The Papacy & Infallibility: “Keys of the Kingdom”

Last updated on: March 28, 2021 at 12:20 pm By Dave Armstrong

Chapter Ten of My Bestselling (and Probably Most Well-Known) Book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (my first book) was completed in May 1996 and “officially” published in June 2003 by Sophia Institute Press. The following is from pages 211-233, 238, minus the final section, Petrine panoply: fifty New Testament proofs for the pre-eminence of St. Peter: which I have long since linked as its own self-contained article. It was published in The Catholic Answer (Jan/Feb. 1997 issue).

I present below my slightly different original (i.e., pre-edited) 1996 manuscript version (all Bible passages: RSV). Readers may also be interested in additional related sections from the much longer initial 1994 version of this book: Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars and Papacy & Papal Infallibility: Classic Catholic Reflections.

*****

Introduction, Definitions, and Explanation*The ecumenical First Vatican Council, in 1870, defined once and for all the dogma of papal infallibility as follows:

We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, is, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable. (1)

The charge is often made that the Catholic Church “invents” dogmas late in the game, which were not present in earlier centuries. The papacy, and papal infallibility, have indeed been in existence from the very earliest days of the Church, starting with the Apostle Peter, and what he and other Christians believed about his leadership and jurisdiction. (2) As is to be expected, however, both the office of the pope, and the notion of papal infallibility did undergo much development through the centuries.

In order to illustrate how the definition of 1870 drew on centuries of reflection and practice, we will cite St. Francis de Sales’ teaching from around 1596:

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. (3)

Robert Hugh Benson (1871-1914), a convert to Catholicism, whose father, Edward W. Benson (1829-1896), had been the Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest office in Anglicanism, wrote concerning the development of the papacy:

It was not, then, until the head had been fully established as supreme over the body that men had eyes to see how it had been so ordained and indicated from the beginning. After it had come to pass it was seen to have been inevitable. All this is paralleled, of course, by the ordinary course of affairs. Laws of nature, as well as laws of grace, act quite apart from man’s perception or appreciation of them; and it is not until the law is recognized that its significance and inevitability, its illustrations and effects, are intelligibly recognized either. (4)

Likewise, [St.] John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his masterpiece Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), offers similar analysis:

Whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated . . . .

Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated . . . while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined . . . All began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church . . .

Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it. . .

Doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and . . . therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later. (5)

James Cardinal Gibbons, in his best-selling book of Catholic apologetics, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917), eloquently defended papal infallibility against many of the common objections of Protestants and other non-Catholics:

You will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on man. I answer: Has not God, in former times, clothed His Apostles with powers far more exalted? They were endowed with the gifts of working miracles, of prophecy and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God’s revelation, of which the Popes are merely the custodians. If God could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it impossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter? For, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who preserves it from error . . .

Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct or you are not.

If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own Pope.

If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible . . . then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter? (6)

Although the pope is supreme Head of the Church and preeminent in authority, nevertheless, he acts in concert with both the college of bishops (especially when meeting in an ecumenical Council, such as Trent or Vatican II), (7) and the “sense of the faithful” (or, sensus fidelium). (8) It is this united jurisdiction of bishops and pope (distantly analogous to the U.S. Congress and President, with the Supreme Court similar to Catholic Canon Law), which is the distinctive mark of Catholic ecclesiology, (9) as opposed to Eastern Orthodoxy, which accepts bishops but acknowledges no pope, and Protestantism, which does not formally recognize the papacy, and many denominations of which (perhaps the majority) lack bishops. Catholics claim that this arrangement is mirrored in the biblical relationship of St. Peter and the other original disciples, and that it is required by the demands of apostolic succession, which is itself suggested in the Bible. (10)

Bishop Vincent Gasser, in his famous defense of papal infallibility (the Relatio) at the First Vatican Council, discussed the aspects of collegiality and community:

We do defend the infallibility of the person of the Roman Pontiff, not as an individual person but as the person of the Roman Pontiff or a public person, that is, as head of the Church in his relation to the Church Universal . . .

We do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance. Therefore, the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth. These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc. Indeed the means are diverse according to the diversity of situations, and we should piously believe that, in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgment.

Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail. (11)

Nevertheless, the pope is ultimately supreme, even over ecumenical Councils, which he ratifies in all particulars (a power which might be compared in part to the veto of the American President). The famous English convert and apologist Ronald Knox (1888-1957) explains:

[It is a] quite unworkable idea that the authority of the Pope depends on the authority of the Council. There is no way of deciding which councils were ecumenical councils except by saying that those councils were ecumenical which had their decisions ratified by the Pope. Now, either that ratification is infallible of itself, or else you will immediately have to summon a fresh ecumenical council to find out whether the Pope’s ratification was infallible or not, and so on ad infinitum. You can’t keep on going round and round in a vicious circle; in the long run the last word of decision must lie with one man, and that man is obviously the Pope. In the last resort the Pope must be the umpire, must have the casting vote. If therefore there is to be any infallibility in the Church, that infallibility must reside in the Pope, even when he speaks in his own name, without summoning a council to fortify his decision. (12)

Contrary to common assumptions, the doctrine of the papacy is well-grounded in Scripture, and the institution is present in increasingly-developing stages throughout the history of the Church. Moreover, the constant, remarkable primacy of Rome in the history of Christianity is equally undeniable. Because the very existence of this historical institution (in the early Church) is so often denied (for example, many arbitrarily maintain that Pope Leo the Great in the fifth century was the first pope, and others claim the same for Gregory the Great in the sixth), more attention than usual will be paid to the actual history of the papacy and the theological justifications historically put forth in defense of it.

Scriptural Evidence for the Papacy and the Apostolic Primacy of St. Peter*St. Peter as the Rock (Matthew 16:18)

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

Catholics contend that the “rock” is Peter himself, not his faith, or Jesus (although arguably his faith is assumed by Christ in naming Peter “rock” in the first place). This interpretation is found in the Church Fathers at least as early as Tertullian (d.c.230). The next verse (16:19) is in the singular, which supports this view, which is in fact the consensus of the majority of biblical commentators today, according to the article on Peter in the Encyclopedia Britannica (1985 edition). (13)

It has often been argued to the contrary that Jesus called Peter petros (literally, “stone”), not petra (the word for “rock” in the passage), so that the “rock” wasn’t Peter, but this is simply explained by the necessity for a proper male name in Greek to be in the masculine gender. In Aramaic, however (the language Jesus spoke), the name kepha would have been used for both “rock” and “Peter.” Matthew could just as easily have used another Greek word for “stone,” lithos, in contrast to “rock,” but this would have distorted the unmistakable word-play of the passage, which is the whole point!

Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that Peter is the “rock” in Matthew 16:18, including Alford, Broadus, Keil, Kittel, Cullmann (14), Albright (15), Robert McAfee Brown (16), and more recently, respected evangelical commentators R.T. France (17) and D.A. Carson. (18) Also, popular one-volume Protestant Bible commentaries such as Peake’s Commentary (19), New Bible Commentary (20) and numerous others concur. (21) Both Carson and France surprisingly assert that only Protestant overreaction to Catholic Petrine and papal claims have brought about the denial that Peter himself is the “rock.”

The great Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent was among those who took the traditional view, in his standard reference work Word Studies in the New Testament (1887):

The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones . . .

Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra to Simon’s confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors – living men . . . . . .

The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; 2:14,37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15,29; 9:34,40; 10:25-6; Galatians 1:18. (22)

St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622), a leader of the Catholic Reformation, draws out the implications of this passage for the papacy:

Our Lord then, who is comparing his Church to a building, when he says that he will build it on St. Peter, shows that St. Peter will be its foundation-stone . . . When he makes St. Peter its foundation, he makes him head and superior of this family.

By these words Our Lord shows the perpetuity and immovableness of this foundation. The stone on which one raises the building is the first, the others rest on it. Other stones may be removed without overthrowing the edifice, but he who takes away the foundation, knocks down the house. If then the gates of hell can in no wise prevail against the Church, they can in no wise prevail against its foundation and head, which they cannot take away and overturn without entirely overturning the whole edifice . . .

The supreme charge which St. Peter had . . . as chief and governor, is not beside the authority of his Master, but is only a participation in this, so that he is not the foundation of this hierarchy besides Our Lord but rather in Our Lord: as we call him most holy Father in Our Lord, outside whom he would be nothing . . St. Peter is foundation, not founder, of the whole Church; foundation but founded on another foundation, which is Our Lord . . . in fine, administrator and not lord, and in no way the foundation of our faith, hope and charity, nor of the efficacy of the Sacraments . . . So, although he is the Good Shepherd, he gives us shepherds (Ephesians 4:11) under himself, between whom and his Majesty there is so great a difference that he declares himself to be the only shepherd (John 10:11; Ezekiel 34:23). (23)

G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936), the English literary giant, made a marvelously insightful comment concerning Christ’s selection of Peter as the “rock”:

When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, he chose for its cornerstone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward – in a word, a man. And upon this rock he has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link. (24)

The Keys of the Kingdom (Matthew 16:19)

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .

Isaiah 22:20-22 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, . . . and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Revelation 3:7 [Christ describing Himself]:. . . the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

The power of the “keys,” in the Hebrew mind, had to do with administrative authority and ecclesiastical discipline, and, in a broad sense, might be thought to encompass the use of excommunication, penitential decrees, a barring from the sacraments and lesser censures, and legislative and executive functions. Like the name “rock,” this privilege was bestowed only upon St. Peter and no other disciple or Apostle. He was to become God’s “vice-regent,” so to speak. (25) In the Old Testament, a steward was a man over a house (Genesis 43:19, 44:4, 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3, 2 Kings 10:5 15:5 18:18, Isaiah 22:15). The steward was also called a “governor” in the Old Testament and has been described by commentators as a type of “prime minister.”

In the New Testament, the two words often translated as “steward” are oikonomos (Luke 16:2-3, 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 4:10), and epitropos (Matthew 20:8, Galatians 4:2). Several Protestant commentaries and dictionaries take the position that Christ is clearly hearkening back to Isaiah 22:15-22 when He makes this pronouncement, and that it has something to do with delegated authority in the Church He is establishing (in the same context). (26) He applies the same language to Himself in Revelation 3:7 (cf. Job 12:14), so that his commission to Peter may be interpreted as an assignment of powers to the recipient in His stead, as a sort of authoritative representative or ambassador.

The “opening” and “shutting” (in Isaiah 22:2) appear to refer to a jurisdictional power which no one but the king (in the ancient kingdom of Judah) could override. Literally, it refers to the prime minister’s prerogative to deny or allow entry to the palace, and access to the king. In Isaiah’s time, this office was over three hundred years old, and is thought to have been derived by Solomon from the Egyptian model of palace functionary, or the Pharaoh’s “vizier,” who was second in command after the Pharaoh. This was exactly the office granted to Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41:40-44, 45:8). (27)

The symbol of keys always represented authority in the Middle East. This standpoint comes down to us in our own culture when we observe mayors giving an honored visitor the “key to the city.” The reputable Commentary on the Whole Bible (1864), by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, a Protestant work, expounds Isaiah 22:15,22 as follows:

[The steward is] the king’s friend, or principal officer of the court (1 Kings 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chronicles27:33, the king’s counsellor) . . .

Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one’s shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of “David,” of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [and the government will be upon his shoulder]. (28)

One can confidently conclude, therefore, that when Old Testament usage and the culture of the hearers is closely examined, the phrase keys of the kingdom of heaven must have great significance (for Peter and for the papacy) indeed, all the more so since Christ granted this honor only to St. Peter.

The Power to Bind and Loose (Matthew 16:19)

Matthew 16:19 . . . Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Binding and loosing were technical rabbinical terms meaning, respectively, to forbid and permit, with regard to interpretations of Jewish Law. In secondary usage, they also could mean condemn and acquit. This power is also given to the Apostles in Matthew 18:17-18, where it apparently refers particularly to discipline and excommunication in local jurisdictions (whereas Peter’s commission seems to apply to the universal Church). In John 20:23 it is also granted to the Apostles (in a different terminology, which suggests the power to impose penance and grant indulgences and absolution). Generally speaking, binding and loosing usually meant the prerogative to formulate Christian doctrine and to require allegiance to it, as well as to condemn heresies which were opposed to the true doctrine (Jude 3). (29) Marvin Vincent writes:

No other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic canon-law than those of binding and loosing. They represented the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferred, . . . in their reality, to his apostles; the first, here, to Peter, as their representative, the second, after his resurrection, to the church (John 20:23) . . . (30)

St. Peter Commanded to “Feed My Sheep” (John 21:15-17)

John 21:15-17 . . . Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water.

The Greek word for “tend” in 21:16 is poimaino, which is applied to Jesus Christ in Revelation 7:17 above, and also in Matthew 2:6, and Revelation 2:27, 12:5, and 19:15. It is used of bishops in Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2 (which seems to be a passage perhaps reminiscent in St. Peter’s mind of the Lord’s charge to him). Clearly, an awesome amount of spiritual authority is being given to Peter, which includes, according to the Protestant Greek scholar W.E. Vine, “discipline, authority, restoration, material assistance of individuals.” (31)

The commission of Christ to Peter, then, to tend my sheep, while not exclusive to Peter in the sense that no one else (besides Christ) exercises this function (St. Peter himself says as much in 1 Peter 5:2), nevertheless is supremely unique and important insofar as no other individual disciple is likewise instructed by our Lord – and in such momentous terms (considering all of the biblical data).

Peter’s ministry to the Church is always universal; his jurisdiction knows no bounds, and the language that Christ Himself applies to him is strikingly sublime and profound. For to no one else was it granted the keys of the kingdom of heaven. No one else was renamed “Rock,” and proclaimed by Jesus to be the foundation upon which He would build His Church. And although the power to bind and loose was given to the disciples as a whole in Matthew 18:18, nevertheless, Peter is the only individual to be given this power by Christ. In other words, St. Peter has extraordinary privileges unique to himself, and in cases where they are not exclusive they are obviously applied to him in a preeminent sense.

We find then, that the scriptural relation between Christ, Peter, and the disciples (by extension, bishops and priests), is precisely that found in the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church, where the pope, more than just the “foremost among equals,” as the Orthodox and some Lutherans and Anglicans hold, is the supreme shepherd and leader of the Church, yet not in such a fashion as to exclude Christ as the Head or the Cardinals and bishops (and even laymen) as fellow members of the Body in Christ acting in organic harmony. Always, it is the pope and the Cardinals, the pope and the Council, the pope acting with due consideration of the faithful lay members of the Church, but the pope is supreme.

It is simply not necessary to dichotomize the relationship between the pope and lesser clergy. With regard to the papacy, only Catholicism does justice to both the scriptural data and the course of the early Church in the formative years of its development. One need not fall into the trap of denying the pope’s existence (and thereby doing violence to the Petrine texts as well), nor of caricaturing the Catholic Church’s doctrine of the papacy as strictly a “top-down,” “autocratic,” “monarchical” conception of Church government. In any event, the abundant Petrine evidence in the Bible must be dealt with in an open and consistent manner, whatever position one holds.

St. Peter Charged to Strengthen His Brethren (Luke 22:31-32)

Luke 22:31-32 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

The Jesuit apologist Nicholas Russo and St. Francis de Sales explain how this charge to St. Peter suggests the need for an ongoing, infallible papacy:

In this passage there is question of infallibility. For infallibility is nothing else but a supernatural gift by which the recipient is shielded from all error against faith. But – a) this is clearly expressed in the words, that thy faith fail not; b) it is implied in the command to confirm his brethren; c) it is supposed in the very failure of Satan’s attempts to destroy the Church, which is personified in the Apostles, and which depends essentially upon faith . . .

The temptation is common, but the prayer was offered for Peter alone; not because Our Lord was less solicitous for the rest of the Apostles, says Bossuet, but because by strengthening the head He wished to prevent the rest from staggering. Now this duty of confirming his brethren was to last as long as the Church; and Peter, accordingly, abides always in his successors . . . Strange, indeed, would it be to suppose that the doctrinal infallibility of the Head of the Church should cease just when the need becomes greater and more urgent. Christ would in this supposition have rendered His first vicar infallible . . . and denied this divine assistance to all the rest of His vicars on earth, when in their times the dangers were to be greater . . . If this consequence be absurd, our position is unassailable. (32)

He prays for St. Peter as for the confirmer and support of the others; and what is this but to declare him head of the others? Truly one could not give St. Peter the command to confirm the Apostles without charging him to have care of them . . . Is this not to again call him foundation of the Church? If he supports, secures, strengthens the very foundation-stones, how shall he not confirm all the rest? If he has the charge of supporting the columns of the Church, how shall he not support all the rest of the building? If he has the charge of feeding the pastors, must he not be sovereign pastor himself? . . . Our Lord . . ., having planted this holy assembly of the disciples, prayed for the head and the root, in order that the water of faith might not fail to him who was therewith to supply all the rest, and in order that through the head the faith might always be preserved in the Church. (33)

St. Paul’s Rebuke of St. Peter (Galatians 2:9,11-14)

Galatians 2:9, 11-14 And when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship . . . But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Bertrand Conway, author of the enormously popular The Question Box (second edition, 1929), a classic of Catholic apologetics, puts this incident in the proper perspective:

St. Paul’s rebuke of St. Peter, instead of implying a denial of his supremacy, implies just the opposite. He tells us that the example of St. Peter compelled the Gentiles to live as the Jews. St. Paul’s example had not the same compelling power.

The duty of fraternal correction (Matthew 18:15) may often require an inferior to rebuke a superior in defence of justice and truth. St. Bernard, St. Thomas of Canterbury and St. Catherine of Siena have rebuked Popes, while fully acknowledging their supreme authority . . .

The rebuke, however, did not refer to the doctrine, but to the conduct of St. Peter . . . St. Peter had not changed the views he had himself set forth at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:10). But at Antioch he withdrew from the table of the Gentiles, because he feared giving offence to the Jewish converts. They at once mistook his kindliness for an approval of the false teaching of certain Judaizers, who wished to make the Mosaic law obligatory upon all Christians. His action was most imprudent, and calculated to do harm because of his great influence and authority. St. Paul, therefore, had a perfect right to uphold the Gospel liberty by a direct appeal to St. Peter’s own example and teaching. (34)

Leslie Rumble and Charles Carty, who co-wrote the three-volume Radio Replies (1940), another popular and bestselling defense of Catholicism, agree:

No doctrinal error was involved in this particular case . . . To cease from doing a lawful thing for fear lest others be scandalized is not a matter of doctrine. It is a question of prudence or imprudence. St. Paul did not act as if he were St. Peter’s superior. Nor did he boast. To show the urgency of the matter, he practically said, “I had to resist even Peter – to whom chief authority belongs.” And his words derive their full significance only from the fact that St. Peter was head of the Apostles. (35)

If St. Peter were guilty in this instance of hypocrisy (which appears to be the case), this is no disproof whatsoever of the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, since that teaching does not extend to behavior and applies only to decrees on faith and morals which are intended to bind all the faithful to a certain doctrinal standpoint. Granted, hypocrisy and bad example are not conducive to the successful propagation of a viewpoint, yet one must critique an idea according to its actual content. Thus, the attempt to undermine papal infallibility by means of this scriptural passage fails due to misunderstanding of the Catholic claims for the pope’s divinely-appointed charism (in other words, it is a “straw man” argument). The New Bible Dictionary, an authoritative evangelical reference work, states that the disagreement here had nothing to do with any theological dispute between Paul and Peter, but rather, with the unfortunate inconsistency of belief and behavior on Peter’s part, and denies the “old theory” that there was some sort of “rivalry” between these two pillars of the early Church. (36)

St. Peter at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)*The apostolic supremacy of St. Peter is also often disputed by the counter-assertion that he did not preside over the Council of Jerusalem, the first record we have of a corporate Christian assembly, convened in order to settle doctrinal and practical matters. Conway and Rumble and Carty show how this, too, is an untenable position:

St. Peter, not St. James, presided at the Council of Jerusalem. The question at issue was whether the Gentiles were bound to obey the Mosaic law. Paul, Barnabas, James and the rest were present as teachers and judges, . . . but Peter was their head, and the supreme arbiter of the controversy . . .

St. Peter spoke first and decided the matter unhesitatingly [Acts 15:7-11], declaring that the Gentile converts were not bound by the Mosaic law. He claimed to exercise authority in the name of his special election by God to receive the Gentiles (Acts 15:7), and he severely rebuked those who held the opposite view (Acts 15:10). After he had spoken all the multitude held their peace (Acts 15:12) [immediately before Peter spoke, there had been much debate – 15:7]. Those who spoke after him merely confirmed his decision . . . James gave no special decision on the question . . . Moreover the decree is attributed to the Council of Apostles and Presbyters . . . (Acts 16:4), and not to James personally. (37)

St. James, as local Bishop of Jerusalem, would naturally have a prominent position at the meeting, since it took place in Jerusalem. But there can be no doubt about his deference to the ecumenical position of St. Peter as chief of the Apostles [for example, he starts by saying Symeon {Peter} has related. . .]. (38)

[ . . . ]

In conclusion, it strains credulity to hold that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Church government. The papacy is the most plausible interpretation and actual institutional fulfillment of this biblical evidence. For why would God foreordain such a leadership function, only to cease after Peter’s death? Clearly, the office of the papacy is paramount, not individual popes, and this was to be perpetual (apostolic succession), just as are the offices of bishop, deacon, teacher, and evangelist.

FOOTNOTES

1. In Dogmatic Canons and Decrees, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1977 (originally New York: 1912), p. 256. [Documents of Councils of Trent and Vatican I, plus Decree on the Immaculate Conception and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX]. See also Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), Liguori, Missouri: Liguori Publications, 1994, #891, 2035; John A. Hardon, The Catholic Catechism (CC), Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1975, pp. 224-233; John A. Hardon, Pocket Catholic Dictionary (PCD), New York: Doubleday Image, 1980, pp. 194-195. For conciliar infallibility, see CCC, #891-892, 2035.
2. CCC, #552-553, 765, 862, 880-882, 936-937, 1444.
3. St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy, translated by Henry B. Mackey, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1989 (originally 1596), pp. 306-307.
4. Robert Hugh Benson, The Religion of the Plain Man, Long Prairie, Minnesota: Neumann Press, 1906, p. 109.
5. St. John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), Part I, chapter 4, section 3, nos. 4-5, 7-8. Newman was received into the Catholic Church the same year this book was completed (essentially arguing himself into the Church).
6. James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, revised edition, 1917, pp. 108-109.
7. CCC, #877, 879, 887.
8. CCC, #889.
9. CCC, #765, 816, 880-881, 883-885, 895, 1444, 2034.
10. CCC, #77, 551, 833, 860-862, 869, 875, 886, 888, 890, 892, 894-896, 935, 938.
11. In Vincent Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility, translated with commentary, James T. O’Connor, Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1986 (Gasser’s Relatio from First Vatican Council, 1870), pp. 41-44.
12. Ronald Knox, In Soft Garments, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1941, p. 130.
13. Micropedia, pp. 330-333. D. W. O’Connor, the author of the article, is himself Protestant and author of Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical & Archaeological Evidence (1969).
14. Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd revised edition, 1962.
15. Anchor Bible, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1971, vol. 26, pp. 195, 197-198.
16. In Peter J. McCord, editor, A Pope For All Christians?, New York: Paulist Press, 1976, Introduction, p. 7. This book is an ecumenical project offering views on the papacy from many perspectives. Brown is a Presbyterian and very prominent ecumenist.
17. Leon Morris, general editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, R. T. France, pp. 254, 256.
18. Frank E. Gaebelein, general editor, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D. A. Carson), p. 368.
19. 2nd revised edition, London: Nelson, 1962, p. 787.
20. D. Guthrie, and J. A. Motyer, editors, The New Bible Commentary (NBC), Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 3rd edition, 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], p. 837.
21. According to Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Peter in the New Testament, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House / New York: Paulist Press, 1973, pp. 92-93, which also takes the same view. This is probably the most important ecumenical work on Peter, and is thus cited first in a long bibliography in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is a common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars.
22. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1946 (originally 1887), 4 volumes, vol. 1, pp. 91-92; emphasis in original.
23. St. Francis de Sales, ibid., pp. 242-243, 245-247.
24. G. K. Chesterton, Heretics, London: The Bodley Head, 1950 (originally 1905), pp. 60-61. Chesterton was not yet formally Catholic at the time of this quote (1905). He would be received into the Catholic Church 17 years later, in 1922.
25. J. D. Douglas, editor, The New Bible Dictionary (NBD), Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962, p. 1018.
26. Ibid., pp. 1018, 1216; Guthrie, NBC, pp. 603, 837; France, ibid., p. 256; Cullmann, ibid. (pp. 183-184 in 1952 French edition). Cullmann describes Peter as Jesus’ “superintendent.” The ecumenical work Peter in the New Testament (edited by Brown), also espouses the same view (pp. 96-97).
27. See Stanley Jaki, The Keys of the Kingdom, Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, pp. 27-28.
28. Robert Jamieson, Andrew R. Fausset and David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1961 (originally 1864) [Fausset and Brown were Anglicans, Brown Presbyterian], p. 536.
29. See, for example, Protestant works: Allen C. Myers, editor, Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987 [English revision of Bijbelse Encyclopedie, edited by W. H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, revised edition, 1975], translated by Raymond C. Togtman and Ralph W. Vunderink, p. 158; Guthrie, NBC, p. 837; France, ibid., p. 256.
30. Vincent, ibid., vol. 1, p. 96.
31. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1940, four-volumes-in-one edition, vol. 2, p. 88.
32. Nicholas Russo, The True Religion, New York: P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1886, pp. 124-126.
33. St. Francis de Sales, ibid., pp. 258-259.
34. Bertrand L. Conway, The Question Box, New York: Paulist Press, 1929, pp. 152-153; emphasis added.
35. Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, Radio Replies, three volumes, St. Paul, Minnesota: Radio Replies Press, 1940, [4374 questions about Catholicism answered], vol. 1, pp. 82-83, question #357.
36. Douglas, NBD, p. 973.
37. Conway, ibid., p. 152.
38. Rumble and Carty, ibid., vol. 2, p. 91, question #344.

***

Summary: Chapter ten of my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism: presenting a wide array of biblical and linguistic arguments in defense of the Catholic viewpoint on St. Peter and the papacy.

***

Loftus Lies #24: David Madison & Atheist Cowardice

Last updated on: March 26, 2021 at 12:58 pm By Dave Armstrong

Atheist author and polemicist John W. Loftus wrote an article entitled, “Dr. David Madison, Debunker Par Excellence!” (3-25-21). His words will be in blue.

*****

I’m a big fan of former Methodist minister and biblical scholar Dr. David Madison, who no longer believes. He understands how best to debunk Christianity.

Really? I never noticed that. I have refuted his attacks on the Bible and Christianity now 44 times (without a peep in reply) and, frankly, it was always very easy to refute his nonsense: so weak and poor was the argumentation.

Madison expertly presents a cumulative case against Christianity, which is the best way to compel childlike believers to abandon their make-believe fantasies.

And I systematically present a cumulative case against his anti-biblical and anti-Christian fantasies and relentless excursions into myth and illogic. Real thinkers will prefer to read both sides of an argument, rather than just one. Let the best man win! On my blog, I cite tons of the words of my dialogue opponents, so readers can get their views directly, rather than from an opponent biased against them.

Everyone interested in investigating and analyzing the complete undeniable palpable falseness of Christianity should be reading Madison– and everyone should be interested! However, as Madison acknowledges, Christians “assuredly have a long history of not paying attention.” (p. 29) “Even if they’re not oblivious, they are just not interested.”

Ah, I see. So it’s us Christians who are massively guilty of not reading critical atheist commentary; indeed, running from it. It’s true that many act in this way. Only so many hours in a day . . . But this is absurdly ironic, coming from the guy who has not the slightest interest in any critique of his own work, and from Loftus, who acts in exactly the same way regarding his anti-Christian polemics, too. Loftus expressly challenged me to read his book, Why I Became an Atheist and offer critiques of it. I did so and responded with ten critiques: all utterly ignored by Loftus.

After I had completed 34 of my 44 critiques of David Madison’s polemics, Loftus felt compelled to chime in at his blog, and wrote:

The Rules of Engagement At DC

By John W. Loftus at 8/28/2019

Some angry Catholic apologist has been tagging our posts with his angry long-winded responses. I know of no other blog, Christian or atheist, that allows for arguments by links, especially to plug one’s failing blog or site. I’ve allowed it for about a month with this guy but no more. He’s not banned. He can still come here to comment. It’s just that we don’t allow responses in the comments longer than the blog post itself, or near that. If any respectful person has a counter-argument or some counter-evidence then bring it. State your case in as few words as possible and then engage our commenters in a discussion. But arguments by links or long comments are disallowed. I talked with David Madison who has been the target of these links and he’s in agreement with this decision. He’s planning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future. [he never did: almost needless to say]

See my extensive reply to this. Recently, I was indeed banned from Debunking Christianity, for the supposed reason of being “obnoxious” (so I saw Loftus comment on another atheist blog). “Obnoxious” is cowardly atheist code for “anyone who dares to 1) confront atheist arguments, and actually 2) refute them. That’s “obnoxious”. That’s being an uppity Christian, and it will not be tolerated by the supremely confident, unvanquishable intellectual titans Loftus or Madison. Such atheists have no interest whatsoever in critique of their charges, because that goes against the illusion of invincibility, you see. They do all they can to ignore such counter-arguments and pretend that they don’t exist. It’s bad for business to not do that.

He notes there are probably no atheist books on a shelf labeled “Our Atheist Critics” in Christian bookstores.

I have scores and scores of articles dealing with atheist criticism of Christianity on my Atheism web page. There are many books that address so-called “Bible contradictions” from a Christian perspective. These are largely brought up by either atheists or theologically liberal Christians who no longer believe in the inspiration of the Bible. The most famous one is Gleason Archer’s New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Recently, I compiled in one place my own many refutations of alleged biblical contradictions. So at least some of us deal with “our atheist critics”: who in turn, ignore these efforts.

Still it’s my hope to introduce Christians and others to Madison, an ordained Methodist minister who became an atheist. They should listen to those of us who have left the Christian fold and found the intellectual freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads, rather than remaining zombies who just quote-mine from the Bible and the diverse theologies developed from it. What did we learn on the way to heaven that caused us to walk away from any hope of seeing our loved ones again after we die? Surely Christians should want to read one story or two, along with the arguments that convinced us to leave the fold of our upbringing. Surely!

Yes, we should definitely do so, alongside replies to this bilge, such as my own. It will strengthen the faith of any Christian to see how abysmally weak arguments like Madison’s and Loftus’ and those of many other anti-theist atheists are. I write replies to atheist deconversion stories, also, to demonstrate how their reasons for leaving Christianity don’t hold up under logical or factual scrutiny, either. When I did this with Loftus’ deconversion story (a shorter article about it), he blew a gasket and after a very short time could only reply with “you’re an idiot!” and suchlike.

You get the idea. Really intellectual and objective stuff . . . And the reactions to critiques of atheist deconversion stories are always basically the same (I know, having written 30 or so of them): how dare any Christian closely examine atheist reasons for apostasy (i.e., regarding atheists who were formerly Christians). Anger and fury almost immediately surface; and the “fangs” come out (Loftus being the absolute worst case I myself have observed; he had skin so thin even an electron microscope couldn’t detect it). But hey: it’s all fair game. They go after our beliefs and the Bible; we in turn scrutinize their supposedly compelling reasons for unbelief and apostasy.

[after noting Madison’s degrees and languages that he speaks] . . . don’t tell me he’s ignorant. That option isn’t available to you.

Nonsense. He’s certainly ignorant about 1) what the Bible actually teaches, and 2) how to properly interpret the Bible. He is also terrible at logic. I repeatedly demonstrate these things, and there is a good reason why he utterly ignores all that. It exposes him.

It’s David Madison against all the Christian apologetics in the world down through the centuries, and my bet is on him, hands down, no iffs [sic] ands or buts about it.

Yeah, he’s so superior to all of our combined efforts that he can’t bring himself to tackle even one of my 44 critiques. That’s surely and undoubtedly pure superiority and supreme intellectual confidence. I’ve never seen a clearer example of it!

So it’s no surprise that some atheists are looking down on people who debunk religion when compared to others who are trying to build a better atheist, humanist or secular society. We’re told the latter are doing the harder work, the necessary work and the more important work. Madison disagrees, as I do.

Yeah, me too. I say: do this all you like. It shows again and again (when apologists and others refute them) how exceedingly weak, miserable, inadequate, illogical, and pathetic the atheist anti-biblical arguments are. So this provides a service to the Christian community, insofar as they manage to read the critiques such as my own: that anti-theists do all they can to obscure and make sure that atheists never know of their existence: lest their own lies be exposed for what they are.

I have argued for a test to help believers examine their own faith fairly and honestly, seen in my book The Outsider Test for Faith.

I refuted this argument of his in September 2007 and again in September 2019: to stony silence and crickets each time.

I think his book and writings are doing what needs to be done to disabuse Christians of their faith. We cannot have a piecemeal approach to debunking Christianity, debunking one belief or doctrine at a time. We must assault Christianity as a whole with a cumulative case. Nothing else will do, even if it means we cannot be experts in every area we write about.

And Christian apologists must defeat and demolish these efforts. I try my best to do just that.

He Doesn’t Care That Much If Christian Intellectuals Take Notice. No doubt Madison would like it if they did, but he doesn’t really care since he’s dealing with deluded people, all of them in some measure. So it doesn’t matter what university they graduated from or how many degrees they earned. He doesn’t need their validation as a credential to be proud about. They’re all deluded. Why should we care about their intellectuals (or better, obfucationists [sic] ) so long as we’re reaching people?

Ah, exactly! This at least explains (along with sheer cowardice) why he ignores me. It goes against the plan: as I noted above. As long as Madison can fool and hoodwink people, then it’s in his interest to make sure that his rabid followers never see any replies to his bilge. By contrast, a true thinker welcomes critiques of his or her work; relishes the challenge to either clarify or retract, as they case may be. That’s how actual intellectuals (true to the essence of the category) function. But I am thankful for this transparent (and rare) exposition of how atheist anti-theist polemicists like Madison, Loftus, and many others actually go about their business, minus intellectual integrity.

***

Photo credit: cover of John Loftus’ 2012 book from its Amazon page.

***

Summary: I critique the hypocrisy- & irony-filled analysis of atheist John Loftus regarding the work of his colleague David Madison. Both men ignore critiques & relentlessly display “atheist cowardice.”

***

Making Merry at Christmas: Clear Biblical Models

Last updated on: December 27, 2020 at 4:30 pm By Dave Armstrong

How are we taught to act with regard to Jesus’ birth and Christmas, according to Scriptural models? We do definitely have those. An angel of the Lord told the shepherds in the field near Bethlehem: “I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Lk 2:10-11, RSV).

Then a “multitude” of angels were “praising God and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest'” because of the birth of Jesus (Lk 2:13-14). The shepherds, after finding Jesus and worshiping Him, were “glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them” (Lk 2:20). Likewise, the wise men, along with their worship, “rejoiced exceedingly with great joy” (Mt 2:10).

So we see how both angels and men reacted to the birth of Jesus, and it would seem to be a perfectly obvious response for Christians (we who follow and worship Jesus) to have. But an oh-so-pious extreme fringe of Calvinists wants to tell us that it’s wrong and unbiblical and immoral — against God’s will (and actually a form of idolatry!) — to celebrate the birth of Jesus our Lord and Savior and Redeemer. This is not only ridiculous in the highest degree, but wicked and blasphemous: to believe such a thing.

These are natural human emotions, and we can and should express them on holidays, with celebrations and happiness and joy and merriment. This is how King David acted before the ark of the covenant, which contained God’s special presence:

2 Samuel 6:5, 14-16, 21 (RSV) And David and all the house of Israel were making merry before the LORD with all their might, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. . . . [14] And David danced before the LORD with all his might; . . . [15] So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the horn. [16] . . . King David leaping and dancing before the LORD . . . [21] And David said to Michal, “. . . I will make merry before the LORD.”

How much more do we and should we show joy and “make merry” and dance and play music to celebrate God becoming man? If we can’t be joyful and demonstrative about that (the Good News!), then we should about nothing at all.

***

Facebook friend Arjay Alejo helpfully suggested the following related biblical passages:

I was just thinking maybe we can also use some passages from the Book of Esther as one of the biblical models of Christmas celebration. It is written in Esther chapters 8 and 9 that the Feast of Purim was established to commemorate “…the saving of the Jewish people from Haman, an Achaemenid Persian Empire official who was planning to kill all the Jews…” (Wikipedia). This feast was celebrated by the Jews in the way that we Christians celebrate Christmas or any holiday/ holy day as seen in the following passages:

Esther 8:15-17 And the city of Susa held a joyous celebration. For the Jews it was a time of happiness and joy, gladness and honor. In every province and in every city to which the edict of the king came, there was joy and gladness among the Jews, with feasting and celebrating.

Esther 9:17-18 This happened on the thirteenth day of the month of Adar, and on the fourteenth they rested and made it a day of feasting and joy. The Jews in Susa, however, had assembled on the thirteenth and fourteenth, and then on the fifteenth they rested and made it a day of feasting and joy.

Esther 9:19 That is why rural Jews—those living in villages—observe the fourteenth of the month of Adar as a day of joy and feasting, a day for giving presents to each other.

Esther 9:20-22 Mordecai recorded these events, and he sent letters to all the Jews throughout the provinces of King Xerxes, near and far, to have them celebrate annually the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month of Adar as the time when the Jews got relief from their enemies, and as the month when their sorrow was turned into joy and their mourning into a day of celebration. He wrote them to observe the days as days of feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor.

We can see that the Feast of Purim was not established by God but by a human being. Also, there are feasting, merrymaking, giving gifts to one another and other stuff people do during the Christmas season.

***

Photo credit: geralt (10-22-15) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Reply to Anti-Catholic Chris Bayack vs. Steve Ray (Pt. II)

Last updated on: September 19, 2020 at 2:07 pm By Dave Armstrong

[SEE PART I]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART II

VI. Back to New Testament Tradition (and a Rabbit Trail of “Absolute Assurance”)

VII. Zapping Church History and Bashing the Church Fathers

VIII. Paul, Pagans, Prophets, Plato, Patristics, and Protestant Pastors

IX. Pastor Bayack’s Word vs. the Word of God, Calvin, & Luther (Gospel and Baptism)

X. Parting Shots From Pastor Bayack

XI. Postscript: Why Pastor Bayack Decided to End This Debate

* * * * *

VI. Back to New Testament Tradition (and a Rabbit Trail of “Absolute Assurance”)

However, Stephen Ray remains undaunted. Catholic Tradition must survive and to prop it up he appeals to passages like 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6 where Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to keep the traditions that he gave them. It may seem as if he has found the support he needs. But are these verses part of the structure of Catholic Tradition or are they part of the explosion that brings it down? Let us look at each. In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul is writing to this church to let them know that the day of the Lord has not yet come and that Jesus Christ has not yet returned for His bride (verses 1-2).

He then goes on to explain in verses 3-12 what must first happen before the Lord returns which includes the frightful revelation of the “man of lawlessness . . . the son of destruction” (verse 3) and all of the chilling activity that comes with his advent. And lest believers think that somehow they will be in peril because of these future events, Paul gives them a marvelous word of comfort in verses 13-14, “But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. And it was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (italics added). Finally, in light of these word Paul gives his command in verse 15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

What is the point? Simply this—Paul calls them to follow these traditions in light of their calling, election, and absolute certainty of their salvation, a teaching which is directly contradicted by Roman Catholic doctrine! This assurance is reinforced by what he said to them in his first letter, “For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:9). In other words, whatever these traditions were, they were in harmony with the doctrine of the believer’s assurance which Catholicism has long rejected. The traditions of this verse are in direct conflict with the Tradition of Rome.

First of all, this proves nothing at all with regard to the meaning of tradition because Pastor Bayack introduces a completely different subject matter. If he wishes to engage Catholics on the issues of soteriology, justification, assurance, etc., many of us Catholic apologists would be more than happy to oblige him, but to introduce that here is illogical and improper. Pastor Bayack’s burden is to show precisely what Paul means by his constant (not merely one-time) usage of tradition, and its being received and delivered.

I have shown, by much exegetical and linguistic biblical evidence, presented above (and directly below), that he and other New Testament writers mean by this the gospel, the word of God, the faith, etc. They are all the same entity. This can be clearly shown by a dozen of St. Paul’s statements to the Thessalonians alone:

1 Thessalonians 1:5 for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power . . .

1 Thessalonians 1:6 . . . you received the word in much affliction . . .

1 Thessalonians 2:2 . . . we had courage in our God to declare to you the gospel of God . . .

1 Thessalonians 2:8 . . . ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves . . .

1 Thessalonians 2:9 . . . we preached to you the gospel of God.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . .

1 Thessalonians 4:1 . . . as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God . . .

2 Thessalonians 1:8 . . . vengeance upon . . . those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 To this he called you through our gospel . . .

2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . hold to the traditions . . . taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:1 . . . pray for us, that the word of the Lord may speed on and triumph . . .

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.

Paul uses the words and phrases gospel, tradition, and word of the Lord interchangeably even in the space of just five verses (2 Thessalonians 2:14-3:1)!!! So it is quite biblical and Pauline to say, “we must proclaim the saving tradition,” since “tradition” and “gospel” and “word of God” are synonymous in Paul’s mind and that of the Apostles. Therefore, this broad application can’t be reduced to a single usage and limited in its meaning, as the good pastor foolishly tries to do here.

I’m sure Pastor Bayack would agree with me that a fundamental (characteristically Protestant) rule of hermeneutics, is to compare Scripture with Scripture. I have done that, where tradition (paradosis) is concerned, and quite comprehensively. Pastor Bayack has not. But if he wishes to do so now, I’d be absolutely delighted to interact with his response to my exegesis.

Secondly, the argument he gives concerning “absolute certainty of salvation” is clearly logically fallacious (I shall treat it in passing, even though we stray from our subject). In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul writes that God chose you from the beginning to be saved . . . Well, sure: God chooses and elects who is saved. And it is “present” to God, not future, as He is outside of time. Welcome to Christian Theology 0101. This is Catholic doctrine, and we believe in predestination (of the saved, but not the damned) as well.

It is a binding dogma of the Church (for proof of this assertion, see related papers on my Salvation & Justification page). But Paul here does not teach that the believer himself is “absolutely” assured of his own salvation. The passage teaches nothing of the sort (only eisegesis forces it to); it merely states that God chooses his elect. God’s foreknowledge and omniscience are quite distinct from our fallible and sin-infected knowledge, as I’m sure Pastor Bayack would readily grant.

Thirdly, does Pastor Bayack wish to argue that every person in the Thessalonian church was amongst the elect, so that we should take this verse absolutely literally? That would hardly be a tenable position. This is a corporate address, and cannot be applied literally to each and every person in that church. Communities are always a mixed bag; we know this from Paul’s letters to the Galatians and Corinthians, and Jesus’ reprimands of the “seven churches” (note that He still regards them as “churches” despite most being pitiable examples of Christianity at best) in the book of Revelation (and any Christian’s own experience). If there are a few Christians to be found even in the lowly Catholic Church, according to our friend, then certainly there were a few reprobates who hung around the Thessalonian church . . .

Fourthly, the Apostle Paul himself possesses no such “absolute assurance” at all. Paul was not Luther, the one who was neurotically obsessed with figuring out whether God loved him or not. Paul is rather confident of God’s love, yet he never speaks of having already attained the prize of salvation:

1 Corinthians 9:27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

*

1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

*

Galatians 5:1, 4 . . . stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery . . . You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

*

Philippians 3:11-14 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . . I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

*

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

*

1 Timothy 5:15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

*

[See also 1 Samuel 11:6, 18:11-12, Ezekiel 18:24, 33:12-13, 18, Galatians 4:9, Colossians 1:23, Hebrews 3:12-14, 6:4-6, 11-12, 10:23, 26, 29, 36, 39, 12:15, 2 Peter 2:15, 20-21, Revelation 2:4-5]

Catholics believe that every person can have a moral assurance of salvation, provided we examine ourselves honestly and thoroughly to determine if we are in right relationship to God and not engaged in gravely sinful activities. We assert that this is the biblical view, seeing that it is often stated that “fornicators, adulterers, idolaters, liars, thieves,” etc. will not inherit the kingdom (salvation).

Fifth, even John Calvin does not hold that someone other than God (I say, even the Apostle Paul, especially since he wasn’t even absolutely sure of his own election) could know whether another person was amongst the elect (though indeed he taught that one could be personally sure of their own election):

[W]e are not bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect – that is for God alone, not for us, to do . . . (Institutes of the Christian Religion [McNeill / Battles edition, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960], IV. 1. 3.)

*

We must thus consider both God’s secret election and his inner call. For he alone “knows who are his” [II Tim. 2:19] . . . except that they bear his insignia by which they may be distinguished from the reprobate. But because a small and contemptible number are hidden in a huge multitude and a few grains of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff, we must leave to God alone the knowledge of his church, whose foundation is his secret election. It is not sufficient, indeed, for us to comprehend in mind and thought the multitude of the elect, unless we consider the unity of the church as that into which we are convinced we have been truly engrafted. (Ibid., IV.1. 2.)

*

Of those who openly wear his badge, his eyes alone see the ones who are unfeignedly holy and will persevere to the very end [Matt. 24:13] – the ultimate point of salvation. (Ibid., IV.1. 8.)

Sixth, right in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, in the immediate context of Pastor Bayack’s citation, Paul speaks of the traditions being passed by word of mouth; oral tradition, which is anathema to the Protestant position. So our friend will say that this was to cease when the Bible was completed. That’s a nice opinion, but that is all it is: Pastor Bayack’s own arbitrary opinion. It is nowhere stated in the Bible; therefore it must be dismissed as an extrabiblical notion; therefore contrary to sola Scriptura and certainly not an indisputable tenet of belief (even granting Protestant premises). So, indeed, the tradition referred to here is no Protestant tradition, as it includes authoritative oral proclamation, which is never regarded as temporary by the Apostles.

Seventh, if we wish to play this game of defining tradition by immediate context, rather than repeated usage, then Pastor Bayack’s argument will eventually backfire, simply by finding a context which goes against (much) Protestant teaching. For instance:

1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

Following our friend’s method, let us see what the very next verse states (and how it will “define” this tradition):

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband . . .

Now, any evangelical Protestant who takes any sociological note at all of what is going on in his own theological circles knows full well that feminism and unisexism is launching an all-out assault and infiltrating evangelical circles left and right. And no biblical doctrine is more despised by a certain “enlightened” feminist outlook as outdated, “patriarchal,” and oppressive, than the headship of the husband. The point is that, once again (as always), Protestantism (even at official denominational levels) is caving into the zeitgeist and fads of our time.

Apart from the ongoing ecclesiological and doctrinal chaos that has always typified Protestantism, there is certainly no present-day agreement about the meaning of this teaching of Paul, even in supposedly “orthodox” conservative evangelical circles. Yet (again, using Pastor Bayack’s own methodology against us), this is part and parcel of New Testament tradition! Paraphrasing our friend, and turning the tables:

Are these verses part of the structure of Protestant tradition [substitute the more accepted word “doctrine” for the faint of heart] or are they part of the explosion that brings it down?

If the example of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and its context “brings down” Catholic Tradition, then by the same token, 1 Corinthians 11:2-3 must bring down all the liberalized, compromised, secularized, “feminized” churches which are present by the thousands even in the evangelical Protestant milieu. There is no denying the problem. Francis Schaeffer (whom I greatly admire; and whom Steve Ray once studied with, at L’Abri in Switzerland) was “prophetically” writing about it for several years before his death, which was in 1984.

The same argument can be made concerning acceptance of divorce, abortion, premarital sex, female clergy, even homosexuality and euthanasia, in many evangelical circles today (not to mention contraception, which Luther and Calvin regarded as murder, and which all Christians opposed as gravely immoral before 1930). It is obvious that official, unchanging Catholic teaching on these and many other ethical, gender, sexual, and life issues, is far more in line with New Testament teaching than any particular brand of Protestantism is.

Thus, I submit that it is Pastor Bayack’s argument (and by extension, his theological/ecclesiological system) which is “brought down” by an “explosion” of New Testament (and even internal Protestant) logic. Not that incoherence or moral and doctrinal relativism in Protestant thought and theology is a rare thing . . . But let’s go on and see what else he attempts to come up with in his ongoing mission to “explode” the Catholic acceptance of the tradition of the New Testament and the Apostles.

Catholicism fares no better with a proper understanding of 2 Thessalonians 3:6. In that verse, Paul states, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition that you received from us.” He then goes on to explain beginning in verse 7 how he, Silas, and Timothy all led disciplined lives and worked for their own bread. The tradition that Paul speaks of here deals with the work ethic that “if anyone will not work, neither let him eat” (verse 10), and has nothing to do with things like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, etc.

The Christian, apostolic, biblical tradition obviously includes ethical and behavioral elements. Does that mean, therefore, that it excludes various doctrinal elements (setting aside for the moment what exactly they might be)? This is an astonishingly weak and absurd and utterly irrelevant argument, especially coming from a trained minister of the gospel and student of the Bible. We obviously determine the complete extent of New Testament tradition by studying it as a whole. What Paul and Jesus teach in the New Testament books constitutes the tradition and gospel and word of the Lord. It is comprehensive; hence Jesus commands His followers, shortly before His Ascension, to baptize and make disciples, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you . . . ” (Matthew 28:20).

But beyond that, we also look to the early Church to determine what the gospel and tradition and “deposit of faith” was. The Apostles and other early Christians went out to preach to the world, and they didn’t simply stand and read Scripture to the crowds (though they certainly used it). What the early Church and early Fathers believed gives us a clue as to the whole extent of this New Testament tradition. They didn’t forget everything (at that early stage, they even had firsthand memory of what Jesus or His disciples had told them) as soon as the Bible was complete, c. 100. And memory was much better in that culture. It was an oral culture, where memory was cultivated from an early age. This has been documented time and again.

And of course we find virtually all the Catholic distinctives present from the beginning (episcopal church government – bishops – , a literal Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, a priesthood, infused — not imputed — justification, apostolic succession, adherence to Tradition as well as Scripture, penance, prayers for the dead, the papacy, the communion of saints, Mary as the ever-virgin, Mother of God, and New Eve, a visible Church with councils {Jerusalem Council of Acts 15}, etc.). Doctrines develop, but they are present in kernel or fuller form from the beginning, whereas dozens of Protestant distinctives are nowhere to be found until more than 1400 years later (which scarcely suggests that they were apostolic).

Three Protestant Bible Dictionaries agree with my basic contentions with regard to the nature of biblical tradition:

Apostolic teaching – which included facts about Christ, their theological importance, and their ethical implications for Christian living – was described as tradition (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15). It had divine sanction (1 Cor 11:23; Gal 1:11-16) . . . Jesus rejected tradition, but only in the sense of human accretion lacking divine sanction (Mk 7:3-9). (J. D. Douglas, editor, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, revised edition, 1978, pp. 981-982)

*

Appeals to authoritative Church tradition are found already in the earliest New Testament writings, the letters of Paul. Occasionally explicit reference is made to some material as traditional, including a particular set of ethical instructions (2 Thess 3:6), a set eucharistic formula (1 Cor 11:23-6), and a standardized recital of the death, burial, resurrection, and postresurrection appearances of Christ (1 Cor 15:3-7). Also recorded are more generalized references to Church traditions (1 Cor 11:2; Phil 4:9; 2 Thess 2:15; cf. Rom 6:17; Gal 1:9). . .. . The New Testament writings were first valued not as inspired Scripture but as deposits of apostolic tradition in fixed written form, to be interpreted authoritatively by the bishops and according to the rule of faith . . .

*

Jesus did not totally reject the oral tradition . . . His own interpretation of the Torah in the Sermon on the Mount employs the scribal principle of ‘building a fence about the Torah’ – not simply by restricting external behavior more than the written law, but by pointing out that sinful interior urgings in themselves violate what the Torah seeks to control (Matt 5:21-2,27-8, 38-9). (Allen C. Myers, editor, Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987; [English revision of Bijbelse Encyclopedie, edited by W.H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands: J.H. Kok, revised edition, 1975], translated by Raymond C. Togtman & Ralph W. Vunderink, pp. 1014-1015)

*

Christian tradition in the New Testament therefore consists of the following three elements: a) the facts of Christ (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3; Lk 1:2 . . . ); b) the theological interpretation of those facts; see, e.g., the whole argument of 1 Cor 15; c) the manner of life which flows from them (1 Cor 16:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6-7). In Jude 3 the ‘faith . . . once for all delivered’ (RSV) covers all three elements (cf. Rom 6:17). Christ was made known by the apostolic testimony to Him; the apostles therefore claimed that their tradition was to be received as authoritative (1 Cor 15:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). . . This combination of eyewitness testimony and Spirit-guided witness produced a ‘tradition’ that was a true and valid complement to the Old Testament Scriptures. So 1 Tim 5:18 and 2 Pet 3:16 place apostolic tradition alongside Scripture and describe it as such. (J. D. Douglas, editor, The New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962, p. 1291)

The context of these verses deals a crippling blow—not a support—to official Catholic Tradition. However, Stephen Ray conveniently ignores the context of these verses as he must.

The above arguments show how ludicrous these contentions are, I think (especially the gratuitous “must”). If anyone is “ignoring context” (and proper exegesis), Pastor Bayack is. I’ve given at least ten times more biblical support for our view than he has given for his (if he wishes to counter-reply, then great). Even Protestant biblical scholars and commentators would not accept such a simplistic understanding of New Testament tradition, as just seen.

They are far more in accord with my viewpoint than Pastor Bayack’s (i.e., concerning what tradition is, not, of course, with regard to its particulars, or our claims that it contains what are now “Catholic disctinctives”). But here we are discussing tradition generally, or generically. What it includes in all its particulars is another entire discussion. That requires biblical examination of each and every doctrine, and I do just that on my website, which is called Biblical Evidence for Catholicism.

VII. Zapping Church History and Bashing the Church Fathers

Just about anything can be proven when Scripture is taken out of context and the old saying, “a text without a context is a pretext” applies very well to him. In fact, he is quite adept at ignoring the context of Scripture if an allegorical interpretation supports his point. When I challenged him about using extensive allegory, especially in reference to the Old Testament, he stated, “I have often used Old Testament passages in the same ‘patristic’ manner as the earliest Church Fathers” (11) and “If you mean by allegory that I interpret them patristically, I plead guilty” (11).

I agree totally about the supreme importance of context. But I would contend that Pastor Bayack, too, is guilty of neglecting this (whether or not Steve Ray is). I’ve now spent many hours refuting his false claims, utilizing tons of Scripture in the process (and I have enjoyed it immensely, because I always love studying Holy Scripture). Let the reader judge who is being more “biblical” in their analyses and exegesis. General hermeneutical principles and the place of allegory are beyond my purview here. I refer Pastor Bayack and readers to my paper: Dialogue: Clearness (Perspicuity) of Scripture and the Formal Sufficiency of Scripture (with Carmen Bryant). That dialogue deals with hermeneutical issues (including the history of same).

In this paper, one learns, for example, that the early heretics tended to believe in a hyper-literal interpretation of Scripture, to the exclusion of allegory, whereas the orthodox Catholic Chalcedonian trinitarians accepted allegory (though not denying a primacy of the literal interpretation). So this is yet another instance of Protestantism being analogous to the heresies in their theological method (just as in the case of sola Scriptura and in the tendency to reject apostolic succession and the crucial, indispensable function of history in Christianity).

The Gnostics, for example, rejected the Incarnation (the Apostle John was already refuting them in John 1), so it was entirely predictable and logically consistent that they would reject Church history as well, since the Church is the embodiment of Christ and the continuation of His mission in time and space. Christianity is not a disembodied, ethereal religion. It takes in the physical world as well. In the Christian view, the body is good, sensory pleasure is good, and hence the Church and history are good, and sacraments bring together spiritual graces and physical means, just as God took on flesh and became man, thus raising human flesh and mankind to previously unknown sublime levels. This is the incarnational principle.

Statements like this reveal another crutch that Stephen Ray must lean upon to support Catholic Tradition—the Church Fathers.

Indeed, as any legitimate Christian system should, because Christianity is intrinsically historical. Many Protestants seem to take this dim view of Church history and the Fathers. But Christianity is historical at its very core, as Judaism before it was. It was confirmed by eyewitness testimony of miracles, and Jesus’ Resurrection; very much historical criteria of proof, credibility, and plausibility.

What Pastor Bayack calls a “crutch” is absolutely essential to self-consistent Christianity, even in terms of getting the Bible itself into the good pastor’s hands. Without the Catholic Church and Tradition and Fathers we would not have the Bible we have today. Canonization (just like the authorship of the Bible) was a very human process. But the history of the Church is a continuation of Jesus’ Incarnation. God took on flesh and became man. After our Lord’s Ascension, the Body of Christ, the Church, continued the physical presence of Jesus on the earth, in a sense. God works with men; men are physical; the Church they belong to is physical in many ways (this gets into sacramentalism as well: another huge discussion, but see the many biblical proofs in my paper: Heartfelt Sacramentalism (Not Mere Charms).

In my review I stated that he quotes them as though they were infallible and that nowhere in his book does he consider that they may contract Scripture to which the humble Mr. Ray responds, “With all due respect the above comment is nothing but stupid. Come on Mr. Bayack, of course some of the Fathers contradict Scripture some of the time” (16).

I assumed that you believed as much, Mr. Ray, but that is not what I said, if indeed you truly read my review. I said that you treat them as though they are infallible, not that you believe them to be infallible. He continues, “Do I have to attach a disclaimer for each citation?” (11). No. But where do you give any disclaimer, even one, that the Church Fathers were prone to error? Judging by the way you so authoritatively referenced them, how is a simple mind like mine to conclude otherwise?

It is common knowledge (with the slightest study on the subject) that in Catholic, and Orthodox theology, the Fathers are not regarded as individually infallible. Even popes are infallible only when they authoritatively proclaim, not always. So I must agree that even the question and the distinction without a difference drawn betrays yet another lamentable instance of Protestant ignorance, which is never surprising to those of us who deal in Protestant misconceptions all the time, in the course of defending the Catholic Church. And, admittedly, it can get irritating and frustrating to us, so that we may not always respond as charitably as we should.

I’m not sure if Steve makes a precise statement in either of his two books of exactly how patristic authority is regarded in the Catholic Church. I couldn’t locate one myself. If he doesn’t, I think it was an unfortunate omission, given the multitude of patristic citations in each book. He has, however, written an article which I have had on my Church Fathers page for some time (and it is available on his website): Unanimous Consent of the Fathers. In this paper (included in the Catholic Dictionary of Apologetics and Evangelism — Ignatius Press) Steve states (emphasis added):

The Unanimous Consent of the Fathers (unanimem consensum Patrum) refers to the morally unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers on certain doctrines as revealed by God and interpretations of Scripture as received by the universal Church. The individual Fathers are not personally infallible, and a discrepancy by a few patristic witnesses does not harm the collective patristic testimony. The word “unanimous” comes from two Latin words: únus, one + animus, mind. “Consent” in Latin means agreement, accord, and harmony; being of the same mind or opinion. Where the Fathers speak in harmony, with one mind overall – not necessarily each and every one agreeing on every detail but by consensus and general agreement – we have “unanimous consent.” The teachings of the Fathers provide us with an authentic witness to the apostolic tradition. . . .

*

A fine definition of Unanimous Consent, based on the Church Councils, is provided in the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary,

*

When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine tradition. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter-testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required. (Wilkes-Barre, Penn.: Dimension Books, 1965, pg. 153)

VIII. Paul, Pagans, Prophets, Plato, Patristics, and Protestant Pastors

Anyone who yokes his interpretation of Scripture together with the Church Fathers is often building on a perforated foundation—its appearance belies its strength. If Stephen Ray truly believes the Church Fathers to be fallible, then he should examine them as the Bereans did Paul in Acts 17:11 (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 also). If the great apostle’s teaching was subject to examination, then that of lesser men should be as well. What most people fail to realize about the Church Fathers is that many of them often embraced a syncretistic approach seeking to harmonize Greek
philosophy and Biblical truth.

“It was argued by some Christian apologists that the best doctrines of philosophy were due to the inworking in the world of the same Divine Word who had become incarnate in Jesus Christ. ‘The teachings of Plato,’ says Justin Martyr, ‘are not alien to those of Christ, though not in all respects similar. . . . For all the writers (of antiquity) were able to have a dim vision of realities by means of the indwelling seed of the implanted Word.” (Edwin Hatch, The Influences of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church [London: Williams and Norgate, 1895; repr., Peabody, Ma.: Hendrickson, 1995], 126-27, parenthesis in original)

The intent was to make Christianity appeal to the Greek mind. However, this approach is fatally flawed. Worldly wisdom is “earthly, natural, [and] demonic” as we read in James 3:15 and is directly at odds with divine wisdom as we read in 1 Corinthians 2. The carnal mind will never believe due to intellectual reasoning alone. He will not accept the things of God until the Lord opens his eyes and draws him to believe (cf. John 6:44). Thus the oil-and-water mix pursued by many of the Fathers often yielded hazardous interpretations of the Word of God. Poison plus water
equals poison.

This is another huge subject, and Pastor Bayack is now revealing the common, most regrettable and unbiblical evangelical Protestant distrust of the mind and reason, and of selective truths which may have been (and often were) present in the nobler pagan minds such as that of Socrates, Aristotle and Plato. He wishes to contend that this “syncretistic” attitude is foreign to Christianity and the New Testament. It is not. Elsewhere I have written:

We observe the Apostle Paul “incorporating paganism” in a sense when he dialogues with the Greek intellectuals and philosophers on Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17). He compliments their religiosity (17:22), and comments on a pagan “altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ ” (17:23). He then goes on to preach that this “unknown god” is indeed Yahweh, the God of the OT and of the Jews (17:23-24). Then he expands upon the understanding of the true God as opposed to “shrines made by human hands” (17:24-25), and God as Sovereign and Sustaining Creator (17:26-28). In doing so he cites two pagan poets and/or philosophers: Epimenides of Crete (whom he also cites in Titus 1:12) and Aratus of Cilicia (17:28) and expands upon their understanding as well (17:29).

*

This is basically the same thing that the Church does with regard to pagan feasts and customs: it takes whatever is not sinful and Christianizes it. To me, this is great practical wisdom and a profound understanding of human nature. The frequent Protestant assumption that this is a wholesale adoption of paganism per se, and an evil and diabolical mixture of idolatry and paganism with Christianity is way off the mark . . . After all, the Apostle Paul is clearly guilty of mixing paganism and Christianity also. :-) Remember, it was Paul who stated:

*

To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. (1 Cor 9:22; NRSV; read the context of 9:19-21)

*

In my opinion, the Church’s practice concerning Easter, Christmas, All Souls Day, All Saints Day, etc. is a straightforward application of Paul’s own “evangelistic strategy,” if you will. That puts all this in quite a different light, when it is backed up explicitly from Scripture. The early Church merely followed Paul’s lead. Furthermore, skeptics of Christianity trace the Trinity itself to Babylonian three-headed gods and suchlike, and the Resurrection of Christ to Mithraism or other pagan religious beliefs, but that doesn’t stop Protestants from believing in the Triune God or the Resurrection. So this whole critique eventually backfires on those who give it. (Is Catholicism Half-Pagan?)

Let us continue. Stephen Ray is not finished in his support of Catholic Tradition. In his section “Questions for ‘Bible Christians’” on page 26, he draws upon Jude 9, 14-15 as support for oral Tradition being authoritative and even treating it as God’s Word. Is it?

Jude 9 discusses the dispute between the archangel Michael and the devil over the body of Moses. While this event is not found in the Old Testament, it is found in the apocryphal book The Assumption of Moses. Verses 14-15 discuss a prophecy of Enoch which is also not found in the Old Testament but is found in the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Do these references support oral Tradition as being authoritative or that the Catholic Apocrypha is also part of the inspired Word of God?

No, they do not. God at times allows His writers to quote truths from non-inspired sources to make a point. For example, Paul quotes ancient poets three times in inspired writings. In Acts 17:28 he quotes Aratus’ poem Phaenomena when he says, “Even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His offspring.’” Does this mean that Phaenomena is inspired or that the oral tradition which transmitted it is the Word of God?

Is the same true of Menander and Epimenides because he quotes them in 1 Corinthians 15:33 and Titus 1:12 respectively? Man in his pursuit of knowledge occasionally intersects God’s truth. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

But didn’t Pastor Bayack just say, above: “Worldly wisdom is ‘earthly, natural, [and] demonic’ as we read in James 3:15 and is directly at odds with divine wisdom as we read in 1 Corinthians 2.” ? Is this not contradictory to his present (true) point that pagans and other non-Christians may possess snippets of truth, even “God’s truth”? Perhaps he can return and inform us as to which of his two contradictory opinions he prefers. No one is saying that to merely quote some source makes it inspired per se, but it would seem to imply a considerable authority and trustworthiness of the source. Catholic apologist David Palm elaborates:

Jude relates an altercation between Michael and Satan:

*

When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’ (Jude 9).

*

As H. Willmering says in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture,

*

This incident is not mentioned in Scripture, but may have been a Jewish oral tradition, which is well known to the readers of this epistle.

*

Some versions of the story circulating in ancient Judaism depict Satan trying to intervene as Michael buries the body. Several of the Church Fathers know of another version in which Moses’ body is assumed into heaven after his death. Jude draws on this oral Tradition to highlight the incredible arrogance of the heretics he opposes; even Michael the archangel did not take it on himself to rebuke Satan, and yet these men have no scruples in reviling celestial beings.This text provides another example of a New Testament author tapping oral Tradition to expound Christian doctrine—in this case an issue of behavior. In addition, this text relates well to a Catholic dogma that troubles many non-Catholics—the bodily Assumption of Mary. There is no explicit biblical evidence for Mary’s Assumption (although see Rev. 12:1-6), but Jude not only provides us with a third biblical example of the bodily assumption of one of God’s special servants (see also Gen. 5:24, 2 Kgs. 2:11), he shows that oral Tradition can be the ground on which belief in such a dogma may be based. (“Oral Tradition in the New Testament”)

In my extensive and very enjoyable dialogue with a Baptist (who henceforth was never to be heard from again): Sola Scriptura, the Old Testament, and Ancient Jewish Practice, I drew the following conclusions from my numerous analogical and biblical arguments, which have some relevance to our present discussion. My friend was contending that the Old Testament Jews believed in sola Scriptura (i.e., their views on formal principles of authority were more consistent with Protestantism). I denied this (with many arguments), and maintained that they were much more similar to the Catholic “three-legged stool” of Scripture, Church, and Tradition.

The same is true of events and quotations that God uses from apocryphal sources even if these sources were not inspired. (By the way, if Catholicism appeals to these verses in Jude as support for apocryphal inspiration, then why is neither The Book of Enoch nor The Assumption of Moses found in the Catholic Apocrypha?

Because it’s an argument from analogy and methodology, not exact equivalence. The important and relevant point here is that there are many thinly-veiled references to the so-called “apocryphal” books which are in the Catholic OT canon in the New Testament, yet Protestants never think that suggests canonicity of those books; all the while they state over and over that when any of the 39 Old Testament books accepted by Protestants are cited, that this suggests their canonicity. Here are three examples of clear (though not technically “direct”) references to the “Apocrypha” in the New Testament:

Revelation 1:4 Grace to you . . . from the seven spirits who are before his throne. (cf. 3:1; 4:5; 5:6)

*

Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. (cf. 5:8)

*

Tobit 12:15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.

St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, seems to have 2 Maccabees 12:44 in mind. This saying of Paul is one of the most difficult in the New Testament for Protestants to interpret, given their theology:

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

*

2 Maccabees 12:44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.

This passage of St. Paul shows that it was the custom of the early Church to watch, pray and fast for the souls of the deceased. In Scripture, to be baptized is often a metaphor for affliction or (in the Catholic understanding) penance (for example, Matthew 3:11, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 3:16, 12:50). Since those in heaven have no need of prayer, and those in hell can’t benefit from it, these practices, sanctioned by St. Paul, must be directed towards those in purgatory. Otherwise, prayers and penances for the dead make no sense, and this seems to be largely what Paul is trying to bring out. The “penance interpretation” is contextually supported by the next three verses, where St. Paul speaks of Why am I in peril every hour? . . . I die every day, and so forth.

And Hebrews 11:35 mirrors the thought of 2 Maccabees 7:29:

Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.

*

2 Maccabees 7:29 Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again with your brothers. [a mother speaking to her son: see 7:25-26]

How is it that these non-inspired books could support Apocryphal inspiration?)

The Catholic argument here is not so much to support the Deuterocanonical books, as it is to support the normative nature of an authoritative, non-canonical oral Tradition. We say that the “Apocrypha” is Scripture because it was declared so at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (393, 397), along with the other books which Protestants accept. Our friends have the inconsistent principle, once again. The seven books they dispute were arbitrarily ditched in the 16th century because they contained clear proofs of doctrines (such as purgatory) which Luther rejected. But who gave Luther the authority to determine by himself what constituted Sacred Scripture? Who anointed him as God’s Holy Prophet or some sort of “pseudo-Moses”?

Furthermore, in verse 14 Jude writes “Enoch . . . prophesied”. By contrast, notice how Matthew referred to the prophecy of Micah 5:2 in Matthew 2:5, “For so it has been written by the prophet.” Enoch’s quote is inspired while Micah’s writings are inspired. Never is it said, “It is written” concerning The Book of Enoch nor any other apocryphal writing. Jude references Enoch’s prophecy, not the book. Neither the document nor its word-of-mouth transmission have the same authority as Scripture.

See the above arguments and links. This paper is long enough. One can’t conquer the world in a single paper. Now we are engaged in extensive arguments about the biblical canon . . .

And neither does Roman Catholic Tradition.

I agree. The Catholic Church is the Guardian and Custodian of the Bible and Tradition. It is not equal to it, nor does it have any right or power to change God’s Tradition, the Gospel, or the Bible. Protestants, on the other hand, thought nothing of overturning doctrines which had been continuously believed and passed-down for 1500 years. This is indeed the usurpation of Scripture and harmonious Apostolic Tradition, so I suggest that Pastor Bayack examine his own Protestant house (all the hundreds of rooms in it).

IX. Pastor Bayack’s Word vs. the Word of God, Calvin, & Luther (Gospel and Baptism)

ii. The Word of God

Stephen Ray’s ability to handle the Word of God has also been weighed in the balance and found wanting. He is as obligated to follow Rome’s handling of Scripture as he is her Tradition, even if it means throwing himself into a vortex of error.

But what does the Protestant do in this regard? Well, Joe Q. Protestant is an atomistic individual who (when all’s said and done) follows his own theological inclination wherever it may lead. There are plenty of “vortex’s of error” in Protestant ranks. There must be, because the mere existence of contradiction and competing theologies and Christianities logically requires that someone is in error. At least individual Catholics such as Steve Ray and myself consciously acknowledge and submit to an entity and Tradition far greater than one frail and fallible human being. At least Catholics acknowledge that the Holy Spirit has been talking to a lot of holy men and women for 2000 years (not just “me”), and that they may have learned a few things, a little bit in all that time that we can spiritually benefit from.

G. K. Chesterton stated that “tradition is the democracy of the dead.” Protestantism, on the other hand, is more like the “dictatorship of the individual.” The wheel (theoretically, following the principles of private judgment and sola Scriptura) could be re-invented with every Protestant. Every Protestant is his own pope, and assumes more authority for himself than any pope ever dreamt of in his wildest dreams.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Ray views this as a badge of honor. “Ignorant people like to claim Catholicism contradicts the Bible, but it was actually the great fidelity of the Catholic Church to Scripture and the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles that eventually caused me to convert to the Catholic Church” (7). “One of the nice things about being a Catholic is that there are no longer any verses that don’t fit or make sense, such as 1 Peter 3:31, John 20:23, Colossians 1:24, John 3:5, etc.” (11). He holds to the same line that I was taught in fourth-grade Parochial school, namely, that
since Roman Catholicism is supposedly an infallible Church, she possesses an infallible interpretation of Scripture.

If this is so, then where is the official, infallible set of commentaries whereby I might look up the meaning of any and every verse? Surely a simple mind like mine would benefit from that. Yet none exists. Wouldn’t such a set be the invincible fortress which no heresy could assault? Why does Rome not give us the authoritative, once-for-all, verse-by-verse exposition of the Word of God which would forever silence her critics?

Because the Church is concerned with guarding the apostolic deposit in its entirety, not requiring its members to believe a certain way about particular Bible verses. The Church declares infallible doctrines, not infallible interpretations of individual verses. Another case of the Catholic not being able to win, where its more vehement critics are concerned . . . We observe Pastor Bayack’s impassioned complaint and mocking tone above. Yet we can be sure that if there did exist a Catholic document giving a binding, dogmatic opinion on every verse in the entire Bible, that this would be considered the most tyrannical, oppressive, dictatorial phenomenon ever seen in world history.

We should not hope for such a commentary anytime soon. And if Stephen Ray’s capability with the Bible reflects that of his Church, it is understandable why such a commentary will never exist. For example, he states, “Paul taught the churches many things . . . [including] how to ordain priests” (10). I am want to find such a passage! If Stephen Ray had any proficiency in Greek, he would know that the word for “priest” is the word hiereus (or archiereus for “chief/ruling priest”) and nowhere does Paul ever ordain a hiereus or teach a church to do the same. He did appoint elders in some churches (e.g. Acts 14:23) but the Greek word for “elder” is presbuteros from which we get our word “presbytery”. Never is the New Testament church office of presbuteros ever equated with hiereus.

I will defer to a link (Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church), as I am rapidly tiring (after now more than 15 hours) of answering this paper, and its multitude of errors:

Yet Mr. Ray’s exegetical skid does not stop there. When I made some remarks about the issue of baptism, he stated, “Paul’s converts were all baptized immediately upon belief in Christ (e.g. Acts 16:31) as he was himself (Acts 9:17-18)” (12).

Apparently he has never read Acts 13:12, 13:48, 17:4, 17:12, and 17:34 which make no mention of baptism accompanying belief among Paul’s converts. No doubt these believers were eventually baptized but contrary to Stephen Ray there is nothing in the text to suggest that it immediately followed belief. Several other passages also show us that not all converts were immediately baptized such as Acts 4:4, 6:7, 9:35, 9:42, and 11:21.

But these are not the only blunders he makes regarding baptism. As I mentioned earlier he devotes over ninety pages of his book to supposedly prove baptismal regeneration, pages which include attempts to rebut Evangelical arguments opposing it. I pointed out that nowhere does he address 1 Corinthians 1:17 where Paul says, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” To this he responded, “I really don’t see what the above verse has to do with anything” (12).

I am amazed at this statement! Surely Mr. Ray would realize that simple minds like mine would latch on to verses like this. And if my argument is so easy to refute, then doing so in his book would only strengthen his. Yet he ignores this verse, as he must, since it is one of the most potent against his position. If baptism was necessary for salvation, then Paul erred grievously by not baptizing everyone immediately upon belief. Why would he leave his listeners in eternal peril if they merely believed but had to wait for someone else to come along and finish the evangelistic job? What surgeon would shut down the operating room half way through a heart transplant?

In 1 Corinthians 1:17 where Paul says, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” the Greek word for “but” is not the simple conjunction de but the adversative particle alla which is the plural of allos, meaning “another”. Anyone with even basic competence with Greek knows that alla denotes a sharp contrast. Paul’s distinction between baptism and the gospel could not be clearer.

Again, since this is another major discussion, I will defer to my many papers on the topic on my Baptism and Sacramentalism page.

Speaking now of the gospel, Stephen Ray continues his Biblical and theological ambiguity as he writes, “I am thankful to be part of the Church that has consistently taught the true Gospel from the very beginning. She has gone neither to the right nor to the left but stayed the course so that two thousand years later the Gospel is still proclaimed with truth and accuracy” (18).

What is the gospel according to Rome, Mr. Ray? Interestingly enough, for your boast about the Catholic Church preserving the true gospel, you give no definition of it. Is it, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved” as Paul told the Philippians jailer in Acts 16:31? Is it the same definition that Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, which I remind you again contains no mention of baptism or communion, the two sacraments your book so frantically tries to prove are essential to saving faith?

The core and essence of the gospel is the death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ on our behalf, as our Redeemer and Savior. This is a biblical definition, as explicated in the papers:

Gospel: Defined by the Earliest Christian Preaching [January 1988; rev. 7-8-02]

What is the Gospel? Catholic-Protestant Agreement [12-3-96 and 1-4-97]

Galatians and the Gospel: Dialogue with a Calvinist [1997]

Do Catholics & the Catholic Church Preach the Gospel? [2002]

Catholics Never Hear About the Gospel or Jesus at Mass? [6-4-07]

Gospel = Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace? [4-6-10]

Many anti-Catholic Protestants, however (strangely enough), wish to go beyond the Bible’s own definition of “gospel” and define it in terms of the peculiar and exclusivistic Protestant sense of sola fide and imputed, extrinsic, external justification and instant assurance of salvation. In so doing, they deny that Catholicism possesses a true gospel.

It cannot be this simple as Rome’s gospel is much more complex. It goes something like this, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and be baptized and receive communion, together with receiving as many of the other five sacraments as possible (in addition to praying to Mary and the saints for extra intercession), in the hope that you might go to heaven after you spend an indefinite period of time in that half-way hell of Purgatory.”

Well yes, as shown above, since Tradition and Gospel seem to be synonymous in Paul’s mind, and since he seems to include all of Christian teaching in the category of tradition, and since Jesus commanded His disciples to teach all that He taught them, there is a sense in which “gospel” and “tradition” are all-encompassing, taking in the whole of Christianity. Words are often used in more than one sense in Scripture, as Pastor Bayack well knows.

Now I am not passing judgment on individuals nor am I making a blanket statement that all Catholics are going to hell. “The Father . . . has given all judgment to the Son” as Jesus said in John 5:22 and we all do well to leave it with Him. However, we are to “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) and nowhere is this more crucial than the gospel.

Indeed. Then how can so many Protestants get the biblical definition so wrong, and in so doing, read one billion Catholics out of the Christian faith because they supposedly lack the simple gospel?

These irreconcilable differences in understanding the gospel mean that Stephen Ray and I cannot be on the same team (as he well knows) in spite of his statement, “It is sad when I have to lock horns with someone who claims the name of my Savior Jesus Christ—one with whom we should lock arms in love to take a united stand for Christ in the midst of a pagan culture” (1, italics in original).

So Martin Luther, because he believed in baptismal regeneration, is on a different team than Pastor Bayack (a non-Christian team?) and all the Protestants who take a different view of baptism? After all, Luther (always the great super-hero and Protestant champion whenever he disagrees with the Catholic Church) wrote:

Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle. (The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A. T. W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, revised edition, 1970, p. 197)

Likewise, in his Large Catechism (1529), Luther stated:

Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ’s kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . .When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . . (Edition by Augsburg Publishing House [Minneapolis], 1935, sections 223-224, 230, pp. 162, 165)

Even John Calvin, though he denied baptismal regeneration, believed in a host of extraordinary effects from baptism. He certainly wouldn’t wish to minimize it at all (or the larger concept of sacramentalism itself), like Pastor Bayack does. He also accepted the validity of Catholic baptism, so that all he describes below applies to all baptized Catholics. Calvin stated in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV.15.16 (McNeill / Battles edition, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), that:

Such today are our Catabaptists, who deny that we have been duly baptized because we were baptized by impious and idolatrous men under the papal government . . . baptism is accordingly not of man but of God, no matter who administers it. Ignorant or even contemptuous as those who baptized us were of God and all piety, they did not baptize us into the fellowship of either their ignorance or sacrilege, but into faith in Jesus Christ, because it was not their own name but God’s that they invoked, and they baptized us into no other name. But if it was the baptism of God, it surely had, enclosed in itself, the promise of forgiveness of sins, mortification of the flesh, spiritual vivification, and participation in Christ.

Calvin’s biographer Francois Wendel writes (probably referring to this very passage):

The Anabaptists repudiated the baptism that they had received at the hands of Roman Catholic priests, on the ground that the latter were unworthy and unable to confer true baptism. Calvin replies that what matters is that we should have been baptized in Christ, and that notwithstanding any errors or unworthiness in him who administers baptism the divine promise is fulfilled towards us. (Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, translated by Philip Mairet, New York: Harper & Row, 1963 [originally 1950 in French], pp. 322-323)

So (according to John Calvin) all Catholics are indeed brothers in Christ, and Christians. He states, e.g., in Institutes IV.15. 1:

Baptism is the sign of initiation by which we are received into the society of the church, in order that, engrafted in Christ, we may be reckoned among God’s children.

And in IV.15. 3:

But we must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life . . . we may always be sure and confident of the forgiveness of sins . . . For Christ’s purity has been offered us in it [baptism]; his purity ever flourishes; it is defiled by no spots, but buries and cleanses away all our defilements.

To nail this point down (like Luther and his 95 Theses), I again summarize what Calvin writes about the effects of all Catholic baptisms, as well as Protestant ones:

1. “forgiveness of sins”2. “mortification of the flesh”3. “spiritual vivification”4. “participation in Christ”5. “received into the society of the church”6. “engrafted in Christ”7. “reckoned among God’s children”8. “washed and purged for our whole life”9. “sure and confident of the forgiveness of sins”10.”Christ’s purity has been offered us in it [baptism]”11.”his purity ever flourishes; it is defiled by no spots, but buries and cleanses away all our defilements”

Therefore, utilizing the reasons of Luther and Calvin themselves, I assert that Pastor Bayack and all Protestants (whether temperamentally anti-Catholic or no) ought to accept Catholics as Christians and brothers in Christ, and to not place them in an inherently inferior spiritual category. Argue points of theology, yes, but exclude from the Body of Christ? May it never be . . .

Did Paul “lock arms” with the Judaizers who infested the churches of Galatia? Think of all the beliefs they shared. Both were Monotheists. Both believed the same Old Testament Scriptures. Both had a similar morality and were repulsed by the rank paganism around them. Both esteemed the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Law. They had many important, fundamental beliefs in common. But there was one difference in belief which would never be bridged—the nature of justification.

Paul embraced justification on the basis of faith alone but the Judaizers also believed that keeping the Law was necessary. Imagine how they could have appealed to Paul: “Paul, our differences aren’t so great. Look at all that we have in common. We really just disagree in this one area. You believe in justification by faith alone, and we believe in faith plus keeping the Law and the traditions practiced by our fathers and their
successors and are still proclaimed nearly fifteen hundred years later with truth and accuracy. Let’s pull together that we might fight as one.”

But how did Paul react to the Judaizers? “We did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you” (Galatians 2:5). Regardless of whatever beliefs they may have had in common, their differences on this one vital issue would keep them forever apart.

How, then, can both Calvin and Luther accept Catholic baptism? Furthermore, we know Luther allowed those who still believed in Transubstantiation to join his party in 1543, only three years before he died (Letter to the Evangelicals at Venice, June 13, 1543). Writing about the Elevation of the Host in 1544, Luther stated:

“If Christ is truly present in the Bread, why should He not be treated with the utmost respect and even be adored?” Joachim, a friend, added: “We saw how Luther bowed low at the Elevation with great devotion and reverently worshiped Christ.” (Mathesius, Table Talk, Leipzig, 1903, p. 341)

In 1545 Luther described the Eucharist as the “adorable Sacrament,” which caused Calvin to accuse him of “raising up an idol in God’s temple,” and of being “half-papist.” Hadn’t the Founder of Protestantism, restorer of the “gospel,” co-originator (with Calvin) of sola fide and sola Scriptura read about Paul and the Judaizers?! Why didn’t he know what Pastor Bayack knows?!

And what are we simple-minded folk to believe, with such confusion and counter-claims swirling all around us, courtesy of our ever-competing, ever-dividing, mutually-anathematizing Protestant friends? I think now — at any rate — I can sympathize with Pastor Bayack’s plea, as a simple-minded pilgrim; a somewhat tortured and tormented soul, trying so hard to comprehend all this. It took 15 hours, but I am here, and we now have that in common, if little else.

So it is forevermore with those who embrace the gospel of faith alone and those who embrace faith plus works of any kind.

The biblical doctrine is grace alone through faith, with inevitable good works resulting, as part and parcel of the nature of saving faith. See my web page: Salvation and Justification for many biblical proofs. Another very long discussion . . .

X. Parting Shots From Pastor Bayack

Conclusion

My opinion about Crossing the Tiber remains the same—it is a masterpiece of tangled, selective scholarship which will only widen the path of many on the already broad road to destruction. It’s that simple.

So Steve Ray is in effect leading people to hell as a deluded “Pied Piper” himself. What a monstrous and unfounded thing to say. I think Pastor Bayack should think very seriously about his own words, in light of our Lord Jesus’ warning:

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.

I need not say anything more. Mr. Ray, though, is sure to say plenty more and I concede the last word to him, as I must. When it comes to who can shout the loudest, I’m no match for him. He is sure to have the last word that he might triumph over every critic. Yet Scripture will have the ultimate last word and will triumph over every error that threatens the gospel of grace by which we are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ.

Note that Pastor Bayack conveniently bows out of the dialogue with a gratuitous parting shot (as opposed to a legitimate biblical rebuke); most unseemly, coming from a man of the cloth. This means I won’t — sadly and disappointingly — expect him to respond to my paper (an outcome not altogether unexpected, though). If he does I will be delighted and pleasantly surprised, but I won’t hold my breath. The good pastor says that Scripture will have the last word. Indeed it will, and it has — I think — in this paper. I haven’t “shouted” to the best of my knowledge, but I have offered an awful lot of Scripture. I apologize upfront for any excess of language or undue judgment or rashness.

If my esteemed Protestant brother truly respects that Scripture which he expounds upon every week from his pulpit (to much good effect, no doubt – and I mean that sincerely), then surely he will return and interact with this massive presentation of it, and not disappear like so many others I have dialogued with, under the pretense and empty excuse that his Catholic opponents can only special plead, eisegete, make personal attacks, and offer no cogent biblical arguments. I will be anxiously awaiting Pastor Bayack’s decision.

Praise God for sending His Son to fully pay the price for my sin. Praise God because salvation is a totally free gift which we merely receive. And praise God for a gospel so simple that a mind like mine can understand it.

Amen! Would that Pastor Bayack could understand that Steve Ray and I both wholeheartedly concur with him in this particular statement, and so does the Catholic Church. What he intended to be a stark dividing line between us instead turns out to be a refreshing area of agreement (if only he knew that).

May Stephen Ray “become foolish that he may become wise” (1 Corinthians 3:18).

He is an extraordinary fool for Christ, I can assure anyone, having known him for 17 years and having observed his many labors for the gospel and the kingdom, both as a Protestant and as a Catholic. No doubt Pastor Bayack accomplishes much good as well in his ministry. We hope and pray that he can remove the present slanders and misunderstandings of the Catholic Church from his thoughts and writings, so as to foster more unity and respect among fellow Christians.

And no, I have not as of yet observed Pastor Bayack being convinced by the least jot or tittle of any of Steve’s arguments, so I don’t need to modify an earlier statement I made tentatively, in which I noted a certain (and possibly hypocritical) double standard in the pastor’s numerous stern personal judgments of Steve Ray, and highly doubted whether Rev. Bayack would do any better with regard to the sort of behavior for which he indignantly excoriated Steve. My suspicions in that regard have now been wholly confirmed and unchallenged, having reached the end of Pastor Bayack’s critique.

James 3:1, 6, 9-10 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with a greater strictness . . .

. . . And the tongue is a fire . . . With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so.

XI. Postscript: Why Pastor Bayack Decided to End This Debate *The following is my response: “Rev. Bayack Bows Out of Debate With Steve Ray & I, But Why?” (22 August 2000) to the posted letter of Pastor Bayack (21 August 2000) on Steve Ray’s Catholic Convert Message Board. As his letter was public, so is mine. His response follows. His words will again be in blue:*

Dave Armstrong informed me of his response and I appreciate him doing so.

You’re welcome. I will send this counter-reply directly to you also.

Just as I mentioned in my second article, I have neither the time nor need to address every point that Stephen Ray made concerning my initial review.

Then why did you write a second lengthy reply, if time was an issue? You could have easily bowed out then, for ostensibly the same reasons you are giving now. I would hope that such dialogues are not based on a “need” to engage in them, but rather, on truth (on both sides). The latter is my motivation, pure and simple.

You accused Steve of leading people down the path of destruction. As a pastor and one who is so opposed to Catholicism as a false, counterfeit version of Christianity, isn’t it incumbent upon you to refute its errors, so as to save multitudes from hell? Here is your opportunity to appear on my website, to reveal truth to all those caught in the clutches of darkness, and this is the reason you give to bow out of the discussion now?

The same is true with Mr. Armstrong’s response.

I figured there would be no answer. I’m well-used to that routine. It seems that anti-Catholic Protestants love to “dialogue” with Catholics who are ignorant of their faith, because that serves their purposes. But as soon as one offers a vigorous challenge back, then suddenly time becomes an issue, and even “family,” as we see below.

You brought up a number of new issues in the portion of your reply I dealt with, including the perpetual virginity of Mary. Don’t you think it is a matter of intellectual honesty that you now deal with the counter-arguments I gave (including many citations from Luther and Calvin)? Aren’t you even interested in doing so, apart from whether or not you have the time?

I conceded the last word to them and plan no further website writings regarding Crossing the Tiber.

Why are you doing this, since you started the exchange in the first place? Why do you not want to follow through with the discussion until some real progress towards the attainment of truth is made in either a concession on either side, or at least an increased understanding? Isn’t that one of the purposes of such discussion and the seeking of truth?

Or were you simply seeking a “mutual monologue” scenario and a chance to preach to the choir on the “Proclaiming the Gospel” website? Having gotten to some real “meat” and legitimate, worthwhile issues, now it is all over? Then send someone else along who does have time to defend your propositions against a lowly Catholic critique. Surely any first-year Protestant seminary student could run rings around a Catholic, right?

This happens so often that it reminds me of Jehovah’s Witnesses who grace all our doorsteps (invariably in the middle of some pleasant or necessary activity). I have witnessed to hundreds of these people. They are very interested in discussion as long as they have a person willing to gullibly accept all that they say as gospel truth. But as soon as one raises a few objections, or mentions the contradictions of their past history (as I do, having studied them), then all of a sudden they start glancing at their watch and remember that they were supposed to be somewhere 10 minutes ago.

Likewise, I cannot guarantee individual responses to those who seek to contact me.

I understand that, and do it myself, but a dialogue that you started and promulgated on a public website is something else again, I think. I think that if you were truly confident of your position, that you would not stop the discussion once some hard questions are asked of you.

Jesus Christ, the Man who had more to say than anyone else who ever lived, actually said very little in terms of recorded content. Truth does not require a voluminous defense. Error does.

The history of opposition to all the heresies and errors in history would mitigate strongly against this ludicrous opinion. It was always the case that when the Church Fathers were challenged by the heretics, that they developed their thought and it became more complex. Arianism brought us the Nicaean formulations of the Trinity; likewise, Monophysitism brought us the Chalcedonian formulations, etc. Furthermore, if you were correct, why, then, are there scores of anti-Catholic websites and ministries and books, making quite a voluminous defense (and attack on us) indeed? Why do they not simply proclaim the simple gospel?

While the differences between Stephen Ray/Dave Armstrong and me are of eternal significance, I nevertheless respect their time as family men and do not wish to detract further from their legitimate time demands. It was never my intention to provoke an endless debate over Crossing the Tiber.

This illustrates the rampant contradictions in your stated reasons for ceasing debate. If these issues are of “eternal significance,” and since you started the dialogue by your critique, then should you not follow through and refute all our errors, for the sake of the lost?

Why would you pass up the golden opportunity, e.g., of refuting me on my own website? I will upload each and every word you write, along with my response, just as I did with my reply. This is a mystery to me. It’s one thing to say Steve and I are simply fools who don’t deserve a reply in the first place, but having decided Steve was at least worthy of a reply, now you bow out, just as it gets truly interesting.

As for family matters, this is a moot point as well. Obviously, Steve’s lovely wife Janet approves of what he does, and he spends many, many hours devoting himself to this sort of thing. True, he asked me to help, but that doesn’t get you off the hook. My beautiful wife Judy is equally willing to let me spend all the time I need for the sake of defending Christian truth and the Catholic Church: the one Jesus founded. This is a non-issue. No doubt your wife (I’m assuming you are married; I don’t know) is well-used to you having many duties in the course of your pastorate. If not, then you should have remained single, no?

Even my very spiritually-aware 7- and 9-year-old sons would happily allow me to answer a man who tells lies about the Church they love to attend every Sunday. My 3-year-old recently came to understand that he ought to love God more than me. So if I told him that a man was attacking the Church that God set up for the purpose of helping us follow Jesus and get to heaven to be with Him eternally, even he would understand to some extent that this was important work.

Again, I say that if time and respect for Steve’s family responsibilities (and now mine) were an issue, you should have never responded the second time. You speak in these very cordial and respectful terms now, but you weren’t very kind to Steve in your last response. Here (to refresh your memory) is how you described the reason for your bowing out, even before I entered into this thing:

My opinion about Crossing the Tiber remains the same—it is a masterpiece of tangled, selective scholarship which will only widen the path of many on the already broad road to destruction. It’s that simple. I need not say anything more. Mr. Ray, though, is sure to say plenty more and I concede the last word to him, as I must. When it comes to who can shout the loudest, I’m no match for him. He is sure to have the last word that he might triumph over every critic. Yet Scripture will have the ultimate last word and will triumph over every error that threatens the gospel of grace by which we are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ.

How quickly opinions change! First, it was because Scripture is able to defend itself, with no need for anyone else to fight error, that you decided to stop the dialogue. Then it was out of respect for Steve Ray’s and my family (which is no issue of concern at all for us). But above we see what I believe is the real reason: more personal attacks against Steve Ray, which typified your entire letter. For those who haven’t seen your reply, this is the sort of rhetoric which appears in it:

It is amazing how everyone (e.g. William Webster, James White, myself, etc.) who crosses him is an arrogant mental midget, his spiritual inferior and intellectual doormat. Mr. Ray deals with them only as one is forced to deal with a pesky gnat since he considers them to be about as potent and intelligent. Quite naturally he makes no concessions to me, simpleton that I am.

If you now regret such statements, then I hope you have the decency and honesty to say so. Meanwhile, I haven’t forgotten the type of language you used against Steve, and I’m sure he hasn’t. He doesn’t regard it as a matter of personal “woundedness” or sensitivity any more than I do. For both of us, it is a matter of Christian ethics, charity, and an unfortunate straying from the serious subjects to be discussed.

I challenge you to find someone else to finish your own counter-reply to Steve for you, if you are unable or unwilling to do it (for whatever reason). We will not sit idly by as our Church and the Ancient Faith is attacked with falsehoods, half-truths, revisionist history, double standards, etc., peppered with all sorts of personal attacks on those of us who believe with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind that Catholicism is the fullness of apostolic Christianity and spiritual truth.

But there is a big difference between Steve and I, and you. When we talk to our children about you, we will respect you as a sincere Christian, follower of Jesus, and brother in Christ. We won’t say that you are leading people to hell, or special pleading, etc., etc. At worst we would say that you hold to some erroneous views, yet that you still had much more in common with us than not.

What would you tell your children about us, or Catholics in general? That is a major difference here. But also, that Steve and I will not run from an attack on those truths which we believe and hold dear. We will defend them as long as we have opportunity, or else concede the argument and change our own opinion (as we both did when we converted). Steve’s website is aptly named.

You, however, will defend your views only until they are seriously counter-challenged from Scripture, history, and Tradition, at which point you will appeal to the Bible’s ability to withstand all error without human aid, and family and time considerations, even though you state outright that the issues involved are of “eternal significance.”

I don’t mean to pile on you, personally. Part of my frustration and passion, no doubt, is due to seeing this same sort of pattern over and over again. I get tired of it, and so some of that shows. But I stand by what I say, and I will always defend any of my papers against all critiques, or else concede when my opinions have been overthrown in a debate.

Since your words and this reply were both posted on a public bulletin board, I will add this to the end of my critique, along with any further comments you wish to make.

May God bless you and your ministry,

Dave Armstrong

It must have taken you a couple of hours to draft this post. Perhaps not. At least it would have taken me that long and it is time that I simply do not have. You may be able to devote several hours per day to Catholic/Protestant polemics but I am not.

In case you didn’t notice, Stephen Ray had his initial response to my book review posted for nearly two-and-a-half years before I posted my second article. Sure I was guilty of procrastination and indecision whether or not to respond, but once I got started with my response, it took me over two months to complete, not two hours. And to be perfectly honest, I haven’t even finished reading your response. I’ve only scanned it and don’t know when I will read it entirely, if ever. I don’t know what you do for a living but my main ministry is being the Pastor of a small church which requires more time than I can give. And as passionately as I feel about these issues, they remain a secondary ministry for me, at least for now. As I stated previously, should I make any changes to my articles, I will inform you and Stephen Ray.

I am neither apologetic of my beliefs nor unable to defend them. However, I have found that no matter whatever exegesis I may offer, it is met with the most egregious eisegesis imaginable. If this is to be the nature of debate, then it is not worth the time of either of us. I must focus my time on those who are interested in truth.

I express my appreciation to Stephen Ray for acknowledging the gracious nature of my e-mails to him, even though we are both very direct in our writings. His e-mails to me are typically the same. I wished that I could say the same about your post.

And I am eternally grateful to men like James White, James McCarthy, Mike Gendron, et al., who are able to give their full-time efforts to the gospel of grace through faith alone. (How blessed to understand the precious truth of “you have been saved” [Gk. “sesasmenoi”, Ephesians 2:8].) It is an honor to be counted among them and to share in the insults they receive, of which there will be plenty.

Praise God that He chose me from eternity past to be among His elect! Praise God for delivering me from self-righteousness! Praise God for the free gift of eternal life! Praise God that I have been justified by the work of Christ alone! Praise God that salvation is totally of faith and nothing of works! Praise God for the assurance that I will go to heaven when I die! “How blessed is the one whom Thou dost choose, and bring near to Thee, to dwell in thy courts.” (Psalm 65:4)

Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Sola Christus,

Chris Bayack

Nothing needs to be said in reply to this. I think it speaks for itself, and virtually affirms my stated opinions.

***

(originally posted on 22 August 2000)

Photo credit: official portrait of Catholic apologist, author, and tour guide Stephen K. Ray, from his website [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

***

Reply to Anti-Catholic Chris Bayack vs. Steve Ray (Pt. I)

Last updated on: September 19, 2020 at 2:12 pm By Dave Armstrong

Chris Bayack (12 days older than I am) was pastor of the independent Copperfield Bible Church in Houston from 1994 to 2002. He graduated with an M. Div. from The Master’s Seminary. Pastor Bayack was raised as a Catholic and left the Church at age 17.

Pastor Chris Bayack’s posted response is called “Book Review: Crossing the Tiber (+ Pt. II)” and is still available online at the Proclaiming the Gospel website.[original introduction] Steve has asked me if I could assist him with his reply to this critique, in which Pastor Bayack responded to his counter-reply. Pastor Bayack seems to me a worthy and able opponent, so I am happy to do so. Steve Ray is a good friend of mine (we go back to 1983, long before we both converted). I have worked with Steve in such projects before, most notably with regard to my paper: William Webster’s Misunderstanding of Development of Doctrine [2000]. Pastor Bayack’s words will be in blue.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

I. Opening Shots From Pastor Bayack

II. Church (and) Tradition and Sola Scriptura

III. Weak and Insubstantial Alleged Biblical “Proofs” for Sola Scriptura

IV. Tradition II

V. Recurring Ad Hominem Attacks and Charges of Special Pleading

PART II [Link]

VI. Back to New Testament Tradition (and a Rabbit Trail of “Absolute Assurance”)

VII. Zapping Church History and Bashing the Church Fathers

VIII. Paul, Pagans, Prophets, Plato, Patristics, and Protestant Pastors

IX. Pastor Bayack’s Word vs. the Word of God, Calvin, & Luther (Gospel and Baptism)

X. Parting Shots From Pastor Bayack

XI. Postscript: Why Pastor Bayack Decided to End This Debate

* * * * *

I. Opening Shots from Pastor Bayack

Crossing the Tiber is Stephen Ray’s experience into Roman Catholicism and it is largely an experience in search of a text.

I think this is a silly, groundless comment, which implies that Steve Ray puts experience above biblical text and reason. He most certainly does not (though I have personally known many Protestants who do just that), as anyone who reads his thoroughly-footnoted books or articles can readily observe. This is the familiar charge of special pleading, as if Catholics (and particularly converts — thus I am well-acquainted with it as well) couldn’t possibly have adequate reasons for their change of heart and mind; therefore they go out and find biblical texts which they think prove what they already espouse on irrational, experiential grounds.

But this is itself a circular argument. Pastor Bayack simply assumes that the Bible couldn’t possibly support Catholicism, so he conveniently concludes that anyone who believes it does must be special pleading and rationalizing; engaging in eisegesis (i.e., reading into the Bible one’s own prior assumptions or theological systems).

Furthermore, this charge could just as easily be levied against any number of Protestant sects, since they can’t manage to agree with each other (strange, if Scripture is so self-evidently clear, as they all claim). That might be due to poor scholarship or special pleading on their part as well (or any number of possible additional reasons). So in the end, charges like these become meaningless; both sides must present their biblical and historical arguments in favor of their own positions, which is precisely what both Steve and Pastor Chris have done. It isn’t necessary to second-guess motives and to charge that a person is in effect dishonest (as professional anti-Catholic James White has in fact asserted about Steve Ray — without grounds, of course; I have received the same unethical treatment from the man).

Thus, Pastor Bayack, fresh from two sections detailing what he feels to be Steve’s ad hominem attacks, lobs one of his own in his very first sentence. Sure it may have been subtle, but Steve and I know full well what he is referring to, as experience vs. biblical grounding is a longstanding discussion within the evangelical community itself (particularly concerning charismatics). Steve (like myself) has always chosen the Bible as the standard of experience (not vice versa), both as an evangelical and as a Catholic. This is a non-issue.

He must justify Catholic doctrine if he is to justify his conversion as evidenced by his own words, “Roman Catholic tradition does not contradict Scripture or frankly, I wouldn’t be a Roman Catholic” (7, italics in original),

All adherents of a Christian view who attempt to defend it utilize Scripture in that regard. I don’t find that this is some sort of novel or objectionable practice. Such assertions don’t move the discussion along at all. They are merely showy rhetoric, and thus, unworthy of true dialogue. For someone might object in turn: “okay, then, for what reason do you think Steve Ray is eisegeting Scripture?” And then we get right back to the biblical arguments, which should have been the starting-point of discussion in the first place, as both parties reverence Holy Scripture and accept its inspiration and unquestioned authority.

The Catholic can’t win, no matter what he says or does, in the eyes of an anti-Catholic. I have long experience of this myself. If he doesn’t cite Scripture to support his opinions (or change of heart, in the case of a convert), then it is said that Catholics hate the Scripture to such an extent (or are so ignorant of it) that they don’t even cite it as evidence for their side, etc., and that the person is obviously a pawn and slave of this hideous, anti-biblical and tyrannical system; the Beast, the Whore of Babylon, blah blah blah. Then it is maintained that the Catholic Church has always suppressed the Bible and vernacular translations, etc. (false charges also, as I document on my Bible and Tradition page).

But if a Catholic holds to the infallibility of Scripture (as they should, since their Church teaches this), and believes that the Bible is entirely consistent with Catholic doctrine (as all Christians who value Scripture believe about their own views), then we hear this gratuitous and vapid charge of eisegesis and special pleading, because (when it comes right down to it), the anti-Catholic knows (and assumes that everyone else “knows”) that Scripture doesn’t support Catholicism!

But what does that prove, anyway? Exactly nothing. It is a form of the “your dad’s uglier than mine” tactic of schoolchildren. It is obvious that the discussion boils down to competing interpretations of Scripture. Protestants ought to respect such a biblical and hermeneutic discussion, given that they are perpetually arguing amongst themselves over that very thing (and sinfully splitting into further factions when they can’t agree). So why pick on Catholics who hold to a different interpretation of various biblical passages, as if they are especially prone to eisegesis and an alleged “tortured hermeneutic”?

I suppose Pastor Bayack could reply that he does in fact try to show the faults of Steve’s exegesis subsequently in his paper. Fair enough. But it is still unnecessary to take the pot shot right at the beginning of his arguments. It cheapens the debate and takes away much of the enjoyment and chance to learn and understand (for both parties).

and to do so he is often forced to employ a tortured hermeneutic. He must also depend on the other leg of authority—Church Tradition—for the same reason, regardless of how much it may contradict Scripture. I will deal briefly with each.

Whether it is “tortured” will be determined as the discussion proceeds below. I would submit that the standard Protestant views involve much more biblical difficulty and contradiction, and I will support that in no uncertain terms as we go along. As for Catholics depending on Church Tradition; well, of course we do; it is part of our system (and the Bible’s outlook — so we would argue — far from contradicting it). But we are consistent in our own views, whereas Protestants supposedly eschew all “tradition” and stick to the Bible Alone, all the while accepting (consciously or not) all sorts of strictly man-made traditions handed down to them by their fathers Luther or Calvin or the Anabaptist Founders.

Scripture Alone and Faith Alone themselves fall into this category. There is nothing more “merely traditional” or arbitrary or less apostolic than beliefs which spring into existence 1500 years after Christ, whose exponents have the chutzpah to describe as “apostolic” and “biblical” viewpoints and doctrines, even though it can’t be documented that anyone of note believed them for those intervening 1500 years. This forces many Protestants to assert the quasi-Mormon notion of a very early and widespread – almost completely victorious – apostasy or “falling away” or “radical corruption” of Christendom, until such time as Herr Luther broke through the darkness and brought the glorious gospel back again.

II. Church (and) Tradition and Sola Scriptura

i. Church Tradition

Stephen Ray appears to be as infallible as his Church as he hardly concedes even the least point to those who challenge him.

Oh, so Pastor Bayack does concede points — minor or no — to the Catholic (or to Steve’s) position? I will be watching closely to see whether he does or not. If not, then this is a clear example of what I call “log-in-the-eye disease.” If he does, I will come back and concede this point myself, and change this particular answer. So if this section doesn’t read as it does now, the reader will know that I stand corrected, and that Pastor Bayack’s charge was not immediately hypocritical.

It is amazing how everyone (e.g. William Webster, James White, myself, etc.) who crosses him is an arrogant mental midget, his spiritual inferior and intellectual doormat.

I think this is a grossly unfair and inaccurate characterization of Steve’s remarks. Perhaps he “crossed the line” of ad hominem-type comments a time or two (as virtually all of us do in the heat of substantive discussion, Pastor Bayack included). But to this extent? I think not. This is a sweeping judgment of Steve’s inner attitudes and opinions which is absolutely unwarranted. Pastor Bayack greatly minimizes the rhetorical effect of his own criticism against personal attacks by making statements such as these.

James White (since he was mentioned) has recently accused Steve Ray of deliberate misrepresentation (not merely inaccuracy or botched facts), with regard to a certain famous statement of St. Augustine’s. That is a personal attack if there ever was one – getting right to motives and honesty and overall character. I haven’t seen Steve doing that at all (and if he did I myself would rebuke him for it). At worst he is perhaps excessively sarcastic and harsh at times. That, too, can be a fine line for all of us. There is a biblical form of ethical sarcasm, which both Jesus and Paul utilized. I think William Webster is much more diplomatic and cordial (he was with me, though he never answered my paper against his, cited above), but in any event, I vigorously object to this portrayal.

Mr. Ray deals with them only as one is forced to deal with a pesky gnat since he considers them to be about as potent and intelligent. Quite naturally he makes no concessions to me, simpleton that I am.

This is a clear example of the sort of unconstructive, unethical sarcasm and judgment which Pastor Bayack purports to be rebuking Steve Ray for. As such, it requires no further comment. But I am still looking for our pastor friend’s own “concessions,” since he makes such an issue of this. Or is there some sort of double standard from the get-go, which Steve is subjected to, but not Pastor Bayack?

Nevertheless, I seek to contend for the truth which God has revealed exclusively in His Word for everyone who has ears to hear. How liberating for me to hear the clear voice of God through His Word alone! How blessed I am to understand and embrace the precious doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Mr. Ray, of course, has no choice but to reject this. According to him, “Sola Scriptura is never taught or even alluded to in the Bible itself; in fact, it itself is unbiblical” (5, italics in original).

Again, this remains to be proven. We deny it. I understand the propriety of summary statements, but if they are found wanting due to the dearth of evidences justifying them, they ought to be removed. As for “Mr. Ray’s . . . choice,” well, it is a very biblical choice, since the Bible in fact does not teach sola Scriptura. Pastor Bayack claims that it does indirectly, as indeed is the case with the Holy Trinity, but I think his case is exceedingly weak, as I will attempt to demonstrate in due course.

Sola Scriptura is unbiblical? Sola Scriptura is no more unbiblical than the Trinity. Where does the Bible teach that God is a triune Being?

Well, we agree that the biblical argument for the Trinity is largely an indirect, deductive one. That is clear in the very structure of my extensive paper on the subject (largely written in 1982, as an evangelical): Holy Trinity: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (RSV edition) [1982; rev. 2012]. At least it is stated in a cursory way in Matthew 28:19 (not a disputed passage in terms of manuscripts, as far as I know):

(NRSV) Go, therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

But when it comes to sola Scriptura, no similarly descriptive verse can be found – not even anywhere close. I think the equivalent (if it in fact existed) would read something like:

Do not take heed of any written or oral traditions, as sufficient for the purposes of doctrine or action, since the written word of God in Holy Scripture is your ultimate and final authority, above any church or tradition.

No such verse even remotely approaching this can be found (and many directly contradicting it, can be cited). Why would such a direct statement not be in the Bible, if this principle is so supremely important? Verses simply reiterating the trustworthiness and goodness of Scripture are not enough to prove this case. They are only compelling in a logically circular way: they harmonize with a sola Scriptura outlook, but they do not establish it or provide any evidence in favor of it, for they are just as harmonious with the Catholic view also. Instead, Scripture informs us (RSV; emphases added):

1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

*

2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth, or by letter.

*

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Tradition in the Bible may be either written or oral. It implies that the writer (in the above instances St. Paul) is not expressing his own peculiar viewpoints, but is delivering a message received from someone else (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 11:23). The importance of the tradition does not rest in its form but in its content.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is, the word of God . . .

*

1 Timothy 3:15 . . . the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Other Bible translations render bulwark alternately as ground, foundation, or support. In his two letters to Timothy, St. Paul makes some fascinating remarks about the importance of oral tradition:

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

*

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

St. Paul says that Timothy is not only to receive and follow the pattern of his oral teaching, in addition to his written instruction, but to teach others the same. The Catholic Church seeks to do this with regard to the entire “Deposit of faith” (or, the apostles’ teaching – Acts 2:42), in accordance with St. Paul.

Furthermore, the concepts of tradition, gospel, and word of God (as well as other terms) are essentially synonymous. All are predominantly oral, and all are referred to as being delivered and received:

1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions . . . even as I have delivered them to you.

*

2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . hold to the traditions . . . taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.

*

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.

*

1 Corinthians 15:1 . . . the gospel, which you received . . .

*

Galatians 1:9 . . . the gospel . . . which you received.

*

1 Thessalonians 2:9 . . . we preached to you the gospel of God.

*

Acts 8:14 . . . Samaria had received the word of God . . .

*

1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . .

*

2 Peter 2:21 . . . the holy commandment delivered to them.

*

Jude 3 . . . the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

In St. Paul’s two letters to the Thessalonians alone we see that three of the above terms are used interchangeably. Clearly then, tradition is not a dirty word in the Bible, particularly for St. Paul. If, on the other hand, one wants to maintain that it is, then gospel and word of God are also bad words! Thus, the commonly-asserted dichotomy between the gospel and tradition, or between the Bible and tradition is unbiblical itself and must be discarded by the truly biblically-minded person as (quite ironically) a corrupt tradition of men.

All of this seems to be very difficult to get across to our esteemed Protestant brethren (I’ve engaged in many online debates about these alleged proof texts, and they never go more than one round). Protestants are so entrenched in their sola Scriptura presupposition (like a fish in water) that they oftentimes cannot — literally – grasp any critique of it. Yet it is logically elementary. The Bible simply does not pit itself against either Church or Apostolic Tradition.

All are clearly of a piece, as unarguably seen above. Everyone must try to step outside their own premises momentarily, if they are to hope to understand an opposition viewpoint. That is just as true of Catholics as it is of Protestants or any other view, religious or otherwise. It may be painful and difficult, but this is the necessary requirement of logical, constructive discourse, including biblical discussion.

(Even the Catholic Jerusalem Bible is forced to admit that the expanded version of 1 John 5:7 is “not in any of the early Greek MSS, or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the [Latin] Vulg. itself” and is “probably a gloss that has crept into the text” [The Jerusalem Bible, s.v. 1 John 5:7 notes].) It is taught all throughout the Bible even though we don’t find the Trinitarian definition in one isolated verse. We understand the doctrine of the Trinity based on the deductive teaching of Scripture as a whole.

I agree with this (and Catholic Church authority in the Councils was what finalized the Trinity for all Christians henceforth, just as was the case with the canon of Scripture), but Matthew 28:19 is at least as explicit in a trinitarian sense as 1 John 5:7, so the textual argument is neither here nor there, for the purposes of this discussion. We deny that sola Scriptura is taught even indirectly, analogously to the Trinity, as I will demonstrate (and as I already have in about 25 papers and dialogues on this topic on my Bible and Tradition page).

III. Weak and Insubstantial Alleged Biblical “Proofs” for Sola Scriptura

So it is with Sola Scriptura. God has promised, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8).

Indeed it does, but this passage does not say that it stands alone, in alleged dichotomy against Church and Apostolic Tradition. That is the hidden assumption which makes Protestants think such verses are compelling for their viewpoint. They are not. I could state that “the Washington Monument stands forever.” Would that mean that there are no other monuments or edifices? I could say that “the [United States] Constitution stands forever [as an American legal document].” Would that therefore mean that there would be no Congress to enact new laws in accordance with it, or President to preside over the executive branch of government, or a Supreme Court to interpret whether such laws are harmonious with the Constitution? Of course not.

Likewise, Scripture does not rule out a Church and Tradition, by which it is interpreted as well. That’s why the Church Fathers always appealed not solely to Holy Scripture, but to the history of doctrine and apostolic succession, which for them was the clincher and coup de grace, in arguments against the heretics. Groups such as the Arians, on the other hand, believed in Scripture Alone, precisely because they couldn’t trace their late-arriving doctrines back past Arius (d.c. 336). So if there is an analogy here it is as follows:

Arians ——–> Protestants

Fathers ——-> Catholic Church

Reasoning such as this (his own, in fact, having previously written a book about the Arians) was what led John Henry Cardinal Newman to accept the Catholic Church as the Church established by Christ, because its formal, authoritative principle had never changed, whereas Protestantism involved a radical, a-historical change of principle, which he deemed a “corruption” rather than a legitimate development. And reading his book Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine was what led me (and many, many others) to the Catholic Church as well.

Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35).

This is clearly fallacious in terms of sola Scriptura, because Jesus’ words are not confined to Scripture, according to that same Scripture, and — I would say — common sense itself. Jesus was not a “talking Bible machine” (verses: RSV):

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

*

Acts 1:2-3 . . . the apostles . . . To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. (see also Luke 24:15-16, 25-27)

Paul writes to Timothy, “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Again, there is no disagreement from us that Scripture is inspired. That is a non sequitur in Catholic-Protestant discussions (except where theologically liberal parties are concerned, on both sides). The official Catholic record in upholding that truth is far better than the Protestant one, I dare say. It was liberal Protestantism which gave us the legacy of Higher Criticism and scholars mercilessly tearing down the Bible (now even to the extent of asserting that it sanctions sodomy, abortion, etc.). This verse proves nothing whatsoever in terms of sola Scriptura, as I have noted in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholism (verses: RSV here and throughout in my response unless noted otherwise):

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

This is the most often-used supposed proof text for sola Scriptura –– yet a strong argument can be put forth that it teaches no such thing. John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the brilliant English convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism, shows the fallacy of such reasoning:

It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for although Sacred Scripture is profitable for these ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the Scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: some of the Catholic Epistles were not written even when St. Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the Scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith. It is hardy necessary to remark that this passage furnishes no proof of the inspiration of the several books of Sacred Scripture, even of those admitted to be such . . . For we are not told . . . what the Books or portions of inspired Scripture are. (“Essay on Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation,” London: 1884, Essay 1, section 29. Emphasis in original. In Newman, On the Inspiration of Scripture, edited by J. Derek Holmes and Robert Murray, Washington, D.C., Corpus Books, 1967, p. 131)

In addition to these logical and historical arguments, one can also differ with the Protestant interpretation of this passage on contextual, analogical, and exegetical grounds. In 2 Timothy alone (context), St. Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14). In the latter instance, St. Paul says of the tradition, knowing from whom you learned it.

The personal reference proves he is not talking about Scripture, but himself as the Tradition-bearer, so to speak. Elsewhere (exegesis), St. Paul frequently espouses oral Tradition (Romans 6:17, 1 Corinthians 11:2,23, 15:1-3, Galatians 1:9,12, Colossians 2:8, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6). The “exclusivist” or “dichotomous” form of reasoning employed by Protestant apologists here is fundamentally flawed. For example, to reason by analogy, let’s examine a very similar passage, Ephesians 4:11-15:

Ephesians 4:11-15 And his gifts were that some should be apostle, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are able to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,

If the Greek artios (RSV, complete / KJV, perfect) proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture in 2 Timothy, then teleios (RSV, mature manhood / KJV, perfect) in Ephesians would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors, teachers and so forth for the attainment of Christian perfection. Note that in Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, knowledge of Jesus, the fulness of Christ, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn’t even mention Scripture.

Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too much, since if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive, complementary fashion, by recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. Thus, the Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic view. Neither passage is intended in a exclusive sense.

These are but the tip of countless verses that support the unique nature of Scripture as God’s enduring and only authoritative revelation.

These “countless” verses are of the sort that prove absolutely nothing with regard to sola Scriptura, as seen from the examples Pastor Bayack thought so compelling above. The reader may or may not be familiar with these “countless” verses, but I have seen a great many brought forth myself, and refuted them (with little difficulty, as they almost always involved the same elementary logical fallacy) when they were used to allegedly “bolster” the self-contradictory position of sola Scriptura. The Bible certainly is a unique revelation — again, no argument from us there — but it is not the only authority for the Christian.

It guides the Church and Tradition, which in turn preserve it, but they are all harmonious, and do not contradict each other (as is plainly evident in reading Fathers such as St. Augustine or St. Irenaeus). Christian truth and authority is a three-legged stool; take any one leg away and it falls over. Apostolic Tradition is true and biblical precisely because it is protected from error by God just as Holy Scripture itself is. The Protestant believes, in faith (and quite rightly) that Scripture is inspired; God-breathed, and therefore preserved from error by God, even though he used fallible, sinful men to write it.

The Catholic agrees, but also asserts and believes that God can protect His Church from error as well, even though he uses fallible, sinful men for that purpose also. And if sinful men such as David and Peter could write inspired Scripture: the very words of God, then it is utterly plausible that God could grant the gift of infallibility (far lesser in degree and kind than inspiration) to men in certain well-defined situations. The second scenario is easier to believe than the first. Yet somehow Protestants have no problem adhering to the first, while vehemently denying the second proposition as “impossible,” “implausible,” “unbiblical,” etc. But papal, conciliar, and ecclesiological infallibility is another discussion altogether. The reader can consult my Church and Papacy pages (or Steve Ray’s book Upon This Rock) for discussion on those closely related, yet distinct topics.

IV. Tradition II

If Church Tradition supposedly shares the same authoritative attribute as Scripture then we should expect it to share other common attributes. Yet where does God ever say that Tradition stands forever or that it will not pass away or that it is God-breathed? How is it that Tradition can presumably possess one unique attribute with the Word of God and not the rest?

In effect, it is presented as immutable (in the sense that all truth is immutable) since it is spoken of as delivered “once and for all” to the saints (Jude 3). Likewise, 2 + 2 = 4 stands forever, does it not? Or a = a, or the theory of gravity (as long as this present universe exists)? Every created soul, for that matter, “stands forever,” as they will never cease being. The preached gospel stood forever as truth before it was ever encapsulated in Scriptural form. As I have shown, “tradition,” “word of God,” and “gospel” are synonymous in Paul’s mind.

It is foolish and unbiblical to even try to separate them. Yes, we have the magnificent, extraordinary Bible and it is written down, and uniquely inspired, and has been maintained in its textual purity (so we know from evidences like the Dead Sea Scrolls), yet its interpretation in a doctrinal sense is obviously an ongoing process, as indicated by verses such as John 16:13a: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth . . .”

And Jesus has promised that His Church will always prevail, and will not defect from the truth (Matthew 16:18), and Paul has stated that it is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” (I Timothy 3:15). That ought to be sufficient to establish our contentions, but since Protestants can’t even agree as to what the Church is, let alone which variant amongst themselves (if any) can lay claim to being the Church, they must — of necessity — downplay the notion of the (visible) Church, because it only condemns their own lack of unity and true ecclesiastical authority.

Therefore, they adopt Scripture Alone (for what other choice do they have, given their internal chaos?), and the unbiblical notion of a merely invisible church of the elect and regenerate. That might be fine and dandy if these were scriptural concepts to begin with, but since they are not, then Protestants — ironically — have adopted unbiblical man-made traditions as their guiding principles. The pathetically weak and groundless nature of their “proof texts” for sola Scriptura bears this out more than a thousand essays like this ever could.

While God undoubtedly used oral tradition to initially disseminate truth, the nature of human frailty demanded that such truth inevitably be captured in a written, inspired form.

We did need the written form, but we also need the authoritative interpreter, just as all written documents require. The self-evident “clearness” of Scripture is a myth. Nothing illustrates this better than the 24,000 + Protestant sects. That same “frailty” Pastor Bayack refers to is what necessitates a real, binding teaching authority. Yet Protestants still insist on proving this claim that the self-evidently “clear” Scripture can serve as this supposedly sufficient “authority.” I have engaged in many debates on this (important and crucial) sub-topic as well.

Errant men cannot be trusted to indefinitely pass on inerrant truth via word-of-mouth.

It was not strictly word-of-mouth because inspired, revelational Holy Scripture was there from the onset of Christianity (though its exact parameters were disputed for 350 years) as the Guide. All things worked together. The Fathers appealed to Scripture (just as all Protestants do) but also (and finally) to the apostolic Tradition (as Catholics do), since all the heretics appealed to Scripture too. The deciding factor was the history of Christian doctrine, since history and Tradition had always been a central element of both Judaism and Christianity (this was nothing new).

But on the other hand, “errant” and sinful men certainly could pass on inerrant truth, if indeed that was God’s intention (He being all-powerful and Sovereign over His creation), just as sinful and errant men managed to write an inspired, inerrant Bible, as God’s “agents,” as it were. Protestants just don’t have enough faith that God can preserve anything beyond His Bible. When it comes to a collective and ongoing body of men (the Church), the average Protestant balks and in effect accepts the absurd notion that God couldn’t preserve and protect that, simply because sinful men are involved. Yet they accept that very premise (sinful men being involved) concerning the Bible. So the self-contradictions multiply . . .

Respected Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer states this very well:

May not the inerrant truth of God be handed down from mouth to mouth through successive generations? Yes, indeed, it may be, and undoubtedly portions of the Bible were preserved in this way for a good many years before finding their authoritative, written form. But oral tradition is necessarily fluid in character and in constant danger of corruption because of the subjective factor—the uncertain memory of the custodian of that tradition. . . . While it was of course true that the words which Moses, the prophets, Jesus of Nazareth, and the apostles spoke were divinely authoritative from the moment they were uttered, yet there was no other way of accurately preserving them except by inscripturation (i.e., recording them in writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit). (Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction [Chicago: Moody Press, second edition, 1974], 21-22, parentheses in original)

God knew the obvious need to preserve His truth in a clear, objective, and unchanging manner and thus He gave us His written Word.

But that is not at issue here; we agree with that. We simply deny that Scripture is exclusive of Church and Tradition, because it itself denies this, as shown above! The Bible needs to be interpreted. So the Catholic accepts in faith Catholic dogmatic pronouncements from popes and Councils. Now how is that essentially different from the role of Creeds and Confessions in Protestantism? The Calvinist, e.g., accepts the Westminster Confession as an extremely authoritative document, which possesses a practical infallibility, if not in a strict sense. Calvinists still refer to it (along with Calvin’s Institutes) in a magisterial. almost reverential fashion, and I don’t see them disputing it’s authority. Likewise with the Lutherans and the Augsburg Confession and Book of Concord, etc.

Now, how is this intrinsically different in principle (or at least in practical outcome, at the very least, which is more what I am referring to) from the Catholic’s adherence to Trent and Vatican I and II? All Christians have their authoritative traditions and a lens through which they view Scripture. It is foolish to deny this. We are up-front about our first principles. Many Protestants, however, seem to want to play epistemological and hermeneutical games, as if no one else can see the evident logical fallacies and lack of biblical support involved in their so doing.

As for oral tradition, and tradition generally, I must refer the reader to more of my papers. Each sub-topic here is a complete discussion in and of itself, and one can’t deal with all subjects in any one essay. Hence the beauty and utility of websites and links. Catholic answers (whatever one may think of them) are there to be had, only the click of a mouse away.

However, this simple truth prompts another question altogether—if Roman Catholic Tradition is an infallible safeguard of God’s revelation, then why the need for the New Testament at all?

This is absolutely classic in what it reveals about Pastor Bayack’s prior assumptions, since it presupposes in the first place a Protestant fallacious premise: viz., that Tradition and the Bible are inherently opposed to each other, so that if one exists, the other is unnecessary and disposable (one of many many Protestant false and unbiblical dichotomies). In other words, the Protestant axiomatically assumes the (false) premise that the Bible precludes Tradition. Therefore, they reason that in the opposite scenario of Tradition being present and authoritative, the Bible therefore necessarily becomes unnecessary.

But that is no more true or biblical than its logical opposite. We crush this false dilemma by asserting that the Bible itself presupposes both Tradition and the written revelation (as well as the Church) as normative at all times, and not in any way, shape, or form opposed to each other at all. I believe that I have shown this above, in more than sufficient detail – allowing Holy Scripture to speak for itself. And it does so, in this instance, very loudly!

It is now the burden of Pastor Bayack to stop his proverbial and fallacious, timeworn, garden-variety Protestant rhetoric and deal with the very Scripture he places in an exclusive position. Let him show how we have misinterpreted the Scripture’s teachings above. Let him render an alternative interpretation to every instance of the Bible mentioning “tradition.” It’s all biblical material, after all, and that is supposedly the “Protestant’s territory.” So I assume there is some answer (however insubstantial and insufficient in our eyes).

My Protestant dialogical opponents have never stuck around long enough to give me their counter-replies to my arguments in this regard (and many others) — so often they seem to have more important things to do –; therefore, I have no choice but to retain my present views, as any honest inquirer after truth is bound to do. I can hardly adopt an alternate view if my opponents fail to offer me any answer to my proof texts, let alone an ostensibly superior interpretation, can I? Steve Ray (or any Catholic) can do no differently, as a matter of principle and intellectual honesty or duty. So we both anxiously await Pastor Bayack’s rebuttal of this argument.

Oral tradition existed before the New Testament and if the Catholic Church is the repository of God’s truth as she boasts per 1 Timothy 3:15, then her Tradition should be sufficient to protect and communicate all future divine revelation.

I’m not sure what this means, but at any rate, we believe that public revelation ceased with the apostolic age and the completion of the Bible. We claim that the Catholic Church is the Guardian and Custodian of the apostolic tradition, or apostle’s teaching (Acts 2:42), passed down ever since, through apostolic succession. The Church has no power to change this Tradition, only to teach it and to “oversee” its development (not evolution).

Why not “Sola Traditio”?

Because that is not a biblical doctrine (any more than sola Scriptura is), and we desire to follow the biblical teaching, and its apostolic interpretation, as passed down faithfully for now 1900 years; preserved most fully in the Catholic Church (and incompletely to various degrees elsewhere).

The New Testament, therefore, would be redundant.

Only for one accepting Pastor Bayack’s false premises, as just shown above. They are not our premises, so this is a non sequitur. His argument and attempt to trap us in the horns of a logical dilemma doesn’t succeed because (as far as I can see; with all due respect) he comprehends neither our view nor its thoroughly biblical basis in the first place. The first prerequisite in order to refute an opposing view is to understand it. Don Quixote is considered a tragi-comic figure in literature, since he engaged in similarly futile and foolish endeavors. But it was oral tradition that became redundant for the reasons Archer states above. Just as Jewish tradition could not sustain God’s initial revelation, neither could that of the early church sustain God’s later revelation.

Apart from the biblical arguments I have already presented, I must refer the readers to the papers and links above, concerning oral tradition, particularly in this regard one which deals with the Jewish perspective on authority: Sola Scriptura, the Old Testament, and Ancient Jewish Practice [1999]. St. Paul did not indicate anywhere that either oral or written tradition were to cease, and – again – it was a simple-enough matter to underline if he had wished to emphasize such a teaching, supposedly so central and crucial for every Christian to understand, so as to avoid the “pitfalls” or Rome and “Romanism,” etc.

The problems with Tradition do not end here. If Tradition is presumably of equal authority with Scripture, then whose do we accept? The Eastern Orthodox can supposedly make the argument for apostolic succession with the same credibility as Roman Catholicism, however, each does not fully agree with the other’s Tradition. Which is correct? Why must Catholic Tradition supplant that of the Orthodox? How can both make an equally “legitimate” claim to be authoritative and yet be contradictory?

This is a fair enough question. Briefly, we accept the sacraments and ordination of Orthodoxy because it followed the same line of apostolic succession as the Western Church for the first 1000 years, then separated ecclesiologically (yet retained far more of the previous doctrines than the Protestants did when they split off). Therefore it can trace itself back to the common early Church heritage, just as feuding cousins can trace themselves back to the same grandparents, or great-grandparents, as the case may be (i.e., common ancestry). Catholics have immense respect for our Orthodox brethren. Many of them reciprocate; some (so-called “traditionalists” and more exclusivistic jurisdictions) do not.

The difference is papal authority and the history in Rome of spotless orthodoxy through the centuries, over against all the heresies, which was not the case in the East, even before the split. Readers can peruse our arguments for the papacy if they so choose. But validity of apostolic succession through validly ordained priests and the presence of valid sacraments is a different question from who possesses the fullness of the apostolic deposit. Each side claims that they do, of course. I have plenty of dialogues with Orthodox and Catholic arguments on my Eastern Orthodoxy web page.

This is a brief support for Sola Scriptura and far more can be said in its defense and has been by those more capable than me.

Granted, it was a brief treatment, but in the course of my own apologetic endeavors I have dealt with all the biblical arguments that have been thrown my way – not ignoring a single one -, in many debates (see the links above), and I can testify that I have yet to see a single compelling biblical argument for sola Scriptura. Most were immediately and easily answerable, as they involved a simple logical fallacy or were part of a circular argument which was really no argument at all.

Perhaps that is my Catholic bias (I sincerely acknowledge that possibility because I think all people have biases and presuppositions: both “good” and “bad” ones), but it is my heartfelt and firm opinion nonetheless. So I am not overly impressed by this so-called “abundance” of biblical support for this position. And — as stated previously — there are many biblical arguments against sola Scriptura which (in my humble opinion) are far more compelling than the “proofs” set forth in favor of this strange, peculiarly Protestant and a-historical idea.

V. Recurring Ad Hominem Attacks and Charges of Special Pleading

Yet no amount of truth will persuade Stephen Ray. An infallible Church cannot repent and he will dutifully follow even if it means marching behind the Pied Piper. For example, when I stated that he never addressed the problem of Catholic Tradition contradicting Scripture he patently replied, “The Catholic Church does not contradict the Bible so there was nothing I needed to address” (7).

Here we go again with this subtle ad hominem implication that Steve Ray is special pleading and ignoring contrary evidence: sticking his head in the sand, whereas (again, by implication), Pastor Bayack is not (I still look in vain for any hint that Pastor Bayack is persuaded by any of Steve’s arguments). I was discussing with my wife as I took a break from writing this response how humorous it is for a Protestant to be lecturing a convert to Catholicism like Steve Ray or myself that we are so unwilling to change our minds! We are converts, for heaven’s sake! By definition, that means that we changed our mind in the most profound ways, dealing with many of the most heartfelt beliefs a person can have. And it was not easy, I assure everyone, and I’m sure Steve would agree.

So the very charge of some sort of profound closed-mindedness and reactionary resistance to change in our cases (wholly apart from the subject matter involved) is absolutely ludicrous. And I have gone on record many times saying I am fully willing to convert again, to Orthodoxy, or back to Protestantism, if the facts of history and the biblical evidences warrant it (I think both intellectual honesty and open-mindedness demand this). Yet I have been convinced over and over of the strength of our case in so many ways, as I attempt to defend it against all comers. This is the blessing of being an apologist — provided one is defending the true belief. The mountainous rock of truth can easily withstand all the pebbles of untruth flung against it.

It is fundamentally silly to make this charge, as if it couldn’t be asserted with equal vigor against the one making it (though I wouldn’t do so), since we all naturally believe strongly in our own Christian views, and think them to be the most biblical. This is par for the course. Why then, must Pastor Bayack single Steve Ray out, as a Catholic, and imply that he is special pleading (insinuating, I think, an intellectual dishonesty and disregard for the Bible)?

Again, I speculate (not assert) that it arises out of his prior anti-Catholicism, whereby it is so revolting and offensive to him spiritually and intellectually for a former committed Protestant to actually espouse Catholicism as the more biblical view, that he must somehow explain it in terms of psychology, experience, and some ulterior motive (“smells and bells,” a love of Gothic architecture, a mindless predisposition to submit oneself to arbitrary ecclesial authority in order to attain an ersatz, illusory “certainty,” etc.) which causes such a one to embrace such a “ludicrous” concept (anything but Scripture and reason, which were Steve’s real criteria).

Otherwise, the double standard and hypocrisy of the charge is so obvious that I don’t know how anyone could make it, but for their blinders and the “certainty” that they assume about their own position, thus making their charges ridiculous, as they espouse the same idea (a certainty of belief and unwillingness to change one’s mind) that they supposedly see and despise in their opponent.

Mr. Ray must state this even if it requires turning the Bible inside out.

Sigh. Is there no end to this silliness, obviously borne of anti-Catholic intolerance of non-Catholic views? At least Pastor Bayack makes his case against Mary’s perpetual virginity in some detail below, unlike his abridged, failed, and admittedly “brief” treatment of sola Scriptura. But we shall see that it, too, is profoundly flawed, even out of step with the very “Reformers” from whom all Protestants historically derive (whether they acknowledge this or not).

GO TO PART II***

(originally posted on 22 August 2000)

Photo credit: official portrait of Catholic apologist, author, and tour guide Stephen K. Ray, from his website [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

***

Trump: Like King Ahab? Can We Vote for Him? (vs. Dr Edwin Tait)

Last updated on: July 21, 2020 at 4:27 pm By Dave Armstrong

This is constructed from Facebook discussions of 3 January 2017: still every bit as relevant and “controversial” or as “hot” of a topic now three years later. Church historian Dr. Edwin Tait‘s words will be in blue. A few current comments of mine (7-21-20) will be bracketed.

***

I think that if American [politically] conservative Christianity is not under God’s wrath, then there is no meaningful way to say that any group of people has ever been under God’s wrath.

This was stated in a recent post on my page. Edwin also contends that a vote for Trump is the equivalent of voting for King Ahab (ancient Israel’s most wicked king, who engaged in child sacrifice). Meanwhile, Obama and Hillary — much more Ahab-like — literally believe in child sacrifice, yet Edwin won’t apply such thunderously prophetic rhetoric and laughable analogies to Ahab and Jezebel to them.

God somehow managed to make an eternal covenant with a guy that He knew from all eternity was gonna have a soldier’s wife killed, so that he could have her. That was King David, for all of you not much acquainted with Bible and salvation history.

Imagine if Trump had had a guy killed, but later repented of it! Would he ever be the GOP nominee and President-elect? No. Yet God made precisely such a choice when He decided on a person to make an eternal covenant with, and one to be a direct prototype of the Messiah, Jesus. One of many arguments about sinful politicians . . .

Also, God allowed Israel to make Saul their king, knowing (since He knows everything and is outside of time) that he would become corrupt and fall away from the faith. He allowed Solomon to be king and build His temple, knowing that he, too, would fall away (to some extent) into religious and idolatrous error.

Why does God keep doing that? Yet we are not allowed to [enthusiastically] vote for Donald Trump, under pain of being called “blind” and collaborators with “evil” by Edwin? Why does St. Peter command us to “honor the Emperor”? This was the pagan Roman Emperor, who was having Christians killed. Yet we can’t be enthusiastic for Trump (aka Ahab) without supposedly materially cooperating with evil and being under God’s wrath? Thoroughly inconsistent, incoherent, not to mention hyper-judgmental. Just stupid, mindless stuff, from a guy with a doctorate . . .

God allowed Obama to become President. For that matter, God allowed Hitler and Stalin to have power. That argument will not get you very far. As a result of David’s actions, the sword never departed from his house. He was under God’s wrath–God’s wrath, . . .

[Apples and oranges. My argument hinged on the fact that God specifically chose King David to make an eternal covenant with. It was His perfect will; not merely His permissive will (as with Hitler and Stalin). It was a form of the reductio ad absurdum argument: “God could choose David: an adulterer and murder, to be a key figure in His salvation plan and forerunner of the Messiah, Jesus, yet we are to believe that Catholics can’t vote for Donald Trump?” In other words, if God Himself can do the first [greater] thing, we can certainly do the [lesser] second thing.]

Yes He did. He also allowed Satan to rebel. It doesn’t follow that any of that was His perfect will (this is why your argument falls flat). But choosing David as king (a man “after His own heart”) and the one with whom He made en eternal covenant was His perfect will, and He knew that this was a man who would commit first-degree murder as well as adultery.

Now why don’t you actually respond to my argument, rather than a twisted caricature of it? We’ve given you a platform to rant and rave. You know that probably 90% or more of my readers disagree with you. But you are allowed to give your message here. Defending what you say under direct cross-examination is quite another thing. God made an eternal covenant with David, He chose him: a guy who had a man’s wife murdered because he was lusting after her. Yet you would have it that we can’t vote for Trump and that a vote for Hillary in a swing state is morally superior, and indeed permissible. I have not made sweeping observations about when God’s wrath applies. I was specifically addressing Romans 1.

You can’t win with the David analogy, and you are digging yourself in deeper. If indeed he was under God’s wrath, as you say, it remains true that God chose him to be anointed king (through the prophet Samuel), and chose him to make a eternal covenant with, knowing that he would later be under His wrath (granting that he was).

Thus, being under God’s wrath was quite consistent with his being king by God’s choice. Why, then, cannot Trump be President? If God could “vote” for a 1st-degree murderer, we can vote for Trump, just as we could vote for Reagan, who had 50 lovers in Hollywood and was responsible for 200,000 legal abortions in California.

I just searched “David + wrath” in my online Bible and it produced nothing. I’m not sure a case can be made that David was under God’s wrath. We know that he experienced temporal punishment for his sins. We apologists use that as an example of penance and punishment for sin.

Lots of “wrath” in the Old Testament, but I never see it applied to David himself. Perhaps I missed it . . . You are engaging in pathetic exegesis as well as absurd political analysis. The Bible does, however, say that God’s wrath was upon King Hezekiah, but he and Judah repented and God withdrew it:

2 Chronicles 32:25-26 (RSV) But Hezeki’ah did not make return according to the benefit done to him, for his heart was proud. Therefore wrath came upon him and Judah and Jerusalem. [26] But Hezeki’ah humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the LORD did not come upon them in the days of Hezeki’ah.

You began by invoking divine foreknowledge. Apparently you think that if God says that someone is after God’s heart when he has not yet committed a horrible crime, therefore he must be somehow saying in advance that David’s crime is irrelevant. The Biblical account of how God responds to David’s crime, and the narrative of the rest of David’s reign, clearly indicates that David’s crime had extremely serious consequences for himself and his kingdom, — even though he repented.

To suggest that one should therefore elect a leader who commits evil deeds which are likely to have such disastrous effects (and who has given no signs of repentance) is a pretty bizarre deduction from the Biblical narrative.

Never mind that this is the OT, when moral standards were much lower, and that my objections to Trump are much broader than his sexual immorality and abusive treatment of women (though I do regard the latter as an extremely important point against him). And please, let’s not go down the Bill Clinton rabbit trail. This is not about defending either of the Clintons. Conservative Christians condemned Clinton and supported the effort to impeach him.

You are right that 2 Samuel 11 says that David’s sin “was evil in God’s eyes” and doesn’t actually use one of the words normally translated “wrath.” You’re right that I was using “wrath” loosely for “judgment.”

As for Romans 1: you brought it up. I never cited Romans 1 as my source. It’s telling that you would go there immediately, instead of, say, Romans 2 :-).

Your first two paragraphs are completely out to sea and irrelevant. I don’t believe you are incapable of grasping an analogy. Try harder. You can do it. Would anyone get a nomination in either party with a conviction for premeditated murder and subsequent repentance?

The analogy of course, is along the lines of “if the greater evil is permissible (by God Himself, by choice; i.e., knowing it would happen!), then clearly, so is a far lesser evil.” God can choose premeditated murderer David to be king and to participate in an eternal covenant; we can vote for Trump for President (no eternal covenant in question), warts and all.

Next question?

No, God did not choose David when he was a premeditated murderer. You are drawing an illegitimate conclusion from an extremely mysterious subject (the interaction between God’s eternal knowledge and our time-bound choices).

And again, the whole thing is irrelevant because we are not living in the Old Testament. We have 2000 years of Christianity behind us. Conservative Christians have been fulminating for decades about the immorality of the age and the need for wholesome values, etc. And then they find this guy as their champion, someone whose treatment of women is rightly deeply offensive to feminists and whose acceptance by conservative Christians has confirmed liberals in the belief that conservatives are nothing but hypocrites who despise women. It’s a completely different context from an ancient monarch who behaved badly in the ways that ancient monarchs often behaved, but (remarkably, for someone of his time and place) repented humbly when challenged.

You have also dodged the point that divine judgment fell on David’s house because of his actions.

God, being outside of time and all-knowing, chose David to be king and to make an eternal covenant with, knowing what He would do. If you deny these attributes of God, you are a theological as well as political liberal. They are de fide dogmas in Catholicism.

I haven’t dodged that at all. I noted that this is used by apologists as OT evidence for temporal punishment / penance. I used it in my first book. But that’s not “God’s wrath”: as you have now conceded.

You are claiming that God’s wrath is upon the conservative movement in America as a whole, and you have not remotely made a case for that. Since you want to talk in biblical terms in that fashion, your task is to make a biblical case, and you have not, and I say, cannot do so. The whole thing is a farce.

As far as I know there is no dogma saying that God relates to people based on his timeless knowledge. Clearly in some ways and in some senses he may, but if you applied that position logically you would in fact be a Calvinist, not a Catholic. This is why Calvinists, for instance, deny that the reprobate are ever truly regenerate. By your logic they are right. Similarly, it would be nonsense to say that a person who is going to be saved was ever under the wrath of God. This is really a digression, but your position is simply untenable here. You’re resorting to sophistry in order to distract from the real issue of Trump’s utter unfitness for office. You pick on one point–his moral failings–and make a bogus analogy with the Old Testament, supported by highly questionable deductions from an attribute of God that none of us can begin to understand properly.

God is omniscient, meaning that He knows all things, including the future; including even future possibilities. Scientia media (middle knowledge) and providence both presuppose this knowledge. God chose David knowing what he would do. It was not even future to Him. It was “now.”

This is indeed de fide dogma, as I have documented:

I cite Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (edited in English by James Canon Bastible; translated by Patrick Lynch, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974, from the fourth edition of May 1960; first published in German in 1952) [I’m good friends with the person who is currently updating this work]:

God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)

The 4th Lateran Council and the Vatican Council teach that God is immutable (incommutabilis) D 428, 1782. Holy Scripture excludes all change from God and positively ascribes to Him absolute immutability . . .

The Fathers exclude all change from God . . .

St. Thomas bases the absolute immutability of God on His pure actuality, on His absolute simplicity and on His infinite perfection . . . (pp. 35-36)

God’s Knowledge Is Infinite. (De fide.)

[ . . . ]

2. God’s Knowledge Is Purely and Simply Actual

As God is pure (actus purus), there is in His knowing no transitions from potency to act, no habitus, no succession, and no progress from the known to the unknown. God’s knowing is neither potential nor habitual, neither successive nor discursive. God knows all in one single indivisible act (simplici intuitu). Cf. S. th. I 14, 7. (p. 39)

God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)

. . . The difference between past, present and future does not exist for the Divine Knowledge, since for God all is present. (p. 41)

Now I shall cite Henry Denzinger: The Sources of Catholic Dogma (I have the 13th edition of 1954; translated by Roy J. Deferrari; Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire: Loreto Publications):

LATERAN COUNCIL IV 1215

Ecumenical XII (against the Albigensians, Joachim, Waldensians etc.

The Trinity, Sacraments, Canonical Mission, etc.*

Chap. 1. The Catholic Faith

(Definition directed against the Albigensians and other heretics]

428 Firmly we believe and we confess simply that the true God is one alone, eternal, immense, and unchangeable, incomprehensible, omnipotent and ineffable, Father and Son and Holy Spirit: indeed three Persons but one essence, substance, or nature entirely simple. The Father from no one, the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from both; without beginning, always, and without end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the Holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal and omnipotent and coeternal; one beginning of all, creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body. For the devil and other demons were created by God good in nature, but they themselves through themselves have become wicked. But man sinned at the suggestion of the devil. This Holy Trinity according to common essence undivided, and according to personal properties distinct, granted the doctrine of salvation to the human race, first through Moses and the holy prophets and his other servants according to the most methodical disposition of the time.

THE VATICAN COUNCIL 1869-1870

Ecumenical XX (on Faith and the Church)

SESSION III (April 24, 1870)

Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith *

[ . . . ]

Chap. 1. God, Creator of All Things

1782 [The one, living, and true God and His distinction from all things.] * The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself [can. 1-4].

See my related papers:

Thoughts on God’s Omniscience, Immutability, & Timelessness [11-3-03]

Is God in Time? (vs. John W. Loftus) [11-30-06]

God is Immutable and Outside of Time (De Fide Dogma) [1-17-09]

God’s Immutability, Omniscience, and Timelessness (Atemporality): Can God “Change His Mind”? [1-17-09]

Church Fathers: God is Immutable, Simple, & Outside of Time [1-18-09]

Can God Change His Mind?: Four Dogmatic Arguments [1-26-09]

Doctrine of Divine Simplicity [9-29-12]

Omnipotent & Omniscient God & “Absolute Proof” of Same [5-22-18]

Note that it was Edwin who wanted to bring the Bible and biblical thinking into this discussion, with his talk of “being under God’s wrath” and Ahab and the like. Very well, then, the Bible is my turf. I’ve been intensely studying it for 40 years. I’m the apologist and “biblical evidence” guy (Edwin is the historian). If Edwin wants to have that discussion, I’m all for it. Bring it on. I’ve already shown, I think, how he has distorted several things in the Bible.

Another dilemma of Edwin’s is his continuing to believe that I am a “good” man, yet as an enthusiastic Trump supporter I (and many millions out there like me) supposedly am “blind” and “under the wrath of God” and in favor of an Ahab-like man. The problem is that those in that state in the Bible are wicked folks, not good people. So, for example, the Bible says this of the nonbeliever:

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

And it says:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.

A “good” man cannot be characterized as being “wicked”. These are biblical opposites. See many examples in Proverbs . . . And:

Ephesians 5:6 . . . it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Edwin can’t have it both ways. If he wants to say we are blind (which is a culpable sin in the Bible and not morally “neutral”: e.g., the Pharisees who opposed Jesus) and under God’s wrath then he can’t (biblically) continue to say we are “good” and that we are not wicked.

I think he does this because he is, personally, a nice guy, but one who gets totally carried away into anti-Trump hysteria, like, alas, many otherwise cogent, sharp, thoughtful folks do. Anything goes, in that clown arena . . . So “nice” Edwin says we are good, well-intentioned people, while Hysterical Anti-Trump Zealot and Pseudo-Prophet Edwin uses much harsher language. The two strains are logically inconsistent (in fact, literally opposites) and his overall thought here cannot be harmonized with the Bible.

And this, by the way, is a good demonstration of why I often wind up bowing out of discussions with you. I would not have time to do anything else if I didn’t. At some point I’m going to have to get on with my life and let you claim victory.

I’ll make it easier still for you to avoid me, if you think our dialogues are so tedious and I am such an unworthy opponent. Note that I didn’t say that about you. I said I liked our dialogues, but that you often cut them short just as we were getting somewhere. I wish that they would continue on and actually accomplish something. But as far as they went they were great. But now you trot out the anti-Catholic line about me: that I am absurdly prolix and ultimately a waste of your time. Good to know your true feelings after all these years.

I’m gonna ban you now, because you have violated my rules for ethical, civil discussion many times over. If I didn’t, I’d have to apologize to a hundred people who violated my rules here far less than you have. I was very reluctant to do so because of our friendship, and gave you every chance.

In addition to your facile insults about God’s wrath and blindness, etc., and the stupid Ahab analogy, now you are calling de fide Catholic dogma (that I brought up) “sophistry” and the equivalent of Calvinist heresy. If you maintain those views about God and time and omniscience, you’ll come into the Church as literally a heretic regarding theology proper. Whoopee: another cafeteria Catholic. Just what we need . . .

I continue to appreciate our past dialogues, and they will remain up. But you’re done here. Should you see fit in due course to retract these outrages, you’ll be happily welcomed back.

A blessed new year to you and yours.

Someone asked (and later deleted):

What exactly is the continued point of calling out Edwin Woodruff Tait and subsequently changing your status to reflect this post? You mentioned that 90% of your followers will disagree with him and then you lambast him when he makes an emotional comment about politics while responding to the 90% of your followers who take shots at him and his academic achievements? I’m a former student of Edwin’s and I myself am a Trump opponent (not to be confused with Clinton supporter) and I think Edwin is pushing everyone’s button because the faithful Christian voters who have commented here would have vomited down their shirt 20 years ago if they were told they would defend Donald Trump with Bible verses in 2016.

The point is to have a conversation with Edwin, as I have done for 15 years (many posted dialogues, which I quite enjoyed). He wants to bring this stuff up and judge folks. I’m giving him a platform, and also challenging him to back up his contentions under scrutiny. It’s intellectual / political debate. He has done that to some extent, but there is a lot more challenge he needs to address. I can defend and have defended myself times without number on this score. Edwin needs to defend his ludicrous and hyper-exaggerated charges as well.

Paul Hoffer Labels such as those used by Dr. Tait have been frequently invoked by the Sheas of the Catholic scene during the last election with very little offered by way of substance to support the epithets. Personally I would be interested to hear Dr. Tait’s reasoning as to why President-elect Trump and politically conservative Christians are analogous to King Ahab and are under God’s wrath.

If one is going to make such comparisons, it might be a good idea to provide one’s reasoning for such claims as name-calling fails to qualify as proper argument, but uncharitable editorializing. Insulting one’s brother is rarely persuasive or enlightening. After all, we are all called upon to give the reasons for our hope (1 Peter 3:15) While the preemptive rebuttal Dave Armstrong offers certainly seems compelling as to why politically conservative Christian folk are not Ahabs, Dr. Tait might have something akin to reasoning that we can reflect on and interact with. Blessings!

The Ahab reference specifically had the story of Naboth in mind. I was thinking of Trump’s persistent history of predatory, dishonest, abusive business dealings.

What does Trump’s business practices, legal, questionable or otherwise, have to do with political conservatism? One could equally point to the questionable business dealings of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, etc…, that are just as questionable if not downright criminal. Conservatism does not predispose criminality any more than true liberalism does.

That said, I do not see the analogy between Ahab and Trump. Ahab did not kill Naboth, Jezebel did. Ahab did not engage in predatory or abusive negotiations with Naboth. He offered fair terms for Naboth’s land. Naboth could not sell because of inheritance laws. And most importantly, Ahab repented of Jezebel’s actions. So are you suggesting that Trump needs to repent for something Melania did? Or are you trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole here?

I am continually frustrated by the fact that both political and theological discussions (but esp. the former) almost always seem to be over before they begin. Edwin has made his charges (with little support). I’ve laid out an extensive biblical critique of it.

It could actually have been an interesting and possibly constructive discussion, building on our two existing arguments / positions: laid out. But it seems that it is already over before it has begun . . . Major frustration and pet peeve in my line of work . . .

Edwin has had a tendency through the years to bow out just as I thought the discussion was getting really good. Dialogue or debate is not everyone’s cup of tea. I recognize that and respect it. But if someone doesn’t care for it, don’t barge in with some provocative remark. At least not around me . . .

Edwin is now banned, having violated my discussion rules again and again, then proceeding (in the last hour) to virtually mock Catholic de fide dogma (God’s timelessness and omniscience and being out of time, so that David’s actions were “present” to Him and fully known).

Lousy interpersonal ethics and serious heresy about the doctrine of God: two very good reasons to be banned here, but mostly the first one, which I apply most strictly (since I allow atheists after all). One must be civil and charitable here, or they won’t be here long.

That’s the one thing all human beings seeking to talk to others can agree upon. I don’t have it permanently linked here, but on my blog, I have a link to my discussion policy.

This was not a pleasant thing for me to have to do; most distressing, since Edwin has been a friend and valued dialogue partner for 15 years or more. But there comes a time when I have to apply my rules, no matter who it is that is violating them. I bent as far as I could. Once Edwin went after Catholic de fide dogma and upped the purely personal insults, that was it.

He had already said enough with his bigoted and utterly ludicrous remarks about conservatives to be banned on that basis alone. But like I said, friendship caused me to become more lenient than usual. Sad . . .

[note: I was referring to Edwin being banned from my Facebook page. Now that this is posted on my blog, Edwin is free as a bird to read it (it being a totally public post), and to respond if he chooses to do so. If I miss any such response, I ask that he please let me know via email: apologistdave [at] gmail [dot] com. I will surely counter-reply if he does. I note all this to counter the ubiquitous charge of “censorship!” and supposed abrogation of “free speech.” That doesn’t apply here, since he can read this and is free to respond. And I will respond back: which cuts through the horse manure charge of my supposedly being “scared” and so I ban. Nope. I ban when my discussion rules are violated. PERIOD.]

***

(originally 1-3-17 on Facebook. Re-edited with additions on 7-21-20]

Photo credit: Jezebel and Ahab Meeting Elijah in Naboth’s Vineyard. Print by Sir Frank Dicksee (1853-1928) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Mike Frost Trashes Me Regarding St. Athanasius

Last updated on: June 6, 2020 at 12:56 pm By Dave Armstrong

Mike Frost is Antiochian Orthodox and has earned an MBA degree. I first learned of him when my Facebook friend Roger Gaw Ang posted my article for National Catholic Register, 14 Proofs That St. Athanasius Was 100% Catholic (6-4-20) in a Facebook group called “Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic Debate” (7,560 members). Mike’s words will be in blue.

***

And such a simplistic silly piece by a mediocre hack RC apologist. Take just “councils”. He doesn’t appear to even be aware of the big Semi-Arian councils of the late 350s and early 360s. Nicea was only an “ecumenical council” as it was later received. By future councils. But its core holding was still being argued over in councils. And its creed would be replaced in toto by that of Constantinople in 381 AD, after his death.

Why would I waste my time with such polemical mediocrity, Roger Gaw Ang? All you get from him and his ilk are the same old ideological slants. Terrible exegetics. Bad history. I doubt he even realizes that the first “pope” by title is Heraclas of Alexandria in 248 AD. Which is why Athanasius is Pope & Patriarch of Alexandria. He knew of no supreme or infallible bishop of Rome. ;)

His little piece isn’t serious systematic theology or serious history, so STOP pretending that he is some heavyweight, Roger Gaw Ang. He is a RC who advances his RC polemic and ideology. YAWN. Show us some first-rate historical and theological scholarship!

This is childish rhetoric: juvenile potshots that don’t interact with the material; they merely insult.

The article was simply a 1000-word summary piece that didn’t even contain my own words, except for the section titles and one sentence as a footnote. One can’t do everything in every paper. I write on many different levels and styles, depending on the audience and my intentions. I write many short pieces like this one, and also very long, in-depth articles and dialogues and debates.

There is not enough space for exhaustive research in 1000 words (which is 3 1/2 pages). Mr. Frost certainly he knows that. It would be like expecting the listing of the Ten Commandments to be in-depth moral theology. Apples and oranges . . .

If he is serious about debate, he would have to be willing to take on my material point-by-point, which is what serious debate is. My blog (online for 23 years now) has almost 3000 articles, and I now have 50 published books (21 of them by “official” publishers). He is free to challenge any of them.

But again it has to be point-by-point. I don’t play “Bible hopscotch” or the “101 topics at once” games. I engage in serious debate and dialogue. I deal point-by-point with opposing views and I expect the same courtesy in return.

But there has to be at least minimal mutual respect for a true dialogue or debate to take place and accomplish anything. Oftentimes people tone down a bit after the original polemical / insulting flourish.

Mr. Frost challenged me (with insults) in a public venue; now I have returned the favor (minus the personal insults; I only negatively characterized the nature of his polemics sent my way).

Any discussion of Athanasius and Councils must discuss these historical events: Council of Seleucia [359], Council of Ariminum [359], and Council of Constantinople [360].

Mr. Frost then linked articles concerning the views of St. Gregory Nazianzus and St. Cyril of Jerusalem on the canon of the Bible: which have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Then he posted one (thanks!) about St. Athanasius and the canon., and described my reflections on the same topic as “intellectual dishonesty.”

Mr. Frost then found my Literary Resume and attacked my credentials:

Please see his UNIMPRESSIVE CV: “Bachelor of Arts, Sociology (cum laude) from Wayne State University, Detroit, 1982″. And this: “(no formal training in theology)”. He is NOT a recognized expert in systematic theology or the history of Christian doctrine. Compare to say a [Jaroslav] Pelikan.

In other words, I have precisely as much formal theological education as the two men who are considered the greatest Protestant and Catholic apologists of the 20th century: C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton (i.e., none whatsoever). Chesterton didn’t attain a college degree of any sort at all. He took a year or two of a smattering of courses, focusing on art classes. Lewis was a professor of literature. Peter Kreeft, arguably the greatest living Catholic apologist, also has no theological education that I’m aware of. He is a philosopher. The same was true of Malcolm Muggeridge (journalist like Chesterton) and Thomas Howard (English professor). There are many other examples: including the first historic Christian apologist, St. Justin Martyr, who had a philosophical background and was converted to Christianity by talking to an old man by the sea.

Mr. Frost has a degree in business. Looks like he has no more theological education than I do. He cites scholars and academics and experts in various fields; so do I. Same difference. I have never claimed to be a scholar (a quick search of “scholar” on my blog will quickly yield many examples of my explicitly denying that I am one). But it’s not required to do lay popular apologetics, which is an altogether different thing from academic work per se. This being the case, and seeing that Mr. Frost is as formally theologically educated as I am (informally, I would, no doubt, be far more educated than he), his attack is merely a subterfuge and variation of the genetic fallacy.

***

Here is the portion of my NCR article about St. Athanasius and the deuterocanon:

7. Deuterocanon (So-Called “Apocrypha”) Athanasius cites both Baruch and Susanna along with Isaiah, Psalms, and other books, making no distinction between them (Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1.12). He describes Wisdom 14:21 as “Scripture” (Against the Heathen, Part 1, sec. 11). He cites Sirach along with several other protocanonical Scriptures (Life of Anthony, 28 and Apology Against the Arians, 66), and does the same with Tobit (Defense of Constantius, 17). He describes Judith as “Scripture” (Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 2.35).

It was a condensed version of part of the much longer article of mine: “St. Athanasius Was a Catholic, Not a Proto-Protestant.” Here’s the similar section from that, which I posted to the discussion group:

Deuterocanon (So-Called “Apocrypha”)

St. Athanasius did seem to lower the status of the deuterocanonical books somewhat, but not to a sub-biblical level, as noted by my good friend Gary Michuta, in his excellent book, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Port Huron, Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007, 110-112; bracketed footnote numbering my own):

Athanasius quotes both Baruch and Susanna right along passages from Isaiah, Psalms, Romans, and Hebrews; he makes no distinction or qualification between them [1]. Wisdom also is used as an authentic portion of sacred Scripture . . .:

But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said, ‘The devising of idols, as the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the corruption of life . . .’ [Ws 14:12] [2]

And later in the same work:

For since they were endeavouring to invest with what Scripture calls the incommunicable name . . . [3]

This reference to the “incommunicable name” comes from Wisdom 14:21 . . .

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

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

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

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

As Athanasius includes Baruch and the ‘Letter of Jeremiah’ in one book with Jeremiah and Lamentations [in his list of the OT canon], so he probably includes the Greek additions to Daniel in the canonical book of that name, and the additions to Esther in the book of that name which he recommends for reading in church [but doesn’t list as a canonical book] . . .

In practice Athanasius appears to have paid little attention to the formal distinction between those books which he listed in the canon and those which were suitable for instruction of new Christians. He was familiar with the text of all, and quoted from them freely, often with the same introductory formula — ‘as it is written’, ‘as the scripture says’, etc. (The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 79-80)

What is the claim that Mr. Frost is making as regards Athanasius and the councils of Ariminum, Seleucia, and Constantinople (360)? Is the claim that St. Athanasius espoused Arianism or Semi-Arianism, or that he placed any of these on the level of Nicaea: as ecumenical councils? If so, kindly document. Thanks! As it is, no one knows the point he is trying to make. Vagueness and obscurantism are the friends of empty polemics and special pleading.

David M. Gwynn, Lecturer in Ancient and Late Antique History at Royal Holloway, University of London, in his book, Athanasius of Alexandria: Bishop, Theologian, Ascetic, Father (Christian Theology in Context), 1st edition: Oxford University Press, U.S.A.; (April 7, 2012), p. 52, writes:
“Athanasius . . . upholds the supremacy of Nicaea against those who defend the Council of Ariminum . . . ”

See also, John R. Tyson, professor of church history and director of United Methodist Studies at Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School, Rochester, New York. He wrote the book, The Great Athanasius: An Introduction to His Life and Work (Cascade Books: April 17, 2017). See p. 163 (link to a Google Books scan).

The Orthodox agree with Catholics about the first seven ecumenical councils, so I don’t know what he is talking about or what point he is trying to make. Time will tell, I guess, as he answers further (assuming he does). I will keep replying and posting his responses here. Eventually it’ll be seen (as always with anti-Catholics) that he isn’t dealing with my arguments (just as he really hasn’t so far), and I’ll tire of it. But I’ll play along long enough to drive home the point that he is simply firing blanks: against me as a person and honest thinker and qualified apologist, and against my arguments.

He is gonna come to regret the day that he chose to insult and challenge me. He picked the wrong person. If he wants to insult and evade more, that’s his choice. Thousands will see it. If he can’t argue his positions, then he will continue to be exposed as a fool and sophist on my blog and in that discussion group. His choice.

Pointing out what he said about his own lack of relevant education on the topic is hardly an “insult.”

Why would I waste my precious weekend arguing with a Sociology major about theology when he has no formal theological education? What’s the point? And IF he thinks anything I’ve said is in error, then he can make the counter argument with his own evidence.

. . . which, of course, I have already done, and he is ignoring it, as predicted. These anti-Catholic clowns always act the same.

And we both know that NOTHING will come from any such silly “debate” since this is NOT an actual “debate” forum [how odd, for a group called, “Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic Debate”]. So who cares?

***

Photo credit: [Pikrepo / public domain]

***

Ward’s Whoppers #13: How Did David Kill Goliath?

Last updated on: May 19, 2020 at 4:48 pm By Dave Armstrong

Ward Ricker is an atheist who (as so often) was formerly a self-described “fundamentalist”. He likes to poke holes in the Bible and “prove” that it is a terrible and “evil” book, not inspired, hopelessly contradictory, etc. He put together a 222-page book called Unholy Bible (2019): available for free as a pdf file. It contains 421 couplets of passages that he considers literally contradictory, and 256 more couplets of not technically contradictory but “problem” passages (according to him). Ward wrote in his book: “I . . . am including here only what I consider to be the more firm examples of contradictions. . . . I do not want to include examples that are ‘weak’ and will be easily refuted. I have made my best judgment.” Ward also wrote to me:

[M]any Bible critics (“atheists” or otherwise) will use some pretty ridiculous arguments . . . I have screened out those bogus claims that some critics make and have published my own book . . . of contradictions that I and others have found in the Bible that are clearly contradictions. (letter to National Catholic Register about one of my articles there; reproduced in my first reply)

He issued a challenge for anyone to take on his alleged contradictions. After my first reply, he wrote a 5 1/2 page article suggesting in-depth dialogue. I responded, explaining in depth why I thought dialogue between us would be unfruitful, for many reasons. He then accused me (among other things in his two replies) of “hypocrisy” that “knows no bounds.” This is, of course, against my discussion rules, which forbids such rank insults, so he was promptly banned from my blog, and I replied: “I was exactly right in my judgment that no dialogue was possible. It never takes long for the fangs to come out if they are there.”

But I had already stated: “I may still take on several of your proposed contradictions, just so I can have opportunity to show how very wrong atheist contentions are (which is one thing Christian apologists do).” This series represents that effort. Mr. Ricker can respond on his page as he sees fit. He can still see my posts. His words will be in blue. To search any of this series on my blog, paste “Ward’s Whoppers #” in the search bar on the top right of my blog page. He uses the King James Version for his Bible verses. I will use RSV in my replies.

*****

106.
1 Samuel 17: 50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

Vs:

1 Samuel 17: 51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

Q: With which weapon did David kill Goliath?

***

This alleged difficulty is satisfactorily resolved, I think, by one of the apologists at the Domain for Truth website: “Bible Contradiction? How did David kill Goliath?” (9-20-16):

[W]orking with the Hebrew language is important because we must ask in what sense are the Hebrew verbs “kill” being used in both verse 50 and verse 51. . . .

In verse 50 the verb וַיְמִיתֵ֑הוּ for “kill” is in the Hiphil form. For those who know Hebrew it is common knowledge that Hiphil forms often convey the causative idea. Thus what the verb in verse 50 is telling us is that David caused Goliath’s death. The means that David used which began Goliath’s death is of course the slingshot.

In verse 51 the verb וַיְמֹ֣תְתֵ֔הוּ for “kill” is in the Polel form. It appears less frequently than the other verbal forms of מוּת. According to Old Testament scholar Robert Chisholm this verbal form has “a specialized shade of meaning, referring to finishing off someone who is already mortally wounded” (Chisholm, Interpreting the Historical Books, 172).

In light of the above understanding of the Hebrew verbal forms, we don’t have a contradiction. Again the Hiphil form of the verb “kill” in verse 50 tells us that David began the cause of Goliath’s death by means of the slingshot. Then in verse 51 the Polel form of the verb “kill” tells us how David finished off an already mortally wounded Goliath, namely with the sword. [my links to article about the two verb forms added]

The article also provides parallel verses. 2 Samuel 1:9-10 is about the death of Saul, who was mortally wounded in battle and then asked a soldier to kill him, to put him out of his misery. The two instances of “kill” in the passage also use the Polel form in the same sense as in the David and Goliath situation. Further verses that utilize the Polel form with regard to killing are 1 Samuel 14:13 and Judges 9:54. In the latter instance, a man’s skull was crushed with a big millstone (9:53), but someone thrust a sword into him to kill him.

Moreover, the scholarly work, 4QSamuela and the Text of Samuel (Jason Driesbach, 2016) verifies the above argument and the use of Polel form in 1 Samuel 17:51 and cites (in agreement with the above) further examples (on p. 84) of its use in 1 Samuel 4:13 and 2 Samuel 1:9-10, 16. Compare another biblical commentary (footnote 9a) on this very question.

***

Photo credit: David Slaying Goliath (1616), by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Vatican II Upheld Biblical Inerrancy (vs. David Palm)

Last updated on: April 23, 2020 at 4:07 pm By Dave Armstrong

David Palm’s words will be in blue. He is a traditionalist and friend of mine for some 25 years now. Words of James Scott will be in green. This discussion took place on my Facebook page.

*****

One thing I can’t get over is the blatant hypocrisy of the Radtrad crowd. They hate Vatican II because of its alleged “ambiguity” but their complaints about it are often ambiguous. Where in the text is the blatant doctrinal error? In thirty years I have never received a good answer.

Quiet James! You’ll expose the foolish game they have now been playing for 55 years . . .

I think this is a misrepresentation. If the claim was “blatant” doctrinal error then it couldn’t be at the same time “ambiguous”. We’ve already discussed the ambiguity in Dei Verbum 11 which even Cardinal Pell and Fr. Fessio take to mean there can be errors in Scripture. Likewise there are ambiguities with regard to ecumenism, religious liberty, the liturgy, etc. As mainstream a Catholic priest as Msgr. George Kelly wrote in Battle for the American Church that “The documents of the Council contain enough basic ambiguities to make the post-conciliar difficulties understandable.” What many of us have been asking for is simply an official interpretation of those conciliar texts in harmony with past magisterial teachings, along the lines of what was done by the CDF in the controversy over the phrase “substitit in”. It seems it shouldn’t be too much to ask that after all this time we have magisterial rulings rather than having to rely on theologians or even lay apologists to propose unofficial harmonizations.

I defended Vatican II in twelve lengthy papers (vs. reactionary Paolo Pasqualucci). You’re welcome to interact with any of those (maybe you could actually be persuaded of a thing or two), but you rarely want to do that with me. I’m with James. I have yet to find any insurmountable “problems” in the documents. I’m not claiming to be an expert; just sayin’ that I don’t see the problem.

Dave, we don’t need any more amateur attempts to explain the ambiguities. We need official, magisterial harmonizations with prior magisterial teaching. It’s about time.

I see. So you think these difficulties are so beyond any doubt that you refuse to even discuss them unless popes and high-ranking bishops give official interpretations . . .

Of course (almost needless to say), I cite important figures all through my twelve defenses. I never reply on my own reasoning alone in such weighty matters. Why should anyone care what I think? So I cite folks with much more credentials and authority.

I remember reading The Battle for the Bible (1977) by Harold Lindsell, back in the day when I was a fervent evangelical, and his making the point in the book that the Catholic Church had a doctrine of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture that was as “high” as any Protestant view (it really struck me at the time, and I was delighted to learn of it). And that was well past Vatican II. So even Protestant scholars can see this, but not our beloved traditionalists and reactionaries.

The text in question is from Dei Verbum, III, Article 11:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

[Footnotes: 5. cf. St. Augustine, “Gen. ad Litt.” 2, 9, 20:PL 34, 270-271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354. St. Thomas, “On Truth,” Q. 12, A. 2, C.Council of Trent, session IV, Scriptural Canons: Denzinger 783 (1501). Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 121, 124, 126-127. Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu:” EB 539.]

This conciliar passage contains a fundamental ambiguity which has misled even normally trustworthy churchmen such as Fr. Fessio and Card. Pell into limiting Scripture’s inerrancy to only those parts of Scripture which were written “for the sake of our salvation”. I submit that that sort of evidence indicates that the ambiguity is real and genuinely problematic. In light of that sort of confusion, am I wrong to state that an official, magisterial clarification is called for?

It tells us the Bible was written for salvation, not that only that which discusses salvation is true. There is no way to get from this to the error of limited inerrancy because all that is asserted to be true by sacred scripture is to be taken as true: regardless of whether it pertains to salvation. Of course that doesn’t eliminate the possibility of relative error in the text, but there is no true error.

Is Footnote 5 for this passage, which cites two works of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, the council of Trent, Pope Leo XIII, and Ven. pope Pius XII, suspect, too, or did Vatican II distort their thoughts?

What am I missing here? The text says that “everything asserted” (i.e., all of Scripture) . . . [teaches] “truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”

Then you say that Pell and Fessio are somehow talking about “only those parts of Scripture” that do this stuff. But Dei Verbum didn’t state that. So if this is the sort of the fabled “ambiguity” you are trying to establish, I must say it is a completely failed example, and rests on a total distortion of the interpreters, not the document.

I thoroughly demolished this false interpretation in one of the series of twelve articles I referred you to, in reply to Pasqualucci (that you won’t debate and maybe won’t even read [?], either): #6: Dei Verbum & the Bible [7-16-19]. In this article I relied on the argument from Fr. Brian W. Harrison (who is now a reactionary, too, I believe), in his article: “The Truth and Salvific Purpose of Sacred Scripture, According to Dei Verbum, Article 11″ (Roman Theological Forum, July 1995).

He demolishes interpretations of the sort you reference. But if you refuse to read what he says, then you will remain uninformed. In this case, ignorance is not bliss. You remain conflicted and troubled about Vatican II, by attempting to ignore orthodox defenses of it, by excellent scholars like Fr. Harrison: who clearly can’t be accused of liberal bias, whether at the time he wrote it (25 years ago), or now, with his current reactionary inclinations.

Fr. Harrison and the late Fr. Most ran point on this, but for some reason traditionalists today (I mean the sane loyal ones) want to pretend none of that has been written? Weird?

Jim Blackburn wrote an excellent article, “Is Scripture Inerrant?” (Catholic Answers, 1-1-14). He recounts the constant tradition of “unrestricted inerrancy”:

In 1893 Pope Leo XIII issued the most comprehensive treatment of Scripture interpretation the world had seen. Providentissimus Deus was a landmark encyclical that sought to correct the plethora of error about Scripture then circulating the world. In it, the pontiff traced the history of Scripture in the Catholic Church, addressed challenges, and defended the truth of Scripture. Pope Leo affirmed an unrestricted understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture:

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily, as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. . . . It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error (Providentissimus Deus, 20-21).

Pope St. Pius X in his 1907 Lamentabili Sane condemned the proposition “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error” (LS 11).

Pope Benedict XV re-affirmed Pope Leo XIII’s teaching in his own encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus in 1920:

But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church—nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning—who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point (SP 18).

Benedict appealed to the life and teaching of St. Jerome as a model for timeless treatment of Scripture. Specifically, he noted, “Jerome further shows that the immunity of Scripture from error or deception is necessarily bound up with its divine inspiration and supreme authority” (SP 13). Also, “St. Jerome’s teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error” (SP 16).

Pope Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu again affirmed the teaching of Leo XIII in light of biblical criticism and the difficulties of his own time. Of significant note, the pontiff used the incarnational analogy to compare the unrestricted inerrancy of sacred scripture with the absolute sinlessness of Jesus: “For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, except sin, so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error” (DAS 37).

Thus, just as the Word took on human flesh in Jesus, the Word took on human language in Sacred Scripture. And just as Jesus is fully human yet fully divine, Scripture is authored by both human authors and the divine Author. And finally, just as Jesus is like men in all ways except he is without sin, Scripture is like human literature in all ways except it is without error.

In his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII dealt with the issue yet again: “For some . . . put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters” (HG 22).

As we can see, popes taught the unrestricted inerrancy of Scripture over the decades leading up to Vatican II.

Then Blackburn cites Scott Hahn, who argues from the footnote of the disputed section (similarly to how I did above):

Hahn expands his view of the sentence in question in light of its footnote:

[T]he lengthy footnote attached to this sentence cites multiple sources from the tradition which speak of Scripture’s comprehensive conformity to the truth. Thus, in agreement with the document’s use of footnotes in general, the references in the present footnote underscore the continuity of the Council’s teaching with theological and magisterial positions of the past.

. . . Hahn also considers the sentence in light of its broader textual context:

[S]ince the preceding clause insists that everything (omne id) asserted by the human authors is likewise asserted by the Holy Spirit, a restricted inerrancy reading leaves no way to avoid imputing misstatements of fact to the divine author. Yet earlier papal statements declare such a proposition flatly “impossible.”

Finally, Hahn points out the absurdity of a supposed silent doctrinal shift:

[I]t borders on inconceivable that the Council fathers were introducing a development of doctrine with virtually no indication that they were doing so and no explanation as to why the time was ripe for taking such a momentous step. If this were the case, the Council could only be charged with dodging a grave responsibility to the people of God.

Hahn concludes that Dei Verbum did not change the Church’s teaching on inerrancy:

Taken together, the cumulative force of these observations supports the contention that Dei Verbum’s teaching on biblical truth stands in doctrinal continuity with previous ecclesiastical teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture. One can legitimately speak of a new emphasis on the Bible’s salvific purpose, but not of a fundamental departure from the Church’s historic position on its unlimited truthfulness.

See also: “Magisterial Teaching on the Inspiration and Truth of Scripture: Precedents and Prospects” (Pablo T. Gadenz, Letter & Spirit 6 [2010] ).

I found an article that deals with footnote 5: “For the Sake of Our Salvation”: Interpreting Dei Verbum, Art. 11, Fifty Years Later” (Robert P. Miller, Journal of Scriptural Reasoning, 11-16-16):

In order to clarify what the council’s intended meaning was in writing this paragraph, the fathers of the council placed a footnote in the hopes that any confusion would be avoided. The footnote contains citations from Augustine, Aquinas, the Council of Trent, Leo XIII, and Pius XII.

The first reference to St. Augustine is a lengthy comment from his work on the literal interpretation of Genesis. Given Augustine’s belief in the historical accuracy of Genesis, one would expect him to give a defense of this in his work, but instead of defending a scientific position, Augustine goes on to explain that the meaning of a text is more important than scientific questions. This quotation demonstrates that Augustine’s major concern was to distinguish what was important and what was not important. He is not interested in the shape of the earth even though he believes that the sacred writers knew the truth about such matters, for the Holy Spirit spoke to them only what was profitable for their salvation. Here, Augustine makes no distinction about what is or is not profitable for salvation. For him, all of scripture was profitable for salvation.

A second reference to St. Augustine is from Epistle 82.3. Here Augustine is replying to a letter from Jerome. After discussing how they might engage each other in a “friendlier” discussion, Augustine writes:

For I confess to your charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.

. . . in this text, Augustine indicates that the authors of scripture were “completely free from error.” Likewise, he indicates that difficult passages of scripture can only “appear” to be opposed to the truth, and this would be due either to errors in the transmission of the manuscript or mistranslation.

The council also quotes Thomas Aquinas’ work “Disputed Questions on Truth.” In this text, Aquinas draws directly on Augustine when addressing the question: “Does Prophecy Deal with Conclusions which Can Be Known Scientifically?”

In his answer, Aquinas says that “All those things the knowledge of which can be useful for salvation are the matter of prophecy, whether they are past, or future, or even eternal, or necessary, or contingent. But those things which cannot pertain to salvation are outside the matter of prophecy.” However, he immediately goes on to add that by “necessary for salvation,” he means “necessary for the instruction in the faith or the formation of morals.” Strikingly, he asserts that “many things which are proved in the sciences can be useful for this [that is, salvation].”…For this reason, Aquinas ultimately answers the question in the affirmative: “Conclusions which are demonstrated in the sciences can belong to prophecy.”

[ . . . ]

The next note is a reference to the Council of Trent, which wrote on the controversy surrounding the canonical scriptures:

This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct; It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.

Here, the “saving truth and rules of conduct” (or moral discipline) is not set in opposition with truths not pertaining to salvation. While those who subscribe to the limited inerrancy of scripture could admit that the passage does not address the subject of historical or scientific truth, neither can he cite this silent witness in his favor.

The note also refers to what Leo XIII wrote in Providentissimus Deus regarding the extent of inspiration and the incompatibility of inspiration with error. His emphatic insistence on the inerrancy of scripture is evident in several passages. He writes:

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes it and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. (emphasis added)

Leo continues speaking about the incompatibility of inspiration with error saying:

It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings…are free from all error…

[ . . . ]

The final citation in footnote five refers to Divino Afflante Spiritu (DAS) by Pius XII who comments on the work of Leo XIII. Pius begins by declaring that the purpose for which Leo wrote was to “set forth the teaching on the truth” of scripture and “to defend it from attack.” Pius then states:

Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden “either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,” since divine inspiration “not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.

In addition, Pius went further in DAS by making the connection between the inerrancy of scripture and the incarnation of Christ. He writes: “For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things ‘except sin’ (Heb 4:15), so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect except error.”

In effect, we already have David Palm’s requested “official, magisterial clarification.” Past popes (Leo XIII, Ven. Pius XII) were cited in the relevant footnote, teaching unlimited inerrancy, and according to Catholic dogmatic theology and how these things routinely work (what footnotes mean in magisterial documents; the role they play), that is sufficient to interpret the text under question in an entirely traditional manner. In other words, it settles it, and it does so from the magisterium: right from popes. Thus, the request has already been granted.

This is perfectly legitimate, but it won’t be accepted, just as similar arguments regarding Amoris Laetitia were not. Vatican II Derangement Syndrome and Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome simply cannot be overcome, no matter how reasonable and in accord with Sacred Tradition any explanation we provide, is, because the hostility of the foundational premise is too profound.

As the saying goes, “a man convinced against his will retains his original beliefs still.”

***

Photo credit: book cover from the bookseller Abe Books.com.

***

“Why Did God Kill 70,000 Israelites for David’s Sin?”

Last updated on: April 13, 2020 at 11:07 am By Dave Armstrong

1 Chronicles 21: 1, 5-14 (RSV) Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel. . . . [5] And Jo’ab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to David. . . . [6] But he did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering, for the king’s command was abhorrent to Jo’ab. [7] But God was displeased with this thing, and he smote Israel. [8] And David said to God, “I have sinned greatly in that I have done this thing. But now, I pray thee, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.” [9] And the LORD spoke to Gad, David’s seer, saying, [10] “Go and say to David, `Thus says the LORD, Three things I offer you; choose one of them, that I may do it to you.'” [11] So Gad came to David and said to him, “Thus says the LORD, `Take which you will: [12] either three years of famine; or three months of devastation by your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or else three days of the sword of the LORD, pestilence upon the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.’ Now decide what answer I shall return to him who sent me.” [13] Then David said to Gad, “I am in great distress; let me fall into the hand of the LORD, for his mercy is very great; but let me not fall into the hand of man.” [14] So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel; and there fell seventy thousand men of Israel.

At first glance, this does seem to be a very strange passage indeed, and quite difficult to understand, in light of the biblical teaching that God is loving and merciful and just in His judgments. It seems to pose a challenge to those notions. God appears to be capricious, unfair, arbitrary, and unjust: judging 70,000 souls because of the sin of David. So it’s not unusual that atheists would take this and have a field day with it, because even Christians struggle with it; such as one Methodist pastor, who wrote:

God’s anger and wrath. In the Old Testament, God’s anger repeatedly burns against his people for their disobedience. At times, the punishment he dispenses seems particularly harsh, unjust, and disproportionate. Let’s consider just one example.

In 2 Samuel 24, we find that King David decided to take a census of the men of fighting age. The prophet Gad was sent to David to announce God’s displeasure with the taking of the census. The punishment for David’s sin: “The Lord sent a pestilence on Israel from that morning until the appointed time; and seventy thousand of the people died” (2 Samuel 24:15). David makes a decision that does not please God, and God kills 70,000 Israelites for it? How could this action ever be reconciled with a God of mercy, compassion, justice, and love?

An atheist site expresses its disdain in the title of its article devoted to this: “God killed 70,000 because David did a census that God (or Satan) told him to do.”

But I think I have a plausible and satisfactory explanation, that makes sense of the seeming oddities or mysteries regarding God’s judgment. It’s arrived at particularly by examining the cross reference to the passage: 2 Samuel, chapter 24, more closely.

2 Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

As for the question of Satan seeming to be the instigator of this in one passage (1 Chr 21:1), but God being the cause in the parallel passage (2 Sam 24:1), see my explanation elsewhere. But why was God angry; why did He want to judge Israel? Well, it was actually only one tribe of Israel that deserved His wrath:

2 Samuel 24:15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning until the appointed time; and there died of the people from Dan to Beer-sheba seventy thousand men. (in 1 Chronicles 21 it doesn’t specify the tribe of Dan).

What sins did this tribe commit, then, to receive such a harsh judgment? Well, we know several things from Scripture. Dan abandoned God and turned to idolatry before the time of David:

Judges 18:30-31 And the Danites set up the graven image for themselves; and Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of Moses, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land. [31] So they set up Micah’s graven image which he made, as long as the house of God was at Shiloh.

Its downfall was predicted far earlier, in fact:

Genesis 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent in the way, a viper by the path, that bites the horse’s heels so that his rider falls backward.

The tribe of Dan is not listed among the tribes names in Revelation 7:4-8. The reasonable explanation, from what we know in Scripture, is that it was due to this described idolatry. Their captivity under the Assyrians took place in 722 B.C. (1 Ki 12:28-30; 2 Ki 10:29). That was some 240 years after King David, but Judges 18:30 tells us that they were in bondage to idolatry the entire time. Hence, it is perfectly plausible to posit that this is why they were judged during the time of David (70,000 slain).

Idolatry was one of the gravest sins, and it is repeatedly condemned throughout the Old Testament, with warnings of impending judgment, failing repentance. For example:

2 Chronicles 24:18-20 And they forsook the house of the LORD, the God of their fathers, and served the Ashe’rim and the idols. And wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this their guilt. [19] Yet he sent prophets among them to bring them back to the LORD; these testified against them, but they would not give heed. [20] Then the Spirit of God took possession of Zechari’ah the son of Jehoi’ada the priest; and he stood above the people, and said to them, “Thus says God, `Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the LORD, he has forsaken you.'”

Ezekiel 20:18-19 And I said to their children in the wilderness, Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers, nor observe their ordinances, nor defile yourselves with their idols. [19] I the LORD am your God; walk in my statutes, and be careful to observe my ordinances,

Ezekiel 36:18-19 So I poured out my wrath upon them for the blood which they had shed in the land, for the idols with which they had defiled it. [19] I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries; in accordance with their conduct and their deeds I judged them.

God judges target groups of people who are particularly evil (or else entire countries that have become evil). They are accountable for their own sins, as the Bible teaches:

2 Kings 14:6 But he did not put to death the children of the murderers; according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses, where the LORD commanded, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, or the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin.” (cf. parallel passage 2 Chr 25:4)

Jeremiah 31:30 But every one shall die for his own sin . . .

2 Maccabees 7:32 For we are suffering because of our own sins.

1 Peter 1:17 . . . who judges each one impartially according to his deeds . . .

Thus, in this particular instance, it was the tribe of Dan that was His specific target, because it had given itself up wholly to idolatry; hence, were more than ripe for judgment by the time of King David.

Lastly, it might be objected that the phrase “from Dan to Beersheba” referred to the entirety of Israel (as opposed to the tribe of Dan only). But we know that the original region of the tribe of Dan was west of Jerusalem. The Encyclopaedia Britannica article (“Dan”) confirms this:

The portion assigned to the tribe of Dan was a region west of Jerusalem. At least part of the tribe later moved to the extreme northeast and took the city of Laish, renaming it Dan. As the northernmost Israelite city it became a point of reference in the familiar phrase “from Dan to Beersheba.” [my italics]

When God was judging in this instance, in fact, He did not judge “throughout all the territory of Israel” (1 Chr 21:12). 70,000 were already judged when the angel of God came to Jerusalem (that is, the region east of the tribe of Dan’s area; “David lifted his eyes and saw the angel of the LORD standing between earth and heaven, and in his hand a drawn sword stretched out over Jerusalem”: 1 Chr 21:16), at which point God in His mercy, and apparently in part due to the intercession of David and his elders (1 Chr 21:16-17), stopped the frightful judgment (2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15).

***

Photo credit: Sacrifice of Jeroboam [i.e., to idols] (1641), by Claes Moeyaert (1591-1655) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small, out of you will come a ruler over Israel. What makes this town significant?

Select your answer to see how you score.