2024-07-05T13:55:27-04:00

Last updated on: July 5, 2024 at 1:55 pm   By
0 Comments

Photo Credit: Nicholas Mutton (2-23-08). Port Bannatyne Pier [UK] and sinking boat [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license]

Presbyterian Keith A. Mathison (M.A. Reformed Theological Seminary; Ph.D. Whitefield Theological Seminary) is the author of The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001): a book that many Protestants and Catholics alike believe to be the best recent defense of sola Scriptura. In 2012, I wrote a reply-article, “Solo” Scriptura vs. Sola Scriptura: Reply to Keith Mathison, which was in response to Keith’s article,  “A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura“ (which in turn was taken from his book: pp. 237-253). As is usually the case with our illustrious brothers in Christ from the small anti-Catholic camp of Protestantism, no reply to it was ever received.

Currently, I reply to Keith’s article, Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and Apostolic Succession: A Response to Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch (by Keith Mathison) (Thoughts of  Francis Turretin blog, 2-15-11). His words will be in blue. I won’t be defending any arguments of Cross and Judisch (that’s their burden, and they are fully capable), and will be concentrating primarily on Keith’s pro-sola Scriptura arguments in his very long article.

*****

the primary issue in this debate is not the doctrine of Scripture. It is the doctrine of the Church. 

That’s how Protestants usually “spin” the argument. They can’t establish defend sola Scriptura from Scripture alone (which logically they must do), and so they frequently switch the topic over to Catholic ecclesiology, to get the spotlight off of their weak view. Technically, this is not defending their own position (it’s critiquing one of ours).

That said and understood, it’s also true that sola Scriptura began when Luther was backed into it in the Leipzig Disputation in 1519, almost as a desperate default position, when he expressly denied the infallibility of the Church and tradition (as I recently wrote about). The doctrine of the Church’s authority is indeed closely related to this discussion, but I deny that it is the supposed “primary issue.” This may seem to be quibbling, but presuppositions are very important in any debate, and often determine the direction or emphasis of the discussion.

In the same way, Protestant claims are going to be intrinsically offensive to Roman Catholics. Protestants are questioning things Roman Catholics hold sacred. The only relevant question, however, is whether certain claims are true, not whether those claims offend someone’s sensibilities. In sum, while things will be said in my response that Roman Catholics will undoubtedly find offensive, I do not know of any way to avoid it completely in this discussion. I trust that Roman Catholic readers will understand that my purpose in this response is not to offend for the sake of offending but to deal with the issues.

I fully agree; and vice versa; in opposing and revealing the fatal weaknesses of sola Scriptura, we critique one of Protestantism’s most deeply held “sacred cows”; one of its two self-described “pillars”. I’m not personally offended or emotionally threatened by any of these arguments. My job as an apologist is to seek and to defend truth, as best I can determine it. And I always seek to do that as objectively, rationally, and scripturally as I possibly can. I’ve written more about this topic than any other one in my 34 years of writing Catholic apologetics, oversee a huge web page on Bible and Tradition, and have authored three books (one / two / three) on the topic. So I think I have a few things to say that may be helpful to some folks in working through this all-important issue of Christian authority and the rule of faith.

A final preliminary observation is in order. One of the most frustrating difficulties encountered in discussions such as this is the fact that the starting assumptions of Roman Catholics and non-Roman Catholics are so different. Because these starting assumptions dramatically affect the way we read and evaluate evidence and arguments, it becomes difficult to avoid speaking past one another.

Very true. And this is where dialogue can be particularly helpful. If we directly interact with another view it’s difficult to talk past one another (i.e., if both parties are willing to truly dialogue and not simply engage in “mutual monologue”). So here we are!

For example, as I mentioned above, if one assumes the correctness of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church, then the differences I allege between sola scriptura and solo scriptura become invisible. 

I don’t think that: to an extent. As I wrote in my first reply:

I gladly acknowledge that there are several significant and noteworthy distinctions between the two views to be rightly made. I understood this as a Protestant, prior to 1990, when I read about this very issue in knowledgeable evangelical and Calvinist writers like Bernard Ramm, R. C. Sproul, and G. C. Berkouwer. . . .

I part company, however, concerning whether SAS [sola Scriptura] overcomes the fundamental difficulties that it claims bring down SOS [“solo” Scriptura], but not SAS. I believe SAS (i.e., in its more respectable manifestations such as Mathison’s) is a noble attempt to salvage a hopeless position. It’s a valiant effort which is inevitably doomed to failure. All forms of sola Scriptura, no matter how nuanced and sophisticated, ultimately fail to pass biblical and logical scrutiny.

Those who do not begin with the basic theological axiom of Roman Catholicism see abundant evidence against the claims of Rome in Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the documented events of church history. This evidence prevents them from believing that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has divine authority.

Those who do not begin with the basic theological axiom of Protestantism see abundant evidence against the claims of Protestantism in Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the documented events of Church history. This evidence prevents them from believing that Protestantism supersedes the divine authority of the Catholic Magisterium.

For those who adopt the basic theological axiom of Roman Catholicism, all of this “alleged” evidence essentially ceases to exist. 

It doesn’t cease to exist. It’s still out there. Our task as Catholic apologists is to show how it is erroneous falsehood, based on Scripture, reason, and historical fact. I’ve done this in multiple hundreds of articles and in many of my 55 books.

From the perspective of the non-Roman Catholic, the Roman Catholic is doing something comparable to reading a red-letter Bible with red tinted glasses. If he sets aside the glasses, he can see all the words printed in red. If he puts the glasses on, all the words printed in red disappear from his sight. 

From the perspective of the Catholic, the Protestant is doing something comparable to reading a red-letter Bible with red tinted glasses. If he sets aside the glasses, he can see all the words printed in red. If he puts the glasses on, all the words printed in red disappear from his sight. I wrote an entire book about this very common phenomenon, entitled, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Aug. 2004).

After spending about a third of his effort in his lengthy article critiquing Catholic ecclesiological reasoning (all of which I have defended many times and need not do so again here), Keith writes:

At this point, I will turn to the question of whether there is a principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority and to the question of apostolic succession. . . . 

According to Cross and Judisch, sola scriptura entails the indirect way of making oneself one’s own ultimate interpretive authority. They argue that sola scriptura does not truly allow for the interpretive authority of the church.

This is correct. In the final analysis, or ultimately, or as a logical reduction (and reductio ad absurdum, too, I would add), it does indeed devolve to the individual’s private judgment and conscience. I’ve written about this crucial aspect many times, but here is how I argued it less than three weeks ago:

Luther’s big problem in this regard, per the “theory” above, was his extreme naivete: thinking that everything would be fine and dandy in his new system and never being able to conceptualize the quite arguable connection between it and the proliferation of sects.

It’s real simple in the final analysis: others applied Luther’s new rule of faith (sola Scriptura, private judgment, and a distorted individualistic supremacy of conscience) and went their own way, differing from Luther, just as he had with the Catholic Church. Any astute observer could have easily predicted what happened. Erasmus and More and Eck could see what was coming, in their disputes with Luther. But Luther couldn’t (or wouldn’t, one might opine). . . .

The causes and the solutions are what is at issue between Protestants and Catholics. Luther and Calvin and Melanchthon apparently never figured out that it was their foundational principles which set the wheels of this sad process inexorably and inevitably in motion. The weakness, I submit, is in the foundation, not the superstructure of denominationalism gone wild. Calvin and Melanchthon were embarrassed — as well they should have been — at the “absurd” (as Calvin put it) nature of such strong disagreements occurring, and the “miserable anarchy.”

To their credit, they felt this tension, expressed it in private letters, and wished that it could be resolved before “posterity” got wind of it. They understood the scandalous, indefensible scandal of sectarianism and denominationalism in a way that few Protestants today do (after 500 years of rationalizing and pretending that it is a good, healthy thing).

But Calvin and Melanchthon didn’t understand or know how to properly solve the problem of relativism and Protestant “epistemology”. That’s my take, and it seems obvious to me. They were referring to the public and history’s reaction to the dissensions. They “got it.” The founders of the Protestant system (including Luther) thought that Protestant divisions were scandalous. This has been a problem since Day One: Luther at Worms in 1521. Private judgment and sola Scriptura inevitably produce such doctrinal relativism and ecclesiological confusion. . . .

In my opinion, Calvin, in the letter above to Melanchthon, and the sensitive Melanchthon, in his various despairing utterances, are rightly and admirably aghast with regard to a situation (division) which is equally alarming to us Catholics. In this instance they agree with us and candidly, honestly admit the strong contradiction between sectarianism and the Bible. But like Luther, they don’t see that the discord resulted from fallacious first principles, just recently conceived by their illustrious predecessor. . . .

They thought everyone would simply agree with them and that there would be this spontaneous, marvelous unity out under the “yoke of Rome.” Their novel views brought about what we see, despite whatever good intentions they had (which I readily grant them). But of course, they couldn’t even agree with each other.

All of the above historical facts (and the continuing sectarianism: unable to be contained) flow from sola Scriptura as well as from the distortion of solo Scriptura. The distinction between the two that Keith makes doesn’t solve the essential or fundamental difficulty. That is my point. Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon saw and lamented the problem (inter-Protestant sectarianism and relentless disagreements) but they never analyzed it “deeply” enough to recognize its causes and solutions. I submit that they didn’t because it would implicate them and their new system, if they did so. We all find it hard to admit our mistakes. Hence, the negative fruit of a false doctrine and premise sadly continues to this day.
*
From the ascension of Christ until the writing of the earliest New Testament documents began in the middle of the first century, the apostles were orally preaching the content of the Gospel doctrine given to them by Christ. For ease and clarity of explanation, let us call the content of apostolic doctrine “X”.
*
Thus far, we agree.
*
During this same period of time, uninspired summaries of “X” were apparently being used in various churches for the catechetical instruction of new believers given prior to their baptism.
*
It doesn’t follow that all of it was “uninspired.” Keith simply assumes that without proof or evidence. This is his own presuppositional thinking without evidence, or his tinted glasses or blinders, so to speak. For example, prophets and prophesying continue in New Testament times (Lk 2:36; Acts 2:16-18; 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 19:6; 21:9-10; 1 Cor 11:4-5; 12:10, 28-29; ch. 14 [throughout]; Eph 3:5; 4:11; 1 Thess 5:20; 1 Tim 1:18; 4:14), and this is inspired utterance, and was before it was — if it ever was recorded — in Scripture.
*
In Acts 15:28 (RSV) the decree of the Jerusalem Council was described in terms of “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” That’s inspired utterance, too. It has to be because it was agreed to by the Holy Spirit and inspiration literally means “God-breathed.” So this was inspiration before it was known as Scripture (Acts 15:28) and would have been if it hadn’t been recorded in inspired Scripture, because it intrinsically was what it was. In other words, its nature didn’t change merely because it was included in Scripture. The Holy Spirit agreed with it (making it inspired utterance) at the time it happened: not only after it became part of the NT.
*
In the middle of the first century, the apostles, began putting “X” in writing in all of its fullness. These writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. This process of inscripturating “X” was completed before the end of the first century.
*
Keith doesn’t expressly state it, but the standard Protestant view is that all of sacred tradition that was worth keeping was “inscripturated” in Scripture (conversely, any of it not later preserved in Scripture is not worthy to be called “tradition” or to abide by): and he very likely agrees with that. This notion of “inscripturation” of all legitimate tradition is impossible to arrive at by Scripture alone. It’s not a biblical position. Protestants simply assume it without proof, as one of their unbiblical man-made traditions.
*
no individual today came up with the rule of faith, the apostolic doctrine found in Scripture and summarized in the Nicene Creed – an historically objective and verifiable set of propositions by which churches that are true branches can be identified.
*
Any Protestant whatsoever, following Luther’s principle / sola Scriptura, can deny some tenet of the Niece Creed, and no one from a Protestant perspective can consistently tell him not to do so, or argue that he shouldn’t, without also implicating Luther and the entire edifice and first premise that Protestantism is built upon.  I like the Nicene Creed as a standard that can be used in an ecumenical sense, pertaining to who is and is not a Christian. But lots of Protestants have already dissented from it. It’s not just hypothetical. All who deny baptismal regeneration do not “affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” For them, baptism is merely symbolic and has nothing directly to do with forgiveness of sins, let alone regeneration (which is massively connected to baptism in Scripture).
*
Again, this is an inaccurate description of what I argued in my book. It is a straw man. My argument is that the branches which have a plausible claim to be part of the church are those who adhere to the rule of faith, to the doctrine of the apostles. The rule of faith can be historically verified, and it is not something that I or any other Protestant created.
*
Indeed. Historically, few doctrines are more solid and virtually unanimous in the Church fathers than baptismal regeneration; and many Protestants reject it. It’s enshrined in the Bible, in the Church fathers (as Bryan Cross has documented in great depth), and in the Nicene Creed.
*

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Paul does not appeal to hierarchical succession.
*
Sure he does:
Galatians 1:18-19 . . . after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. [19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.
It just so happened that he visited the first pope and leader of the Church: for fifteen days, and that the only other person he saw in Jerusalem was the bishop of Jerusalem, James. That’s hierarchy, folks. Then he reiterates:
Galatians 2:9 . . . when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship,
St. John was also in Jesus’ inner circle, and so had great relative authority, even among apostles. Then again, we have the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), where he appears to be a minor figure. He spoke, but his words weren’t recorded (Acts 15:12), as Peter’s and James’ words were. Paul then traveled around delivering the message that the apostles and elders at the council arrived at (with the confirmation of the Holy Spirit: Acts 15:28):
Acts 16:4 As they [he and Timothy] went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.
Note that this is not coming from Paul (and Timothy) only; Paul’s passing along what the council decided; in other words, he is bound to, and spreads the news of, an official — and, we must add, infallible — Church council. That’s hierarchical Church government. The fact that this council consisted of the “apostles and the elders” (Acts 15:4, 6, 22-23; cf. 16:4) is one of many proofs of apostolic succession itself. After the apostles died out, the elders continued doing the same thing that they had done, working with the apostles.
*
There are other examples of Paul being subject to higher authority in the Church: “the church in Jerusalem, . . . sent Barnabas to Antioch” (Acts 11:22). Barnabas then “went to Tarsus to look for Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch” (Acts 11:25-26). So we have the Jerusalem church sending (essentially “commissioning”) Barnabas to Antioch, and bringing Paul from Tarsus to Antioch. The church at Antioch then determined to send financial relief for a famine “by the hand of Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:30).
*
So Paul was twice subjected to higher Church authority in this instance: Barnabas, sent from the church in Jerusalem, and the church of Antioch, which sent both him and Barnabas on an important task. Later, we’re informed that “Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission” (Acts 12:25). Then we learn of a sixth instance, where the church leaders in Antioch again commissioned Paul and Barnabas, and that this was agreed to by the Holy Spirit (making it an infallible act of Church authority: which Protestants say could and should never happen):
Acts 13:1-4 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, . . . [2] While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” [3] Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. [4] So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleu’cia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus.
Paul and Barnabas in turn function as bishops, since they “appointed elders for them in every church” (Acts 14:23). This indicates both hierarchical Church government and apostolic succession (an apostle ordaining priests or pastors in local churches). Paul later delegates the same episcopal authority to Titus that he had himself exercised, giving him the authority to “appoint elders in every town” as Paul “directed” him to do (Titus 1:5). Once again (this is now the eighth example), Paul is directly involved in hierarchical, episcopal Church governance and apostolic succession: quite contrary to Keith’s claims. None of this exhibits or suggests the alleged “lone ranger” Paul so mythologized and beloved of certain evangelical Protestants.
*
A creed’s authority does not depend on anyone’s agreement with it. A creed’s authority depends on whether it is true to the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles.
*
And who decides whether it is true or not?
*
Creeds are a written form of the confession of faith of the universal church. The early creeds evolved out of the context of the early church’s catechetical practices and were eventually put in written form. The Nicene Creed is the culmination of this process.
*
I guess, then, that Baptists and all who deny baptismal regeneration aren’t part of the universal Church, by this criterion (since they deny part of the creed or confession that represents same). Keith set it up; I’m merely mentioning some of the “anomalous” consequences of the mistaken reasoning.
*
The creeds are a confession of what the whole of the Church has read in Scripture. 
*
But not all Protestants entirely agree with the Creed. So where does that lead them? If he says it doesn’t matter; that they can go their own way, then he defeats his own point. Self-refutation and internal contradiction and vicious logical circularity are never far away when discussing sola Scriptura.
*
the need for creeds . . .  exists because some do not accept what Scripture clearly teaches. . . . some missed the plain teaching of Scripture.
*
Right; so — again — many Protestants deny “what Scripture clearly teaches” in a “plain” way, which is quintessentially encapsulated in the Nicene Creed, which asserts baptismal regeneration.
*
*
***

*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Photo Credit: Nicholas Mutton (2-23-08). Port Bannatyne Pier [UK] and sinking boat [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license]

Summary: Presbyterian Keith Mathison, the best current defender of sola Scriptura, makes a lengthy case for it, in reply to two former Reformed Protestant Catholics. I respond in depth.

2024-03-05T13:22:43-04:00

Last updated on: March 5, 2024 at 1:22 pm   By
0 Comments

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.

This is my 8th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Lutheran Theologian / Apologist Jordan Cooper” section on the top of my Lutheranism web page.

*****

This is a response to the end portion of Jordan’s YouTube video, Sola Scriptura: Scripture Alone (The Five Solas) (2-24-24).

For the definition of sola Scriptura, see my paper, Sola Scriptura as Defined by Historic Protestantism [12-15-21]. Remarkably (but honestly and correctly), Jordan Cooper stated in his video, “A Defense of Sola Scriptura“ (3-12-19):

I think the question that we have is: do we have to find a particular Scripture that says Scripture is the only authority? And I just don’t think we have to. We don’t. There’s nothing in — you can’t find — in any of Paul’s letters, for example, . . . “by the way, Scripture is the only authority and traditions are not an authority and there is no magisterium that is given some kind of infallible authority to pass on infallible teachings.” It seems like a lot of Roman Catholic apologists think that for Protestants to defend their position, that they have to find a text that says that.” [1:39-2:14]

Yes they do, in the nature of things. I dismantled this “argument” in 2004: Sola Scriptura is Self-Defeating and False if Not in the Bible (vs. Kevin Johnson) [5-4-04].

38:39 Scripture is . . . our sole infallible authority.

Scripture itself refutes this — particularly in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 and 1 Timothy 3:15 — as I have detailed many times. See my Bible & Tradition web page: section “III. Sola Scriptura (Scripture as the Only Infallible Authority).”

38:47 it’s our sole God-breathed authority. There is nothing that has the kind of authority that Scripture has.

We all agree that it’s “God-breathed” (i.e., inspired) and in many respects quite unique. The specific dispute with regard to sola Scriptura, however, is whether it is the only infallible authority. It’s not. Sola Scriptura can’t be true (at least in its standard definition) according to the Bible itself. I’ve also made an extended argument that there are even inspired utterances, prophecies, and teachings besides Scripture: Reply To Gavin Ortlund’s 6-Minute Sola Scriptura Defense (Including the Biblical Case for Prophets as Inspired and Infallible Authorities Besides Holy Scripture) [1-26-24].

40:59 2 Timothy 3:16: it [Scripture] is breathed out by God or God-breathed. It is inspired by the Spirit.

So was the prophet Agabus, who “stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world; and this took place in the days of Claudius” (Acts 11:27-28; cf. 21:10-11, where he predicts Paul’s captivity, prefacing his words with “Thus says the Holy Spirit, . . .”). That’s breathed by the Holy Spirit, too. Paul wrote that “the mystery of Christ, . . . has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph 3:4-5). Peter wrote that true prophecies were inspired: “no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet 1:21).

The first Christian council in Jerusalem was inspired, since the Holy Spirit agreed with it (Acts 15:28). The first pope, Peter, even made an infallible declaration in the council (Acts 15:7-11) that was crucial in its determination. This in turn was largely based on a “vision” (Acts 10:17) that God gave to Peter (Acts 10:11-16), while he was in a “trance” (Acts 10:10). God showed him the meaning of it by sending to him the Gentile centurion, Cornelius (Acts 10:25 ff.), to whom He had communicated by an angel (10:22, 30-32). The larger point is that so much of this had nothing directly to do with Scripture at all. Yet it was infallible (and arguably inspired as well).

Moreover, when Jesus was talking to His disciples about future persecution, He said, “do not be anxious how or what you are to answer or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say” (Lk 12:11-12). Mark in his parallel passage puts it even more strongly: “it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit” (Mk 13:11). Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist “was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied” (Lk 1:67). Simeon also had a close relationship with the Holy Spirit (Lk 2:25-26).

Now, if the Holy Spirit can talk to Jesus’ disciples in that way (and by extension possibly to any follower of Christ), or literally talk through them, is that “divine speech” or “the words of God”? Since the Holy Spirit is God, the answer must be yes. But again, that’s not Scripture. Paul also refers to two spiritual gifts that seem to involve direct communication from God to human beings: “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit” (1 Cor 12:7-8). Here again God the Holy Spirit is communicating to persons. It seems to me that all words that authentically come from God must be considered to be inspired, as all of God’s words are.

Jordan himself admits this at 44:48: “we recognize in the Old Testament, God sent prophets, and when the prophet Isaiah spoke he spoke the word of God. The people of Israel didn’t have to stop and say “we’re going to wait till he writes it down . . .”.  I would only add that the office of prophet is present in the New Testament and new covenant as well.

I made an analogical argument from Ephesians 4:11-15 (see the passage) in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 15-16), in response to the alleged sola Scriptura prooftext, 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Here is the heart of that argument:

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 nonscriptural 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 an exclusive sense.

To expand the original argument regarding Ephesians 4 a bit: Protestants are saying that Scripture is the rule of faith. It is the sole and ultimate criterion for theological doctrine and truth, insofar as it is regarded as the only infallible authority. Therefore, it stands to reason that in a passage talking about truth over and over again, and denouncing falsehood, and referring to “one faith” and “the unity of faith”, that Scripture would likely be mentioned (under the erroneous Protestant premise). It’s not absolutely necessary, but it would be probable, I think.

This would be a logical place for Paul to reiterate that the Scripture is the rule of faith. But he never does that. He refers repeatedly to truth and denounces falsehood, and refers to the Church over and over: “one body”; [listing of Church offices]; “body of Christ”; “the whole body”; “bodily growth”; “members of one another”.

Now, under Catholic assumptions of the “three-legged stool” (Church, Scripture, Tradition), this is perfectly plausible and would be predictable. Not all have to be mentioned in the same context. Any one of them can be (or all of them, or any combination thereof), because they are all authoritative.

41:12  Jesus says Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). Those kinds of things are not true of anything else outside of the text of Scripture.

I just demonstrated how those things are false. Every true prophecy or vision or direct communication of God to men (of which there are many examples in Scripture) can’t be “broken” either, because they involve the words of God the Holy Spirit.

41:30 Now what does Scripture then say about tradition and the Church? Well, Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” and some Roman Catholics will quote that and say, “there you go: the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, therefore sola Scriptura is wrong.”

Indeed it is, once one seriously considers what is expressed in 1 Timothy 3:15. The Church can’t possibly be the “pillar and ground of the truth” without at the same time being infallible. And if it can be and is infallible, then sola Scriptura — which denies this characteristic to anything but the Bible — collapses in a heap, from this one Bible passage alone (see how I fully unpack the meaning of the passage).

42:41 It is the foundation of the truth because it is the place where Scripture is taught and preserved . . . 

He just got through noting that the passage doesn’t talk specifically about the bishops of Rome (which is true, but irrelevant to the Catholic argument from this verse, which only depends on “the Church” — whatever it is — being referred to). Having done that, he turns around and makes this claim, which is nowhere in the text, either. It’s simply superimposed. “Scripture” is never mentioned in chapter 3 of 1st Timothy. It’s mentioned twice in the entire letter (4:13; 5:18), but neither instance has the slightest relation to what Jordan is claiming. “Word of God” appears once in 4:5, but again, not in any sense related to the hopeful claim. The Bible actually teaches that the Church is the foundation of the truth and includes a thing like the Jerusalem Council, which shows the Church actually displaying and exercising this God-given authority.

I wrote a paper once that was about what I thought was a very interesting topic: St. Paul’s Word Selection vs. Sola Scriptura [4-3-10]. One can read the details there of how I did my tabulations, but several interesting facts emerged from it:

The words “Scripture” or “Scriptures” appear 51 times in the New Testament. Yet in eight of his thirteen epistles (2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon) St. Paul (it may be surprising to learn) never uses either of these words. He uses it only 14 times altogether: in Romans (6), 1 Corinthians (2), Galatians (3), 1 Timothy (2), and 2 Timothy (1).

Likewise, “word of God” appears 43 times in the New Testament, and many of these (as in Old Testament prophetic utterances) are intended in the sense of “oral proclamation” rather than “Scripture” (especially apart from the Gospels). St. Paul uses the phrase only ten times, in nine different epistles. And it is by no means certain that any individual instance refers without question specifically to Holy Scripture, rather than to oral proclamation of apostolic tradition. I suspect that it is much more likely the latter sense in most or all cases.

In surveying Paul’s thought-world, then, as indicated by his choices of words and notions, in his teaching of the gospel and the content of the Christian faith in his epistles, we arrive at the following tally:

“Scripture(s)”: 14 + 84 citations of OT = 98

“Church” (20) and “Body (of Christ)” (19) = 39

“Tradition” and equivalent terms and concepts: 73

We can see that the tradition and Church legs of the “three-legged stool” are indeed prominent and together make up 53% of the 210 total instances, whereas Scripture appears 47% of the time (112-98). Moreover, I have not included obvious aspects of Church authority such as bishops and elders; the Jerusalem Council, etc. That would add even more non-scriptural authority to the mix.

In eight of the twelve epistles above, the combination Church/Tradition appears more than Scripture. In six of these eight, the “tradition” category alone outnumbers Scripture; two by very wide margins (2 Timothy: 14-1; 1 Timothy: 13-2).

In Ephesians, the Church/Tradition ratio to Scripture is 18-6; other books are similar: Philippians (4-1), Colossians (12-0), 1 Thessalonians (5-0), 2 Thessalonians (3-0), Titus (4-0). Would any sola Scriptura advocate have predicted such an outcome before studying these words? Not likely . . .

Citation of the OT is just as consistent with the Catholic “three-legged stool” rule of faith as it is with sola Scriptura, and doesn’t prove the latter at all. All his frequent citations prove is that he wanted to make an elaborate case drawing from old covenant precedent.

I conclude, then, that it is implausible for sola Scriptura to be considered the Pauline rule of faith. The biblical facts just don’t add up.

42:53 Now also Scripture does talk about traditions (2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:2): that there are traditions, that the apostles tell people to “uphold the traditions that I have handed on to you.” Does this mean that there is some kind of infallible authority within Church tradition?
*
Yes. The New Testament massively refers to tradition. St. Paul constantly refers to the apostolic deposit of faith or tradition in many ways, that are all synonymous or nearly so: tradition, word of God, the faith, the truth, the commandment, the doctrine, teaching, the message, and (to a lesser extent because it’s more specific) the gospel: all “received” and “delivered” by him. In doing so, he obviously has in mind a concrete body of teachings that he taught the churches that he established. It’s not just one thing. If that were the case, he would have specified it. But he doesn’t do so in almost all cases of his use of the words above.
*
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon (Strong’s Greek word #3862) states that (παράδοσιν – parádosis – tradition) means “a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing what is delivered . . . instruction . . . the substance of the teaching” in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, whereas he thinks it refers to “particular injunctions of Paul’s instruction” in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. He holds that the word can refer to “precepts received from the fathers, whether handed down in the O. T. books or orally” (Gal 1:14: “the traditions of my fathers”): with some restricting or including the reference in that passage to “extra-biblical traditions”.

In the Greek Septuagint (LXX) it’s used for “the law [of God]”: Ezra 7:26. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume edition, p. 168, also, like Thayer, not a Catholic work, affirms that it refers to “written as well as unwritten traditions” in Galatians 1:14, and is equated with “Christian teaching” (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15); also deducing from 1 Corinthians 15:3 ff. and 11:23 ff., “that it is older than Paul and is already acquiring a fixed form in his day.” Any way we look at it, there is plenty of tradition in the sense that Catholics refer to it (including oral) in the New Testament. Because “tradition” is presented as synonymous with “truth” and the “gospel” and “the faith” etc. it, too, must be as infallible as they are. The truth itself is always infallible. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be the truth.

Jordan then quibbles about apostolic succession and ecclesiastical primacy. But that won’t help him one whit to establish and defend sola Scriptura. It’s simply another rabbit trail and non sequitur.

45:34 Is it that Scripture is where we find the apostolic tradition today . . .?

It’s not the only place, but it’s certainly a major place where we can find both the 1) concept of tradition, and 2) examples of same. The inclusion of an infallible tradition and Church in the Bible itself is what precisely and most undeniably refutes sola Scriptura, because Protestants can’t deny the inspiration of Scripture when it makes such statements. Acts 15:28 and 1 Timothy 3:15 are themselves infallible, and they teach the infallible authority of the Church.

1:00:22  Roman Catholic apologists like to throw around this number that there are 33,000 Protestant denominations. It’s [an] absolutely ridiculous number; it’s totally inflated . . . 

Some less-educated Catholic apologists do so, and it’s most unfortunate, but not me. I objected to this number and explained exactly why, almost twenty years ago: 33,000 Protestant Denominations? No! [9-4-04].

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: gr8effect (10-30-15) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

Summary: Lutheran apologist Jordan Cooper tries very hard to make sola Scriptura plausible, but there are just too many logical & scriptural holes in it (as I point out).

2024-03-05T13:22:02-04:00

Last updated on: March 5, 2024 at 1:22 pm   By
0 Comments

Incl. Bible-Tradition Relationship; Fathers & Conciliar Infallibility; Popes & Early Councils; Perspicuity (Luther vs. Erasmus); Communion in One Kind; “Late” & Supposedly Unbiblical Dogmas

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.

This is my 7th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Lutheran Theologian / Apologist Jordan Cooper” section on the top of my Lutheranism web page.

*****

This is a response to the first 40 minutes of Jordan’s YouTube video, Sola Scriptura: Scripture Alone (The Five Solas) (2-24-24).

13:54 what we see is that the earliest Christians do use language of tradition but when they define tradition, they’re defining tradition really as things that are also clearly taught within the word of God, not not some kind of separate dogma or separate theological claims that have no basis in the word of God.

There is a middle position (which is the Catholic one). The fathers, I contend, adhered to a three-legged-stool rule of faith: Bible / Tradition / Church, in which all operate in non-contradictory harmony with each other. Martin Luther appeared to accept something like this:

I do enough if I prove that it is not contrary to God’s Word, but consistent with Scripture. (That These Words of Christ, “This Is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics, March 1527, Luther’s Works, vol. 37)

In almost all cases, Scripture can be brought to bear. But in a few instances, beliefs that are not explicit in Scripture, such as, for example, infant baptism, were accepted as true on the basis of the authority of the Church and apostolic tradition and succession (in complete opposition to sola Scriptura). This was St. Augustine’s view, and he also wrote more generally:

[T]here are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings. (On Baptism, v, 23, 31)

Likewise, Luther wrote about infant baptism:

We, however, are certain enough, because it [infant baptism] is nowhere contrary to Scripture, but is rather in accord with Scripture. (Concerning Rebaptism, Jan. 1528, Luther’s Works, vol. 40)

[C]hild baptism derives from the apostles and has been practiced since the days of the apostles. . . . It came to me by tradition and I was persuaded by no word of Scripture that it was wrong. . . . Baptism did not originate with us, but with the apostles and we should not discard or alter what cannot be discarded or altered on clear scriptural authority. . . . Were child baptism now wrong God would certainly not have permitted it to continue so long, nor let it become so universally and thoroughly established in all Christendom, but it would sometime have gone down in disgrace. . . . Just as God has established that Christians in all the world have accepted the Bible as Bible, the Lord’s Prayer as Lord’s Prayer, and faith of a child as faith, so also he has established child baptism and kept it from being rejected . . . You say, this does not prove that child baptism is certain. For there is no passage in Scripture for it. My answer: that is true. From Scripture we cannot clearly conclude that you could establish child baptism as a practice among the first Christians after the apostles. But you can well conclude that in our day no one may reject or neglect the practice of child baptism which has so long a tradition, since God actually not only has permitted it, but from the beginning so ordered, that it has not yet disappeared. (Ibid.)

Here, Luther accepts infant baptism based on ancient tradition, and states outright that “there is no passage in Scripture for it.” Therefore, he has accepted a principle utterly contrary to sola Scriptura; namely, that something can be regarded as infallibly true, not on the basis of Scripture, but rather, apostolic tradition. Sola Scriptura holds that only Scripture is such an infallible authority. Augustine and Luther in these excerpts also contradict Jordan’s claim above. Luther felt so strongly about infant baptism, that he and his successor Philip Melanchthon consented to executing Anabaptists for denying it (a doctrine and practice not even explicitly biblical).

17:10 Read Athanasius’s works against the Arians; he is just expositing Scripture. He’s looking at the text trying to explain the text, trying to demonstrate how the text shows his point.

Of course, the Bible will be his primary argument. No one is denying that in the first place. Refuting Jehovah’s Witnesses (modern-day Arians) was, in fact, my first major apologetics endeavor, back in 1981-1984 (the product of that research is on my blog today). I argued against them almost always from Scripture. I was a Protestant then. Now that I am Catholic I would do the same thing if I set out to refute them.  This doesn’t prove that Athanasius had a Protestant rule of faith (nor that I do now; I argue from Scripture virtually every day in my apologetics writing). St. Athanasius also accepted the infallible authority of ecumenical councils, contrary to sola Scriptura:

. . . the Synod which was held at Nicæa. For the Faith there confessed by the Fathers according to the divine Scriptures is enough by itself at once to overthrow all impiety, and to establish the religious belief in Christ. . . . a monument of victory over all heresy, but especially the Arian, . . . (Letter #59 to Epictetus, 1)

17:59  the foundation of the argument is always the text of Scripture and other figures or authorities are used secondarily.

Largely, yes, but not always (and Jordan used the word “always” and attempted to make a universal claim. St. Basil the Great thought that the Nicene Council was infallible, and arguably inspired as well:

. . . you should confess the faith put forth by our Fathers once assembled at Nicæa, that you should not omit any one of its propositions, but bear in mind that the three hundred and eighteen who met together without strife did not speak without the operation of the Holy Ghost, . . .  (Letter #114 to Cyriacus, at Tarsus)

St. Gregory Nazianzen appeared to believe the same:

I never have and never can honour anything above the Nicene Faith, that of the Holy Fathers who met there to destroy the Arian heresy; but am, and by God’s help ever will be, of that faith; . . . (Letter #102: Second to Cledonius the Priest, Against Apollinarius)

As did St. Cyril of Alexandria:

[H]e opposes the truth and the very symbol of the Church’s Faith, which the fathers once gathered together at Nicea through the illumination of the Spirit defined; he, fearing lest any should keep whole the Faith, instructed unto the Truth by their words, endeavours to calumniate it and alters the significance of the words, . . . against the holy fathers who have decreed for us the pious definition of the Faith which we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, as it is written. (Tomes Against Nestorius: I, 5)

. . . the holy Churches in every region under Heaven, and the venerable Fathers themselves who put forth unto us the definition of the right and undefiled Faith, viz. (the Holy Ghost speaking in them) that the Word of God was made flesh and became Man, . . .(Tomes Against Nestorius: IV, 2)

19:00 The other thing that I think really important here is . . . the question of how is it that the church looked at the councils. If you look at something like the Council of Nicaea, the question is: did the church at the time believe that the Senate of Nicaea was necessarily the final arbiter of what was actually true? . . . It’s not the understanding at the time that whatever happened in this Council was necessarily declaratively true forever because of the authority of a church Council.

My citations above regarding Nicaea, from four Church fathers, contradict Jordan’s “take.” Sola Scriptura requires a denial of the infallibility of ecumenical councils. But many Church fathers agree with the high Catholic view of such councils.

20:13 the bishop of Rome actually doesn’t have really any significant role within the Council of Nicaea at all.

A plausible case can be made that he did:

Pope Silvester and the Council of Nicaea [August 1997]

Council of Nicea: Reply to James White: Its Relationship to Pope Sylvester, Athanasius’ Views, & the Unique Preeminence of Catholic Authority. [4-2-07]

20:19 It’s not really until Pope Leo with Caledon that the bishop of Rome has any significant say within these ecumenical councils.

Constantinople, 381 [no pope and no legates]

No bishops from the west were present, nor was the Pope represented. Therefore, this was not really an ecumenical council, though due to later historical confusion and the enthusiastic acceptance by the whole Church of its strongly orthodox creed, including an explicit confession of the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, it came to be regarded and numbered as such. (Dr. Warren Carroll, The Building of Christendom, Christendom College Press, 1987, 62)

With the First Council of Constantinople (381) we are dealing with another case in which there are not extant acts. This council also was convoked by an emperor, Theodosius I. [Ibid.] The language of his decree suggests he regarded the Roman see as a yardstick of Christian orthodoxy. He commands all his subjects to practice the religion which Peter the apostle transmitted to the Romans. In calling the Council, Theodosius did not envisage the assembled bishops debating Roman doctrine as thought it were an open question.

The fact that Meletius of Antioch presided at Constantinople I, and the absence of any Roman legates, might appear to be evidence against the Roman primacy. It must be remembered that the Council was not originally intended to be ecumenical in the same sense as Nicaea.

It included, after all, only 150 bishops from Thrace, Asia Minor, and Egypt and was convoked to deal with certain Eastern problems.[New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Constantinople, First Council of.”] In fact, it was not recognized as ecumenical by the Council of Ephesus half a century later, and it was left to Pope Gregory the Great to elevate it to that status. (“Papal Authority at the Earliest Councils,” Brian W. Harrison, This Rock, Jan. 1991)

Ephesus, 431 [papal legates Arcadius, Projectus, and Philip]

The pope . . . sent two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, to represent himself and his Roman council, and the Roman priest, Philip, as his personal representative. Philip, therefore, takes the first place, though, not being a bishop, he could not preside. It was probably a matter of course that the Patriarch of Alexandria should be president. The legates were directed not to take part in the discussions, but to give judgment on them. It seems that Chalcedon, twenty years later, set the precedent that the papal legates should always be technically presidents at an ecumenical council, and this was henceforth looked upon as a matter of course, and Greek historians assumed that it must have been the case at Nicaea. (Catholic Encyclopedia: “Council of Ephesus”; written by John Chapman)

21:28 when you look at something like . . . indulgences you really have no scriptural basis.
*
See: Biblical Evidence for Indulgences [1996].
*
30:33 Luther . . .  has a really great discussion of this question at the beginning of [his 1525 book] The Bondage of the Will, where [he]  addresses Erasmus . . . he has a really great discussion of this and the fact that Scripture defines itself as a light which enlightens our path. It’s not just this obscure book that nobody can really understand without a proper theological degree or without the necessary authoritative tradition, as is passed down within the canons of the Roman tradition.
*
I’m delighted that Jordan brought this up. I have researched this very thing (way back in 2009), along with many other teachings of Luther. Why don’t we be fair and see how Erasmus responded? In other words, examine both sides for a change. . .? But first, at 30:46. Jordan stated that “Luther is maybe a little too harsh to Erasmus at some point . . .” Indeed. Here are some examples from his aforementioned book (from the 1823 Edward Thomas Vaughan translation; available online):
*
[Y]ou only show that you are nourishing in your heart a Lucian, or some other hog of the Epicurean sty, who, having no belief at all of a God himself, laughs in his sleeve at all those who believe and confess one. (pt. 1)
*
Assuredly, any Jew or Heathen, who had no knowledge at all of Christ, would find it easy enough to draw out such a pattern of faith as yours. You do not mention Christ in a single jot of it; . . .  (Pt. I)
*
[Y]our words sound as though, like Epicurus, you accounted the word of God and a future state to be mere fables . . . (Pt. I)
*
Nice ecumenical thoughts there, huh? But this was usually what happened whenever anyone refuted Luther. Luther wrote about interpretation of Scripture in the section of his book, “Erasmus’ Skepticism” (I cite the 1823 Henry Cole translation):
*
What say you, Erasmus? Is it not enough that you submit your opinion to the Scriptures? Do you submit it to the decrees of the church also? What can the church decree, that is not decreed in the Scriptures? If it can, where then remains the liberty and power of judging those who make the decrees? As Paul, I Cor. xiv., teaches “Let others judge.” Are you not pleased that there should be any one to judge the decrees of the church, which, nevertheless, Paul enjoins? What new kind of religion and humility is this, that, by our own example, you would take away from us the power of judging the decrees of men, and give it unto men without judgment? Where does the Scripture of God command us to do this? . . .

This is the distinction which I make; that I also may act a little the rhetorician and logician – God, and the Scripture of God, are two things; no less so than God, and the Creature of God. That there are in God many hidden things which we know not, no one doubts: as He himself saith concerning the last day: “Of that day knoweth no man but the Father.” (Matt. xxiv. 36.) And (Acts i. 7.) “It is not yours to know the times and seasons.” And again, “I know whom I have chosen,” (John xiii. 18.) And Paul, “The Lord knoweth them that are His,” (2 Tim. ii. 19.). And the like.

But, that there are in the Scriptures some things abstruse, and that all things are not quite plain, is a report spread abroad by the impious Sophists by whose mouth you speak here, Erasmus. But they never have produced, nor ever can produce, one article whereby to prove this their madness. And it is with such scare-crows that Satan has frightened away men from reading the Sacred Writings, and has rendered the Holy Scripture contemptible, that he might cause his poisons of philosophy to prevail in the church. This indeed I confess, that there are many places in the Scriptures obscure and abstruse; not from the majesty of the thing, but from our ignorance of certain terms and grammatical particulars; but which do not prevent a knowledge of all the things in the Scriptures. . . .

All the things, therefore, contained in the Scriptures; are made manifest, although some places, from the words not being understood, are yet obscure. But to know that all things in the Scriptures are set in the clearest light, and then, because a few words are obscure, to report that the things are obscure, is absurd and impious. And, if the words are obscure in one place, yet they are clear in another. But, however, the same thing, which has been most openly declared to the whole world, is both spoken of in the Scriptures in plain words, and also still lies hidden in obscure words. Now, therefore, it matters not if the thing be in the light, whether any certain representations of it be in obscurity or not, if, in the mean while, many other representations of the same thing be in the light. For who would say that the public fountain is not in the light, because those who are in some dark narrow lane do not see it, when all those who are in the Open market place can see it plainly?

Sect. IV.—WHAT you adduce, therefore, about the darkness of the Corycian cavern, amounts to nothing; matters are not so in the Scriptures. For those things which are of the greatest majesty, and the most abstruse mysteries, are no longer in the dark corner, but before the very doors, nay, brought forth and manifested openly. For Christ has opened our understanding to understand the Scriptures, Luke xxiv. 45. And the Gospel is preached to every creature. (Mark xvi. 15, Col. i. 23.) “Their sound is gone out into all the earth.” (Psalm xix. 4.) And “All things that are written, are written for our instruction.” (Rom. xv. 4.) And again, “All Scripture is inspired from above, and is profitable for instruction.” (2 Tim. iii. 16.) . . .

Let, therefore, wretched men cease to impute, with blasphemous perverseness, the darkness and obscurity of their own heart to the all-clear Scriptures of God. . . .

[T]he Spirit is required to understand the whole of the Scripture and every part of it. If you speak of the external clearness, nothing whatever is left obscure or ambiguous; but all things that are in the Scriptures, are by the Word brought forth into the clearest light, and proclaimed to the whole world.

Now let’s look at how Erasmus responded, with regard to Holy Scripture. I cite from Peter Macardle and Clarence H. Miller, translators, Charles Trinkhaus, editor, Collected Works of Erasmus, Vol. 76: Controversies: De Libero Arbitrio / Hyperaspistes I, Univ. of Toronto Press, 1999 (I have a hardcover copy in my library):
*
But if knowledge of grammar alone removes all obscurity from Sacred Scripture, how did it happen that St. Jerome, who knew all the languages, was so often at a loss and had to labour mightily to explain the prophets? Not to mention some others, among whom we find even Augustine, in whom you place some stock. Why is it that you yourself, who cannot use ignorance of languages as an excuse, are sometimes at a loss in explicating the psalms, testifying that you are following something you have dreamed up in your own mind, without condemning the opinions of others? . . . Finally, why do your ‘brothers’ disagree so much with one another? They all have the same Scripture, they all claim the same spirit. And yet Karlstadt disagrees with you violently. So do Zwingli and Oecolampadius and Capito, who approve of Karlstadt’s opinion though not of his reasons for it. Then again Zwingli and Balthazar are miles apart on many points. To say nothing of images, which are rejected by others, but defended by you, not to mention the rebaptism rejected by your followers but preached by others, and passing over in silence the fact that secular studies are condemned by others but defended by you. Since you are all treating the subject matter of Scripture, if there is no obscurity in it, why is there so much disagreement among you? On this point there is no reason for you to rail at the wretched sophists: Augustine teaches that obscurity sometimes arises from unknown or ambiguous words, sometimes from the nature of the subject matter, at times from allegories and figures of speech, at times from passages which contradict one another, at least according to what the language seems to say. [De doctrina christiana 2.6.7, 2.9.15] And he gives the reason why God wished such obscurity to find a place in the Sacred Books. [De doctrina christiana 4.8.22] (pp. 130-131)
*
Furthermore, where you challenge me and all the sophists to bring forward even one obscure or recondite passage from the Sacred Books which you cannot show is quite clear, I only wish you could make good on your promise! We will bring to you heaps of difficulties and we will forgive you for calling us blinder than a bat, provided you clearly explicate the places where we are at a loss. But if you impose on us the law that we believe that whatever your interpretation is, that is what Scripture means, your associates will not put up with such a law and they stoutly cry out against you, affirming that you interpret Scripture wrongly about the Eucharist. Hence it is not right that we should grant you more authority than is granted by the principal associates of your confession. (p. 132)
*
But still, if I were growing weary of this church, as I wavered in perplexity, tell me, I beg you in the name of the gospel, where would you have me go? To that disintegrated congregation of yours, that totally dissected sect? Karlstadt has raged against you, and you in turn against him. And the dispute was not simply a tempest in a teapot but concerned a very serious matter. Zwingli and Oecolampadius have opposed your opinion in many volumes. And some of the leaders of your congregation agree with them, among whom is Capito. Then too what an all-out battles was fought by Balthazar and Zwingli! I am not even sure that there in that tiny little town you agree among yourselves very well. Here your disciples openly taught that the humanities are the bane of godliness, and no languages are to be learned except a bit of Greek and Hebrew, that Latin should be entirely ignored. There were those who would eliminate baptism and those who would repeat it; and there was no lack of those who persecute them for it. In some places images of the saints suffered a dire fate; you came to their rescue. When you book about reforming education was published, they said that the spirit had left you and that you were beginning to write in a human spirit opposed to the gospel, and they maintained you did it to please Melanchthon. A tribe of prophets has risen up there with whom you have engaged in most bitter conflict. Finally, just as every day new dogmas appear among you, so at the same time new quarrels arise. And you demand that no one should disagree with you, although you disagree so much among yourselves about matters of the greatest importance! (pp. 143-144)
*
Certainly no one after the apostles claimed that there was no mystery in Scripture that was not clear to him. (pp. 153-154)

You stipulate that we should not ask for or accept anything but Holy Scripture, but you do it in such a way as to require that we permit you to be its sole interpreter, renouncing all others. Thus the victory will be yours if we allow you to be not the steward but the lord of Holy Scripture. (pp. 204-205)

We were talking about your spirit and that of your followers, who profess that there is nothing in Holy Scripture which is obscure to you as long as you know grammar, and we demanded that you establish the credibility of this certainty, which you still fail to do, try as you may. (p. 219)

[I]n Acts, when Paul had taught and admonished them, they compared the scriptural passages with what had been carried out and what had been propounded to them; and there was much they would not have understood if the apostle had not supplied this additional light. Therefore I am not making the passages obscure, but rather God himself wanted there to be some obscurity in them, but in such a way that there would be enough light for the eternal salvation of everyone if he used his eyes and grace was there to help. No one denies that there is truth as clear as crystal in Holy Scripture, but sometimes it is wrapped and covered up by figures and enigmas so that it needs scrutiny and an interpreter, either because God wanted in this way to arouse us from dullness and also to set us to work, as Augustine says, or because truth is more pleasant and affects us more deeply when it has been dug out and shines forth to us through the cover of darkness than if it had been exposed for anyone at all to see . . . (pp. 219-220)

If Holy Scripture is perfectly clear in all respects, where does this darkness among you come from, whence arise such fights to the death about the meaning of Holy Scripture? You prove from the mysteries of Scripture that the body of the Lord is in the Eucharist physically; from the same Scripture Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and Capito teach that it is only signified. (p. 222)

But if you attribute a total understanding of the Holy Scripture to the Holy Spirit, why do you make an exception only for the ignorance of grammar? In a matter of such importance will the Spirit allow grammar to stand in the way of man’s salvation? Since he did not hesitate to impart such riches of eternal wisdom, will he hesitate to impart grammar and common sense? (p. 239)

If you contend that there is no obscurity whatever in Holy Scripture, do not take up the matter with me but with all the orthodox Fathers, of whom there is none who does not preach the same thing as I do. (p. 242)

See my entire seven-part series, “Luther Meets His Match,” which documents this dispute, with Erasmus’ replies (and see more from this particular installment). Erasmus’ replies are generally not available online (I had to pay good money to purchase this book), whereas Luther’s Bondage of the Will is online. So, as usual, folks are usually far more familiar with Luther’s argument against Erasmus, than vice versa (most have never heard of this book from Erasmus). And that is rather one-sided, as I think fair-minded readers would agree.

Luther never responded to Erasmus’ 1526 work in reply to him, Hyperaspistes (“A Defensive Shield”). What a surprise . . . That would have made it a true debate, where both sides interact with each other and respond to counter-replies. Luther was scarcely even capable of that: at least not when he met his match with Erasmus (considered perhaps the greatest Christian scholar of his time), and was way over his head. He could rant and rave, rail and thunder, as he always eventually did in controversy (being a rather excitable sort), but he couldn’t overcome Erasmus’ reasoning, and so once that was fully laid out, he didn’t even try. At least he had wits enough to know when he was bested in debate.

See my related article, 25 Brief Arguments Regarding Biblical “Clearness” [2009].

37:03 What Rome has often done historically [is to] say, “look, when we’ve got a competition between Scripture as the Word of God and tradition we go with [tradition].” Here’s an example . . . communion in both kinds in the medieval church . . . this is a very very late development. There was a lot of superstition that developed around the sacrament of the Eucharist to such an extent that there was this fear of spilling the blood of Christ so that it was taught that only the priests should consume the blood of Christ and the lay person should not receive it at all.

First of all, how it is “superstition” to be concerned about what both sides agree is the Blood of Christ not spilling on the floor? I must confess that I have no idea what he means here, and it’s rather shocking. It seems to me that we can agree that Jesus’ Blood spilled on the ground is not a good thing. The medieval Church was concerned about that. Secondly, Jesus can’t be technically separated under symbols of wafer and wine. Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in both of what were formerly bread and wine. No one need take my word for that. It’s biblical teaching:

1 Corinthians 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Note the bolded “or” and “and.” The way that Paul phrases this proves that he believes that the Body and Blood are present in both species. It’s all in the word “or”. The logic and grammar require it, so that the above can also be expressed in the following two propositions:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Whoever, therefore, drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

I’m glad both kinds are offered in the Catholic Church now, but there is no necessity to receive both, in order to receive Jesus Christ. I myself have received the cup, I think, two times in my entire 33-year Catholic life: when I was received into the Church and once when the consecrated hosts ran out during Mass. My practice has nothing to do with theology; it’s merely a “hygienic” objection. The Catholic Church makes no claim that no one will ever contract a germ, drinking from a common cup with scores or hundreds of others. In any event, no one is “missing” anything. I would throw this objection back onto Jordan, having explained our position, and ask him: what is worse: not receiving the chalice when the host contains all of Christ, or receiving no Body and Blood at all, as in Zwingli’s view, and that of most Protestants besides Lutherans?

Luther himself said he’d rather partake of the Holy Eucharist with Catholics, than drink “mere wine” with the Zwinglians and others who denied the Real Presence. He didn’t deny that Catholics were Christians, but he denied that Zwingli and his followers were. Thus, in light of these considerations, Jordan is majoring on the minors and knocking the Catholic Church, when the vast majority of his fellow Protestants don’t even believe they are truly receiving Jesus at all (and indeed they aren’t, and Catholics contend that Lutherans and the few Anglicans who still believe in Real Presence aren’t, either, since they broke the line of valid ordination). Which is the more important of the two things?

A Calvinist apologist wrote:

I openly challenge the Roman apologists to bring forth any example of a church father who says that after the consecration the bread is the blood of Christ (bolding his own)

I’m happy to oblige, by providing two examples of the logically equivalent converse: the cup described as Christ’s Body:

[W]hen the great prayers and the holy supplications are sent up to God, the Word descends upon the bread and the cup, and they become His body. (St. Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26,1325)

So now repeatedly the bread and wine, sanctified by the Word (the sacred Benediction), is at the same time changed into the Body of that Word; and this Flesh is disseminated among all the Faithful. (St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37)

The Catholic Encyclopedia article, “Communion under Both Kinds” makes further biblical arguments and provides a detailed history of many instances in the early Church in which the cup or the host only was distributed, such as the faithful receiving at home (thus implying indirectly that both Body and Blood and the whole Christ were contained in either kind). Example:

It is recorded of St. Basil that he received Holy Communion several times on the day of his death, and under the species of bread alone, as may be inferred from the biographer’s words . . .  These testimonies are sufficient to establish the fact that, in the early centuries, reservation of the Eucharist for the sick and dying, of which the Council of Nicaea (325) speaks (can. xiii) as “the ancient and canonical rule”, was usual under one kind. The reservation of the species of wine for use as the Viaticum . . .  was never the general practice. . . .

I could also bring up the issue of adoration of the consecrated wafer and wine. If indeed Jesus Christ is truly present, then wouldn’t it follow that He should be adored in the sacrament?  That’s what Martin Luther — in consistency — thought:

Now to come back to the sacrament: he who does not believe that Christ’s body and blood are present does well not to worship either with his spirit or with his body. But he who does believe, as sufficient demonstration has shown it ought to be believed, can surely not withhold his adoration of the body and blood of Christ without sinning. For I must always confess that Christ is present when his body and blood are present. His words do not lie to me, and he is not separated from his body and blood. (The Adoration of the Sacrament, 1523, Luther’s Works, vol. 36)

[O]ne should not withhold from him such worship and adoration either . . . one should not condemn and accuse of heresy people who do adore the sacrament. For although Christ has not commanded it, neither has he forbidden it, but often accepted it. Free, free it must be, according as one is disposed in his heart and has opportunity. (Ibid.)

Lutherans do not, however, practice eucharistic adoration now. Why? Jesus is present, so why would they not worship Him? On what basis is the practice neglected? And is this not a far greater omission than merely partaking in one kind (when Jesus is fully present in both kinds)? Catholics worship Jesus in the consecrated elements and receive Him. Lutherans only do the second. Again, I ask: why? So they won’t be too much like Catholics?

Jordan is now almost two-thirds through his talk on sola Scriptura and he has scarcely defended it at all (so I had to change my title). Certainly nothing he has presented in the first 37 minutes presents undeniable arguments that sola Scriptura is true, and that only Scripture is an infallible authority in Christianity. But lots of potshots against the Catholic Church! This is a form of the old “your dad’s uglier than mine!” tactic. When some folks have insufficient arguments to make their own case, they go after the other guy and hope that no one notices.

37:47 This has no precedent in Scripture whatsoever. [When] Jesus talks about the sacrament what does he say?: “take eat, take drink” . . . 

I already mentioned 1 Corinthians 11:27, so there is indeed relevant Scripture. And the second claim isn’t true, either. In John 6:58, Jesus mentions eating His Flesh as salvation-giving, without mentioning drinking His Blood: “he who eats this bread will live for ever” (cf. 6:33, 50-51). Nice try, though.

38:27 here is a very clear example where you have the entirety of Scripture and the entirety of the testimony of the church fathers . . . 

It is true that the Church for its first twelve centuries offered both kinds. But it also offered only one kind in several different instances, as the Catholic Encyclopedia I linked to, documents, thus implying that either element is sufficient. And I have shown how this has scriptural support, in at least five passages.

40:15 You don’t find the bodily Assumption of Mary in the early church; you don’t find the Immaculate Conception of Mary in the early church; you don’t find the dogma of papal infallibility in the early church.

Most doctrines take many centuries to develop. One didn’t have the complete canon of Scripture until the late 4th century. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was developing in key respects up through the 4th century, and in more particulars even a few centuries more. The view of religious image took many centuries to sort out (with Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans coming down on one side and Calvinists and some fundamentalists on the other). So that’s a given. And it’s true for doctrines that we believe in common.

The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption and Immaculate Conception can be strongly deduced from Scripture and by analogies in Scripture. The primacy of St. Peter is very strongly indicated in the Bible and even strongly backed up in many particulars by Protestant scholars. Then we also have solid Protestant scholars noting how sola Scriptura and sola fide were both profoundly absent not only in the fathers but all the way up till Luther. See my article: Bible / Faith “Alone” vs. The Fathers (vs. Gavin Ortlund) [2-13-24]. We can defend our views on these matters (I just gave links where I have done so). Protestants can’t, and usually won’t, when scrutinized and pressed, in depth (as I am doing right now). Jordan has that choice. We’ll see what he decides.

40:27 There are many things that are declared dogma that actually don’t have any roots in Tradition. It’s just traditions that they happen to grab on to [with] many of them being very late . . . 

This is one of those hyper-polemical statements that take a lot of time and effort to refute. Fortunately, I have already done so, in my 33 years of Catholic apologetics writing (now available in 4,500+ articles — on this blog — and 55 books). In all of that work I have offered biblical and traditional arguments for virtually all major Catholic dogmas and doctrines. I’ve never found a single one that had didn’t “have any” biblical or patristic support. I’d be happy to discuss any of them with Jordan or Gavin Ortlund or any other active Protestant apologist.

40:43 infallibility isn’t declared Dogma until 1870 . . . 

That’s right, which means that Catholics were required to believe it after that time. It doesn’t follow that it wasn’t entrenched in Catholic tradition long before. I found a statement from St. Francis de Sales in the 16th century that is identical in many ways to the dogma of 1870. It was clearly believed. Luther makes many statements where he says that such-and-such a doctrine is good and pious but that it’s not required. That’s how Catholics were regarding papal infallibility before 1870. But then it was required, just as Luther would say about the Holy Eucharist or baptismal regeneration. It’s a debate about the precise nature of the level of authority any given doctrine has. Not one Protestant in a hundred understands these distinctions, and even Jordan seems not to (by the way he frames his statement).

One could say the same about the canon of Scripture, which was largely held with more and more certitude for 350 years, and then the church decreed that various books were certainly canonical and everyone accepted it, for the most part. It was fairly certain and then it became certain In terms of the faith of Christians). No one identified all 27 New Testament books as Scripture until 367, when Athanasius did it. Within 30 years, the Church at large agreed and proclaimed these books canon, along with the Old Testament (including the seven deuterocanonical books). So “late” dogmatic proclamations are no new concept with medieval Catholics. Protestants should be the last people to even bring such a thing up, seeing that their two pillars (sola Scriptura and sola fide) are scarcely found at all in the Bible, nor the fathers, nor the medieval Church. It’s a case of “log-in-the-eye disease.”

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: Lutheran church in Wittenberg, Germany where the Protestant Revolt began, with Martin Luther [Wikimedia Commons / Creative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

Summary: Lutheran Jordan Cooper makes six wide-ranging criticisms of the Catholic Church (while supposedly arguing for sola Scriptura). I methodically dispose of each one.

2024-02-22T14:55:22-04:00

Last updated on: February 22, 2024 at 2:55 pm   By
0 Comments

Dr. Gavin Ortlund is a Reformed Baptist author, speaker, pastor, scholar, and apologist for the Christian faith. He has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in historical theology, and an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. Gavin is the author of seven books as well as numerous academic and popular articles. For a list of publications, see his CV. He runs the very popular YouTube channel Truth Unites, which seeks to provide an “irenic” voice on theology, apologetics, and the Christian life. See also his website, Truth Unites and his blog.

In my opinion, he is currently the best and most influential popular-level Protestant apologist, who (especially) interacts with and offers thoughtful critiques of Catholic positions, from a refreshing ecumenical (not anti-Catholic), but nevertheless solidly Protestant perspective. That’s what I want to interact with, so I have done many replies to Gavin and will continue to do so. His words will be in blue. I use RSV for all Bible passages unless otherwise specified.

All of my replies to Gavin are collected in one place on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, near the top in the section, “Replies to Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund.”

This is my 21st reply to his material.

*****

This is a response to Gavin’s video, Why Do Protestants Convert? With Brad Littlejohn and Chris Castaldo (1-22-24), devoted to discussing the book of the same title with its two co-authors. Brad’s words will be in green; Chris’s in purple.

Gavin endorsed the book written by his two guests, writing (in a screenshot in this video at 0:46), “They do not trivialize, oversimplify, or condescend to this phenomenon. On the contrary, they take it with the utmost seriousness and show it must not be dismissed.”

1:31 it’s not condescending; it doesn’t psychoanalyze people, but it gives some plausible reasons and then helps us respond, and a lot of that is going to be on us as Protestants to reform our own practice where we need to according to the Scripture. 

I deeply appreciate this approach, as a convert myself (1990). I have replied to many critiques of my own conversion or those of others (see my web page devoted to Catholic converts and conversion). Almost invariably, they were condescending, insulting, blatantly prejudiced, fact-challenged, unserious, etc., whereas I have written articles like, “Gratefulness for My Evangelical Protestant Background” [3-18-08] and “My Respect for Protestants / Catholic Ecumenical Principles” [2001; addendum: 1-8-03].

What was attacked the most, if memory serves, were the motives of converts like myself. I would say that the vast majority of those sorts of supposedly “mind-reading” attacks come from anti-Catholics: folks who don’t consider Catholics Christians at all. Therefore, for Protestants to become Catholics is the same to these folks as apostasy: leaving the faith altogether. And of course they can’t look favorably on that, and so anything goes when they analyze someone who made that change. We must be the scum of the earth.

Gavin is not an anti-Catholic, and it appears that his two guests are not, either (they’re all scholars), and they lack the ubiquitous hostility, inevitably leading to irrationality and unfruitful discussion. It becomes a conversation between brothers and sisters in Christ (and if Gavin responds to this, it will continue in the same manner. I’m delighted to have the opportunity to join that sort of discussion. Praise God that it exists. It’s been a long time coming online . . .

1:08 there’s a trend toward that right now [Protestants converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy]. This is a phenomenon that needs to be interpreted . . . 

It’s fascinating to see such a statement from a Protestant, and it will be intensely interesting to me to see how they talk about the causes for this. From where I sit, I would say (predictably) that there is movement because we believe that we have the fullness of Christian truth. It’s not going from evil to good (the anti-Protestant mentality) or from light to darkness (the anti-Catholic mentality), but to what one feels is a fuller, more complete and history-based version of Christianity, without necessarily decrying what one has already learned and gained in Protestantism. Likewise, former Catholic Protestants say that they found things that they believed to be absent in Catholicism and that they chose the path that they felt had relatively more Christian truth in it.

I (like very many Catholic converts) saw my conversion as going from “very good” to “best.” I sincerely thank God every day for what I learned in evangelical Protestant circles. It was almost all very good. I have a deep respect and affection for my Protestant brothers and sisters. I simply discovered that there was more to Christianity, and I wanted that. I wanted all I could get. I viewed it as part of loving God with all of my heart, soul, strength, and mind. Both sides agree that we all have to follow our own consciences and best lights. We need to assume that “the other guy” is doing that, too.

3:47 I’ve just found that a lot of Protestants assume Protestantism and don’t necessarily have good reflection about why they are a Protestant.

This is the overwhelming tendency on both sides (though I would say that Catholics, sadly, tend to be far more ignorant in this regard than Protestants), and many depart one belief-system for another as a result of rejecting straw men or not being aware of the resources and thought available, whereby they may have reconsidered conversion. To put it more bluntly, ignorance is at a premium among Christians as a whole, and the apologist for Christianity in general or for a particular Christian belief-system, provide reasons for why we believe what we believe. That’s where there is a need for adequate education all-around, and apologists can offer some input and help.

10:20  one of the things I appreciated about your book is, you guys aren’t sort of psychoanalyzing people at an individual level, where you’re saying, “we know someone’s motives.” We don’t know people’s motives. We can’t read someone’s heart at an individual level. We’re going to leave those judgments to God. . . . you hear these silly things too of like, “oh they’re doing it for the money . . .” 

Amen and bravo! I make a great effort in my apologetics to try to never do that. If I disagree with someone, I’ll give the theological, historical, apologetic reasons why I do, with all due respect, and minus a sense of “you’re a moron because you believe so-and-so” or “you’re being deliberately dishonest,” etc. I sometimes can be very passionate, but it’s never personal; it’s not seeking to attack persons and motives; only their beliefs that I have honest disagreements with.

One person (a famous Protestant apologist who shall remain unnamed), was at first absolutely convinced that I converted out of stupefying ignorance of Protestant theology. I was dumber than a doornail, and dumb people do a lot of dumb things. Then I produced a list of Protestant books that I had read (most of which were or still are in my own personal library). Without missing a beat, he then stated that my case was one of “knowing deception.” If I wasn’t ignorant, than I just had to be an evil person and a deceiver. There couldn’t possibly be a praiseworthy or spiritual or truly Christian motive or reasoning: not when a Protestant goes Catholic. I can’t describe how refreshing it is to se an analysis that is not typified by that sort of disdainful slop. We can agree on a lot of non-theological things in this discussion.

14:18 we’re all interested in . . . explaining Protestant beliefs, defending Protestant beliefs, trying to remove caricatures from Protestant beliefs that are very common . . .

And I do the same on my end as a catholic apologist. Defeating misinformation and miscomprehensions or distortions is a net gain for everyone. My goal is not only to explain and defend authentic Catholicism, but also to explain authentic Protestantism, and to  oppose distortions and falsehoods about it, which do not help Catholics make their case. We must all do our best to be absolutely honest and accurate. There is an old adage in middle school debate teams, that one must know the view of one’s opponent even better than they know it themselves.

14:30 in your discussion of the theology of conversions you discuss the quest for certainty . . . I do suspect that this is commonly out there and I do see this a lot especially right now in our world, where there’s so much uncertainty and anxiety. I sometimes think people are looking to a church tradition to meet this particular need in the heart for certainty. 

This is a common “psychological / epistemological” sort of analysis often made of the Catholic convert. I think it is more correct to say that many of us simply thought that we were searching for more Christian truth and found it: a bit like the pearl of great price in the Bible. The Catholic contends that in the NT (especially Paul’s letters) “truth” is greatly emphasized. The phrase “the truth” appears in the NT 70 times. I have collected 295 Bible passages about notions like “the faith” and “the truth” and “the doctrine” and “teaching” and “the message”: all essentially synonymous.

We object to Protestantism relegating whole areas of theology (notably, baptism and the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper) and ecclesiology to the individual’s arbitrary choice, as if views that contradict each other are fine and dandy, leading inevitably to a sort of doctrinal relativism and institutional chaos, which is reflected in ever-proliferating Protestant denominations. This appears to us to run counter to what one might call “the spirit of certainty and truth” that seems to be presupposed in the NT. And perhaps this is what many Catholic converts sense and no longer agree with. The “quest for certainty” analysis of Catholic converts continues, but I submit that the table can be turned, and objections made to “the quest for uncertainty” or the “non-quest for certainty” that prevails in Protestantism as a whole. I have written about it several times:

The Protestant “Non-Quest” for Certainty [3-15-06; abridged and links added on 7-12-20]

Glorying in Uncertainty in Modern Protestantism (Dialogue with a Calvinist) [11-11-09]

Radically Unbiblical Protestant “Quest for Uncertainty” [2-12-14]

Gavin seems to agree with my pint to some extent when he states at 15:09: “I really do believe the Holy Spirit has a ministry of assurance to the human heart through faith in Christ, and He communicates a powerful sense of assurance to our heart . . .” He may be talking only about assurance of salvation; maybe not. But we would apply this to all Christian doctrines, according to Jesus’ teaching that the Holy Spirit “will teach you all things” (Jn 14:26) and “guide you into all the truth” (Jn 16:13). St. Paul referred to “words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit” (1 Cor 2:13) and he also wrote: “guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim 1:14).

16:50 you know I follow [Fr.] James Martin on Twitter X, whose feed is clad in rainbows, and I also follow Robbie George who is a champion for conservative conviction. Both of them insist on the magisterium who is right. In other words, it seems like there the magisterium itself needs to be interpreted and there you will have different understandings, different conclusions among Catholics.

This is easily answered. Everyone pretty much knows (i.e., both those who agree and disagree with it) that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual sexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to the natural law.” Here is what the  Catechism states:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

There is no dispute whatsoever about this. Fr. James Martin, like all theological liberals, simply wants to change Church teaching on it, but there is no sign whatsoever of that happening. To observe those sorts of compromising changes (and sanction of serious sin), we must look at hundreds of Protestant denominations who now see nothing wrong whatsoever with same-sex so-called “marriage”. Fr. Martin wants to change the Catholic view of marriage because he doesn’t agree with it. He picks and chooses what he will believe in Catholic teaching. And he questions the Bible itself. Hence he wrote on 23 October 2019 on his Twitter page: “Where the Bible mentions [same-sex sexual] behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether the biblical judgment is correct.”

This is the very quintessence of theological liberalism (with whom both Protestants and Catholics are “blessed”). They start by attacking the Bible. Then they will attack the Christian traditions that they claim to be part of. The problem, in other words, is not with the Catholic magisterium, which is quite clear and unequivocal on this issue. The problem is with the flawed methodologies of religiously dissident, heterodox theological liberals. Let’s place the blame where it squarely lies.

This is a variation of another common argument against Catholic authority, which has been called “the infallibility regress.” It, too, fails, as I think I demonstrate in several papers (the above example is a classic case of it failing):

Church Authority & Certainty (The “Infallibility Regress”) [July 2000; some revisions on 12-8-11]

Ecclesiological Certainty (?) & the “Infallibility Regress” [5-22-03 and 10-7-08]

Does Church Infallibility Require Infallible Catholics? [6-8-10]

“How Can we Find a List of Infallible Catholic Doctrines?” [12-15-18]

22:55 any spectrum of opinions that you can find within Protestantism, you can basically find the same spectrum of opinions within Roman Catholicism.

See my papers:

Have Heterodox Catholics Overthrown Official Doctrine? (vs. Eric Svendsen, James White, Phillip Johnson, & Andrew Webb) [6-3-96]
*
The essential difference here is that Protestantism institutionalizes sin on a massive basis, whereas Catholic liberals are in opposition to their own Church’s teachings. Most of the Lutheran and Presbyterian denominations and the Anglicans and Episcopalians and Methodists now accept same-sex “marriage” and abortion as perfectly moral acts. They didn’t used to.  They changed and started calling good what they formerly regarded as evil. That’s not following the Bible and apostles and Church fathers. Catholicism, meanwhile, continues teaching that both are immoral, just as it always has, following the Bible and apostles and Church fathers.
*
This was a major reason why I became a Catholic. It wasn’t a “quest for certainty” so much as it was a “quest for which Church body had continued adhering to — or at least came the closest to — biblical and apostolic teaching as always previously understood.” Orthodoxy came close, but it caved on divorce and contraception: both disallowed in the early Church (and I would say, the Bible also). All Christians thought contraception was gravely evil until 1930, when the Anglicans said it was okay in “hard cases” only. The essential difference here between Catholicism and everyone else is obvious. And this can adequately account for many Protestants deciding to become Catholics, on the basis of moral theology. I submit that it’s a perfectly legitimate and understandable reason.
*
21:51  you can drive down Main Street and have a Presbyterian church and an Anglican church and a Bible church and a Methodist Church and inasmuch as they all maintain the gospel of scripture they enjoy true unity. . . . 
*
But of course they don’t do that. Three of the four redefine marriage to include two of the same sex getting married, and sodomy as perfectly acceptable, moral sexual practice. The fourth doesn’t. In that respect, the Bible church has maintained tradition and the other three have not. They have caved into modern secularism and the sexual revolution. They have conformed to the world (whereas Paul said that we should not do that). Same thing with abortion. Redefining what a human being is and what marriage is, is not in harmony with the Christian gospel; sorry. So where he refers to supposed Protestant “unity”; in fact it is not unified.
*
Nor do these denominations even agree on a thing even as basic as baptism. Three of the four practice infant baptism, the fourth, adult believer’s baptism. One of them thinks baptism regenerates a person; the other three disagree. They essentially disagree on the nature of the Lord’s Supper. One of them — or at least sub-groups of Anglicanism — holds that the real presence of Jesus’ body occurs in the Holy Eucharist. The other three deny it. And so forth and so on. But we are told that they have “unity” . . .
*

45:43 I cannot name a single — not one — Church Father who said there are seven sacraments; not a single one you can find. Some will say there are more than two or use the word sacrament more broadly, but never seven to my awareness. And I’ve not found anybody who’s pushed

And why did John Calvin state in 1559 in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, that “laying on of hands” was “a sacrament in true and legitimate ordination” (Book IV, 19:31)? All of a sudden things aren’t so crystal clear, according to the two most important early Protestant leaders, and even the book of Lutheran confessions.
*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: cover of the book, Why Do Protestants Convert?, by Brad Littlejohn and Chris Castaldo, from its Amazon book page.

Summary: I discuss with Gavin Ortlund & two others several aspects of the process of conversion from Protestant to Catholic, agreeing in some ways & disagreeing in others.

2024-02-02T16:42:53-04:00

Last updated on: February 2, 2024 at 4:42 pm   By
0 Comments

+ St. Polycarp and St. Clement of Rome On Early Church Ecclesiology

Gavin Ortlund is a Reformed Baptist author, speaker, pastor, and apologist for the Christian faith. He has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in historical theology, and an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. Gavin is the author of seven books as well as numerous academic and popular articles. For a list of publications, see his CV. He runs the YouTube channel Truth Unites, which seeks to provide an “irenic” voice on theology, apologetics, and the Christian life. See also his website, Truth Unites and his blog. His words will be in blue.

*****

For background reading, see my articles:

Ignatius Of Antioch On Monarchical Bishops [1-25-24]

St. Ignatius, Bishops, & the Rule of Faith (vs. T.F. Kauffman) [7-14-23]

Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 117) vs. Sola Scriptura [12-21-21]

Monarchical Bishops (Early Fathers & Eusebius) [1-29-24]

Jerusalem Council & James, Bishop Of Jerusalem: The Ambivalence and Inconsistencies of Protestant Thought on the Earliest “Monarchical” Bishops [1-30-24]

St. Jerome, Papacy, & Succession (Vs. Gavin Ortlund) [1-20-24]

*****

I’m responding to Gavin’s video, “A Protestant Take on Ignatius” (2-19-21).

0:20 I’ve known many people who, because of the letters of Ignatius: that’s like the thing, or one of the key things that either unsettles someone, in being a Protestant, or even propels them towards becoming Catholic or Orthodox.

One can see why. He is extremely “Catholic” already, for one who lived so early in Church history (50 – c. 110), and who was discipled by St. John. That’s not supposed to be, in Protestant thinking, since they typically view Catholicism as a corrupted accretion or addition to the true primal Christian faith, handed on by the apostles. Ignatius doesn’t “fit in” with that schema.

Gavin mentions that people see in Ignatius a very “high” view of the episcopate (single bishops as heads of local churches) and of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, and how it was “really surprising” and not what they were “expecting.”

1:55 Whatever you conclude about whether Ignatius is right or wrong, it’s not a reason to become Catholic or Orthodox. 

We’ll have to see how he unpacks this claims. It seems to me that if Protestants are taught by their pastors and Bible study teachers their usual stunted, highly selective, semi-mythical caricature of Church history (insofar as they learn about it at all), and then they see what Ignatius — one of the earliest Church fathers — actually teaches, that it would be sufficiently jolting to perhaps make them curious about other Church fathers and possibly in time, even Protestantism itself. The novelty of a disciple of the apostle John being so thoroughly Catholic would indeed be jarring.

Something similar was the key factor in my own conversion, back in 1990. It was reading St. John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which discussed many Church fathers and explained how what we see today in Catholic dogma, makes perfect sense as having developed from the initial kernel of the apostolic deposit.

Gavin says he is “dismayed” in seeing many Protestants move “rapidly” into a “higher” view of Church government, due to Ignatius, without considering “other Protestant traditions.” Anglicans and Lutherans are two groups that he cites, that might be superior alternatives.

He claims that the nature of the Eucharist was a live issue in the early Church and “were debated for many many centuries.” This was not the case. See my papers:

St. Ignatius & Eucharistic Real Presence (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [9-12-22]

Justin Martyr, Real Presence, & Eucharistic Sacrifice (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [9-13-22]

St. Augustine’s Belief in the Substantial Real Presence [1996]

Patristic Eucharistic Doctrine: Nine Protestant Scholars [12-1-96]

John Calvin and St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Comparative Eucharistic Theology [6-14-04]

Eucharistic Sacrifice: The Witness of the Church Fathers [9-12-05]

Sacrifice of the Mass / Cyprian’s Ecclesiology (vs. Calvin #11) [5-19-09]

Transubstantiation: Bible & the Fathers (vs. Calvin #42) [24-25 November 2009]

Bizarre “Eucharistic Christology” vs. Tertullian (vs. Calvin #45) [12-1-09]

Church Fathers and the Sacrifice of the Mass (Thoroughly Catholic!) [12-11-09]

St. Augustine’s Eucharistic Doctrine and Protestant “Co-Opting” [9-25-10]

St. Augustine’s Eucharistic Doctrine: Simultaneous Assertion of Realism and Symbolism [2-17-11]

“Re-Presentation” vs. “Re-Sacrifice” in the Mass: Doctrinal History [4-4-18]

Lucas Banzoli Misrepresents Chrysostom’s Eucharistic Theology (+ An Overview of St. John Chrysostom’s Catholic View of the Eucharistic Sacrifice) [9-14-22]

Tertullian’s Eucharistic Theology: Lucas Banzoli vs. J.N.D. Kelly [9-15-22]

Then he returns to the issue of Church government and bishops.

4:46 We should read Ignatius along with all the other apostolic Church fathers. . . . When you read all of the apostolic fathers, what you get is a very complicated picture. . . . Pretty universally among other apostolic fathers, . . . you get a two-office view. Some examples of that would be Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians, where in chapters 5 and 6 . . . it’s very similar to 1st Timothy 3 . . . there’s no mention of a third office [bishop].

As I wrote in my first book in 1996, the offices in the Church were a bit fluid at first, and in the Bible itself. And so there is some interchangeability. That said, it could be that Polycarp had a notion of a bishop (which is an office in the NT, after all: mentioned five times, including twice in 1 Timothy 3, and in Acts 20:28 (“overseers”), as a sort of “super-elder,” or “super-presbyter,” just as we see in Protestant churches today, the senior pastor and associate pastors. In that set-up, they are all of the same office, yet one is senior, above the others. In some sectors of the early Church, this is what we see, since the notion was still very early in its development (just as, also, were doctrines like the Holy Trinity or the canon of the Bible).

Protestants, for example, widely hold that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and was so during the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Yet the Bible never expressly states that he was. In its description of the council, the term, “apostles and elders” is used (15:2, 4, 6, 22-23). James in this instance was both an apostle and an elder, and in fact he was the bishop of Jerusalem, and presided over the council (though I contend that it was Peter who laid down the fundamental principle and conclusion, that was followed by James and the council). So he was functioning as a bishop, and is even acknowledged as such by many many Protestants (as I just wrote about yesterday), but was not called one in Acts 15.

Likewise, I submit, in Polycarp’s epistle. He simply didn’t use the word “bishop.” But he knew there was such an office because it was already detailed in the NT. Peter does the same thing in his first epistle. He functions very much like a bishop in how he approaches things and in terms of those who received his letter: “To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado’cia, Asia, and Bithyn’ia,” (1 Pet 1:1). I wrote in August 2022 about this:

Pontus was in the north of Turkey and largely surrounding the Black Sea north of it. Galatia was in the center of Asia Minor (Turkey),  Cappadocia in its southeast, and Bithynia in its northwest. “Asia” in the NT refers to Asia Minor.

So Peter was writing to Christians in a vast area. The size of Turkey is about a thousand miles from west to east, and 300-400 miles from north to south. This is the area, and also east and north of the Black Sea, that was the recipient of Peter’s first epistle. The letter is filled with decidedly “papal” commands: and Peter assumes sublime authority throughout his epistle:

“gird up your minds” (1:13 [RSV]); “be holy yourselves in all your conduct” (1:15); “love one another earnestly from the heart” (1:22); “So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander” (2:1); “long for the pure spiritual milk” (2:2); “abstain from the passions of the flesh” (2:11); “Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles” (2:12); “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution” (2:13); “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (2:17); ” wives, be submissive to your husbands” (3:1); “Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman” (3:7); “have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.” (3:8); “Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling” (3:9); “in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense” (3:15: apologetics!); ” keep your conscience clear” (3:16); “keep sane and sober for your prayers” (4:7); “hold unfailing your love for one another” (4:8); “Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another” (4:9); “As each has received a gift, employ it for one another” (4:10); “Tend the flock of God that is your charge” (5:2: addressed specifically to other bishops); “you that are younger be subject to the elders” (5:5); “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God” (5:6); “Be sober, be watchful” (5:8); and “Resist him, firm in your faith” (5:9).

This is altogether the scope and nature of a bishop’s teaching, with authority, and to Christians over an area a thousand miles wide and 400 miles from bottom to top. That’s not “local church” stuff! Yet what does Peter call himself?: “I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder” (1 Pet 5:1). Once again, then, he acts exactly as a bishop does, while calling himself an “elder” and not using the word “bishop” (episkopos), just as in the scores of biblical proofs for the Holy Trinity, the word “trinity” never appears, while at the same time, the doctrine and the idea does. In other words, the mere lack of one particular term doesn’t necessarily mean that the ideas involved are also absent. The pope remains the bishop of Rome, while also being the supreme leader of the universal Catholic Church.

Polycarp was himself a bishop. After all, witnesses to his martyrdom (somewhere between 156 and 167) described him as that:

Polycarp . . . having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16)

So how could he not believe in bishops and episcopal hierarchy when he himself was one? Gavin’s reference to him doesn’t take into account the Martyrdom of Polycarp, which is as authentic as his letter to the Philippians. Polycarp starts his own letter with the words, “Polycarp, and the presbyters with him . . .” But that no more proves that he is not a bishop than the President of the United States writing a letter, saying, “President X, with the Senators and Congressmen . . .” “proves” he isn’t the President. He writes like a bishop in his letter, just as Peter did in his epistle, that made it into the NT. He uses the phrases, “I exhort you” twice (9, 11) and “stand fast” (10) and states, “Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ” (8). It’s authoritative.

St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies (Bk III, 3,  3, 4), written around 180, stated that “Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna” and referred to “men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time.” Tertullian, writing about bishops around 200 AD, wrote about “the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; . . .” (Prescription against Heretics, 32).

Now, if no one had classified Polycarp as a bishop, and everyone called him merely one presbyter among many in his own congregation, Gavin might have a good argument. But as it is, appealing to Polycarp against episcopacy won’t work at all. Let’s see what else Gavin can come up with.

5:38 Another example would be the first epistle of Clement . . . [where he referred to, in ch. 42] bishops and deacons.

Clement also refers to “presbyters” no less than five times in the same letter (1, 44, 47, 54, 57), which means that he holds to a threefold ministry after all. “Bishops” appears three times (42),”deacons” three times (also in 42), but “episcopate” — same root as “bishop” (episkopos) — twice in chapter 44. So there is nothing unCatholic here at all. It confirms our view, as does the nature of the letter, which is very “papal” (since Clement was an early pope / bishop of Rome). See:

Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority [7-28-21]

Explicit Papal Infallibility in 96 AD (Pope St. Clement) [originally from 7-30-21; posted at Catholic365 on 11-20-23]

Is First Clement Non-Papal? (vs. Jason Engwer) [4-19-22]

And of course there is significant historical indication that Clement was a bishop of Rome.  St. Irenaeus wrote:

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus [start of reign: 64-68], Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus [r. c. 79 – c. 92]; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement [r. 88-99] was allotted the bishopric. . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus [r. c. 99- c. 107]. Alexander [r. c. 107- c. 115] followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus [r. c. 115- c. 124] was appointed; after him, . . . (Against Heresies, Bk III, 3, 3; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Bk V, 6, 1-5)

Tertullian, around 200, referred to “the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (Prescription against Heretics, 32). The first Church historian, Eusebius, wrote around 300: “Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer [Phil 4:3] . . .  (EH, Bk III, 4, 10) and: “In the twelfth year of the same reign [92/93] Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years.” (EH, Bk III, 15, 1; cf. Bk III, 21, 1-3 and 34, 1).

Gavin makes an argument that near the end of the letter, Clement refers only to presbyters, as the rulers of the church in Corinth, and not to a specific bishop. But Clement also made the following general statement: “For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world] . . .” (44). He could and probably would argue that bishops and presbyters are equated here, but that poses no necessary problem, per the several arguments I provided above, from the analogous examples of Peter, James, and Polycarp.

Even if Corinth was ruled by a group of presbyters in c. 100, so what? Ecclesiology develops like all other doctrines. We would fully expect to see these divergences. As to the subsequent governance of the Corinthian church, Eusebius cites the chronicler Hegesippus, who says he was in Corinth in the time of Pope Anicetus, and that Primus was bishop of Corinth around 150–155 or so:

Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: “And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. (EH, IV, 22, 1-4)

Eusebius makes mention of “Dionysius, who was appointed bishop of the church in Corinth” (EH, Bk IV, 23, 1). We know that this was the case in the year 171 because Eusebius wrote in Bk IV, 23, 9 that “There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time.” So episcopacy eventually arrived in Corinth. It didn’t take long. It would, after all, take almost 250 more years for the canon of the Bible to be fully established and another fifty years after that for a full understanding of the Holy Trinity to develop (crystallized at the Council of Chalcedon in 451).

So, 90-100 years were needed for the Corinthians to figure out that episcopacy was the proper form of government? No problem at all! What was already present from the 40s in Jerusalem would soon spread all around. None of this poses the slightest problem for either the Catholic conception of Church history or for our ecclesiology. But it’s sure very unlike most forms of Protestantism.

6:42 This [presbyterian polity] is what you see everywhere other than with Ignatius.

The falsehood of this statement — with all due respect to Gavin — has been amply documented above. Ignatius was not the exception. He was the rule. Neither Polycarp nor Clement (themselves both bishops) don’t disprove it. Corinth was simply an exception and it took longer for episcopacy to develop there.  It was already present by 100 in Jerusalem, Rome, Smyrna, Antioch, and many other places. Eusebius writes, for example, about Alexandria:

When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign [62 AD], Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria. (Bk II, 24, 1; according to Bk III, ch. 14, he held his office for twenty-two years [84])

There are always slow learners. Corinth was one of those. Gavin claims that the Shepherd of Hermas taught presbyterian ecclesiology. But it states:

Hear now with regard to the stones which are in the building. Those square white stones which fitted exactly into each other, are apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons, who have lived in godly purity, and have acted as bishops and teachers and deacons chastely and reverently to the elect of God. (Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 3, 5)

The Muratorian Canon [c. 180-200], the oldest list of New Testament writings, stated, “The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Pius sat in the chair of the Church of Rome.”  Pius reigned as pope and bishop of Rome from c. 140 to c. 154. He mentions the Didache (c. 100) and how it references “bishops and deacons” in ch. 15. I would make the same sort of reply that I made about the epistle of Clement above.

And again, it should be noted that the offices were sometimes fluid in the early Church, because they were in the Bible itself. The Didache was written at a time when the apostolic age was coming to a close. The apostles passed on their authority to bishops. But in 100 AD, a document like this one was still focused on prophets and apostles, rather than pastors or priests, as it was in chapters 11 and 13. It’s still significant too, that the reference is to bishops and deacons, rather than presbyters and deacons. The bishop was a higher office.

Gavin notes that St. Ignatius in his letter to the Romans doesn’t address or even mention a sole bishop in Rome. This is a good and fair point. Catholic writer Allan Ruhl offered a possible reason for this in his article, “Why Didn’t St. Ignatius Mention the Bishop of Rome?” (8-19-20):

If I had to guess, it would be because of the grand history of Christian persecution in Rome.  There was massive persecution under Nero and Domitian and that was in very recent memory.  Maybe it was to protect the identity of the bishop and other members of the Church of Rome.  If this fell into the hands of Roman governors who wanted to persecute Christians, they’d have a list of the names they needed to hunt down.  This would make torturing easier as they knew who they needed.  Keep in mind that the epistle to Rome doesn’t mention any Presbyters or Deacons as well.  In several of the other letters, St. Ignatius mentions presbyters and deacons by name.  For example, in his epistle to the Magnesians he writes:

Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and throughout my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, inasmuch as he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ. – St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 2

He’s fully willing to mention the names and positions of several people in the Magnesian Church.  Maybe it was safer to be a Christian in Magnesia than it was to be in Rome at the time?  This would make sense as in Rome you’d be under the thumb of a pagan emperor as opposed to being in a far Eastern province of the Roman Empire.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, this is simply a guess.  I would say it’s an educated guess but at the end of the day it’s just a guess.  However, my guess actually fits in with the evidence from the early Church.

Catholic apologist Trent Horn argues similarly:

Ignatius doesn’t mention any Christian by name in the church of Rome. . . . It makes sense that he’s not going to mention the names of these people. In the letter to the Romans, Ignatius only mentions Croccus, someone who is traveling with him, who was there in Asia Minor. If this letter is intercepted, he’s not going to give the Romans the names of the prominent Christians in the city of Rome. So yeah, I think these arguments from silence, we’re on the wrong burden of proof here. (“Was There a First Century Bishop of Rome?,” Catholic Answers, 2-16-22)

Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer adds:

[U]nlike his other letters (which are encouraging the churches to obey their leaders), the letter of Rome is to thank them for their support on his way to martyrdom.  It reads almost nothing like the other letters, because the theme and tone are totally different. (“Ignatius of Antioch on the Structure of the Early Church,” Shameless Popery, 10-20-10)

It sounds plausible enough to me. But I don’t claim any more for these arguments than that. If it’s considered to be a difficulty for the Catholic position, then I retort that there are many many difficulties in the non-episcopal position. At least I have posited some sort of reply for this alleged difficulty and argument from silence. Every position has to grapple with certain anomalies that don’t or don’t seem to fit into its theory

9:25 If you go back to the New Testament, you don’t have any basis for a distinction between the office of bishop and elder. . . . It’s very clear that the words are used interchangeably.

I’ve addressed this in my past article, St. Jerome, Papacy, & Succession (Vs. Gavin Ortlund). Readers can follow the link if they want to read the lengthy excerpt there from my bestselling apologetics book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. I wrote, for example:

As is often the case in theology and practice among the earliest Christians, there is some fluidity and overlapping of these three vocations (for example, compare Acts 20:17 with 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:1-7 with Titus 1:5-9). But this does not prove that three offices of ministry did not exist. For instance, St. Paul often referred to himself as a deacon or minister (1 Cor. 3:5; 4:1, 2 Cor. 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23-25), yet no one would assert that he was merely a deacon, and nothing else.

I’ll cite just one more portion of it which shows how the NT does single out some duties of the bishop over against the elders:

Bishops (episkopos) possess all the powers, duties, and jurisdiction of priests, with the following important additional responsibilities:

  • Jurisdiction over priests and local churches, and the power to ordain priests: Acts 14:22; 1 Timothy 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6; Titus 1:5.
  • Special responsibility to defend the Faith: Acts 20:28-31; 2 Timothy 4:1-5; Titus 1:9-10; 2 Peter 3:15-16.
  • Power to rebuke false doctrine and to excommunicate: Acts 8:14-24; 1 Corinthians 16:22; 1 Timothy 5:20; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:10-11.
  • Power to bestow Confirmation (the receiving of the indwelling Holy Spirit): Acts 8:14-17; 19:5-6.
  • Management of Church finances: 1 Timothy 3:3-4; 1 Peter 5:2.

In the Septuagint, episkopos is used for “overseer” in various senses, for example: officers (Judg. 9:28; Isa. 60:17), supervisors of funds (2 Chron. 34:12, 17), overseers of priests and Levites (Neh. 11:9; 2 Kings 11:18), and of temple and tabernacle functions (Num. 4:16).

Plenty of distinctions there, and how they actually act in real life (e.g., Peter and James and later, Polycarp and Clement of Rome and Ignatius, as elaborated upon above) illustrates the differences in action.

Moreover, some have argued that Jesus Himself in the book of Revelation, taught monepiscopacy. In Revelation 1:16, St. John states that he saw “seven stars” in Jesus’ right hand. Then Jesus explains in 1:20 that “the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches.” Then Jesus tells John seven times in Revelation 2 and 3: “to the angel of the church in [so-and-so] write . . .“

This is highly unusual, but the most fascinating thing is what many classic Protestant commentators think this is describing. For example, Ellicott’s Commentary states that the “generally adopted view is that the angel is the chief pastor or bishop of the Church.” Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Bible Commentary concurs that it is “the bishop, or superintendent pastor.” Pulpit Commentary, while noting that the interpretation is “very much disputed” comments that “the common explanation that they are the bishops of the Churches is attractive on account of its simplicity.”

Henry Alford, in his Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary wrote about Revelation 2:8: “in accordance with the idea of the angel representing the bishop, many of the ancient Commentators have inferred that Polycarp must have been here addressed.” Adam Clarke’s Commentary states that the “stars” are “the seven angels, messengers, or bishops of the seven Churches.” W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words states that the Greek word angelos “is also used of a [human] guardian or representative in Rev. 1:20.” Likewise, Ralph Earle’s Word Meanings of the New Testament opines that angelos “is used for human messengers in Luke 7:24; 9:52; and James 2:25 . . . we feel that here it may possibly mean the pastors of the 7 churches.”

Vincent’s Word Studies opines that one of two possible takes is that “The angels are Bishops.” Philip Schaff, the renowned church historian draws the remarkable conclusion that “This phraseology of the Apocalypse already looks towards the idea of episcopacy in its primitive form, that is, to a monarchical concentration of governmental form in one person, bearing a patriarchal relation to the congregation.” John Wesley, in his Explanatory Notes, stated that “In each church there was one pastor or ruling minister, to whom all the rest were subordinate. This pastor, bishop, or overseer, had the peculiar care over that flock . . .” St. Augustine in his Letter 43 commented on this:

[I]f He wished this to be understood as addressed to a celestial angel, and not to those invested with authority in the Church, He would not go on to say: “Nevertheless I have somewhat against you, because you have left your first love. Remember therefore from whence you are fallen, and repent, . . .” [Augustine cites Revelation 2:4-5] This could not be said to the heavenly angels, who retain their love unchanged, as the only beings of their order that have departed and fallen from their love are the devil and his angels.

St. Epiphanius believed the same, commenting on Revelation 2:6 in his Panarion (2:25): “John writes in the Lord’s name to one of the churches — that is, to the bishop appointed there . . .” So this shows that at least two of the Church fathers took this view. If this interpretation is followed (and I just cited ten major Protestant commentators who hold it or note that it is a common or respectable exegetical opinion), then it would follow that the question of monepiscopacy was already settled in the inspired revelation of the New Testament, describing the ecclesial scene around 100 AD, and by the words of our Lord Jesus.

Related Reading

*
*
*
*

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: This tile in Constantinople (10th century) depicts St. Ignatius. bishop of Antioch [public domain / Wikipedia]

Summary: Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund argues that St. Ignatius of Antioch’s view of monarchical bishops is an isolated one; contradicted by other apostolic Church fathers.

 

2024-02-02T16:44:41-04:00

Last updated on: February 2, 2024 at 4:44 pm   By
0 Comments

Recently I’ve written about St. Jerome’s view on the matter, as well as St. Ignatius of Antioch’s (d. c. 110 or 117). Ignatius is described as the bishop of Antioch by Eusebius (see below). I’ve also written about how St. Clement of Rome (c. 35-99) seems to be acting as a pope in his letter to the Corinthians. He is identified as the bishop of Rome by both St. Irenaeus and Eusebius (see below).

Now I’ll take a look at some other early fathers and the father of Church history, Eusebius, to see what they thought about it.

Hear now with regard to the stones which are in the building. Those square white stones which fitted exactly into each other, are apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons, who have lived in godly purity, and have acted as bishops and teachers and deacons chastely and reverently to the elect of God. (Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 3, 5)

Visions 1-4 suggest to some scholars a date of 95 to 100 for this document, which was considered to be canonical Scripture by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and Athanasius. But the Muratorian Canon [c. 180-200], the oldest list of New Testament writings, stated, “The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Pius sat in the chair of the Church of Rome.”  Pius reigned as pope and bishop of Rome from c. 140 to c. 154. Thus, some think that the Shepherd of Hermas is a composite document. It’s certainly — as a whole — no later than 175-180, when Irenaeus referred to it.

Polycarp . . . having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16; the date of Polycarp’s death is generally thought to be somewhere between 156 and 167; the letter was written by the church in Smyrna by eyewitnesses of Polycarp’s gruesome martyrdom)

Some have argued that Justin Martyr (d. 165) referred to a monepiscopate in his use of the term “president” (First Apology, 65, 67).

Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, states that Dionysius of Corinth [bishop of Corinth in 171]

mentions Quadratus [d. 129] also, stating that he was appointed their [Athenians’] bishop after the martyrdom of Publius [d. c. 112 or c. 125; St. Luke refers to him as “the chief man of the island” of Malta: Acts 28:7], . . . He records, moreover, that Dionysius the Areopagite [d. bef. 100], who was converted to the faith by the apostle Paul, according to the statement in the Acts of the Apostles [17:34], first obtained the episcopate of the church at Athens. (EH, Bk IV, 23, 3; my own links in the text; Narcissus, mentioned by Paul in Rom 16:11, preceded Publius as Bishop of Athens)

Writing also to the church that is in Gortyna, together with the other parishes in Crete, he commends their bishop Philip [d. 180], because of the many acts of fortitude which are testified to as performed by the church under him, and he warns them to be on their guard against the aberrations of the heretics. (EH, Bk IV, 23, 5; my own link in the text)

Among these is inserted also another epistle addressed to the Cnosians [Knossos in Crete], in which he exhorts Pinytus [d. 180], bishop of the parish, . . . (EH, Bk IV, 23, 7; my own link in the text)

There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter [r. c. 169 – 174], who was bishop at that time. . . . (EH, Bk IV, 23, 9-10; my own link in the text; Bacchylus was bishop of Corinth in 199, according to Eusebius: Bk. V, 22)

St. Irenaeus (130-202) famously wrote, around 175-180 AD:

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus [start of reign: 64-68], Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus [r. c. 79 – c. 92]; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement [r. 88-99] was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus [r. c. 99- c. 107]. Alexander [r. c. 107- c. 115] followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus [r. c. 115- c. 124] was appointed; after him, Telephorus [or, Telesphorus; c. 126- c. 137], who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus [r. c. 136- c. 142]; after him, Pius [r. c. 140- c. 154]; then after him, Anicetus [r. c. 157- c. 168]. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius [r. c. 174-189] does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (Against Heresies, Bk III, 3, 3; my own links in the text; cited in Eusebius, EH, Bk V, 6, 1-5)

Irenaeus writes in several places about apostolic succession: that is, the notion that bishops are the appointed successors of the apostles:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, . . . (Against Heresies, Bk III, 3,  3, 1)

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time . . . He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles — that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. (Against Heresies, Bk III, 3,  3, 4)

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church — those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. (Against Heresies, Bk IV, 26, 2)

True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, . . . (Against Heresies, Bk IV, 33, 8)

Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. (Against Heresies, Bk V, 20, 1)

Likewise, Hegesippus [fl. c. 180] bore witness to apostolic succession and monepiscopacy:

Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: “And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.” The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: “And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. (EH, IV, 22, 1-4)

Tertullian strongly taught apostolic succession in c. 200 AD:

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, — a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. (Prescription against Heretics, 32)

And again between 207 and 212:

We have also St. John’s foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author. In the same manner is recognised the excellent source of the other churches. (Against Marcion, Bk IV, 5)

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150- c. 215) wrote between 190 and 210:

[L]isten to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death [Emperor Domitian in 96], he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit. (Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?, 42; cited in Eusebius, EH, Bk III, 23, 5-6)

And in another writing, between 202 and 216:

Since, according to my opinion, the grades here in the Church, of bishops, presbyters, deacons, are imitations of the angelic glory, and of that economy which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who, following the footsteps of the apostles, have lived in perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel. (Stromata, Book VI, 13)

Likewise, St. Cyprian (210-258):

Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, . . . (Ep. 68, 8)

Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination. But the enemies of the one Catholic Church in which we are, and the adversaries of us who have succeeded the apostles, asserting for themselves, in opposition to us, unlawful priesthoods, . . . (Ep. 74, 16)

Firmilian of Caesarea wrote to St. Cyprian in 255 or 256:

[T]he power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place. (Letter 75, 16, 5; from William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1 [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1970], p. 245)

The well-known Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff, editor of the 38-volume set of the Church fathers, wrote about early ecclesiology:

Besides appealing to the Scriptures, the fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian [c. 160- c. 225], refer with equal confidence to the “rule of faith;” that is, the common faith of the church, as orally handed down in the unbroken succession of bishops from Christ and his apostles to their day, and above all as still living in the original apostolic churches, like those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome. Tradition is thus intimately connected with the primitive episcopate. The latter was the vehicle of the former, and both were looked upon as bulwarks against heresy.

Irenaeus confronts the secret tradition of the Gnostics with the open and unadulterated tradition of the catholic church, and points to all churches, but particularly to Rome, as the visible centre of the unity of doctrine. All who would know the truth, says he, can see in the whole church the tradition of the apostles; and we can count the bishops ordained by the apostles, and their successors down to our time, who neither taught nor knew any such heresies. Then, by way of example, he cites the first twelve bishops of the Roman church from Linus to Eleutherus, as witnesses of the pure apostolic doctrine. He might conceive of a Christianity without scripture, but he could not imagine a Christianity without living tradition; and for this opinion he refers to barbarian tribes, who have the gospel, “sine charta et atramento,” written in their hearts.

Tertullian finds a universal antidote for all heresy in his celebrated prescription argument, which cuts off heretics, at the outset, from every right of appeal to the holy scriptures, on the ground, that the holy scriptures arose in the church of Christ, were given to her, and only in her and by her can be rightly understood. He calls attention also here to the tangible succession, which distinguishes the catholic church from the arbitrary and ever-changing sects of heretics, and which in all the principal congregations, especially in the original sects of the apostles, reaches back without a break from bishop to bishop, to the apostles themselves, from the apostles to Christ, and from Christ to God. “Come, now,” says he, in his tract on Prescription, “if you would practise inquiry to more advantage in the matter of your salvation, go through the apostolic churches, in which the very chairs of the apostles still preside, in which their own authentic letters are publicly read, uttering the voice and representing the face of every one. If Achaia is nearest, you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you live near Italy, you have Rome, whence also we [of the African church] derive our origin. How happy is the church, to which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood,” etc.

To estimate the weight of this argument, we must remember that these fathers still stood comparatively very near the apostolic age, and that the succession of bishops in the oldest churches could be demonstrated by the living memory of two or three generations. Irenaeus in fact, had been acquainted in his youth with Polycarp, a disciple of St. John. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, Chapter XII, section 139, “Catholic Tradition,” pp. 525 ff.)

The Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius (c. 260/265-339) was the first and by far most important comprehensive history of the Church, and was completed in its first edition before 300 AD. It has a wealth of information about monarchical bishops from very early on in Church history:

Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. . . . Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.” (EH, Bk II, 1, 2-3)

When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign [62 AD], Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria. (Bk II, 24, 1; according to Bk III, ch. 14, he held his office for twenty-two years [84])

. . . Zephyrinus [r. 199-217], bishop of Rome. (EH, Bk II, 25, 6)

After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus [start of reign between 64-68] was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle. [2 Tim 4:21] (EH, Bk III, 2, 1; cf. III, 4, 9. In Bk III, ch. 13, Eusebius says that Linus was bishop for twelve years)

Timothy [d. c. 97], so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus [d. 96 or 107] of the churches in Crete. (EH, Bk III, 4, 6)

Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer [Phil 4:3] . . .  (EH, Bk III, 4, 10)

Besides these, that Areopagite, named Dionysius [d. bef. 100], who was the first to believe after Paul’s address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as recorded by Luke in the Acts [17:34]) is mentioned by another Dionysius, an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth, as the first bishop of the church at Athens. (EH, Bk III, 4, 11)

After the martyrdom of James [c. 69] and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas [d. c. 107 or 117], of whom the Gospel also makes mention [Jn 19:25]; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. (EH, Bk III, 11, 1-2; cf. III, 32, 1 and Hegesippus’ account in IV, 22, 4)

After Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus [r. 79-81], his son, succeeded him. In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, delivered his office to Anencletus. (EH, Bk III, 13, 1)

In the fourth year of Domitian [85], Annianus, the first bishop of the parish of Alexandria, died after holding office twenty-two years, and was succeeded by Abilius [d. 98], the second bishop. (EH, Bk III, 14, 1)

In the twelfth year of the same reign [92/93] Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. (EH, Bk III, 15, 1)

After Nerva had reigned a little more than a year he was succeeded by Trajan. It was during the first year of his reign [98] that Abilius, who had ruled the church of Alexandria for thirteen years, was succeeded by Cerdon [d. c. 106-109; cf. IV, ch. 1]. He was the third that presided over that church after Annianus, who was the first. At that time Clement still ruled the church of Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after Paul and Peter. Linus was the first, and after him came Anencletus. (EH, Bk III, 21, 1-3)

At this time Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius [r. c. 53-66] having been the first. Symeon likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first. (EH, Bk III, 22, 1)

In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above [Trajan: 101], Clement committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus, and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all. (EH, Bk III, 34, 1)

But when Symeon also had died [during Trajan’s reign: 98-117] in the manner described, a certain Jew by the name of Justus succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem. (EH, Bk III, 35, 1)

About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan [110] the above-mentioned bishop of the parish of Alexandria [Cedron] died, and Primus, the fourth in succession from the apostles, was chosen to the office. At that time also Alexander [r. c. 107-109 – c. 115-119], the fifth in the line of succession from Peter and Paul, received the episcopate at Rome, after Evarestus had held the office eight years. (EH, Bk IV, 1, 1-2)

In the third year of the same reign [Hadrian: 119-120], Alexander, bishop of Rome, died after holding office ten years. His successor was Xystus [r. c. 119-c. 129]. About the same time Primus, bishop of Alexandria, died in the twelfth year of his episcopate, and was succeeded by Justus. (EH, Bk IV, 4, 1)

[U]ntil the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian [132-135], there were fifteen bishops in succession there [Jerusalem], . . . it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James [d. 62], the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon [r. 62-107]; the third, Justus [r. 107-113]; the fourth, Zacchæus [r. 113 – ?]; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin [r. ? – 117]; the seventh, John [r. 117 – ?]; the eighth, Matthias [r. ? – 120] the ninth, Philip [r. 120 – ?]; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas [r. ? – 135]. (EH, Bk IV, 5, 2-3)

In the twelfth year of the reign of Adrian [128-129], Xystus [Sixtus], having completed the tenth year of his episcopate [in Rome], was succeeded by Telesphorus [c. 128 – c. 139], the seventh in succession from the apostles. In the meantime, after the lapse of a year and some months, Eumenes, the sixth in order, succeeded to the leadership of the Alexandrian church, his predecessor [Justus, r. c. 120 – c. 131] having held office eleven years. (EH, Bk IV, 5, 5)

Adrian [Hadrian] having died after a reign of twenty-one years [138], was succeeded in the government of the Romans by Antoninus, called the Pious [r. 138-161]. In the first year of his reign [138-139] Telesphorus died in the eleventh year of his episcopate, and Hyginus [r. c. 138 – c. 142] became bishop of Rome. (EH, Bk IV, 10, 1)

In the eighth year of the above-mentioned reign [169] Soter [r. c. 169 – 174] succeeded Anicetus [r. c. 158 – c. 169] as bishop of the church of Rome, after the latter had held office eleven years in all. But when Celadion [r. 152-166] had presided over the church of Alexandria for fourteen years he was succeeded by Agrippinus [r. 167-178]. (EH, Bk IV, 19, 1)

At that time also in the church of Antioch, Theophilus [169-182] was well known as the sixth from the apostles. For Cornelius [r. 127 – 154], who succeeded Hero [c. 116-136], was the fourth, and after him Eros [r. 154 – c. 169] the fifth in order, had held the office of bishop. (EH, Bk IV, 20, 1)

Maximinus [182-191], the seventh from the apostles, succeeded him [Theophilus] as bishop of the church of Antioch. (EH, Bk IV, 24, 3)

After Antoninus had been emperor for nineteen years, Commodus received the government. In his first year [180] Julian [r. 180 – c. 190] became bishop of the Alexandrian churches, after Agrippinus [r. 168-180] had held the office for twelve years. (EH, Bk V, 9, 1)

In the tenth year of the reign of Commodus [187], Victor [r. 187-199] succeeded Eleutherus [r. 174-187], the latter having held the episcopate [in Rome] for thirteen years. In the same year, after Julian had completed his tenth year, Demetrius [r. 190 – c. 224 to 232] received the charge of the parishes at Alexandria. At this time the above-mentioned Serapion [191-211], the eighth from the apostles, was still well known as bishop of the church at Antioch. Theophilus presided at Cæsarea in Palestine [r. c. 189-195]; and Narcissus, whom we have mentioned before, still had charge of the church at Jerusalem. Bacchylus at the same time [199] was bishop of Corinth in Greece, and Polycrates [d. 196?] of the parish of Ephesus. (EH, Bk V, 22, 1)

Regarding the confusion or mixed reports about the chronology of the earliest popes, see, “Pope St. Clement I” (Catholic Encyclopedia, John Chapman, 1908). He states, for example: “At the present time no critic doubts that Cletus, Anacletus, Anencletus, are the same person. Anacletus is a Latin error; Cletus is a shortened (and more Christian) form of Anencletus.”

Further Reading 

Were Early Churches Governed by Individual Bishops, or Groups of Elders? (Joe Heschmeyer, Shameless Popery, 9-1-19)

The Bishops of History and the Catholic Faith: A Reply To Brandon Addison (Bryan Cross, Called to Communion, 6-8-14; very long and marvelously detailed)

Was the ‘one bishop per city’ model of church leadership an unbiblical corruption by Catholicism? (A brief look at the monespiscopate) (Nick’s Catholic Blog, 10-25-16)

“Apostolic Succession” section on my Church web page.

50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy [1994]

Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council? (And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod?) [5-21-21]

Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority [7-28-21]

Is First Clement Non-Papal? (vs. Jason Engwer) [4-19-22]

St. Jerome, Papacy, & Succession (Vs. Gavin Ortlund) [1-20-24]

Ignatius Of Antioch On Monarchical Bishops [1-25-24]

*
*

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: Jjensen (8-23-08). Icon from the Mégalo Metéoron Monastery in Greece, representing the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., with the condemned Arius in the bottom of the icon. [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

Summary: I detail the evidence from early Fathers and Eusebius for monarchical (single) bishops being in place in cities and areas in the first and second centuries.

2023-11-01T14:40:37-04:00

Last updated on: November 1, 2023 at 2:40 pm   By
0 Comments

[see book and purchase information for The Catholic Verses]

“excatholic4christ” (Tom) was raised Catholic, lost his faith in high school, attended Mass for a while after he married and had children, and then “accepted Jesus Christ” as his Savior, leading to his sole attendance at an independent fundamental Baptist church for eight years. He claims that the “legalism” of this church and the fact that his “trust had been in men rather than God” caused him to “walk away from the Lord for 23 years.” He “returned to the Lord” in 2014. As of April 2020, Tom stated that he was “somewhere in the middle of the Calvinism-Arminianism debate,” but “closer to Calvinism.” I couldn’t determine his denomination. See Tom’s index of all of his replies. I will systematically refute them. His words will be in blue. When he cites my words, they will be in black. I use RSV, unless otherwise specified.

*****

This is a reply to Tom’s article, The Authority of Sacred Tradition? – Part 3 (10-1-18).

Citing the two passages below, Armstrong makes the case for “oral and extrabiblical tradition in the New Testament”:

Matthew 2:23 “And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’”

Matthew 23:1-3 “Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.’”

Beneath these two passages, Armstrong writes, “Catholics believe that the tradition found in the Bible also includes an oral component. The reference in Matthew 2:23 – “He shall be called a Nazarene” – cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was passed down by the prophets. Thus a prophecy, which is considered to be God’s Word was passed down orally rather than through Scripture. Likewise, Matthew 23:1-3: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses’ seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of teaching succession from Moses on down is taught. Thus, apostolic succession, whereby the Catholic Church, in its priests and bishops and popes, claims to be merely the custodian of an inherited apostolic Tradition, is also prefigured by Jewish oral tradition, as approved (at least partially) by Jesus himself.” – pp. 43-44.

There’s no doubt that Matthew 2:23, with its reference to a prophecy that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene, has its difficulties. Nowhere in the Old Testament is there such a recorded prophecy.

And with this statement, Tom concedes the entire argument (whether he realized it or not). He just admitted that what the inspired New Testament described as a saying “spoken by the prophets” (hence, “God’s Word” or “Word of the Lord” [used 243 times in the OT] in the larger sense), is absent from the Old Testament. Therefore, the only reasonable choice is that it is extrabiblical tradition, which began orally (“spoke”) and may have later been written down before the NT cited it. But Tom provides the usual “keep it in the Bible” explanation:

Messiah as the “shoot” or “branch” –  The words for “branch/sprout” and “Nazareth” are extremely similar, in both Hebrew and Aramaic, hence Matthew could have been referring to such prophecies as Isaiah 11:1: “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.”

I addressed this explanation in the chapter, but Tom ignores anything but the “Catholic Verses” throughout his critiques. So he’s not really addressing (let alone refuting) my book; only relatively small portions of it. But some Catholic scholars (and an apologist I shall cite below) also argue that the saying is a summary of several prophetic utterances.

To claim that Matthew was referencing an unwritten, prophetic oral tradition as Armstrong does is fanciful speculation without any foundation whatsoever.

Not at all. It’s referred to as from the “prophets” (hence, a prophecy). And even Tom — following virtually all Protestant commentators — grants that it is not in the Old Testament. There are only so many choices left. As I showed in the same chapter, at the very least five other NT passages drew from “extrabiblical and oral tradition”:

  • 1 Corinthians 10:4, where St. Paul refers to a rock which “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exod. 17:1-7; Num. 20:2-13). Rabbinic tradition, however, does.
  • 1 Peter 3:19, where St. Peter describes Christ’s journey to Sheol/Hades (“he went and preached to the spirits in prison“), draws directly from the Jewish apocalyptic book 1 Enoch (12-16). Jude 14-15 directly quotes from 1 Enoch 1:9, and even states that Enoch prophesied.
  • Jude 9, which concerns a dispute between Michael the archangel and Satan over Moses’ body, cannot be paralleled in the Old Testament, and appears to be a recounting of an oral Jewish tradition.
  • In 2 Timothy 3:8, the reference to Jannes and Jambres cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exod. 7:8 ff.).
  • James 5:17 mentions a lack of rain for three years, which is likewise absent from the relevant Old Testament passage in 1 Kings 17.

Since Jesus and the Apostles acknowledge authoritative Jewish oral tradition (in so doing, raising some of it literally to the level of written revelation), we are hardly at liberty to assert that it is altogether illegitimate. (p. 44)

If these passages all engaged in this practice, then it can’t be ruled out as a plausible interpretation, that St. Matthew did the same thing, in writing verse 2:23 of his Gospel. Bengel’s Gnomen, a classic Protestant commentator, offers some sensible thoughts on this verse:

Although at what time that prophet flourished by whom this prediction was uttered; whether the town of Nazareth, of which no other mention occurs in the Old Testament, was then of any account or not; whether that prophet was himself a Nazarene, and deposited this remarkable verse at Nazareth, or whether he left it to posterity, conveyed by word of mouth alone, or also committed to writing, whence St Matthew obtained it, who knows? . . .

And, rightly, many have long since denied that this verse exists in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Its condition, therefore, is the same as that of the prophecy of Enoch, introduced at length by St Jude into the Scriptures of the New Testament, and thus stamped with the seal of inspiration; the same as that of the apothegm, which, though delivered by our Lord, does not occur in the Gospels, but is quoted by the mouth of St Paul, and the pen of St Luke, Acts 20:35. Nor have the Jews any ground of accusation, because anything is quoted in the New Testament which does not exist in the Old; for they relate many ancient things which equally are not to be found there. Where lay hid the Proverbs of Solomon from ch. Matthew 25:1; the prophecy of Azariah (2 Chronicles 15:2, etc.); the epistle of Elijah (2 Chronicles 21:12), until they were inserted in the books of the Old Testament, many ages after they were delivered? . . .

Those who interpret this important verse more vaguely, so as to make out that it is contained here or there in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, in truth take away one from the ancient prophecies; whereas those who consider . . . “He shall he called a Nazarene,” to have been expressly uttered of old, recognise a homogeneous portion of the entire testimony of prophecy, and thus in truth maintain the integrity and defend the simplicity of Scripture . . .

My friend, Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin (fascinating, insightful, and educational, as always) provides further possible explanations, in an article on Matthew 2:23:

What was Matthew quoting?

Was it a source that had been lost?

We know that there were many prophets in ancient Israel who genuinely spoke for God, even though their prophecies are not recorded in the Old Testament. 1 Kings even indicates that there were as many as a hundred prophets at once!

And Ahab called Obadi’ah, who was over the household. (Now Obadi’ah revered the LORD greatly; and when Jez’ebel cut off the prophets of the LORD, Obadi’ah took a hundred prophets and hid them by fifties in a cave, and fed them with bread and water) [1 Kings 18:3-4].

Could it be that some of this material was passed down in the form of oral tradition, and this is what Matthew was referring to?

Possibly, but there is another option . . .

Lost Books?

We even know that some of them wrote books, because the Old Testament refers to them. Consider these verses:

As for the events of King David’s reign, from beginning to end, they are written in the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer [1 Chron. 29:29].

As for the other events of Solomon’s reign, from beginning to end, are they not written in the records of Nathan the prophet, in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat? [2 Chron. 9:29].

As for the events of Rehoboam’s reign, from beginning to end, are they not written in the records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer that deal with genealogies? There was continual warfare between Rehoboam and Jeroboam [2 Chron. 12:15].

The other events of Abijah’s reign, what he did and what he said, are written in the annotations of the prophet Iddo [2 Chron. 13:22].

These books apparently were around at the time Chronicles was written, but under God’s providence they did not become part of the canon of Scripture.

Why that was, and what the exact status of these books was, we cannot know. But the books apparently were known in antiquity.

Could Matthew have known them, or at least some of their contents, and could that have been the source he was referring to?

Possibly, . . . (“Did Matthew Invent A Prophecy About Jesus?,” National Catholic Register, 10-24-12; bolding his own)

His own opinion, however, is the following:

You’ll note that Matthew doesn’t attribute the statement about Jesus being called a Nazarene to a specific prophet. Instead, he says it was said “through the prophets” (Greek, dia ton propheton).

That suggests that he’s thinking of it more as a general theme in the prophets, not a specific passage, and that suggests that it would be better not to render it as a quotation.

Thus Bible scholars tend to take the passage not as a quotation but as a summary expressing a prophetic theme that could be found in more than one place. . . .

[T]he wordplay Matthew uses can be taken as a summary of what the prophets said regarding the Messiah. . . .

While it’s possible that Matthew was drawing on an oral tradition from the Old Testament prophets or that he was quoting a book by a prophet which God chose not to have in the canon, it’s more likely that he’s just summarizing a theme found in multiple prophets and noting that Jesus’ life story resonates with this theme and thus fulfills it.

The difference between Akin’s commentary and that of many classical Protestant commentators and Tom, is that Akin isn’t dogmatic about it. He allows more than one possibility, and he doesn’t rule out extrabiblical traditions and prophecies being involved. But Tom is dogmatic and anti-Catholic and pretends that anything extrabiblical being in play here is impossible, calling such opinions “fanciful speculation without any foundation whatsoever.”

In Matthew 23:1-3, the apostle refers to the scribes and Pharisees as sitting in “Moses’ seat” and Armstrong presents this statement as extra-Biblical revelation by which Jesus was recognizing the tradition/claims of the scribes and Pharisees to Mosaic succession. In contrast, evangelical Bible scholars suggest that “Moses’ seat” probably refers to the seat in the synagogue from which the Law (i.e., the writings of Moses) and the Prophets were read by the presiding rabbi. From this passage, Armstrong attempts to extrapolate parallel justifications for Roman Catholicism’s elaborate hierarchy and its claim to apostolic succession, but once again we find him grasping at straws. Jesus was simply encouraging his disciples and those in the crowd to listen to the Pharisaic rabbis’ readings of the Law and the Prophets, but not to follow their practices.

While Armstrong points to Matthew 2:23 and Matthew 23:1-3 as irrefutable “Catholic verses” and examples of Scripture-sanctioned oral and extra-Biblical traditions that set a precedent for Catholicism’s “Sacred Tradition,” we find instead that these verses do nothing of the sort.

My friend, Catholic apologist Steve Ray addressed Matthew 23:2 and “Moses’ Seat”:

[T]he Mishnah . . . is a compilation of Jewish tradition around the time of Christ. It could of course be dismissed because it was after the time of Christ, but it is certainly a good thermometer for Jewish thought, not just after Christ, but also during his time and earlier. It was an attempt to put down the traditions and teachings of the rabbis down through their past. The Mishnah states,

ABOT 1:1 A: Moses received Torah at Sinai and handed it on to Joshua, Joshua to elders, and elders to prophets.  B And prophets handed it on to the men of the great assembly.

One cannot dismiss this out of hand because it was after the destruction of the Temple since the Targums and Mishnah [were] the effort of the post-Temple Jews to recall and document the earlier customs and traditions of the Jews.

There was always an office to go to inquire of God. It was always assumed this office as handed down in succession would speak the true word of God.  (” ‘Chair of Moses – Chair of Peter’ – a lengthy debate,” Defenders of the Catholic Faith, Sep. 2022 [part 2 in a PDF file] )

This is a wonderful article from Steve, that gets into great depth, with plenty of documentation. Some argue that there was an actual seat, or more than one, referred to here; others that it is symbolic of a teaching office. But pretty much all agree (Tom didn’t render an opinion this time) that it’s not in the Old Testament. And that was my central point. It comes from an extrabiblical tradition, any way one looks at it.

Meyer’s NT Commentary opines that that the phrase “is intended as a figurative mode of describing the functions of one who ‘acts as a public teacher of the Mosaic law,’ in discharging which functions the teacher may be regarded as the representative and successor of Moses.”

Expositor’s Greek Testament states that it is “short for, on the seat of a teacher whose function it was to interpret the Mosaic Law. The Jews spoke of the teacher’s seat as we speak of a professor’s chair.”

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says that the phrase means “i. e. succeed him as teachers. For sitting as the posture of a teacher cp. ch. Matthew 5:1 [‘. . . when he sat down his disciples came to him.’].”

Bengel’s Gnomen adds that it is “Representing Moses, reading and interpreting his law, and even urging more than he enjoined.”
*
Jonathan Andrew Brown (“The Seat of Moses,” Torah Apologetics, 3-22-16), states: “Think of it in modern terms. When there is an election in the United States, we say, “oh there are three senate seats that are up for re-election.” It is an idiomatic expression. It does not mean that the literal seat or chair of a certain senator is up for re-election, it means that the office or position of the senator is.”
*
Craig S. Keener thinks that it means “they have adopted the role of the law’s interpreters, since instructors sat to teach.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999, p. 541)
*
Related Reading
*
Pharisees, “Moses’ Seat”, Tradition & Catholicism [Dec. 2003 and May 2005; a condensed, re-edited, and mildly revised version: 5-1-22]
***
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Summary: Tom tries to besmirch tradition, regarding the terms “Nazarene” and “Moses’ Seat.” He fails abysmally to prove that there couldn’t possibly be an extrabiblical tradition.

2023-10-27T16:46:36-04:00

Last updated on: October 27, 2023 at 4:46 pm   By
0 Comments

Including “Straight Talk” on the Catholic and Protestant Inquisitions

[see book and purchase information for The Catholic Verses]

“excatholic4christ” (Tom) was raised Catholic, lost his faith in high school, attended Mass for a while after he married and had children, and then “accepted Jesus Christ” as his Savior, leading to his sole attendance at an independent fundamental Baptist church for eight years. He claims that the “legalism” of this church and the fact that his “trust had been in men rather than God” caused him to “walk away from the Lord for 23 years.” He “returned to the Lord” in 2014. As of April 2020, Tom stated that he was “somewhere in the middle of the Calvinism-Arminianism debate,” but “closer to Calvinism.” I couldn’t determine his denomination. See Tom’s index of all of his replies. I will now systematically refute them. His words will be in blue. When he cites my words, they will be in black. I use RSV, unless otherwise specified.

*****

This is a reply to Tom’s article, Catholic “Unity” and Denominationalism? (9-10-18).

Citing the seven passages below, Armstrong argues that the multiplicity of divisions within Protestantism is a bad thing:

John 17:20-23: “’I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,’”

1 Corinthians 11:18-19: “For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.”

Romans 16:17: “I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.”

1 Corinthians 1:10-13: “I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I  belong to Cephas,’ or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

1 Corinthians 3:3-4: “for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men? For when one says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ and another, ‘I belong to Apollos,’ are you not merely men?

1 Corinthians 12:25: “that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.”

Philippians 2:2: “complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.”

The biblical data in this respect is so overwhelming that Tom decided to actually cite one of the seven passages in full, and to link to the other six.

Directly beneath John 17:20-23, Armstrong writes, “The Catholic position on Christian unity is fully in accord with biblical texts like this one. We believe that doctrine should be unified and that all Christians should be of one mind and spirit. It is to uphold this biblical injunction that we believe in dogma, hierarchical authority, apostolic Tradition, and a papacy. One may think what he will about all that, but it cannot be denied that Catholicism has traditionally been highly concerned with oneness of doctrine and avoidance of sectarianism and division.” p. 21.

Elsewhere he states, “In my opinion, this (i.e., division and denominationalism) is one of the most compelling and unanswerable disproofs of Protestantism as a system to be found in the Bible.” p. 25.

I completely agree with Armstrong regarding the Bible passages quoted above, that the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles desired that all Christians be united in doctrine and practice, . . . 

This is very significant because, with this statement, Tom concedes the entire argument. Denominationalism (which necessarily — by nature — entails multiple conflicting doctrines, and hence much error, since two contradictory beliefs cannot both be correct) can’t be defended from Holy Scripture. I do give him a lot of credit for honestly recognizing this.

but there were tremendous challenges to that ideal from the very beginning. In his epistles, apostle Paul, relates that he was already alarmed at the Judaizers who were entering into the church and subverting the Gospel by insisting on works being added to grace.

The discussion is already over with, based on his previous sweeping concession. But Tom can’t stop with his concession and agreement, because then he would have no reply at all. Note, then, what he does next. Protestants, in dealing with denominationalism, almost always move from the biblical command and ideal, to the actual state of affairs. This is one of their many fatal errors. In effect, Protestants reason that “we can’t possibly live up to what we are commanded about unity, so we will invent new institutional structures that ignore and rationalize away these biblical commands.”

If we treated other doctrines in the Bible like this, the situation would be far worse than it is already. No Christian says, for example, that we can’t possibly live up to the prohibition of fornication and adultery, so we just have to accept fallen human nature as it is (“boys will be boys” etc.). That’s the world’s mentality: teenagers and young adults can’t possibly be sexually pure and abstinent. This is a lie. I have four children, ages 21-32, and they all did so (as my wife and I also did). So do many millions of other Christian unmarried young people. Christianity always requires a striving to live up to God’s sublime level of teaching and behavior, by His grace. What He commands us to do, He gives us the power and ability to do. This includes Christian unity and adherence to one unified body of doctrinal and moral truth, not multiple hundreds of competing, contradictory belief-systems.

Secondly, the fact that differing opinions exist, in contradiction to received apostolic tradition and the one Christian truth, doesn’t disprove that the one true Church exists. This is a fallacy. There have always been heresies and schisms, because these are people who decided to rebel against and depart from the received Catholic tradition. But the fact that some people may think 2+2=5 or that the earth is flat or that the sun goes around it, doesn’t change the facts that the truth is known in these instances, and that 2+2+4, and that the earth is a globe and travels around the sun. We don’t deny those truths because uninformed people exist and deny them.

Paul had to confront Peter, the alleged first infallible pope, at Antioch because of his compromise with the Judaizers.

This was an instance of Peter being a hypocrite for a time; not a doctrinal disagreement. Paul and Peter completely agreed, as to their opposition to the Judaizers, as seen clearly in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

A response to Armstrong requires some knowledge of church history. It’s true that the bishops of Rome were eventually able to consolidate their power and impose a standardized and increasingly legalistic and ritualistic theology upon their subjects, but conformity was achieved often by means of intimidation and physical force. 

This is another huge concession. Tom admits that a “standardized . . . theology” and doctrinal “conformity” exists within Catholicism. But for some reason he doesn’t like this, and so has to run it down and slant his presentation of it. It’s a big discussion, but I would merely note the humor and irony of what Martin Luther stated about his own self-willed “authority” and infallibility when he decided to separate himself from the Catholic Church (having rejected fifty of its doctrines before his excommunication):

I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. . . . I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522, from Luther’s Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan [vols. 1-30] and Helmut T. Lehmann [vols. 31-55], St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House [vols. 1-30]; Philadelphia: Fortress Press [vols. 31-55], 1955. This work is from Vol. 39: Church and Ministry I [edited by J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann]; pages 239-299; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch; citation from pp. 248-249)

I have described Luther’s mentality here as “self-proclaimed super-duper infallibility and virtual inspiration.” Luther claimed far more authority than any pope has ever claimed. He thought he couldn’t possibly be wrong, even if an angel told him so. And let no one be deceived about early Lutherans’ use of the death penalty (with Luther’s express permission) to persecute the Anabaptists who disagreed on baptism. There was no religious liberty in early Lutheranism (as Luther’s most famous biographer, Roland Bainton freely admits and detests). If Tom believes in adult “believer’s baptism” he could very well have been executed in Luther’s Saxony in the 16th century. The leading anti-Catholic today, James White, certainly could have been, since he is a Reformed Baptist.

So Protestants want to bring up the Catholic Inquisition? I used to often do so myself before I converted. It was probably my favorite contra-Catholic “argument.” Protestants — in fact — had their own inquisition, which is rarely mentioned by Protestants (if they even ever learn about it). I have interacted with wives of Lutheran pastors, who weren’t aware that Luther advocated the execution of Anabaptists. I learned this in 1984, reading Bainton’s book on the drive down to my honeymoon, and I was a good evangelical Protestant then, and Luther was my hero (warts and all, as it were).

Was the authoritarian and imperialistic Roman Catholic church, which tortured and slaughtered millions in its quest for power, control, and wealth, what Jesus Christ and the apostles had in mind with regards to unity?

Now we enter the realm of the ridiculous, surreal, and hyper-slanderous charges. Tom reveals that he hasn’t done any serious research about numbers killed in the Inquisition. I have. John Bugay, a particularly ignorant anti-Catholic, claimed that 4.9 million were killed. I shot that down in 2010. Another man, who has since become a Catholic (so I won’t name him, in charity) claimed that the Catholic Inquisition claimed “50-68 million” lives (!!!). In fact, these are grotesque, comical, outrageous, know-nothing, brain-dead estimates. Actual scholars who have studied the Inquisition (including several non-Catholic ones) tell the truth about what we know.

I want to make it clear that I do not “defend” the Inquisition as a practice (because I know that when I bring this up, often I am falsely accused of that by anti-Catholics). I don’t defend such things committed by any Christian group. I never have. My position is that the early Church and current view of almost all Christians, of religious tolerance, is infinitely preferable. That said, what I do do is try to properly and accurately understand it in the context of its time (the Middle Ages and early modern periods).

In those days, almost all Christians (not just Catholics; minus only a few small groups like Anabaptists and Quakers) believed in corporal and capital punishment for heresy, because they thought (here is the correct premise) that heresy was far more dangerous to a person and society than physical disease was. That is exactly right: heresy can land one in hell; no disease could ever do that. So they believed in punishing the heretic for the sake of the good of the society. I deal with these issues at length, on my web page, “Inquisition, Crusades, and ‘Catholic Scandals’”.

It’s thought that the population of Europe was 73.5 million in 1340 and 50 million in 1450, due to the Black Death. It was about 70 million in 1550 and 78 million in 1600; 150 million by 1800. There is no way — from demographics and population research alone — that the numbers killed could be anything remotely approaching the ridiculous figures of 50-68 million. We know that they weren’t, anyway, by consulting actual historians and experts on the Middle Ages.

Edward Peters, professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Inquisition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989). On page 87 of his book, Peters states: “The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.”

Henry Kamen, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and professor of history at various universities, including the University of Wisconsin – Madison, is the author of The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998; fourth revised edition, 2014). Both Peters’ and Kamen’s work are featured in the Wikipedia article, “Historical Revision of the Inquisition”.

These two books are in the forefront of an emerging, very different perspective on the Inquisitions: an understanding that they were exponentially less inclined to issue death penalties than had previously been commonly assumed, and also quite different in character and even essence than the longstanding anti-Catholic stereotypes would have us believe. Dr. Kamen states in his book:

Taking into account all the tribunals of Spain up to about 1530, it is unlikely that more than two thousand people were executed for heresy by the Inquisition. (p. 60)

[I]t is clear that for most of its existence that Inquisition was far from being a juggernaut of death either in intention or in capability. . . . it would seem that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries fewer than three people a year were executed in the whole of the Spanish monarchy from Sicily to Peru, certainly a lower rate than in any provincial court of justice in Spain or anywhere else in Europe. (p. 203)

For copiously documented facts and figures, see:  “Beyond the Myth of The Inquisition: Ours Is ‘The Golden Age’”, by Fr. Brian Van Hove, S. J., Faith and Reason (Winter, 1992).

One tires of these figures of “millions” thrown out, in complete ignorance of the actual scholarly research now available. Tom claims “millions” were killed by the Catholic Church. He offers no substantiation for this (as is his usual modus operandi; he rarely does serious research in this series). We don’t know how many “millions” he has in mind. Let’s assume for a moment that he meant two million, since he used the plural, “millions”; therefore, this would be his minimum figure.

Dr. Kamen says that about “two thousand” were killed in the Spanish Inquisition (the most famous one) “up to about 1530.” Dr. Peters  adds that there were “around 3000 death sentences . . . between 1550 and 1800.” So that is 5,000 altogether. This means that an estimate of two million is 400 times more numbers than scholars assert. Conclusion: Tom has no idea what he is talking about when dealing with this topic. That being the case, I suggest (in charity) that he shut up about it, before he embarrasses himself and destroys his own intellectual credibility (assuming there is any left) even further. Sadly, it’s all par for the course in anti-Catholic polemics.

50 million supposed deaths is 10,000 times more than the scholarly estimates. 68 million is 13,600 times more. Bugay’s “modest” figure of 4.9 million is 980 times more. This is ignoramus stuff. And that’s putting it mildly. In charity, I assume ignorance is in play and not deliberate lying. But I wouldn’t put it past many anti-Catholics, to deliberately lie about the Catholic Church that they hate so much (though they invariably hate a “Catholic Church” of their own making, not the real one). I can’t read Tom’s heart, so I don’t know if he is an ignoramus in historical matters or a liar. But those are the only two choices regarding this discussion, given his claim. If he is honest, he will read this article and recant his claim and repent and apologize for misleading his readers.

Catholic apologists see the multitude of Protestant denominations as a proof of their illegitimacy, but the growth of denominations was actually the fruit of constant reform and a check against wholesale heresy as had happened with Roman Catholicism. Catholics deride the decentralized patchquilt of evangelicalism, which bases its authority solely upon God’s Holy Word, but that is precisely where the Holy Spirit has done His work, not within the corruption of the Vatican’s regal hallways.

This is shoddy, unbiblical thinking. There is so much wrong with this mindset, that I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony. Where to begin? I will cite two of my many past critiques of denominationalism:

I’ve been saying for years that this currently very fashionable fetish for uncertainty is a species of postmodernism or liberalism. The sad thing now is that many thinking evangelical or Calvinist Protestants are now adopting these liberal, skeptical modes of thought without being aware (or so it seems) of where they derive, or how contrary they are not only to Catholicism, but even to their own Protestant traditions (folks like Luther and Calvin).

The New Testament doesn’t offer the slightest hint of doctrinal relativism (to any degree), permitted differences on anything other than non-doctrinal matters such as what food to eat. It has not the remotest trace of the current (not historic) Protestant fascination with doctrinal diversity and subjective struggle, or the notion of “primary vs. secondary” doctrines; with the latter up for grabs and entirely optional.

Instead, what is found in the New Testament is a constant, unchanging casual assumption (above all in St. Paul) that there is but one truth, one faith, one commandment, one doctrine, one teaching, one message, one gospel, etc.

The “quest for uncertainty” is  the same mentality that has led to Episcopalianism accepting practicing homosexual bishops, and the ELCA (Lutheran) recently adopting the same thing for clergy, and PCUSA (Presbyterian) voting to remove fornication from the roster of sins, and all the mainline denominations sanctioning childkilling. (3-15-06; modified and condensed a bit)

Many Protestants are on a “quest for uncertainty” that never ends. It’s a very common theme. They glory in it. They think it’s great (rather than a tragic scandal) that they can’t figure lots of things out in Christianity and that their sects endlessly contradict each other.

They are forever searching (i.e., those who think like this). I like the treasure hunt as much as the next guy, but God wants us to know the truth, so we can fully live by it, rather than spend our whole lives searching, as if faith and spirituality were mere philosophy or a sort of “whodunit” where the (lifelong?) search is for the fullness of Christian truth rather than the murderer.

Many Protestants don’t think that the fullness of Christian truth is possible to find at all. They go beyond the endless quest and questioning to a sort of apathy or “worldly wise” cynicism. They’ve long since given up and resigned themselves to Protestant institutional chaos, and play self-deluded games that there is such a thing as “secondary doctrines” where it’s fine to disagree and contradict each other, since God supposedly didn’t make it clear enough in Scripture (how ironic!).

There are only so many ways to rationalize a violently, utterly unbiblical denominationalism. You either keep searching forever among the infinite choices, or become apathetic that the fullness of Christian truth can be found amidst the chaos and anarchism.

One of the leading arguments of atheists is: “how can Christians have any credibility because they disagree with each other so much?” In this sense, the atheist often understands the utter scandal of division and disunity even more than many Protestants do, who rationalize it away and glory in it. Luther and Calvin are certainly turning over in their graves. Despite their many errors, they never believed ideas as silly as these. They believed that there was one fullness of Christian truth and that they had it in their own camp (precisely as Catholics continue to believe). (2-12-14; condensed citation)

What good is Protestantism “bas[ing] its authority solely upon God’s Holy Word” when, sadly and tragically, in so many cases, Protestants can’t even figure out what the truth is? I always use the example of baptism, which is a pretty basic Christian doctrine, and believed to be absolutely necessary and supremely important by almost all Christians. Protestants can’t even agree on the nature and practice of that. I wrote about Protestants and baptism in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:

Protestants are split into infant and adult camps. Furthermore, the infant camp contains those who accept baptismal regeneration (Lutherans, Anglicans, and to some extent, Methodists), as does the adult camp (Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ).  Regeneration absolutely has a bearing on salvation, and therefore is a primary doctrine. The Salvation Army and the Quakers don’t baptize at all (the latter doesn’t even celebrate the Eucharist). Thus, there are five distinct competing belief-systems among Protestants with regard to baptism.  (p. 242)

It’s the same with the Eucharist (regarded by many Protestants — as is baptism —  as a sacrament. Some believe in the Real Presence as we do (Lutherans and some “high church” or Anglo-Catholic Anglicans). Others believe in a mystical presence (Calvinists), and still others, that it is pure symbolism and no more (Baptists and many denominations and non-denominational Christians, including myself in the past). They can’t resolve these differences to “save their lives.” And it’s scandalous, because it is a biblically condemned disunity, and because falsehood must be present in one or more of these views, by the laws of logic and contradiction.

The devil is the father of lies. Falsehood and untruth do no one any good. Yet Protestants like Tom pretend that this is a good thing, in saying that it’s “where the Holy Spirit has done His work.”  Sorry; the Holy Spirit does not cooperate with false doctrines and falsehoods generally. We know who it is that lies behind those. And there are plenty of false doctrines in Protestantism. There must be, since contradictions are rampant. They just can’t figure out — in many cases — which doctrines are false and which are true. Thus, Protestantism in these instances reduces to mere subjectivism and relativism, rather than the biblical ideal of absolute truth and certainty by God’s grace and guidance.

Evangelical Protestants may be divided over secondary doctrinal beliefs, but we are united in our belief in the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Protestants get the gospel of grace right, through Jesus Christ. Praise God. They don’t get everything wrong. When they agree with us (as here, and in many doctrines), they’re right! because we are the only ones who have preserved biblical and apostolic doctrine and morality in its fullness and completeness.

Armstrong describes this as “de facto doctrinal relativism” (p. 28), and dismisses it completely. 

That’s false. Here I am quoted out of context. I was referring specifically to so-called “secondary” doctrines “on which Protestants disagree.” The centrality of grace and Jesus Christ for salvation is not one of these doctrines, and they agree with us regarding this particular belief.

The only legitimate unity in Armstrong’s opinion is institutional homogeneity,

Yes; in accordance with the biblical notion that there is but one theological and spiritual “truth”, one “faith”, one “doctrine”, one “commandment”, one “teaching”, and one “message”. I have collected the NT instances of those words in one of my books. It took up thirteen pages.

which he would have the reader believe is the case with Catholicism, but how true is that claim?

Very true, and in fact anti-Catholic rhetoric and railing against our distinctive doctrines, which they hate and reject, absolutely proves this. Every anti-Catholic knows full well that we believe in papal infallibility, hierarchical Church government, private confession to priests, absolution, mortal and venial sins, transubstantiation, infant baptismal regeneration, penance, all the Marian doctrines, seven sacraments, eucharistic adoration, the invocation and veneration of saints, the necessary coupling of works with faith, the “three-legged stool” rule of faith (infallible Bible-tradition-Church), canonization of saints, purgatory, 73 OT books, and (on the moral plane) the prohibition of contraception and homosexual acts and divorce.

None of this is a mystery, and the anti-Catholic vigorously opposes and despises all of these beliefs, and never for a second wonders what we believe with regard to them. Nevertheless they — oddly enough — turn around — as Tom will do in his next comment — and claim that we don’t have doctrinal unity. We certainly do, when one consults our actual manuals of dogma, the Catechism, Vatican II, papal encyclicals, etc. But it’s equally certain to one and all that Protestantism has not, and can never achieve doctrinal unity, because of its rejection of conciliar and papal infallibility.

As I mentioned previously, the pope and his bishops were able to impose their man-made traditions as dogma by force with the support of civil authorities from the 500s right up into the 20th Century. That, thankfully, is no longer the case.

Catholics willingly accept Church teaching because that is what we believe. No one “forces” us to do so. What, is this the “millions” that Tom claims were killed for not accepting Church authority? Even in the Inquisition, almost all executions were performed by the civil authority of the state, not by Churchmen.

In present-day Catholicism, one can find a broad range of beliefs, even among the clergy, from the most liberal type of Bible-denying modernism to pre-Vatican II militant intransigence.

That’s right: among individual Catholics. But individual erroneous and/or rebellious opinions are not the same as dogmatic Church teachings and infallible doctrines. See my articles:

*
Have Heterodox Catholics Overthrown Official Doctrine? (vs. Eric Svendsen, James White, Phillip Johnson, & Andrew Webb) [6-3-96]
*
This book was published fourteen years ago and Armstrong could not have possibly foreseen the current crisis in the Catholic church, with many conservatives now publicly opposing pope Francis

Yes, when they do that, they are no different from Protestants or Catholic liberal heterodox dissidents. They have lost faith in papal indefectibility, which is binding doctrine, most clearly formulated in Vatican I in 1870. In 2004, when this book was published, I was defending Pope St. John Paul the Great from unjust criticisms from Catholics. I have defended the next pope, Benedict XVI as well, and I will defend the next one in the future. There are always folks in any group that don’t “get it.” This doesn’t change the nature of the official teachings of said group.

and his doctrine-bending reforms.

This is nonsense. Pope Francis has not changed a single required doctrine of Catholicism. He has modified a few practices, which is, of course, altogether permissible and within his prerogative as pope to do (requiring priestly celibacy was an example of this, hundreds of years ago). I know what I’m talking about, as I have defended him against scurrilous charges 220 times and collected another 299 defenses from others. If he had actually changed doctrines (which is impossible to do by the nature of the Catholic system (very unlike Protestantism), he would be a heretic. But even a strong papal critic like Phil Lawler, author of the book, Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading His Flock (2018), which I have dissected and exposed many times, admits that there is no case against him as a heretic:

Well, is the Pope a heretic? I am not qualified to address that question. . . . Who could make the authoritative judgment that the Pope had fallen into heresy and therefore lost his authority? Certainly not a handful of independent scholars.

To their credit, the authors of the Easter Letter recognize the need for an authoritative statement, for a judgment by the world’s bishops. But if that is their goal, should they not have approached sympathetic bishops privately, quietly, to make their case? . . .

Peter Kwasniewski, one of the principal authors of the letter, now says that the document lists “instances of heresy that cannot be denied.” This, I’m afraid, is a demonstrably false statement. The “instances of heresy” mentioned in the letter have been denied, and repeatedly. The authors of the letter are convinced of their own arguments, but they have not convinced others. In fact they have not convinced me, and if they cannot persuade a sympathetic reader, they are very unlikely to convince a skeptical world. . . . (“Is the Pope a heretic? The danger of asking the wrong question,” Catholic Culture, 3 May 2019)

In a follow-up article of 16 May 2019, Lawler added: “the authors of the open letter made a tactical mistake, because the charge of heresy is very difficult to prove . . .”

Yet we are to believe that anonymous anti-Catholic polemicist Tom knows more about Catholic teachings and what is heretical, than someone like Phil Lawler (or any adequately educated Catholic)? It’s beyond ridiculous. Therefore, this line of argument that he is attempting has not proven anything, either about the alleged heresy of the pope, or some supposed disproof of Catholic doctrinal unity. He needs to examine his own house and stop spouting ignorant and unsubstantiated statements.

Catholicism is certainly no unified monolith as its apologists would like you to believe.

Again, among individuals it is not, but they are not the magisterium of the Church. Actual, “official” Church doctrine (which is what we should be discussing, in any examination of what a given Christian communion creedally believes) is indeed unified and has not essentially changed.

It would be wonderful if all genuine Christians were united in doctrine and practice

Yes, wouldn’t it be nice (to quote the Beach Boys) if all Christians took all of the commands and teachings of the Bible seriously and professed allegiance to the one true Church established by Jesus Christ?

but this side of eternity we gladly rejoice in our unity in the Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

In other words, “we don’t have enough faith to believe in all of the biblical teachings, commanded in inspired revelation, or enough faith to believe that the Holy Spirit could prevent the one Church from descending into doctrinal error, so we will ignore the question of the truth with regard to many doctrines and keep spouting our slogans for the few things that we still hold in common as Protestants (minus several liberal denominations that have rejected even those). God could produce an inspired, inerrant Bible written by sinful men, but He can’t preserve an infallible Church inhabited by sinful men.”

Rome can keep its false gospel of sacramental grace and merit and its faux, worldly-patterned, institutional unity. . . . an objective analysis reveals the only unity Catholicism can boast of is its un-Biblical and anti-Biblical error.

This is simply boilerplate anti-Catholic polemics. Each issue has to be discussed on its own; so, nice try.

I have presented what the Bible teaches regarding Christian and doctrinal unity, and even Tom agrees that “all Christians” ought to “be united in doctrine and practice.” But he concludes in despair that it’s not possible for God’s Church to be doctrinally unified. Catholics refuse to sink to that hyper-skeptical level. We accept and seek to follow all of the Bible’s teaching, as opposed to Protestants picking and choosing — in an attitude of lack of faith in God’s power and providence — what they will adhere to, and what is “impossible” for God to accomplish “this side of eternity.”

I rest my case.

*
*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Summary: Anti-Catholic Tom concedes that the Bible teaches required doctrinal unity among Christians, but then oddly proceeds to argue for Protestant relativism and chaos.

2023-10-26T16:10:42-04:00

Last updated on: October 26, 2023 at 4:10 pm   By
0 Comments

Including the Biblical Conception of “Saints” and “Sinners”

[see book and purchase information for The Catholic Verses]

“excatholic4christ” (Tom) was raised Catholic, lost his faith in high school, attended Mass for a while after he married and had children, and then “accepted Jesus Christ” as his Savior, leading to his sole attendance at an independent fundamental Baptist church for eight years. He claims that the “legalism” of this church and the fact that his “trust had been in men rather than God” caused him to “walk away from the Lord for 23 years.” He “returned to the Lord” in 2014. As of April 2020, Tom stated that he was “somewhere in the middle of the Calvinism-Arminianism debate,” but “closer to Calvinism.” I couldn’t determine his denomination. See Tom’s index of all of his replies. I will now systematically refute them. His words will be in blue. When he cites my words, they will be in black. I use RSV, unless otherwise specified.

*****

This is a reply to Tom’s article, Sinners in the Church? (9-3-18).

With the three passages below, Armstrong argues that both “saints” and “sinners” reside within the church:

2 Corinthians 11:2-4 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.

Galatians 1:1-6 Paul an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel.

Revelation 3:1-6 And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. “‘I know your works; you have the name of being alive, and you are dead. Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God. Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you. Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

Directly beneath these passages, Armstrong writes, “…(these verses show) the Catholic position: there are sinners in the Church alongside “saints,” as in the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24-30). Many Protestants persist in believing that the Christian Church can be pure and without sinners or instances of hypocrisy, even though these passages show that this was not anticipated by the apostles our by our Lord Jesus.” pp. 16-17.

Armstrong has set up a semi-“straw man” here. To start with, evangelicals refer to the church both in the general sense of all genuine believers around the world who make up the Body of Christ and in the particular sense of a local congregation. Evangelicals certainly believe that when they gather together as a local church (Greek eccleisa [should be ecclesia] “called-out assembly or congregation”), there may be some included who have not genuinely accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior by faith alone.

Only God knows who is of the class of the elect or not. Human beings don’t have certain, infallible knowledge of individuals’ eternal destiny. Even John Calvin agreed with this observation.

But of course Catholics and evangelicals disagree fundamentally on the terms, “sinners” and “saints,” as Armstrong’s comments indicate. We evangelicals believe all people are sinners and deserve eternal punishment,

Catholics hold to original sin as strongly as Protestants do.

but that everyone who repents of their sin and accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior by faith alone are saved and become saints (Latin sanctus, Greek hagios “separated ones“).

Scripture uses the term “saints” in the generic sense of Christian believer (see many examples of this), but at the same time it also notes that there are exceptional people (in effect, saints in the Catholic sense of “exceptionally, heroically holy”) who are more righteous and holier than others:

“All Have Sinned” vs. a Sinless, Immaculate Mary? [1996; revised and posted at National Catholic Register on 12-11-17]

Total Depravity: Reply to James White: Calvinism and Romans 3:10-11 (“None is Righteous . . . No One Seeks For God”) [4-15-07]

Lucas Banzoli’s Mindless Denigration of an Imagined “Mary” (Including Extensive Biblical Analyses of Exceptionally “Righteous” and “Holy” People, and Merit) [9-11-22]

The Bible Is Clear: Some Holy People Are Holier Than Others [National Catholic Register, 9-19-22]

Sinless Creatures in the Bible: Actual & Potential (Including a Listing of Many Biblical Passages About Sin, Holiness, Blamelessness, Righteousness, Godliness, Perfection, and Sanctity) [10-20-22; greatly expanded on 7-27-23]

The Bible presupposes, for example, that there are exceptionally righteous people — such as the prophet Elijah — and that their prayers are more powerful than the prayers of those who are less righteous. James (5:16-18) gave the example of Elijah as “a righteous man” (5:16). noting that “he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth” (5:17). I don’t know of any Protestants (who may think they are so holy and eternally justified since their theology holds that they were merely declared righteous, when in fact they are not) who have successfully prayed such a prayer:

Bible on the Power of Prayers of the Righteous [11-16-22]

I noted in my Reply #2 in this series, the Bible’s reference to “blameless” people:

Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth . . . [are described] as “righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless” (Lk 1:6; cf. other “blameless” men: Noah [Gen 6:9]; King David [2 Sam 22:24]; King Asa [2 Chr 15:17]; Job [Job 1:1, 8; 2:3], and Daniel [Dan 6:22]). And all of this was even before Jesus died on the cross for our salvation and before the Holy Spirit came to dwell inside of all believers!

The book of Hebrews describes the people that Catholics call “saints” in the following passage:

Hebrews 11:32-38 . . . For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets — [33] who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises, stopped the mouths of lions, [34] quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. [35] Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life. [36] Others suffered mocking and scourging, and even chains and imprisonment. [37] They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated — [38] of whom the world was not worthy — wandering over deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

The word “saint” isn’t used, but it is clearly describing the second use of the word, as Catholics use it. The word “Trinity” and several other common Christian terms aren’t in the Bible, either. St. Paul differentiates between varying levels of devotion to the Lord, including heroic self-sacrifice, in noting (as a generalization, but reflecting reality) that the unmarried man is “anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord” (1 Cor 7:32) and that “the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit” (7:34) and that both exhibit an “undivided devotion to the Lord” (7:35).

Although we are saints because of Christ’s imputed perfect righteousness,

No; we are “saints” in the first, biblical sense if we have professed allegiance to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and are “believers” (see 12 NT uses of that term).

we still have a sinful nature and follow the Lord only imperfectly. 

Catholics say that we have a sinful inclination (subject to constant concupiscence, which, if indulged in, leads to temptation and/or sin). But the imperfect following of Jesus and our continued sinning is where we can agree (setting aside for a moment the vexed issue of the nature of justification), and what I am discussing when addressing the topic of “sinners in the Church.” It’s an apologetics topic because some Protestants use the “argument from sin” to claim that the Catholic Church can’t possibly be God’s one true — historically continuous and institutional — Church, founded by Jesus Himself. I in turn argue from the Bible that we are to fully expect and not be surprised at all at the existence of such sinners in the one true Church (because it has always been this way, from the beginning).

Catholic belief, as Armstrong presents it here, generally regards all of those who are not striving to be “good,” those both inside and outside the church, as sinners,

This is untrue. A “sinner” as we define it, is simply one who is presently sinning (as determined by a good examination of one’s own conscience). If a person, for example, steals a coat or visits a house of prostitution, or is a prostitute, then he or she is sinning, and hence, a sinner while they are engaging in those sins. Hence, Jesus said (in agreement with Catholics), “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mt 9:13); “the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners” (Mt 26:45). “Tax collectors” are often regarded in the NT as synonymous with “sinners” (because they almost universally cheated their own people, as agents of Rome). See Matthew 9:10; Luke 15:1; 18:13.

St. Paul does indeed use the word “sinners” in the sense of “subject to original sin” (Rom 5:8, 19), but he also uses the word in the Catholic sense:

1 Timothy 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

The author of Hebrews does the same:

Hebrews 12:3 Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.

James is writing to Christians in his letter (“brethren”: 1:2, and 14 other times in the book, including “my beloved brethren”: 1:16, 19; 2:5). Yet at the same time he can call them (at least some of them) “sinners”:

James 4:8 Draw near to God and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind.

St. Paul states in the present tense: “I am the foremost of sinners” (1 Tim 1:15) because in his past he “persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13). This utterly destroys the notion that the Bible describes as “sinners” only those who are not professed believers, or the “saved” as Protestants say (wrongly thinking that they are certain of their eternal destiny).

and those who have achieved or are on their way to achieving a super-sanctimonious “state of grace,” as saints.

This is incorrect, too. We believe that those who are in a “state of grace” are those who are 1) regenerated (at baptism) and 2) who are not currently engaged in serious, or mortal sin (a biblical distinction). We refer to people as “saints” in the second meaning, who have been determined (by a long “canonization” process of study in the Church) as ones who exhibited heroic, self-sacrificing, extraordinary sanctity. The Bible teaches that there exist differing levels of grace among human beings (even among believers), too.

But what is Armstrong REALLY trying to address here? It’s obvious he’s responding to Protestant objections to Catholic popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests for the copious instances of outrageous immorality, corruption, and cruelty down through the ages.

Yes, and another way I address this much-abused and much misunderstood topic is to note that all Christian groups — including Protestants — have been guilty of great sin, even including murder and persecution of fellow Christians (sanctioned at the highest levels by folks like Luther and Calvin). This renders the entire discussion a “wash.” Nothing is learned or accomplished by it.

It’s apparent to every thinking reader why Armstrong declines to cite that corruption directly in an apologetics book such as this. He’s not going to voluntarily bring up Catholicism’s embarrassing history if he can avoid it, but still feels he must address the Protestant criticism.

Our history is no better or worse than any other Christian group’s history, but it should be noted that we’ve also been around since the time of Christ, whereas Protestantism was invented fifteen centuries after Him; so we simply have much more history — four times as much —  that includes sinners in it as well as saints (as we would fully expect, human beings being what they are: mixtures of good and evil).

As for my supposedly attempting to avoid bringing up unpleasant instances in Catholic history, I direct Tom and anyone to my extensive web page, “Inquisition, Crusades, & ‘Catholic Scandals’ “. That’s an odd way of trying to supposedly hide such things. I address it in many places in my writings, including in some of the variants of my conversion story — since objection to the Inquisition was one of my own most strenuous objections to the Catholic Church.

I also have a section entitled, “Papal Scandals / ‘Bad Popes’ ” on my Papacy & Infallibility web page. It contains 18 articles. I’m more than happy to address the issue of “scandals in Catholic history”, but Protestants are always very reluctant to talk about the many “skeletons in their own closet and the glaring scandals that occurred during their so-called “Reformation.”

Protestants know full well that all men sin, even after accepting Christ as Savior by faith alone. What Protestants can’t abide is Catholicism’s boast that popes, in concert with their cardinals and bishops, are infallibly guided in all important matters touching upon faith and morals in the face of such blatant corruption.

The Bible doesn’t teach that authority and infallibility must coincide with personal sinlessness or impeccability. Jesus chose a man (Peter) who denied He was Christ three times, to be the first leader of His Church. Peter wrote part of the New Testament, too. Then He chose Paul to be the preeminent evangelist of all time and one who wrote half or more of the New Testament: a man who had persecuted and murdered Christians before his conversion.

God made an eternal covenant with King David, knowing from all eternity that David would have a man killed so that he could marry his wife, that he was already having sex with. But David repented, and the Bible describes him as “a man after his [i.e., God’s] own heart” (1 Sam 13:14). David became the prototype of the Messiah (Jesus) and wrote most of the Psalms. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, but he had murdered a man as well (Ex 2:12). Many more such biblical examples exist. If sinful men could write an inerrant, inspired Bible with the help of God’s grace (a greater gift), then certainly it’s not implausible (let alone impossible) for sinful men to be protected from error when they are popes proclaiming binding doctrine (a far lesser gift than biblical inspiration).

So some popes were notorious sinners? Very few were, in fact, but in any event, this poses no problem at all, in terms of the office possessing infallibility in carefully prescribed conditions. The two things are distinct. Even Jesus had one bad disciple, Judas, who is called a “disciple” several times in the Bible.

***

Related Reading

Sins and Sinners in the Catholic Church [1998]

*
*
*
*

*
*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Summary: Anti-Catholic Tom is out to sea in his brief examination of the issue of “sinners in the Church.” I take a deeper look at the Bible’s teaching regarding “sinners” & “saints.”

2023-09-26T09:51:54-04:00

Last updated on: September 26, 2023 at 9:51 am   By
0 Comments

Jason Engwer is a prolific Protestant anti-Catholic apologist and webmaster of the site, Triablogue. He used to interact with me from 2000 to 2010 or so and then promptly stopped. I continue to critique his material, if I think there is educational value in doing so. Maybe one day he’ll decide to start dialoguing again. In any event, I’ll continue to do what I’ve done these past [nearly] 33 years as a Catholic apologist, and if I see that he makes some dubious claim against a Catholic position, I’ll respond, provided it is substantive enough to be worth addressing.

*****

This is a response to portions of Jason’s article, “A Challenge to Those Who Deny Eternal Security,” which was posted sometime before August 2004. His words will be in blue. I will be using RSV for Bible citations.

Why were the apostles sure that they would go to Heaven, even though they still had time to sin (2 Timothy 4:18, 1 Peter 5:1, 2 John 2-3)?

2 Timothy 4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil and save me for his heavenly kingdom. . . .

This is in the sense that God is perfectly capable and willing to do so, but it presupposes that we, too, are willing and don’t fall from grace. The Bible doesn’t teach irresistible grace.  Many other passages (including four from the same book) also need to be considered in the overall mix. They show that there are conditions (i.e., it’s not a sure thing, set for all time), and that one can lose salvation and being in a state of grace with God if they don’t persevere to the end. The passages that Jason brings up all have to be interpreted in light of this other motif that is also plainly taught in the Bible, in the following seventeen passages, among others:

Romans 8:15-17 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” [16] it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, [17] and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Matthew 10:22 . . . he who endures to the end will be saved. (cf. 24:13; Mk 13:13)

John 16:1 I have said all this to you to keep you from falling away.

Philippians 3:11-12 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own,  . . .

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 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Colossians 1:22-23 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, [23] provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, . . .

1 Timothy 1:19-20 . . . By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, [20] among them Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

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.

2 Timothy 2:17-18 . . . Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, [18] who have swerved from the truth . . .

Hebrews 3:12-14 Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day . . . that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God, and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy . . .

Hebrews 10:26-29, 36, 39 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [27] but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. [28] A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. [29] How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? . . . [36] For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised. . . . [39] But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

2 Peter 2:15, 20-21 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, . . . For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

Revelation 2:4-5 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. [5] Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Paul in his 2nd epistle to Timothy strongly implies that his salvation was conditional upon his perseverance and observance of God’s laws and a steadfast faith. This in turn is a different thing from the notion of achieving salvation and eternal security in one instant:

2 Timothy 4:7-8 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. [8] Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, . . .

Paul didn’t say, “I knew I was saved on such-and-such a date, because it is by faith alone and has nothing to do with works or sanctification.” No! He didn’t explain this as a typical evangelical Protestant like Jason would. He worked! He “fought” and “finished the race” and “kept [not just believed] the faith”. These all involve time and perseverance. And as a result, he states, “Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness.”

For Paul, salvation is a “both/and” synergistic proposition, not “either/or” (God does all, man can and does do nothing to attain it). So he writes that “he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me” (2 Tim 1:12), but also writes “guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim 1:14). God works, and so do we, enabled by His grace.

If indeed we have free will, we can choose to stop cooperating with God’s grace, too. Thus, in his first epistle to Timothy, Paul referred to “some” who “will depart from the faith” (1 Tim 4:1) and “some” who “have already strayed after Satan” (1 Tim 5:15), and he names two of these: “Hymenaeus and Alexander” (“the coppersmith”: 2 Tim 4:14) who “have made shipwreck of their faith” (1 Tim 1:19-20). And “Hymenaeus. . . swerved from the truth” (2 Tim 2:17-18). Two other statements of Paul in 2 Timothy imply good works as part of the conditional salvific process:

2 Timothy 2:5-6 An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. [6] It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops.

2 Timothy 2:11-12 The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; [12] if we endure, we shall also reign with him;

There is no such thing as “eternal security” in either of Paul’s letters to Timothy. Quite the opposite . . .

1 Peter 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed.

He writes similarly in 1:3-5 and 5:4, 10. At the moment he was that, if he was free of mortal sin. This is the Catholic understanding of moral assurance of salvation. It doesn’t follow that this grace and salvation can’t be lost. St. Peter clearly taught the possibility of apostasy and forsaking the faith in 2 Peter 2:15, 20-21, already cited above. Just seven verses earlier in the same book, Peter wrote:

1 Peter 4:13-14 But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. [14] If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. (cf. 5:9-10)

This echoes very similar Pauline teaching (cited above) from Romans 8:15-17 and Philippians 1:29 (“you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake”) and 3:10 (“that I may know him . . . and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death”). Some amount of suffering appears to be required for ultimate salvation, and this simply isn’t “faith alone.” 1 Peter 4:13-14 and Romans 8:15-17 mention God’s “glory” or our receiving His “spirit of glory” or being “glorified with him”. Here’s another similar passage (note the conditional “if”):

Romans 6:3-5 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? [4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

This passage specifically has to do with baptism, but it has motifs similar to Romans 8:15-17 and 1 Peter 4:13.
*
Peter refers to “newborn babes” in Christ, who “may grow up to salvation” (1 Pet 2:2). That hardly sounds like an instant salvation that can never be lost. He also teaches that humility has something to do with salvation:
1 Peter 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you.
It would seem to follow that if we don’t humble ourselves, then we won’t be exalted at the last judgment.
2 John 1:2-3 . . . the truth which abides in us and will be with us for ever: [3] Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, . . .
I’ve already addressed St. John’s theology regarding “eternal security” or the lack thereof (and Jason brings up the old chestnut 1 John 5:13 in his next comment):

“Certainty” of Eternal Life? (1 Jn 5:13 & Jn 5:24) [5-8-02]

Why did the apostles want the believers to whom they wrote to be sure of their future in Heaven (Romans 5:9, 1 Corinthians 1:8, Philippians 3:20-21, 1 Peter 1:3-5, 5:4, 1 John 5:13, 2 John 2-3)?

Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
In Romans 8:15-17 (cited above), Paul makes salvation and glorification conditional upon our suffering with Christ (cf. Rom 5:3-5). This is reflected in the seeming conditional of Romans 5:2, in context, where Paul states that “we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.” If it were already certain and irrevocable, why wouldn’t Paul have, rather, written something like, “we rejoice in the fact that we have already received a certain assurance of sharing the glory of God”? In any event, a hope of something is not, strictly or logically speaking, a certainty of receiving it. Paul makes this clear elsewhere in the epistle, in conjunction with salvation:
Romans 8:24-25 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? [25] But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines hope (Gk., elpis, Strong’s Greek word #1680) as “expectation of good, hope; and in the Christian sense, joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation”. Granted, this is not far from “certain” or “absolute” (and Catholics believe in this, in the sense of a reflective, self-examining moral assurance) but it’s not quite there, so that there is still a chance of losing such salvation or the divine grace that brings it about. That salvation is a process for Paul, also, is indicated when he writes that “salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed” (Rom 13:11). If we already possess it in absolute certainty, then it would be absurd and nonsensical to refer to it being “nearer”: and nearer at a subsequent point of time after “we first believed.”

Moreover, in Romans 2:6-7, Paul teaches that God “will give eternal life” based on (“according to”) the “works” of “every man” and to those who earn it through “patience in well-doing.” What’s with all these works?! Is Paul a lousy Pelagian or something? No! He teaches grace alone for salvation, through faith, which includes within it (inseparably) good works.

1 Corinthians 1:8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Yes He will. This is the only way we can be saved. But we must also cooperate. Hence, Paul writes in the same letter that even he could possibly be “disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27) and urges that “any one who thinks that he stands” should “take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12). 1 Corinthians 1:8 must be interpreted in light of that data (and much more from Paul, generally). We can decide that Paul is hopelessly self-contradictory (which runs counter to biblical inspiration and infallibility), or we can try to harmonize the two motifs in a way that is logically consistent.
*
Catholics offer a plausible Bible-soaked way to do that. Protestants offer, well (usually) a highly selective presentation of Bible passages without taking into considerations those of the other motif, like I am presently doing. But they are responsible, too, for taking all of the relevant biblical data into account, just as Catholics are. We don’t ignore their verses (I am going through them systematically in this article); they mostly ignore ours that indicate a conditional and not eternally secure salvation that is gained through a grace-enabled, but difficult and lengthy cooperative process on our end.
Philippians 3:20-21 But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, [21] who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, . . .
8-9 verses earlier (making it in context), Paul proved that he regards this salvation as conditional: “if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this . . . I press on to make it my own” (3:11-12). Here, as always, the two strains of thought, which I would say are paradoxical — very typical of Hebraic thought — but not contradictory, must be harmonized somehow. I think we do this by asserting that a very strong, confident moral assurance is possible if we are not in mortal sin, but that absolute assurance is not (since we don’t infallibly know he future), and that both are repeatedly taught in Holy Scripture.
*
Paul also writes: “Only let us hold true to what we have attained” (Phil 3:16). To me — at least prima facie — this implies either that we have to continue to perseveringly hold what we have attained, lest we possibly lose it (cf. 3:11-12) or maybe that there is more to attain than we have already attained (or both). Of course, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (2:12) goes against the notion of instant salvation without process. Christians are those who are hopefully “holding fast the word of life” (2:16) and who must “stand firm . . . in the Lord” (4:1).
*
1 Peter 1:3-5 refers to “hope”: which I have written about above. It and 1 Peter 5:4 must be understood in synthesis with the data from both epistles of Peter, as analyzed above.
*
Critics of eternal security argue that salvation depends on our present faith and our present behavior. Why, then, do the scriptures refer to people having salvation, or something associated with salvation, in the present because of a past faith or a past justification (Luke 7:50, Acts 19:2, Romans 5:1)? How is this possible if there isn’t a moment of faith in the past that results in our future salvation?
Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
Again, this has to be interpreted in light of other related passages. So, for example, Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery, “go, and do not sin again” (Jn 8:11), and said, “he who endures to the end will be saved” (Mt 10:22), and “If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:17; cf. Jn 14:15, 21; 15:14). I have compiled fifty Bible passages showing that works were crucially involved in the question of whether one is saved or not. Faith isn’t even mentioned in any of them, save one.
Acts 19:2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” . . .
These people embraced Christ and Christianity. It simply doesn’t say that they were saved at one moment once and for all, and for all time. Protestant soteriology is smuggled into it, but of course that is eisegesis. Hebrews 6:4, 6 states that those who had “become partakers of the Holy Spirit” can nevertheless possibly still “commit apostasy”.
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is what we consider to be initial justification. The text doesn’t say that this means attainment of a salvation in one instant, that can never be lost. It can be lost (see all the seventeen Scriptures listed near the top).
*
Why do the scriptures say that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace (Romans 3:24, 5:17, 6:23, Revelation 22:17)? If attaining salvation through works would contradict grace (Romans 4:4, 11:6), then how can maintaining salvation through works be consistent with grace?
*
In these passages the Bible is opposing the notion that we can save ourselves by our self-generated works, apart from God’s grace (which is the heresy of works-salvation or Pelagianism). It’s not saying that works are not part and parcel of faith and hence also salvation, after the initial justification. They certainly are; so says the Bible at least fifty times. Romans 6:22, right before on of Jason’s prooftexts, refers to “sanctification and its end, eternal life.” That is the distinction:

1) initial justification  = monergistic with no works on our part;

2) maintenance of justification = synergistic and cooperative, and involves good works.

But in Protestant theology (very unlike Rom 6:22), sanctification has nothing directly to do with salvation. It’s the category they reserve for doing good things in gratefulness to God for a supposed salvation already achieved in an instant. When men’s theological systems and Holy Scripture clash, we must always choose God’s revelation over man-made tradition, that is shown to be false by contradicting the Bible. Revelation 22:17 has to be harmonized with Revelation 2:4-5, which says that it’s possible to fall away from the faith.
*
If some “really bad” sins cause the loss of salvation, while other sins don’t, as critics of eternal security tend to believe, then why do Paul and James say that a person would have to maintain a law of works perfectly in order to be saved by it, and that any violation of any aspect of that law makes a person guilty of violating the entire law (Galatians 3:10, James 2:8-10)?
*
The Bible does not teach that all sins are absolutely equal. James 2:10 deals with man’s inability to keep the entire Law of God: a common theme in Scripture. James accepts differences in degrees of sin and righteousness elsewhere in the same letter: “we who teach shall be judged with a greater strictness” (3:1). In 1:12, the man who endures trial will receive a “crown of life.” In James 1:15 he states that “sin when it is full-grown brings forth death”.
*
Therefore, there must be sins that are not full-grown and do not bring about spiritual death. James also teaches that the “prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (5:16), which implies that there are relatively more righteous people, whom God honors more, by making their prayers more effective (he used the prophet Elijah as an example). If there is a lesser and greater righteousness, then there are lesser and greater sins also, because to be less righteous is to be more sinful, and vice versa.
*
Righteousness doesn’t derive from the law. It comes from God and His enabling grace, not written words on a page, however good and true they are. Galatians 3:21 states “if a law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law” (cf. 2:16-17,21; 5:4-6,14,18; Rom 3:21-22; 4:13; 9:30-32). Paul writes in Romans 10:3: “For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”
*
John Calvin teaches something quite different from the Bible, when he addresses James 2:10:

Even were it possible for us to perform works absolutely pure, yet one sin is sufficient to efface and extinguish all remembrance of former righteousness, as the prophet says (Ezek. 18:24). With this James agrees, . . . [cites Jas 2:10] (Institutes III, 14:10)

[cites Jas 2:10-11] Therefore, it should not seem absurd when we say that death is the just recompense of every sin, because each sin merits the just indignation and vengeance of God. (Institutes III, 18:10)

It’s quite easy in context to see the error Calvin commits with regard to Ezekiel 18. The prophet is speaking generally and broadly of the sinners’ life vs. the life of the redeemed, righteous man. The verse (first part) states: “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live?”
*
Notice that the sins are plural: not one little sin that supposedly undoes everything, as in Calvin’s schema. Ezekiel is teaching, in effect: “if you live in sin as the wicked and evil people do, you will [spiritually] die.” This is referring to people who give themselves totally over to sin (including mortal sins). These are what separate a person from God, not one white lie or lustful thought or stealing a cookie from the cookie jar. Context makes this interpretation rather clear and obvious:

Ezekiel 18:5-13 If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right — [6] if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman in her time of impurity, [7] does not oppress any one, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, [8] does not lend at interest or take any increase, withholds his hand from iniquity, executes true justice between man and man, [9] walks in my statutes, and is careful to observe my ordinances — he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord GOD. [10] If he begets a son who is a robber, a shedder of blood, [11] who does none of these duties, but eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor’s wife, [12] oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, [13] lends at interest, and takes increase; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.

The prophet continues in the same vein in 18:14-23. This is not Calvin’s “one sin”; it’s a host of sins, a lifestyle: a life given over to wanton wickedness and unrighteousness. Then in 18:26 he reiterates: “When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die.” If that weren’t clear enough, he refers again to “all the transgressions” (18:28, 31) and “all your transgressions” (18:30).
*
If passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21 are lists of sins that cause the loss of salvation, as many critics of eternal security claim, then why do we see examples in scripture of people committing those sins, yet remaining saved (1 Corinthians 3:1-3, 11:17-32)?
*
It’s a matter of degree. Once again, Paul writes in the same letter that even he could possibly be “disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27) and urges that “any one who thinks that he stands” should “take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12). So Paul is not teaching in the letter that no one can ever lose salvation. These passages (and I would add three others of like nature: Eph 5:5; Rev 21:8; 22:14-15) certainly refer to a loss of salvation due to committing serious sins. By immediate and undeniable implication, there are other lesser sins that do not bring about a loss of salvation and/or grace and a right relationship with God.
*
Paul may not refer to a person who was saved and lost his salvation in this letter, but he certainly does in his epistle to the Galatians (“You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace”: 5:4), and three times in 1 Timothy and once in 2 Timothy (see citations above). He’s not required to repeat every teaching of his in every letter. They are to be interpreted as a whole.
*
If salvation could be lost, it couldn’t be regained (Hebrews 6:4-6).
*
That’s specifically referring to the sin of apostasy.
*
How, then, were people like David and Peter saved after committing sins such as adultery and denying Christ? If such sins aren’t bad enough to cause the loss of salvation, what would be?
*
1) They didn’t commit apostasy, and 2) they both profoundly repented; 3) both were also chosen by God for very special tasks, and so presumably had an extra “protection.” But the main difference is an absence of apostasy and deliberate rejection of God. As I have written about, Peter simply had a very short lapse of fear, during the terrible time of Jesus’ passion and trial. His whole sin may have lasted all of ten minutes. Then as soon as he heard the cock crow, he wept bitterly and repented. If God can’t forgive that, He wouldn’t be God.
*
Why does the book of the Bible that most often refers to salvation as a gift (Romans 3:24, 5:15, 5:16, 6:23, etc.) also tell us that the gifts of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29)?
*
They are irrevocable on God’s end, but man has a free will that makes it possible for him to reject them:
1 Corinthians 2:14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
*
Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!”
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Photo Credit: St. Paul (1482), by Bartolomeo Montegna (1450-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I tackle several rapid-fire supposed prooftexts for eternal security, presented by anti-Catholic evangelical apologist Jason Engwer, & show that apostasy is possible.

Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
How Science Is Changing Emotional Distress Claims
Corruption and Cruelty without Conscience
Why Renaming God "The Host" Appeals to Every...
8 False Expectations Newlyweds Should Avoid (Part 1)
From Disability to Adaptation: Rethinking Church Service
Watch: 'Superman' Trailer Features Hope, Idealism
view all Family blogs