204). He contends that Luther himself would not agree with such an assessment of his friend and successor, but clearly saw "that the basic difference was one of authority" (p. 205).

Catholic historian Warren Carroll presents a synopsis of these events:

Early in July the bishops presented their complaints to the Diet of the plundering and destruction of churches, seizure of monasteries and hospitals, prohibition of Masses, and attacks on religious processions by the Protestants. When Charles called upon the Protestants to restore the property they had seized, they said that to do so would be against their consciences. Charles responded crushingly: "The Word of God, the Gospel, and every law civil and canonical, forbid a man to appropriate to himself the property of another." He said that as Emperor he had the duty of guarding the rights of all, especially those Catholics unwilling to accept Protestantism or go into exile, who should at least be allowed to remain in their homes and practice their ancestral faith, specifically the Mass; the Protestants replied that they would not tolerate the Mass . . .

By July it was clear that on matters of doctrine the Lutherans at Augsburg were dissimulating, concealing their real beliefs in the hope of avoiding a final breach without making genuine concessions. On July 6 Melanchthon made the incredible statement:

We have no dogmas which differ from the Roman Church . . . We reverence the authority of the Pope of Rome, and are prepared to remain in allegiance to the Church if only the Pope does not repudiate us.

As it happened, on the very same day Luther, in an exposition on the Second Psalm addressed to Archbishop Albert of Mainz, declared:

Remember that you are not dealing with human beings when you have affairs with the Pope and his crew, but with veritable devils! . . .

On the 13th [of July] Luther announced from Coburg that the Protestants would never tolerate the Mass, which he called blasphemous, and said of the Emperor:

We know that he is in error and that he is striving against the Gospel . . . He does not conform to God's Word and we do . . .

Luther stated in a letter to Melanchthon August 26 [cited by Manschreck, p. 204]:

This talk of compromise . . . is a scandal to God . . . I am thoroughly displeased with this negotiating concerning union in doctrine, since it is utterly impossible unless the Pope wishes to take away his power.

In subsequent letters he declared that no religious settlement was possible as long as the Pope remained and the Mass was unchanged . . .

Luther prepared the final Protestant answer:

The Augsburg Confession must endure, as the true and unadulterated Word of God, until the great Judgment Day . . . Not even an angel from Heaven could alter a syllable of it, and any angel who dared to do so must be accursed and damned . . . The stipulations made that monks and nuns still dwelling in their cloisters should not be expelled, and that the Mass should not be abolished, could not be accepted; for whoever acts against his conscience simply paves his way to Hell. The monastic life and the Mass covered with infamous ignominy the merit and suffering of Christ. Of all the horrors and abominations that could be mentioned, the Mass was the greatest.

. . . no Catholic of spirit and courage could be expected, let alone morally required, to give up all his religious rights without a struggle; and few Protestants, at this point, would allow Catholics to exercise those rights if the Protestants were strong enough to deny them. These were the irreconcilable positions taken by the two sides at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, which made those long and bloody years of conflict inevitable.

(The Cleaving of Christendom; from the series, A History of Christendom, Volume IV, Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 2000, 103-107)

The very notion that the Augsburg Confession was in entire agreement with prior Catholic history is quite debatable. Catholic Luther biographer Hartmann Grisar wrote:

In fact, the first official edition of the "Confession," printed in 1530, contained the deceptive declaration (which was subsequently altered) that the impugned doctrines meant no deviation from the Scriptures or the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, in as far as that teaching could be ascertained from Catholic authors.

. . . the Catholic theologians . . . noted the absence of any declaration relative to the pope, whom the Lutherans had come to regard as Antichrist. The declaration was silent about the universal priesthood of all the faithful in place of the clergy, the incapacity of the human will to do good, and absolute predestination, the very pillars of the doctrinal system of Lutheranism. The antitheses between the two religions on the subject of indulgences and Purgatory were likewise hushed up, and the differences in the veneration of the saints had also vanished.

Hence, honest candor, the preliminary condition of reunion, was missing.

(Martin Luther: His Life and Work, translated by Frank J. Eble, edited by Arthur Preuss, Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1950, 376)

Grisar says of Melanchthon that "His depressed condition of mind is the only thing that helps him over the charge of conscious deception" (p. 377). He implies that Luther (in his letter of August 26th, 1530, partially cited above) was aware of a certain "vacillation" -- or at least likely perceptions of same -- from the Protestants in the negotiations of Augsburg:

. . . we shall be charged with perfidy and vacillation. But what will the consequence be? Matters may easily be remedied by the steadfastness and the truth of our cause. True, I do not wish that it should so happen; but speak in such wise that, if it should happen, despondency do not ensue. For, once we shall have attained peace and escaped violence, we shall easily make amends for our tricks . . and failings, because God's mercy rules over us.

(Ibid., p. 388)

To briefly illustrate again my contention that Lutheranism cannot lay claim to being the historic Christian Church of the ages (i.e., uniquely apostolic), based on a harmony with patristic theology and practice, it is interesting to see how Luther treats the doctrine of intercession of the saints, in a little appendix of his work On Translating: An Open Letter, completed by 12 September 1530, shortly after the Diet of Augsburg:

"Nay," say they, "that way you condemn the whole Church, which has hitherto observed this practice everywhere." I reply: I know full well that the priests and monks seek this cloak for their abominations and want to put off on the Church the damage that they have done by their own neglect, so that if we say, "The Church does not err," we will be saying at the same time that they do not err, and thus they may not be accused of any lies or errors, since that is what the Church holds . . . They inject this foreign question in order to lead us away from our case. We are now discussing God's word; what the Church is or does belongs elsewhere; the question here is, what is or is not God's Word; what is not God's word does not make a Church.

(from Works of Martin Luther, Volume V, Philadelphia: A.J. Holman Co. & The Castle Press, 1931; translated by C.M. Jacobs, 25)

Note how Luther doesn't even attempt to show that the history of this doctrine throughout Christian history is more in accord with Lutheran belief than Catholic. He seems to concede the point without argument. But this doesn't go along with his stated beliefs concerning, for example, the Real presence in the Eucharist. When dealing with that (especially when confronting Protestant sacramentarians, Zwingli, etc.), Luther vehemently appeals to the unbroken tradition of the Church, as in the citation from 1532, above. But here, all of a sudden, he becomes radically ahistorical, and the same history is irrelevant, since all we need is God's word to settle any question.

The Lutheran co-opting of St. Augustine is another case in point of the weakness of their polemical historical argumentation. I looked up every single reference to St. Augustine in my copy of the Book of Concord (the doctrinal standard for Lutheranism). Without exception it claims that Augustine is in full agreement with Lutheran doctrine. Furthermore, it makes outright false factual claims, such as that Augustine denied ex opere operato (the notion that the sacraments have inherent power apart from the dispenser or recipient) and purgatory. These are erroneous judgments. As for purgatory, Augustine wrote:

The man who perhaps has not cultivated the land and has allowed it to be overrun with brambles has in this life the curse of his land on all his works, and after this life he will have either purgatorial fire or eternal punishment.

(Genesis Defended Against the Manicheans, 2, 20, 30. From Jurgens, William A., editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. III, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979, 38)

Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment.

(City of God, 21, 13. From Jurgens, ibid., 105)

The prayer . . . is heard on behalf of certain of the dead; but it is heard for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not for the rest of their life in the body do such wickedness that they might be judged unworthy of such mercy, nor who yet lived so well that it might be supposed they have no need of such mercy.

(City of God, 21, 24, 2. From Jurgens, ibid., 106)

That there should be some such fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, - through a certain purgatorial fire.

(Enchiridion of Faith, Hope and Love, 18,69, Jurgens, ibid., 149. See also -- in the same work -- 29,109-110; The Care That Should be Taken of the Dead, 1,3)

In a paper on Lutherans and St. Augustine, I stated:

Does this mean that the Book of Concord and Philip Melanchthon (its primary author) were deliberately dishonest, and rascally scoundrels? I would not make that claim, and I don't think so. Much more likely is that their Protestant and anti-Roman biases simply blinded them to certain facts and thus led to inaccuracies. Or they did inadequate research . . .

In any event, this sort of tension with the facts of history and selective espousal and appeal to it when it is an advantage to do so, and ignoring or downplaying it it when it is not, runs rampant through confessional Lutheranism, and Lutheran apologetics (insofar as the latter exists at all). And I respectfully submit that all of this is an indication of the superiority of the Catholic historical case and harmony with the patristic consensus in theology. In turn, that is a major reason why we view ourselves as the one true Church: apostolic and historically continuous, uniquely preserving true (developed) Christian doctrine in its fullness and specially guided by the Holy Spirit, Who grants the gift of infallibility in order to protect the Church from error.

On the other hand, where is the sale of Indulgences for example, or the popular practice of the day to gaze at relics anywhere a part of the apostolic tradition? Where do we see any support for Indulgences among the writings of the Church Fathers, even those most sympathetic to legitimizing the papacy?

I recently put together a paper on indulgences, derived from my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. The essence of the doctrine of indulgences is derived from explicit biblical proofs, as I contended in the book. The key notion is the power of the Church to bind and loose. "Binding" is penance, whereas "loosing" is an indulgence. Thus, when the fathers write about those issues or related ones, they are touching upon indulgences, insofar as penances are lifted. See, e.g., a collection of Church fathers' beliefs regarding confession, and also Jimmy Akin's article, What's Wrong with a Little Indulgence? For instance, St. Ambrose states:

For those to whom [the right of binding and loosing] has been given, it is plain that either both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both are allowed to the Church, neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been granted to priests only.

(Penance 1:1 [A.D. 388])

Relics have explicit biblical support as well (most notably, Elisha's bones bringing a man back to life). An article from Catholic Answers on relics provides the following illuminating information:

Relics in Early Christianity

The veneration of relics is seen explicitly as early as the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom written by the Smyrnaeans in A.D. 156. In it, the Christians describe the events following his burning at the stake: "We took up his bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place, where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy and to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom."

In speaking of the veneration of relics in the early Church, the anti-Catholic historian Adolph Harnack writes, ". . . [N]o Church doctor of repute restricted it. All of them rather, even the Cappadocians, countenanced it. The numerous miracles which were wrought by bones and relics seemed to confirm their worship. The Church therefore would not give up the practice, although a violent attack was made upon it by a few cultured heathens and besides by the Manichaeans" (Harnack, History of Dogma, tr., IV, 313).

In the fourth century the great biblical scholar, Jerome, declared, "We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore him whose martyrs they are" (Ad Riparium, i, P.L., XXII, 907). `

Philip Schaff acknowledged the prevalence of the belief in relics in the early Church, amounting to an "avalanche" (p. 450) in a section of his History of the Church, Vol. 3, 449-460 (see further source data for this volume above). He stated that biblical miracles such as Elisha's bones, the shadow of Peter, and handkerchiefs of Paul were cited as evidence for relics by "Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and other fathers" (p. 453). He mentions the advocacy of Tertullian, Epiphanius, Jerome (p. 452), St. Cyprian (p. 454), and St. Augustine (pp. 459-460), and the preservation and veneration of St. Ignatius of Antioch's and St. Polycarp's bones (p. 453). He concludes:

The most and the best of the church teachers of our period, Hilary, the two Gregories, Basil, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium, Theodoret, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Leo . . . gave the weight of their countenance to the worship of relics.

(p. 456; Schaff means by "worship" the same thing that Catholics would classify as a sub-worship "veneration")

* * * * *

I informed my two pastor friends of my reply:

Be forewarned that it required extensive historical analysis and documentation because that was necessary in order to counter the claims made and to show exactly how and why Catholics disagree with them. It's easy to claim continuity with the fathers; another thing to demonstrate it. So in opposing this particular Lutheran claim, I had to use a lot of "ink." I enjoyed the discussion and look forward to future topics as we move along.

Thanks for your timely and thorough reply. Larry and I have both had a chance to read through it and will be forthcoming with a response. A couple of the many points you make are well taken, but several others require proper contextualization, clarification, correction, and indeed, rebuttal. We ask your patient indulgence (not the RC kind!) in awaiting our reply. Unlike you clearly do, neither Larry nor I have on hand previous work and ready responses from conversations like these from which to draw. We are starting from scratch, so to say. And as the blessed work of tending souls and forgiving sins (not to mention caring for wives and children) which our Lord has granted to us as parish pastors takes up much of our time, it might be a while before you receive our response. Should our Lord delay his return a couple more weeks (Come, Lord Jesus!), be assured the response will come.

Peace in Jesus,

Ben

Dear Pastor Maton [also sent to Pastor Nichols and Johnny Montalvo, like all the replies],

Thanks for your letter. I completely understand the demands of time. Please do not feel any pressure. This is what I do for a living, so I could simply take one long day and make a reply (and, as you note, draw from past work of mine that required many hours itself when I did that research before).

I am enjoying the exchange and am happy to hear that you plan to make some sort of rebuttal. I find that the "counter-response" stage of any discussion is always more interesting and educational (and fun) than the first round, because then challenges are being made and it is a real "debate."

Please be assured of my great respect for your "blessed work of tending souls" and I will look forward (assuming the Second Coming will not preclude it) to your reply whenever it is made.

Your brother in Christ,

Dave

Excerpts From Chapter One on Bible & Tradition From My Book, The Church Fathers Were Catholic (Including an Analysis of Perspicuity )

The Book of Kells: an old Irish Bible manuscript that is one proof of thousands of how little Catholics valued Holy Scripture

It's easy to “prove” that Church fathers believed as Protestants do with regard to sola Scriptura, (Holy Scripture as the only infallible norm of faith, and the denial of the infallibility of popes, the Church, and ecumenical councils), when only one aspect of their beliefs and writings (their view of Holy Scripture) is stressed and equally important portions about tradition, the authority of the Church, and apostolic succession are omitted.

A half-truth is as bad as an untruth. If the fathers are only cited when they write about Scripture, with carefully selected tidbits, chosen for the Protestant “ear”, then they will look a lot like Protestants, especially if someone is predisposed to read Protestantism (or reasonable facsimile thereof) into their views in the first place.

For this reason, one must also examine what these same fathers think about tradition, the Church, councils, bishops, and apostolic succession, and then consider their entire view, not portions of it removed from immediate context and their overall thought. The patristic researcher should look to see if a father thinks Scripture is formally sufficient for authority without the necessary aid of tradition and the Church, or if he does not, as indicated in other statements.

Entire books are written about the fathers' supposed belief in sola Scriptura, when in fact they are merely expressing their belief in the material sufficiency of Scripture, and its inspiration and sufficiency to refute heretics and false doctrine generally.

Any thinker's statements must be evaluated in the context of all of his thought, rather than having pieces taken out and seemingly “proving” something that they do not prove at all. In other words, even if a quote is found where a father seems (at first glance) to be stating something akin to sola Scriptura (since he is writing about the Bible without immediate reference to Church or tradition), one must examine what the same person believes about tradition, Church, and apostolic succession, because the very question at hand (what is the rule of faith?) has to do with the relation of all those things. All those factors in his writing have to be analyzed, in order to properly understand his overall and complete view.

Protestants place the Bible above Church and tradition, and deny that the latter two can be infallible. Catholics and Orthodox, on the other hand, believe in a three-legged stool, where, practically speaking, Church and tradition have equal authority with Scripture, because they are the necessary framework and grid through which Scripture can be properly interpreted in an orthodox sense.

The Church's and tradition's role in interpreting Scripture was and is more of a "negative" control or check. The Church is, in effect, asserting: "if you teach a heresy based on biblical passages a, b, c that contradict sacred tradition as passed down through apostolic succession and uniquely preserved by the Holy Spirit in the one true Church, then you are interpreting wrongly, because Scripture and tradition are harmonious."

The Catholic view of authority and Holy Scripture is not about some ubiquitous churchman looking over everyone's shoulder so that they would interpret each and every verse exactly as the Church says it ought to be interpreted (in fact, less than ten Bible verses are “officially” interpreted by the Catholic Church). People can read the Bible and it was largely clear; just not always, and it is not self-interpreting enough to prevent heresy without the Church intervening on behalf of orthodoxy. This is the Catholic rule of faith.

The Protestant rule of faith, sola Scriptura, on the other hand, cannot pronounce on orthodoxy, except on a denominational level only. All it can do is appeal back to the individual and claim that Scripture is perspicuous (clear) and formally sufficient and that no Church council has binding authority if an individual sees otherwise in Holy Scripture. That can never bring about unity, and never has in fact, because it is inadequate for establishing orthodoxy as applying to all Christians across the board.

Sola Scriptura (rightly understood, or in its "classical" and most sophisticated form) does not rule out all considerations of and respect for tradition and the Church. Most Protestants would say they have a considerable amount of respect for the authority of both the “Church” (i.e., how they define it) and tradition. Sola Scriptura only denies that anything other than the Bible can be infallible. I am not here concerned with the extreme, fringe, a-historical "Bible Only" view because most thoughtful Protestant apologists and scholars and other thinkers reject that, just as Catholics do.

Protestant apologists often charge that Catholics see the word “tradition” in patristic writings and fail to understand how it is used in many different senses or definitions. But the exact nature of the tradition referred to by a father is less important than the fact that he places it in a certain position vis a vis Scripture. Furthermore, differing conceptions of tradition among the fathers also do not affect the goal of determining whether they believed in sola Scriptura or not.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that three fathers held three somewhat differing notions of what tradition is. This poses no problem for the Catholic argument, because it is not about the precise definition of tradition held by each father, but rather (again), about how they view tradition (however they define it) in relationship to Holy Scripture. Let me illustrate:

1. Church father #1 believes that tradition is the oral unwritten record passed down of things that can always be found explicitly in Scripture.

2. Church father #2 believes that tradition is the oral unwritten record passed down of things that can always be found either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

3. Church father #3 believes that tradition is the oral and written record passed down of things that can always be found explicitly in Scripture.

4. Church father #4 believes that tradition is the oral and written record passed down of things that can always be found either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

5. Church father #5 believes that tradition is the oral and written record passed down of things that can always be found either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture, including what is recorded in Scripture itself, since the Bible is inspired and preeminent part of the larger apostolic tradition, and equates the "word of God" and the "gospel" with "tradition."

There might be (and indeed were, as a matter of historical fact) a number of differing conceptions, but all of the hypothetical fathers above accept authoritative apostolic tradition. The bottom line is that a father could hold any one of these definitions of "tradition" and still would be opposed to sola Scriptura, depending on how he views each relative to the other.

If one's goal in argument, then, is to show that a father did not believe in sola Scriptura, whichever definition of tradition that he holds will not affect the demonstration, if in fact he places tradition (and/or the Church) in an authoritative position in a manner contrary to the Protestant rule of faith, or sola Scriptura.

Thus, if Church fathers #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 each applies his particular definition of "tradition" and believes that Church and tradition have a practical authority and a necessary role in interpreting Scripture, and that it is meaningless to pit any of the three against another, and that they do not contradict, but are all of a piece, they all deny sola Scriptura; period; end of discussion.

It doesn't matter what definition of "tradition" each one utilizes because it is a relational proposition. It doesn't matter if any of the above views aren't absolutely identical in every particular to my view today as a Catholic, or what stage of theological development in the history of Christianity is involved, or what a Protestant debater may think (correctly or incorrectly) Catholicism is. All that has to be shown is that tradition and the Church are not surbordinate to Scripture in terms of authority, or deemed to be incapable of infallibility.

[the above is the beginning portion of the chapter]

* * * * *

This brings to mind Jesus' conversation with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). Scripture states:

And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

(Luke 24:27; RSV)

The two disciples later marvelled at how Jesus "opened to us the Scriptures" (Luke 24:32). In other words, those prophecies were not understood until Jesus explained them, and in fact, most of the Jews did not see that they were fulfilled. Thus, Old Testament Scripture was insufficient for these messianic truths to be grasped simply by reading them. One could retort that the Jews were hard-hearted and thus could not understand since they had not the Holy Spirit and God's grace to illumine their understanding. But that proves too much because it would also have to apply to these two disciples, and indeed all of the disciples, who did not understand what was happening, even after Jesus repeatedly told them that He was to suffer and to die, and that this was all foretold. They didn't "get it" till after He was crucified.

The rest of the Psalm shows that He knew that His Father would grant all His requests, and would raise Him from the dead. It also shows that He encouraged all who fear God to praise Him, because through the mystery of the Crucified One He had mercy on the faithful of every race; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren, the Apostles (who, after He arose from the dead and convinced them that He had warned them before the Passion that He had to suffer, and that this was foretold by the Prophets, were most sorry that they had abandoned Him at the crucifixion).

(St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, Chapter 106, ANF, Vol. I)

The Phillips Modern English translation renders Luke 24:32 as, "he made the scriptures plain to us." The Greek word for "opened" is dianoigo (Strong's word #1272). According to Joseph Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977 reprint of 1901 edition, p. 140), it means "to open by dividing or drawing asunder, to open thoroughly (what had been closed)."

This meaning can be seen in other passages where dianoigo appears: Mk 7:34-35, Lk 2:23, 24:31,45, Acts 16:14, 17:3). Obviously, then, Holy Scripture is informing us that some parts of it were "closed" and "not plain" until the "infallible" teaching authority and interpretation of our Lord Jesus opened it up and made it plain.

This runs utterly contrary to the Protestant notion of perspicuity of Scripture and its more or less ubiquitous self-interpreting nature; also to biblical passages such as 1 Peter 1:20: ". . . no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own private interpretation" (cf. Peter's description of Paul's letters: "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" - 2 Peter 3:16). The need for an interpreter was also illustrated in the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch:

. . . he was reading the prophet Isaiah . . . So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?"

(Acts 8:28,30-31; RSV)

It turns out that he was reading Isaiah 53:7-8, as we are informed in Acts 8:32-33. Philip then interprets the passage as referring to Jesus, and preaches the gospel to the eunuch (Acts 8:35). An authoritative interpreter was needed. And no one can say that the eunuch didn't understand because of "hardness of heart" because subsequent events show that he was willing to accept the truth (as he got baptized in Acts 8:38). He simply didn't have enough information. He needed the authoritative ("infallible," if you will) teacher. Old Testament Scripture (which was Justin's primary Scripture) was not sufficient enough for him to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Chat Room Debate Challenge to "Turretinfan", "Saint and Sinner", Cory Tucholski, & Gene M. Bridges: "Is Catholicism Christian?"

Wouldn't a real debate be nice for a change?

1) Whereas I have tried for 12 years to engage an anti-Catholic Christian (either Protestant or Orthodox) in a sustained discussion on the crucial presuppositional topic of "Is Catholicism Christian?" / "What is Christianity?" (ever since my snail mail debate with James White in 1995, that he prematurely departed from),

2) And whereas recently, the four persons named above (especially "Turretinfan") have objected to my use of the term anti-Catholic, and have refused to interact with my perfectly reasonable stated rationale (from almost exclusively Protestant scholars) in a paper I always direct people to, who object to my usage,

3) And whereas this issue is fundamental to all Catholic-Protestant discussion, insofar as it is crucial to start with correct and commonly held definitions in order to get anywhere in a meaningful discussion,

4) And whereas James White, John Q. "Lightweight" Doe, and CARM president Matt Slick have all declined to discuss this topic in a chat room debate,

5) And whereas "Saint and Sinner" has (oddly enough) decided to embark on a series of critiques of my book, The Catholic Verses, despite writing on 3-7-07:

Why should Dr. White waste his time in fruitless written debates? Everyone knows that he rarely does this and that he only does public moderated debates so that there can be cross-ex. In written debates, Armstrong could simply dodge the question by rambling on about something else. Also, why should White waste his time with Armstrong when it is clear from "The Catholic Verses" that Armstrong doesn't have any exegetical ability at all? [Then again, does any conservative Catholic have any?]

6) And whereas "Saint and Sinner" has refused (despite his zeal in critique) to properly interact with my critiques of his critiques, or to defend his positions with even rudimentary intellectual confidence, preferring to compose short replies that ignore much of my argumentation:

Here’s Dave’s attempted rebuttal [link to my long reply]. I would encourage everyone (who has the time!) to read my post [link], write down the specific points/arguments/counter-arguments that I made, read Dave’s post, and see if he actually responded meaningfully with anything I said. Good luck! Voluminous writing tends to obscure the real issues, divert the topic elsewhere, and make one’s opponents look like they said something they didn’t.

(10-5-07)

7) And whereas all of these men have preferred to engage in personal insult rather than serious comprehensive discussion, where I am concerned, and have especially endlessly regurgitated the charge that I write too much meaningless "fluff" and at absurd length (a charge I refuted with much documentation, i.e., proving that many known online anti-Catholics are far more voluminous than I am):

There are several notable difficulties in replying to Dave Armstrong, not the least of which being his uncanny ability to ramble on and on about nothing in particular. The fluff in his posts is absolutely unreal. . . . This is one example of the voluminous chaff through which a person responding to Mr. Armstrong must sort to get to the meat of the argument. . . . Dave needs to head to the book store and get himself a copy of On Writing Well by William Zinsser and carefully read the chapters on Simplicity, Clutter, and Words before he constructs his next “paper.”

(Cory Tucholski -- 9-29-07)

[H]e's ["Saint and Sinner"] already received his first love letter from Uncle Dave here. It's worth noting that, as usual, it is utterly irrelevant to anything Saint and Sinner actually wrote.

(Gene M. Bridges, 10-2-07)

One cannot help but think that your desire S&S to take time to reply to a 27 page response from you is both (a) a diversionary tactic to keep him from pressing forward . . .

(Gene M. Bridges, 10-3-07)

Here’s Dave’s attempted rebuttal. I would encourage everyone (who has the time!) to read my post, write down the specific points/arguments/counter-arguments that I made, read Dave’s post, and see if he actually responded meaningfully with anything I said. Good luck!

("Saint and Sinner", 10-5-07)

[H]e rants and raves ad nauseam and ends up drifting away from the issue.

("Saint and Sinner", 10-6-07)

But press on S&S - continue to demonstrate the fallacies in "Catholic Verses," and go ahead with your short reply to the few on-topic remarks in Dave's 27 page document. After all, the rebuttal of his book serves a valuable public function that is independent of the prejudice and hostility of the writer of the book.

("Turretinfan", 10-6-07)

I'm glad to see that someone else ["Turretinfan" ] is pointing out how this guy misuses words to his own end. The tools of the writer's trade are his words. If Dave can't use them properly, he shouldn't be a writer.

(Cory Tucholski, 10-12-07)

[O]f course, most of what appears on the web site is not even pretext at Biblical apologetics, just inflammatory material . . .

("Turretinfan", 10-18-07)

8) And whereas others watching this latest farce of viciously circular monologue critiques (with no intention whatsoever of answering hard questions from my end) from the peanut gallery have expressed the same silly, groundless sentiments:

I’ll admit, I don’t think I have ever read through an entire DA post because they get so long, but I hope S&S can get through a few posts without being barraged by DA and others with what mostly amounts to off-topic rants.

("Carrie" -- 10-2-07)

I see Armstrong is continuing his defining of "anti-Catholic" as "whoever disagrees with Dave Armstrong." Welcome to the club, Saint & Sinner, from your fellow "anti-Catholic" :-)

(Peter Pike, 10-2-07)

9) And whereas James White: the anti-Catholic champion that all these men look up to as a role model as the Mighty Vanquisher of Catholicism, has extolled the glories of the cross-examination -- echoed by "Saint and Sinner" in his remark cited in #5 above -- (my emphases):

. . . a pack of lies so inane, so silly, no person could possibly make a meaningful case for them in the face of cross-examination and rebuttal. Which is why, of course, he refuses to put himself in a position of being cross-examined by the very people who would expose his falsehoods without hesitation.

(1-17-06 on his blog)

What is not being said is that the very first thing torn out was the cross-examination that we had specifically asked for in the agreement arrived at. I have said it repeatedly in the past, and I'll say it again: in theological debate the truth is normally determined by cross-examination. I know that is not the case in scholastic speed-talking, but it is in this context, a context that is unfamiliar territory for all involved on the other side. So, cross-ex was being diminished to the point of being irrelevant.

(10-10-06)

During the cross-examination, as is so often the case, the wheels fell off my opponent's wagon. I was pressing him on his utterly untenable reading of Romans 1 and finally, he had to give in.

(2-14-07)

10) And whereas this format will force these prattling critics of myself and my reasoning and dialogical methods to confront the issue (indeed, any issue that they have with Catholics) head on for a change rather than running from them and substituting juvenile insults for intelligent, constructive discourse,

11) And whereas I have always thought that an assertion that Catholicism is not Christian, coming from the position of Protestantism, is a viciously self-refuting position of intellectual suicide,

12) I do hereby challenge any and all of these men (one at a time) to a live debate in James White's chat room (or similar venue), in a "double cross-ex format" (exactly the same one that I challenged White, Doe, and Slick to undertake).

* * * * *

My suggested terms and parameters and format for the debate are as follows (exactly as I suggested in the three earlier challenges):

I am allowed to question (or "cross-examine") my opponent for 60 minutes on this topic, whereas he can question me for 90 minutes. The entire debate would consist entirely of this "cross-examining", since Bishop White has repeatedly stressed that this is such a "crucial" element of Catholic-Protestant encounters. I actually largely agree with him in this instance, in the sense that all positions need to be closely examined, and people taking positions ought to defend their positions against such close scrutiny.

My opponent can choose to question first, or second (I have no preference). As in my terms in 2001 (first challenge to Bishop White, that he refused), it is a "non-negotiable" that the entire, unedited exchange shall be posted on my blog. If that is not agreed-to beforehand, there will be no debate, because the whole point is to broadcast it (by exposure online) as far and wide as possible.

My opponent(s) can post it on his (their) blog(s), too. It will certainly be posted on my blog in its entirety. White's characteristic chiding of debate opponents when they are reluctant to distribute debates (as tacit "admissions" that they "lost") is no factor here. It never has been.

I provide my opponents with 90 minutes of cross-examination (30 minutes more than I get with them): truly a golden opportunity (even a handicap) to prove to the world that I am as profoundly ignorant and clueless as they repeatedly claim. What do any of them have to lose?

I also suggest that it take place late enough for those on the west coast to be able to observe it live (9 or 10 PM EST); preferably on a Friday or Saturday night, so that those in the eastern part of the country can stay up later without having to work the next day. There will be no rules, no moderation, no format other than previously agreed-to time limits, and absolute inadmissibility of personal attack.

Participants can, however, or refuse to spend a perceived inordinate amount of time on what they consider a "side" issue.

Should any of my opponents be willing (and that is always the hurdle), we could continue on with similarly formatted live chat debates on other mutually-agreed-upon topics.

* * * * *

Lack of any response will be regarded as a "no" answer: declining the challenge or invitation, and this will be duly noted and documented hereafter on my blog, for the record (along with the probable slew of renewed insults, just as occurred with Slick, White, and Doe).

Notice of this challenge will be posted on the blogs of all four of these men (Triablogue for Gene M. Bridges) immediately after this is posted.

Here are the URLs of all four comboxes ("Turretinfan's" blog requires his approval for all comments). This ought to be great fun to watch (judging by past experience):

Turretinfan

Saint and Sinner

Gene M. Bridges (at Triablogue)

Cory Tucholski

* * * * *

Gene M. Bridges (I knew someone was gonna go nuts with this) has launched into the stratosphere with a hyper-ridiculous piece, comparing me (I kid you not) to the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il and (as a special bonus) the Iranian crackpot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As the proverb goes: "just when I thought I had seen [or, been called] everything . . . "All because of a debate challenge!!! ROFL! I went downstairs and told my second son and wife about it and we all laughed our heads off.

Here it is in its entirety, except for his citation of his extreme insults posted at Turretinfan's blog. I have posted them with my replies in the combox. This ranks up with the very best and funniest of the insults from our anti-Catholic brethren in Christ: up in the sublime territory of Eric Svendsen claiming that I hobnob with Holocaust deniers and that I had closed down my blog and had left the Internet entirely after James White supposedly shut me up for good with his personal attacks (um, that was a remark he made in January 2005). I hope you enjoy the utter absurdity of it as much as my family has.

A day later I was compared to Fidel Castro. That is posted below, too.

* * * * *

Thursday, October 25, 2007

For The Record

Kim Jong Armstrong has declared that I have turned down a debate with him. The reason I am writing this is to make the historical record as clear as possible, just in case the Roman Polit
Bureau decides to craft a few whoppers by omitting certain facts from the record.

I learned this today when I ran into this little comment over on Turretin Fan's blog:

I have offered my opponents 90 minutes of time to examine me, to my 60 for asking them questions. White and Doe turned that down. S&S and Bridges and Cory T. appear to have also. TF is still pondering.

So, let's get this straight, shall we, Dave assumed, without any interaction whatsoever from me one way or the other that I had turned down a debate with him.

Where was this challenge posted?

1. On Dave's blog.
2. In this thread.

I don't read, Kim Jong Armstrong's blog. Unlike him, I'm not so self-obsessed that I troll about the internet looking for references to my name so that I can find targets to test fire missiles. In fact, I rarely interact with Kim Jong Armstrong up in the great North, since my interests are more about Southern Baptists, at present in particular.

Note that the thread in which this was posted was a thread about...rain - not Catholicism - rain. Was there something about this thread that attracted nullifidians and Kim Jong Armstrong? Yeah, I know, that's just weird. Also, I don't read every comment stream of everything I write here; sometimes I follow it part way then move on and forget about it. Yeah, I know, weird. You see, I believe in the priesthood of all believers, since I am, after all Baptist, and that means I believe in letting others participate in a discussion on their own. Oh, and, for the record, no, we writers here do not receive messages that somebody has commented on something we've written. We have to fend for ourselves in that regard.

So, I learned about this "challenge" from Kim Jong Armstrong that I had "turned down" in a comment box on another blog; so I had to google for a debate challenge to me, which I then found to be on Kim Jong Armstrong's blog, and then come back here to find where, exactly, he had posted it. Apparently, Kim Jong Armstrong works with all the stealth of the North Korean nuclear program.

Reading the post, the debate is, itself, more about his feeling left out, mocked, etc. than it is about the truth of Scripture, theology, etc. No, the list of resolutions are, for the most part, all about Dave's ego.

By the way, you'd think that Saint and Sinner has enough on his hands too, since he's posting exegetical responses to Dave's book. As I said before, this seems like a diversionary tactic on Dave's part. Let S&S finish his work before that, or is Kim Jong Armstrong upset that the United Reformed Apologetics Security Council won't give him the attention he so desperately craves?

By the way, as you can see the central members are all in the center - clearly the balding guy is James White. (Yeah, Brother James, you know that's you, don't deny it!) Hays is at the head of the table ( I see the Cary Grant resemblance, don't you?) , Doe, Slick, Turk, and Svendsen are the others. I'm in the second circle all the way on the right. As you can see, my hand is not raised. That's me turning down the vote to recognize Kim Jong Armstrong's debate challenges, obviously.

Frankly, I think me debating Dave would be as profitable a use of my time as a US official debating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His challenge, in my estimation, bears a striking resemblance to that very challenge.

So, just in case the Armstrong Polit Bureau decides to start with the triumphal cry that I have refused to debate Dave for self-serving reasons - for example that I fear to cross the demilitarized zone because I can't defend my position, here is the exact reply I left for him on TF's blog:

[omitted portion; see it in my combox with my replies]

Oh, and one more thing, the reason that the comments here are turned off is quite simple:

1. I'm sure Mahmoud Armstrong, like his counterpart overseas, will have his own little rant on his own blog.

2. I derive a certain pleasure from that sort of thing, rather like Andy Taylor watching Barney Fife implode - you know to see that little vein on his neck pop out, mussed up hair and all.

Friday, October 26, 2007

The Ever Changing Story

Generalissimo (In)Fidel Armstrong's Polit Bureau writes today:

the only one of the four challenged even considering it, far as I can tell; Gene Bridges is comparing me to the dictators of North Korea and Iran LOL

1. Notice the subtle change? Yesterday it was (emphasis mine):

I have offered my opponents 90 minutes of time to examine me, to my 60 for asking them questions. White and Doe turned that down. S&S and Bridges and Cory T. appear to have also. TF is still pondering.

Yesterday I was informed by His Majesty that I and two others had turned it down, and that before I actually refused. Now, we have some sort self-flagellatory compromise between having refused and consideration. Dave is in no position to know anything about whether or not anybody is considering his offer. Rather, he begins from the posture that if we don't respond immediately we have turned it down, and let's not forget where he left his challenge here - in a thread requesting prayer for rain. Here's a challenge for Dave: Stop with the self-flagellation and self-absorption and maybe you'll be taken more seriously.

2. Yes, I agree, comparisons to the dictators of Korea and Iran may have been a bit much - they are far too relevant in current affairs, so I've chosen another one for you that's a bit more appropriate in that regard. Better?

3. And Barney Fife, Dave, and Barney Fife.

Gene Bridges' & Steve Hays' Errors Regarding the History of Papal Infallibility (Incl. Details on Luther's Dissent at the Leipzig Disputation in 1519)

St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622)

Gene M. Bridges is a Reformed Baptist apologist, active on the Triablogue site. He wrote there on 10-14-07:

The Pope, of course, was not said to be infallible until the 19th century.

Steve Hays (the main guy on that site) provided his own example of misinformation:

We are told, nowadays, that infallibility only attaches to sacred matters of faith and morals, and not to mundane matters. So, for example, it might be objected that the Sistine Vulgate doesn’t fall within the parameters of infallibility.

( 5-2-04 )

It would be a complex discussion regarding what exactly constitutes the equivalent of infallibility, if the word itself is not present. There are many similar notions such as papal authority, conciliar authority, papal primacy, headship, papal supremacy, indefectibility, being without error, the impossibility of disagreeing with a papal proclamation without one's orthodoxy being questioned, etc. All of those can be traced back to very early times. Papal infallibility developed just as all Christian doctrines do. No surprise there . . .

But if we restrict ourselves to uses of the word itself, (and with direct reference to the pope), I knew of one such use right off the bat, because it was included in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, pp. 212-213. It comes from a Doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales, and his book, The Catholic Controversy, completed in 1596. Note how remarkably it anticipates the later fully-developed dogma of papal infallibility, as pronounced at the First Vatican Council in 1870 (which is precisely why I used it in my book).

Gene Bridges contended that no one claimed that the pope was infallible until "the 19th century." Well, this instance beats that by at least 204 years. If (as is likely) Bridges is referring more specifically to 1870, then we're talking about 274 years prior to that time. This is a pretty big whopper. Steve Hays, on the other hand (rather notorious himself for also committing such whoppers, where Catholicism is concerned), implies that the limitation of the scope of infallibility is something that is of recent origin ("nowadays"). But the citation below refutes that assertion as well:

When he teaches the whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then there is nothing but doctrine and truth. And in fact everything a king says is not a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king and as a legislator. So everything the Pope says is not canon law or of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down the law for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form.

We must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err extra cathedram, outside the chair of Peter. that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.

But he cannot err when he is in cathedra, that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith. For then it is not so much man who determines, resolves, and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man, which Spirit, according to the promise made by Our Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the Church.

(The Catholic Controversy, translated by Henry B. Mackey, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1989 from the 1886 publication [London and New York], 306-307; available online)

Another example dates from a 1690 Decree of the Holy Office during the reign of Pope Alexander VIII (1689-1691): Errors of the Jansenists. Among the errors condemned is the following:

29. Futile and many times refuted is the assertion about the authority of the Roman Pontiff being superior to that of an ecumenical Council and about his infallibility in deciding questions of faith.

(Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma [Enchiridion Symbolorum], #1319; online; other earlier references in this work to earlier developed statements of infallibility are #100, 109-110, 129, 139, 142, 160, 171, 351, 570Q, 1000)

This is decried as "Condemned and prohibited as rash, scandalous, evil-sounding, injurious, close to heresy, smacking of heresy, erroneous, schismatic, and heretical respectively."

Thus far we have found statements from 1596 and 1690. But how about something very close in concept from 1520? That is a full 350 years before 1870 and 280 before the beginning of the 19th century. This comes from (if you haven't guessed already) the condemnation of Martin Luther's errors: the papal Bull Exsurge Domine, of June 15, 1520. Here are two of the 41 propositions condemned:

[Denzinger number] 767 27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.

768 28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.

[online source]

To be more specific:

Censure of the Holy Pontiff: "All and each of the above mentioned articles or errors, so to speak, as set before you, we condemn, disapprove, and entirely reject as respectively heretical, or scandalous, or false, or offensive to pious ears, or seductive of simple minds, and in opposition to Catholic truth."

As is often said in discussions on the history of development of Christian doctrine: "an article is not defined until it is violated." One observes this very often in the early historical battles of the Catholic Christian Church with the great heresies such as the Arians, Monophysites, Pelagians, and Gnostics. It still held true in the 16th century.

Martin Luther hadn't expressly denied papal authority per se in his 95 Theses (October 31, 1517). That was to come later, certainly by the time of the 18-day Leipzig Disputation of July 1519, with John Eck, where Luther was essentially pressed -- a victim of his own faulty logic and ecclesiological understanding -- into adopting something akin to sola Scriptura, and rejecting papal and conciliar infallibility.

Luther biographer Roland Bainton notes how Luther's accusing the pope of committing serious errors in 1518 was "upping the ante" of the brewing theological controversy considerably:

. . . in the interim Luther had attacked not only the papal power to loose but also the power to bind through the ban. He had further declared the pope and councils to be capable of error.

(Here I Stand, New York: Mentor, 1950, 78-79)

Luther was firing shots at Eck even before the debate, as noted by Bainton; for example:

Let it be understood that when I say the authority of the Roman pontiff rests on a human decree I am not counseling disobedience. But we cannot admit that all the sheep of Christ were committed to Peter. What, then, was given to Paul? When Christ said to Peter, "Feed my sheep," he did not mean, did he, that no one else can feed them without Peter's permission? Nor can I agree that the Roman pontiffs cannot err or that they alone can interpret Scripture. The papal decretal by a new grammar turns the words of Christ, "Thou art Peter" into "Thou art the primate." By the decretals the gospel is extinguished. I can hardly restrain myself against the most impious and perverse blasphemy of this decretal.

(Ibid., 83)

Bainton recounts the dramatic climax of the debate:

"Let me talk German," demanded Luther. "I am being misunderstood by the people. I assert that a council has sometimes erred and may sometimes err. Nor has a council authority to establish new articles of faith. A council cannot make divine right out of that which by nature is not divine right. Councils have contradicted each other, for the recent Lateran Council has reversed the claim of the councils of Constance and Basel that a council is above a pope. A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it. As for the pope's decretal on indulgences I say that neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture we should reject pope and councils."

"But this," said Eck, "is the Bohemian virus, to attach more weight to one's own interpretation of Scripture than to that of the popes and councils, the doctors and the universities. When Brother Luther says that this is the true meaning of the text, the pope and councils say, 'No, the brother has not understood it correctly.' Then I will take the council and let the brother go. Otherwise all the heresies will be renewed. They have all appealed to Scripture and have believed their interpretation to be correct, and have claimed that the popes and the councils were mistaken, as Luther now does. It is rancid to say that those gathered in a council, being men, are able to err. This is horrible, that the Reverend Father against the holy Council of Constance and the consensus of all Christians does not fear to call certain articles of Hus and Wyclif most Christian and evangelical. I tell you, Reverend Father, if you reject the Council of Constance, if you say a council, legitimately called, errs and has erred, be then to me as a Gentile and a publican."

(Ibid., 90)

All of this discussion in the Leipzig Disputation presupposes both papal and conciliar infallibility or at least something very similar to it, since much of the point of sola Scriptura as a rule of faith was to assert biblical infallibility over against papal and conciliar.

I rest my case.

For more in-depth discussion of the many biblical and traditional rationales for infallibility, see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this subject.

* * * * *

And here is Gene Bridges' "response":

Oh - and since the infallibility of the Pope had not yet been made a de fide object of faith in Rome until the 19th century, what Steve and I have said stands, and, as usual, what you say doesn't begin to touch what we have stated. It suffers from anachronistic reading of texts.

That isn't, of course, what he stated, which was, rather: "The Pope, of course, was not said to be infallible until the 19th century." And, as usual, there is no attempt to interact with my substantive critique. Bridges also lobbed a number of extraordinary personal insults (including my being allegedly a "chronic liar" and oath-breaker) that I have chronicled elsewhere, with my response. That rant was his curious way of turning down a debate challenge.

Refutation of the Common Protestant Polemical Charge That Catholics Inconsistently & Arbitrarily Apply Private Judgment in Accepting Catholicism

I've heard this a hundred times if I've heard it once. I have seen it used by James White, Eric Svendsen, Steve Hays, and (endlessly) Tim Enloe, in their zealous efforts to refute Catholicism. In a slightly different form, it is also known as the infallibility regress argument (Svendsen in particular has utilized this one). Others now recycle the argument. But it is just as bad and fallacious as it ever was (even though its users appear to be supremely confident in its power to refute and persuade). Lo and behold, today it appeared in a combox on this blog from yet another person. One "Interlocutor" (presumably Protestant) wrote:

[E]veryone privately interprets to decide what church to join and authority to submit to. So this old canard by RC's about using private judgment kind of obscures the issue. I think the real issue is simply the need for infallible authority. RC's seem completely fine with a Protestant or EO interpreting history/scripture and coming to the RC conclusion and then leaving his church to join them, but if it's vice versa then forget it. Coming with that though is the need to drop any further private judgment that contradicts RC dogma given the claim of infallibility. It's just interesting that the very principle you use to join an EO or RC church is then supposed to be done away with. So really the question is not should/does the church have authority (everyone agrees it does) or how do you know (everyone is going to privately interpret scripture and tradition to come to their conclusion), but does it necessarily have to have infallible authority? If it doesn't, RC/EO have no epistemological advantage.

*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***


In a very long debate with Protestant apologist Jason Engwer about the Church fathers and whether they adopted sola Scriptura as their rule of faith (he split as I was 40% of the way through my counter-reply: four out of the ten fathers under consideration), this came up also. He expressed basically the same idea in these words:

Dave said that Protestants make themselves the "final arbiter", since they rely on their own interpretation of scripture. I asked Dave why his reliance on his own interpretation of the church doesn't make him the final arbiter. His response to my question is an example of the sort of irrationality that characterizes his apologetics. Dave responded by quoting Charles Hodge discussing the responsibility of the individual to interpret scripture. Therefore, Dave argued, he wasn't misrepresenting Protestantism, since such a prominent Protestant as Charles Hodge refers to the individual interpreting scripture for himself.

But the issue isn't whether Protestants believe in personal interpretation. I never denied that they do. Rather, the issues are whether relying on personal interpretation is equivalent to considering yourself the final arbiter and whether Roman Catholics do the same thing. Obviously, Roman Catholics do rely on their own interpretation of the church, so why would Dave criticize reliance on personal interpretation?

I replied (this was in July 2003) with an argument that I had been using for some time (at least since 1996). It is reproduced in my book, More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, chapter 13, pp. 135-141 (pp. 96-101 in the first edition). The dialogue is a paraphrase (of my opponents' words) based on a real dialogue; in this case, with Tim Enloe. Needless to say, as almost always when Tim is in a "debate" (one hesitates to even associate this word with him at all), he didn't reply:

P: Catholic apologists commonly assert that Catholics have a "certainty of faith" not present in Protestantism, by means of finding the "final" answer to serious questions in "the Church." The individual Catholic deludes himself into thinking that he has not, in fact, determined by himself a number of fallible "private judgments," none of which are any more "certain" than those which Protestants make in their own search after doctrinal (and biblical) orthodoxy. This is a double standard.

C: It is not simply a reliance upon the Church in blind faith; it is, rather, the combination of Church authority, patristic consensus, and the biblical material: Church, Tradition, and Bible: the "three-legged stool." We say that this was the methodology of the Fathers themselves, in their appeal to apostolic succession or Tradition (see, e.g., St. Irenaeus). It is essentially an historical, typically Jewish argument, not a philosophical one (philosophy deriving from the Greeks).

P: All of this examination of patristic consensus, past Church rulings, and the Bible is undertaken by fallible individuals, and thus, is equally as prone to error as Protestant beliefs.

C: One could say the same about the Fathers themselves, and the Councils. The whole point is that there is an identifiable apostolic deposit which is passed down, and Catholics accept that, as clarified by their Church. We don't reinvent Christianity in each generation; we accept what has been given to us, just as the apostles and Fathers before us did. This is not a philosophical matter; it is one of faith and legal-historical grounds of ascertainable fact.

P: The Protestant’s "certainty of faith" lies in the self-attesting Word of God, while the Catholic relies on the secondary testimony of the Church, a mere man-made entity, even if thought to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

C: No; everyone accepts the Scripture; that is not at issue. The alleged "self-attesting" nature of it is a real issue I have dealt with at great length. The "secondary testimony" here is that of the Luther and Calvin. If Scripture speaks of an infallible and indefectible Church, then that notion is relying on the Word of God. We rely on the apostolic Tradition passed down, verified and developed by the Fathers, Councils, great Doctors, and popes, and ultimately in the materially-sufficient Holy Scriptures.

You rely on the fallible, late-arriving distinctives of Luther and Calvin, and in effect grant them apostolic authority. They can flat-out invent doctrines and claim they are both historical and biblical. No pope would dare do that (on a few occasions when they came remotely close to that a mass uproar occurred). They are strictly dependent upon received precedent. Not so for Luther and Calvin, the “Super-Popes.”

P: Catholics don't really have "certainty of faith” and shouldn't pretend that they do. Protestants are more honest about their epistemology.

C: I have “certainty” in the sense that believing Christians and Jews have always possessed "certainty" (I recommend Cardinal Newman's Grammar of Assent in this regard). It is a rational faith, backed up by eyewitness testimony and historical evidences, and the history of doctrine. No one is saying (or should say) that there is an absolute certainty in a strict philosophical sense. But there is certainty in the sense of faith.

Like any acceptance of authority: it won't work if we are blinded by a closed mind and a prideful, self-centered will (compounded by the level of individual ignorance (or prior misinformation). That is true of any teaching system, including Catholicism. But that doesn't, of course, disprove the Catholic system. It is not private judgment per se which leads one to accept Catholicism; it is precisely the opposite: it is yielding up one's private judgment in the act of recognizing the Church for what it is: the spiritual authority ordained by God. One can do this reasonably by applying historical criteria, just as Christians have always done.

When I say "private judgment" I am talking about Christian authority and ecclesiology; not philosophical epistemology. I refer to the Protestant formal system of sola Scriptura, which places the individual in the position as the supreme and final arbiter of his own theology and destiny. This is a formal system of Christian authority, over against the Catholic three-legged stool of "Church, Tradition, and Scripture" -- all harmonious and not contradictory or competing.

So the Protestant -- by the exercise of this self-granted prerogative -- can stand there and judge all three legs of the stool (as Luther at Worms did), making his own conscience supreme (the corollary of private judgment). This we reject as unbiblical and against the entire previous history of the Church. And all Protestants do this -- by definition. Your variant may be more subtle, nuanced, and fine-tuned, and much less ahistorical, but all the versions boil down to a rejection of the apostolic authority of the Catholic Church.

Ultimately Protestants reserve the right to interpret Scripture against the Fathers, if their views do not correspond to the theological system they espouse (e.g., a rejection of the Real Presence in the Eucharist and baptismal regeneration: both virtually unanimous views of the Fathers). So in the end, Protestantism becomes a man-centered system (Calvin, Luther, Fox et al), rather than an apostolic, patristic, traditional-centered system, where the individual yields his judgment to the historic Christian consensus of the ages: the apostolic Tradition faithfully passed down and protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

P: God's Word is the ultimate, unquestionable authority.

C: Of course; but it has to be interpreted, so you can't avoid human authority. Why would you assume that God cannot protect His Church from error just as He protected His written revelation from error? On what basis do you assume that? After all (I make an analogical argument, of plausibility), the gift of infallibility is far lesser in order than the gift of inspiration, by which fallible, sinful men accurately and infallibly recorded the word of God in Sacred Scripture, without error. Both gifts are supernatural and divinely-granted. It seems to me that if God could and would do one thing, then He would certainly do the other, so as to maintain a unified truth and a consistent witness to the world.

I have always maintained that the Christian notion of truth and authority is historically-based, as opposed to philosophically-based. And it requires faith. So Catholic authority is not an airtight philosophical proposition as many non-Catholics seem to think it must be in order to be adhered to. But Protestantism is not, either, and contains within itself far more problematic elements. I contend that our view is biblical, consistent, apostolic, and patristic.

Apostolic and patristic Christianity was much more analogous to Old Testament Judaism, than to, say, Greek philosophy, with its abstract "epistemology" (and I say this as a Socratic myself; one who loves philosophy). Authority flowed always from commonly-acknowledged miraculous historical events and historical criteria: a sort of "Christian mythology" (i.e., a corporately-preserved story of origins) but what C.S. Lewis would describe as "true mythology."

P: I agree. But don’t you see that the selection and espousal of this "true mythology" was undertaken by fallible individuals, so that the end result could not be unquestioned? This is the Catholic difficulty of the “infallibility regress.”

C: Our claim is that the Church is infallible, and that the individual yields up his private judgment to the authority of the Church, based on apostolic succession. We have faith that God will guide His Church. It is a reasonable faith, which can be backed up by many sorts of reasonable evidences (primarily historical), though it ultimately transcends them all, as all matters of faith do.

That "true (verifiable) mythology" is the following: Jesus was the incarnate God, and was a real Person. We believe Scripture is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient without the Church as a Guide. We believe that Scripture and Tradition are "twin fonts of the same divine wellspring," as the Second Vatican Council states.

Jesus performed miracles, and many people observed these. He rose from the dead, and proved the reality of that by appearing to more than 500 people, eating fish, showing that He possessed flesh and bones, etc. This is all historical, and a matter of eyewitness testimony (so one might say it is a historical-legal approach to theological truth).

Likewise with the Church. There was one, recognized deposit of faith, passed on from our Lord Jesus to the disciples and Apostles, which Paul repeatedly refers to. Jesus established a Church, with Peter as the head (Matthew 16:13-20). This Church has definite and discernible characteristics, described in the Bible. There were apostles, and their successors were and are bishops. There were popes as well, and they exercised authority over the Church Universal.

Now, how was this Church identifiable in the early days and in the patristic period? Again, it was the historical criteria of authenticity. The Fathers always appealed to apostolic succession (a demonstrable historical lineage of orthodoxy) and Scripture, not Scripture Alone. The heretics were the ones who adopted Scripture Alone as their principle, because they knew that they couldn't produce the historical lineage (hence an early manifestation of the unChristian and unbiblical a-historicism which has been a dominant flaw of Protestantism ever since its inception).

Protestants thus adopted the heretical principle of formal authority, whereas Catholics have consistently adopted apostolic succession as the criteria of Christian truth and legitimate, divinely-ordained authority. The Catholic Church traces itself back to the beginning in an unbroken line, centered in the Roman See and the papacy.

So when someone like me (a very low-church evangelical) becomes convinced of Catholicism, it is not merely another Protestant exercise of private judgment and de facto alleged self-infallibility. It is, to the contrary, the yielding up of private judgment and the acknowledgement of something far greater than oneself: an entity which is "out there;" which has always been there since Christ established it, preserving (only by God's enabling grace and will) apostolic Christian truth in its fullness and undiluted splendor.

One can reasonably accept Catholicism, based on the historical criteria, just as one would accept the historicity of the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth, or the authority of the Bible – itself grounded in historically-verifiable elements (e.g., fulfilled prophecy, the continuance of the Jews, the astounding transformation of the early Christians, etc.). It is on the basis of history (and, of course, faith as well), as opposed to some alleged prideful, illusory, self-infallibility. Popes and ecumenical councils are just as bound to the received deposit of faith, as I am. I wanted apostolic, biblical Christianity: the Christianity which Jesus taught the disciples; not man-made variants, each containing maybe a few noble emphases left over from historical, apostolic Christianity, but always in the final analysis grossly-deficient (though also quite beneficial and good insofar as they do contain many valid Christian truths).

All of these issues are complex in and of themselves, but that is the Catholic answer: we appeal to the patristic and apostolic (Pauline) methods of determining theological and apostolic truth. The Bible is central in all this as well (absolutely!); it is just not exclusive of Church authority. How can it be? Its very parameters were authoritatively declared by this self-same Church. Before then, various Fathers disagreed somewhat on the canon. Again, it is not a matter solely of sin. Authority was truly needed to settle that issue, just as it is needed to settle theological issues. Scripture Alone will not suffice.

Besides, Scripture itself points to the teaching authority of the Church, anyway, so it is a false dichotomy from the get-go, to pit the Church against the Bible, as if there is some inherent contradiction or "competition" between them. The apostles and Fathers saw no such dichotomy. I imitate Paul, just as he imitated Christ (as he commanded me to do).

I had another debate in May 2003 with a Protestant who was apparently anonymous, entitled Private Judgment and Finding the Right Church: Is the Catholic Rule of Faith and Epistemology Inherently Incoherent? It is no longer on my blog; I believe I incorporated it in some form into one of my books: probably (without bothering to check) More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism or Bible Conversations. The following are his actual words and my replies.

* * * * *

Thanks for the thoughtful response and the time you spent on this. I appreciate it.

See what you think of this. I find Newman's conclusion to contradict his own thesis. I agree with a great deal of what he said in regard to our eminent capacity to err. Here's where I come to what seems a clear inconsistency in Newman's proposed solution to his stated dilemma. To set the stage, I think we would agree that none of us are really entertaining such a radical fall of reasoning as to think that we may not read the words of Scripture correctly, for instance. Rather, the common pitfall we see is that of misunderstanding what we read.

Correct. That gets into the whole vexed discussion of perspicuity, but I basically agree.

In such a "limited" fallenness of reason, the possibilities for error are still pretty much endless, whether from blatant misinterpretation to the more subtle error of a wrong interpretive grid. Yet Newman's thesis regarding the error of the personal judgements of Protestants et al relies on his own personal judgement as to what Scripture is teaching in regard to the primacy of the Church as teacher, and in regard to what actually constitutes the Church.

This is the usual objection, often called "infallibility regress" argument. I'm well-familiar with it. Where I think it breaks down is in its tacit assumption that no one can determine (not with finality or "authority") what the Church is. It is essentially a proposal of radical skepticism or rationalism at the expense (to a degree) of supernatural faith and revelation: it amounts (when closely scrutinized) to a belief that God doesn't have the power to grant one the faith and grace of finding the apostolic Christian Church, so that he can in turn discover true doctrine and theology and hence be better able to follow Jesus.

To the extent that Protestantism denies this possibility altogether, and leaves the task of discovering true Christian doctrine, Tradition, and Church squarely and ultimately on the shoulders of the individual, I think it must be opposed as both nonsensical and unbiblical as well.

This is not merely a philosophical proposition. The Bible clearly (I think) teaches about both an authoritative Church and a Tradition. The fathers assumed this, and that was their ultimate appeal against the heretics, who invariably relied on their private judgment in the "non-ecclesiastical" sense that Newman wrote about, and sola Scriptura. For the Fathers, what had "always been believed" was the determinant of orthodoxy. God had the power to preserve apostolic doctrine inviolate and to protect the true church from error.

It requires faith to believe this, and that is what a Catholic does: we have faith that this Church can exist and that it can be identified and located. We don't say this rests on our own individual choice. It is already there; like "stumbling upon" the Pacific Ocean or Mt. Everest. We don't determine whether the thing exists or not. And we must believe it is what it claims to be by faith, absolutely. Why should that surprise anyone except a person who thinks that Christianity is determined purely by arbitrary choice and rationalism without faith?

That is no longer simply philosophy or subjective preference, as if Christianity were reduced to Philosophy 0101 (where someone might prefer Kierkegaaard to Kant) or the selection of a flavor of ice cream. If we are to be biblical, the Bible refers often to a "passed-down tradition." It is Out There. It exists. Newman would say that one can find this and submit themselves to it, by God's grace (not human reason, though it is not inconsistent with the latter, nor with any biblical teaching).

This is the Catch-22 that I find in the reasoning of any Catholic who has concluded that the Church is the only safe refuge from the dangerous and unprotected wasteland of private interpretation. It's an attempt to solve a problem that we all face, but it doesn't solve it, because that decision itself has been privately made, through human reasonings.

I disagree. We make the choice, but we don't say that the choice was mere reasoning. It was led by God's grace and necessary aid, just as salvation must be so originated. No one denies that Christians choose whether or not to follow God and become a disciple of Jesus. But that very choice was made possible only by God's grace; otherwise it couldn't have occurred at all, given the Fall (and the contrary view is the heresy of Pelagianism). Likewise, this is what we believe about the choice of the Catholic Church as the one founded by Christ, which we believe can be traced back to apostolic times in unbroken historical succession. This does not entirely exclude other Christians from the fold; not at all -- but that's another discussion and I can't get into that at the moment.

Apart from this faith aspect, the Catholic (especially apologists such as myself) claims that our view of ecclesiology and theology is backed up by both history and the Bible, as well as reason. I would argue (among many other things) the fact that the Bible teaches one true Church, as evidenced by the early Protestant internal divisions. In the early days, they still believed that each school was the one, and the true Church in some sense. There was a visible structure (e.g., Calvin's Geneva, or the Lutheran princes, who took over from the bishops). They believed in one church and one truth, however they may have defined it.

Today's Protestants, however, are much less concerned with that and oftentimes become literally ecclesiological relativists, where Church affiliation comes down to worship styles, a good choir, a pastor who gives "meaty" or heart --stirring sermons, enough pretty girls to meet, etc.). I exaggerate to make a point. This is how many people choose where to go to church: not by a long study and comparison of competing doctrines or reading apologetics. I know many Protestants detest this as I do, but it still exists and is a problem. And it comes from the extreme application of this "private judgment" business, that Newman wrote about.

In other words, it's an entirely valid observation to note that coming to such a conclusion involves private interpretation of Scripture, and it's an equally valid question to ask why one is sure that that private interpretation itself isn't faulty.

Sure, if Christianity were simply philosophy or a Baskin-Robbins situation: "what flavor of the 47 ice creams should I pick?" It is not. Christianity has a history, and whatever side one comes down on cannot exclude the historical criteria because they are intrinsic to Christianity and the biblical worldview, and always have been. This is simply what Christianity is. To be a-historical is as unbiblical as it is essentially foreign to a Christian outlook. Failing that, one can try to construct alternate ecclesiologies, as Luther and Calvin did. I think they fail as alternates of the Catholic Church, to the extent that they are alternates (i.e., where we disagree doctrinally). Why I think that would require huge discussions, where many points are dealt with in turn. It is a cumulative argument, involving a "wheel" of many spokes.

It goes against the democratic equal-opportunity times in which we live, but I see the only way out of this dilemma to be in laying hold of the revelation of God, not just TO me, but INTO me. If the Catholic Church is that to which I must belong, and if right reasoning would show that to anyone with an open mind, God must show ME individually as much, because I am anything but an open-minded man - indeed, I believe that such a thing is merely a popular myth - and I am a man eminently capable of reasoning wrongly without so much as missing a beat. But if God does indeed work in this way, that undermines one of the very arguments commonly made to defend the necessity of submitting to the Church in the first place, namely that of the fallibility of private interpretation.

No, as explained above. We arrive at truth by many different means. Belief in God is that way: it is experiential, moral, imaginative, philosophical (if someone is of that bent of mind), allegorical, etc. I became a committed evangelical Christian back in 1977 largely because of what is called the "moral argument," which is not rationality per se but an internal sense of what is right and wrong, and that Christianity embodied those values. I started thinking about Catholicism initially because of another moral issue: contraception.

But see, even that was not exclusively a "Catholic" discussion, once one discovers, as I did, that all Christians whatsoever opposed contraception till the 1930 Anglican Lambeth Conference. Since I was already committed to the importance of Church history and the unchangeableness of Christian moral teaching, and believed that God protected True Christian Doctrine and Morality, and I had arrived at this judgment through my own study, discussions, and reflections as a long-time pro-lifer and activist, I looked around and saw who today taught that contraception was wrong, which was the historic Christian position.

The choice is clear: even the Orthodox, who pride themselves on being so eminently "traditional" have partially caved on that issue. They haven't maintained their own traditional disapproval and prohibition. To me that is caving to the zeitgeist -- the spirit of the age, modernism, and the sexual revolution (which thrived on the use of contraception, for obvious reasons). And that had a profound effect on me because Christianity is a conservative force in culture: it preserves the old values passed down from the apostles, as taught in the Bible. It doesn't get carried away with all the latest fads and fancies. So that was just one aspect of my decision to convert to Catholicism.

God even used movies and music to bring me to Him back when I was a thoroughly secular pagan in the 70s (somewhat like C.S. Lewis, who came to Christianity through the route of mythology, Wagnerian music, and the like). Selection of a church should be a matter of faith and prayer AND all the usual reasoning involved, just as conversion to Jesus Himself is, since the Church, if it exists, is a supernatural entity, even though fallible and sinful men and women are in it.

If the Church has been given the keys to right interpretation by God Himself, God must still reveal that to whomever He would have know it, such is our helpless estate.

But since individual salvation or regeneration or conversion or being "born again" or committing oneself to Jesus Christ as His disciple (whatever one chooses to call it) itself is of the same nature, I don't see that this reduces to relativism and "helplessness." Somehow we come to believe in God. I think He can be seen in the works of creation, as Romans 1 teaches. But it requires faith and revelation to believe in the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation or Jesus' Resurrection. Those things are revealed; they aren't part of natural law, like God's existence or innate realizations that murder or lying are wrong and evil.

Likewise, in choosing a church or denomination. All you can do is pray, study the issues, read all the sides you care to read, talk to people, look at the history of the various groups, study early Church history, study the Bible through and through and choose what you think is the closest to the biblical Church, as revealed in the Bible (and -- if you value Church history and a visible Church as a continuation of the Incarnation, so to speak -- what has existed in fact for 2000 years). It still takes God's grace, just as conversion does. I have plenty of biblical arguments throughout my website, if you are seeking those.

Yet, and I think this is a crucial point, the defense of this doctrine is carried on by its adherents in the same rationalistic terms that just about every other doctrine in Christendom is defended, which I think is a serious error that afflicts most of Christendom today, by the way.

If the above analysis (or Newman's) is "rationalistic," you must demonstrate that to me. I deny this. In fact; quite the contrary, I am specifically reducing the entire matter to faith and the supernatural and revelation, with reason assuming an altogether secondary role. But I will not renounce or demote reason, either. I submit all my beliefs to reason and the law of non-contradiction, and I believe that my viewpoint is eminently reasonable, or else I wouldn't hold it for a second.

Consider ancient Israel and her numerous apostasies. I know the parallel is not exact, but there is merit in looking at this. It has always been true that "the Lord knows those who are His", and "all are not Israel who are descended from Israel". Yet how often was the truth assumed to reside in the temple, even as God was revealing Himself to a lonely prophet, and condemning the "Establishment religion" as apostate. Then as now, each individual was in need of personal revelation from God if he would hope to know where the truth resided.

Newman does not deny this, but he places it within the proper context, just as he does with his influential arguments about the conscience or the role of the laity. He refuses to become anti-institutional or a-historical. The Church can (and has) become very corrupt in human terms. It is in constant need of revival and reformation. This is the human condition. Yet it lasts and survives because God protects it from the folly and wickedness of men, just as He preserved ancient Israel as a people and the Bible as a written revelation.

The Bible teaches that the Church has sinners in it, and that this shouldn't make us lose faith. I have a lot of material along those lines. And ancient Israel did not believe in sola Scriptura at all. I have a chapter about that in my second book which I can send you or paste, if necessary.

Ecclesiastical continuity and tradition were clearly not enough to authenticate the true church then. Why must it necessarily be different from that now?

I deny this. The ancient Jews always had the Mosaic Law. They had the Davidic Covenant. There was a clear identifiable tradition. That didn't change when corruption occurred cyclically. They kept discovering the Law and their God again and again, and revived themselves (or, I should say, cooperated with God's revival of them). You act as if corruption wiped out the Law. It didn't, no more than David's sin wiped out the Davidic Covenant, or Paul's or Moses or Peter's sin made them incapable of writing inspired Scripture and being leaders of their people.

I place a lot of weight on the defense given for any given truth which is pressed up me as something I ought to believe. If a defense is rationalistic from start to last, I find it seriously lacking as a compelling defense, because I've seen with my own eyes the necessity of a personal revelation from God of anything concerning the things of God which I am to believe rightly.

I couldn't agree more. I have experienced that in both my conversions, and I have had plenty of spiritual experiences (I am a charismatic), and instances of various gifts such as discernment of spirits (which are easily able to be confirmed by later discoveries and further information), which are useful to me in my line of work. I think you are exactly right, but I don't think your position leads to a despair of ever finding a church or True Doctrine, or a de facto Christian relativism or radical subjectivity.

For this same reason, any doctrine which compels me to reject my own understanding on the basis of fallibility seems to be fatally flawed, in that it necessitates that I temporarily accept the very thing it asks me to reject.

I agree again. The Catholic case, like the case for God and the case for generic Christianity, rests upon truths that can be known and verified outside of itself. It is not circular at all, as so often charged. The views that are truly circular are those such as presuppositional Calvinism or Mormonism, where natural reasoning is disparaged and frowned upon and one simply accepts the truth on fideistic grounds. Catholics don't do that at all. We believe very much in both faith and reason.

The truths that are most compelling to me are the ones which I have come to see as being the only possibilities in a given situation.

That was the case with myself, regarding the prohibition of contraception. I was convinced that it was wrong, and that it's wrongness had always been believed by Christians. I looked around to see who taught this today. The choice was very easy, as there is only one Christian group (apart from some possible dinky ones) which has maintained the traditional Christian position over against the spirit of the age and the Sexual Revolution.

The doctrines of grace present themselves compellingly to me in this way. Newman's thesis fails this test in two ways. First, his own agreement with the necessity of grace, along with his trust in the reliability of the reasoning by which he has understood Scripture to be teaching submission to the interpretation of the Church, should both lead him to affirm that God reveals Himself INTO individuals, but this would undermine his thesis about the necessity of the Church as interpreter of Scripture.

Not at all. In fact, the two are able to be synthesized and harmonized, as in his view and the Catholic view. One can have a personal confirmation or experience, yet interpret and understand it in such a way that it is not intrinsically opposed to the historical, institutional, corporate aspects of Christian ecclesiology. Newman deals with this very issue at length in his famous Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, the classic Catholic treatment of the individual conscience. But he arrives at a position very different from Luther's.

Luther (at the Diet of Worms in 1521) made the conscience and private judgment epistemologically and practically superior to everything else, be it Church or Council or pope or Tradition. In that view, the individual is radically brought back to himself as the ultimate criteria of truthfulness (yet he contradicted himself by adopting a State Church view and advocacy of capital punishment for a number of heresies, real or otherwise -- such as the Anabaptist belief in adult baptism).

I think the folly of that position is obvious, and the frightening consequences equally so. But this is what Protestants believe. This is what sola Scriptura and rejection of the binding authority of a Church and Councils reduce to. There are only so many choices which are not self-contradictory. Newman and Catholics don't have to make this opposition. We believe both that there is an identifiable Tradition and that individuals by God's grace are capable of finding it and accepting it in good faith and total sincerity, in a non-contradictory, spiritually-fulfilling manner.

Secondly, what he denies explicitly, in decrying personal interpretation, he nevertheless must avail himself of in order to formulate his thesis.

No, because the Catholic Church and apostolic Tradition are already entities "out there" which are not mere private interpretations. This tradition has been passed down and preserved and people are capable of finding it. St. Paul assumes this throughout his letters and the Fathers did also. Catholics believe as they do: that God has given us a revealed truth (which includes ecclesiology and a Church) and that he can enable individuals to discover it through grace and faith, so that they can get on with their lives and serve Him and their fellow men, rather than spending their lives on a perpetual agnostic-type quest for something that either doesn't exist or very imperfectly only, or that one can never know enough to accept on the basis of reason. We make things so complicated that God always intended to be quite simple.

Thanks for your thoughts!

* * * * *

The argument on private judgment and the "infallibility regress", as used in Protestant polemics
in recent times, involves a double fallacy. The first has to do with the definition of private judgment (see my lengthy "debate" with Tim Enloe on this, from October 2001) and the second is the unchallenged (and probably unconscious) assumption that the Christian faith can be reduced to epistemology; i.e., philosophy. But it cannot. Any Christian worldview also requires faith. The Protestant polemicist who uses this argument seems to momentarily forget that, as if Catholicism and Protestantism were two competing philosophical systems, rather than variants of the religion and theology of Christianity.

I readily agree that reason and philosophy ought to be consistent with any adopted Christian view (and I think it is with my Catholicism), but the latter ought not be reduced to mere philosophy. That is the fallacy here, along with the definitional one, that makes this argument (though impressive and perhaps daunting to some at first glance) rather weak in the final analysis and easily refuted.

I Never Define the Word Christian? Huh?!?! (More of "Turretinfan's" Ceaseless Nonsense)

"Turretinfan" has recently taken to claiming not only that I am not a "real" Catholic (because I don't answer every question about my faith the way he ignorantly demands that it should be answered), but that I also have supposedly not "apparently" defined the word Christian anywhere. He even uses this as one of his excuses to not have a chat room debate with me. This anonymous fundamentalist anti-Catholic Calvinist giant of theological discourse and definition has, thus, written recently:

Dave has never, to this author's knowledge defined Christianity to the exclusion of other religions. . . . until Dave has provided some counter-definition for what is Christianity proper, . . .

(10-27-07)

Furthermore, and this is key, Dave has apparently never defined Christianity, yet he wants to debate (or at least informally discuss) the topic. Consequently, to call such an option a "golden opportunity to refute" (emphasis added) him stretches any reader's credulity.

(10-29-07; his emphases)

I guess TF is out to sea when it comes to using a search engine. I have a Google search on the top of my sidebar and there is also the "Search Blog" function at the top. How about this paper?:

Dialogue: Definitions of Christian and Christianity (vs. Sogn Mill-Scout)

Does that look like it'll fit the bill? I write there, in the very first sentence:

My own opinion on this is that a "Christian" is one who subscribes to the Nicene Creed.

I elaborate further down:

All three major groups (Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox; and Anglican, if that is regarded as distinct) subscribe to this, excepting the "filioque" clause ("who proceeds from the Father and the Son"). Orthodox think that this lessens the status of the Holy Spirit and deny that He proceeds [basically a logical and relational procession, not a creation] from the Son as well as the Father. They don't have this in their Creed and argue that it was a doctrinal corruption, not a legitimate development.

This is trinitarianism, which is orthodox Christianity, and always has been. Excluded, therefore, from the definition of what Christianity in its mainstream has always been, are non-trinitarian heresies such as Arianism (Jesus was created: present-day Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, or the Way International), Sabellianism (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes, not three Persons: present-day United Pentecostal Church or "oneness pentecostals), Mormonism, Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity, so-called "apostolic churches," etc.

Groups such as Seventh-Day Adventists, who deny the doctrine of eternal hellfire and assert soul-sleep, can still conform to the above, because it doesn't specifically mention hell, let alone an eternal hell, though this doctrine is clearly taught in Scripture and has always been a teaching of orthodox Christianity as well. Many classify them as "aberrational Christians," as opposed to "cultic."

Theological liberals present a whole panorama of aberrational and heretical beliefs (judged by the criterion of historical orthodoxy). I say that if they deny the Trinity, or the bodily Resurrection of Christ, or the Incarnation, or the general resurrection, or heaven, that they are out of the fold, by definition. Christianity has a doctrinal, intellectual content. It is not a wax nose which can be twisted in any direction, by whim or fancy. Any sort of fool can call themselves a Christian, but so what? Individuals don't determine the definition; the Church as a whole does. Despite the divisions, there is still this basic agreement, seen in the Nicene Creed, which was formulated by the early Church in one of its Ecumenical Councils, and is therefore authoritative.

Even for those who would deny its formal authority and binding nature (many Protestants, who assert Scripture Alone as their formal authority), they would still agree with its contents; thus it can ably serve as a criterion or standard for determining what "Christians" believe, and what Christianity is.

I understand that a "Christian" can possibly be, and often is, defined as a person who is in fact (of course, how one determines that is a whole 'nother can of worms)saved, or regenerate, or born-again, or a true disciple of Jesus, or of the elect, or one who has a personal relationship with Jesus as their Lord and Savior, or who is indwelt with the Holy Spirit; all of which are what I call "metaphysical" or "spiritual" definitions. This has legitimacy and a certain place in the discussion as well, but I maintain that no one can know this for sure of another person (perhaps -- with some of the above concepts -- not even of themselves), and besides, one still needs an objective, doctrinal standard in order to have a sensible, rational discussion, able to be participated in by all parties, and one which is comprehensible to outsiders.

Similar opinions occur in many other places:

[A]nyone who is a trinitarian and who adheres to the Nicene Creed is (doctrinally) a Christian (that is basically the official Catholic position on other Christians) ... (Introduction to my book Twin Scourges)

Christians of all stripes, who hold to the Nicene Creed (trinitarian, deity of Jesus, the bodily resurrection, etc.) (Thoughts on Amiable and Constructive Dialogue -- linked permanently on the sidebar)

[M]y own discussion list used to use acceptance of the Nicene Creed as the criteria of who was a Christian. (Dialogue on Sola Scriptura and the Church Fathers, Part Two)

Protestants are, of course, fully Christian by virtue of baptism and adherence to the tenets of the Nicene Creed. (Why Are Non-Catholic Christians Excluded From Receiving the Catholic Eucharist, or Communion?)

[T]here is also a significant core area of agreement among all Christians, apart from fringe, heretical, cultic groups. This would be that which is described in C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity or roughly synonymous with the Nicene Creed. (Dialogue With an Atheist on the Relationship of Christianity and Metaphysics to the Scientific Method [vs. Sue Strandberg] )

Protestants can legitimately appeal to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, and the Council of Chalcedon, upon which all Christians agree, and have always agreed. (Observations on Arminianism)

The primary goal of the Christian filmmaker is to promulgate -- with all the artistic means at his disposal -- truth, from a broad-based, biblically-grounded Christian perspective, or worldview (Philippians 4:8). Positively, this entails a presuppositional adherence to those theological doctrines agreed-upon by virtually all Christians, formulated classically in the Nicene Creed. (Christian Filmmaker's Creed)

I have consistently maintained that anti-Catholic polemicists who fight against the Catholic Church and claim that it is not Christian (and - usually - that Catholics can only be good Christians to the extent that they reject the "errors of Rome") are themselves fellow Christians, based on how Vatican II and the Catholic Church has defined that word (possessing a valid trinitarian baptism and belief in the Apostles' or Nicene Creed). (How Anti-Catholics Can be Catholics' Brothers in Christ)

There is such a thing as orthodoxy, . . . And every Christian group subscribes to some form of it. Most of us accept the Nicene Creed. The beliefs therein were won in a hard-fought battle with heretics on all sides. There is Truth and Falsity in religion. (The Relationship Between Christianity and Philosophy)

Protestant Historian Philip Schaff Confirms Church Fathers' Acceptance of Conciliar Infallibility Based on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

Philip Schaff (1819-1893). See his Wikipedia entry.

Belief in conciliar infallibility is flatly incompatible with Protestantism, because the latter belief-system holds that the Bible is the only infallible source of authority. Acceptance of conciliar infallibility is (to put it another way) inconsistent with sola Scriptura. But this is what the fathers believed.

I have used the example of the Jerusalem Council in several places in my apologetics, to argue for this very concept of conciliar infallibility, which (as you can see) is quite biblical; e.g., in my books: The Catholic Verses (pp. 7-11) and The One-Minute Apologist (pp. 4-5). See also my paper: The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30) vs. Sola Scriptura and James White.

You can read the entire passage from The One-Minute Apologist, courtesy of amazon's search capacity for the book: follow the search link; type "acts 15" in the search box, hit "go" and select page 4 from the results; then click on one of the arrows on the right of the page to access page 5.

Readers can also read the relevant passage from The Catholic Verses, by following the "search inside" link and again searching for "Acts 15" and selecting page 7, then following the right arrows for pages 8 and 9. By going back to the initial search results, separate access to pages 10 and 11 can also be had. By this method, full access to both passages is possible.

Now the eminent Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff confirms that this was the consensus belief of the Church fathers (though as a Protestant, he himself would disagree with this), in part based on the Acts 15 passage, which is what I have argued for years:

The authority of these [ecumenical] councils in the decision of all points of controversy was supreme and final.

Their doctrinal decisions were early invested with infallibility; the promises of the Lord respecting the indestructibleness of his church, his own perpetual presence with the ministry, and the guidance of the Spirit of truth, being applied in the full sense to those councils, as representing the whole church. After the example of the apostolic council, the usual formula for a decree was: Visum est Sprirtui Sancto et nobis. Constantine the Great, in a circular letter to the churches, styles the decrees of the Nicene council a divine command; a phrase, however, in reference to which the abuse of the word divine, in the language of the Byzantine despots, must not be forgotten. Athanasius says, with reference to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ: "What God has spoken by the council of Nice, abides forever." The council of Chalcedon pronounced the decrees of the Nicene fathers unalterable statutes, since God himself had spoken through them. The council of Ephesus, in the sentence of deposition against Nestorius, uses the formula: "The Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, determines through this most holy council." Pope Leo speaks of an "irretractabilis consensus" of the council of Chalcedon upon the doctrine of the person of Christ. Pope Gregory the Great even placed the first four councils, which refuted and destroyed respectively the heresies and impieties of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, on a level with the four canonical Gospels. In like manner Justinian puts the dogmas of the first four councils on the same footing with the Holy Scriptures, and their canons by the side of laws of the realm.

(History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974, from the revised fifth edition of 1910, 340-342; available online: see this particular portion online: § 65. The Synodical System. The Ecumenical Councils)

This is only the tip of the iceberg regarding the Church fathers' rejection of sola Scriptura. I've written tons about this, and my soon-to-be-published book on the "Catholic" views of the fathers will massively document this rejection.

But despite the mountain of evidence, folks like the anti-Catholic polemicists David T. King and William Webster actually claim precisely the opposite: that the fathers supposedly accepted sola Scriptura en masse, as a matter of consensus. They argue this in their book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume III: The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura. I myself have seen King ludicrously state on some blog or discussion board (possibly James Swan's) that "all" of the Church fathers believed in sola Scriptura. How dense can someone be?

Don't fall for this constant revisionist history and anachronistic "proof"-texting. Anyone would do much better in accepting the scholarly word of Protestant historians like Schaff, Pelikan, Kelly, and Oberman, rather than the ignorant "arguments" of anti-Catholic zealots intent on disagreeing with the positions of Catholic apologetics, no matter how many historical facts and scholarly opinions get in their way.

One must, therefore, give high credit to one anti-Catholic Reformed apologist who bucked the trend: one "Saint and Sinner", who actually conceded this point. Perhaps he can convince his buddies King, Webster, White, Svendsen, Engwer (?) et al to follow suit. That would be a refreshing change.

Open Forum

Link to the previous Open Forum.

Calvinists Are Target of an Insightful Piece of Arminian Semi-Satire

Thanks to my book cover artist friend, Chad Toney, I was alerted to this multi-part semi-satirical series by one "Mofast": a Wesleyan / Arminian clergyman. It's good enough to land him on my "Misc. Protestant" list of links. Like many of us non-Calvinists (I was Arminian as a Protestant and a Molinist as a Catholic), he is sick and tired of being condescendingly relegated to heterodoxy in matters soteriological, and being regarded as a second-class Christian, if at all. And that's why he wrote this:

Are all Calvinists Going to Hell?

Part I

Part II

Part III

It looks to be an ongoing series, so keep checking back on his blog. Some examples:

I have read blog comments that state, "I believe that Arminianism taken to its logical conclusions leads directly to heresy." Other blog posts are more blunt. I'll quote an unnamed blog, "Arminianism: The heresy plaguing the modern church of the 21st century. What is it and where did it come from?" The same blog credits John Wesley with "propagat(ing) the doctrine and resurrect(ing) the Pelagian error from the pit of hell once again to persecute the church of Christ." And again, "Sincere, theologically astute Arminians are more destructive to the church than sincere Buddhists will ever be." Another blog lovingly states,"those who have been saved have ceased to be Arminians, or else they are not saved." Another website states that Arminians are not saved because "they hate the truth."

* * *

I would also like to coin a new phrase, "Romansolotry," which obviously means the worship and deification of the book of Romans. If you have been "preaching" from the book of Romans for more than 3 months (let alone several years) then I would, on behalf of your poor congregation, like to introduce you to the rest of the canon. We call it "The Bible." There are many books in it. Arminians believe in the inspiration of all of scripture, not only the Epistle to the Romans. I would especially like to draw your attention to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. We Arminians calls these, "Gospels." Check them out.

* * *

I have read through some books by Calvinists and one of the stunts they like to pull is to correct everyone on how to really read a majority of Scripture. For example, a verse such as 1 Timothy 2:3-4 "This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." needs to be reworked so we have the appropriate understanding of "everyone" and "saved". It could not mean what it appears to mean. It could not mean what the tradition of Christian thought through the majority of time and for the majority of people has meant. There is no way that God could desire that "everyone" would be saved! Or, of course, there is 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance." Again, that couldn't mean that God didn't want "any" to perish.

And from Comments boxes:

Some Calvinists talk as if the theological house of cards that is the system of Calvinism contains no presuppositions or philosophical thought. The flip side of the argument also drives me crazy - the implication that Calvinists value scripture more or take it more seriously. It is this deception and mischaracterization that I am on a mission to bring to light.

* * *

These posts are aimed at people who believe in Calvinism and who continue to tell people like me (Wesleyan Arminian) that we are heretics and outside of orthodoxy.

* * *

Wesleyan Arminians believe that God's prevenient grace is active in all people - restoring their fallen nature to the point that they can choose to place their faith in Christ. Furthermore, we believe that God's grace can be resisted. So, we do believe that it is God's grace that saves us, however we also believe that God acting graciously respects our free choice.

* * *

It is fair to say, "I vehemently disagree with your interpretation of portions of Scripture." I don't believe it is fair to say "you are ignoring portions of scripture."

"A = B": Anti-Catholic Cory Tucholski Denies Being Anti-Catholic, Despite Calling Himself One (!!!)

"Keying Up" - The Court Jester, William Merritt Chase, 1876

Cory Tucholski (10-25-07): "[A]s I’ve never said Catholicism isn’t Christian, I’m confused as to why I’m being challenged. What I have said is that certain beliefs and practices within Catholicism have departed from the traditional Christian faith. In other words, people are saved within the Catholic Church in spite of what it it teaches, not because of what it teaches."

Cory Tucholski (10-29-07): "He [yours truly] continued to accuse me of saying that Catholics aren’t Christians, which is something that I have never asserted."

Cory Tucholski (8-21-07): " I am neither a troll nor an anti-Catholic."

Cory Tucholski (8-31-06):

"Cult?

"I really didn’t want to be an anti-Catholic apologist. To that end, I have studied the New Age phenomenon, Scientology, and a broad overview of heresies. But, God has prepared me to speak against the Catholic dogmas by giving me a love of the Church, concern for its members, and a desire to keep abreast of the activities therein. My entire family is Catholic, I was raised Catholic, and I have received four of the seven sacraments in a Catholic Church (one sacrament I received in a Protestant church on the happiest day of my life: May 30, 2005).

"I don’t want an anti-Catholic apologetics ministry. But it isn’t about what I want, it is about what God has prepared for me, and He has prepared this for me. Therefore, I will do it with glee, and I will pray that He is glorified by my doing it.

". . . the Catholic Church is simply the world’s largest cult.

". . . My prayer is that Catholics who read this will be shown the truth by God, and that they will stop blindly accepting what Rome teaches them. I pray they will check all such teachings by the Word of God."

Cory Tucholski (9-8-07): "I’m sorry, but to say that Catholics are not re-sacrificing Christ on that altar is using the same trick of language that I refused to accept for worship (veneration) of Mary. More on that here.

"Catholics believe the necessity of the sacraments for the dispensing of God’s grace, which means that you actually have to do something–participate in the sacraments–for salvation. That, to me, is the same as a works-based salvation."

Cory Tucholski (1-20-07):

"Man-Centered Theology

"What can we expect from a religion that authorizes worship of saints, angels, and Mary? . . . I think that that post has truly shown me once and for all that Catholicism, with all of its laws and precepts, is in the end a man-centered theology."

Cory Tucholski (5-19-07):

"First, for those unaware, Dr. Francis Beckwith, a respected theologian, has recently converted to Roman Catholicism. I’m no friend of the church of Rome, but everything I have to say can be read here at Dr. James White’s blog. It’s just so difficult to believe that someone who has spent his life studying the Bible can convert to a religion that preaches so much contrary to the book he professes to love and defend. As Dr. White says, and as I (a former Catholic) can attest, there is no teaching of God’s grace or forgiveness. . . . In Rome’s gospel, we somehow have to clean ourselves first, we have to do something to earn our salvation."

James White [article linked to by Cory above, with his total approval]:

On Post Evangelicals

The reason I wrote about Beckwith's reversion was simple: the gospel. The issue will always be: the gospel. And when someone like Beckwith goes back to the Roman system, we see just how central the gospel is to many who call themselves "evangelicals" today. You see, I am in no way surprised when men return to Rome. Rome's religion is very attractive. Indeed, unless a soul is convicted of its utter sinfulness and inability, and its utter guiltiness before God, and its utter dependence upon grace, and grace alone, it will always find comfort in man's religions, in pomp and circumstance, in religious pageantry and show--anything that makes God's grace subject to man's will, to man's control.

Many of those who do not bow the knee to Rome do so not out of a faith-affirming, soul-grounding conviction of the utter necessity of the gospel of grace, but simply out of their own traditions. The number of non-Catholics who are so out of knowledgeable conviction is small indeed. But I will likewise say, it is those who are thusly convinced who stand with the greatest clarity and firmness against Rome's denial of the gospel of grace, and Rome's enchantments find no place in their minds.

. . . One cannot betray a gospel to which one is not pledged heart and soul. If I were to bow the knee to the Pope and pray to Mary, I would be betraying the gospel, knowingly, purposefully, and to my soul's destruction, without doubt.

There was a day, not too long ago, when the term "evangelical" referred to a person who actually believed the gospel defined the Christian faith---that the message of the cross was not a negotiable item, a secondary, if important, issue, upon which compromise could be allowed. But that day has passed. For many reasons I will not delve into at the moment, confidence in the gospel has vanished, and while many will still profess it to be "vital" or "important," in reality, most confess that it is just too difficult a subject, and "too many good men have disagreed" on the matter, so that the real conclusion is that we just can't really know the gospel with enough clarity to allow it to function in a definitional sense. The result of this is seen in the willingness to extend the faith to the "big tent," and refer to our "Roman Catholic brothers and sisters." The movement is on (seen in the willingness of some to pray with Mormon apologists and scholars) to extend the big tent even further, so that even Trinitarian heresy is not "enough" to exclude fellowship (witness T.D. Jakes, PC&D, etc.). And so the downgrade progresses, ever farther away from a biblical standard.

(5-19-07)

"Gee, What a Big Surprise" Department:

We all know that I’m a Young Earth Creationist, that I don’t believe in evolution, and that I work at Burger King. So what? I’m still looking at this argument with the eyes of a person who could be dead wrong, since more scientific evidence supports an Old Earth and universe. I want to believe in a Young Earth since that fits more closely to what the Bible says, . . . Maybe, instead of my previous post on changing over to Young Earth creationist, I should have stated that I want to believe it, but the jury is still out. (5-19-07)

So now "Turretinfan", "Saint and Sinner", Steve Hays, and Cory are all on record that they are young earth creationists. Do I detect a theme (i.e., intellectual suicide) in those who want to take on my apologetics, yet run from a golden opportunity to refute me with lots of folks watching, in a chat room? Cory wrote on 10-29-07:

TurretinFan turned the debate down because Dave changed his mind one too many times on the terms, and couldn’t even decide if he (Dave) was going to debate as a Roman Catholic or not.

Right. Now Turretinfan and Cory know better what a Catholic is than a Catholic apologist and author does. Yes (and I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you, too, if you are foolish enough to believe that). I'm interested in interacting with rational thinkers. I do, however, agree wholeheartedly with something Cory wrote (alas, if only he had the willingness to follow his own advice):

[W]ith a daughter due in two months, a full-time job, a blogging ministry, and three different forums I try to frequent, I know well the constrains [sic] of time. I have responded to you [Steve Ray], I have responded to Jimmy Akin, I have responded to J.P. Holding. . . . at least one of you “famous” apologists have taken the time to read my little old blog, and did leave a comment. And that guy, a nemesis of yours to be sure, has just as little time on his hands as you do! The point is that if it is important to you, you will make the time. . . . If you make a claim, you should expect to be called to back it up at some point. . . . if you are unwilling to listen to what an honest person is trying to say to you, wouldn’t that make you the troll? (8-21-07; my emphases)

Amen! Like they used to say a lot when I was an evangelical (and I absolutely love this wise, biblical observation), "you can talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?"

Protestant Church Historians & Patristics Experts Schaff, Kelly, & Pelikan Get James White's Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval

White wrote: "Of course, you know I was just making one of those faces you make when you talk to little kids...but I'm sure some fine folks out there like DA will warp the picture and turn it into some monstrosity. ' Their condemnation is just.' "

I noticed a portion of an old paper of mine, in writing my chapter on the Blessed Virgin Mary in my upcoming book, The Church Fathers Were Catholic: Patristic Evidences for Catholicism. Reformed Baptist apologist Bishop James White was claiming that the early Church knew nothing at all of the Mary as Mediatrix doctrine ("complete absence"). I cited these men to the contrary.

Anyway, I utilize the helpful work of these three eminent historians quite a bit in my book. Moreover, I use many many quotations from the famous Schaff-edited 38-volume edition of the Church fathers' writings. In order to show that they are not some quasi-Catholic sources that can't be trusted by Protestants, or even slanted in a "Catholic direction", I thought it would be useful to document once again what White thinks of them, since he is perhaps the most vocal and prolific (anti-Catholic) Protestant opponent of Catholicism online at the present time. That way, I eliminate beforehand a certain form of objection to my sources.

* * * * *

1) Article: "Exegetica: Roman Catholic Apologists Practice Eisegesis in Scripture and Patristics" (3-4-02)

White cites "Protestant church historian" Kelly once with regard to whether Rome had a single bishop or a group of bishops in the second century (the same era as Irenaeus).

2) Article: "Did The Early Church Believe In the LDS Doctrine of God?" (7-27-00)

White, arguing against Mormonism, cites Kelly at length, introducing him as "One of the greatest patristic scholars". And he is the only historian White cites, in an article about the "early Church".

3) Article: "The Pre-existence of Christ In Scripture, Patristics and Creed" (7-27-00)

Again, in an article dealing in part with patristics, Bishop White cites only Kelly as a scholar in his section "Patristic Interpretation." And then in the following footnotes, Schaff is also mentioned:

25) For the text of the Nicene Creed, see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (New York: Longman Inc., 1981), pp.215-216 and Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985) vol. 1:27-28.

26) Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1:30.

4) Article: "A Test of Scholarship" (7-26-00)

Again, Kelly is proclaimed as "One of the greatest patristic scholars" and White notes after a very long citation from Kelly: "I am appending a selection of quotations from the early fathers that substantiates the conclusions of . . . Kelly quoted above." White writes later:

J.N.D. Kelly’s fine work, Early Christian Doctrines (1978), a work that occupies a space close to my desk (for frequent reference).

Jaroslav Pelikan's comments on the notion of theosis in the early Church are also cited at length.

5) Article: How Reliable Is Roman Catholic History?: An Example in a Recent Edition of This Rock Magazine" (7-25-00)

Kelly is cited three times as an expert on early Church ecclesiology. It stands to reason, that if Kelly can be used in an effort to show that Catholic Answers' history on a certain disputed point is inaccurate, he can also be used in such a fashion against anti-Catholic and "contra-Catholic" arguments in general. Kelly is obviously White's favorite patristics scholar and historian of the early Church.

6) Article: "A Debate Between Professor James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and Brother John Mary, Representing the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" (7-24-00)

Kelly is cited as an expert about the very Church father under consideration:

I note that J.N.D. Kelly asserts that Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Origen all felt Mary had sinned and doubted Christ (Early Christian Doctrines, 493).

Philip Schaff is also cited pertaining to the question of whether Pope Sylvester called the Counci of Nicaea.

7) Article: "The Trinity, the Definition of Chalcedon, and Oneness Theology" (7-21-00)

Bishop White cites "noted patristic authority J.N.D. Kelly".

Philip Schaff is mentioned even more times on White's site (29 compared to 11 for Kelly):

8) "An In Channel Debate on Purgatory" (2-21-02)

White cites Schaff twice with regard to the views of Pope Gregory the Great.

9) "Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example" (6-11-01)

Schaff is cited interpreting a letter from Pope Zosimus.

10) "Failure to Document: Catholic Answers Glosses Over History" (10-25-00)

Schaff is mentioned twice with regard of the history of the proceedings of Vatican I.

11) "Whitewashing the History of the Church" (8-31-00)

Schaff is cited with regard to Cyril's views and the Council of Florence. This provides us with a delightful irony, since if Schaff can be cited as a "witness" to alleged Catholic "whitewashing" of history, he can be utilized to show anti-Catholics engaging in this practice, too.

12) "Truths of the Bible or Untruths of Roman Tradition? James White Responds to Tim Staples' Article, "How to Explain the Eucharist" in the September, 1997 issue of Catholic Digest" (7-25-00)

Schaff is cited twice with regard to historical debates on transubstantiation.

13) "The Trinity, the Definition of Chalcedon, and Oneness Theology"
(7-21-00)

Schaff is cited with regard to the Council of Chalcedon and Christology, and his work is recommended for further reading on the Council.

14) "Dancing With Phil Porvaznik" (7-15-07):

The tradition to which Schaff or Kelly or anyone else would refer would not, and could not, fulfill the Roman requirements of the term. Any tradition to which Schaff would have made mention would not have contained any of the elements upon which Rome has defined her dogmas, the very dogmas she must defend by denying sola scriptura! We see here the deceptive nature of Catholic argumentation, . . .

15) "A Brief Detour: Scott Hahn and Luke 1:28" (1-4-05):

Philip Schaff's Creeds of Christendom is favorably cited.

16) "On Dancing with Rome" (7-20-05)

Lengthy Schaff citation about Mariology.

17) "The Da Vinci Code VIII" (11-15-05)

Schaff is cited concerning the Council of Nicaea.

18) "Ancient Baptists and Other Myths" (8-25-06)

"Renowned church historian Philip Schaff, speaking of the Council of Nicea, . . ."

19) "Going Against Your Better Judgment" (1-12-05)

A lot of Schaff material from the 38-volume patristics set . . .

20) "Assumptions and Shallow Arguments: Steve Ray and the Poor State of Catholic Apologetics (#3)" (9-19-07)

Kelly called an "eminent church historian".

21) "Another Example of 'Head in the Sand' Apologetics" (9-21-06)

Kelly cited on matters of Mariology.

22) "Notorious James White: Dirty Debater" (7-28-06)

Kelly again cited regarding Mariology.

Introduction to My Book, The Church Fathers Were Catholic: Patristic Evidences for Catholicism

Abbey of St. Augustine of Canterbury (d. c. 604), built around 598, with Canterbury Cathedral in the background.
[ source ]

I'll be putting out this book within a week or two, depending on the time I have to edit it. It will be a "bonus selection" added to my 11 e-books for $15 deal, as an added incentive to purchase, and will be available also in paperback from Lulu.

* * * * *

Protestants and Catholics both claim that the early Church heritage of theology and broad consensus of the Church fathers leans more towards their own view. Protestants, from the beginning of their existence, claimed to be “reformers” of the Catholic Church; that is, they felt themselves to be hearkening back to the more pure doctrines of the early Church and the Church fathers, rather than overturning historic Catholic doctrine (what might be termed a “revolutionary” outlook, rather than a “reforming” one).

Whether the Protestant historic claims can withstand scrutiny and whether all that they stressed can be classified as a “conservative” return to what was held formerly, are separate and highly complex questions beyond our purview. Much of what will be presented in this book, however, will have relevance to that fundamental issue of what might be called “ecclesiological self-perception.”

The discussion of what the Church fathers believed, generally speaking (and in individual cases) must be undertaken by means of competing historical facts. The task of the patristic inquirer is to examine the relevant writings (for any given issue) of the fathers and make judgments of factuality and truth and falsity. It's not a subjective enterprise but very much an objective one: it can be determined (fairly conclusively in most cases, I submit) what Church Father X believed about Christian doctrine or area of theology Y.

Church historians and other Christian scholars ought to be consulted often in the course of this pursuit, and non-scholars should be well aware of the complexity of this topic, and of their own inherent limitations of knowledge. A dose of intellectual humility is always a good thing. That said, laymen can also achieve a considerable degree of understanding on their own, especially with the easy availability of patristic resources on the Internet. No one can know everything on any given topic, but it doesn’t follow that an individual can’t know anything simply because he is not a trained academician.

Moreover, it should go without saying that inquirers ought not pick and choose and select certain passages and ignore or omit or deny the existence of others that may not fit into one particular theological schema or worldview or set of dogmas. Any seeker of “patristic truth” must take the greatest pains not to do this.

Church fathers can be wrong about things and contradict themselves or others, or the Church, just like anyone else. Catholics do not regard individual Church fathers as infallible. Nor do we think that broad patristic consensus is infallibility per se. But we do believe that this consensus is a strong indication of where the truth of historic Christian doctrine lies, and a key to the legitimate development of doctrine through the centuries.

I shall contend in this book, by means of massive documentation, that the “historical case” for Catholicism becomes stronger as the accumulation of patristic evidence piles up. Catholics need not fear patristic data any more than they need fear the Bible, as both (with all due respect to our esteemed non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters) firmly support our theology and doctrine.

Lastly, I want to reiterate, especially to Catholic readers, that the more articulate and historically conscious among our Protestant brethren do not neglect or despise the Church fathers. They look to them as guides to true Christian doctrine, just as we do (with Scripture always being the overriding standard by which to judge any patristic opinion).

For example, the learned Lutheran systematic theologian Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), who helped formulate the binding Lutheran confessions in the Book of Concord, wrote:

And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

(Chemnitz, 208-209)

[W]e love and value greatly the true and sound interpretations which agree with the rules which we have quoted from the fathers.

(Chemnitz, 211)

It is undeniably the truest of axioms that that alone is the true doctrine which the apostles transmitted and which the primitive church professed as received from the apostles.

(Chemnitz, 225)

John Calvin (1509-1564) was described by a biographer as having a “precocious knowledge” of the fathers. He “read with close attention a great many works of the Fathers of the Church . . . until the end of his life he never ceased to deepen his thinking about the ancient Greek and Latin authors” (Wendel, 19, 123).

Martin Luther (1483-1546), the founder of Protestantism, even went so far as to state:

This testimony of the universal holy Christian Church, even if we had nothing else, would be a sufficient warrant for holding this article [on the sacrament] and refusing to suffer or listen to a sectary, for it is dangerous and fearful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, belief, and teaching of the universal holy Christian churches, unanimously held in all the world from the beginning until now over fifteen hundred years.

(in Bainton, 26; from the year 1532; primary German source: Werke [Weimar edition], XXX, 552)

With this background in mind, let us proceed to survey the beliefs of the Church fathers, particularly with regard to Catholic “distinctives.”

Chapters that include back-and-forth dialogues are based on real discussions with Protestants (mostly Lutherans, but sometimes Reformed / Calvinists) on the Internet. The words of my opponents will be paraphrased, but with the greatest care taken to preserve the nature and intent of their remarks, and to avoid any misrepresentation whatsoever.

SOURCES

Bainton, Roland H., Studies on the Reformation, Boston: Beacon Press, 1963.

Chemnitz, Martin, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I, translated by Fred Kramer, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971.

Wendel, Francois, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, translated by Philip Mairet, New York: Harper & Row, 1963.

The Best Wife in the World (23rd Anniversary)

[click on all photos to enlarge]

October 6th, 1984: my wedding day, was 72 degrees and sunny: a perfect fall day. Today in metro Detroit it is already sunny and supposed to be 86 (!!).

I thank God for my lovely wife Judy. I've been exceptionally blessed in having her as my life's companion, and with our four children (now 16, 14, 10, and 5 [my one daughter] ). I'm a very happy man. I worry about money a lot (apologetics not being a lucrative profession, nor one that people often think to financially support, even though they say they have benefited from efforts of apologists), but other than that life is fantastic.

Our daughter at age 3 (November 2004). She's now almost 6

Three years ago (also a glorious sunny day, as I recorded), I wrote a piece about Judy, entitled "It was twenty years ago today . . . " (High Praise for my Wife Judy on our 20th Anniversary) / Reflections on Marriage and Courtship.

For today, here is a photograph that I don't believe I've ever had on my site. It's from December 1991. At that time I was 33 years old (so was Judy) and had been a Catholic for a year and two months. I had already started writing a few of the papers that would eventually be part of my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. Our first child in the picture was eight months old.
It was a very happy time (among lots of happy times all through our marriage; any comparisons of this period and that are only a matter of degree of happiness). We were finally parents, and "new Catholics."

Third son, early 1997

Judy doesn't look much different today (I swear!). She looks fantastic for almost 49 and after four children (and putting up with me all these years). Her inner beauty surpasses her considerable outward beauty, and that is what is most important. The wisest and best decision I ever made was to devote my life to serving Jesus as His committed disciple (1977, and renewed and deepened in 1980 and in 1990 when I became a Catholic). The second was, without question, marrying Judy.

I would strongly advise and urge any young people seeking a mate to take their time and make sure it is the right person (with God's aid through much prayer and willingness to follow His direction). Above all, choose someone who loves God and wants to live for Him. That was the biggest factor that made me fall in love with Judy (we had been friends for a year and a half previous to that). It'll make a world of difference in your life. Nothing can match that joy of worshiping God together, side by side, in spirit and in truth. The support of a like-minded spouse in spiritual matters is invaluable and priceless.

1st two sons (5 1/2 and 3 1/2) with newborn third, November 1996. The one on the right is now 6-1 and the oldest almost that tall!

Catholic Writing Not World's Most Lucrative Profession / My Book Sales (Actual Numbers)

I have been successful, by God's grace, writing and selling Catholic apologetics books. That is an objective fact, as demonstrated by sales ranks at amazon; particularly their Top 100 for Catholic Theology category, where three of my books regularly appear, and actual numbers of sales. In the last 90 days, The Catholic Verses has had an average 15,429 sales rank on amazon (by today's ranking for its category, that would place it about #21 of the Top 100), while A Biblical Defense of Catholicism has averaged 25,482 (between #37 and #38 average for the last three months). My books are clearly doing very well in their market. But it is a tiny market, so that I still can't make a living off of the book sales alone.

I venture to guess that no one would be able to do so, just writing Catholic books, except the pope (and he has another job) and Scott Hahn (he is a professor and in no danger of starving if his books weren't -- as indeed they are -- the best selling ones in their category). Karl Keating wrote about the (orthodox) Catholic book market in his November 2006 e-letter:

Catholic Answers earns income from magazine subscription fees, speaking honoraria, book and CD sales, advertising revenue, and so on, but all that covers less than half of our annual budget. The rest comes from donations. Without donations, our level of work would be much different from what it is.

But we're in a peculiar position. Much of our work is the sort that lends itself to being underwritten through donations. Other Catholic organizations don't have that advantage. While they may receive donations, most of their income comes from sales of materials. When sales slump, for whatever reason, such organizations are put in a real bind.

. . . I remember, years ago, meeting with Fr. Joseph Fessio at Ignatius Press in San Francisco. I asked him how many copies of a book he would need to sell to turn a profit. He said he would need to sell as few as 3,000 copies, but not a few of the titles Ignatius published never reached even that level.

You might think, "Well, I could sell 3,000 copies of any decent book. Catholic publishers should be well in the black." I can assure you that it's not so simple.

. . . The plain truth is that very few Catholic books sell into six figures. For that matter, few sell into five figures. In orthodox Catholic publishing, you have a hit if you sell 10,000 copies of a title. It certainly is a niche market.

I learned this through experience. When I started seriously seeking to publish a book, in 1994 (long version of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism) and 1996 (revised, current version, rejected by about six publishers and then picked up by Sophia Institute Press in 2003 after being self-published for two years), I thought the model for Catholic apologetics was Surprised by Truth. It was the second biggest Catholic seller after the Catechism (and has since gone on to surpass 250,000). I was blessed by being included in that volume of conversion stories (beyond the privilege of sharing my journey), in the sense of needed exposure and name recognition (it came out three years before I ever had a website), since, by agreement, I never made one red cent of royalties from it.

Like Karl Keating stated, this (the huge numbers of sales of that book) is the rare exception. And because of that reality, I can't live completely off of my book sales. As I have stated since the delivery business I worked for went under in December 2001, I also need to supplement royalty income with donations and additional part-time jobs, as necessary.

As the former are few and far-between these days (apparently because I refuse to beg and send out "crisis" letters), I am presently looking for the latter. I'm perfectly willing to do that. I like the "Pauline tentmaker model" of ministry. I'd much rather do that than beg and plead, but I would surely prefer being able to devote myself solely to apologetics.

In any event, I am not averse to occasionally letting my readers know of the situation I am in (four children, a wife who home-schools, homeowner, etc.) and to note that all this labor that I spend writing papers takes up time that I could be utilizing making money somewhere else. It's a ton of free labor, and people often communicate to me that they benefit from it (see many posted letters from Catholics and non-Catholics).

Time is money. I keep working and working, but it doesn't always have much of a relationship to remuneration. That's the dilemma of doing something that isn't deemed worthy of support, even though people say they "like" my work and that I have helped them in their spiritual life.

Anyway, I wanted to illustrate how my books are not by any means making me rich, even though they are doing very well in their market, because the market itself is quite small. Here are the actual figures, that I just figured out yesterday and today for the first time, by adding up the numbers from my royalty reports:

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism ("self-published" with 1stBooks Library / Author House from October 2001 to September 30, 2003)

2001: 122 paperbacks / 60 e-books
2002: 1176 paper / 126 e-books
2003: 386 paper / 28 e-books

Grand Total (self-published period): 1684 paperbacks and 214 e-books.

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Sophia Institute Press slightly revised edition: May 2003; e-books no longer available from Sophia)

2003 (combined total with Author House figures): 2552
2003 (Sophia only): 2166
2004: 2542
2005: 2399
2006: 2450
2007 (through to 9-24-07): 2744

Grand Total (Sophia): 12,301
Grand Total (since 2001): 13,985 + 214 e-books

More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ("self-published" with 1stBooks Library / Author House from January 2002 to March 31, 2007)

2002: 450 paperback / 81 e-books
2003: 212 paper / 27 e-books
2004: 261 paper / 14 e-books
2005: 287 paper / 5 e-books
2006: 287 paper / 1 e-book
2007: 51 paper

Grand Total: 1548 paperback / 128 e-books [sales negligible since re-publishing with Lulu]

Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked (pamphlet for Our Sunday Visitor; published in packs of 50; approximately July 2002)

2002: 3963
2003: 2031
2004: 2469
2005: 2740
2006: 2700
2007 (through to June 30): 1136

Grand Total: 15,039 (i.e., 751,950 individual pamphlets)

The Catholic Verses (Sophia Institute Press: August 2004)

2004: 1946
2005: 2816
2006: 2770
2007 (through to 9-24-07): 2397

Grand Total: 9,929

The One-Minute Apologist (Sophia Institute Press: May 2007)

2007: 2490 (as of 9-24-07): average of roughly 500 / month over that period

Grand Total: 2,490

Additionally, The New Catholic Answer Bible (Our Sunday Visitor: March 2005; co-author of notes with Dr. Paul Thigpen) has regularly been in the Top 100 for Catholic Theology at amazon (currently at #30 as I write) and is doing well. But I don't have the sales figures for that work because I was paid a straight fee and don't receive royalties.

Perhaps this may sound like a lot of numbers, resulting in my rolling in the dough over here?
Well, not quite. Considering that this has been my main income since December 2001, and seeing that my royalty rates are $1.39, $1.56, and $1.19 for each copy sold (my three Sophia books), and $1.13 for each pamphlet (OSV), and that I am not receiving ongoing royalties for the apologetic Bible, you can do the math and see that I won't be joining the Fortune 500 anytime soon. I sell my 11 e-books for $15 (automatic download) and have been receiving an average of about one a day, so that is $14.26 or $14.11 (non-US orders) profit after PayPal's transaction fee. That's wonderful, too, but it is not exactly making me a millionaire at that rate of sales, either.

Meanwhile, I write and write and write on my blog, and have been doing so virtually constantly (including my old website) since February 1997. All that is absolutely free to the public (currently almost 1750 posts). That took time: lots of it. My blog recently passed a million page views since February 2004. Prior to that I have no record of all the hits received over the previous seven years, but I would imagine it was at least a few more million.

I know that when I did keep track of some of the more popular pages, like the C.S. Lewis page, it was getting 200-300 hits a day back in the late 90s. And that was just one of about 50 major "index" web pages on my site. That's a lot of folks reading my stuff and (hopefully) receiving some spiritual and educational benefit for it, yet I have received virtually nothing in return, money-wise, for all that work.

I could easily raise money if I begged and pleaded and sent out letters specifically designed to tug at your heartstrings and to produce sympathy. I see that all the time. It's obviously done because it works. But I've always refused to do it. I would say it is because of principle; some might say it is foolish idealism on my part or outright irresponsibility. But I have a great dislike for it. Though I would never say it is wrong per se (I am trying not to be legalistic or judgmental), I personally don't care to see that sort of "hard" fundraising associated with Christian ministry. I think people ought to give because it is simply the right thing to do and because Christian workers are worthy of their wages, not because they were cajoled into it by Madison Avenue techniques.

This post is about the extent of "solicitation of funds" that you'll ever see from me. I can't even claim that my work will end or be drastically reduced if I don't get so much support in the next two weeks. I can't say that because I know (and have stated several times) that I will keep doing this work whether the money comes in or not, as I've been doing over the past ten years plus. I just go out and find more work to help make ends meet if I have to.

All I'm asking is for people who would claim that my work (a result of literally multiple thousands of hours of mostly unpaid labor since February 1997) has assisted them in some significant way: folks who have been "regulars" and who have followed my writing for years, and used it for research and apologetics and evangelism purposes, to consider supporting this work financially. Ask yourself if you think my work has been a valuable aid in your own walk with Christ, and whether it helps others also, and is thus worthy of support. If you have come to a place where you'd like to help support this apostolate, follow this link for further information. All donations are 100% tax-deductible.

Thanks for bearing with me and reading all of this (those of you who are still with me!). God bless all of you and a very special thanks to those who have sent a donation and/or bought my books. I appreciate it very much and hope that you received edification and blessing as a result of reading, by God's grace, working through this unworthy vessel.

The "Adolescent Theory" of Pervasive Anti-Catholic Mindsets and Behavior

"Rebels without a cause"

Jonathan Prejean has been exploring this speculative avenue of thought, inspired by some recent posts by Scott Carson. See his comments on my blog as well (one / two).

I think there is a lot to this thesis. It's elegantly simple; it seems to explain a lot, and it is a fresh approach.

It occurred to me that anti-Catholic vs. Catholic dynamics are analogous to the "generation gap" (as they said in the 60s when I was growing up). "Don't trust anyone over 30" (which really meant "don't trust anyone born before 1940 or so" -- two of the Beatles, after all, were born in 1940). "Don't trust any Catholic enough to be able to learn anything from them." It fits, doesn't it?

It's the "us vs. them" mentality. Catholics MUST be wrong because, well, they are the "them." It's demonization of the opponent. "He's an old fogey with grey hair and a bunch of goofy habits and beliefs; what does he know?" "The Catholic Church is an old barnacle-encrusted spiritually dead hulk of a ship, with all its outmoded, unbiblical traditions." It is a result of 500 years of more or less deliberate smearing propaganda. This is the milieu into which anti-Catholics are thrown. It's more than simply intellectual.

Now, I think presuppositionalism ties into this, because of its unique features. Whoever doesn't agree with the axiomatic presuppositions are out. Catholics do not. Even many Arminians (and/or Protestasnt evidentialists) do not, and so you see the never-ending Calvinism vs. Arminianism wars, with much nonsense on both sides.

Us vs. them. We are automatically out of the fold. And that can't help but produce a marked intellectual bias against us, such that it precludes true dialogue.

I'll have to think about it more, but at this point I still tend to think of it as mainly an intellectual deficiency, fed by incipient prejudices against Catholics (or, I should say, Catholicism as a system), received with one's mother's milk. But the "adolescent" analogy fits in well with the know-it-all tendencies, subjectivism, distrust of the outsider, etc.

Also, a factor that I have analyzed before, is the role of the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. This necessarily colors how a Calvinist (at least an anti-Catholic one) views others. We're not only wrong, but manifestly evil. It truly is black vs. white and good vs. evil, in the very starkest terms.

All this baggage is present going into a debate. But then add on the manifest ignorance and elementary logical shortcomings (why they seem to always be there, would require yet another theory, I suppose), and you have the makings of a dialogical fiasco. I know; I've been through this probably two hundred times or more with these people. It is always the same; if not in the first attempt, over the long run, without exception.

My present opponent, "Saint and Sinner" is also a young earth creationist (as is "Turretinfan" and Steve Hays: fellow active anti-Catholics and presuppositionalist Calvinists). One can't help but notice patterns. This is very much an anti-intellectual and "us vs. them" mentality as well. And it colors biblical interpretation. I realized how profound the influence was in seeing two statements, by S&S and TF:

Due to my philosophy of science, Instrumentalism, I allow Scripture to speak for itself, and so, I am a YEC.

Instead, we see modified old earth creationists holding to ever more erratic views of the text of Scripture, as they attempt to remain popular with the scientific crowd.

Note that the second remark isn't even about evolutionists, but about fellow creationists. Scary stuff.

Now, how do we achieve good dialogue? I don't think it is possible, myself. I think the only way to break through all these molding factors is by a miracle of grace. We would have to save one of these people's lives or do something profoundly moving towards them, or they'd have to see something profound and moving in us that leads them to believe that we really are Christians, so that they would approach us in a whole different light.

And generally that can only be done in person, in "real life" -- not on the Internet. There is exceedingly little chance of achieving any constructive progress through dialogue (words on a screen) alone. The only way, in my humble opinion, is if various factors are at work in the anti-Catholic's life away from the computer screen, to weaken the anti-Catholic extreme presuppositional bias.

As always, I do it only because of others observing, to either convince them, or as an example of how one goes about defeating anti-Catholic arguments (real or imagined).

Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, and Secularism	Anglicanism and Episcopalianism ----------------------- Anti-Catholicism	Apologetics, Catholic: Websites and Documents	Apologetics and Worldview: General Christian
Books & Audio CD's by Dave Armstrong ----------------------------- Books: Christian Online and Search	G.K. Chesterton: The "Colossal Genius"	G.K. Chesterton: Photograph & Portrait Page	Christmas Page (Old-Fashioned and Sentimental)
The Church (Ecclesiology)	Conversion and Converts	Development of Doctrine	Ecumenism & Salvation "Outside" the Catholic Church
The Eucharist & the Sacrifice of the Mass	Family, Marital, Sexual, & Gender Issues	Fathers of the Church (Patristics)	Gospel and Basic Christianity Page
Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., Servant of God (Tribute Page)	Heresies, the Occult, & the New Age Movement	Judaism and Catholicism	Justification & Salvation (Soteriology)
C. S. Lewis: 20th-Century Christian Knight	C.S. Lewis: Photograph and Reminiscences Page	Liberalism & Modernism: Theological	Life Issues: Abortion, Contraception, & Euthanasia
Literary Resume (Published Writings, Etc.)	Mary: The Blessed Virgin	Moral Theology and Social Issues	Malcolm Muggeridge: The Iconoclast
New to the Website	John Henry Cardinal Newman Web Page	John Henry Newman: Photograph & Portrait Page	Orthodoxy, Eastern
The Papacy and Infallibility	Penance and Indulgences	Personal Page: "Who's This Armstrong Character?"	Philosophy and Christianity
Protestantism (Especially Luther, Calvin, & Calvinism)	Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead	Romantic & Imaginative Theology (Tolkien, Etc.)	Sacramentalism (Particularly Baptism)
Saints, Communion and Intercession of	"Scandals" and Shortcomings in the Catholic Church	Science and Theism (Incl. Cosmological Argument)	Scripture & Tradition (Authority & Rule of Faith)
Search / Super--Link Page (All Papers)	Theology & Spirituality (Catholic): Miscellaneous	"Traditionalist" and Schismatic Catholics	Trinitarianism and Christology

The Essential Silliness and Hypocrisy (Even Duplicity) of Atheist John Loftus: Webmaster of Debunking Christianity

Some folks have a real tough time when other folks disagree with them

John Loftus' words will be in green. The blue portions of his citations are (working) links that were in his original statements.

* * * * *

Former pastor John Loftus wants to be taken so seriously by Christians. And some do take him seriously (even Norman Geisler seems to). I was inclined to do so myself, until I ventured onto his blog last year and saw how he actually interacted with Christians (contrary to the noble, lofty sentiments of his blog's stated approach to discussion).

Yet another forum that purported to abide by high standards of ethics in discussion, but in fact fails abominably in holding to them, or else enforces the rules (if at all) with a blatant double standard . . . I've seen it a hundred times, and (sad to say) Christian forums (Catholic and Protestant alike) do little better, if at all (which is why I have refused to participate on discussion boards for almost exactly four years now).

Blogs seemed to be on a higher level for a while, but now they seem to be rapidly going the way of the old discussion boards. Human nature, I reckon. It's always been difficult to achieve a true, constructive dialogue, and it always will be, because people too often take such disagreement personally and don't know how to do a dialogue (having never learned).

The apex of my experience at Debunking Christianity was when Loftus went ballistic because I (imagine this!!!) criticized his story of "deconversion" from Christianity (part one / part two). You would have thought it was the end of western civilization. He threw another hissy fit when I critiqued another argument of his, about God. This guy obviously can't take any criticism. He's clearly not interested in dialogue with Christians. But he loves to preach to us, because that is the one-way monologue that he prefers (more on that below). He has carried his love of preaching from the pulpit to atheist polemics.

Recently, after a similar ridiculous experience on the ExChristian.Net site (when I outrageously dared to critique the deconversion of the Grand Poobah there: Dave Van Allen), Loftus showed up on my blog and basically agreed with Van Allen that I "trolled" atheist sites (rather than attempting to engage in serious back-and-forth, socratic discussion, which is always my goal in conversing with anyone of different beliefs). Disgusted with that, I wrote a sort of "turn the tables" post about the prevalence of "angry atheists" -- including a remarkable tidbit (that I discovered entirely by accident) about some unsavory public behavior of atheist icon Christopher Hitchens.

I documented how the charge of trolling was ludicrous, showing how I had stayed at Debunking Christianity for three and a half months, and had engaged in 19 major dialogues with several people. Many atheists (like many Christians and many human beings, period) don't like it when you disagree with them and can give solid reasons why.

Loftus keeps harping on me to read his book, Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Atheist Explains. He has made the ludicrous claim that virtually any Christian brave enough to read it would almost certainly lose his faith (can you believe the hubris of that??!!). I have said that if he sent me a review copy, I'd be happy to do an extensive critique of the book. He refuses, implying that I am simply looking for a freebie. For my part, I offered him a free e-book version of my book about atheism: Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism, saying that this dispute was not about money, but about truth.

Anyway, when Loftus showed up on my blog, I was willing to give him another shot. After all, we all blow it sometimes and hopefully we learn from our mistakes and try to do better. He seemed serious and sincere, and wrote:

Many of our beliefs contain an irreducible personal element to them, and we subsequently have a strong tendency to rationally support what we have come to believe on less than rational grounds. Some feel the need to defend what they believe more than others, like you, and me . . . I have written some things on these issues. Take a good look at them. If you choose to respond let me know when you do.

(9-29-07 on my blog)

I did make it clear, though, that if I were to do this, he would have to do a better job of interacting, and not erupt again in a spasm of irrational insult, as in our previous encounters:

Hope you are doing well these days. . . . What reason would I have to believe you could maintain your composure in a dialogue? You haven't yet with me . . . I seek dialogue with people who don't have to make everything personal and take everything personally. Perhaps you have undergone a major change of approach since our previous encounters?

(9-30-07)

John Loftus replied:

I’m doing well, kind burned out right now, but thank you. You too. . . . Our testimonies merely share a personal story. You can liken them to people at AA meetings who share what alcohol did to them and why they are leaving it behind them. They contain arguments, of course, but they are also very personal. It’s hard not to react strongly when someone basically says we shouldn’t feel the way we do, because feelings are also expressed. Doing what you do gets a rise out of us because of this. The webmaster at ex-christian.net responded beautifully to your critique, I thought. I just think you would do better to deal with our arguments, the kind that I linked to earlier, that’s all . . . the reason you provoked my ire is that you came to DC and evaluated personal testimonies, not our arguments, and as I said these stories are personal. Just like Christian testimonies they express to the “choir” their initial reasons and they express their personal feelings about why they left the Christian faith. Tell you what, deal with what I said here.

Cheers.

(9-30-07)

Now, does that strike you as a sincere and fairly friendly challenge? If you agree, then you got the same impression that I received myself. So I resolved to make a response to the papers he asked me to look over, but not without trepidation (as it turned out, more than justified). I wrote:

The strong insults from John, as I recall now, actually began during this series on evil, before I ever critiqued his deconversion. So he was reacting emotionally to arguments other than simply his (as he says) simplified, less-serious-of-an-argument deconversion story. I'm willing to give his papers another shot, but the proof is in the pudding, as to whether an actual dialogue will occur, minus the extraneous, unhelpful elements of emotionalism and personal sensitivity.

(9-30-07)

And so, last Sunday (the entire afternoon), I issued a careful, point-by-point reply (Reply to Former Christian John Loftus' "Outsider Test of Faith" Series [+ Discussion] ). I thought this would be a good start-up of a new discussion (anyone can read it and judge for themselves), if indeed Loftus were truly willing to do that. He asked me to reply to his stuff, and I did (despite our troubled past interactions, due to his hypersensitivity to any criticism). What more can one do?

The warning flags went up even before I had issued the new paper. Loftus (bless his ex-Christian heart) had to act like an idiot before he even saw what I wrote. He regurgitated on my blog:

I don't care if you give us another shot. You were personally rude. You have all the answers. The rest of us are just dumb. Or you can help Scot out who earlier asked you to answer me. [indeed, I did that] You could just wait to see my book, "Why I Became an Atheist" due out from Prometheus Books at the end of Februrary. No freebies, like you had asked for earlier. While my focus is on evangelical Christianity, your view won't escape criticism either.

Cheers.

(9-30-07)

One can only shake one's head at such foolish stupidity. Like I said, Loftus wants so badly to be taken seriously, yet he seems paradoxically determined to destroy his own credibility with behavior like this. But this was only the beginning, pitifully enough, as we shall see. Now he has proved that he wasn't even asking sincerely for me to critique his thoughts, and was merely playing games. I protested:

What a shame. And I thought it could have been a good discussion too. So many times with (usually angry, irrationally emotional) atheists, it is over before it even begins. He asked for a reply, I gave it, and before he even waited to see if I would reply or what I would say, he has insulted me as a pompous know-it-all.

(9-30-07)

Rather than make the slightest counter-reply to my lengthy, substance-filled paper, here is how Loftus reacted:

I have answered your objections clearly and decisively in my book, which is being recommended by some interesting and important people. You seem to only be aware of my older book which is no longer available. [I merely used a photo of the older version because it had his picture on it] Get my present book. Or better yet, pre-order the Prometheus Books edition.

I'm not interested in giving out a free book to you, because I do not believe you will give it a fair hearing, and I certainly don't think it will change your mind even if what I wrote is the truth, which I think it is. It's a non-sequitur to argue that I won't give you a freebie because I am interested in your money. I am not interested in your money, but I won't buy my book (which is what I'd have to do), and give it to you. Maybe you can contact Prometheus Books and maybe you can have them send you a free copy for review. That'd be fine with me.

(9-30-07)

And (as if I hadn't written anything at all):

This post of mine is a good summation of what I'm arguing for. How exactly is it that what you just wrote refutes it?

(9-30-07)

This seems to be a new pattern of atheist-Christian interaction, too (along with the angry atheist tendency and the ubiquituous charges that we are unalterably opposed to science and reason itself, are "insane" and "hateful" and need infantile "crutches" and so forth): Loftus himself asked me to respond to his reasoning in some particular papers, and I took my time to carefully do so, and then he acted like this.

Likewise, I asked the atheist "DagoodS" (with whom I had had what I thought were several good dialogues) to write his deconversion story, that I could then respond to from a Christian perspective. He started doing so, in installments, and I began replying, but then he didn't like what he saw and made it increasingly clear (by a variety of subtle-but-real insults and snide insinuations) that my counter-opinions were not welcome at all. So I quit right then and there, because the well had intentionally been poisoned, and any hope of intelligent dialogue sabotaged.

Loftus continued to relentlessly hound me to read his book (as if such pleas and provocations are what motivate me to write anything):

Dave, have you seen this? You really ought to take a good look at my book. People are being led astray from reading it, ya know. And you could set them straight. The longer you wait.....well, you know.

(10-3-07)

I made the obvious response:

I made a lengthy critique of exactly what you wanted me to critique, and it wasn't your deconversion. Ball's in your court. Why should I move on to something else when that wasn't yet responded to?

(10-3-07)

That's fine. I respond to your objections in my book, and it would take too lengthy of the comment space here to deal with what you wrote. If you don't understand that, then fine. Cheers.

(10-3-07)

I had had more than enough of this run-around-the-rosie silliness and folly by then, and blasted Loftus (with complete justification, as far as I am concerned):

Great. Next time you challenge me to respond to something you write, I'll understand that you have no intention of counter-responding, and will take that into account as I decide what is worthwhile to spend my time on.

You act as if you've written nothing except your blasted book. You write tons on your blog, yet you act as if none of that ought to be critiqued or examined. We're all supposed to accept it as Gospel Truth, and if we don't, we get sent to your book because you are unwilling to give any answer to us mere mortals and can only preach to the choir on your blog.

That is intellectually unimpressive in the extreme . .. .

I gave it my best shot with a serious extended reply to exactly what you asked me to reply to. But you had ridiculously insulted me before I even completed my reply. And now this is how you respond.

One either wants to engage in true dialogue with competing ideas or they don't. You clearly do not, and only want to preach (which makes sense, being a former pastor; you just changed congregations).

(10-3-07)

Well, lo and behold, now new self-revelations from Loftus come out. He was never serious in the first place about wanting a reply, and was just playing games. In a word, he is a liar. He wrote on a thread at ExChristian.Net: the same one I participated in, in my visit there:

Dave Armstrong is not worth people's time. He comes blasting in, we blast back, he demands an apology, we apologize, he accepts without doing the same, he moves on. So what I do is to challenge him to respond to an argument of mine. That keeps him busy for an hour or two or three. I figure the time it takes for him to respond keeps him out of my hair. But it does no good to dialogue with him, I've found. So when he's done I thank him and refer him to my book. It's fun really. Like I said, if he was worth my time I would dialogue with him. But he's not for several reasons.

(10-6-07)

There you have it, folks: the perfect, most appropriate, tragi-comic ending to the whole fiasco: Loftus wasn't the slightest bit interested in dialogue from the outset. He was lying and attempting to manipulate my use of time, by pretending to want a dialogue when he really had not the slightest intention of doing so from the beginning. The behavior doesn't exactly line up with the rhetoric . . .

Or else (since John Loftus is manifestly a liar, anything is possible now), he actually did want to dialogue, but saw my response and concluded that he had no decent reply, and so (as an evasion tactic) had to revise the history of what happened, to make out that he never did want to dialogue. Rather, he ventured bravely onto fellow atheist territory to announce further insults.

Either way, the man has amply proven how pathetic his personal ethics are, and what an intellectual coward he is. All he had to do was shut his big mouth for a few hours, read my lengthy, serious reply that he asked for, and make an intelligent, non-insulting counter-reply. That could have put us on an entirely different plane of discussion. It would have been a positive, hopeful thing. Something good may have actually resulted from it. But he just couldn't do that.

And why is that? Because I am an "idiot" (as he has called me in the past) and "not worth people's time"? Or is it because he cannot answer a serious Christian objection to his skeptical atheist nonsense? You decide. I have laid out the history of what happened, so you can use your critical faculties and decide what has gone on here. For my part, I think the truth is plain to see.

Isn't it interesting, too, how different people see different things in the same occurrence? You saw how Loftus characterized my brief stay (on one discussion thread) at ExChristian.Net. Huey Heard is an atheist who was there, too. In fact, he made a few strong responses to me himself. And he was kind enough to come onto my blog to discuss things (unlike Loftus) rationally and intelligently, in a friendly fashion. Here is what happened (Huey's words will be in purple):

You started off this particular blog with dishonest assertions to the effect that we attacked you . . . Dave you are the one making the attacks, not any of us. . . . Yes we have attacked xtians in the past, as evidenced by your cherry picking of Dave’s website, but it is only usually after they attack us. Sorry, but I find it offensive to have people yell into my face that I am going burn horribly in their hell.

(10-3-07)

You can complain all you like, about my person or method, but I am interested in replies to my arguments. That ceased long ago on that forum, and so I left, because obviously no constructive discussion was going to take place.

I don't deny that I made any personal remarks at all. I certainly did. But I think they were justified as replies to what was coming my way. An "ad hominem" is warranted or justified if indeed the person is guilty of what he is accused of, by means of hard evidence.

(10-3-07)

And what did you think you were getting from Jim Arvo? He did address your arguments, quite well in fact. I also addressed your arguments, in my own small way, as did others. There was constructive dialogue. Jim did not launch an ad hominem and neither did I. Nobody called you names, asserted that you were stupid, what have you though I admit that we have done that to others. You are claiming an affront where none was given and I am trying to understand why.

(10-3-07)

I explained how I thought the discussion with Jim Arvo had gotten derailed. I wrote: "Now, perhaps I was wrong in charging obfuscation, but I didn't think Jim would be sensitive. Nevertheless, I can take my share in the blame for that remark." Yet John Loftus claimed above that I accepted apologies "without doing the same." Anyone can see from this example that this is false. I apologized first to Jim Arvo (10-3-07), and then he (to his credit) reciprocated on 10-4-07:

David, I humbly apologize for implying that I found no substance in the few arguments of yours that I've read thus far.

I accepted this:

We'll have to agree to disagree, Jim. I have no further arguments on the matter beyond those I have already given. But I appreciate your non-polemical tone, and the apology.

And he said:

Okay then. Take care.

Then "RD" (more on him below) jumps right in (right before Loftus made his latest shot / confession of lying):

Good riddance to the self-righteous troll.

It is a lie also for Loftus imply that I "demanded an apology." No such thing happened. Anyone can see this by searching for the words apology, apologize, sorry, retract, retraction, demand, etc. in the thread. It never happened. All I did was note on my blog that the discussion had become ridiculous and unfruitful, with lots of personal attack. I never demanded anything. As we saw, I apologized, and accepted Jim Arvo's gracious apology back. Dave Van Allen spontaneously apologized for earlier claiming that I had broken my word to someone, which I publicly accepted ("Thanks to the webmaster for the apology. I will edit my post accordingly").
I had simply written a post documenting the claims against me that he made, not made some "demand". He retracted that one, but still hasn't retracted the charge that I troll atheist sites.

Anyway, as to whether personal insults occurred that I or anyone else would find objectionable and a legitimate reason to withdraw from attempted discussion, back to my later discussion on that very topic with Huey Heard on my blog. I documented for him exactly what remarks I felt were undeniably personal attacks. I also explained my perspective on that in a post at ExChristian; cross-posted on my blog. Huey accepted the validity of some of my examples [my previous words that he cites will be indented]:

As you said, fair enough.

RD said: “…accentually (sic) lie to yourself knowing full well deep down inside it could not possibly be true.”

[I'm a dishonest idiot with an infantile crutch who wants to believe an obvious lie. This is not an insult?]

I have to agree with you there. It is the same argument that xtians use on me, usually in the form of ‘why do you hate god?’. I do not, deep down, presuppose the existence of a god any more than you, deep down, do not. I myself have always found it insulting that people assume, without knowing the first thing about me or my thought processes, I MUST believe in their god. Well I don’t. But my lack of belief does not imply that you MUST share that with me. You had a common xtian argument turned on you and yes, I would call that insulting. And I won’t even go into the next of RD’s comments.

boomSLANG said: “....and we make sure that all self-righteous theists are treated like people . . .”

[why should I automatically be considered "self-righteous", esp. after I had just stated that atheists were welcome on my blog and would be treated politely?]

First of all it is hard to discuss topics of this nature without generalizing. No one can start off every assertion with ‘this does not apply to everybody but…’ but never the less, an attempt to make everybody aware of that unspoken preamble should be made. Yes Dave I have read where you have done so on your blog. Your disclaimer at the beginning of this particular blog [link] speaks volumes! However to address this particular topic, all I can say is that with all the obviously self-righteous theists we do see on Ex-Christian.net we tend to indulge in knee-jerk reactions. I am not offering that as a defense, just an explanation.

. . . I will finish this post with the following: I now see where you are coming from and as I read more of your blog, I will see more. To show you where I am coming from I will tell that I am a die-hard atheist whose best friends are VERY devout christians. I introduced them, was the best man at their wedding (18 years ago) and still consider them to be the best people I have or ever will meet. I do not hate christians. That would be bigotry. I do however detest fundamentalism of all types as it seems to invariably lead to unreasoning hatred. I personally don’t care if you worship trees on Mondays and rocks on Tuesdays. Just don’t tell me I have to.

(10-3-07)

I replied with a conciliatory post. Huey reciprocated, and so we got off to an excellent start for possible future discussions. The moral of the story was that there are different opinions as to what happened on that thread. I claimed there were personal attacks going on, and so left because that precludes intelligent discussion if it comes to predominate. Obviously, one proof that these were indeed taking place was the two apologies graciously offered, which I accepted.

The friendly, fair-minded atheist Huey Heard at first objected to my characterization, but when I gave examples, he acknowledged at least two of them (different from the two apologized for), and gave an explanation (but not an excuse) as to why they likely occurred. This establishes the factuality of the claims I made in the first place: that personal attacks were directed towards me in place of rational argument.

But John Loftus has to lie and distort what happened: "He comes blasting in, we blast back, he demands an apology, we apologize, he accepts without doing the same, he moves on." As anyone can plainly see, that is a gross distortion of what happened, including two lies about my supposedly demanding apologies and not offering any, and a caricature of my initial entry into the discussion ("blasting in"). Here is the horrible, insulting, condescending, pompous way in which I began my brief stay at ExChristian (the common courtesy of letting someone know that I replied to a paper of his):

I have posted a lengthy reply to webmaster Dave's deconversion story on my blog. I don't know if I am allowed to post the URL, but I believe my name will include the URL to my blog, where it is currently near the top. Anyone is welcome to come comment.

I make sure that all atheists and agnostics are treated cordially and respectfully on my (Catholic) blog.

(9-27-07)

My second post involved a little joke about Motown (I'm from Detroit), based on someone's citation from a Four Tops song. Really insulting stuff there, too, huh? I even joked about the insult (seen above) to the effect that I was "self-righteous."

My third post began my series of replies to Jim Arvo, which I thought was a very good exchange for a while (and not bad overall, though it did degenerate; but we both took our blame for that). I started out: "Thanks for your thoughtful reply." Really nasty stuff, huh? All this is "blasting away"? The insults began before I said anything objectionable at all. The only reason anyone could have gotten angry at me (apart from my being a Christian) was because (again) I had the unmitigated gall of disagreeing with the reasoning expressed in a deconversion story.

But no one would ever get a proper impression of what actually happened when I first went onto that forum if they went solely by Loftus' exercise in revisionist history and smearing propaganda, would they? It just shows yet again that there are two sides to every story.

My blog is all about friendly, open, honest, mutually-respectful dialogue and hearing both sides. I debate all kinds of belief-systems, and have engaged in somewhere between 450 and 500 dialogues (I no longer keep track, but I know it is at least 450). But Loftus and Van Allen and their blogs are not about that. They are about preaching to the choir, mocking and trashing Christians and Christianity and emotional backslapping and warm fuzzies: one atheist to another.

You can still find fair-minded, rational people like Jim Arvo and Huey Heard even on blogs like these. But for every one of them there are at least nine (vocal) insulting, irrationally angry or mocking atheists / agnostics / skeptics. And it is almost impossible to talk intelligently with an Arvo or a Heard without a bunch of patronizing nitwits trying to butt in and immediately bring the discussion down to the mudslinging pit. But as soon as Heard came over to my blog, such a normal conversation was entirely possible and we actually came to a refreshing friendly agreement and a measure of understanding.

Anti-Catholics Poised to Utilize the "Too Long to Respond" Canard (Gene M. Bridges and "Saint & Sinner" [?] / The Hyper-Lengths of Steve Hays)

I must confess that this is one of my very favorite excuses / evasions / obfuscation tactics, that anti-Catholics habitually use to avoid defending what they ought to defend, and grappling with opposing arguments. They simply trot out this slogan and "presto!": all tasks and burdens of intellectual discussion and defense of their own positions (and responses to counter-replies to same) disappear into thin air, with the added bonus that their Catholic opponent is yet again mocked for no reason. But, as almost always with anti-Catholics and their arguments against Catholics (and especially the methodologies of Catholic apologists), this involves a blatantly irrational double standard.

The latest attempt is that of Gene M. Bridges, an anti-Catholic active on Steve Hays' Triablogue board. It occurred in a combox on "Saint and Sinner's" blog, regarding our discussion concerning the treatment of 1 Timothy 3:15 (where the Church is described as the "pillar and bulwark of the truth") in my book, The Catholic Verses. A side discussion had ensued, whereby S&S had wandered off into what I described as:

. . . a side issue of a side track of a side track:

1) visibility [of the Church]

2) indefectibility [of the Church]

3) Liberius as a supposed proof of Roman and visible defectibility.

I called for the discussion to get back on-topic, and so wrote:

Do you intend to comprehensively respond to my arguments in my lengthy counter-reply or not? You have a lot to do, assuredly, and people are looking for straight answers.

And:

[H]opefully you will get back to the actual subject: 1 Timothy 3:15 and how a semi-invisible Protestant "church" can claim to be in any sense a monolithic pillar of truth.

Bridges then replied to the first statement / challenge:

One cannot help but think that your desire S&S to take time to reply to a 27 page response from you is both (a) a diversionary tactic to keep him from pressing forward and (b) rather disproportionate, since one doubts that your exegesis in the book was 27 pages long - for this one text. It should send serious signals to readers that you require 27 pages of text to rebut a much short analysis of your work, not to mention the fact that your original work is shorter than your rebuttal to the reply.

This is a variation of an irrational, rather asinine tactic long used by anti-Catholics in response to my work (especially James White and John Q. "Lightweight" Doe). I predicted it in my paper, stating: "I will hear the usual droning complaints about the length of this paper, and a bunch of hooey about my supposedly straying from the topic . . ." And so we see other examples of it recently and from not too long ago:

I’ll admit, I don’t think I have ever read through an entire DA post because they get so long, but I hope S&S can get through a few posts without being barraged by DA and others with what mostly amounts to off-topic rants.

(the illustrious "Carrie" -- 10-2-07)

. . . that's 27 pages if printed on normal paper and adjusting font size up from 8.5 to 12, and there were plenty of off-topic excursions . . . frequently off-topic post . . .

("Turretinfan" -- 10-3-07)

There are several notable difficulties in replying to Dave Armstrong, not the least of which being his uncanny ability to ramble on and on about nothing in particular. The fluff in his posts is absolutely unreal. . . . This is one example of the voluminous chaff through which a person responding to Mr. Armstrong must sort to get to the meat of the argument. . . . Dave needs to head to the book store and get himself a copy of On Writing Well by William Zinsser and carefully read the chapters on Simplicity, Clutter, and Words before he constructs his next “paper.”

(Cory Tucholski -- 9-29-07)

I find many of his blog articles unreadable, at least those on topics that interest me. I often wonder if any make it all the way through some of his blog entries.

(John Q. "Lightweight" Doe -- 5-14-07)


Particularly your dialogs, I find them awful to read. . . . Much [sic] of your longer on-line dialogs though, are unreadable, in my opinion. Much of it could be shortened to make your points simply and clearly. As much as possible, I try not to write long papers.

(John Q. "Lightweight" Doe -- 5-28-07)


Now, of course, DA will respond with text files (liberally salted with URL's) that will average 10x the word count of anything I have to say. That's OK. I shall . . . let him take home the bragging rights to verbosity and bandwidth usage.

(Bishop James White -- 12-29-04)

Aren't you afraid that if you put Dave Armstrong out of business, that would upset the delicate balance of the blogosphere? The Internet as we know it would cease to be. On second thought, silencing all that hot air might put an end to the threat of global warming. Go for it.

. . . the verbosity of Dave's return rants.

(Phil Johnson -- 9-21-05, on Frank Turk's blog)

Now, let's examine this charge once again. Is it rational and sensible? Or is it merely a canard to avoid dealing with the arguments of opponents? I shall contend that it is the latter. If S&S follows suit from Bridges' comments and ignores my reply, then it proves once again that a presuppositionalist anti-Catholic is not interested in true dialogue, but only in preaching and running down someone, without reference to their own clarifications and explanations. Or, in a word, he is (I would conclude) unable to defend his own arguments when they are scrutinized.

The "too long" excuse might work if there weren't so many double standards involved and if these same people would criticize their own cronies and comrades when they do the same thing or worse. Carrie writes on John Q. "Lightweight" Doe's blog. Gene Bridges writes on Steve Hays' blog. What is Doe's own record in abridging his own epic tomes when he is replying to me? Well, he made this charge so many times I documented what actually happened. It is quite illuminating. I've written a paper on this issue:

Double Standards On Lengthiness of Papers (Steve Hays' Gargantuan Output)

In this paper, tired of these obscurantist tactics, I compared how many words I wrote on my blog in two different weeks, compared to the numbers of words written by my anti-Catholic critics:

Total Words in Blog Posts: September 15-21, 2005:

Steve "Whopper" Hays 16,019 (29% of total)
Pedantic Protestant ("Pee Pee") 15,603 (28%)
Frank Turk 10,773 (20%)
Phil Johnson 7,578 (14%)
Dave "Hurricane" Armstrong 4,993 (9%)

To be as fair as I could, and more "scientific" about it, I even calculated another week:

Total Words in Blog Posts: July 15-21, 2005:

Steve "Whopper" Hays 14,894 (39% of total)
Frank Turk 9,131 (24%)
Phil Johnson 5,333 (14%)
Pedantic Protestant ("Pee Pee") 4,382 (12%)
Dave "Hurricane" Armstrong 4,127 (11%)

I quipped:

So if I am a hurricane, or produce enough hot air to bring about global warming, what does that make these verbally-prolific, listening-challenged guys? The big meteorite that landed in Arizona? The giant fireball in Siberia? The gargantuan explosion in Krakatoa? The initial blast from the Big Bang?

See much more documentation of Hays' prodigious output in the same paper. Hays is always a barrel of laughs if anyone wants to talk about numbers of words. He has not shown the slightest indication of any slowing down lately, either. It was fun counting his words two years ago. Let's do it again now. Keep in mind Gene Bridges' comments that S&S shouldn't reply to my latest argument that was a counter-reply to his because mine was a "27 page response" that represented a "diversionary tactic to keep him from pressing forward" and which was "rather disproportionate."

Okay. Hold that thought. Now let's see how many words Bridges' buddy Steve Hays uses when he replies to my friend and fellow Catholic Jonathan Prejean (in a post from September 2007). Are you ready? The grand total is (including citations of Jonathan's words, just as I do in my dialogues) [drum roll _._._._._..........]:

14,760 words

To give readers an idea of how long that is, I formatted it just as I do my books that I publish with Lulu (using Microsoft Word 2000): Times New Roman font, size 12, 6" by 9" paper size, with 0.8" margins all around. It came out to 53 pages.

But the funniest part is that Jonathan's paper that Hays responded to was a paltry 1,183 words and a mere 3 1/2 pages, using the exact same format. I'll grab my handy calculator to do the math on that. Lessee . . . Hay's paper is 12.5 times longer than Jonathan Prejean's paper, in word count. To be generous (I'm having a great time, so I'm happy to be generous and overly charitable), let's subtract all of Jonathan's words from Hays' count, assuming that he cited all of them (which appears to be the case). Now Hays' total is 13,577, or only 11.5 times longer than Jonathan's. That is even more than White's claim of what I would do when he started critiquing my book, The Catholic Verses (see citation above): supposedly ten times more than his words.

The truth of the matter was far different, as I documented in my last installment:

Total words: White: (minus section trashing my Protestant knowledge and credentials): 3200

Total words: Armstrong:3109 (or 97% as many as White's)

Grand Total thus far: White: 7962 / Armstrong: 5110 (or 64% as many as White's words, or White outwriting Armstrong by a 1.56 to one margin -- roughly three words for every two that I write)

My percentage of words over against White's, compared to his "average" prediction: 0.06% (5110 actual, compared to a predicted 79,620 / 16 times less)

Hays is obviously unburdened by any similar self-restriction. I wrote 0.64 as many as my opponents' words; Hays writes 11.5 times more words than his opponent. Clearly, then, Jonathan Prejean is under a strong obligation to not respond to Hays' critique, since the latter would, according to Gene Bridges, constitute a "diversionary tactic to keep him from pressing forward"; indeed, one that is "rather disproportionate" to boot. I'm sure Hays would be just as pleased with getting in the last word due to an opponents' forfeit by "default" (or -- more likely -- due to an overwhelming avalanche of verbiage) as I would be if S&S flees for the Arkansas hills behind Frank Turk's house, using this stupid excuse.

So we've done the comparison of Steve Hays' replies to his opponent's paper. Now, I'm curious: how long was my recent reply, that Bridges thought was so abominably long that S&S shouldn't deign to reply to it? Well, it was 7,740 words, or 26 1/2 pages in Word. Hays' paper was 1.9 times longer than mine. Mine was 52% as long as his (or 57% if we use the Prejean-citation-free calculation of words). And how long was S&S's paper that I responded to? 2,509 words, or six pages and three lines of a seventh in Word.

So, I confess, I outwrote my opponent, as one would fully expect (see comments on defending oneself and the effort it requires, below). But I did so with far less volume than Steve Hays (four times less). I only wrote (including S&S's words, since I habitually write in dialogue form) 3.1 times more than S&S, whereas Hays wrote 11.5 times more than Jonathan Prejean. Here's a handy summary:

Steve Hays 'n' JP
(buddy of Gene Bridges; on whose blog Gene hangs out as a "regular")

Jonathan Prejean's paper: 1,183 words, or 3 1/2 pages in Microsoft Word: size 12 font

Steve Hays' paper in reply: 14,760 words (including Prejean citations): 53 pages in Word

Total: 12.5 times longer than his opponent, or Jonathan's words being a mere 8% compared to Hays' critique of them

Let's do my figures now:

Me 'n' S&S

S&S's paper: 2,509 words, or six pages and three lines in Word

My reply: 7,740 words (including S&S citations): 26 1/2 pages in Word

Total: 3.1 times more than my opponent, with his words being 32% as many compared to my reply. My paper was four times less volume than Steve Hays' reply, in proportion to the persons we were replying to.

Yet does one ever hear a peep of protest about Hays' War and Peace-length epics and tomes from Gene Bridges? Of course not. That is reserved only for yours truly, when he and his buddies find they cannot answer my arguments and need to find a ready-made excuse for their intellectual cowardice, in order to hoodwink their readers, so no one will notice the sad reality of what is taking place.

Nor does anyone hear one whimper of protest at Triablogue over the multitude of condescending personal attacks in this paper, against Jonathan Prejean (whose paper is described as "sophism" by none other than S&S in the lone comment for the paper):

When challenged, he finds himself in the position of an acrophobic cat on a telephone pole. . . . He's been getting some assistance from firemen like Apolonio, who are understandably concerned with the public relations repercussions in case their cat goes splat. But is their ladder tall enough to reach the dizzy feline?

. . . when he momentarily removes his ecclesiastical training wheels for long enough to take a few baby steps on his own two feet—as in his recent, ill-fated appeal to Is 55:7-9 to prooftext his metaphysical precommitments—he falls flat on his baby fat.

. . . Prejean's boundless faith in Romanism. If reports of pink unicorns and apostolic successors are equally veridical, then that certainly makes it easier to credit the claims of Rome . . .

Prejean constantly substitutes prejudicial stipulations for hard evidence. Indeed, he makes many a priori claims in the teeth of the actually [sic] evidence.

To the contrary, it's [misrepresenting arguments] a commonplace in Catholic apologetics.

Prejean has this tinker-toy theology in which he constructs "the Church" from his aprioristic toy box of plastic legos. And a very pretty "Church" it is—like a Victorian dollhouse. Unfortunately, an architectural model of "the Church" is not the same thing as reality.

Debating with Prejean is like debating with the Red Queen. He constantly resorts to retrocausation to backdate the ex post facto improvements in his argumentation as he retools his latest reply in light of prior criticism from me (and others).

I understand why Prejean is such a high churchman After all, Prejean is a one-man church. And when you're a one-man church, it's very flattering to have a high ecclesiology. In that situation, promoting a high-church ecclesiology is a form of self-promotion.

You notice that God is the very last person whom Prejean ever consults on theological questions. Instead, Prejean simply dictates what faith must be. Prejean simply dictates what a rule of faith must be. Prejean simply dictates what knowledge must be.

He talks about Protestantism the way Hitchens or Dawkins talk about Christianity. All three wrap themselves in the cloak of rationalistic rhetoric, but the supporting arguments are missing in action.

Prejean's trifling treatment of the Abrahamic covenant is a perfect illustration of how his Catholicism leads to an utter contempt for God's word.

Prejean can't keep track of his own argument. . . . keeps losing his own train of thought.

So Prejean's denomination is the only thing standing between him and rank infidelity. Indeed, Prejean already has far less faith in Scripture than a heretic like Isaac Newton. Prejean has no faith in Scripture. None whatsoever. He puts all his faith in his particular denomination. His attitude towards Scripture in and of itself is openly and frankly faithless.

As usual, Prejean is using an adjective ("surely") in lieu of an argument. With Prejean, adjectives to [sic] all the heavy-lifting.

Do you mean some spiritual form of ESP? Define your terms.

You're also trying recast the original issue, which is another backdoor admission that you were wrong, and continue to flail about in hopes of saving face.

Due to your theological ignorance, you're committing a level-confusion.

Prejean is a very lazy debater.

Throughout this thread, Prejean says a lot of things are "simple." Well, the issues are simple of you have a shallow grasp of the issues.

Prejean acts as if he's living in a Kafkaesque world where everyone is under suspicion. I pity his paranoia.

Perhaps the butcher and the food taster are in collusion to poison poor old Jonathan.

Everything except an argument. Someone needs to dispatch a bloodhound to locate all of Prejean's missing arguments.

Someone who regards hallucinations as veridical reports is in no position to question the reality of the White Rabbit or the Cheshire Cat. Indeed, if I were the White Rabbit, I'd sue Jonathan for defamation of character.

Now Prejean is being obtuse.

What does Prejean find so objectionable about this utterly common sense argument? Prejean is so blinded by his reflexive dislike of the Protestant faith that he takes leave of his senses and attacks anything, however reasonable and undeniable, if it's tainted by association with the Protestant faith.

Prejean's persistent density does nothing to further his cause.

Prejean is a dilettante. First he pretends to be a patrologist, then he pretends to be a Thomist. This is in addition to other affectations, like his parenthetical reference to Suarez.

Of course, what Prejean has done is to rig the game, the way an atheist will invoke methodological naturalism as a rule of evidence. Prejean doesn't argue for anything. Instead, he concocts stipulative definitions which disqualify any evidence that would count against his position. His method is tendentious from start to finish.

With all those insults, is it any wonder how and why Hays outwrites his opponents by a 12.5-to-one margin?! Maybe it would've been only an 8-to-1 ratio if Hays could have managed by God's grace to heroically restrain himself from his constant smart ass / patronizing remarks?

But beyond this sort of hypocritical silliness (and humorous and comedic value, which is, no doubt, psychologically required in any encounter with an anti-Catholic) is the more fundamental and quite-serious question: does it require more words to refute an error or fallacy than it took to write the same error or fallacy? I think it is self-evident that it does. And I would submit that it is clear why this is. I explained in another paper:

[W]hen charges are made against someone, particularly this complex, partly-subjective charge of citing out of context, it takes (almost always) many more words to refute the arguments than to state them, by the nature of the case. Just a moment's reflection on this will make it evident to anyone.

Imagine, for example, that someone was accused in the following manner: "Mr. Jones, in his biography of Mr. Smith has 17 dishonest citations, is guilty of misrepresenting his subject 14 times, and perpetuates ten falsehoods about matters of fact." That is 28 words. But how many words do you think it would require to refute the charge, if untrue? Clearly, it would take many many more. Likewise, when I am accused of lousy citation and incompetent research and misrepresentation of the most well-known biographer of Luther, it will require a lot of words. And so I wrote them.

Even so, my reply was only 2.8 times longer than the paper making the accusation. If we take the example above, a response 2.8 times longer would add up to 78 words. But does anyone seriously think that 78 words would be sufficient to dispel all those charges? They wouldn't be anywhere near enough, even if the charge were one dishonest citation, one misrepresentation, and one factual falsehood. A defense against a charge always requires lots and lots of counter-factual data, contrary proofs, and evidences, etc. Counter-examples must be given and so forth.

To give an example in my case: Mr. Doe claimed in another paper that I deemed Luther to be "a very morally bankrupt person." That is exactly five words. He can throw out a bald-faced lie like that, which has absolutely no shred of proof in its favor, and much counter-evidence. That's easy. But to refute it, I have to give plain examples of statements of mine which are exactly opposite to the false contention. Thus, in my satire, I did that, giving seven examples which blew this falsehood out of the water, often with explicit statements in direct contradiction to it. Those examples added up to 957 words, or 191.4 times as many as the lie they were absolutely necessary to refute. See how it works?

Therefore, a four-part paper dealing with multiple, repeated charges of mis-citation which is only 2.8 times as long as that which it refutes, is not only not excessive; it is downright brief! And the total number of words was still only 12,710, which is only 70% as long as Mr. Doe's paper on Luther and the canon of Scripture and 39% as long as his paper on Catholic Views of Luther. For that matter, it is a mere 30% as long as his massive "Response to Dave Armstrong". Even if I include the accompanying satire, it is less than Mr. Doe's canon paper in word count, by 17,365 to 18,246. Yet Mr. Doe complains that I write so many words. I reply to that: "stop distorting and misrepresenting my opinions and methodology, and I will be able to write much less." But even beyond that consideration, we see that Mr. Doe is no stranger to huge treatises and missives.

That being the case, I think his current complaints -- to put it bluntly -- are only so much hot air, and involve a huge double standard: he can write his tomes but I must not ever do so, no matter how necessary due to subject matter.

I urge readers of whatever persuasion to keep all this in mind as we watch and observe what S&S chooses to do: whether to reply to my counter-response and answer the necessary, fundamental difficult questions about the Protestant positions that I have challenged him with, or decide to use this tired, ludicrous excuse and/or others (as White, Doe, and numerous anti-Catholics have before him) to justify ignoring my response, only to go on and write another critique, with the intention of ignoring my reply to that one, too. If the latter, this "dialogue" is doomed already. I predicted that this was likely (which was a lot of the point of my first introductory post: I wanted it to be on the record that I predicted the likely outcome beforehand).

I may decide to refute his assertions about my book one more time, if he follows that approach, but no more than that, because if a man is not willing or able to defend his own arguments, he is not worth all that much time dealing with publicly. Two times refuting his charges is more than enough. He wouldn't deserve any further attention or publicity if he wants to engage in a one-way monologue / preaching exercise. He can always preach to his buddies. Why should I waste my valuable time?

Fun Fall Colors Site / Two of Our Photographs

I discovered this website by accident, while cruising blogs. The Foliage Network provides updates on fall color progress for the entire eastern US. If you're a fall fanatic like my wife Judy and I, you'll appreciate this.

We're going up to northern Michigan (lower Peninsula) by Lake Huron (Judy's mother's house) on our annual fall trip, probably next weekend. Between this site and the weather channel online, we can plan our trip for the very best time, color- and weather-wise. Here are a couple of my autumn photographs, both from Michigan. I remember that the white tree picture was taken in 1982 (I think the scan came out a bit too dark). I don't recall the date of the other (that one may possibly have been shot by Judy).

"Saint & Sinner's" Critique of The Catholic Verses, Part I: 1 Timothy 3:15 (Church Authority & Sola Scriptura)

Chartres Cathedral, France

See S&S's introduction, my response, and his present paper to which I am replying. His words will be in blue. Citations from my book will be in green.

* * * * *

“I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” -1 Timothy 3:14-15 NASB

“. . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” [RSV, as always in my book]

The section under consideration runs from pages 3 to 7.

Exegesis

Paul begins verse 14 by telling us that he wrote “these things”. This begs the question: what are “these things”? They are the subject of the previous 13 verses: the qualifications and proper behavior for church leaders in the local church (3:1-13).

Verses 1-13

He starts off chapter 3 with the qualifications for an overseer (i.e. an elder): he must be monogamous, slow to anger, loving, a good teacher, not an alcoholic, not a new convert, and have a good reputation. Paul then moves on to the qualifications for a deacon: he must be a man of dignity, a non-alcoholic, etc. He also mentions female leaders within the church: they must not be gossips but temperate and faithful.

The question of the exact nature of church offices in the New Testament is a complex one (see my article on bishops in the NT). Ecclesiology underwent development, like everything else. I've recognized this in my writing. I find it a bit amusing, however, that S&S (being an adherent of Reformed "low church" presbyterian ecclesiology) wants to avoid the term bishop, even though that is the usual translation of the Greek words episkope and episkopos, found in 1 Tim 3:1 and 3:2. S&S is using the NASB version (one that I love and am very familiar with, having read most of the Bible in this version in the early 80s). He says that "elder" is a synonym for "overseer" (NASB: 1 Tim 3:1-2) yet the notes for NASB at 1 Tim 3:1 state "Or, bishop".

The KJV translates episkopos or its cognates as "bishop" (or "bishoprick" -- Acts 1:20) at 1 Tim 3:1, 3:2, Phil 1:1, Titus 1:7, and 1 Pet 2:25. The usual Greek word in Holy Scripture translated as elder, on the other hand, in English translations is presbuteros and its cognates (1 Tim 5:1-2,17,19; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1,5; at least 18 times in the book of Acts in KJV). KJV (according to Young's Concordance) translates presbuteros as elder 62 times, and never as bishop. But episkopos and related words are never translated as elder.

Isn't it interesting then, that S&S never once uses the quite-biblical word bishop in a positive sense, as a scriptural term, in his entire article. He mistranslates episkope / episkopos as elder because that is more amenable to his low-church Reformed ecclesiology. Who is engaging in eisegesis? Moreover, he made the following claim of alleged "anachronism" on my part, in his Introduction:

a.) Anachronism: This is a fallacy of history in which one imports a modern or later concept or definition back into a belief or word of a previous age. For instance, it is all too common for a Roman Catholic apologist to see the word, “church,” in the Biblical text and say that it is referring to the clergy, i.e. the priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the Pope. However, in the New Testament, the word, “church,” Greek: ecclesia, simply meant “congregation” which referred to the entire people of God, the laity and the clergy.

I'm not anachronistically importing the word bishop into the context of 1 Timothy 3; it is already there. I didn't put it there. The Holy Spirit decided to do that. But S&S wants to pretend it isn't there, and so uses elder and likes the NASB because it uses the term overseer, that doesn't sound so Catholic and episcopal in ecclesiology. But certainly he is not so ignorant as to not know that elder is the usual translation of presbuteros, not episkopos. That is biblical language, and habitual English Bible translation. It is what it is, whatever ecclesiology one has.

Many non-Catholic Bible translations use the word bishop at 1 Timothy 3:1-2, or mention it as an alternate, in notes:

KJV
ASV
NKJV
RSV
NRSV
NEB
REB
Phillips
Moffatt
Amplified
NASB overseer (Notes: "Or bishop")
NIV overseer (Notes: "Or bishop")
CEV church official (Notes: "Or 'bishop'")

NASB and NIV (arguably due to evangelical low church Protestant bias) depart from the mainstream of English biblical translating tradition (KJV-ASV-RSV-NRSV-NKJV) in this respect (which is one reason why, no doubt, they make note of "bishop" as an alternate). Therefore, the context that S&S wants to examine, shows us that bishops are definitely being referred to, so that when we see "church" later in the chapter, it does indeed include the notion of bishops, whether S&S cares for it or not.

It is hardly impressive to deliberately remove the word bishop (episkopos) from a discussion of context, so that the unsuspecting reader will not realize it is there in the first place. I am simply going by the words in the Bible itself; S&S is off on a tangent of presbyterian ecclesiological bias (and there is your eisegesis, folks; how ironic, huh?). Isn't dialogue wonderful? How many readers on either side would have known this without my pointing it out?

Verses 14-15

He wrote the things mentioned above so that the leaders within Timothy’s church would know how to conduct themselves. After all, this isn’t something like a college fraternity. Rather, it is the remnant that God chosen to redeem (Romans 9:22-27), to purchase their salvation with His own blood (Acts 20:28). It is the group that God has called out of the world for His own eternal glory (Ephesians 1:12) and to be the chosen ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20) by which to spread the word of His covenant lawsuit against the heathen (Acts 17:22-31).

The church is to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16) in that we are the representatives of God to a world in rebellion against Him and bearers of the truth now revealed to us at the first coming of Christ (John 17:14-21). As such, the church is to “conduct” itself worthy of such a calling by its Master (1 Thessalonians 2:12, cf. 1 Timothy 3:15).

Isn't it funny that when I engage in extensive cross-referencing, as S&S does above (which I think is perfectly proper and relevant), James White accuses me of not doing exegesis, because I haven't stuck to the immediate text, and it alone. For example, in critiquing the same book (my argument from Luke 1:28), White writes:

Armstrong writes, "The Catholic argument hinges on the meaning of kecharitomene." This alone is sufficient to establish the propriety of the previous five installments, for the meaning of the term can only be determined lexically, grammatically, and syntactically, and we have seen that beyond question the term does not, in fact, carry the weight assigned to it by Rome. But we continue on with Armstrong's argument, for he refers to the abridged edition of Kittel's TDNT regarding grace, and while what Kittel's says is quite true, given the passages being referred to (1 Cor. 1:29, Romans 5:20-21, Galatians 5:2, 1:6), unless Armstrong can establish, contextually, that the meaning of the noun "grace" in those passages is carried into the participial form of a vocative participle used as a greeting by an angel in a completely different context and used by a completely different writer, we once again have no reason to find it a compelling argument.

Speaking of common charges and shortcomings, then, anti-Catholics habitually make the claim, not just that Catholics are wrong in their exegesis, but that they are not engaging in exegesis at all. yet already, with S&S's very first argument (or observation) I have shown that if anyone was eisegeting, it was him, due to his distorting and confusion of biblical language and terminology, borne of an ecclesiological bias that he brings to Holy Scripture.

Thus, the Bible was interpreted by him through this biased filter: exactly what he accuses me of doing by approaching Scripture as a convinced Catholic. In fact, we all come to the Bible with our biases. I'm the first to admit that. One of the biggest fallacies in S&S's approach (as very often in White's also) is the notion that Catholics are super-biased in their biblical commentary, whereas good ole Calvinist fundamentalists like him have no such bias and simply "go by the Bible." How many times have we heard that from this sort of Protestant (which is not the only kind at all)?

But here is S&S all over the ballpark, in a supposed examination of the immediate context of the chapter, citing seven other books (three of them from authors other than Paul). Like I said, I have no problem with this per se. I love systematic theology and cross-referencing. I'm only pointing out that if I did this, James White would claim it is not even "exegesis" at all. Wouldn't it be nice if White (and other anti-Catholics who claim I am only eisegeting and not exegeting) would admit that S&S isn't doing exegesis, either, if he does largely the same as what I often do in examining a particular text?

We see his considerable bias (and, I would say, a sort of stuffy arrogance in approaching the tasks of hermeneutics and exegesis) in his remark about his belief-system:

Due to my philosophy of science, Instrumentalism, I allow Scripture to speak for itself, and so, I am a YEC.

"YEC" = young earth creationist. To let Scripture "speak for itself" one must think the earth is 6-10,000 years old (and the universe not much older). Right. This is the conclusion that nimble minds like S&S and fellow anti-Catholic fundamentalists "Turretinfan" and Steve Hays come to. Of course, probably 95% or more of all biblical commentators and exegetes (and thinking, committed Christians of all stripes) don't think that this is the plain, clear teaching of Scripture at all. So they are all not letting Scripture speak for itself, in its obvious meaning? Thus, all of a sudden, it ain't just Catholics who eisegete Scripture, but the vast majority of S&S's fellow Protestants (no doubt many reading this at this very moment). Hence, "Turretinfan" writes:

Instead, we see modified old earth creationists holding to ever more erratic views of the text of Scripture, as they attempt to remain popular with the scientific crowd.

Other than this trivial aside, I have no beef with what S&S wrote about verses 14 and 15. It doesn't really prove anything against my position (and I wonder why S&S would think that it does do so?).

The next verse should also be noted: “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He [i.e. Jesus] who was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory” (v.16). Here, Paul recites what is believed to be an ancient Christian hymn, and he cites this to show that the proper behavior we are to imitate (i.e. “the mystery of godliness”) is that of Christ Himself. In other words, because we are Christ’s representatives to the world, we are to act like Christ before the world so as not to bring reproach upon the gospel (cf. v.7).

Great. No problem. Christians are to imitate our Lord Jesus Christ.

“The Pillar and Support of the Truth”

This brings us to the phrase we are inquiring as to its meaning. From the context I explained above, the church, the entire body of Christ and not just the clergy, is the “pillar and support of the truth” in that it is the representative of God and bearer of the truth of the gospel. The church is to conduct itself so that it will not bring disrepute on Him who gave it such a mission. Instead, it is to hold up the truth of the living God so that the unbelieving would either: a.) be convicted of their rebellion and repent or b.) be judicially hardened in their unbelief and bring greater condemnation upon themselves, storing it up for the judgment.

Okay; let's assume S&S's invisible church model, of all the clergy and laity working together as one big happy family for truth and truth alone. Fine and dandy. But how does this work in real life, in practice, in concrete terms? I have a host of questions that perhaps S&S or his cronies (who possess a unique and profound insight into true biblical exegesis, as they freely admit) would be so kind as to answer for me. Protestants en masse are the "pillar and support of truth." Excellent! Okay, now what is this truth? Surely S&S can inform me.

Such a luminary as James White, the king of the anti-Catholics, could not, however, when I challenged him in 1996, and has not answered my questions about what this truth is, ever since. He stated in his own examination of this same argument in The Catholic Verses (my emphases):

The church is the household of God, under His divine and sovereign rule. It is a divine institution, established at the command of God, sustained by His Spirit. And the church has a purpose as a result: it is the firm, unmoving ground upon which the truth can stand without fear of falling to the ground. The terms "pillar and foundation" speak to the strength of the church in providing a ground upon which the truth can be based.

. . . the church would endure because it is not a merely human institution, it is divine in its very nature. God had decreed the church to function as the ground and support of the truth, holding forth the word of life and worshipping Him who is truth itself. This did not make the church the truth itself (indeed, Paul's epistles, written to churches, almost always have corrective elements, demonstrating the constant need for reformation in the fellowship), but the intimate relationship between the true church and the truth itself is unmistakably taught in Scripture.

Very eloquently stated. It's easy to be eloquent when there is no specific content, and everything is expressed in super-broad, vague, ethereal terms. That allows Protestants to avoid the obvious difficulty that immediately arises: how can they speak of one church unified in truth, given their own ecclesiological chaos and doctrinal relativism, brought on by innumerable competing truth claims amongst themselves? And that is the insuperable difficulty I challenged White and Eric Svendsen with in 1996. Here is what happened (White's words in purple):

I believe it is vitally important to believe in what the Apostles taught. Which, of course, is exactly why I cannot embrace the teachings of Rome. In fact, it is fidelity to the apostolic message that is the strongest argument against the innovations of Rome over time, Dave.

Why not boldly tell us, then, James, precisely what "the Apostles taught"? In particular, I am curious as to their teaching in those areas where Protestants can't bring themselves to agree with each other; for example:

1.TULIP
2. Baptism
3. The Eucharist
4. Church Government
5. Regeneration
6. Sanctification
7. The Place of Tradition
8. Women Clergy
9. Divorce
10. Feminism
11. Abortion
12. The Utility of Reason
13. Natural Theology
14. The Charismatic Gifts
15. Alcohol
16. Sabbatarianism
17. Whether Catholics are Christians
18. Civil Disobedience

. . . That's pretty easy, Dave. I have 27 books filled with their teaching. Where shall we start? I guess we could start with the apostolic teaching that we are justified by faith and so have peace with God (Romans 5:1). That's a wonderful thing to know, isn't it? The Apostles also taught that Jesus Christ was and is fully deity (Colossians 2:9), and that's really important, too!

Absolutely. But you guys got this doctrine from us, so big wow!

Are you saying that the Bible is insufficient to answer these questions? That God's Word is so unclear, so confused, so ambiguous, that these issues cannot be determined by a careful and honest examination of the Bible?

It's irrelevant what I think, because I'm asking you. But let's assume for the sake of argument that it is clear, sufficient, and perspicuous. Okay, now, please tell me what it teaches on these issues! Does anyone not understand my argumentation here? Is it that complicated? This is the essence of my whole argument in this vein. If we grant your perspicuity, then tell us these doctrines that are so clear. Yet you guys want to either run or cry foul when we hold you to your own principles!

. . . People who call themselves Protestants disagree on every point above; people who call themselves Roman Catholics disagree on every point above, too. So what?

. . . I hope all on the list realize what is being said here. A person with the entire NT in his hand cannot know what the apostolic message was unless he likewise has Roman "tradition" alongside! Imagine it! Those poor Roman Christians. From about A.D. 55 until around A.D. 140 they could not have demonstrated fidelity to the apostolic message! Why not? Because they didn't have access to Roman Catholic tradition (there was no monarchial episcopate in Rome until the latter period, and hence no "Pope"). Does that make any sense? Of course not.

All the more reason for you to tell us what this mysterious "apostolic message" is. According to this curious illogic, one can "know" what the message is, without the Catholic Church, but they can't tell me what it is, what it consists of!

. . . I get the real feeling, Dave, that you well know that your questions have been and will be answered,

If they have, I've missed it. Please, somebody send me that post. If they "will" be answered, when, and by whom, I wonder? But I don't "know" one way or the other, despite your "real feeling."

. . . You well know what the Bible teaches on these topics.

James, James! This is the whole point! We know, but you guys can't figure it out. Hence your reluctance to answer (I can think of no better reason). You claim busy-ness, which plagues us all, but you still have time to write this and evade my question again. A short answer to my question surely wouldn't put you out. . . .

Problem is, you don't accept that.

How silly is this? I "don't accept" what the Bible teaches on these points, but you don't have the courtesy to explain to me just what it is that it teaches on them. Such a view is below contempt, and should cause you to blush with shame.

Instead, you accept another authority that tells you something different.

Sheer goofiness. Different than what? Again, if I don't have your answer, what do you expect me to believe? If this isn't "The Emperor's Clothes," I don't know what is.

Tell us all again, Dave: are you saying the Bible is insufficient to answer these questions? Are you saying we can't know what the Bible teaches about tradition, for example? That a serious exegesis of relevant texts can't provide us with any level of certainty or knowledge? Is that what you really want to say to this group, Dave?

Quadruple "NO" (that's NO NO NO NO). Now, how 'bout your equally forthright answer to me?

We see plainly that White never answered the simple question of what this "truth" was that he talks about, concerning these 18 matters. He claims over and over that the Bible can give us the answers, but apparently he can never tell anyone else what the answers are. Anyone who reads the above paper can see that Dr. Eric Svendsen could not answer, either; didn't even try to answer the question, and hemmed and hawed and switched the topic, and obfuscated and indulged in obscurantism and other forms of evasion.

It's all a big illusion. The lengthy citation was designed to illustrate the sheer absurdity and content-free nature of the Protestant claim of some kind of church offering some kind of support for "truth" (that folks can then refer to and lean upon).

S&S waxes eloquent by referring to "the church, the entire body of Christ and not just the clergy, is the “pillar and support of the truth” in that it is the representative of God and bearer of the truth of the gospel. " White states similarly, in speaking of "firm, unmoving ground upon which the truth can stand," etc. Yet when asked the obvious question, "what is this truth of which you speak; what is its content, that I may know it and stand on this firm, unmoving ground in confidence?" S&S and White and Svendsen cannot answer. White couldn't in 1996; he can't now, and I guarantee that S&S will not be able to, either. So what good is a "church" that cannot answer this question? In what sense is it a "pillar and foundation of the truth" at all?

I touched upon these huge difficulties in my paper on the perspicuity of Scripture (Appendix One from A Biblical Defense of Catholicism):

Protestant freedom of conscience is valued more than unity and the certainty of doctrinal truth in all matters (not just the core issues alone). The inquirer with newfound zeal for Christ is in trouble if he expects to easily attain any comprehensive certainty within Protestantism. All he can do is take a "head count" of scholars and pastors and evangelists and Bible Dictionaries and see who lines up where on the various sides of the numerous disagreements.

Or else he can just uncritically accept the word of whatever denomination he is associated with. In effect, then, he is no better off than a beginning philosophy student who prefers Kierkegaard to Kant - the whole procedure (however well-intentioned) is arbitrary and destined to produce further confusion.

The usual Protestant reply to this critique is that denominations differ mostly over secondary issues, not fundamental or central doctrines. This is often and casually stated, but when scrutinized, it collapses under its own weight. Right from the beginning, the fault lines of Protestantism appeared when Zwingli and Oecolampadius (two lesser Reformers) differed with Luther on the Real Presence, and the Anabaptists dissented on the Eucharist, infant baptism, ordination, and the function of civil authority.

Luther regarded these fellow Protestants as "damned" and "out of the Church" for these reasons. Reformers John Calvin and Martin Bucer held to a third position on the Eucharist (broadly speaking), intermediate between Luther's Real Presence (consubstantiation) and Zwingli's purely symbolic belief. By 1577, the book 200 Interpretations of the Words, "This is My Body" was published at Ingolstadt, Germany. This is the fruit of perspicuity, and it was quick to appear.

Protestants will often maintain that the Eucharist and baptism, for instance, are neither primary nor essential doctrines. This is curious, since these are the two sacraments that the majority of Protestants accept. Jesus said (John 6:53): Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. This certainly sounds essential, even to the extent that a man's salvation might be in jeopardy.

St. Paul, too, regards communion with equally great seriousness and of the utmost importance to one's spiritual well-being and relationship with Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:14-22, 11:23-30). Thus we are already in the realm of salvation - a primary doctrine. Lutherans and many Anglicans (for example, the Oxford Tractarians and C.S. Lewis), believe in the Real Presence, whereas most evangelicals do not, yet this is not considered cause for alarm or even discomfort.

. . . The same state of affairs is true concerning baptism, where Protestants are split into infant and adult camps. Furthermore, the infant camp contains those who accept baptismal regeneration (Lutherans, Anglicans, and to some extent, Methodists), as does the adult camp (Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ). Regeneration absolutely has a bearing on salvation, and therefore is a primary doctrine. The Salvation Army and the Quakers don't baptize at all (the latter doesn't even celebrate the Eucharist). Thus, there are five distinct competing belief-systems among Protestants with regard to baptism.

Scripture seems to clearly refer to baptismal regeneration in Acts 2:38 (forgiveness of sins), 22:16 (wash away your sins), Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5 (he saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration), and other passages.

For this reason, many prominent Protestant individuals and denominations have held to the position of baptismal regeneration, which is anathema to the Baptist / Presbyterian / Reformed branch of Protestantism - the predominant evangelical outlook at present.

. . . The conclusion is inescapable: either biblical perspicuity is a falsehood or one or more of the doctrines of regeneration, justification, sanctification, salvation, election, free will, predestination, perseverance, eternal security, the Atonement, original sin, the Eucharist, and baptism, all "five points" of Calvinism (TULIP) and issues affecting the very gospel itself - are not central. Protestants can't have it both ways.

Or, of course, people like Martin Luther (due to his beliefs in the Real Presence and baptismal regeneration), John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, and entire denominations such as Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Churches of Christ, various Pentecostal groups, and the Salvation Army can be read out of the Christian faith due to their "unorthodoxy," as defined by the self-proclaimed "mainstream" evangelicals such as Baptists, Presbyterians and Reformed (even so the last two groups baptize infants, although they vehemently deny that this causes regeneration, whereas Baptists don't). Since most Protestants are unwilling to anathematize other Protestants, perspicuity dissolves into a boiling cauldron of incomprehensible contradictions, and as such, must be discarded or at the very least seriously reformulated in order to harmonize with the Bible and logic.

Whether one accepts the Tradition and teachings of the Catholic Church or not, at least it courageously takes a stand on any given doctrine and refuses to leave whole areas of theology and practice perpetually up for grabs and at the mercy of the "priesthood of scholars" and the individual's private judgment, which in turn often reduces to mere whim, fancy, or subjective preference, usually divorced from considerations of Christian history and consensus. For this so-called "dogmatism" and lack of "flexibility," the Catholic Church is often reviled and despised. But for those of us who are seeking to be faithful to Christ within its fold, this is regarded, to the contrary, as its unique glory and majesty, much preferable to the morass of competing truth-claims (i.e., relativism) which prevail within Protestantism (even among the subgroup of evangelicals).

Orthodox Catholics believe that Christians can place full confidence in the firmly-established Tradition which is found not only in Holy Scripture, but in the received doctrines of the Catholic Church, appointed by our Lord Jesus Christ as the Guardian and Custodian of the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

Conclusion

The church (i.e. the body of all Christians) is the bearer (“pillar and support”) of the Gospel of the grace of God (“the truth”) to the unbelieving world. The church is to behave in such a manner as to not bring disrepute upon the One whom they serve, but instead, they are to act like Christ seeing that they are His representatives.

I have just shown that this is an impossible position for a Protestant to take, because it has no discernible meaning and content