Is Sola Scriptura Self-Refuting? (vs. Bruno Lima)

Last updated on: October 12, 2022 at 4:27 pm By Dave Armstrong

Bruno Lima is a Brazilian Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) writer and apologist.

*****

I am responding to his article, “A Sola Scriptura é Auto-Refutável?” [Is Sola Scriptura Self-Refuting?] (11-3-17). His words will be in blue.

I have already dealt with the arguments most often used by papists against Sola Scriptura (here).

I’m the same on the opposite side. I’ve written three books about it (one / two / three), have an extremely extensive web page about the topic and larger authority issues, and have written and debated more about this than any other apologetics subject, among my 4,000+ online articles and fifty books. So this looks like it will be a good and substantive discussion. I hope Bruno actually defends his articles. I have recently critiqued Brazilian apologist Lucas Banzoli 34 times, and he never did so: not one word. I respect people who have the courage of their convictions.

Today I want to address a specific objection. Catholics claim that Sola Scriptura refutes itself as Scripture itself does not teach the idea.

Indeed, that is exactly the case, as I will demonstrate yet again, as I have many times through the years.

Generally, Protestants respond by attacking the premise and pointing to texts where Scripture teaches its own material and formal sufficiency.

That’s true, too, as a generality; and then Catholic apologists systematically show that all these supposed “proofs” miserably fail in their intended purpose.

I believe the Reformed principle is taught in Scripture implicitly. By this I mean that there is no text that says “Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith,” but there are a number of texts that put together imply the Reformed principle.

I look forward to seeing which passages Bruno thinks do this. This is the latest fad in defending the notion that sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture: that it is, but only indirectly and by deduction. I vehemently deny that, too. It’s fascinating how Protestant apologists are now often applying this new approach to their serious problem in this regard: flat-out admitting that no single text teaches sola Scriptura (true so far). But then they go on to claim (as Bruno will) that it doesn’t matter, anyway. I think, with all due respect, that this is desperation and special pleading.

I was shocked recently to see Lutheran pastor and apologist Jordan Cooper using this same “forfeit argument”. He 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]

How pathetic (if I do say so) that Protestant apologists have been so roundly defeated in this particular argument, that they readily concede that no Bible verse teaches it; after having spent some 480 years arguing that a host of Bible verses supposedly did so (with 2 Timothy 3:16 always leading the way!). One can certainly see ironic humor in this state of affairs.

This is the case for several other biblical teachings – the Trinity is an example. There is no text that says “Father, Son and Holy Spirit form a Trinity”. However, if we put together all that Scripture says about the three Persons, the implication is the teaching of the Trinity.

Bad choice of analogy. Literally forty years ago, when I first started writing serious apologetics (as an evangelical Protestant), I compiled the hundreds of biblical passages that — considered together — do definitely demonstrate the truth of trinitarianism. I’m still proud of that research and it has stood the test of time. There is, however, no similar set of passages that allegedly add up to the truth of sola Scriptura. It’s a fantasy; a pipe-dream.

I know; I’ve debated the topic with many of the leading defenders of the false doctrine in our time and have also critiqued the best historical defenders (Whitaker and Goode: highly recommended by James White, Luther, Calvin). The arguments fail without exception. It’s remarkable to observe such a bad and substanceless scriptural case being made for one of the two “pillars” of the Protestant Revolt, and the very basis of their unbiblically narrow rule of faith.

I would like to answer the objection on its own terms. Even though Sola Scriptura was not implicitly in Scripture, the Roman objection is false. Still, it wouldn’t be self-refuting. Let’s see:

(1) Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith;

(2) Only Scripture can say that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith.

I agree that #2 is an obviously false statement. But it’s framing the issue in a wrong fashion. I would state #2 as follows, as part of my overall argument: “Only inspired Scripture can say infallibly, and as inspired revelation, that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith.” And that is the basis of Protestantism’s internal difficulty in holding this unbiblical doctrine. Because of my proposition #2, their reasoning entails vicious self-contradiction, with no solution possible from within their own wildly incoherent and inconsistent reasoning. This will all be unpacked and laid out as we proceed.

Note that (1) is the definition of Sola Scriptura

I agree. It’s crucial to agree on definitions in any debate.

and (2) would be the way we could identify the article of faith.

That’s right. But the real issue is the authoritativeness (or rather, lack thereof) of such a statement, and whether it is proper to make it binding or not (from within the Protestant paradigm and rule of faith) if it’s not in the Bible itself. I say that attempting to do so results in insuperable logical difficulties: impossible to resolve. Anyone can state anything, and/or believe anything they want. But why do they believe it? On what epistemological grounds is their alleged “certainty” or (to express it another way) strong adherence based?

It turns out that (2) is not a necessary implication of (1).

I agree again, if we are talking strict logic. But the Christian faith is not mere logic and philosophy. We claim (all of us, in one way or another) to have certainty, based on God’s revelation to man. Simply having someone say, “Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith!” on no ultimate basis derived from Scripture, raises all sorts of problems for Protestantism that can’t be resolved, and which make a mockery of their centuries-old polemic against Catholic conceptions of sacred and apostolic tradition. It does that because it entails a “double epistemological standard”, whereby Catholics have to prove our views from Scripture (and we assuredly can do so, far more than they think) but the Protestant — strangely enough — gives himself a pass from doing so. It’s endless irony that this is how it is in these discussions.

It is entirely possible that there are no other rules even though Scripture does not say so.

I shall argue that there are indeed other rules (though always in harmony with Scripture) precisely because Scripture does say so: which in and of itself refutes sola Scriptura in one elegant step.

Roman apologists confuse the content of the rule with our knowledge of the rule.

We confuse nothing. Protestants have insufficient and inadequate knowledge to assert what they do about the rule of faith. They base everything else on Scripture, but then inexplicably make an exception for this: even when it’s about the nature of scriptural authority. Or if they do have such “knowledge”, it’s based on precisely the notion of “extrabiblical tradition” that they have bashed us for 500 years for believing. Truth is stranger than fiction again!

The content of the rule is infallible, but the epistemological basis on which we identify the rule need not necessarily be infallible.

Then why do they believe it in the first place?: is the question. In the end, in my opinion, it comes down to a reason of mere polemics and the reactionary impulse: “it’s not Catholic, so we believe it, even though we have no biblical or any other good reason to do so.” That’s how it began, when Martin Luther was backed into a corner in a debate in Leipzig in 1519, and adopted sola Scriptura as his “can’t do anything else” default position, and it’s been every bit as arbitrary and baseless and unbiblical ever since.

Now, there would be some ways in which the Catholic objection would be valid. If Protestants claimed that Scripture is the only source of truth (a straw man often used in debates), it would be self-refuting.

That’s right. And it’s true that this is a straw man too often used by Catholics uninformed about Protestant teachings. But I am not in that number. I properly understand it and also understand how it is logically and biblically inconsistent and incoherent.

Or if Scripture itself laid down other infallible rules. Despite attempts to use texts such as Matthew 16:18, Scripture does not point to infallible rules other than itself.

I’m glad to see that Bruno has already forfeited this debate. For indeed there are at least two scriptural arguments showing that the Church, too, is infallible (1 Timothy 3:15 and the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15). Here is my most concise presentation of the argument from 1 Timothy 3:15, from my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Catholic Answers: 2012, pp. 104-107, #82):

1 Timothy 3:15 [RSV] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a “bulwark” of the truth, means to be a “safety net” against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God’s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus’ parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err — it must be infallible. A similar passage may cast further light on 1 Timothy 3:15:

Ephesians 2:19-21 . . . you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

1 Timothy 3:15 defines “household of God” as “the church of the living God.” Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church’s own “foundation” is “the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.

Prophets spoke “in the name of the Lord” (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with “thus says the Lord” (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the “word of the Lord” (Is 1:10; 38:4; Jer 1:2; 13:3, 8; 14:1; Ezek 13:1-2; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon 1:1; Mic 1:1, et cetera). These communications cannot contain any untruths insofar as they truly originate from God, with the prophet serving as a spokesman or intermediary of God (Jer 2:2; 26:8; Ezek 11:5; Zech 1:6; and many more). Likewise, apostles proclaimed truth unmixed with error (1 Cor 2:7-13; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11-14; 2 Pet 1:12-21).

Does this foundation have any faults or cracks? Since Jesus is the cornerstone, he can hardly be a faulty foundation. Neither can the apostles or prophets err when teaching the inspired gospel message or proclaiming God’s word. In the way that apostles and prophets are infallible, so is the Church set up by our Lord Jesus Christ. We ourselves (all Christians) are incorporated into the Church (following the metaphor), on top of the foundation.

1 Peter 2:4-9 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; [5] and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. [6] For it stands in scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” [8] and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. [9] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (cf. Isa 28:16)

Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even identified with Jesus himself, by being called his “Body” (Acts 9:5 cf. with 22:4 and 26:11; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12; 5:23, 30; Col 1:24). That the Church is so intimately connected with Jesus, who is infallible, is itself a strong argument that the Church is also infallible and without error.

Therefore, the Church is built on the foundation of Jesus (perfect in all knowledge), and the prophets and apostles (who spoke infallible truth, often recorded in inspired, infallible Scripture). Moreover, it is the very “Body of Christ.” It stands to reason that the Church herself is infallible, by the same token. In the Bible, nowhere is truth presented as anything less than pure truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own “tradition” that he received and passed down.

Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something less than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods, untruths, lies, or errors)? It cannot. It is impossible. It is a straightforward matter of logic and plain observation. A stream cannot rise above its source. What is built upon a foundation cannot be greater than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.

If an elephant stood on the shoulders of a man as its foundation, that foundation would collapse. The base of a skyscraper has to hold the weight above it. The foundations of a suspension bridge over a river have to be strong enough to support that bridge.

Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the foundation of truth, the Church must be infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authority apart from Scripture, sola scriptura must be false.

Here’s the second argument:

The Jerusalem Council (recorded in the Bible) demonstrated the sublime authority of the Church to make binding, infallible decrees (something sola Scriptura expressly denies can or should be the case). It claimed to be speaking in conjunction with the Holy Spirit (“it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”: Acts 15:28) and its decree was delivered as such by the Apostle Paul in several cities (“As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem”: Acts 16:4). [see many more papers on this by searching “Jerusalem” on my Church web page]

These two arguments alone already annihilate sola Scriptura, but there are many other arguments against it. I happen to think that these two are the best and most unanswerable ones (and so I look forward to Bruno’s attempted answer!). Very few Protestants have ever tried to knock down these two arguments: at least as I have argued and expressed them. I can only report what my own almost universal experience has been. There’s a reason for that (as James White would say).

The Roman apologist could still say “if all that is necessary to believe in order to be saved is in Scripture, then the Reformed principle must be contained in Scripture.” Once again, it is a straw man caricature of Protestant teaching. Protestants do not claim that you need to believe that Scripture is the only infallible rule to be saved, but that you need to believe the gospel that Scripture presents unadulterated.

Agreed. That’s not an argument I use, because it is a very weak one and largely a straw man.

Therefore, there is no contradiction.

Not in that particular respect, but there are several other self-contradictions, as I have been demonstrating.

We cannot fail to mention the burden of proof. If indeed there is any other infallible rule of faith besides Scripture, it behooves its proponent to evidence it.

I was happy to provide two above. How does Bruno reply to them? How is sola Scriptura salvaged in light of those two things?

If no other infallible rules are laid down, the Protestant is rationally justified in appealing to Scripture alone as unquestioned authority.

I agree. But they have been laid down from the Bible itself.

The Catholic objection is often put another way, “Sola Scriptura is self-refuting because it does not contain the canon.”

That’s a decent argument, too, but forms no part of my present *much more compelling) argument; therefore, I need not address it at the moment.

First of all, I should mention that Catholics despise the canon’s internal and intertextual evidence.

That’s an unfair and inaccurate generalization.

Scripture itself provides the criteria by which the canon can be established.

Usually, but not always:

Are All Bible Books Self-Evidently Inspired? [6-19-06]

Are All the Biblical Books Self-Evidently Canonical? [6-22-06]

Bible: Completely Self-Authenticating, So that Anyone Could Come up with the Complete Canon without Formal Church Proclamations? (vs. Wm. Whitaker) [July 2012].

The Catholic objection to the canon strikes me as hypocritical too, since supposing that there were in Scripture a book which gave us the list of the canon, papists would go on to say “how do you know that the book which lists the canon is a part of Scripture?”

That’s sheer nonsense. What we would say is that such a list in a book would decisively resolve this issue in and of itself, provided that we have good reason to believe that the book it appeared in is itself canonical and inspired. We would determine the latter by seeing what the Church Church fathers taught about it. Since we (unlike Protestants) believe in the infallibility of authentic apostolic tradition (not all claimed tradition), this is not a difficulty for us, or an inconsistency. There’s no “hypocrisy” here at all. There is epistemological and biblical consistency.

It’s precisely because there is no such list in the Bible, that infallible Catholic Church authority was needed to resolve the issue. Protestants end up accepting that, as an embarrassing exception to their usual methodology (minus seven biblical books that they rejected, following a minority position in the Church fathers), because (just as with the arbitrary sola Scriptura) they have no other recourse. It’s a desperate default position.

This is because the aim of Catholic apologetics is to demote the authority of Scripture in order to elevate the authority of its own Church.

We’ve never done such a thing. This is simply ad hominem smearing. I’ve knocked down dozens of anti-Catholic attempts to try to establish as historical fact some fictional, imaginary animus of the Catholic Church against the Bible. Perhaps Bruno wants to make an attempt (but after we discuss this!)? I’ll be happy to refute that, too.

[I]in the same way that someone might ask “how do you know what is or is not the word of God?”, we asked “how do you know your Church is infallible”. To answer this question, the Catholic will have to either appeal to circular reasoning (the church is infallible because it says it is) or to a fallible private judgment to determine whether his church is infallible. At the end of the day, we all depend on our fallible judgment to know the truth.

This is nonsense. Christianity doesn’t reduce to secular philosophical epistemology. We all have faith, remember? And that faith must derive from God’s grace. In other words, in the final analysis it’s a spiritual, religious thing, not a philosophical thing. We can defend many parts of our beliefs from philosophy and secular learning (I have no problem with that: I often do it as an apologist, and my upcoming book about biblical archaeology — that any Protestant should agree with — does it). But we have to exercise faith, too. Protestants do and Catholics do. It’s religious and theological belief.

The informed, educated Catholic doesn’t say that the Church is infallible merely because it says so. That would be stupid and prove nothing, of course. We say it’s infallible because the Bible asserts it, in 1 Timothy 3:15 and Acts 15. We believe the Bible on many other grounds (including archaeology, which my latest book addresses). We believe it because our Lord Jesus (Who proved He was God by performing miracles and rising from the dead and returning) said that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth, and told Peter He would build His Church upon his leadership as first pope, and that “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16).

St. Paul also mentions quite a bit, the notion of “truth” and a set of teachings (he uses many synonymous terms) that are regarded as dogma and unassailable. And he railed against those who would deny this, and go against the “tradition” that he himself passed on to his followers: urging folks to avoid those who cause division. I wrote an entire book of biblical arguments related to this very topic of infallibility (Biblical Proofs for an Infallible Church and Papacy: March 2012).

Why do we believe the Catholic Church is the same Church talked about in the Bible and in early Church history? That’s an historical matter, and we have all kinds of arguments demonstrating historical continuity and apostolic succession (that Protestants glaringly lack for themselves). That’s why we believe it: still in and with faith, by grace, but with ample objective reasons to do so: that can withstand skeptical scrutiny (I do it for a living).

But in any event, it’s not merely “fallible private judgment” (nice try there). Of course it may be for many inadequately taught particular Catholics, just as there are also millions of undereducated Protestants (I know: I was in that group, too, for 32 years). But we can never go by that. We have to examine what “official teachings” assert, not “Joe Blow Catholic / Protestant” in some bar at midnight, spouting off about theology, says, or some loudmouthed ignorant fool on the Internet, falsely claiming to represent something.

Infallible epistemological certainty is something that God did not want to give us.

He wanted to give us an infallible certitude of faith: not the theologically relativistic, ecclesiologically chaotic state of affairs that we have in Protestant denominationalism: a concept never found in the New Testament anywhere: let alone sanctioned as a supposed norm.

Think for a moment. Why an infallible magisterium that needs to be accessed or interpreted by fallible judgments?

It’s not. The premise is wrong. It’s infallibly interpreted in specific highly specified circumstances by ecumenical councils in conjunction with popes, or by popes themselves. That’s how our system works. Bruno seems to have us confused with Protestantism, where the individual is king, and so a a result it has multiple hundreds of competing denominations, where all sorts of errors are necessarily present (by the law of contradiction).

That’s not from God. Any falsehood is from the devil. God would never countenance a system that necessarily contains that much falsehood. That’s why denominationalism is yet another central Protestant belief or reality that is utterly absent from the Bible, just like sola Scriptura and sola fide and several other false doctrines. But thank heavens, we do agree on many things, too, which is cause for rejoicing.

If that were God’s purpose, he would do something better. He would make all Christians infallible.

There is no need to do that. We have more than enough infallible human authority, and inspired Scripture, to guide us to the truth in all these matters.

The whole body of Christ in unison and clear would hold the same opinions and hold the same truths.

That will never happen in fact because of the sinfulness and lack of knowledge of human beings as a whole. But we can have an infallible, inspired Bible and infallible Church and tradition to guide the way. We don’t have to rely on our own miserable, flimsy, fallible selves as the ultimate rule and standard of faith (thank God!). The Bible never teaches that we do: yet Protestantism does: yet another unbiblical tradition of men.

*
Now, in closing I will note how fascinating it is that Bruno started out with the assertion: “I believe the Reformed principle is taught in Scripture implicitly. . . . there are a number of texts that put together imply the Reformed principle.” But yet, oddly enough, he managed to never produce these supposed Scriptures that “put together” allegedly add up to the principle of sola Scriptura. He just “forgot” about that and hoped that the reader would, too (ah! the thorny and frustrating problems of incoherent theology). What a shock and surprise! But I’m being sarcastic. This is often the methodology of Protestants “defending” sola Scriptura. It’s an ethereal, shadowy thing. The ever-evasive or plain imaginary “prooftexts” are given lip service and then ignored as if they have no importance (or existence). In fact, producing these alleged texts is absolutely crucial to their case.

It’s like the old tale about “the emperor is naked.” Everyone is scared to tell him that he is. Well, the nakedness in the present discussion is the lack of any compelling biblical evidence for sola Scriptura (and I ain’t scared to point it out!). That being the case, Protestants seem to be engaged in a sort of voluntary mass self-deception or self-delusion: by pretending that the proof is there “somewhere” in the Bible, but never producing it (or them). It’s terribly inadequate, woefully insufficient theology, exegesis, debate, and thinking, period. But it’s not going to end anytime soon. In the meantime, we can only expose the farcical, self-contradictory, and unbiblical nature of the belief so that less people are fooled and harmed by it.

See my related papers, which get into other aspects of this issue that I didn’t address here:

Sola Scriptura is Self-Defeating and False if Not in the Bible (vs. Kevin Johnson) [5-4-04]

Sola Scriptura: Self-Refuting? (vs. Steve Hays) [12-14-21]

Protestantism: Is it Logically Self-Defeating? [9-15-03]

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty 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: Brazilian Protestant apologist Bruno Lima makes various arguments for sola Scriptura being biblical. I shoot down every one and offer plausible biblical alternatives.

Why Doesn’t Scripture Call Jesus an “Only Child”?

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:51 pm By Dave Armstrong

vs. Lucas Banzoli

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I use RSV for the Bible passages unless otherwise indicated.

This is my 18th refutation of articles written by Lucas Banzoli. As of yet, I haven’t received a single word in reply to any of them (or if Banzoli has replied to anything, anywhere, he certainly hasn’t informed me of it). Readers may decide for themselves why that is the case.

*****

I’m replying to a portion of Lucas’ article, “E não a conheceu até que…” [“And knew her not until…” ] (8-16-12).

The fact that Matthew also adds that Mary gave birth to her “firstborn” (v. 25) also indicates that she had other children. Otherwise, he would simply have written that Jesus was his “only son”, as the Bible often states in other cases, where in fact there were no other brothers in the family. . ., as in the case of the widow of Nain, whose “only son” (Lk. 7:12) had died, and of the man who wanted to cast out the devil from his son, because he was his “only son” (Lk. 9:38).

Why is it not written in these cases that they were her firstborn sons? Because they were his only children. When someone was the first of other children of the same mother, it is common for the Bible to call “firstborn”; however, when he is not only the first but also the only one, the word often used is “only child”, . . .

This is a decent argument, and deserves a reply. I would note, however, that the phrase “only son” (applying to persons other than Jesus) occurs in the New Testament (in the RSV) only twice (Lk 7:12; Heb 11:17), while “only child” appears exactly once (Lk 9:38). This is why Lucas mentioned the two instances in Luke, because they are two out of only three total. For whatever reason, the New Testament uses these terms very rarely.

But I still grant that the argument carries some force, which is why I am writing about it. If Lucas asks me why it is that Jesus is never called an “only son”: a thing that would put this whole controversy to rest (which would have been a good thing!), I reply, “I have no idea.” We can’t figure everything out in the Bible or understand why some things are written and others are not written, which would clarify and put a lot of historic controversies to rest.

Yet our inability to fully understand is to be expected when we are talking about an inspired revelation that comes from an infinitely intelligent, omniscient God. So I don’t know, and I don’t have the slightest embarrassment or shame in admitting that. There are lots of things we don’t know about God, theology, and the Bible.

That said, the Catholic can still “turn the tables” on the Protestant and demonstrate by several solid analogies that this difficulty (of something not explicitly and clearly stated in the Bible that presumably or seemingly ought to be if a thing is true) is not unique to us. Protestants have several major ones of their own, along the same lines. If this factor is a “problem” for Catholics, so it also is for Protestants (and I say, in several far more problematic and more internally inconsistent ways).

The two “pillars” of the so-called Protestant “Reformation” are sola Scriptura (the Bible only as the only infallible rule of faith) and sola fide (justification by faith alone). Yet neither thing is explicitly spelled out in the Bible; not even close. Here is how three prominent modern-day Protestant apologists define sola Scriptura:

What Protestants mean by sola scriptura is that the Bible alone is the infallible written authority for faith and morals. (Evangelical Protestant Norman Geisler: Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 178; co-author, Ralph E. Mackenzie)

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church. (Reformed Baptist James R. White: The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 59)

Scripture . . . is the only inspired and inherently infallible norm, and therefore Scripture is the only final authoritative norm. (Reformed Protestant Keith A. Mathison: The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001, 260)

See also various “classical” Protestant definitions: all consistent with the above. Such a thing is never remotely stated in the Bible. It doesn’t exist, period. I’ve written three books about the topic and I have sought for such a verse and asked every Protestant I debate with to come up with one. It’s not there. Even a prominent (and worthy and able) Protestant apologist like the Lutheran pastor Jordan Cooper recently freely conceded this point:

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.” I think, more so, what we have to do is just speak about the unique authority of Scripture and the unique nature of Scripture, and just to say that Scripture does present itself as God-breathed. 2 Timothy 3:16 is kind of the famous text that says this . . . [1:39-2:35, in the video, “A Defense of Sola Scriptura“ (3-12-19)]

Does sola Scriptura have to be spelled out in the Bible in order for the view to be self-consistent and valid? Of course it does! I’ve laid out that rather straightforward and solid argument elsewhere. I recently expressed it in a nutshell, in a Facebook reply to another Protestant YouTube Apologist, Collin Brooks (modified slightly):

It’s my contention that sola Scriptura, by its very nature, must be able to be defended from Holy Scripture, or else it is viciously self-defeating, and a mere arbitrary tradition of men: as such, not worthy of allegiance, and of no compelling authority.

*

Protestants have, nevertheless, made it their formal rule of faith, without the grounding in Scripture that it must have in order to consistently be granted such an imposing epistemological status.

*

In my opinion, this must be done before the discussion can sensibly continue. Why do Protestants hold to sola Scriptura in the first place? It becomes an example of “the emperor is naked.” Protestants refuse to grapple with the shocking realization that it has no scriptural basis.

*

Whether or not any given Catholic can defend his own critiques of sola Scriptura and assertions of the infallibility of Church and Tradition or not (I think I can, if I do say so), it remains the burden of Protestantism and Protestant theologians and apologists to demonstrate how and why sola Scriptura is a biblically required doctrine, over against the constant Catholic apostolic tradition that directly contradicts it. And Catholics must press this point, because it’s so absolutely fundamental and necessary for Protestants to adequately explain their rule of faith in a non-self-contradictory manner.

I set forth the argument in much more depth in my article, Sola Scriptura: Self-Refuting? (vs. Steve Hays) [12-14-21]. But this seems not to give Protestants any pause at all. They are absolutely determined to hold on to this invented tradition of men (which suddenly appeared almost fifteen centuries after Christ), despite the fact that the Bible nowhere teaches it. They seem to be blissfully unaware of how viciously self-refuting and epistemologically ludicrous such a scenario is. This is a far greater difficulty for their view than the Bible never stating “Jesus was Mary’s only son” is for the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity (because we have many other biblical arguments, whereas Protestants have none for the actual definition and concept of sola Scriptura).

The second Protestant pillar is sola fide. It, too, is not taught in the Bible, and in fact is expressly denied in at least two passages:

James 2:24 (RSV) You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

*

James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

In a nutshell, as James 2:26 makes the most clear: faith, in order to be genuine, authentic faith, must have the aspect of works inherently connected with it; part and parcel of it; two sides of the same coin. Thus, good works become a crucial part of the process of salvation: not in and of or by themselves (which is the heresy of works-salvation or Pelagianism) but as inevitably a part of faith, by definition. That is the biblical and Catholic view.

But Protestants, despite not being able to identify any undeniable biblical teaching of faith alone, nevertheless irrationally and unbiblically insist that works have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation, and put them in a separate, non-salvific box of “sanctification.” For the Catholic, sanctification is organically part of justification. This, too, is a much greater difficulty for their view than the Bible never stating “Jesus was Mary’s only son” is for ours.

As a third argument, the Bible never lists the books of its own canon. Whether a book is canonical or not, cannot be determined by utilizing the Bible as the only infallible norm of faith. It is necessarily and inevitably dependent upon historic Catholic Church authority, which decreed which books were in the Bible in the late 4th century. This is an insuperable problem for Protestant authority and its rule of faith. It amounts to what the late Presbyterian theologian R. C. Sproul candidly described as a “fallible collection of infallible books.” But do Protestants as a whole care about this huge internal contradiction? No! They go on about their merry way, assuming that the canon is determined, and hardly ever considering how it was . . .

A fourth analogy is denominationalism, which is never taught in the Bible and is expressly contradicted whenever the New Testament refers to “the Church” or “the truth” or “the tradition” and whenever it condemns divisiveness and sectarianism (as it often does). As one aspect of this atrocious denominationalism, Protestants come up with the special pleading of supposed “primary and secondary doctrines”: with the first set required and the second up for grabs (thus allowing countless theological contradictions to exist; even encouraged!). But that, too, is nowhere found in the Bible. So we have an unbiblical tradition of men utilized for the sake of rationalizing the initial unbiblical tradition of men: and this from the folks who supposedly “always go by the Bible alone”: whereas we Catholics — so they never tire of telling us — supposedly look down on the Bible and Bible proofs.

A fifth thing I would bring up as an example of a theological doctrine only implicitly outlined in the Bible, is the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Bible doesn’t state outright: “the Holy Spirit is God” or “the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Holy Trinity” (“the word “trinity” never appears, either). I went through the argument forty years ago in my massive study of biblical trinitarianism: one of my first major apologetics projects. Probably the best argument for this is the following deductive one:

Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, “Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? [4] . . . You have not lied to men but to God.”

This works by the following logic:

1) Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit.

2) The same act of Ananias is also described as his having “lied to God.”
3) Therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.

That may not be readily apparent, and I think most people would miss it, if it wasn’t spelled out to them. I never thought of it myself until I first saw this explained.

So, as in all these cases, we have to ask, in our turning the tables analogical argument:

1) If sola Scriptura is true, why doesn’t the Bible simply state something akin to the classic Protestant definition? And, lacking that, why do Protestants accept it as Gospel Truth anyway and make their entire theology dependent on a thing never asserted in the Bible?

*

2) If sola fide is true, why doesn’t the Bible state something akin to the classic Protestant definition? And, lacking that, why do Protestants accept it as Gospel Truth anyway and make their entire soteriology dependent on a thing never stated in the Bible, and a thing the Bible condemns at least twice (James 2:24, 26)?

*

3) Why didn’t the Bible make it easy for all Christians and state which books are included in it? Instead, the Church had to go through a 400-year process to reach consensus, only to have Protestants decide to throw out (demote) seven Old Testament books 11oo years later, and we have been wrangling about which books are in the Bible ever since. All God had to do to prevent all that was provide a list that was itself inspired and infallible. But He chose not to. Why?

*

4) Why didn’t God state through His inspired revelation: the Bible, that denominations are fine and dandy and part His will for Christianity: with His blessing!? He chose not to. We say it is because the notion is against His will, since it’s condemned over and over in Scripture. Yet Protestants think they’re perfectly acceptable in the final analysis, since they have no way to prevent their proliferation, and so they simply don’t care that denominations are utterly absent from the Bible. Well, some do, but they’re helpless to do anything about it.

*

5) Why didn’t God make the divinity of the Holy Spirit clear in the Bible, or much more clear than He did?

Lots of things for our esteemed separated brethren to think about!

***

Photo credit: Virgin and Child with Four Angels, by Gerard David (c. 1450/1460-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Why doesn’t Scripture call Jesus an “only child”? Good question! I don’t know why. But I do know that there are at least five similar “problem areas” for Protestants, too.

Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce’s Straw Man Global Flood

Last updated on: December 14, 2022 at 1:19 pm By Dave Armstrong

Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce runs the blog, A Tippling Philosopher. He has in the past encouraged me to visit his site and offer critiques, and wrote under a post dated 12-14-21: “I even need to thank the naysayers. . . . Dave, you are welcome at my new place. Come challenge me. . . . thanks for your critiques of my pieces.” Again, in a post dated 1-27-22, he stated: “I do welcome disagreements because I don’t want [my blog] to [be] just an echo chamber. . . . [S]omeone like Armstrong does give me ammunition for some of my pieces!”

I replied (usually point-by-point) to Pearce’s arguments 72 times. He made some sort of response to maybe one-quarter of those and our relations seemed cordial enough. But when I provided him with several “meaty” critiques in February 2022, he wrote on 3-1-22:

STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT. Please stop this. All you are doing is spouting the absolutely debunked drivel apologetics that my book takes to task. . . . I welcome your comments, but these are totally off-topic and you show absolutely no desire to interact with my own material . . . [caps his own]

Despite this disappointing display (at which point I quietly left his blog for good, out of consideration for him, lest he have a heart attack or a stroke), I continue to think that he’s basically a nice guy. I think we’d have a great time in a pub over beer.

Presently, I am critiquing Jonathan’s insistence on bashing the global or universal or worldwide conception of the Flood of Noah, as if it is the mainstream (or biblical) position. It’s not. In logic, we call that a straw man. Here is what he wrote in his article, “Noah’s flood is a heinous story” (OnlySky, 8-8-22):

And don’t get me started on how it [a global Flood] is not physically or practically possible by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, there is simply no evidence for a global flood or even a large regional flood that some theists will try to argue [links to his replies to me on this topic] (a theory that makes equally little sense).

But let’s focus on the global flood. The one described in the Bible is a terrible event. Of course, this is mythology. It is obviously mythology. But an awful lot of people still believe that it is literally and historically true.

First of all, this involved the death of everyone on Earth bar eight. . . . the entire global population. . . .

And that doesn’t even begin to consider the sheer volume of animal death throughout the globe. Every animal bar two (or seven, depending on which source you read) dies.

Once again, I will provide basically the same argument that I already submitted to Jonathan and his buddies several times. I noted that the Catholic Encyclopedia way back in 1908, was already describing the global flood opinion as scientifically and exegetically obsolete:

Till about the seventeenth century, it was generally believed that the Deluge had been geographically universal, . . . But two hundred years of theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:

The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned

Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth. . . .

There are also certain scientific considerations which oppose the view that the Flood was geographically universal. Not that science opposes any difficulty insuperable to the power of God; but it draws attention to a number of most extraordinary, if not miraculous phenomena involved in the admission of a geographically universal Deluge. . . .

Some Christians (along with biblical skeptics and atheists) assume that the biblical account of Noah’s Flood, or the Deluge can only be interpreted hyper-literally; in other words, as referring to a global catastrophic event in which the entire world was literally covered with an amount of water so deep that every mountain (including Mt. Everest: 29,032 feet = 5.5 miles elevation above sea level) was covered.

The consensus of both Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars for well over a century has been that the interpretation of a local Flood is perfectly in accord with the best exegetical and hermeneutical principles of biblical interpretation. In other words, it’s not “biblical skepticism” or “liberal theology” to believe in the local Flood.

Baptist theologian Bernard Ramm’s immensely influential book, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (hardcover edition, published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1954; reprinted in 1966) represented mainstream evangelical (as opposed to “fundamentalist”) Protestant, post-World War II thinking. Ramm argued:

To cover the highest mountains would require eight times more water than we now have. It would have involved a great creation of water to have covered the entire globe, but no such creative act is hinted at in the Scriptures. (p. 244)

Getting rid of such a vast amount of water would have been as miraculous as providing it. If the entire world were under six miles of water, there would be no place for the water to drain off. Yet the record states that the water drained off with the help of the wind (Gen. 8:1). A local flood would readily account for this, but there is no answer if the entire world were under water. (p. 245)

The flood was local to the Mesopotamian valley. (p. 249)

Dr. Ramm discussed the question of frequent biblical non-literal, hyperbolic (exaggerated) language:

Fifteen minutes with a Bible concordance will reveal many instances in which universality of language is used but only a partial quantity is meant. All does not mean every last one in all of its usages. Psa. 22:17 reads: “I may tell all my bones,” and hardly means that every single bone of the skeleton stood out prominently. John 4:39 cannot mean that Jesus completely recited the woman’s biography. Matt. 3:5 cannot mean that every single individual from Judea and Jordan came to John the Baptist. There are cases where all means all, and every means every, but the context tells us where this is intended. Thus, special reference may be made to Paul’s statement in Romans about the universality of sin, yet even that “all” excludes Jesus Christ.

The universality of the flood simply means the universality of the experience of the man who reported it. When God tells the Israelites He will put the fear of them upon the people under the whole heaven, it refers to all the peoples known to the Israelites (Deut. 2:25). When Gen. 41:57 states that all countries came to Egypt to buy grain, it can only mean all peoples known to the Egyptians. Ahab certainly did not look for Elijah in every country of the earth even though the text says he looked for Elijah so thoroughly that he skipped no nation or kingdom (I Kings 18:10). From the vantage point of the observer of the flood all mountains were covered, and all flesh died. (pp. 240-241)

Presbyterian geologist Carol A. Hill’s brilliant article, “The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?” (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 54, Number 3, September 2002), is a goldmine in terms of food for thought concerning a local Flood, in harmony with what we know from science. She impressively tackles the question of literal and non-literal biblical language at great length. I can only cite a small portion of it:

Earth. The Hebrew for “earth” used in Gen. 6–8 (and in Gen. 2:5–6) is eretz (‘erets) or adâmâh, both of which terms literally mean “earth, ground, land, dirt, soil, or country.” In no way can “earth” be taken to mean the planet Earth, as in Noah’s time and place, people (including the Genesis writer) had no concept of Earth as a planet and thus had no word for it. Their “world” mainly (but not entirely) encompassed the land of Mesopotamia—a flat alluvial plain enclosed by the mountains and high ground of Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia (Fig. 1); i.e., the lands drained by the four rivers of Eden (Gen. 2:10–14). . . .

[I]n Mesopotamia, the concept of “the land” (kalam in Sumerian) seems to have included the entire alluvial plain. This is most likely the correct interpretation of the term “the earth,” which is used over and over again in Gen. 6-8: the entire alluvial plain of Mesopotamia was inundated with water. The clincher to the word “earth” meaning ground or land (and not the planet Earth) is Gen. 1:10: God called the dry land earth (eretz). If God defined “earth” as “dry land,” then so should we.

Regarding specifically the water covering “all the high mountains” (Gen 7:19), Dr. Hill states:

[T]he Hebrew word har for “mountain” in Gen. 7:20 . . . can also be translated as “a range of hills” or “hill country,” implying with Gen. 7:19 that it was “all the high hills” (also har) that were covered rather than high mountains.

This being the case, Genesis 7:19-20 could simply refer to “flood waters . . . fifteen cubits above the ‘hill country’ of Mesopotamia (located in the northern, Assyrian part)”. The Hebrew word har (Strong’s #2022) can indeed mean “hills” or “hill country”, as the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon defines it. Specifically for Genesis 7:19-20, this lexicon classifies the word as following:

mountain, indefinite, Job 14:18 (“” צוּר); usually plural mountains, in General, or the mountains, especially in poetry & the higher style; often figurative; הָרִים, הֶהָרִים, covered by flood Genesis 7:20 compare Genesis 7:19; . . .

In the New American Standard Version, har is rendered as “hill country” (5) many times in the Hebrew Bible: Genesis 10:30; 14:10; 31:21, 23, 25; 36:8-9; Numbers 13:17, 29; 14:40, 44-45; Deuteronomy 1:7, 19-20, 24, 41, 43-44; 2:37; 3:12, 25; Joshua 2:16, 22-23; 9:1; 10:6, 40; 11:2-3, 16; 11:21; 12:8; 13:6; 14:12; 15:48; 16:1; 17:15-16, 18; 18:12; 19:50; 20:7; 21:11, 21; 24:30, 33; Judges 1:9, 19, 34; 2:9; 3:27; 4:5; 7:24; 10:1; 12:15; 17:1, 8; 18:2, 13; 19:1, 16, 18; 1 Samuel 1:1; 9:4; 13:2; 14:22; 23:14; 2 Samuel 20:21; 1 Kings 4:8; 12:25; 2 Kings 5:22; 1 Chronicles 6:67; 2 Chronicles 13:4; 15:8; 19:4.

The same version translates har as “hill” or “hills” nine times too: Deuteronomy 8:7; 11:11; Joshua 13:19; 18:13-14, 16; 1 Kings 16:24; 2 Kings 1:9; 4:27.

Lorence G. Collins is a geologist and petrologist. He wrote a fascinating article, “Yes, Noah’s flood may have happened but not over the whole earth” (Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 2009, 29(5): 38-41). It noted how the Bible habitually uses phenomenological language (including for the Flood):

Northeast and southwest of the nearly flat surface that contains the two rivers [Tigris and Euphrates], the topography rises to more than 455 m [1493 feet] in Saudi Arabia and in Iran. Calculations show that elevations of 455 m high cannot be seen beyond 86 km [53 miles] away, and these places are more than 160 km [99 miles] from the Euphrates or Tigris Rivers. Therefore, none of the high country in Saudi Arabia or Iran would be visible to a tribal chief (or Noah). On that basis, the “whole world” would definitely appear to be covered with water during the Flood, and that was the “whole world” for the people in this part of southeastern Mesopotamia at that time.

I found a good topographical map of Mesopotamia online; see also a second one. One can readily observe that there is a sort of “basin” in the alluvial floodplain in this area.

The question, then, is: why does Jonathan Pearce: an intelligent man, insist on warring against straw men? If he wants to debate the consensus position of Christian thinkers of all stripes, that would be the local Flood. But he derisively dismisses that as dishonest and goes right to the global Flood. It’s shoddy thinking to present the global Flood as undeniably the biblical view and that held by most Christians, when in fact it is held by only a tiny number of Christians: primarily among the sub-group commonly known as “fundamentalists.”

There are those (albeit a tiny — though very vocal and visible — number in Protestantism and even smaller number in Catholicism) who hold to older “Bible and science” traditions and so believe in a universal Flood (i.e., water covering the entire earth to a depth higher than Mt. Everest’s elevation), a young earth (6-10,000 years), flood geology (or “catastrophism”), a literal six-day creation, a complete denial of any aspect of evolution (even theistic evolution), etc. I have nothing against such people. Some are my personal friends. They are as sincere in their beliefs as anyone else and seek to hold a “high” view of biblical inspiration and the Christian faith (as I do). I simply think they are wrong on many levels.

But by no means can they be said (sociologically) to be “mainstream” or representative of the consensus of Christian thought or the entirety of Christianity regarding Noah’s Flood. And this is my point. Jonathan and many atheists pretend and falsely claim that they do represent that. Essentially, they attempt to collapse or reduce all of Christianity to the tiny number who hold to fundamentalism and “hyper-literal” views of biblical exegesis.

Atheists don’t speak for Christians, and almost never present accurately understand or convey in their critiques what the best thinkers in Christianity believe. We Christians speak for ourselves, thank you. If the best atheists can do is only battle against caricatures and straw men when they tackle Christianity and the Bible, then I suggest that they need to better understand the meaning of good dialogue and debate.

Every middle school debating team learns first of all that they must know their opponents’ views even better than their opponents do. Most atheists would spectacularly fail that test when it comes to properly understanding Christianity, and especially when it comes to offering critiques of the real thing, as opposed to cardboard caricatures of their own imaginations and fancies.

***

Photo credit: [PxFuel / free for commercial use]

***

Summary: Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce wrongly assumes that a global Flood is the mainstream Christian position and undeniably the biblical teaching. It’s neither.

“Reformed Biblicism”: Reply to James White

Last updated on: August 17, 2022 at 7:59 pm By Dave Armstrong

This is a point-by-point response to Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White’s article, “Reformed Biblicism” (7-6-22). His words will be in blue.

*****

While going over Calvin’s rebuttal of Sadoleto’s letter from 1539, I read a paragraph where Calvin held Sadoleto’s argument to a biblical standard. Calvin was a scholar of the early church.

I wish he had cited which part. I don’t feel like going through the whole book that I have, to find it.

He cites from patristic sources regularly. He read widely in what was available to him in his day.

Yes, and he regularly distorts what they taught and pretends that they were more [proto-] “Protestant” than Catholic.

And yet he gave us an example of what it means to know history, to know what those before us have said, and yet to hold their views up to Scripture as the final test of truth.

That is, of course, according to Calvin, as the final arbiter (in effect, a “super-pope”) of the particulars of this scriptural truth: over against the entire prior tradition and teaching of the Church fathers en masse if needs be. Yet he is blind to the fact of how supremely arrogant and erroneous in outlook this is.

I referred to his stand as “Reformed Biblicism,” and proclaimed myself a Reformed Biblicist, seeking to be faithful to that important concept.

I refer to it as standard sola Scriptura Protestantism, with all of the manifest glaring and anti-biblical holes entailed (see, for example, my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura).

I do not believe Calvin was the first, nor do I pretend that everyone in the past in whom I would see a commitment to a proper, Scripturally defined and historically knowledgeable biblicism, has practiced their craft with complete consistency.

Like, of course, Bishop White (in his chronological snobbery) claims to do . . .

But I believe a very strong and balanced case can be made for Calvin’s stand in 1539, and the one we must take today as well.

For starters, Calvin thought that the Bible taught sacramental infant baptism. Bishop White is equally convinced that it teaches purely symbolic, non-sacramental adult “believer’s” baptism. Which one is right? More importantly and to the present point: how do we determine who is right? According to the vast consensus of the fathers, John Calvin is more correct, though insofar as he also denied baptismal regeneration, he also departed from the patristic view. Calvin himself consented to the drowning of Anabaptists as seditious heretics. So he quite possibly would have consented to drown Bishop White, whereas I, as a Catholic, would merely be banished from his territory.

Already, then, we see that this “Bible as the final arbiter sans an infallible Church and Tradition” position breaks down as soon as two Protestants disagree. As Jews say about themselves, so it is with Protestants. If you get two of them together, they will have three different opinions on any given doctrine.

Please allow me to very briefly outline the position.

It starts with the highest view of Scripture. The Bible is theopneustos. Nothing else is. Therefore, it is utterly unique.

It is unique, as an inspired, “God-breathed”, infallible revelation. No one disagrees with that.

It is unique in its origin, in its nature, in its effects, in its purpose, and in its consistency.

Yes, but none of that logically or biblically requires sola Scriptura: the view that the Bible is the only infallible norm and authority, and formally sufficient in and of itself to function as the rule of faith.

It is intended to be a sufficient guide to Christ’s body, the Church.

It itself never teaches that. It’s simply man-made, late-arriving, arbitrary Protestant traditions of men.

It is intended to be seen as God’s very speech, and it has authority for all men, no matter their spiritual state.

That’s true, but again, not germane to the debate over the truthfulness of sola Scriptura.

The Bible then teaches us that Christ has established His Church, His body, and that the Word is intended to be central to the teaching and proclamation that defines that body.

The Bible also teaches that the Church is infallible: at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and in 1 Timothy 3:15. Already, then, the Bible alone has refuted the false doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Since we have Christ’s promise to build His church, we can expect the continued ministry of the Holy Spirit amongst His people, preserving and protecting them down through history.

Absolutely. And this is most perfectly accomplished in the Holy Spirit’s unique guidance of the Church that Jesus Christ established with Peter as its first leader: the historic Catholic Church, headed by the popes (successors of Peter) in Rome.

We do not have to re-invent the wheel with each generation. We can learn much from those who came before us.

Exactly! Yet Protestants continue to do exactly that. It’s sad, foolish, and so unnecessary. As G. K. Chesterton noted: “tradition is the democracy of the dead.” It’s an acknowledgment that folks who lived before our own time learned and gained spiritual and theological insights, too.

However, we learn both positively and negatively. Their words do not become equal with Scripture, nor the lens through which we are to read Scripture, either.

The first thing is true; the second is partially false. True apostolic tradition is indeed an interpretive guide to Scripture. The accumulated exegetical and hermeneutical wisdom of almost 2,000 years of Christian history is very rich, and many things have been long since determined. It’s our task to tie into that tradition and align our views with it.

We learn from their successes as well as their failures. We see that they often had great insights, but at the same time, were blinded by their conflicts and prejudices.

And that’s true of us today, too. There is such a thing as received, true, apostolic tradition, which has determined what is orthodox and what isn’t. Like Bishop White said, we have no need to invent the wheel in each new generation. We already know from our received past heritage what is true and untrue in most theological matters. This received tradition is precisely what can cut through our ignorance and prejudices and quite fallible and imperfect predispositions.

We recognize that the tendency in the past has been for the church to become her own authority,

It’s not her “own” authority; it’s established by Jesus Christ and scriptural sanction and instruction.

erecting unbiblical structures of authority that limit the corrective work of the Word and Spirit in her midst.

Yes, like the grotesque, tragi-comic spectacle of denominationalism, which nowhere appears in Holy Scripture, and “super-popes” like Calvin and Luther who ridiculously pretend to know more than all the wise figures in the history of the Church before them. They sit there and judge them all, and make their own views in effect “dogma” for their followers.

Often tradition has been elevated to a position of having equal authority with Scripture, being seen as a necessary possession without which Scripture actually becomes a dangerous thing.

Since Scripture grants it this position, there is nothing wrong with it. To the contrary, it is biblically required. Apostolic tradition and the Bible are always in harmony with each other. They do not and cannot contradict. It’s individualistic, sectarian interpretations of Scripture, disconnected from past Christian history that are truly the dangerous things.

We can read the interpretations of those who have gone before us and learn much, while at the same time recognizing fundamental problems. For example, the rise of monasticism led to traditions developing that impacted the interpretation of Scripture literally for centuries. We are under no compulsion to embrace traditional readings that were simply repeated over and over again when it is clear that they were originally based in misunderstandings.

We agree. The many novel errors of Protestantism are one of these misunderstandings that we need to scrutinize and examine (as I am presently doing).

Creeds and confessions are important monuments in the history of the gospel’s progress in the world. But we must remember that the majority of these come from a small portion of that expansion, primarily from Europe and Asia Minor. Hence, they are focused upon the theological questions prevalent there, and use the language of those cultures. We often forget that there is a whole, big world with many more languages and cultures out there.

Indeed.

Creeds and confessions are secondary documents; indeed, we might say creeds are secondary and confessions tertiary, as they are often derived from creedal statements. Creeds are few, and ancient, confessions are many, and often more modern.

Protestants give them a degree of authority, and lip service is given to them, but in the final analysis, the individual is completely free to determine for himself what is true and false in theology: just as Calvin and Luther, Zwingli, Henry VIII, Bullinger, Bucer, Menno Simons, and the Anabaptists did.

Both are dependent for their authority upon their fidelity to that which is ontologically superior to them; that is, their authority is derivative from Scripture for they are, by their nature, human, and fallible. They are not theopneustos.

Yes, and because of that, the question becomes: “who is it that determines what is true and false — and binding upon believers — in these creeds and confessions?” It’s simply the same problem as with authoritative scriptural interpretation: merely one step removed. In the end, interpretation is necessary, or else we have more divisions and likely more denominations. And this interpretation can always in theory come down to each individual Protestant, as “his own pope.”

No Protestant can deny that, because this was the very founding principle or presupposition or premise upon which Luther and Calvin operated, and began the whole thing (Protestantism, based on “private judgment”). This is what is always ignored in analyses like White’s present one. It’s the elephant in the room or the naked emperor, as it were. He doesn’t mention it, so I have to bring up the perfectly obvious dilemma and contradiction at the heart of the Protestant rule of faith.

This observation should not be novel or surprising to any Protestant. In what might be seen as the older equivalent of the Declaration of Independence, Luther said in his concluding statement before the Emperor at the Diet of Worms:

Since your most serene majesty and your highnesses require of me a simple, clear, and direct answer, I will give one, and it is this: I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the council, because it is clear that they have fallen into error and even into inconsistency with themselves. If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it cannot be either safe or honest for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.

Yes he did (though the last section is not certain). This perfectly proves what I have been contending above. Luther “knows” more than the entire history of the Church preceding him. It doesn’t follow that he did in fact reject all of previous tradition. He maintained much of it. But theoretically or abstractly, he was always at liberty to reject yet more of the existing tradition. Why and how? Well, like he said, because he thinks “pope . . . [and] council have fallen into error and even into inconsistency.”

Luther (or any Protestant individual) determine where these errors have occurred. But the obvious error shot through all this is that Luther assumed he was right and infallible (and by extension all Protestants have that prerogative). Who checks his arbitrarily self-proclaimed “authority” (or any Protestant’s “authority”) with Scripture? Well, as it turned out, Zwingli, Calvin, and the Anabaptists all disagreed with him on a host of issues, as did even his successor, Philip Melanchthon, who soon departed from the view of the Holy Eucharist that confession Lutheranism held.

Bottom line: in this mentality: historic councils and popes could be in error, but apparently Luther and Calvin cannot: even though they and the myriad Protestant sects after them contradict each other all over the place. In a sense, I am actually acting like a good Protestant, in correcting White and standard Protestant sola Scriptura with both Scripture and tradition / history.

Popes and councils have erred and have even contradicted each other.

We deny this insofar as is concerned their decrees that are infallible (not all parts of councils or papal decrees are). Both possess the gift of infallibility: granted by God.

Was Luther wrong?

Partially.

No, he was assuredly right.

Partially. We Catholics determine where he was right and wrong, based on Scripture, Church teaching, and apostolic tradition.

And how do we know when their statements and teachings are contradictory to the truth? Luther answers: subjection to God’s word.

And then of course, Protestants disagree in literally thousands of ways, in interpreting this revelation of Scripture that all agree is inspired and infallible.

There is surely nothing new about such a stance for those who are Reformed.

Today Reformed biblicism is being mocked and derided through the use of straw-man misrepresentation, and that by believing, confessional men. Let’s lay to rest the straw-men so actual progress can be made between men of good faith who will honestly seek to represent the issues with integrity.

Sure; and let’s also (for once) grapple with Protestantism’s and sola Scriptura‘s serious internal problems as noted above.

It is said we are pretending the Bible fell down out of heaven three days ago, i.e., we reject the reality that there are generations of interpreters who have come before us. FALSE. Ancient writings and modern commentaries can all be helpful and should be consulted when dealing with the Biblical text, not because they hold some traditional authority, or together form some Great Tradition (the amount of contradiction and inconsistency precludes such banal representations), but because we recognize that the Spirit of God has been active from the beginning, and hence, we can be benefitted by such study and reference. But, just as the Spirit’s work does not make us infallible, we can see errors in those who have gone before us.

Exactly! In Protestantism, the individual determines where those errors occur (with massive internal disagreement). In Catholicism, bound by very strict rules of procedure, the Church does, in strict accordance with received apostolic tradition.

We can see that traditions have become popular in the past that have corrupted understandings for literally centuries, as noted earlier (views of women, for example, or especially views related to papal texts and papal authority, for another).

And including the myriad of false teachings necessarily present in various forms of Protestantism (since the presence of contradictions means that at least one of the parties must necessarily be wrong).

The Second Nicene Council gives a glorious example of pure and utter error determining the outcome of the council’s decrees.

Bishop White is referring to its espousal of religious images. Of course it was right, because that is the biblical position, as I have shown in many articles.

Next, we are told that to be a biblicist is to believe it is just you and your Bible under a tree, each person a tabula rasa, starting from scratch each and every day. FALSE.

No; TRUE. In theory, any and every Protestant can (and too often does) do exactly that, just as Luther and Calvin and all of the other “reformers” did. They took it upon themselves to determine true and false doctrine.

There is nothing in being a Reformed biblicist that requires one to ignore everything the Spirit has provided to us in the form of past generations, commentaries, multiple translations, community interaction, etc.

That’s right. It’s not required, but it’s always theoretically possible to do, given the founding principles of Protestantism. It has to be that way, because in the end, either an official “church” or an individual has to figure out who and what in the past was in error. There are only so many choices.

None of these things, however, can be elevated to a point of equality with, or interpretative control over, Scripture.

Nor can the atomistic individual like Bishop White do so.

We are told to be a Reformed biblicist is to reject creeds and confessions. Every man become his own Pope! FALSE.

TRUE in an ultimate or logically reductive sense; as explained over and over above.

It is to reject the elevation of creeds and confessions to the level of Scripture, yes. It is to agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of the LBCF at 1:10:

The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.

Of course. We agree! But the question becomes: who decrees for all what this Scripture truly teaches on any given topic?

That means creeds and confessions are to be subject to the Scripture.

As determined by one or a number of like-minded Protestants . . . to which we reply: why are they considered authoritative? On what basis?

But, we are told that this means we get to change our doctrine at our every whim, at the drop of a hat! FALSE. Such does not follow at all. Recognition of the inferior nature of creeds and confessions to Scripture does not require us to believe that those who have gone before were naive or ignorant and hence missed the most central realities of the Christian faith, leaving it all up to us today to fix it all! This is an absurd charge. At the same time, to be a Reformed biblicist is to insist that the content of the Christian faith has been “once for all delivered to the saints” so that, in the words of the LBCF in 1:7, “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.” So, a Reformed biblicist can recognize development of theological language over time, in, say, how the questions related to Christology developed after the Council of Nicea up and through that of Chalcedon, without investing in those councils, or the interpretations of the key writers, East and West, a parallel authority to Scripture. Even the greatest of the writers of the past must be held to the standard of Scriptural consistency and, when they went beyond those bounds, the Reformed biblicist does not find any compulsion in following them in their speculations.

Exactly! Truth is determined by one or a number of like-minded Protestants . . . to which we reply: why are they considered authoritative? On what basis?

Hence, the Reformed biblicist is simply allowing Scripture to be God-breathed, the Spirit to be accomplishing His purposes in the Church, those of the past to speak and testify to the truth (and to their own errors and traditions), and the useful and beneficial gifts of God in commentaries, textual resources, etc., to bless us in the present. Always the biblicist believes:

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God (LBCF 1:4).

Unfortunately, God doesn’t always provide the full and entire and particular interpretation of Holy Scripture. Human beings must do that. The disagreement on the rule of faith between Catholics and Protestants is alive and well. I have done my best to outline some of the important issues that Protestants have to resolve and the thorny internal difficulties in their system.

***

Summary: James White explains “Reformed biblicism” (sola Scriptura dressed up in a new term). I note the insuperable internal logical and biblical problems with sola Scriptura.

Has Lutheranism Avoided Denominationalism?

Last updated on: August 11, 2022 at 2:52 pm By Dave Armstrong

Widespread Lutheran Compromise & Caving on Abortion & Same-Sex “Marriage”

[see book and purchase information]

Dr. Victor Andrade is a Brazilian Lutheran (IELB), a medical doctor with a postgraduate in psychiatry, who also has a degree in theology from the Lutheran University of Brazil, and a degree in philosophy from the Atlantic Academy (UNINGÁ).

This is a reply to the final portion of his article, Como Lutero e os teólogos evangélicos consideravam as comunidades “calvinistas”? [How did Luther and evangelical theologians view “Calvinist” communities?] (Instituto Areté, 8-9-22). I used Google Translate to render his Portugese into English.

*****

Here is that final section:

A few days ago I just commented in passing on my Facebook page about this aspect of our ecclesiology, which is not denominational. Lutheranism is not a denomination and doesn’t have denominations. Calvinists have denominations. If we read the list of ecclesiastical bodies on the World Reformed Community website, we will find there hundreds of religious communities with hundreds of different doctrines and practices, which mutually recognize each other. They are not concerned that there is only one truth, one baptism, one faith. . . .

[D]enominationalism is a unique characteristic of Calvinists and the other evangelicals that came from them. All other ancient Christian traditions also maintain an ecclesiological perspective similar to ours.

This is quite the novelty: to read one Protestant denomination among the multiple hundreds and thousands of Protestant sects claim that it is not denominational or sectarian. Talk about tunnel vision! Somehow Dr. Andrade has this notion in his head that Lutheranism has avoided this universal shortcoming of all Protestant sects. But that’s the game that both Lutherans and Calvinists play: deluding themselves — somehow, in some fashion — that they represent the unique historical continuation of the early Church and the theological legacy and tradition of the Church fathers, over against Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which supposedly don’t do so. Hence, he implies that Lutheranism is an “ancient Christian tradition” among others. How, pray tell, does he define “ancient”?

My present purpose is not to defend the Catholic historical pedigree and absolute uniqueness and status as the one true Church established by Jesus Christ, with St. Peter as its first leader and pope. I’ve done that many times elsewhere. Here I am concentrating on this novel interpretation set forth: that Lutheranism is supposedly not “denominational” in the way that Reformed Protestants / Calvinists are.

I recently wrote a paper thoroughly condemning “Unbiblical Denominationalism” from the Bible and reason. I need not reiterate all those arguments here. As far as I am concerned, they refute (beyond repair) the ecclesiology of Lutheranism and Reformed Protestantism and every other Protestant denomination. Only God knows the huge total number of them and the incalculable number of contradictions and individual falsehoods logically entailed. I will simply show that Lutheranism is not immune from this characteristic that is (and must, by nature, be) in the “Protestant DNA.” Dr. Andrade is living in a fantasy world insofar as he claims that it is.

Note, before we begin, that Dr. Andrade observed how the Reformed denominations “mutually recognize each other.” He hasn’t made it a debate-point to concentrate on “mutual anathemas” or institutional disunity and clashing, although he does recognize “hundreds of different doctrines and practices” among them. Therefore, if the various Lutheran denominations “mutually recognize each other” (despite the usual dozens of doctrinal and moral contradictions) it’s the same scenario that he condemns in the Reformed Protestants: making his proposition all the more absurd and self-refuting.

First, we go to the well-known work, Handbook of Denominations in the United States, by Frank S. Mead (Nashville / New York: Abingdon Press). Unfortunately, I have the 5th edition from 1970 in my own library. But it will suffice to make my point. Its section on “Lutherans” runs from pages 126-136. It lists eleven different Lutheran groups, just in America. Under “Presbyterians” it lists ten different bodies, from pages 168-179, and under “Reformed Bodies” (pp. 184-188), six more. This is not a vast difference: 11 independent Lutheran bodies vs. 16 Presbyterian / Reformed. From where we sit as Catholics, that’s “Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.” See also the Wikipedia article, “List of Lutheran denominations.”

One large Lutheran body, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), came from a merger of three groups in 1988: The American Lutheran Church, the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, and the Lutheran Church in America. ELCA now has 3.3 million members: making it the largest Lutheran body in America (Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod: the traditional denomination, has 1.8 million members). In its 1991 policy statement, it supported legal abortion up to the time of viability:

The position of this church is that, in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, where pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where the embryo or fetus has lethal abnormalities incompatible with life, abortion prior to viability should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding of abortions for low income women.

The statement (in typical secularist / leftist fashion) tries to be nuanced and sophisticated about ending pre-viability baby’s lives:

Although abortion raises significant moral issues at any stage of fetal development, the closer the life in the womb comes to full term the more serious such issues become. When a child can survive outside a womb, it becomes possible for other people, and not only the mother, to nourish and care for the child. This church opposes ending intrauterine life when a fetus is developed enough to live outside a uterus with the aid of reasonable and necessary technology.

It’s been the pro-abortion mentality all along to focus almost obsessively on the “hard cases”: when in fact, in the US, abortion has been legal for all nine months of pregnancy in all states, prior to Roe v. Wade recently being overturned. THE ELCA buys into this barbaric secular “standard” of morality. The “Presiding Bishop” of the ELCA, Elizabeth Eaton, issued a “pastoral message” after Roe was overturned. Among other things, she wrote:

Overturning Roe v. Wade and placing decisions about abortion regulation at the state level encumbers and endangers the lives of all persons who need to make decisions about unexpected pregnancies. . . . [she seems utterly oblivious to the tragic and pathetic irony of these words]

Further, our church teaching holds that there are no exclusive rights in pregnancy. A pregnant person does not have an exclusive right to abort a fetus at all points during the pregnancy. A developing life does not have an exclusive right to be born (p. 2). This church does not support abortion as a normative form of birth control but rather understands it as necessary in some morally responsible circumstances.

In the ELCA, “gay marriage” and ordination of homosexual persons are encouraged:

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, allows for LGBTQ+ marriage and ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy. ELCA policy states that LGBTQ+ individuals are welcome and encouraged to become members and to participate in the life of the congregation. The ELCA has provided supplemental resources for the rite of marriage in Evangelical Lutheran Worship which use inclusive language and are suitable for use in LGBTQ+ marriage ceremonies. . . .

In 2013, Guy Erwin, who has lived in a gay partnership for 19 years, was installed in California as Bishop of the ELCA’s Southwest California Synod, becoming the first openly gay person to serve as a Bishop in the ELCA. (Wikipedia: “Homosexuality and Lutheranism” [“Evangelical Lutheran Church in America”])

Female pastors have long since been accepted in ELCA:

The ELCA ordains women as pastors, a practice that all three of its predecessor churches adopted in the 1970s (The ALC and LCA in 1970, the AELC in 1976). Some women have become bishops, though the number is still low. The first female bishop, April Ulring Larson, was elected in the La Crosse area synod in 1992. (Wikipedia: “Evangelical Lutheran Church in America”: “Role of Women”)

In Germany, Lutherans are virtually entirely compromised on the issue of homosexuality and homosexual unions:

The Evangelical Church in Germany (German: Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, abbreviated EKD) is a federation of twenty Lutheran, Reformed (Calvinist) and United (e.g. Prussian Union) Protestant regional churches and denominations in Germany, which collectively encompasses the vast majority of Protestants in that country. In 2020, the EKD had a membership of 20,236,000 members, or 24.3% of the German population. (Wikipedia: “Evangelical Church in Germany”).

In the year 2000, the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) passed the resolution Verantwortung und Verlässlichkeit stärken, in which same-gender partnerships are supported. In November 2010, EKD passed a new right for LGBT ordination of homosexual ministers, who live in civil unions. All churches within the EKD allowed blessing of same-sex marriages. (Wikipedia: “Homosexuality and Lutheranism”: “Synods allowing homosexual relationships”)

Lutherans form eight of the 20 bodies in the EKD:

Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria (Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche in Bayern). [2,252,159]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Brunswick (Evangelisch-Lutherische Landeskirche in Braunschweig). [311,518]
Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Hanover (Evangelisch-Lutherische Landeskirche Hannovers). [2,426,686]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Northern Germany Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche in Norddeutschland). [1,892,749]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Oldenburg (Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche in Oldenburg). [390,072]
Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Saxony (Evangelisch-Lutherische Landeskirche Sachsens). [647,238]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Schaumburg-Lippe (Evangelisch-Lutherische Landeskirche Schaumburg-Lippe). [48,171]
Evangelical Church in Württemberg (Evangelische Landeskirche in Württemberg). [1,914,425]

But ten more denominations in Germany in the EKD are combined Lutheran and Reformed. Are there any Lutheran denominations in Germany that actually continue historic Lutheran teachings? Sure, there are a few: Independent Evangelical-Lutheran Church, with 33,000 members, “does not ordain women as pastors, and is strictly against the blessing of gay couples.” Evangelical Lutheran Free Church (Germany) has “1,300 members in 17 congregations.”

So we see that traditional, historic Lutheranism is alive and well in Germany. It’s just that liberal/ heterodox Lutherans in Germany outnumber them by a ratio of 590 to one (20.24 million vs. 34,300). If we add up the numbers of the Lutheran-only members of the EKD (the eight above) it comes out to 9,883,018, which is a much better 288-to-one ration (heterodox / compromised vs. traditional orthodox). But they are all one, and one Church, so we’re told.

The situation with Lutherans in Nordic countries in Europe is no less dismal:

The Church of Iceland [229,146] allows same-sex marriage. The Church of Sweden [5,628,067] has permitted the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of partnered gays and lesbians since 2006. Starting in November 2009, the church officiates same-sex marriage, after the Riksdag allowed same-sex marriage starting 1 May 2009 – however, individual priests can choose not to perform marriages for couples of the same gender. The Church of Denmark [4,296,800] also provides for such blessings, as does the Church of Norway [3,686,715], which also ordains gays and lesbians. (Wikipedia: “Homosexuality and Lutheranism”: “Nordic countries”)

But all these Lutheran denominations, whether favoring female ordination or abortion or same-sex “marriages”; homosexual ordination, etc., are really one, and one big happy family. Remember, Dr. Andrade “informed” us that “Lutheranism is not a denomination and doesn’t have denominations.” Lutherans, unlike Calvinists (so he says) are “concerned that there is only one truth, one baptism, one faith.”

Right. So despite the fact that the vast majority of Lutherans in the world are members of Lutheran sects that now officially think that sodomy is fine and that those practicing it can be pastors and bishops, and that abortion is fine and dandy, they’re all “one” and don’t suffer from the sectarianism that plagues Calvinism.

Dr. Andrade’s own denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil [Igreja Evangélica Luterana do Brasil, IELB), has 243,093 baptized members and is historically connected with the traditional Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. See its website in Portugese. Because of its pedigree, I am assuming it is traditional in theology and morality. If not, my Brazilian readers (or Dr. Andrade himself) can correct me with regard to that educated guess.

There are also (I am happy to note) Lutherans in the world still that recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexual sex is intrinsically disordered. Wikipedia: (“Homosexuality and Lutheranism”) lists them:

In North America

The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod [1.8 million]
The Lutheran Church-Canada [53,165]
The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod [344,244]
The Association of Free Lutheran Congregations [44,473]
The Evangelical Lutheran Synod [19,394]
The North American Lutheran Church [142,000]
Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ [300,000]
Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America [8,860]
Church of the Lutheran Confession [8,631]

In Europe

The Silesian Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession condemns homosexual behavior as sin. [15,632]
The Evangelical Lutheran Free Church (Germany) views homosexuality as hurting the natural order. [1,300]
The Independent Evangelical-Lutheran Church, Germany [33,000]
The Evangelical Lutheran Church of England (ELCE) [900]
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Lithuania [19,000]
The Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Poland [61,000]
The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia [700,000]

The problem is that there just aren’t that many total numbers of Lutherans who follow traditional, historic, orthodox Lutheranism on this score, compared to the exponentially greater number of Lutherans who no longer do so. I have listed the numbers of members in each Lutheran sect above, for a sense of perspective. Here are the sad numbers (for Europe and North America only) of Lutherans who accept “gay marriage” or who bless same-sex “marriages” vs. those who hold to traditional Lutheran morality. I have used membership numbers for the Lutheran denominations only, in the EDK (9,883,018).

Against Traditional Lutheran Morality on Marriage and Sexuality

European Lutheran sects (membership): 23,723,746

American Lutheran sects (membership): 3,300,000

Total: 27,023,746

Follow Traditional Lutheran Morality on Marriage and Sexuality

European Lutheran sects (membership): 830,832

American Lutheran sects (membership): 2,720,767

Total: 3,551,599

Thus, by a ration of 7.6 to one, Lutherans in Europe and North America reject traditional sexual teachings of Lutheranism. Out of 30.6 million Lutherans, only 12% actually hold to the moral teachings of historic Lutheranism on sexuality and marriage.

On the issue of abortion, it’s pretty much the same. The Lutheran denominations in America besides ELCA oppose it, just as Luther and historic Lutheranism did. The Lutheran groups in Europe are overwhelmingly in favor of childkilling. America has far more theological and moral traditionalism within Lutheranism, but still a majority are against that: going by official statements and numbers of members (it goes without saying that members often are unaware of what their denominations have officially espoused).

But by numbers alone, there are 6,020,767 Lutherans in the United States. 55% of them are in denomination that is doctrinally and morally liberal. In Europe it is far worse. Out of 24,554,578 professed Lutherans, only 3.4% follow traditional Lutheran moral teachings.

This being the case, how could Lutheranism be “one church”? It’s ludicrous. There are Lutherans elsewhere in the world, too, of course, and the numbers might become more even if they were taken into account. But in any event, there is much division on these moral issues, and in no way can world Lutheranism be described as one unified church with no denominations.

The Catholic Church is the one Church of the Bible. We oppose abortion. Period. We oppose sodomy and so-called “gay marriage.” Period. We don’t ordain women. We’re against cohabitation and contraception and euthanasia and infanticide and divorce. These are all our official positions, and this moral and apostolic traditionalism makes us absolutely unique. No other Christian communion of any size is that morally consistent.

Even the Orthodox, who pride themselves on their traditionalism, allow divorce and contraception. It was for these reasons that I never seriously considered them when I was considering leaving evangelical Protestantism for the “apostolic” faith: because their position on those two issues is not apostolic, and completely reverses the teachings of the Bible and the early Church. A reversal or rejection is obviously not a consistent development.

***

Another member of Dr. Andrade’s Lutheran communion (the IELB), Fabio Bighetti, chimed in, in my combox. His words will be in blue. I have edited a bit for topical focus. The original can be read on my blog.

[Victor’s] Church is not in communion with those other Lutheran bodies that you pointed out in the article, like the ELCA, the Church of Sweden, etc. The IELB is a Lutheran Church planted by and in communion with the LCMS and SELK, which are not part of the LWF and do not recognise other ecclesiastical bodies who are in communion with Calvinists and/or practice lawlessness. IELB is part of the ILC and is only in communion and recognises other Lutheran churches that are part of it. So your whole point that Lutherans are denominational and your attempt to prove it through the variety of churches in the LFW is useless, since he, as an orthodox Lutheran, also does not approve or recognise these as anything more than also, as you called them, sects.

Whether he happens to be in a traditional denomination has absolutely no bearing on my point, which is that Lutheranism is split into diametrically opposed parts (if we are talking abortion and sodomy). It’s typical Protestant splintering and sectarianism. There are relative good guys and bad guys (I cheer the conservative Lutherans, as far as they go), but it doesn’t change the fact that there are divisions and that it’s ludicrous to claim that this is the “one true Church” and that it’s fundamentally different from Calvinist splintering. Denominationalism is utterly unbiblical and indefensible. Playing word games doesn’t change that fact.

Your whole approach towards Andrade’s argument is to point out said inconsistencies in Lutheranism, pointing out other Lutheran bodies with doctrinal differences that he would have to recognise, but you fail to understand that Andrade’s Lutheran Church body does not recognise them and neither does he. Actually, he and his Church are very consistent on pointing out that these other said Lutheran bodies that got in communion with Calvinists and now have different faiths and practices are also sects. Your whole argument falls apart. He agrees that these are sects and he does not take part in being in communion or recognising them, just as his Church does not. You missed the whole view of your opponent and his Church, how it operates and its theology.

You’re the one who doesn’t get it. You don’t grasp my argument at all. But that’s how many Protestants are. You’re like fish in an aquarium that can’t comprehend a world larger than that or how those outside the “aquarium” view you.

If he or you want to argue that your denomination with 243,000 people represents historic Lutheranism or Lutheranism, period, you and/or he can try to make that laughable argument. That would really reflect God’s power and providence and protection, wouldn’t it? 243,000 people (or perhaps your group + other traditional Lutheran groups) represent the one true Church . . .

If Lutheranism was truly God’s one true Church, it would have grown to tremendous numbers like Catholicism and Orthodoxy have. Instead we have maybe 85 million worldwide, and a huge proportion of those don’t even accept the wrongness of childkilling and sodomy? That makes a mockery of God and His providence to even make such a ludicrous “argument.” A tiny tiny number would ever be able to locate the “one true Church” if that were the case. And this is contrary to God’s mercy.

The same criticism, of course, applies to Tourinho’s Calvinism, too. Five-point Calvinism is a tiny, tiny group among all the world’s Christians today. I critiqued Victor Andrade in this paper, but the same exact criticism could be made against the Reformed / Calvinists, or indeed against any Protestant sect / denomination. It’s because fundamental premises of ecclesiology are wrong in all of them.

***

Dr. Andrade is already attempting to deflect my argument by talking about the dissident Catholics in Germany. I replied on his Facebook page:

Your answer to my critique is not helped by invoking the good old “your dad’s uglier than mine” fallacy. The critique has to do with Protestant internal contradictions. Your burden is to explain those differently, and to show that my critique is invalid, so that there are no such contradictions in your view.

Hence, appealing to supposed difficulties in Catholicism is not the solution to your dilemma. It’s a non sequitur, and I will ignore it if you try to use that silly and evasive tactic.

*

It seems like the Protestant answer to every critique sent their way by Catholics is: “But Catholics . . . [some terrible thing, real or imagined] . . .” One must never defend one’s own view; only attack other views: seems to be the mentality there.

*

You went after the Calvinists, now you are coming after Catholicism. But your task is to defend your view.

***

It already looks like this will be a fruitless, futile, worthless effort, especially since subtle personal attacks (albeit mild ones so far) are starting. If Dr. Andrade makes a reply along these lines, I wouldn’t waste my time interacting with it. Just so my readers know why, if I don’t reply . . .

***

Lastly, a big issue has been made by Dr. Andrade and his cheerleading fan club about a simple mistake I made in my original draft. He is in a Brazilian Lutheran communion abbreviated “IELB” and I confused it with another known by “IECLB” I wrongly assumed that they were both referring to the same group. He corrected me on my Facebook page, saying, “I’m not a member of the IECLB. Please correct your article as it contains untruths. My synod is IELB.” I replied: “Sorry! It’s confusing with the Lutheran alphabet soup (one-letter difference). I am modifying that right now. Of course it has no bearing on my overall point.”
*
All that occurred 18 hours ago, as I write. Yet on Dr. Andrade’s page, he still has up a screenshot of my error that I retracted and removed. So I protested on his page:

I corrected the mistake about your affiliation (including saying I was sorry) within 12 minutes of you informing me about it on my Facebook page. But here you are still showing a screenshot of it 17 hours later, knowing that I corrected it. Is that Christian charity?

*

You really think it was a terrible mistake, to confuse IELB with IECLB? I thought it was the same group, just abbreviated differently. It’s not easy to keep all the thousands of Protestant denominations straight: and in this case the abbreviation was for Portugese words. As soon as I was informed that I made the mistake, it was corrected, and I publicly apologized.

*

I was taught as an evangelical (and also as a Catholic) that if someone apologizes for a mistake, you forgive them and stop making it an issue: stop throwing it in their face. I assume that ethical principle is held by Brazilian Lutherans, too, no? If so, one sure wouldn’t know it by reading this thread.

*

Forgiven? Yet you keep talking about it and keeping the screenshot? That’s not how Christian forgiveness works.

That received a snide remark back, so it looks like this dialogue is over before it even begins. Likely, this mistake will continue to be talked about if the whole thing breaks down. And because that is likely, I wanted to have everything on the record as to what actually happened. I made an innocent, completely understandable mistake; corrected it immediately when I was informed of it, yet it continued to be thrown in my face.

That’s not conducive to constructive dialogue. I have better things to do. Now I’ll likely be accused of having a thin skin and being a coward if I don’t reply a second time. I’ve been through it all before. Let them make all the false charges they want. I will continue with the same outlook about dialogue I have always had. It can only be done in an atmosphere of mutual respect and a lack of acrimony and “gossip” carried on behind the scenes. Preferably, some minimal degree of friendship should be present, too, for a truly good dialogue.

*
In my very in-depth (presently ongoing) dialogue on justification with Brazilian Calvinist Francisco Tourinho (see my first reply of what will be a book in Brazil), we have both worked very hard on making it a substantive, educational exchange, minus all personal attacks. We’ve each gained the other’s respect. Consequently, it’s one of the best, most substantive dialogues I have ever been involved in (out of more than a thousand online). That being the case, I’m all the more reluctant to spend valuable time engaging in exchanges that are of a low quality. Once one has achieved the gold standard, one doesn’t go back to cheap imitations.

Dr. Andrade — who continues to display a screenshot of what I apologized for — is still talking trash on his Facebook page more than 22 hours later: “I’m not getting revenge on you. Just wanted to show how rushed your analysis is. This shows reckless judgement on your part.”
*
Again, I don’t have time for juvenile fools.
*
***

***

Summary: Brazilian Lutheran apologist Dr. Victor Andrade says Lutheranism is unified & lacks competing denominations, like (so he says) Calvinists do. I cut through this fantasy.

Unbiblical Denominations (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:40 pm By Dave Armstrong

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas’ article,“Catecismo católico refuta a apologética católica” [Catholic Catechism Refutes Catholic Apologetics] (12-18-15).

Lucas cites the Catechism: #818:

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

The main argument of Catholic apologetics, and sometimes the only one, is that of the “Protestant division”, about which I have written dozens of articles that can be checked in this tag. Apologetic papists argue that all evangelicals are today under the “sin of division” either because they come from “Luther’s division” or because they are divided among themselves. . . . [T]his ridiculous argument is [refuted in] the Catholic Catechism itself, . . .

As can be seen, for the Catholic Catechism, those who caused the rupture (in Luther’s case, in their view) have sinned, but those who today are born in communities arising from these ruptures have no sin of division. That is, the Catholic apologist who accuses believers today of incurring the sin of division is going against the determination of their own standard of faith. And that includes 99% of Brazilian Catholic apologists, who do not even know their own catechism, or who deliberately ignore it.

This is a correct point about something rather elementary in discussions of ecumenism and denominationalism, and I’m actually glad to see Lucas make it, because truth is truth. Whoever made the argument that Lucas describes above was wrong, and needs to study the Catechism and recent ecumenical documents. But #818 in the Catechism doesn’t refute Catholic apologetics per se (which is what his title falsely asserts), because a properly informed Catholic apologist would never make an argument contrary to #818 in the first place.

But noting this doesn’t get Protestants totally off the hook with regard to the scandal of denominationalism, as I will shortly demonstrate.

If we evangelicals have no sin of division, then let them find another, more decent argument to accuse us.

I’m more than happy to do so, presently! The sin of schism is only one aspect of denominationalism, and it applies only to those who chose to reject and forsake the Catholic Church in the 16th century. But it doesn’t follow that divisions, sects, and denominationalism thereby become wonderful, defensible, biblical things. This is my eleventh reply now to Lucas and he hasn’t written a single word yet in reply. Nevertheless, exposing his errors is a good thing, whether or not he is willing or capable of defending his own views.

The disease and anti-Protestant fanaticism of Catholic apologists are so blatant that they manage to put them against the Catholic Catechism itself, because only in this way can they keep their speech of hate and intolerance towards evangelicals standing.

As I said, whichever apologists (actual or in name only) who claimed this were wrong. Lucas didn’t document any. I’ve never seen (in 31 years of doing Catholic apologists) an actual credentialed, published, professional apologist writing in English, make this claim. Perhaps Lucas would document this, if he ever gets off his butt and musters up the courage to ever reply to me? I’m not denying that it exists, but I do deny that it represents mainstream Catholic apologetics. Nor does an attitude of hatred.

Now I shall devote the rest of this article to providing the biblical view of the wrongness and never-intended tragedy of endless denominationalism. Protestants today are not responsible for the sin of schism, but they are responsible for understanding the biblical teaching on the Church and to do their best in accepting it and applying it in their own lives.

In John 17:22 Jesus prays to the Father that the disciples would be “one, as we are one.” And in John 17:23, He desires that they (and us) be “completely one” (NRSV). KJV, NKJV: “perfect in one.” RSV, NEB, REB: “perfectly one.” NIV: “complete unity.” NASB: “perfected in unity.” Now, it is pretty difficult to maintain that this entails no doctrinal agreement (and “perfect” agreement at that). And, reflecting on John 17:22, I don’t think the Father and the Son differ on how one is saved, on the true nature of the Eucharist or the Church, etc. So how can Protestants claim this “perfect” oneness, “as we [the Holy Trinity] are one”? Or even any remote approximation?

The Apostle Paul commands: “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Rom 16:17). In 1 Corinthians 1:10, he desires “no divisions,” and that Christians should be “perfectly joined together “in the same mind.” No one can say this is simply a “warm fuzzy” love and mutual recognition. Paul goes on to condemn mere “contentions” in 1:11, and asks in 1:13: “Is Christ divided?”

In 1 Corinthians 3:3, Paul says that whatever group has “strife and divisions” are “carnal, and walk as men.” In 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 he seems to equate “divisions” and “heresies.” He calls for “no schism” in 1 Corinthians 12:25, etc., etc. (cf. Rom 13:13; 2 Cor 12:20; Phil 2:2; Titus 3:9; Jas 3:16; 1 Tim 6:3-5; 2 Pet 2:1). Romans 16:17 mentions doctrine (didache). Galatians 5:20 condemns “strife, seditions, heresies”. Etc., etc.

H. Richard Niebuhr (Lutheran) stated that:

Denominationalism . . . represents the accommodation of Christianity to the caste-system of human society. (The Social Sources of Denominationalism, New York: Meridian Books, 1929, 6, 21)

Donald Bloesch (evangelical Protestant) observed:

There will never be real evangelical unity, let alone Christian unity, until there is an awakening to the reality of the oneness and catholicity of the church. (The Future of Evangelical Christianity, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983, 56-57, 65)

And Carl F. H. Henry (a leading evangelical scholar) laments:

By failing to transcend their isolation and independency, evangelical Christians have virtually forfeited a golden opportunity to shape the religious outlook of the 20th century. (Carl Henry At His Best, Portland: Multnomah Press, 1989, 66)

Nevertheless, even the generally brilliant and insightful scholar and apologist Norman Geisler repeats the cliche which is the common Protestant response to these considerations:

Orthodox Protestants differ largely over secondary issues, not primary (fundamental) doctrines, . . . Protestants seem to do about as well as Catholics on unanimity of essential doctrines. (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, Grand Rapids, Michigan Baker Book House, 1995, 193)

This is special pleading, in my humble opinion, but to get into why that is would require another long paper (which I have written). Besides the factual whopper, who’s to decide what an “orthodox” Protestant is? Geisler? Where does he get his authority? And who’s to decide what qualifies as a “secondary issue”? (oh, so much I could say here, but for time and space . . .).

The mutual anathemas started immediately with the “Reformers.” Martin Luther said Zwingli was “damned” (because he denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist) and John Calvin called Luther “half-papist” and an “idolater” (because he believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist). I have a whole list of such tragic examples of Protestant “brotherhood.” Luther absolutely detested sectarianism and lamented, “There are as many sects as there are heads.” His successor, Philip Melanchthon, was a great deal more upset about it than Luther was, as we know from many agonized cries from the depths of his soul.

Yet both neglected to see how Luther’s rule of faith, sola Scriptura, and the principle of private judgment, are literally what brought it all about. After all, if Luther could dissent against the entire 1500-year history of the Catholic Church, on what basis could he deny that anyone could dissent from him? And denominationalism has proceeded thusly ever since: perfectly consistent with the foundational principles of Protestantism, and never able to be solved within that system.

There is no “unity” in Protestantism in the biblical sense. I grant that there is (very broadly speaking) a “mere Christianity” type of unity, but why should anyone accept or settle for this “lowest common denominator” unity? I want all the truth and nothing but the truth. Why should any Christian tolerate error (which we know from logical necessity is rampant within Protestantism), when all lies come from the father of lies, Satan?

At least the so-called “Reformers” believed strongly enough in each of their sects to anathematize the “dissidents” outside of them. Today Protestants wink at differences and pretend that there is a unity in “essentials.” And as a result many of us (including myself, in 1990) have moved from Protestantism to Catholicism and have found at long last a peace and a consistent view of the Church and the rule of faith that isn’t viciously self-defeating.

Here are more Bible verses (RSV) about sectarianism, division, and denominationalism:

Matthew 12:25 . . . Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand

John 10:16 . . . So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Acts 4:32 Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, . . .

Romans 2:8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

2 Corinthians 12:20 For I fear that perhaps I may come and find you not what I wish, and that you may find me not what you wish; that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.

Galatians 5:19-20 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,

Ephesians 4:1-5 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Philippians 1:27 Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

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

1 Timothy 6:3-5 If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (cf. 2 Tim 2:23)

Titus 3:9-11 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned. (cf. Jas 3:16)

2 Peter 2:1-2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.

I wrote about this problem in my book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (2004) [also now available in Portugese]:

Again, we see the very strong biblical and Pauline emphasis on Christian doctrinal unity, yet the Catholic Church is criticized for teaching the same thing (and, naturally, locating the focus for this unity within its own Tradition). It is extremely difficult to rationalize away all of these passages and act as if they did not deal a crushing blow to Protestantism, insofar as it is clearly divided and hopelessly multiplying into further sects.

In my opinion, this is one of the most compelling and unanswerable disproofs of Protestantism as a system to be found in the Bible. But Protestants have no choice. They feel that Protestantism must be bolstered up as an alternative to Catholicism, no matter how many serious contradictions with Scripture exist within it. So they continue to try and explain away these Bible passages.

This is why the Catholic Magisterium, apostolic succession, the papacy, binding ecumenical councils, and the notion of an unbroken, continuous apostolic Tradition preserved uniquely by the Holy Spirit in an actual concrete institution are necessary.

As a remarkable example of this losing, futile battle with Scripture in the area of doctrinal and ecclesiastical oneness, I submit the argument of a Calvinist apologist whom I engaged in a “live chat” debate one night on the Internet. I first asked him, “On what basis — by what criterion — does a person discover truth within the Protestant system, seeing that all parties in that system appeal to the Bible, yet cannot agree on a host of issues?”

In particular, I wondered, why I should believe his view of baptism (Presbyterian: infant, non-regenerative), over against that of Martin Luther (infant, regenerative) and the Baptist position (adult, non-regenerative)?

He said that one should not “consult people but the Bible.” He later fleshed out a second response: the Bible teaches that disagreements are to be expected, thus they pose no difficulty for the doctrinal disunity within Protestantism.

My Protestant friend cited Romans 14 in support of his contention that doctrinal diversity on so-called “secondary issues” was permissible, according to the Bible. I knew a little bit about what was in Romans 14, so I asked him to tell me what particular doctrines were discussed in that chapter which would allow him to conclude that doctrinal division was acceptable.

He cited only the disagreement over the Sabbath, or the day of worship. I replied that this was irrelevant to our discussion since Protestants and Catholics agree on a Sunday Sabbath, and that pretty much the only dissenters are Seventh-Day Adventists. He could give me no other doctrine discussed in Romans 14, though he continued to refer to the chapter as a justification for Protestantism’s relativism-in-practice in many doctrines (what he described as allowable and fully expected “diversity”).

There is a good reason why no more examples from Romans 14 were given: the chapter deals only with quite “undoctrinal” matters, such as what we should eat or not eat (14:2-3, 14-17), and esteeming one day above another (14:5). That is all that is there!

Yet this professional Calvinist apologist appealed to this passage in defense of his notion that doctrinal issues like baptism and the Eucharist are entirely matters of individual discretion, admitting of diverse viewpoints, and that no one should be troubled by the fact that Protestants cannot agree among themselves. This is not only a weak biblical argument; it is expressly contrary to the passages above.

The exceedingly serious problem of denominationalism exists in Protestantism and always will, for it cannot be overcome by any Protestant internal principles, no matter how nuanced or sophisticated or in line with “Reformation heritage.” Protestantism cannot settle its internal differences; each branch or sect can only (ultimately arbitrarily) assert its own authority.

Thus, Calvin asserts his own authority, Luther his, Zwingli and Menno Simons (Mennonites) and George Fox (Quakers) and William Booth (Salvation Army) theirs. Many independent Protestants today claim to be subject to no leaders or traditions, yet inevitably follow their own traditions. Protestants have no way of resolving these “denominational dichotomies.” They will continue to split, and each party or faction will justify its split based on appeals to the one Bible.

To put it in very practical terms: how does the man on the street, who has to choose between competing factions, determine truth under Protestant assumptions? He has to choose whether Calvin or Luther is right (then go on to choose among the competing Lutheran or Calvinist camps. Why should Calvin have any more authority than Luther had? Each simply claimed it for himself (as anointed from on high) and demanded allegiance.

In the final analysis, the Protestant is forced to appeal to one of two equally insufficient and unsatisfactory solutions:

A) Claim that his own brand of Protestantism is the true one to be believed above all others. This was, of course, the standard approach taken by virtually all the early Protestant factions (thus they rather comically and ironically anathematized and damned each other).

B) Pretend that doctrines on which Protestants disagree (almost always doctrines other than those on which they agree even with Catholics and Orthodox) are “secondary” and not important enough to fight over. I often describe this as a de facto doctrinal relativism, and it is the usual course taken today. . . .

“Solutions” A and B are equally unbiblical, unhistorical, and illogical. Calvin’s position is also ultimately incoherent and clashes with his doctrine of the invisible Church (examined earlier). The problems cannot be resolved. Catholics can at least offer internally coherent and consistent answers and solutions to these vexing problems of authority, whereas the Protestant system always inevitably breaks down at some point. (ch. 2, pp. 25-29)

If the above weren’t more than enough to massively prove the unbiblical and anti-biblical nature of denominationalism, there are dozens of verses proclaiming that there is but one “truth” and one “faith” and one “doctrine” and one “teaching.” I compiled these in my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths (2009). That mostly used the KJV for copyright reasons, but here I will continue to provide RSV:

“The Truth”

Romans 2:8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

1 Corinthians 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.

2 Corinthians 4:2 We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

2 Corinthians 11:10 . . . the truth of Christ is in me . . .

2 Corinthians 13:8 For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.

Galatians 5:7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Ephesians 1:13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, (cf. 6:14)

Colossians 1:5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel

2 Thessalonians 2:10-13 and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

1 Timothy 4:3 . . . those who believe and know the truth.

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

2 Timothy 2:18 who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. . . .

2 Timothy 2:25 . . . God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth,

2 Timothy 3:7-8 who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;

2 Timothy 4:4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness, (cf. 1:14)

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

James 5:19 My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back,

1 Peter 1:22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart.

2 Peter 1:12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.

1 John 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth;

1 John 2:21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and know that no lie is of the truth.

1 John 3:19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure our hearts before him

1 John 4:6 We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

1 John 5:7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

2 John 1:1-4 The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth, and not only I but also all who know the truth, because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us for ever: Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Father’s Son, in truth and love. I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children following the truth, just as we have been commanded by the Father.

3 John 1:1,3-4 The elder to the beloved Ga’ius, whom I love in the truth. . . . indeed you do follow the truth. No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth.

3 John 1:8,12 . . . that we may be fellow workers in the truth. . . . Deme’trius has testimony from every one, and from the truth itself; I testify to him too, and you know my testimony is true.

“The Faith”

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Acts 13:8 But El’ymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) withstood them, seeking to turn away the proconsul from the faith.

Acts 14:22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

Acts 16:5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.

Galatians 1:23 they only heard it said, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”

Ephesians 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;

Philippians 1:25,27 Convinced of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, . . . Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

Colossians 1:23 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, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Colossians 2:7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.

1 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: . . .

1 Timothy 3:9,13 they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. . . . for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

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

1 Timothy 4:6 If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed.

1 Timothy 5:8 If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

1 Timothy 6:10,12 For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs. . . . Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

1 Timothy 6:21 for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith. Grace be with you.

2 Timothy 4:7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness,

Titus 1:13 . . . Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,

Titus 3:15 . . . Greet those who love us in the faith. Grace be with you all.

James 2:1 My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.

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

Revelation 14:12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

“The Doctrine”

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

1 Timothy 4:6 If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed.

Titus 2:10 nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

2 John 1:9 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. (cf. also, “the Way”: Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14, 22)

The “Teaching”

Acts 2:41-42 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

1 Timothy 6:1 Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed.

That’s an awful lot of biblical oneness and unity: expressly contrary to the very notion of a denomination or the rationale used to bolster it up, whereby supposed “secondary” doctrines don’t matter, so that they can be left up to individuals and sects to decide, so that in turn, massive contradiction and therefore, necessarily, massive amounts of error are sanctioned as perfectly fine and dandy: all utterly contrary to the teaching and entire tenor and spirit of the New Testament.

I never feel more sorry for Protestants (my esteemed brothers and sisters in Christ), than when they have to try to prove (or pretend or assume, or “live with the notion” as it were) that denominationalism is actually harmonious with the New Testament. There’s simply nothing that can be said. It’s a lost cause if there ever was one. Imagine formally debating it: “Resolved: Denominationalism is Entirely Consistent with Biblical Teaching”! It would be like arguing in favor of the idea that water isn’t wet, or that eating beef is completely consistent with a vegan diet.

I’m sure this “thorn in the flesh” gives many Protestants great pause, and even agony (as with the admirably conscientious but utterly blind-as-to-cause Luther and Melanchthon). But they feel that there is nothing they can do to resolve it (which is absolutely true within Protestantism), and that the only available solution (becoming Catholic or even Orthodox) is out of the question.

I’m here to try to persuade folks that becoming a Catholic is the most “biblical” thing they can ever do! The Catholic Church (human sins and all, just as all collections of Christians have sin) is the pearl of great price that many good and decent Protestants have been looking for their whole lives, never realizing that it was right in front of them all along, in all its battered, besmirched but unvanquishable and divinely protected glory.

***

Photo credit: [Max Pixel/ CC0 public domain]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli throws out a “gotcha!” potshot against Catholic apologists re denominationalism, but entirely misses the larger NT point.

Critique of Presuppositionalism & Greg Bahnsen

Last updated on: June 8, 2022 at 5:44 pm By Dave Armstrong

[originally posted on 14 April 2007]

The late Calvinist Greg L. Bahnsen (1948-1995) was an articulate (arguably the foremost and most respectable) exponent of presuppositional apologetics. Rather than summarize that point of view, I’ll let readers unfamiliar with this approach learn of it from one of its ablest proponents in recent times. I’m very interested at this point in going right to the heart of the matter and looking at what Scripture teaches, and how practical evangelism and apologetics (my abiding interest and vocation) can benefit from these insights.

I am delighted to be able to interact with someone who also incorporates much biblical exegesis into his analysis. The article cited below (in its entirety) is “Evangelism and Apologetics,” published in Synapse III (Fall 1974). Dr. Bahnsen’s words will be in blue.

* * * * *

The very reason why Christians are put in the position of giving a reasoned account of the hope that is in them is that not all men have faith. Because there is a world to be evangelized (men who are unconverted), there is the need for the believer to defend his faith: Evangelism naturally brings one into apologetics. This indicates that apologetics is no mere matter of “intellectual jousting”; it is a serious matter of life and death – eternal life and death. The apologist who fails to take account of the evangelistic nature of his argumentation is both cruel and proud. Cruel because he overlooks the deepest need of his opponent and proud because he is more concerned to demonstrate that he is no academic fool tha[n] to show how all glory belongs to the gracious God of all truth. Evangelism reminds us of who we are (sinners saved by grace) and what our opponents need (conversion of heart, not simply modified propositions).

Agreed.

I believe, therefore, that the evangelistic nature of apologetics shows us the need to follow a presuppositional defense of the faith.

He merely assumes what he is seeking to prove (with the “therefore” and the “need”) that presuppositionalism is the only way to go about this. I will attempt to show why I think his conclusion is incorrect, in replying to his apologia.

In contrast to this approach stand the many systems of neutral autonomous argumentation.

This is a caricature of evidential apologetics, as I will also demonstrate.

Sometimes the demand to assume a neutral stance, a noncommittal attitude toward the truthfulness of Scripture,

This is the presuppositional (and I am using that word in the more generic, philosophical sense in this instance) baggage that Bahnsen assumes from the outset. But it is a false premise. Neither I nor any orthodox Christian evidentialist apologist I know of thinks like this. It’s a straw man. We do not take a “noncommittal attitude toward the truthfulness of Scripture”; there is no reason to believe that non-Calvinist, non-presuppositionalist or evidentialist apologists take, on the whole, a lower view of Scripture than Bahnsen does. I certainly don’t. It is ridiculous, then, to make out that this is the case.

Bahnsen, sadly, falls prey to the tendency in theological argumentation, to paint the opponent as a liberal dissenter from received orthodoxy, and/or one who lacks rudimentary Christian faith. This is not only erroneous and inaccurate; it is downright slanderous and the bearing of false witness against Christian brothers. I don’t have to imply that Bahnsen is a liberal in disagreeing with him. It is simply an honest disagreement on apologetic method. How sad that he seems unable to return the favor to those he disagreed with.

But that is, of course, the strong tendency in the anti-Catholic Calvinist approach (which — I hasten to add — is not that of all Calvinists, by any stretch). It’s not only Catholics who are read out of the faith, but oftentimes, Arminian Protestants also; or they are portrayed as “sub-biblical” (the term James White recently applied to William Lane Craig) or greatly compromised and barely Christian, if they are at all.

is heard in the area of Christian scholarship (whether it be the field of history, science, literature, philosophy, or whatever). Teachers, researchers, and writers are often led to think that honesty demands for them to put aside all distinctly Christian commitments when they study in an area which is not directly related to matters of Sunday worship.

This is true, and indeed an ever-present danger, but I think it is far more true of Christian academics than of apologists.

They reason that since truth is truth wherever it may be found, one should be able to search for truth under the guidance of the acclaimed thinkers in the field, even if they are secular in their outlook. “Is it really necessary to hold to the teachings of the Bible if you are to understand properly the War of 1812, the chemical composition of water, the plays of Shakespeare, or the rules of logic?” Such is their rhetorical question.

The Bible (quite obviously) doesn’t discuss many, many things. One must distinguish between:

1) when it is proper to involve the Bible in a particular discussion,

and

2) one’s own belief in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible.

One can hold #2 with full vigor, yet not think it is necessary to bring biblical discussion to every particular discussion (the factor of #1). But Bahnsen seems to think that one must always do so, under pain of being accused of an alleged “neutralist” stance concerning the Bible or Christian faith itself.

Hereby the demand for neutrality arises in the realm of apologetics (defense of the faith). We are told by some apologists that they would lose all hearing with the unbelieving world if they were to approach the question of Scripture’s truthfulness with a preconceived answer to the question.

Well, this is a false dilemma. We can (assuming the appropriate education in apologetics and other competing systems) obviously approach the unbeliever (I do this all the time) with the following four propositions, which don’t contradict each other:

1) I believe in Christianity [in my case, Catholic Christianity] and the Bible.

2) I have many reasons why I believe in Christianity [and Catholic Christianity — but that should come later in the discussion] and the Bible, which I would be more than happy to present to you, as the occasion and need may arise to do so.

3) I can submit to you many reasons why you, too, should believe in the Bible and Christianity, according to your own presuppositions (especially the ones that you and I already hold in common).

4) At the same time, I can demonstrate to you how and why your own presuppositions lead to an ultimately absurd and false end result or conclusion, and that, therefore, Christianity is the ultimate truth and spiritual reality.

Now, how does such an approach violate the Christian belief-system or one’s own firmly-held principles or “integrity”? How is this a “neutral” stance? #1 clearly lays out “this is what I believe.” It is the furthest thing from a denial of that belief. But giving reasons for a belief is different from the belief itself, and can be undertaken in many different ways. The “what” and “why” of faith are two different things. This is obvious. And when arguing with someone of a very different belief-system (say, atheism) one has to discuss issues in terms that the person can understand, lest the endeavor of persuasion be completely futile and a waste of time.

If apologetics is collapsed into simply proclamation and preaching, then why bother to give reasons at all? That would be the death of apologetics. The “why” would be irrelevant and only the “what” of doctrinal content would matter. But reasoning presupposes that there are ways and methods to effectively persuade others (as St. Paul noted — see below). Rhetoric and method and “granting for the sake of argument” are not the same as chameleon-like changing of one’s views.

We must be willing, according to this outlook, to approach the debate with unbelievers with a common attitude of neutrality – a “nobody knows as yet” attitude. We must assume as little as possible at the outset, we are told; and this means that we cannot assume any Christian premises or teachings of the Bible. Thus the Christian is called upon to surrender his distinctive religious beliefs, to temporarily “put them on the shelf,” to take a neutral attitude in his thinking.

No one is “surrendering” anything! This is ludicrous. It gets to the heart of the matter, and illustrates the fundamental misconception that Bahnsen has of evidentialism (and this is common: I have encountered this fallacy many times). The crucial, supremely important distinction that must be highlighted here is between the two following propositions:

1) Apologist x believes a set of propositions y, concerning Christianity and the Bible (where y is defined as “Christian orthodoxy”, however determined: which is another huge discussion in and of itself).

2) Apologist x, if he is to do apologetics successfully and wisely, must find a reasonable, plausible method and way to present both y and especially the reasons for y (that we shall call a [apologetics]), without in the least intending to disbelieve any portion of y. In other words, presentation and personal belief are two completely different things. To argue effectively, one must understand his opponent’s point of view (ideally, even better than the opponent does himself). To then effectively counter and refute it, one must utilize methods that the opponent can relate to.

St. Paul expressed the same notion in the following terms:

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. 20: To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law — though not being myself under the law — that I might win those under the law. 21: To those outside the law I became as one outside the law — not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ — that I might win those outside the law.

Note the terms that I have highlighted with green. This is, very much, apologetic / evangelistic methodology. Paul expressly states that he “became as” and “I have made myself” thus and so, according to opinion and state of the hearer he is seeking to reach. But he didn’t become “neutral”. It was a methodological approach, not somehow a temporary change of position, as if Christian doctrine were a chameleon or a wax nose that changes according to whim and situation. Paul makes it clear that his views did not change in so dong (“though not being myself” / “not being without law”).

This is what Bahnsen fails to understand. Methodology is not identical to personal belief, nor is epistemology the equivalent of ontology. One can believe a certain thing, but defend it in many different ways, without surrendering or compromising the belief itself. No one is pretending to be “neutral” simply because they argue something a particular way with a particular target audience. Why this is so difficult, apparently, for Bahnsen and presuppositionalists to grasp, is, I confess, a deep mystery to me. I should think it were self-evident. And it is entirely Pauline and biblical to think in this manner.

Satan would love this to happen. More than anything else, this would prevent the conquest of the world to belief in Jesus Christ as Lord. More than anything else, this would make professing Christians impotent in their witness, ineffective in their evangelism, and powerless in their apologetic.

Yes, if Bahnsen were correct and every time a non-Calvinist, non-presuppositionalist apologist opened his mouth to defend Christianity, it entailed an absurd modus operandi of denying various tenets of Christian faith in order to convince one of it (as if that were sensible or even possible) then he would be right. But it is a straw man from the outset.

The apologetical neutralist should reflect upon the nature of evangelism; such reflection demonstrates that (at least) in the following seven ways evangelism requires a presuppositional apologetic.

Okay; let’s look and see what case he can made. I look forward to it. I love to see people defend their positions from the Bible and reason. But remember that he has started out with a demonstrably false first premise, and keep that in mind as we proceed. It will keep coming up, because false premises have a way of intruding themselves into the later false conclusions that derive from them. Also remember that I vigorously deny that I am a “neutralist” simply because I am not a presuppositionalist. I’m not neutral at all; I am fully committed to Christianity (and more particularly to Catholic Christianity, should the discussion get that far). It’s what I defend after all. How can I defend something that I don’t believe, myself? What sense does that make?

Now, how is that “neutral”? In fact, it is so un-neutral and “partisan” that Bahnsen himself would strenuously object to my position of “Romanism” as not even Christian. But when I am defending things he and I would hold in common (as I almost always do in discussions with atheists or cultists like Jehovah’s Witnesses), it is irrelevant whether I am a Catholic or not. In other words, when I am standing side-by-side with Bahnsen and James White and others who say I am no Christian, and defending the deity of Christ or the Trinity or the bodily resurrection of Jesus , what I argue is true (even in their eyes), so it matters not whether I am a Catholic (which they think is sub-Christian). In any event, I am not “neutral.”

In attempting to bear glad tidings to the unbelieving world, the neutralist is robbed of his treasure

Contrary to neutrality’s demand, God’s word demands unreserved allegiance to God and his truth in all our thought and scholarly endeavors. It does so for a good reason.

But as I have shown, this is not at issue. See how Bahnsen is now building upon the first premise. It’s like the old notion of building a castle of sand, or a house of cards. Even Jesus talked about building a house without a solid foundation. That’s how logic works, too.

Paul infallibly declares in Colossians 2:3-8 that “All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ.” Note he says all wisdom and knowledge is deposited in the person of Christ – whether it be about the War of 1812, water’s chemical composition, the literature of Shakespeare, or the laws of logic!

From the fact that God knows all things (omniscience) and has made all knowledge possible, it doesn’t follow that we must mention God or the Bible in every conceivable discussion on any imaginable subject. And this is self-evident. So why even bother mentioning it? It simply reduces to my first clause: “God knows all things (omniscience) and has made all knowledge possible”. Great. Wonderful. All Christians know and believe this. No one is denying it.

Bahnsen’s fallacy lies in thinking that it is being denied simply because God isn’t mentioned in every sentence the Christian utters (or, as the case may be, an entire essay on any given non-theological subject). If an entire book of the Bible didn’t even mention God (Esther) why must Christians do so at every turn, pray tell? It’s like telling one’s wife that one loves her, at the beginning of every sentence:

“I love you dearly, sweetheart; um, could you get me a new roll of toilet paper?”

“I love you; you’re the greatest. Do you know what time the game is on tonight?”

“I love you more than anything in the world and you are the dearest thing imaginable to me; the greatest woman and wife and mother in world history. I’d gladly die for you. I would drink your dirty bathwater. Oh, by the way, have you seen my light blue dress shirt?”

No one talks like this. In any normally happy marriage, the wife knows she is loved without being told 742 times a day (in fact, arguably that would cheapen and trivialize love and romance because it would become rote and automatic). And for Christians to be required to do something similar with God and the Bible simply makes us look like idiots. We don’t deny anything we believe in not mentioning the basics of what we believe over and over.

And the unbeliever (if he knows us at all) already knows what we believe, at least in general outline, without us beating it into the ground and boring him to death. it is no help to effective evangelism to be regarded as obsessed, weird, odd, socially-maladjusted people who have to repeat things ad infinitum, lest we supposedly deny what we believe.

Every academic pursuit and every thought must be related to Jesus Christ, for Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). To avoid Christ in your thought at any point, then, is to be misled, untruthful, and spiritually dead.

What does it mean to “avoid Christ”? That’s the question. If I come right out and deny that Jesus is Lord of all of life and all of creation, or say something stupid like “God has no bearing on what I do in the bedroom” (as many millions of Protestants — and Catholics — do when they use contraception or divorce for ultimately sexual and selfish reasons) then that is completely unacceptable; I agree. But if I happen not to mention Jesus in some particular argument (as I have done throughout this response, and as Bahnsen himself has done, too), it doesn’t follow that I have denied same.

To put aside your Christian commitments when it comes to defending the faith is willfully to steer away from the only path to wisdom and truth found in Christ. It is not the end or outcome of knowledge to fear the Lord; it is the beginning of knowledge to reverence Him (Prov. 1:7; 9:10). Paul draws to our attention the impossibility of neutrality “in order that no one delude you with crafty speech.” Instead we must, as Paul exhorts, be steadfast, confirmed, rooted, and established in the faith as we were taught (v. 7).

Absolutely. But I have never denied this; nor has any published, credentialed, reputable evidentialist apologist (Protestant or Catholic) that I am aware of, so it is a red herring.

One must be presuppositionally committed to Christ in the world of thought (rather than neutral) and firmly tied down to the faith which he has been taught, or else the persuasive argumentation of secular thought will delude him. Hence the Christian is obligated to presuppose the word of Christ in every area of knowledge; the alternative is delusion. In verse 8 of Colossians 2, Paul says, “Beware lest any man rob you by means of philosophy and vain deceit.” By attempting to be neutral in your thought you are a prime target for being robbed – robbed by “vain philosophy” of “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” which are deposited in Christ alone (v. 3). The unbeliever’s darkened mind is an expression of his need to be evangelized.

This is a very poor commentary of the passage in question because it leaves crucial portions out, thus giving a misleading impression of what Paul is stating. St. Paul (actually considered in context) was not opposed to all philosophy whatsoever, or philosophy per se. He tries to pit philosophy against the wisdom and knowledge of Christ. But Bahnsen didn’t even cite the entire verse:

Colossians 2:8 (RSV) See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

We see that Paul is not condemning philosophy at all (just as he doesn’t condemn all tradition, as many Protestants falsely suppose) but only the philosophy of mere “human tradition” or that which is “not according to Christ.” In other words, there can be a true Christian philosophy (and tradition) that is divine in origin and according to Christ.

If Paul were so opposed to philosophy itself, or even to non-Christian philosophy alone, then why did he cite pagan Greek poets, philosophers, and dramatists (and the Greeks started philosophy and excelled in it): Acts 17:28 (Aratus: c. 315-240 B.C., Epimenides: 6th c. B.C.), 1 Corinthians 15:33 (Menander: c.342-291 B.C.: “bad company ruins good morals”), and Titus 1:12 (Epimenides, described by Paul as a “prophet”)?

In fact, the line that Paul cited on Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17:28), from Aratus, was actually, in context, talking about Zeus:

Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken.

For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.

Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.

Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.

For we are indeed his offspring… (Phaenomena 1-5).

So Paul used a pagan poet, talking about a false god (Zeus) and “Christianized” the thought, applying it to the true God. That’s Pauline apologetic method, and I seek to imitate him (as he commanded) in this way as in others. The Church has done this, historically, by “co-opting” pagan holidays and “baptizing” them, thus eventually wiping out the old pagan holidays. This is certainly not presuppositionalistic apologetic method (Bahnsen, if consistent, would have to rule this out as an instance of supposedly being “neutral” as to Christian belief in order to effectively persuade the non-Christian pagan Greek). But it’s very biblical and Pauline, isn’t it?

The citation from Epimenides (the poem Cretica) involves the same thing; it was originally written about Zeus; Paul (Acts 17:28 again) takes it and applies it to Yahweh, the true God:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one—

The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!

But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,

For in thee we live and move and have our being.

St. Paul expressly cites these pagan Greek poets and philosophers precisely because that is what his sophisticated Athens audience (including “Epicurean and Stoic philosophers” — 17:18) could understand and relate too. He was using wise apologetic method and strategy. This is Paul giving a concrete example of the evangelistic application of his dictum of 1 Corinthians 9:21: “To those outside the law I became as one outside the law — not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ — that I might win those outside the law.”

Paul tells us in Ephesians 4 that to follow the methods dictated by the intellectual outlook of those who are outside of a saving relationship to God is to have a vain mind and darkened understanding (vv. 17-18).

That would be fascinating, wouldn’t it? So the Paul of the Mars Hill sermon-speech contradicted the Paul of Ephesians 4, since he “followed the methods” and utilized the “intellectual outlook” of Greek philosophy, in citing poems devoted to Zeus and mentioning idols he had seen? Nuh-uh. Rather, it is Bahnsen who is self-contradictory, not Paul, who was perfectly consistent (and no presuppositionalist).

Ephesians 4:17-18 is a different context. Paul was saying that a Christian must live and think differently from a pagan. Being a Christian made a difference; a regenerated mind is a massive change. The passage (especially seen in its context to the end of the chapter: verse 4:32) is much more about morals than about false philosophy (“the life of God”, “hardness of heart”, “licentiousness”, “uncleanness”, “deceitful lusts”, etc. But obviously Paul was not teaching that the Gentiles had no truth whatsoever, or else he wouldn’t have cited their own thinkers. So Bahnsen is the one who has trouble synthesizing the two aspects, not St. Paul, because he is of an insufficiently biblical and Pauline mindset.

Neutralist thinking, then, is characterized by intellectual futility and ignorance.

There is plenty of this ignorance and fallacy to go around, as I think I am showing. I should come up with a new name for presuppositionalists, too, since Bahnsen insists on using the false title of “neutralist” for evidentialist or “classical” apologists. But in my case, the description would be true. How about “circularist” — to stand for the viciously circular reasoning that not only characterizes presuppositionalism, but self-consciously and proudly so, on their part? But that would not be nice, even though true.

In God’s light, we are able to see light (cf. Ps. 36:9). To turn away from intellectual dependence upon the light of God, the truth about and from God, is to turn away from knowledge to the darkness of ignorance. Thus, if a Christian wishes to begin his scholarly endeavors from a position of neutrality he would, in actuality, be willing to begin his thinking in the dark.

If anyone actually did this, I’d like to see an example. I deny that it is true of any decent apologist.

He would not allow God’s word to be a light unto his path (cf. Ps. 119:105). To walk on in neutrality, he would be stumbling along in darkness. God is certainly not honored by such thought as he should be, and consequently God makes such reasoning vain (Rom. 1:21b). Neutrality amounts to vanity in God’s sight.

Insofar as this “neutrality” is lack of belief in the Christian tenets that ought to be believed, I agree. I disagree that it is a relevant description of mainstream evidentialist apologists or apologetics.

That “philosophy” which does not find its starting point and direction in Christ is further described by Paul in Colossians 2:8. Paul is not against the “love of wisdom” (i.e., “philosophy” from the Greek) per se. Philosophy is fine as long as one properly finds genuine wisdom – which means, for Paul, finding it in Christ (Col. 2:3).

Good. This was not made clear earlier, but I am delighted to see that Bahnsen states this now.

However, there is a kind of “philosophy” which does not begin with the truth of God, the teaching of Christ. Instead this philosophy takes its direction and finds its origin in the accepted principles of the world’s intellectuals – in the traditions of men. Such philosophy as this is the subject of Paul’s disapprobation in Colossians 2:8. It is instructive for us, especially if we are prone to accept the demands of neutrality in our thinking, to investigate his characterizations of that kind of philosophy.

I already explored some of that in my survey of his use of pagan Greek thought in Athens and in two other passages in his writings.

Paul says that it is “vain deception.” What kind of thinking is it that can be characterized as “vain”? A ready answer is found by comparison and contrast in scriptural passages that speak of vanity (e.g., Deut. 32:47; Phil. 2:16; Acts 4:25; 1 Cor. 3:20; 1 Tim. 1:6; 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:15-18; Titus 1:9-10). Vain thinking is that which is not in accord with God’s word.

Indeed.

A similar study will demonstrate that “deceptive” thinking is thought which is in opposition to God’s word (cf. Heb. 3:12-15; Eph. 4:22; 2 Thess. 2:10-12; 2 Pet. 2:13). The “vain deception” against which Paul warns, then, is philosophy which operates apart from, and against, the truth of Christ.

Amen.

Note the injunction of Ephesians 5:6, “Let no man deceive you with vain words.” In Colossians 2:8 we are told to take care lest we be robbed through “vain deceit.” Paul further characterizes this kind of philosophy as “according to the tradition of men, after the fundamental principles of the world.”

Good. This should have been pointed out in the earlier passage (which, as it reads, presents a half-truth and could potentially mislead or confuse the reader), but better late than never.

That is, this philosophy sets aside God’s word and makes it void (cf. Mark 7:8-13), and it does so by beginning with the elements of learning dictated by the world (i.e., the precepts of men; cf. Col. 2:20, 22). The philosophy which Paul spurns is that reasoning which follows the presuppositions (the elementary assumptions) of the world, and thereby is “not according to Christ.”

But Paul arguably did that himself by arguing from belief in Zeus to the fuller reality and truth of Yahweh. Without denying his own belief in the slightest, Paul argued from Greek presuppositions (also in referring to the Athenian “unknown god” — 17:23, and how “religious” the Greeks were — 17:22). Zeus is not according to Christ at all. The belief was a mere fiction, and statues of Zeus that were worshiped were abominable idols. Yet Paul uses these elements to build a bridge to the pagan Greeks.

Would Greg Bahnsen have done that, given his approach (or, try to imagine James White — whose apologetical hero is Bahnsen — arguing in such a fashion; it’s comical to even picture)? Highly unlikely, because he seems to condemn all points of contact, when it involves use of non-Christian constructs and premises to argue upwards to Christian ones. One can hardly conceive of a presuppositionalist using Paul’s methods at the Areopagus. It directly contradicts their apologetic approach.

The neutralist overlooks that antithesis between the Christian and non-Christian which explains why the believer is in a position to aid the unbeliever

Not at all, as we shall see. The circularist (sorry!) fails to prove this charge . . .

In Ephesians 4:17-18, Paul commands the followers of Christ that they “no longer walk as the Gentiles also walk, in the vanity of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance in them, because of the hardening of their heart.” Christian believers must not walk, must not behave or live, in a way which imitates the behavior of those who are unredeemed; specifically, Paul forbids the Christian from imitating the unbeliever’s vanity of mind.

False philosophy (as well as sin) is to be avoided; absolutely. It doesn’t follow that there is no good whatsoever in pagan and Gentile thinking. Jesus “marveled” at the Roman centurion, after all, and said of him: “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith” (Matthew 8:10). Note that this is not simply philosophy and thinking, but “faith.” Paul echoes this understanding in Romans 2:12-16. Not all pagan thought is wicked and evil. There is also a lot of truth (and in their morals, as well, as Paul states in Romans 2, and according to how he argued on Mars Hill).

Bahnsen, like many Calvinists, is guilty of painting with too broad of a brush. Whatever truly opposes Christ and Christianity is, of course, wicked and evil and from the pit of hell. I wholeheartedly agree. But not all that is non-Christian is unalterably opposed to Christianity. There is common ground. That’s the point. It even applies to unregenerate souls. We see that Jesus and Paul were quite compassionate and understanding of nonbelievers and didn’t seem to regard them to the man as utterly wicked.

On the other hand, the worst condemnations of Paul and Jesus were directed towards Jewish and Christian religious hypocrites who didn’t rightly act upon what they believed. Hence Paul emphasized what folks did with the knowledge they possessed, whether Christian (Rom 2:6:9-10,13; 1 Cor 3:8-9; Phil 2:12-13; Titus 3:8; cf. 1 Pet 1:17) or non-Christian (Rom 2:6,9-10,14-15), even tying this directly to justification itself. St. Peter speaks the same language in dealing with Cornelius the Gentile (Acts 10:35), saying that a nonbeliever can be “acceptable” to God. Our Lord Jesus emphasized the same thing again and again (Mt 5:20; 7:16-27; 16:27; 25:31-46; Lk 14:13-14; 18:18-25; Jn 3:36; Rev 22:12).

Christians must refuse to think or reason according to a worldly mind-set or outlook. The culpable agnosticism of the world’s intellectuals must not be reproduced in Christians as alleged neutrality; this outlook, this approach to truth, this intellectual method evidences a darkened understanding and hardened heart. It refuses to bow to the Lordship of Jesus Christ over every area of life, including scholarship and the world of thought. Every man, whether an antagonist or an apologist for the Gospel, will distinguish himself and his thinking either by contrast to the world or by contrast to God’s word.

Truth is truth. If a pagan, atheist, or devil-worshiper says “2+2=4” or “water freezes and turns into ice below 0 degrees Celsius” or “the Beatles are unarguably the greatest rock group ever” (just being a little lighthearted!) it is just as true as when a Christian says it. We are not to think false thoughts, and there is plenty of falsehood in Christian circles, and in Bahnsen’s own analysis. The devil is the father of lies.

Unbelievers have no lock on that shortcoming. In fact, Protestants are often lax about falsehood, because they will try to justify, for example, denominationalism and latitudinarianism, where they are quite happy (very unlike the first Protestants and particularly Luther and Calvin) to allow for divergences of opinion about important things. Baptism is the classic example.

Greg Bahnsen is James White’s hero, but White is a Baptist who believes in adult, believer’s baptism, whereas Bahnsen the Presbyterian would have accepted infant baptism. They can’t resolve what “perspicuous” biblical teaching is on this matter. And of course, Luther also believed that baptism regenerated, contrary to both White and Bahnsen.

Now, whenever there is a direct doctrinal contradiction among Protestants of this sort (they may not know where it is located, but it is undoubtedly present somewhere because of the laws of logic and contradiction), falsehood is necessarily present. And falsehood is bad and wicked and does no one any good. But it is routinely winked at and sanctioned in Protestantism when contradictions are allowed — even encouraged — to be maintained. Catholicism, on the other hand, will have none of this (except for latitude on the most complex things, like Thomism and Molinism), but not on any doctrinal or dogmatic issue. So why is Bahnsen so concerned with nonbelieving error (which we fully expect) while seemingly unconcerned with massive falsehood in Protestant ranks?

There can be falsehood among Christians and truth among non-Christians. Thus, it is far better to speak of truth wherever it is found, than to vainly pretend that all Christians have all truth and non-Christians are wicked through and through and have none, or very little truth. It just isn’t so. And thank God that it isn’t: he gives plenty of grace to go around.

The contrast, the antithesis, the choice is clear: either be set apart by God’s truthful word or be alienated from the life of God. Either have “the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16) or the “vain mind of the Gentiles” (Eph. 4:17). Either bring “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5) or continue as “enemies in your mind” (Col. 1:21).

No problem there; only in the exaggerated, absurd, fallacious way in which this premise works its way into the method of presuppositionalism.

Those who follow the intellectual principle of neutrality and the epistemological method of unbelieving scholarship do not honor the sovereign Lordship of God as they should; as a result, their reasoning is made vain (Rom. 1:21). In Ephesians 4, as we have seen, Paul prohibits the Christian from following this vain mind-set. Paul goes on to teach that the believer’s thinking is diametrically contrary to the ignorant and darkened thinking of the Gentiles. “But you did not learn Christ after this manner!” (v. 20). While the Gentiles are ignorant, “the truth is in Jesus” (v. 21). Unlike the Gentiles who are alienated from the life of God, the Christian has put away the old man and has been “renewed in the spirit of your mind” (vv. 22-23).

Here we go with the broad brush again. This is not Paul’s entire teaching, or else he couldn’t have written that Gentiles who didn’t even have the law (which was prior to even the Christian gospel and regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) still had a conscience that could enable them to know what was right and wrong (Rom 2:14-16) and possibly be saved (2:15-16). That’s why Jesus could say that many Gentiles would be saved, while many of the Jews would be damned (Matthew 8:11-12; 21:21: “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.”).

This “new man” is distinctive in virtue of the “holiness of truth” (v. 24). The Christian is completely different from the world when if comes to intellect and scholarship; he does not follow the neutral methods of unbelief, but by God’s grace he has new commitments, new presuppositions, in his thinking.

His mind is renewed and regenerated; no doubt; this doesn’t prove that no good or true thought comes from a non-Christian context. It’s the same false premise over and over again. Repetition doesn’t make it any more true or any less false.

Attempting to be neutral in one’s intellectual endeavors (whether research, argumentation, reasoning, or teaching) is tantamount to striving to erase the antithesis between the Christian and the unbeliever. Christ declared that the former was set apart from the latter by the truth of God’s word (John 17:17). Those who wish to gain dignity in the eyes of the world’s intellectuals by wearing the badge of “neutrality” only do so at the expense of refusing to be set apart, by God’s truth. In the intellectual realm they are absorbed into the world so that no one could tell the difference between their thinking and assumptions and apostate thinking and assumptions. The line between believer and unbeliever is obscured.

For liberals, that is true, but it’s not true of those who have a traditional Christian belief. The manifold compromises (invariably sexual and gender-related in terms of morals) of Protestantism with the world again come into mind. Contraception is clearly a compromise with the sexual revolution; so is divorce and radical feminism and cohabitation and abortion and lack of desire to have children (under zero population growth) and female ordination (that flows from the false feminist premise that difference in gender roles is tantamount to inherent inequality and “patriarchy”).

Catholicism doesn’t allow for any of these things: never has and never will, but Protestantism does (more and more) all over the place. I submit that Bahnsen should have been at least equally alarmed at that massive infiltration of falsehood and immorality into conservative Protestant ranks. No Christians believed in the moral permissiveness of contraception until the Anglicans allowed “hard cases” in 1930. What was formerly evil was then called good.

Now the vast majority of Protestants accept this pagan sexual morality and see nothing wrong with it whatsoever. I did it myself (from 1984-1990: the first six years of my marriage), until some Catholics talked some sense into me and informed me of the historic Christian moral teaching. Who was ignorant there? I was! I was in darkness, as a regenerated, Spirit-filled, wholly-committed Christian (a missionary, an apologist); calling evil good and not having the slightest awareness that I was doing so.

But Bahnsen and his followers today among Calvinists (he seems to be some sort of icon or champion among them, spoken of in awestruck, hushed terms) want to go on and on about how Christians have all truth and the nonbelievers are purely wicked and deluded? Why is it, then, that Muslims, by and large, still believe in having large families and do far better on the whole in that regard than Christians, who should know better (and who used to do the same until the Sexual Revolution)? Why is it that these same Muslims (for the most part) don’t practice fornication or cohabitation or divorce or abortion? They know better than Christians without even the correct doctrine of God and the Holy Spirit and regeneration? How can that be if Bahnsen is correct? There are many pro-life atheists (such as, notably, Nat Hentoff) and many Christian pro-abortionists.

No such compromise is even possible. “No man is able to serve two lords” (Matt. 6:24). “Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself, an enemy of God” (James 4:4).

My point exactly. Jesus told us to get our own house in order first.

The nature of conversion is not continued neutrality and autonomy, but faith and submission to the Lordship of Christ

When one becomes a Christian, his faith has not been generated by the thought patterns of worldly wisdom. The world in its wisdom knows not God (1 Cor. 1:21) but considers the word of the cross to be foolish (1 Cor. 1:18, 21b).

This is correct. Faith and regeneration come as a result of the supernatural work of God, and God alone, through justification, the Holy Spirit, and the sacramental power of baptism, for the remission of sins (Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5;1 Pet 3:21).

If one keeps the perspective of the world, then, he shall never see the wisdom of God for what it really is; thereby he will never be “in Christ Jesus” who is made unto believers “wisdom from God” (1 Cor. 1:30). Hence faith, rather than self-sufficient sight, makes you a Christian, and this trust is directed toward Christ, not your own intellect. This is to say that the way you receive Christ is to turn away from the wisdom of men (the perspective of secular thought with its presuppositions) and gain, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:12-16). When one becomes a Christian, his faith stands not in the wisdom of men but in the powerful demonstration of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:4-5).

Yes; properly applied, as we have been seeing . . .

Moreover, what the Holy Spirit causes all believers to say is “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3). Jesus was crucified, resurrected, and ascended in order that he might be confessed as Lord (cf. Rom. 14:9; Phil. 2:11). Thus Paul can summarize that message which must be confessed if we are to be saved as “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10:9). To become a Christian one submits to the Lordship of Christ; he renounces autonomy and comes under the authority of God’s Son. The One whom Paul says we receive, according to Colossians 2:6, is Christ Jesus the Lord. As Lord over the believer, Christ requires that the Christian love him with every faculty he possesses (including his mind, Matt. 22:37); every thought must be brought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).

Of course. How many Christians actually do this, though, is the immediate consideration.

Therefore, the evangelistic apologist must come and reason as a new man if he is to direct the unbeliever; his argumentation must be consistent with the end toward which he aims

Sure; what Christian would argue otherwise?

We note that the unqualified precondition of genuine Christian scholarship is that the believer (along with all his thinking) be “rooted in Christ” (Col. 2:7). Paul commands us to be rooted in Christ and to shun the presuppositions of secularism.

That’s tough to do when so many Christians (by the multiple millions) are neck deep in pagan. non-Christian sexual morality. They not only accept pagan thinking, but )as a special bonus) live it out too. And Protestant church leaders (and compromised Catholic priests who don’t even follow their own Church’s teaching) wink at all this and do nothing about it. The Episcopalians (the denomination of C.S. Lewis) even ordain practicing homosexuals as bishops.

In verse 6 of Colossians 2, he explains very simply how we should go about having our lives (including our scholarly endeavors) grounded in Christ and thereby insuring that our reasoning is guided by Christian presuppositions. He says, “As therefore you received Christ Jesus the Lord so walk in Him”; that is, walk in Christ In the same way that you received him. If you do this, you will be “established in your faith even as you were taught.” How then did you become a Christian? After the same fashion you should grow and mature in your Christian walk. Above, we saw that our walk does not honor the thought patterns of worldly wisdom but submits to the epistemic Lordship of Christ (i.e., his authority in the area of thought and knowledge). In this manner a person comes to faith, and in this manner the believer must continue to live and carry out his calling – even when he is concerned with scholarship, apologetics, or schooling.

This is simply reiterating the arguments from before. Again, it is the proper, sensible application of this true biblical teaching that is the problem. I’ve shown why that is, above. This stuff doesn’t teach anyone how to actually do apologetics. I have done that, however, in my analysis of how the Apostle Paul went about it, and how he applied his own teaching to his own evangelistic efforts. Paul is my model for evangelism and apologetics, not some man-made tradition of a minority within a minority of a late arrival in Christian history: presuppositionalism.

Therefore, the new man, the believer with a renewed mind that has been taught by Christ, is no more to walk in the intellectual vanity and darkness which characterizes the unbelieving world (read Eph. 4:17-21). The Christian has new commitments, new presuppositions, a new Lord, a new direction, and goal – he is a new man; and that newness is expressed in his thinking and scholarship, for (as in all other areas) Christ must have the preeminence in the realm of apologetics and evangelism (Col. 1:18b).

Yes; now how does the Christian do it? Maybe Bahnsen deals with that in another article. I shall look for it.

If the evangelist is to be compelling in his witness he must stand on a firm foundation of knowledge

Or, “the 16th way I have devised of saying the exact same thing over and over.” It’s true that repetition is the heart of learning, but the problem comes when what is repeated is either fallacious or unsupported by reason.

God tells us to apply our hearts unto His knowledge if we are to know the certainty of the words of truth (Prov. 22:17-21). It is characteristic of philosophers today that they either deny that there is absolute truth or they deny that one can be certain of knowing the truth: it is either not there, or it is unreachable. However, what God has written to us (i.e., Scripture) can “make you know the certainty of the words of truth” (vv. 20-21). The truth is accessible! However, in order to firmly grasp it one must heed the injunction of verse 17b: “apply your mind to my knowledge.” God’s knowledge is primary, and whatever man is to know can only be based upon a reception of what God has originally and ultimately known. Man must think God’s thoughts after Him, for “in thy light shall we see light” (Ps. 36:9).

Yep. Christian (Protestant) philosophers today like Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas, are doing a great job of that.

David’s testimony was that “The Lord my God illumines my darkness” (Ps. 18:28). Into the darkness of man’s ignorance, the ignorance which results from attempted self-sufficiency, come the words of God, bringing light and understanding (Ps. 119:130). Thus Augustine correctly said, “I believe in order to understand.” Understanding and knowledge of the truth are the promised results when man makes God’s word (reflecting God’s primary knowledge) his presuppositional starting point for all thinking. “Attend unto my wisdom; incline your ear to my understanding in order that you may preserve discretion and in order that your lips may keep knowledge” (Prov. 5:1-2).

This only goes to demonstrate my long-held opinion that presuppositionalism basically boils down in the end (like many gallons of sap turning into a small amount of maple syrup) to simply preaching (and preaching to the choir at that). The “how” and “why” of belief is hardly differentiated from the “what”. The reader is going along in an article about “evangelism and apologetics” and gets less and less of either as he goes along. The very methodology which is supposedly the topic is hardly dealt with at all, or when so, in broad, fallacious terms that are easily shot down (even from Scripture alone). This is the constant frustration when dealing with the presuppositionalist mindset.

The neutralist forgets the gracious nature of his salvation

Really? I can’t wait to see why this (supposedly) is. I already mentioned that above, so obviously I am one so-called “neutralist” that hasn’t done so.

To make God’s word your presupposition, your standard, your instructor and guide, however, calls for renouncing intellectual self-sufficiency – the attitude that you are autonomous, able to attain unto genuine knowledge independent of God’s direction and standards.

Paul said that this is exactly what men can potentially do (even possibly attain salvation in God’s grace), without even the law, let alone all of God’s revelation (Rom 2). Likewise, Peter and Jesus (passages cited above) seem to think that not only knowledge but faith itself was possible without this knowledge. So if the choice is Bahnsen and James White over here and Jesus, Paul, and Peter over there, folks know where I will go.

The man who claims (or pursues) neutrality in his thought does not recognize his complete dependence upon the God of all knowledge for whatever he has come to understand about the world.

Of course: “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28): and Paul was citing a pagan Greek, referring to Zeus. How did the ignorant, unregenerate pagan come up with the same knowledge that Bahnsen is now stating?

Such men give the impression (often) that they are Christians only because they, as superior intellects, have figured out or verified (to a large or significant degree) the teachings of Scripture. Instead of beginning with God’s sure word as foundational to their studies, they would have us to think that they begin with intellectual self-sufficiency and (using this as their starting-point) work up to a “rational” acceptance of Scripture.

I wish Bahnsen would, just once, name names, as to who supposedly does this (again, maybe he does in other articles; I can’t wait to find out). Certainly many liberals do. But I’m not writing about them. I’m writing about apologists who are defending historic Christianity.

While Christians may fall into an autonomous spirit while following their scholarly endeavors, still this attitude is not consistent with Christian profession and character. “The beginning of knowledge is the fear of Jehovah” (Prov. 1:7). All knowledge begins with God, and thus we who wish to have knowledge must presuppose God’s word and renounce intellectual autonomy. “Talk no more proudly: let not arrogance come from your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge” (1 Sam. 2:3).

More preaching . . . this would be a great sermon. As apologetics and an attempted, sustained piece of reasoning, it isn’t quite as profound, sad to say. And Bahnsen was a highly educated man and highly revered by Calvinists today.

Jehovah is the one who teaches man knowledge (Ps. 94:10). So whatever we have, even the knowledge which we have about the world, has been given to us from God. “What do you have that you have not received?” (1 Cor. 4:7). Why then would men pride themselves in intellectual self-sufficiency? “According as it stands written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:31). Humble submission to God’s word must precede man’s every intellectual pursuit.

Amen! Preach it, brother!

Apologetics is evangelistic in nature. The apologist deals with people who have darkened minds, running from the light of God, refusing to submit to the Lord.

Yes! Okay, now tell us how to do this! Please! It’s like waiting at a restaurant for a scrumptious meal that never arrives; only the breadsticks and potato chips do; and skim milk. The main course never comes. All the other is good as far as it goes, it has value, but it ain’t the meat; it’s not the main course that everyone is waiting for. It’s all preliminaries only; wetting the (Christian intellectual) whistle without satisfying it with some sort of specific instruction as to how to go and evangelize the lost; by what method beyond the fact that a Christian is a Christian and believes Christian stuff (like we didn’t know that?) . . . but I have provided that for the reader, using the biblical models of the Apostle Paul and our Lord Jesus.

The apologist must not demonstrate the same mind-set by striving for a neutrality which in effect puts him in the same quagmire. He must aim for the conversion of the unbelieving antagonist, and thus he must discourage autonomy and encourage submissive faith.

The same tired false premises and caricatures about evidential apologists . . .

The apologist must evidence, even in his method of argumentation,

“Method”? Oh, man, he gets so close to what he needs to talk about (gettin’ “warmer”!), but will he?

that he is a new man in Christ; he uses presuppositions which are at variance with the world. He makes the word of God his starting point, knowing that it alone gives him the assured knowledge which the unbeliever cannot have while in rebellion against Christ. The non-Christian’s thinking has no firm foundation, but the Christian declares the authoritative word from God. If he did not, he could not evangelize at all: he could only pool his ignorance and speculation with the unbeliever. In doing so the Christian would be robbed of all the treasure of wisdom and knowledge which is deposited in Christ alone. Besides this, the apologist who attempts to show his intellectual self-sufficiency by moving to a position of neutrality in order that he might “prove” certain isolated truths in the Christian system forgets that grace alone has made him the Christian that he is; he should, instead, continue to think and behave in the same manner in which he received Christ (by faith, submitting to the Lordship of Christ).

Nope; same old same old . . . there’s no hope for this article. The end is near. The “argument” is seen to be completely circular and based on a wholesale caricature of non-presuppositionalist methods.

Therefore, in light of the character of evangelism, the nature of the unbeliever, the nature of the regenerated apologist, the nature of conversion, the nature of genuine knowledge and salvation, the Christian apologist ought to use a presuppositional approach in his defense of the faith. The evangelistic character of apologetics demands nothing less “But set apart Christ as lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to every one who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and respect,” (1 Pet. 3:15); “we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses, destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God – we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:4-5).

It’s like drinking a hundred gallons of the same flat soda pop, or peeling an onion to figure out what is the core (there is none). He just keeps repeating what all Christians who accept the inspired biblical revelation believe. Big wow. I want to know how to reach the unbeliever . . .

I find it highly ironic that the same person who in 1985 excoriated fellow Calvinists R.C. Sproul and John Gerstner for their supposed cluelessness as to the nature of presuppositionalism (see my paper on this, in response to James White, for the documentation):

[They have] oversimplified, jumbled, or handled with little more than slogans . . . painfully naive, . . . Van Til’s presuppositionalism is so badly misrepresented. . . . Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley have simply not taken the time to understand correctly what they have chosen to criticize. . . . he continues to force the good professor into the mold of his preconceptions. This is unreasonable – making a presupposition ride roughshod over the evidence!

. . . it should be the authors of this uncharitable and false representation who should be embarrassed. Anyone can knock down a straw man.

For this reviewer, the authors have not begun to interact meaningfully with presuppositionalism. . . . misconstrual of Van Til, . . . embarrassment. The argumentation is too easy to discredit, . . .

The authors admit that their traditional apologetic “is sick and ailing” (p. 12). Judging from the case made in this book, the diagnosis may be overly optimistic. . . . reliable, logically sound guidance will not be found here. . . . if you are interested in understanding or criticizing contemporary presuppositional apologetics, save your money for another day.

This same person who made these scathing criticisms (of very well-known and widely respected Calvinists!) shows not the slightest understanding of non-presuppositional apologetic method (in fact, systematically distorting same and bashing a straw man). I hope he can do better in another article. As I said, I shall look over what can be found online. I am completely underwhelmed and disappointed. I was really hoping to find something challenging.

Most of what Greg Bahnsen says that is true and helpful is already patently obvious to anyone with the slightest acquaintance with biblical teaching, a biblical, Christian worldview, and who accepts the Bible as God’s word. So it’s not bad (i.e., in its true portions), but it doesn’t teach anyone in that category anything they don’t already pretty much know. It’s literally preaching to the choir. And that is simply not apologetics; sorry.

All Bahnsen has succeeded in showing is what all dedicated, committed Christians of whatever stripe believe about the Bible and God as the font of all true knowledge and wisdom. That is Christian theology, but not Christian apologetics, let alone evangelism. I’m sure Dr. Bahnsen was a fine man, devoted to God and family and his fellow Christians. He was obviously very zealous and intelligent, but he has, in my opinion, and with all due respect, completely failed in the task of this article (by any reasonable analysis of what an article entitled “Evangelism and Apologetics” ought to set out to do).

***

Photo credit: [public domain / Freesvg.org]

***

Summary: I “dialogue” with the late Greg Bahnsen (1948-1995) and critique his presuppositionalist views, as well as contend in favor of evidentialist apologetics.

Justin Martyr & Sola Scriptura (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:26 pm By Dave Armstrong

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas’ article, “Justino pregava a Sola Scriptura?” [Did Justin preach Sola Scriptura?] (6-5-13).

People who like to stir up controversy

I like to stir up biblical, theological, and historical truth.

have claimed that Justin of Rome (AD 100-165) never taught Sola Scriptura . . .

True.

Before showing whether or not Justin believed in Sola Scriptura, it is necessary for us to explain to Catholics what Sola Scriptura is, since I tirelessly see misrepresentations of the meaning of the term being put in their mouths.

That is too often true. But of course it’s also true that many Protestants don’t understand the proper definition of it, either. We’ll see if Lucas does. I’m glad that he is taking the time to define the term, since he didn’t in his article about Origen and Tertullian, that I replied to yesterday.

First, let’s get to what Sola Scriptura does not mean: 1st Sola Scriptura does not mean that everything has to be in the Bible.

• It is not in the Bible that Barack Obama would be president of the USA or that São Paulo would be three-time world champion in 2005, and yet I believe that. What has to be in the Bible is not “everything”, as some Catholics erroneously claim, but the doctrines that were taught by the apostles and Jesus Christ. We do not believe that “everything is in the Bible”, but we believe that no biblical writer has “hidden” any important doctrinal truth that was not written by any of them in the 66 books of Holy Scripture.

Good and correct, so far. Catholics agree.

2nd Sola Scriptura does not mean that we should reject all traditions.

• Even Protestant churches have their traditions, with their dress, their hymnals, their liturgies, their customs. Traditions that are rejected by evangelicals are those traditions that invent doctrines that are not found in the Scriptures and cannot be demonstrated from them, as is the case with many Catholic dogmas, which are sustained purely by what is not written.

So he claims. I have shown again and again that sola Scriptura itself is not taught in the Bible. It’s a self-defeating, late-arriving extrabiblical tradition of men. Every Catholic doctrine can be shown to be supported by the Bible in some fashion, and to be in harmony with the Bible. I’ve done this myself in my own work.

Now, let’s show Catholics what Sola Scriptura means:

1st Sola Scriptura means that we have in the Bible everything that is necessary for our salvation.

That’s material sufficiency, and we agree with it.

2nd Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is totally sufficient in matters of faith and practice.

3rd Sola Scriptura means that any doctrinal tradition that has no biblical basis must be rejected.

4th Sola Scriptura means that all moral or doctrinal teaching of the Christian faith must be based on Scripture. Now that we know what Sola Scriptura means and what it doesn’t mean, Catholics can stop arguing in a vacuum, refuting a scarecrow.

The standard definition of sola Scriptura in use among Protestants is that the Bible is the only infallible standard and norm for Christian theology, faith, and practice. Lucas fails to note this, so his definition (while a “fair” one) is inadequate. I went through the definition at length in my paper, Reply to Lucas Banzoli: 2 Tim 3:16 & Sola Scriptura (5-31-22).

It follows that the Church and tradition can never be infallible. Therefore, if Church father asserts one of the latter two scenarios, he does not believe in sola Scriptura. I will demonstrate that this is the case for Justin Martyr.

And if you pay a little more attention to Justin’s own works, you will see that he had exactly the same conception as evangelicals of what we really mean by Sola Scriptura:

Not at all, as I will prove. He asserts material sufficiency of Scripture, which is not the same as sola Scriptura, and he also asserts the infallibility of Church and tradition, which expressly contradicts sola Scriptura and proves that he didn’t believe in it.

1st Justin believed that what was not said by the Scriptures was doubtful and suspect.

That is untrue, as I will document, as we proceed.

2nd Justin tried to prove by the Scriptures everything he presented.

That’s great and true, but is not sola Scriptura. Simply arguing from the Bible doesn’t prove what one’s rule of faith is. And for this proposition about Justin to be true, it would have to be shown that he never appealed to anything but Scripture.

-Text: “If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was without glory, that through His death the rich would suffer death, that by His stripes we must be healed, and that He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and if I had not explained that there would be two advents of him who was smitten for you, when you will know him whom you have pierced and your tribes will mourn, then consider what I have said to be doubtful and suspect. But it was through the contents of the Scriptures, dear holy and prophetic among you, that I try to prove all that I have presented, in the hope that one of you may be found to be a part of the remnant, which has been left by the grace of the Lord of hosts, unto eternal salvation” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.32)

As we see in the quote above, Justin used to say that if what he said has no Scriptural basis, let it be considered suspect, obscure, doubtful.

That’s not what he was arguing. The point isn’t that everything not in Scripture is “doubtful and suspect” (“dubious and obscure in the English translation from the Schaff set). His point, rather, was that, since Trypho was a Jew, he fully accepted Old Testament revelation as “holy and prophetic”). So Justin is saying, “I’m using your own Scriptures to prove my point. If I didn’t, you wouldn’t believe me.” He’s engaging in good evangelistic method and strategy (utilize what the opponent respects).

Once correctly understood in this way, it’s evident that it has nothing to do with the dispute about sola Scriptura.

But that, on the contrary, it was by the content of the Scriptures that he tried to prove all (and not some part) of what he presented!

Yeah, because the Old Testament was what Jews and Christians heled in common. He’s not even including the New Testament in this particular portion of his argument.

Catholics unfortunately cannot subscribe to Justin’s words, for:

• They believe in doctrines outside the Bible as dogmas of faith, not as “doubtful and suspect.”

• They do not try to prove everything they believe from the Scriptures, as they admit that much of what they believe is not found in the Bible, but in the so-called “oral tradition”.

All Catholic doctrines must be in harmony with the Bible, and that’s what we try to prove: almost always with massive use of Scripture.

So we see Justin contradicting the Catholic pillars of non-biblical oral tradition and reiterating the Christian principles of Sola Scriptura.

Nonsense. This was taken out of context, as shown. Later, I will prove that Justin doesn’t stick to the Bible Alone; hence, he held to a Catholic rule of faith, not a proto-Protestant one.

3rd Justin believed that we cannot fail to constantly refer to the Scriptures.

-Text: “It is a ridiculous thing… that whoever bases his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should abandon them and refrain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, thinking that he himself can provide something better than Scripture” (Dialogue with Trypho) , Chapter 85)

Failure to constantly refer to the Scriptures is the most usual thing for a Catholic who is used to basing his doctrines on tradition, for thinking that “it can provide something better than Scripture”.

Justin was saying that if one claims to be making an argument from the Bible, they can’t forget about the Bible and start arguing in another way (which is self-evidently true). Catholics do not say that tradition or Church doctrines are “better than Scripture.” They say that both can be authoritative and also infallible, under the right conditions. That’s not “better, period”; rather, it is “equally authoritative and sometimes even infallible.”

It’s Lucas who is warring against straw men so far. He first presented one of Justin’s citations out of context, and now he doesn’t correctly understand his meaning and misrepresents the Catholic rule of faith. I assume in charity that he is doing so out of ignorance, not deliberate intent to be inaccurate.

4th Justin demonstrated what he said in the Scriptures.

-Texts: “He said he saw a ladder, and the Scripture declares that God was lifted up on it. But that this was not the Father, we demonstrate by the Scriptures… And that the rock symbolically proclaimed Christ, we also demonstrate by many Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.86)

“Are you familiar with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, nay, not yours, but ours. For us we believe in them, but although you read them, you do not capture the spirit that is in them” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.29)

“For Christ is King and Priest, he is God and Lord, both of angels and of men, he is captain, he is the stone, and was born a son, and for the first time he was subjected to suffering, and then he returned to heaven, and, again, coming with glory, He is announced as having the everlasting kingdom: so I taste of all the Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.34)

“Reversing the Scriptures, I must endeavor to convince you that he who is said to have appeared to Abraham and Jacob and Moses, and who is called God, is different from him who made all things numerically” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 56)

“I could have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of these three is God, and is called an Angel” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.56)

“Be assured, then, Trypho, who are established in the knowledge and faith of the Scriptures, of the counterfeits which he who is called the devil wrought among the Greeks” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.69)

“It is for this reason that I am, through fear, very sincere in my desire to converse with men according to the Scriptures, but not with those who have a love of money, or of glory, or of pleasure” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 82)

Of course he did (but not exclusively so). So do we. It’s the hallmark of my entire ministry: Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (my blog); A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (my first book). But this is neither here nor there, with regard to proving that he supposedly believed in sola Scriptura. It proves nothing whatsoever about that. What’s interesting, then, is why Lucas and so many Protestants equate citing a lot of Bible in making theological arguments with sola Scriptura. That would make me one of the biggest supporters of sola Scriptura on the planet earth, if so. But in fact, I have written three books expressly against it.

It is noteworthy that Justin always insisted that in all doctrinal terms it was necessary to prove from the Scriptures what he was saying. Note that he never adds to “search in tradition”, but only in the Scriptures (=Sola Scriptura), . . .

“Never say never”! Keep reading . . .

which have always been the pillar and foundation of our faith. If there were hidden doctrines in Holy Scripture, then Justin would not be so insistent that what he himself said must be proved by Scripture. After all, why such a need and obligation to “prove something from the Scriptures” if, as Catholics insist on saying, there are a lot of doctrines that are simply not found in the Bible? In this case, such a need to have to prove all doctrines by “many Scriptures” would be useless, for Catholics themselves do not do that!

All Lucas’ citations from Justin so far are from the Dialogue with Trypho. Of course he cites the Old Testament Scripture because Trypho was Jewish, and this is what he accepts (as Justin said, above). It’s a basic misunderstanding to act as if this use of OT Scripture proves that he believed in sola Scriptura. Why would he cite any Christian tradition to a Jewish person, who couldn’t care less about that? He has to use a source that they both revere, which is the Old Testament.

5th Justin believed that it was necessary to prove doctrines by the Scriptures.

Repeating a falsehood over and over does not make it any less false.

-Texts: “But that this was not the Father, we must prove from the Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.86)

“And that the stone symbolically proclaimed Christ, we must also prove by many Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.86)

Note the term: “we have to prove it”, which refers to a necessity. Why such a need, if Catholics are more than convinced that there is no such need, in view of the supposed “insufficiency” of the Scriptures and that many doctrines are not there? If Catholic thought is right, what is the real purpose in being absolutely necessary to prove from many Scriptures about the doctrinal subject being treated? Why didn’t Justin just do like the Catholics, saying that nothing has to be in the Bible and that there’s no such need for any specific doctrine to be in the Bible? Note that what is being discussed here is not whether or not the matter in question is in the Bible, but why it is necessary to “have to prove” by the Scriptures, if not all doctrines need to be in them. In this case, even if there was a biblical passage about it, Justin could do like the Catholics and simply say that: “And that the stone symbolically proclaimed Christ, we will show in the Scriptures, although there would be no need for this, for we also have the oral tradition…” But, on the contrary, he says that he had to prove it by many Scriptures! That is, proving a doctrine by Scripture was absolutely necessary!

Already dealt with. Lucas seems completely oblivious as to the background context of the Dialogue with Trypho. And of course he continues to caricature the Catholic rule of faith.

6th Justin believed in the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

-Texts: “Now then, make us the proof that this man whom you say was crucified and ascended into heaven is the Christ of God. For you have sufficiently proved by the Scriptures already quoted by you, that it is declared in the Scriptures that Christ should suffer and enter again into glory, and receive the everlasting kingdom of all nations, and that every kingdom be subordinate to Him: now show us that this man is he” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.39)

“But you seem to me not to have heard the Scriptures what I said I had blotted out. For such as have been cited, they are more than sufficient to prove the points in dispute, besides those that are maintained by us, and yet to be presented” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.73)

The Scriptures are more than enough to prove the points in dispute! If that’s not proof of the sufficiency of Scripture—which is a principle of Sola Scriptura—then I don’t know what is!

So do we; so this accomplishes nothing in this debate. Lucas correctly notes that [material] sufficiency is “a principle of Sola Scriptura”: but it is a principle or premise that is held in common with Catholics. So it doesn’t disprove our view to trot it out, when we already agree with that aspect. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have seen Protestant apologists foolishly repeat this basic category error, times without number. I’d be rich.

7th Justin believed in the inerrancy of Scripture.

-Text: “I am fully convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, and you should endeavor to convince those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, instead of being of the same opinion as I am” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.65)

Interestingly, I’ve seen many Catholics claiming that the Bible is not infallible or inerrant, some even say it’s not the Word of God! Justin, however, was incisive in saying that in the Bible there are no contradictions, just as evangelicals do.

There are many individuals who call themselves Catholics but who do not fully accept the Catholic Church’s teachings (theological liberals or nominal Catholics). That has no bearing on what the Church actually teaches.

8th Justin believed in the free examination of the Bible.

-Text:

“I purpose to quote to you the Scriptures, not because I am anxious to make only an artistic exposition of words, for I have no such faculty, but because I have grace from God bestowed upon me for the understanding of his Scriptures.” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.58)

Note that Justin tells Trypho that he quotes the Scriptures to him because he had the grace of God to understand the Scriptures, even though he was neither the pope nor a Roman bishop. In fact, nothing in Justin’s biography, which can be read here or here, indicates that he ever held any position of ecclesiastical leadership in the Church. He was not pope, he was not a bishop, he was not a cardinal, he was not a presbyter, he was not born in Rome. It was not part of the “Magistery” [magisterium], according to the Catholic conception. And yet he said that God had given him the grace not only to search and quote the Scriptures, but to understand them!

Catholics don’t deny this possibility at all. We simply say that many others interpret the Bible wrongly (note all the heresies in the early centuries, that Lucas is well aware of), and so an authoritative Church is necessary in order to “check” those errors. Once again, this proves nothing as to whether Justin held to the falsehood of sola Scriptura. Lucas is fighting against air, or windmills, like Don Quixote.

9th Justin believed that doctrinal security comes from attachment to the Scriptures.

-Text: “I have commented to the lord, who is very anxious to be secure in all respects once you hold fast to the Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.80)

We are not insecure if we have only Scripture to guide us, because holding on to Scripture means being secure in every way. If it is in all respects, then evidently the doctrinal aspect is not excluded from this picture. As we read Justin, we are well aware of the notion that we can be secure in all respects by holding to the Scriptures, and not just in “some” respects, as if the doctrinal aspect were left out and lacked the support of a tradition: extra-biblical oral.

Scripture is great and fantastic. That’s why the Catholic Church authoritatively pronounced its canon and preserved it through all those fifteen centuries before Protestantism existed. Next question?

10th Justin rejects human doctrines and asks to believe only if the Scriptures are frequently quoted.

-Text: “If I undertake to prove this by human doctrines or arguments, you must not agree with me, but if I frequently quote the Scriptures and ask you to understand them” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.68)

It is clear that the acceptance of the doctrine, in Justin’s view, was conditional on its substantiation in the light of Scripture, and not on any other human argument that might be offered.

Yes, because Trypho was a Jew.

In view of all this, we can only conclude that Justin believed as strongly or more strongly in Sola Scriptura as any Reformer of the 16th century.

This hasn’t been proven to the slightest degree. Not one whit of proof . . .

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

In view of all this, it is indisputable that Justin believed in Sola Scriptura in the same way that it was proposed by the Reformers and believed by the early Christians. If such statements were in the mouth of a Luther or Calvin, they would be immediately rebuked by a Roman Catholic, but as it came from a second century man, venerated by the Catholic Church itself, the conversation changes, and they try in every way to omit and distort information, resorting to personal attacks, accusations and real mental juggling to deny everything Justino said so clearly and explicitly.

We don’t have to deny anything that Lucas has presented from Justin, because we agree with all of it. All this shows is that Lucas lacks an accurate understanding of 1) precisely what sola Scriptura means, and 2) the Catholic rule of faith.

• But what about the pagan authors that Justin quoted? Does that mean he doesn’t believe in Sola Scriptura?

Of course not. In the Bible itself there are many quotes from authors outside the Bible, such as the apocrypha of Enoch which is quoted in Jude 14, the book of the Assumption of Moses which is quoted in Jude 9, the Greek comedy Thais (written by the Greek poet Meander ) which is quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:33, from the work Cretica, by Epimenides (600 B.C.), which is quoted by Paul in Acts 17:28, from the work Phenomena, written by the Greek poet Aratus (315 – 240 B.C.) , or from Cleantus (331 – 233 B.C.) in his Hymn to Zeus, which has quotations from his works mentioned by the same apostle in Acts 17:28.

Very good. It’s correctly noted that it proves nothing as to the present debate.

This obviously does not mean that Paul, Jude or the other biblical writers believed in the inspiration or doctrinal source of such writings, it just means that the specific quote from which it was taken constitutes truth. I myself, who believe in Sola Scriptura, often cite other authors outside the Bible in support of a particular point of view or interpretation of a biblical text, and this in no way means that I stopped believing in Sola Scriptura because of this. The Reformers themselves, such as Luther and Calvin, quoted other authors, and that did not stop them from believing in Sola Scriptura. Why only with Justin would it have to be different?

It proves nothing: just as Lucas’ entire presentation above proves nothing (except that Justin loved the Bible; so do I and so does the Catholic Church) and is one massive non sequitur. Now I’ll give my complete argument, which is completely relevant to the topic:

The algebraic “x” factor here is how Justin Martyr views Church and Tradition in relationship to Holy Scripture. It doesn’t logically follow that he has no opinion on those things. We can’t know one way or the other what Justin believes about the rule of faith, based on only the above information. If it could be shown that he did not grant the Church and Tradition binding authority, and didn’t include them in the rule of faith, the anti-Catholics might have a valid point.

The data in this instance is fairly scarce, since Justin’s three surviving works are primarily philosophical and apologetic in nature, rather than theological, and the theology that Justin does discuss is only rarely related to ecclesiology or the rule of faith as here discussed. It’s highly unlikely, prima facie, that Justin would differ radically from the other pre-Nicene Church fathers. Justin was a major source for Irenaeus, who speaks of apostolic succession and tradition and Church authority all over the place. Yet despite these difficulties, I believe there is enough information to be had, to reject a sola Scriptura interpretation.

Justin doesn’t always mention only Scripture (as if he thinks it is the only source for truth):

. . . the Scriptures and the facts themselves . . . (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 23)

I bring from the Scriptures and the facts themselves both the proofs and the inculcation of them, . . . But you hesitate to confess that He is Christ, as the Scriptures and the events witnessed and done in His name prove, . . . (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 39)

In Chapter 76 of the Dialogue with Trypho, entitled “From Other Passages the Same Majesty and Government of Christ are Proved,” Justin referred to “an obscure prediction,” and of prophecies “proclaimed in mystery” and “declared obscurely,” and which “could not be understood by any man” until Jesus Himself expounded upon them. So much for “perspicuity” and the entirely self-interpreting nature of Scripture in the main. Catholics readily agree that Scripture often interprets itself. We simply deny that it always does, or that there is no need for authoritative interpretation from outside itself. Here is the above chapter in its entirety:

“For when Daniel speaks of ‘one like unto the Son of man’ who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying ‘like unto the Son of man,’ He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut out without hands. For the expression ‘it was cut out without hands’ signified that it is not a work of man, but [a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth. And when Isaiah says, ‘Who shall declare His generation?’ he meant that His descent could not be declared. Now no one who is a man of men has a descent that cannot be declared. And when Moses says that He will wash His garments in the blood of the grape, does not this signify what I have now often told you is an obscure prediction, namely, that He had blood, but not from men; just as not man, but God, has begotten the blood of the vine? And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty l counsel, did he not foretell Him to be the Teacher of those truths which He did teach when He came [to earth]? For He alone taught openly those mighty counsels which the Father designed both for all those who have been and shall be well-pleasing to Him, and also for those who have rebelled against His will, whether men or angels, when He said: ‘They shall come from the east [and from the west], and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness.’ And, ‘ Many shall say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten, and drunk, and prophesied, and cast out demons in Thy name? And I will say to them, Depart from Me.’ Again, in other words, by which He shall condemn those who are unworthy of salvation, He said, Depart into outer darkness, which the Father has prepared for Satan and his, angels.’ And again, in other words, He said, ‘I give unto you power to tread on serpents, and on scorpions, and on scolopendras, and on all the might of the enemy.’ And now we, who believe on our Lord Jesus, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, when we exorcise all demons and evil spirits, have them subjected to us. For if the prophets declared obscurely that Christ would suffer, and thereafter be Lord of all, yet that [declaration] could not be understood by any man until He Himself persuaded the apostles that such statements were expressly related in the Scriptures. For He exclaimed before His crucifixion: ‘The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.’ And David predicted that He would be born from the womb before sun and moon, according to the Father’s will, and made Him known, being Christ, as God strong and to be worshipped.”

If no one could have understood these prophecies until Jesus fulfilled and explained them, of what use is Scripture Alone in that case? It would be of no use whatever, without the Teacher to give the proper sense of the prophecies. Compare Justin’s similar statements:

Up to the time of Jesus Christ, who taught us, and interpreted the prophecies which were not yet understood, . . . (First Apology, Chapter XXXII)

But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. (First Apology, Chapter LV)

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

Luke 24:27 (RSV) And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

The two disciples later marveled at how Jesus “opened to us the Scriptures” (Lk 24:32). In other words, those prophecies were not understood until Jesus explained them, and in fact, most of the Jews did not see that they were fulfilled. Thus, Old Testament Scripture was insufficient for these messianic truths to be grasped simply by reading them. One could retort that the Jews were hard-hearted and thus could not understand since they had not the Holy Spirit and God’s grace to illumine their understanding.

But that proves too much because it would also have to apply to these two disciples, and indeed all of the disciples, who did not understand what was happening, even after Jesus repeatedly told them that He was to suffer and to die, and that this was all foretold. They didn’t “get it” till after He was crucified. Justin Martyr noted himself that the disciples had not understood the very Psalms he was expounding:

The rest of the Psalm shows that He knew that His Father would grant all His requests, and would raise Him from the dead. It also shows that He encouraged all who fear God to praise Him, because through the mystery of the Crucified One He had mercy on the faithful of every race; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren, the Apostles (who, after He arose from the dead and convinced them that He had warned them before the Passion that He had to suffer, and that this was foretold by the Prophets, were most sorry that they had abandoned Him at the crucifixion). (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 106)

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

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

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

Acts 8:28, 30-31 . . . he was reading the prophet Isaiah . . . So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”

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

One might also note that Justin Martyr’s routine casual assumption that his own interpretations of a host of biblical passages are self-evident, clear, etc., is itself highly questionable. Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce commented upon this, in his analysis of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho:

Both appeal to the Old Testament, but they cannot agree on its meaning, because they argue from incompatible principles of interpretation. Quite often, indeed, the modern Christian reader is bound to agree with Trypho’s interpretation against Justin’s. For example, they discuss the incident of the burning bush . . . Trypho says, ‘This is not what we understand from the words quoted: we understand that, while it was an angel that appeared in a flame of fire, it was God who spoke to Moses.’ [Dialogue, 60.1] Here Trypho’s understanding is sounder than Justin’s.

. . . Justin’s Greek text of Psalm 96:10) (LXX 95:10) read ‘the Lord reigned from the tree‘ – to him a clear prediction of the crucifixion. Trypho’s Bible did not contain these additional words (and neither does ours). ‘Whether the rulers of our people’, said Trypho, ‘have erased any portion of the scriptures, as you allege, God knows; but it seems incredible.’ [Dialogue, 73] Again, Trypho was right.

. . . Justin Martyr . . . evidently regards the Septuagint version as the only reliable text of the Old Testament. Where it differs from the Hebrew text, as read and interpreted by the Jews, the Jews (he says) have corrupted the text so as to obscure the scriptures’ plain prophetic testimony to Jesus as the Christ. (The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 65-66)

As we would expect at that early stage in the development of the canon of Scripture, Justin Martyr did not have a clear understanding of which books belong in the New Testament. F. F. Bruce contends that he “appears to quote” the Gospel of Peter. He elaborates, in a footnote:

In First Apology 36.6, speaking of the passion of Christ, Justin says, ‘And indeed, as the prophet had said, they dragged him and made him sit on the judgment-seat, saying “Judge us”.’ Compare Gospel of Peter 3:6 f. where Jesus enemies ‘made him sit on a judgment-seat, saying “Judge righteously, O king of Israel!”‘ The prophet referred to by Justin is Isaiah (cf Is. 58:2). The idea that Jesus was made to sit on the judgment-seat could have arisen from a mistranslation of John 19:13 (as though it meant not ‘Pilate sat’ but ‘Pilate made him sit’). (Ibid., 200-201)

Here is the passage from Justin:

And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, “They pierced my hands and my feet,” was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. (First Apology, 35 – Bruce appears to have mistakenly cited chapter 36)

Finally, according to the eminent 19th-century Protestant patristics scholar Brooke Foss Westcott, there is some indication in Justin of acceptance of an apostolic Tradition, including an oral component. After an exhaustive, remarkable 75-page exposition of Justin’s understanding of the canon of the New Testament. Westcott concludes:

There are indeed traces of the recognition of an authoritative Apostolic doctrine in Justin, but it cannot be affirmed from the form of his language that he looked upon this as contained in a written New Testament. ‘We have been commanded,’ he says, ‘by Christ Himself to obey not the teaching of men but those precepts which were proclaimed by the blessed Prophets and taught by Himself.’ [Dialogue 48] But this teaching of Christ was not strictly limited to His own words, as Justin explains in another passage:

As [Abraham] believed on the voice of God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, in the same way we also when we believed the voice of God which was spoken again by the Apostles of Christ, and the voice which was proclaimed to us by the Prophets, even to dying [for our belief], renounced all that is in the world. [Dialogue, 119]

Thus the words of the Apostles were in his view in some sense the words of Christ, and we are therefore justified in interpreting his language generally, so as to accord with the certain judgment of his immediate successors. His writings mark the era of transition from the oral to the written Rule. His recognition of a New Testament was practical and not formal. As yet the circumstances of the Christian Church had not led to the final separation of the Canonical writings of the Apostles from others which claimed more or less directly to be stamped with their authority. (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980, from the 1889 sixth edition, 172-173)

Following are the two passages cited by Westcott, along with similar thoughts in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho:

For we have been told by Christ Himself not to follow the teachings of men, but only those which have been announced by the holy Prophets and taught by Himself. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 48)

What greater favor, then, did Christ bestow on Abraham? This: that He likewise called with His voice, and commanded him to leave the land wherein he dwelt. And with that same voice He has also called of us, and we have abandoned our former way of life in which we used to practice evils common to the rest of the world. And we will inherit the Holy Land together with Abraham, receiving our inheritance for all eternity, because by our similar faith we have become children of Abraham. For, just as he believed the voice of God, and was justified thereby, so have we believed the voice of God (which was spoken again to us by the Prophets and the Apostles of Christ), and have renounced even to death all worldly things. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 119)

“The twelve bells which had to be attached to the long robe of the high priest, were representative of the twelve Apostles, who relied upon the power of Christ, the Eternal Priest. Through their voices the whole world is filled with the glory and grace of God and His Christ. David testified to this truth when he said: ‘Their sound has gone forth into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world‘ [Ps 18.5]. [2] And Isaiah speaks as though in the person of the Apostles (when they relate to Christ that the people were convinced, not by their words, but by the power of Him who sent them), and says: ‘Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have preached before Him as a little child, as if a root in a thirsty ground‘ [Isa 53.1-2]. (And the rest of the prophecy as quoted above.) [3] When the passage, spoken in the name of many, states: ‘We have preached before Him,’ and adds, ‘as a little child,’ it proves that sinners will obey Him as servants, and will all become as one child in His sight. An example of this is had in a human body: although it is made up of many members, it is called, and is, one body. So also in the case of the people and the Church: although they are many individuals, they form one body and are called by one common name. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 42)

From Isaiah we know that the Prophets who were sent to carry His messages to man are called angels and apostles of God, for Isaiah uses the expression, ‘Send me’ [Isa 6.8]. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 75)

. . . we Christians, who have gained a knowledge of the true worship of God from the Law and from the word which went forth from Jerusalem by way of the Apostles of Jesus, . . . (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 110)

All of this shows the likelihood that Justin Martyr did not hold to sola Scriptura. Nothing seen in Justin is inconsistent with the perennial Catholic understanding of authority. His thought is simply at an early stage of Christian development, as we would fully expect in the 2nd century. Loving Scripture and believing it is materially sufficient is not enough to establish that one believes in sola Scriptura, or else I myself would be an enthusiastic proponent of it, whereas in fact I think it is a dangerous falsehood not found in the New Testament and viciously self-defeating. What Lucas has produced as “proof” in no way, shape, or form, proves what he erroneously thinks it proves.

***

Photo credit: Lucas Banzoli, Facebook photo as of 5-3-22, dated 15 January 2018.

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli attempts to show that Justin Martyr held to sola Scriptura, but only proves his belief in the truth of material sufficiency.

Material Sufficiency of Scripture & Anti-Catholic Sophistry

Last updated on: May 23, 2022 at 3:52 pm By Dave Armstrong

[book and purchase information]

Pedro França Gaião is, from what I can make out, a former Catholic, and now a Protestant. He is from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and currently lives in Sioux City, Iowa. I was drawn into a lively discussion about sacred tradition and the old debate about one or two sources. This occurred in a lengthy thread on the Facebook page of my Brazilian Catholic friend, Leandro Cerqueira. Pedro is one of those delightful anti-Catholic polemicists who condescendingly assumes that he understands Catholic doctrine better than (educated) Catholics do themselves.

He had been writing on this topic of Bible and tradition and material sufficiency of Scripture on his (public) Facebook page prior to the free-for-all discussion that I eventually entered into. I will make preliminary observations, post the Facebook discussion and debate that occurred (including many additional present replies, in brackets).

Pedro’s words will be in blue. He is, of course, most welcome — along with anyone else who is civil and not a troll — to offer further replies in the combox underneath this blog post.

*****

Pedro made the following absurd comment on his own Facebook page:

The rise of the defense of Material Sufficiency by the enemies of Sola Scriptura is oddly a victory for Sola Scriptura and a general failure for the religions that opposed it. (5-19-22)

That will be mercilessly disposed of below. He took a potshot at me, personally, regarding my views on material sufficiency and also on Augustine’s views of images:

There is also the possibility that he is dishonest or really stupid. In one of his texts he defends that Augustine was an iconodula [one who accepts religious images] and in the other he says that he was an aniconist [iconoclast, or opposer of images as idolatrous] but that the doctrine had developed. Logic, there is no such thing. (5-19-22)

I have no idea where he is getting this from. He provides no link or even name of a writing where I supposedly stated such a ridiculous thing. St. Augustine does, however, change his mind at times, so there is some possibility that he did as regards images. But I could never say something as stupid and clueless as “the doctrine of images developed from it being idolatry to it’s being okay.” That completely perverts Newmanian development (the very thing that made me a Catholic), and so it’s utterly impossible that I ever argued in such a fashion since my conversion in 1990. Therefore, Pedro is distorting my words. In charity, I will assume it’s because he is incompetent in his research (at least where I am concerned) or ignorant, rather than deliberately lying.

I think I may have found the passage in my writing that Pedro is talking about. The following is from my article, “Veneration of Images, Iconoclasm, & Idolatry (An Exposition)” [11-15-02]. The words in brown are from Anglican Nonjuror Bishops in 1722:

To this we may add, that the Council of Constantinople held under Constantine Copronymus, against images, asserts that there was no prayer in the church service for consecrating images, a suggestion which the 2nd Council of Nicaea (i.e., the Seventh Ecumenical Council) does not deny. And St. Augustine, mentioning some superstitious Christians (for so he calls them), says he knew a great many who venerated images (August. De Moribus Eccl. Cath. cap. 34).

[Protestant patristics scholar Phillip] Schaff elaborates:

Even Augustine laments that among the rude Christian masses there are many image-worshippers, but counts such in the great number of those nominal Christians, to whom the essence of the Gospel is unknown. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, New York: Scribner’s, 5th edition, 1910, reprinted by Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974, 573)

This hardly proves that the practice [of veneration of images] was not widespread; only that among the ignorant abuses of it occurred, which is no news, but a self-evident truth which holds in all times and places. Elsewhere St. Augustine writes:

A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers. But it is done in such a way that our altars are not set up to any one of the martyrs, – although in their memory, – but to God Himself, the God of those martyrs. (Against Faustus the Manichaean, c. 400, 20-21, from William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1979, vol. 3, 59] )

I looked up the section brought up above, from On the Morals of the Catholic Church (chapter 34). Here is what St. Augustine wrote:

75. Do not summon against me professors of the Christian name, who neither know nor give evidence of the power of their profession. Do not hunt up the numbers of ignorant people, who even in the true religion are superstitious, or are so given up to evil passions as to forget what they have promised to God. I know that there are many worshippers of tombs and pictures. I know that there are many who drink to great excess over the dead, and who, in the feasts which they make for corpses, bury themselves over the buried, and give to their gluttony and drunkenness the name of religion. . . .

76. My advice to you now is this: that you should at least desist from slandering the Catholic Church, by declaiming against the conduct of men whom the Church herself condemns, seeking daily to correct them as wicked children.

St. Augustine is condemning, of course, those “ignorant” professed Christians who adore or worship images (and tombs!) with an idolatrous devotion that belongs to God alone: which the Church condemns. He is not against the proper veneration of images, as the citation from Against Faustus shows. Augustine also wrote elsewhere:

But in regard to pictures and statues, and other works of this kind, which are intended as representations of things, nobody makes a mistake, especially if they are executed by skilled artists, but every one, as soon as he sees the likenesses, recognizes the things they are likenesses of. (On Christian Doctrine, Book II, ch. 25, sec. 39)

Typically of anti-Catholics, Pedro seems to be suffering from the self-delusion that material sufficiency of Scripture is somehow logically reduced to an adherence to sola Scriptura. It’s not at all. I had written just two articles on the topic (i.e., with “material sufficiency” in the title), but often mention material sufficiency in passing because of this canard from the anti-Catholics that it represents Catholics caving into a sola Scriptura mentality and departing from historic Catholicism. This is sheer nonsense. Here are those two efforts:

Mary’s Assumption vs. Material Sufficiency of Scripture? [4-22-07]

Material Sufficiency of Scripture is NOT Sola Scriptura [2009]

I made fun of this anti-Catholic foolishness of pretending that any Catholic who heavily cites the Bible must be a secret, subversive believer in sola Scriptura, in my partly tongue-in-cheek paper: Sola Scriptura: Church Fathers (?), & Myself (?), by Analogy [2-7-07]. See also the related: Biblical Argumentation: Same as Sola Scriptura? [10-7-03].

I do have, however, a section entitled, “Material and Formal Sufficiency of Scripture / Rule of Faith” on my Bible and Tradition web page. It lists 31 of my articles. Here are a few key portions of my 2009 paper above (itself largely drawn from books written in 2002 and 2003):

305. All who accept sola Scriptura believe in material sufficiency, but not vice versa. That’s the fallacy often present in these sorts of discussions.

307. Biblical statements about material sufficiency and inspiration of Scripture don’t prove either sola Scriptura or the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

308. If Catholics affirm the material sufficiency of Scripture, then it cannot be the case that “material sufficiency” is essentially a synonym for sola Scriptura.

311. All true Christian doctrines are either explicitly stated in the Bible, or able to be deduced from solid biblical evidences (i.e., I accept the material sufficiency of Scripture). In my opinion, sola Scriptura falls under neither category.

318. Materially sufficiency is the belief that all Christian doctrines can be found in Holy Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, or deducible from the explicit testimony of Holy Scripture (Catholics fully agree with that). It does not mean that Scripture is the “only” source of doctrine (in a sense which excludes tradition and the Church). That is what formal sufficiency means.

319. I believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture myself, and this is an acceptable Catholic position. I deny that Scripture is formally sufficient as an authority over against apostolic succession, biblically consistent and biblically based Tradition, and the Church (however the latter is defined). I deny that Scripture itself teaches either formal sufficiency or sola Scriptura.

320. Material sufficiency of Scripture is the view that all Christian doctrines can be found in Scripture, explicitly or implicitly; fully developed or in kernel form. Catholics hold to this. Formal sufficiency of Scripture is the adoption of the principle of sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith. Catholics deny that, and I say that the Fathers (being Catholics from an earlier, less theologically and ecclesiologically developed period) do as well.

321. Binding Church authority is a practical necessity, given the propensity of men to pervert the true apostolic Tradition as taught in Scripture, whether it is perspicuous or not. The fact remains that diverse interpretations arise, and a final authority outside of Scripture itself is needed in order to resolve those controversies. This does not imply in the least that Scripture itself (rightly understood) is not sufficient to overcome the errors. It is only formally insufficient by itself.

322. It is no novel thing for a Catholic (or someone who has a view similar to Catholics regarding the Rule of Faith) to compare Scripture with Scripture. I write entire books and dozens of papers where I consult Scripture Alone to make my arguments (precisely because I am arguing with Protestants and they don’t care what Catholic authorities state on a subject). It doesn’t follow that I have therefore adopted the Protestant Rule of Faith. This is extraordinarily weak argumentation (insofar as it can be called that at all).

323. I write entire books and huge papers citing nothing but Scripture. It doesn’t mean for a second that I don’t respect the binding authority of the Catholic Church or espouse sola Scriptura. St. Athanasius made some extensive biblical arguments. Great. Making such arguments, doing exegesis, extolling the Bible, reading the Bible, discussing it, praising it, etc., etc., etc., are all well and good (and Catholics agree wholeheartedly); none of these things, however, reduce to or logically necessitate adoption of sola Scriptura as a formal principle, hard as that is for some people to grasp.

325. Being “scriptural” and being in accordance with sola Scriptura are not one and the same. This is a clever sleight of hand often employed by Protestant apologists (akin to the fish not knowing that it is in water: to the Protestant, sola Scriptura is the water he lives in or the air he breathes; thus taken absolutely for granted), but it is a basic fallacy, according to Protestants’ own given definition of sola Scriptura, which is, broadly speaking, as follows:

Sola Scriptura: the belief that Scripture is the only final, infallible authority in matters of Christian doctrine.

*

For something to be “scriptural” or “biblical” on the other hand, is to be in accord with the following qualifications:

“Biblical” / “scriptural”: supported by Scripture directly or implicitly or by deduction from explicit or implicit biblical teaching; secondarily: not contradicting biblical teaching.

*

As we can see, the two things are quite different. This is how and why a Catholic can be entirely committed to explaining and defending Catholic doctrine from Holy Scripture (indeed, it is my apologetic specialty and the focus of most of my published books), while not adhering to sola Scriptura in the slightest. Protestants don’t have a monopoly on Scripture; nor is sola Scriptura necessary to thoroughly ground doctrines in Scripture. The Protestant merely assumes this (usually without argument) and goes on his merry way.

Pedro came onto my Facebook page, asking: “could you answer me a question on how Catholic Church view the issue of Material Sufficiency?” (5-21-22) I provided him with a link to my 2009 article (cited at length above) and also, Jimmy Akin’s excellent 2005 article, “The Complex Relationship between Scripture and Tradition.” I now cite highlights from the latter:

The relationship between Scripture and Tradition comes up regularly in contemporary Catholic apologetics. According to one Catholic view, Scripture and Tradition are two sources of revelation. Some divine truths are found in the Bible, while others are found in Tradition. This “two source” model has a long history, but it also has some difficulties. One is that there is considerable overlap between the two sources. . . .

Speaking of Scripture and Tradition as two sources could lead one to overlook this overlap, which is so considerable that some Catholics have pondered how much of the Protestant idea of sola scriptura a Catholic can agree with. Sola scriptura is understood in different ways among Protestants, but it is commonly taken to mean that the Bible contains all of the material needed to do theology. According to this theory, a theologian does not need to look to Tradition — or at least does not need to give Tradition an authoritative role.

This view is not acceptable to Catholics. As the Second Vatican Council stressed in its constitution Dei Verbum, “It is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws its certainty about everything that has been revealed. Therefore both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence” (DV 9).

One of the principal architects of Dei Verbum was the French theologian Yves Congar, who thought Catholics could acknowledge a substantial element of truth in sola scriptura.

He wrote that “we can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation” (Tradition and Traditions, 410).

He encapsulated this idea with the slogan Totum in scriptura, totum in traditione (“All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition”), which he attributes to Cardinal Newman. According to this theory, Scripture and Tradition would not be two sources containing different material but two modes of transmitting the same deposit of faith. We might call it the “two modes” view as opposed to the “two source” view.

The decrees of Trent and Vatican II allow Catholics to hold the two-mode idea, but they do not require it. A Catholic is still free to hold the two-source view. . . .

One of the most accurate descriptions of the Catholic rule of faith and the view of the early Church that I’ve seen comes from Protestant historian Heiko Oberman:

As regards the pre-Augustinian Church, there is in our time a striking convergence of scholarly opinion that Scripture and Tradition are for the early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma, Scripture and Tradition coincide entirely. The Church preaches the kerygma which is to be found in toto in written form in the canonical books.

The Tradition is not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as the handing down of that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything is to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything is in the living Tradition.

It is in the living, visible Body of Christ, inspired and vivified by the operation of the Holy Spirit, that Scripture and Tradition coinhere . . . Both Scripture and Tradition issue from the same source: the Word of God, Revelation . . . Only within the Church can this kerygma be handed down undefiled . . . (The Harvest of Medieval Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, revised edition, 1967, 366-367)

Now — having done the preliminary work — onto the exchange with Pedro. I will offer some additional thoughts afterwards:

[A passage from my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura was cited in Portugese in a screenshot (so I couldn’t translate it)]

I know what Armstrong is doing here, you probably don’t.

Who cited me and what was the claim made about my position? What do you mean by “I know what Armstrong is doing here”? (“Eu sei oq o Armstrong está fazendo aqui, você provavelmente não”).

[he never answered]

You’re gonna force me to go talk to him [i.e., myself], and he probably won’t text me back. . . . I don’t think he will answer.

I answered him within three hours on my Facebook page (I had been watching TV the previous few hours), and came into the big Facebook discussion where I engaged him, after being tagged and notified by PM.

The article by Akin explains [this overall issue] fully and my article has further thoughts. But the quick answer is no: Scripture and tradition were both part of the apostolic deposit, but this is not opposed at all to material sufficiency of Scripture; only formal sufficiency (sola Scriptura). Vatican II also referred to Bible and Tradition as the “twin fonts of the same divine wellspring.” A perfect description . . .

In fact that’s not what I was arguing about. My point is that Material Sufficiency is not a Catholic Dogma, an official position or the only position regarding Scripture and Tradition.

[correct; as Jimmy Akin noted]

I was arguing that material sufficiency, or One Source Theory or Totum-totum is a position formulated by Geiselman in the 50’s as an opposition to the Two Sources Theory. Leandro is denying Geiselman’s point that Bellarmine, Eck and other Catholic apologists were opposed to material sufficiency (he says all Catholics believe in both of them) and that Catholics believe generally in a definition of Two Source Theory and material sufficiency that work together instead of opposing views like Thomism and Molinism. I noticed you support material sufficiency in your book, but Leandro is arguing you supported the Two Source Theory together with material sufficiency. I was arguing you simply defended a single theory and not both of them, as you didn’t mention both.

Trent Horn in his book says those two theories are different, but many people in Brazil ignore that, since few people in Catholicism actually distinguish them, so they must either be complementary or [else] it’s generally [seen that] they were compatible.

[replying to others, referencing me] He didn’t solve anything. They didn’t ask him what was discussed.

[Pedro came to my Facebook page, specifically asking me about material sufficiency, not all this other business about one or two sources of tradition, etc. I responded in kind, there and in this group discussion]

Catholics are free to believe either. You are correct about that. In fact, almost all Catholics today believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture. The partim-partim polemic is largely an irrelevancy from the 16th century. It’s not either/or. Tradition is included in the deposit. But only Scripture is inspired, of course.

But both the Two Source Theory and the One Source Theory (Material Sufficiency) are different Views on Tradition and Scripture, Right? My point here, the main one at least, is that they are different and not “one and the same” or “they can be believed at the same time”.

[I didn’t directly answer because I felt that the linked Jimmy Akin article answered the question, but I do answer directly now: Yes. That said, I still think Pedro is confused about the relation of all these factors in the Catholic system, concerning Bible and tradition. I know that for sure because he made the erroneous statement on his own page: “The rise of the defense of Material Sufficiency by the enemies of Sola Scriptura is oddly a victory for Sola Scriptura“. This alone proves that he is way over his head in discussing this issue]

Your task is to get beyond all these side-trails and defend sola Scriptura from Holy Scripture. No Protestant has ever done it. I’ve written 3 1/2 books on the topic [one / two / three / four] and recently challenged five prominent Protestants on YouTube [one / two / three / four / five]. None were willing to even grapple with my arguments. But hey, maybe you’ll be the first, huh? The pioneer!

That’s another subject, [and] we could debate about it, of course. But the current issue is: Two Source Theory is a position, and Material Sufficiency is another position, an opposite position. Do you agree with that?

[present more direct answer: I agree that one- and two-source theories are competing theories (both allowed in Catholicism, with the former now the majority position), but I don’t think material sufficiency is somehow inexorably opposed to the necessary role of sacred tradition. It’s not at all]

I gave my main reply in the form of two articles: mine and Jimmy Akin’s. In a constructive discussion, you actually deal with the other guy’s answer; you don’t keep asking the same question. But in the end it’s a non-issue. The Catholic rule of faith is Bible-Tradition-Church. It’s a fully biblical position, whereas sola Scriptura is extra-biblical and unbiblical. It’s a tradition of men.

The real issue to discuss is whether tradition and Church can be infallible under certain conditions, or if only the Bible can ever be that. Catholics and Orthodox hold to the former; Protestants to the latter. But we can defend our view from Scripture and history; they cannot.

I think Pedro knows this, which would explain why he refuses to defend what he must: only Scripture is the infallible authority for Christian doctrine. I don’t blame him. I sure wouldn’t want to defend a position that has nothing at all going for it in the Bible (or Church history). It’s an impossible task.

When you can’t defend what you necessarily must for your system to exist in the first place, then you obfuscate and engage in obscurantism, to make an illusory appearance of strength where there is none. Every unscrupulous lawyer who has no case to make (no facts or evidence on his side) does this.

Nothing personal; it’s just the self-defeating nature of Protestantism. Pedro might be the smartest man in the world, but as the old saying goes, “you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s [pig’s] ear.”

The answer I expected is: Material Sufficiency is a position formulated to oppose the Two Source Theory and that both have different and opposite views on How Tradition and Scripture Works.

[present answer. Yes, they are two different views on a very complex, multi-faceted, and nuanced matter. Because it’s so complicated, both are allowed by the Church, just as Thomist and Molinist interpretations of predestination are both allowed, since predestination is one of the most difficult topics in theology and philosophy. My point, that I kept making in the exchange, was that anti-Catholic apologists use this non-issue as a ploy or cynical “gotcha!” tactic to avoid talking about the real bottom-line issue between Catholics and Protestants: sola Scriptura vs. a “three-legged stool” rule of faith. ]

I’m saying that because normal Catholics who read your book think you’re defending the Two Source Theory, while I noticed in that book you simply downplayed it while arguing for Material Sufficiency. Catholics in Brazil don’t care to teach those things because they “make weak faithful weaker”. I was inside this system. I know how it works. It’s a shame that you [wrote] all of this but couldn’t give direct answers that wouldn’t even be controversial to you as an apologist. It’s simply no monkey business, just helping Catholics to understand their doctrines correctly.

[present answer: What would we do without your kind, benevolent, wise assistance, Pedro? How would we ever come to understand our own doctrine without a former Catholic Protestant — who detests it — helpfully explaining it to us? (note: heavy sarcasm) ]

Once again: it’s a non-issue in the larger scheme of things. This is just a game that Protestant polemicists play, in order to avoid what they must do: defend sola Scriptura from Scripture. I’ve dealt with this for 27 years, starting with Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White: probably the leading Protestant debater of Catholics. You won’t come up with anything he hasn’t already dished out from the latrine, believe me. My answers are in the two articles I posted.

I wasn’t engaged in a three-day discussion on sola Scriptura, but on the poor [job] of Catholic apologists to actually teach their concepts.. . . I’m not saying sola Scriptura shouldn’t be discussed at all, but that this three-day discussion must be [re]solved, and [that] many Catholics have a hard time admitting they are wrong on their own views of their own religion.

[present answer: there is no “right or wrong” in the sense of what the Church requires concerning this matter, because both views are allowed. This is why it is an irrelevant issue (at least on the lay, popular level), and “beating a dead horse.” I simply noted that the majority view of both allowable positions is currently material sufficiency of Scripture and the one-source theory. I don’t think that came from the 1950s, as Pedro absurdly does. It’s in the Church fathers, arguably in Scripture itself, and was most notably refined and explained by St. John Henry Cardinal Newman in the 19th century]

I’m not running away from anything. Leandro Cerqueira was a mediator in my debate on sola Scriptura against a Catholic [who did] poorly. And yes, if you are so demanding [regarding] that, I could do the same with you on the YouTube. I challenged Scott Hahn before; it’s no big deal really. But I have to settle some things . . . before eventually discussing our differences.

[present answer. I do written debates — because I think they have far more substance and seriousness — , and am not on YouTube, as is fairly well-known, though lately I’ve been offering critiques of YouTube videos from Protestants. I’ve done more than 1000 debates of some sort over 25 years online, with almost every imaginable opposing position against Catholicism or Christianity in general. Nor have I been on many radio broadcasts or podcasts, though I have been interviewed on radio about 25 times since 1997. I’m not demanding anything. I simply said that your task is to prove sola Scriptura from the Bible. In my 31 years as a Catholic apologist, I’ve never seen any Protestant do this. I would be absolutely delighted to see you try to do that. And I guarantee that I will be able to refute whatever you come up with. That’s how supremely confident I am on that issue. I’ve written more about it than any other topic.]

I defend the “three-legged stool” rule of faith: Bible-Tradition-Church. This sufficiency stuff is just a side-trail to avoid defending sola Scriptura, which is why I have only two articles about it posted on my blog, out of more than 4,000 articles. You have one ultimate burden [as to Bible-Tradition issues] and one alone: defend sola Scriptura from Scripture. People ought to ignore you if you can’t do that and refuse to go on these wild goose chases with you. It simply strengthens your self-delusion if we do that.

In any of those articles do you say both theories are opposite and different? That’s the issue here.

[I haven’t written much at all about the one- or two-sources of tradition debate, for the very reasons I give here, so maybe not. But I have clarified in this present paper with additional answers that yes, they are two competing theories.]

“Material sufficiency” of Scripture is such a non-entity in the daily life of a Catholic, that the term never appears in the Catechism, which is our sure norm of faith. You can try to look it up in the Portugese version. It’s certainly not there in English: at least not those words.

I’m aware it doesn’t, such as [it doesn’t address] many other things. But if you are saying Catholicism has a position on what Tradition is, or the available positions, those should be made clear by anyone trying to attack Sola Scriptura. Most don’t already know sola Scriptura. If they don’t know what they are arguing, the debate level gets poor on the account of the Catholics.

[our view on tradition is made clear in Dei Verbum from the Vatican II documents, and in the Catechism. If someone wants abundant popular-level apologetics treatments, they can consult my three books or very extensive collection of articles on my Bible and Tradition web page. The debate over that is utterly irrelevant when it comes to the issue of sola Scriptura. Both views of the source[s] of tradition in Catholicism hold to an infallible tradition and Church under certain conditions. Sola Scriptura denies that. That is the relevant, live debate: not this side-trail.]

I agree that most Catholics and Protestants don’t understand the proper definition of sola Scriptura.

It’s not much of use if a Catholic reads your book and doesn’t fully understand what you are arguing.

[I’m known for being very clear in my explanations to the common man.]

As I said, discussion is not on sola Scriptura here; we were trying to end a misconception and that’s the sole reason we agreed to show to Catholics what an apologist will say to them regarding both positions (or more than the two). No need to bait me into asola Scriptura argument, especially because the Brazilians are not going to pick up a fight against me again.

[Challenging someone to exhibit the courage of their convictions is not“baiting.” It’s the thinking process for those who want to properly think through issues and examine both sides of debated matters, as opposed to being isolated in bubbles and echo chambers. I have no idea what is in the minds and hearts of Brazilian Catholics that you know. I suspect that you are exaggerating their fear of your intellectual prowess. But I am not the least bit scared of you: especially if we debate sola Scriptura. I have no idea who you are. But you seem to be a rather vocal and overconfident “big shot” among Brazilian Protestants (now living in good ol’ Protestant-dominated America).

I’m here waiting to see if you are willing to do that debate, and few things would give me more pleasure (since Protestants are so ultra-reluctant to take up this challenge). I’ve debated many people (many times) far more knowledgeable and experienced than you think you are. But if we do this, you’ll have to try to demonstrate the actual nature and definition of sola Scriptura from Scripture alone. You won’t be allowed to go down rabbit trials and obfuscate and desperately try to change the subject. No one ever gets away with playing those games with me]

I don’t know what the people here think in all particulars. It didn’t translate very well into English. I may [very well] disagree with some who believe I sided with them, in some specifics. I was asked to give my opinion as a professional apologist and I did. Jimmy Akin is one of the best Catholic apologists today. If you don’t accept his word for what our Church teaches, you won’t accept any Catholic’s, and will keep pretending that you know our doctrine better than we do ourselves. This is standard anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist method. It doesn’t fly.

I mentioned “material sufficiency” exactly once in my book (I did a search last night). If I recall correctly, it wasn’t even one of the 100 arguments. But I may have forgotten. But I do mention it in several of my articles, such as where I prove that Church Father X did not believe in sola Scriptura. Here is a search result for “material sufficiency” in my writings. There are quite a few mentions, but I think most are just passing references.

I read them in English. The problem is that I can actually understand what you were intending to say: you promoted Material Sufficiency and ignored Two Source Theory. But a common Catholic, who often have a bad basis on their own theology, will try to find the Second Theory in your book because they aren’t aware they are opposite. I mean, people here doesn’t even realized that when you dismissed the Two Source Theory as an outdated 16th century thing (Cathen would disagree badly), it’s because you don’t support Two Source Theory. That’s the point: have a clear position on the theories as opposed theories. If you don’t answer that, they will keep thinking they aren’t.

The issue is that many people are thinking that you supported Two Source Theory while saying you support one source Theory. And without a clear admission on the contrary they will keep thinking you do that.

[Once again, they oppose each other. DUH! And once again, it’s a rabbit trail and side issue, that anti-Catholics cynically utilize in order to avoid what the bottom-line issues are. The most fully developed Catholic views regarding tradition and revelation are found in Vatican II and popes after that, not in Trent.]

How long do you think asola Scriptura discussion with Armstrong takes? 5 minutes?

[Yeah, it would take that long if you got honest with yourself and admitted that the false tradition is never taught in Holy Scripture anywhere. Then you could concede and return to the Catholic faith. But if you want to pretend that it does appear in Scripture it could go on for a very long time, because I won’t run (like my Protestant opponents on this issue always have for 31 years now), unless it descends to merely personal insults, which I have no time for.]

He did it [bring up sola Scriptura] precisely so he doesn’t have to disauthorize the people here who defend what he clearly doesn’t defend.

[That’s a scurrilous lie. You can’t read my heart and know my motivations. I brought up sola Scriptura because I truly, sincerely believe that it’s the bottom-line issue to be discussed regarding authority (it’s not like that is a controversial position). And I think this “one vs. two” debate is a side-track and a way to avoid the difficulty of finding sola Scriptura anywhere in Holy Scripture. I can say this based on my long personal experience of having tried to debate the issue with Protestants for over 25 years and watching them always try to change the subject.]
*

Nonsense. I clearly said in one of my last comments, that it may be that I don’t totally agree on some things with some of the people who feel they are on my side in this discussion. I didn’t come here just to agree with existing friends. I came to present what I believe to be the teaching of the Church. This is what Catholic apologists do. That’s what you specifically asked me. Now you say I didn’t answer. That’s one of the oldest tricks in the book, too. When one disagrees with an answer, just claim that the other never answered . . .

[Pedro kept stating over and over that I didn’t answer his question specifically about whether the one-and two-source theory of tradition and revelation are “different” from each other. Of course they are different. What is this, kindergarten? I kept saying that I did answer by providing Jimmy Akin’s article, which presupposes throughout that the two theories are different and both fully allowed within Catholicism. He stated things like, “According to one [two-source] Catholic view, . . .”, “According to this theory, . . . We might call it the ‘two modes’ view as opposed to the ‘two source’ view.” He obviously is assuming they are different theories that compete with each other (two-source vs. two-mode). Therefore, I did answer his question by means of giving him Jimmy’s article, in agreement. But I also pretty much answered by saying at the time: “Catholics are free to believe either.”

In any event, Catholics being allowed to disagree on the precise relationship of Scripture and tradition is not broadly different from Protestants disagreeing with each other on things like baptism, Church government, and the Eucharist. But it is different in that we allow difference mainly on the most complicated issues of theology, like this one and predestination,. whereas Protestant theology is relativistic and allows differences on very major issues like baptism and the Eucharist. Remember, the early Lutherans and Calvinists both executed Anabaptists for believing in adult believer’s baptism. Luther’s successor Melanchthon advocated the death penalty for disbelief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, then later stopped believing in it, himself. Needless to say he wasn’t executed . . .

There is no self-contradiction in our doing this. It’s simply an acknowledgment that complicated issues need not be defined; that allowable differences can exist and need not be acrimonious. We don’t form new denominations over such honest disagreements, as Protestants habitually do, because we believe there is one Church and ultimately one truth: not many hundreds of versions of each where ecclesiological chaos and doctrinal anarchy and relativism — with massive necessary contradictions and falsehood — rule the day.]

***

Summary: Brazilian former Catholic and anti-Catholic Protestant Pedro França Gaião brought up the issue of material sufficiency of Scripture & theories on tradition.

Augustine & Sola Scriptura (vs. Gavin Ortlund)

Last updated on: April 29, 2022 at 4:48 pm By Dave Armstrong

Gavin Ortlund is an author, speaker, and apologist for the Christian faith, who serves as the senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai in Ojai, California. Gavin has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in historical theology, and an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. He 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.

I greatly admire and appreciate what Gavin describes as his “irenic” (or what I often call an “ecumenical”) methodology, and viewpoint. It’s extremely refreshing to hear in this age which is so hyper-polarized. He is an exemplary Christian role model of this open-minded, charitable approach. We all learn and “win” when good, constructive dialogue takes place. It’s never a “loss” to arrive at more truth or to recognize one’s own error.

*****

This is a response to Gavin’s video, “Did Augustine Affirm Sola Scriptura?” (11-8-21). His words will be in blue and I will provide minute markers with his comments. St. Augustine’s words will be in green. I know that several Catholics have responded to this video in other videos and that Gavin has in turn responded to “critics” (11-14-21) and “Lofton and Little” (11-26-21). I haven’t viewed any of these other videos, so I don’t know how they made their cases, and my answers are completely my own.

I’m “late to the game” in replying to videos, since I am solely a writer (apart from some 25 radio interviews). I’ll take a look (in another reply) at Gavin’s replies to others after I am done with my own critique, to see if they have any bearing on my arguments, so that I will have then responded to all the arguments he brings to the table.

I can draw from the abundance of resources on the topic that have already been compiled as part of the book I edited in 2012: The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology. I think that will likely make my citation of St. Augustine a little more extensive than other Catholics who have responded. The hardest, most time-consuming work’s been done and I don’t have to go searching for relevant citations now.

Let’s revisit, as a preliminary, Gavin’s definition of sola Scriptura, from his video, “Sola Scriptura DEFENDED” (12-15-20), so that we are clear about what we are debating:

Sola Scriptura has always been maintained as the view that the Bible is the only infallible rule for theology. . . . There’s a big difference in saying that the Bible is the only source for theology, and saying the Bible is the only infallible source for theology. . . . The Scripture is is the final court of appeal: the norming norm that norms all other norms but is not normed itself. [between 7:11 and 9:35, with my own bolding, to highlight his central point]

If the Bible is regarded as the only infallible rule, source, or norm for theology, and the final court of appeal, then it inexorably follows from logic that nothing else can function as that. Thus, if a Church father is said to espouse sola Scriptura, by definition, he cannot simultaneously believe in instances of infallibility or what might be called “binding, sublime authority” deriving from the Church, sacred tradition, ecumenical councils, individual bishops, the papacy, or apostolic succession. Gavin expresses this “negative” claim of sola Scriptura by saying, “there’s nothing infallible in tradition” [3:07-3:11]. Moreover, a Church father might be very explicit about Scriptural authority and virtually claim what Gavin has: all except for the exclusivist word “only”. He could state that Scripture is an infallible rule, source, standard, or norm for theology, and even the final court of appeal, and that it is inspired and God’s revelation.

Catholics agree with all of that (no Catholic denies that Scripture is uniquely inspired revelation), and so none of it is proof of an advocacy of sola Scriptura as the rule of faith (in the Protestant understanding), unless the same father expresses it in a way that excludes the infallible authority of the Church, sacred tradition, ecumenical councils, individual bishops, the papacy, or apostolic succession. If a father affirms that any of those non-scriptural things are infallible, then he doesn’t believe in sola Scriptura: period; full stop. He believes in the Catholic “three-legged stool” rule of faith. These are the factors that Protestant apologists almost always neglect to consider in their analyses of the Church fathers and what they believed about the rule of faith.

The previous two paragraphs are key and absolutely crucial for the reader to understand my methodology below. Anyone who is unclear as to my meaning should read them again. All I’m doing is accepting the common definition of sola Scriptura and noting what necessarily follows from it, which is perfectly proper and on-point. I don’t know how many other Catholics and/or Orthodox apologists have used this particular approach to this topic (surely some, if not most), but I have for at least twenty years now. Some of the others may have even derived it from my past writings.

I’m gonna argue that Augustine is very resonant with the idea of sola Scriptura. . . . Augustine couldn’t have been clearer in advocating principles that are basically synonymous with what we call sola Scriptura. [0:03-1:09]

He says he will produce three passages in order to prove his contentions, and stresses that he has not taken anything out of context. He again defines sola Scriptura:

Sola Scriptura is the claim that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule for Christian faith and practice. . . . There is a place for tradition. Creeds and councils can even be binding and authoritative, but all that comes subsequent to the Scripture is reformable in light of Scripture. So there’s nothing infallible in tradition. That is the point of contrast. [2:41-3:12; my bolding; italicized emphases are his own]

Gavin gently complains that with regard to the matter of sola Scriptura, Protestants are “routinely caricatured, set up as a straw man”. I agree. I do my best to represent their views with minute accuracy. The definition he presents for sola Scriptura is one I have agreed with for over thirty years, and indeed, was the one I had as an evangelical Protestant and already an apologist (and passionate supporter of the principle at that time).

So I have not misrepresented Protestantism on this score. I know the view from my own experiences as a Protestant apologist and in the course of debating it for 26 years online. But I recognize that too many Catholics (including credentialed apologists) have done that, and that it’s wrong and should be corrected, with retractions and apologies where necessary. We mustn’t misrepresent anyone’s views. That is bearing false witness, and if we know better, it’s dishonest.

What people do is they define sola Scriptura based upon its street-level practice rather than based upon its official expressions. [3:41-3:51]

This is exactly right and a very important point. I had precisely this dispute a few years ago with a fellow Catholic apologist, whom I contended was doing this very thing. I agreed with this faulty tendency in a broader sense in my first reply to Gavin yesterday:

The massive ignorance of the populace in all Christian communions is the reason why we can — in doing apologetics and debates — only compare the “books” of one view with the books (confessions, creeds, catechisms) of another. We can always find bad examples on all sides, but we can’t base any sort of argument on that. We have to know and consult the “official teachings” of any given group.

He made a parallel of looking at examples of some Catholics worshiping Mary and concluding that official Catholic teaching is that Mary should or can be worshiped (which he agreed was not Catholic teaching). He conceded that sola Scriptura is “very routinely practiced poorly or misunderstood by Protestants themselves, but that doesn’t mean we’re not caricaturing when we stray from what the official Protestant teaching is about this.” Again, I couldn’t agree more. Kudos to Gavin for clearly articulating this common error that occurs on all sides, in analyzing other views. It’s a matter of basic fairness, charity, and honesty of presentation.

He then cites Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book II, chapter 3, section 4:

But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, . . .

Respectfully, I don’t think this proves what Gavin thinks it proves at all. The first part is merely expressing the truism that everything in Scripture is true, since it is inspired revelation, and that this can’t be said about any other writing. Every observant traditional Christian agrees, so there is no dispute on that. But it’s beside the point of sola Scriptura, which is not about the higher level of inspiration, but about infallibility. Theoretically (and this is the relevant point of contention), non-scriptural entities may possibly be infallible, too, while not inspired.

Protestants say this isn’t the case; Catholics and Orthodox claim that it is. And that’s the dispute. The fact that anything is wrong if it is contrary to Holy Scripture is something we all agree with. It’s perfectly consistent with the Catholic rule of faith, which holds that all true doctrines are and must be in harmony with Scripture. But this view is itself not sola Scriptura and so, has no bearing on that discussion.

The latter half of the quotation actually — I humbly submit — strongly supports the Catholic view and refutes sola Scriptura, because he’s saying that if something is wrong in “letters” by bishops, it can be corrected not only by Scripture, but also “by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils.” Local councils “must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world.”

That’s Catholic authority, folks, not Protestant: which would say that Scripture is the sole infallible entity that corrects theological errors. Councils might rightly do so (if they are in line with Scripture), so says Protestantism, but the Protestant denies that they are infallible, so they could always be wrong, too, in the final analysis.

Sometimes later councils correct earlier ones when doctrines or aspects of them “previously lay hid.” This is St. Augustine asserting development of doctrine: which Protestants sometimes claim was invented out of whole cloth in the 19th century for the purpose of special pleading and rationalizing Church history, by St. John Henry Cardinal Newman. But this is not true at all, as I have massively documented. St. Vincent of Lerins, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and many others wrote about development long before Cardinal Newman ever did.

Conclusion: nothing in the above citation proves that Augustine held to sola Scriptura. To the contrary, I think it pretty much proves that he didn’t. Gavin notes that Augustine thought ecumenical councils could possibly err. But again, this is not controversial. No Catholic thinker or scholar denies that this can take place, not just in theory but in fact.

The issue is not that councils never err, or are never corrected by future councils, but rather, whether they are ever (i.e., sometimes) infallible under certain conditions. We don’t hold that all utterances of all ecumenical councils are infallible. The levels of authority is a very complex, nuanced aspect of Catholic ecclesiology, that I have written about. This being the case, what St. Augustine noted is a ho-hum for Catholics and no refutation of our view; nor is it proof that he believed in sola Scriptura.

Gavin then cites as his second example from St. Augustine, Reply to Faustus (Book XI, 5):

As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: “And if you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” [Philippians 3:15] Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments.

Gavin notes that Augustine stated that there can be errors in non-biblical writings (of course!), but that there is no errors in the Bible. I totally agree, which is why I have sent much of the last year refuting alleged biblical “contradictions” brought up by atheists, and hope to make a future book out of those replies. Again, Gavin neglects to see that infallibility of tradition or Church or ecumenical councils obtains only in carefully specified conditions, and is not applicable without such limitations or qualifications. This understood, Augustine’s statement is a non-controversial truism, and again not relevant to the dispute about sola Scriptura‘s truth or falsity.

Moreover, the meaning of the above also hinges upon what Augustine means by “our writings.” To whom is he referring? As best I can make out, he seems to be referring to bishops like himself, or perhaps clerics in general. But he may simply mean all non-biblical writings. Catholics don’t hold that individual bishops or Church fathers or saints possess infallibility: up to and including the most eminent Doctors of the Church, like St. Thomas Aquinas. Augustine may simply be expressing the same sentiment. We hold only that bishops in concert in an ecumenical council — as accepted by the pope — can be infallible under certain specified conditions, and that popes can unilaterally do so under very precise particular conditions and circumstances.

So again, the proper question is whether councils and tradition or popes can ever be infallible at any time. Gavin has denied that this could be the case, as to tradition (“there’s nothing infallible in tradition”), and surely he would make the same negative assertion about any other non-biblical authority. Protestants are also under an obligation to understand how Catholic authority and the Catholic rule of faith operate; just as we must not misrepresent their views as to the rule of faith.

His third example is Augustine’s Letter 82 to Jerome (from 405), chapter 1, section 3.

I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason.

This is simply a variation of the argument Augustine made in the other two citations: only Scripture is completely free from error; always infallible. Nothing else is. And again, I say, Catholics agree. Nothing else is inspired or always infallible, but some things are sometimes infallible: contrary to Gavin’s view and sola Scriptura. (and I will show at length that Augustine believes that). What Augustine says right after this portion shows that what he means is in complete accord with the Catholic view:

I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning!

Exactly! Neither Augustine, nor Jerome, great as they were, would ever claim that their writings were on the error-free level of “those of prophets or of apostles.” And that is Catholic teaching. We agree that their writings are not of that nature and that only bishops in an ecumenical council, in agreement with the pope, and under certain conditions, can claim infallibility as a collective, and that only a pope can do so by himself, at times (not all the time!). But again, this doesn’t touch upon the truth or falsity of sola Scriptura at all.

But note something else interesting here, that suggests Augustine does (at least possibly) in this larger passage grant infallibility to non-biblical persons. Prophets and apostles wrote a lot of Scripture, and so partook of its gift of inspiration and infallibility from God. But not all utterances of all prophets and apostles is contained in Scripture. The question then becomes, for example: “if someone heard a talk from Paul one night [none of which was recorded in the Bible] would it be an infallible talk?”

I would say that at least some of it would or could be. Augustine simply noted that prophets and apostles were “free from error.” He may have simply meant “biblical writings.” I don’t know. But I think my speculation is permissible and possible as an interpretation. We know that Augustine accepted extra-biblical traditions (e.g., infant baptism) that were passed down through apostolic succession.

“Prophets” are also a New Testament office that the Apostle Paul seems to intend were to continue in perpetuity in the Church. I commented on this at length in a reply to the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen. He had asked:

Now when contemporary Roman Catholic apologists look at II Thessalonians 2:15 and say, “We’re bound to follow the traditions, oral as well as written,” my response to that is not only are oral and written two different ways of saying the same thing; but my response to that is simply, I’m under obligation to listen to the oral teaching of the Apostles; you’re absolutely right, and they’re not around any more! And you know, catch up with what’s happening in the Church, friend — we don’t have Apostles today! Where do you get the idea — even on your misreading of this verse — where do you get the idea that the authority of the Apostles in oral instruction has passed on to other people?

And so I replied:

The Bible actually teaches that the apostles didn’t cease. But Catholics interpret this as teaching that they continue in the person of the bishops (Acts 1:16-26). Paul shows no sense of the cessation of apostles in these passages:

1 Corinthians 12:28-29 (RSV) And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. [29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

Ephesians 4:11-12 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

Note how “prophets” are also included in both passages, alongside “apostles” and in the same list with categories like teachers, administrators, tongues-speakers, helpers, evangelists, and pastors. If all those offices haven’t ceased, why would we think the office of apostles would? The New Testament continues to refer to existing prophets:

Acts 11:27-30 Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. [28] And one of them named Ag’abus 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. [29] And the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brethren who lived in Judea; [30] and they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.

Acts 21:10-11 While we were staying for some days, a prophet named Ag’abus came down from Judea. [11] And coming to us he took Paul’s girdle and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, `So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'”

The authority of this prophet Agabus (backed up by “the Spirit”) was so acknowledged, that (in Acts 11) “the disciples” accepted it, as did Paul and Barnabas: through whom relief was sent, following the prophet’s prediction of famine. This was not Holy Scripture. It’s an oral proclamation from a prophet, led by the Holy Spirit, which was accepted and acted upon. And this is after the Church had begun at Pentecost. He then prophesied to St. Paul himself, saying, “Thus says the Holy Spirit” and Paul fully accepts it. This is, again, non-biblical and non-apostolic (and oral, not written) infallibility: utterly contrary to sola Scriptura.

Acts 13:1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyre’ne, Man’a-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

Acts 15:32 And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words and strengthened them. (cf. Lk 2:36)

Paul matter-of-factly refers to the continuing existence of “prophetic powers” (1 Cor 13:2), and even “revelation” in the following passage (and related ones noted at the end), which has frequent reference to prophets, prophecies, and prophesying:

1 Corinthians 14:26, 29-32, 37, 39 What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. . . . [29] Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. [30] If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent. [31] For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged; [32] and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. . . . [37] If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. . . . [39] So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; (cf. 14:1, 3-5, 24; 1 Thess 5:20)

And there are several others as well:

Ephesians 3:4-5 When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, [5] which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

1 Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare,

1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.

Revelation 11:3, 6, 10 And I will grant my two witnesses power to prophesy for one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.” . . . [6] They have power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they desire. . . . [10] . . . these two prophets had been a torment to those who dwell on the earth. (cf. 10:11)

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Acts 21:9 And he had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied.

1 Corinthians 11:4-5 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [5] but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head — it is the same as if her head were shaven.

That’s a lot of profound non-apostolic, compelling, infallible authority to completely overlook in Holy Scripture, isn’t it? And by an educated Bible scholar at that . . .

Gavin also cites St. John Chrysostom later in the video. Rather than address that in this context (I have written about his views on this, three times [one / two / three]), I’ll direct readers to another statement of his on the rule of faith:

“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.”Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)

This concludes my response to Gavin’s three arguments for why he thinks that Augustine held to sola Scriptura. I have shown why I don’t agree. Now I will provide citations from St. Augustine that suggest his belief in the infallibility (at times!) of other things besides Holy Scripture. The burden on the Protestant who cares to pursue the dialogue this far is to variously explain the following quotations, in the way I did with the three Gavin presented.

The Catholic Church

This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. (Cat.Creed, 14)

For in the belly of the Church truth abides. Whosoever from this belly of the Church separated shall have been, must needs speak false things: . . . (E.Ps., 58:3 [58, 5] )

[S]ound doctrine, which alone is Catholic, . . . (C.Faust. xx, 23)

[T]hey introduced into their writings certain matters which are condemned at once by the catholic and apostolic rule of faith, and by sound doctrine. (Harm.G. i, 1, 2)

But if, on the other hand, he has fallen upon the productions of some heretic and in ignorance, it may be, has retained in his mind anything which the true faith condemns, and yet supposes it to be catholic doctrine, then we must set ourselves sedulously to teach him, bringing before him (in its rightful superiority) the authority of the Church universal, . . . (Cat.U., 8, 12)

But the right faith of the Catholic Church rejects such a fiction, and perceives it to be a devilish doctrine: . . . Let us therefore reject this kind of error, which the Holy Church has anathematized from the beginning. (L.John, 34, 2)

It is plain, the faith admits it, the Catholic Church approves it, it is truth. (Serm., 67, 6 [CXVII] )

[W]ith all earnestness, and with all prayers, and lastly with groans, or even, if so it may be, with tears, you entreat of God to set you free from the evil of error; if your heart be set on a happy life. And this will take place the more easily, if you obey with a willing mind His commands, which He has willed should be confirmed by so great authority of the Catholic Church. (Believ., 33)

But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, . . . No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church. (Trin. iv, 6, 10)

The latter class, indeed, by examining the Scriptures, and considering the authority of the whole Church as well as the form of the sacrament itself, have clearly seen that by baptism remission of sins accrues to infants . . . (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 64)

But this I say, that according to the Holy Scriptures original sin is so manifest, and that this is put away in infants by the laver of regeneration is confirmed by such antiquity and authority of the catholic faith, notorious by such a clear concurrent testimony of the Church, that what is argued by the inquiry or affirmation of anybody concerning the origin of the soul, if it is contrary to this, cannot be true. (C.Ep.Pel. iii, 26 [X] )

Sacred Tradition

As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established. (Ep. 54 [1, 1]: to Januarius [400] )

[H]e cannot quote a decisive passage on the subject from the Book of God; nor can he prove his opinion to be right by the unanimous voice of the universal Church . . . (Ep. 54 [4, 5]: to Januarius [400] )

[T]he question which you propose is not decided either by Scripture or by universal practice. (Ep. 54 [5, 6]: to Januarius [400] )

. . . moved, not indeed by the authority of any plenary or even regionary Council, but by a mere epistolary correspondence, to think that they ought to adopt a custom which had no sanction from the ancient custom of the Church, and which was expressly forbidden by the most unanimous resolution of the Catholic world . . . (Bapt., iii, 2, 2)

And this is the firm tradition of the universal Church, in respect of the baptism of infants . . . (Bapt., iv, 23, 31)

[W]hat is held by the whole Church, . . . as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by authority, . . . (Bapt., iv, 24, 32)

Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 34 [XXIV] )

The very sacraments indeed of the Church, which she administers with due ceremony, according to the authority of very ancient tradition . . . (Grace.Orig. ii, 45)

And this custom, coming, I suppose, from tradition (like many other things which are held to have been handed down under their actual sanction, because they are preserved throughout the whole Church, though they are not found either in their letters, or in the Councils of their successors), . . . (Bapt., ii, 7, 12)

For if none have baptism who entertain false views about God, it has been proved sufficiently, in my opinion, that this may happen even within the Church. “The apostles,” indeed, “gave no injunctions on the point;” but the custom, which is opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings. (Bapt., v, 23, 31)

Ecumenical Councils

Nor should we ourselves venture to assert anything of the kind, were we not supported by the unanimous authority of the whole Church, to which he himself [St. Cyprian] would unquestionably have yielded, if at that time the truth of this question [rebaptism] had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council. (Bapt., ii, 4, 5)

[S]ubsequently that ancient custom was confirmed by the authority of a plenary Council . . . (Bapt., iv, 5, 8)

. . . sufficiently manifest to the pastors of the Catholic Church dispersed over the whole world, through whom the original custom was afterwards confirmed by the authority of a plenary Council . . . (Bapt., vi, 1, 1)

My opinion therefore is, that wherever it is possible, all those things should be abolished without hesitation, which neither have warrant in Holy Scripture, nor are found to have been appointed by councils of bishops, nor are confirmed by the practice of the universal Church, . . . (Ep. 55 [19, 35]: to Januarius [400] )

And let any one, who is led by the past custom of the Church, and by the subsequent authority of a plenary Council, and by so many powerful proofs from holy Scripture, and by much evidence from Cyprian himself, and by the clear reasoning of truth, to understand that the baptism of Christ, consecrated in the words of the gospel, cannot be perverted by the error of any man on earth . . . (Bapt., v, 4, 4)

The Papacy / Primacy of Peter and the Roman See

For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!” [Matthew 16:18] The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. (Ep. 53 [1, 2]: from Augustine, Fortunatus, and Alypius to Generosus [400] )

Peter is the Church Herself. (E.Ps., 94:18 [94, 17] )

But that after this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation. (C.Faust. xxii, 70)

I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever? (Bapt., ii, 1, 2)

. . . the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair [apostolicae cathedrae principatus] has always flourished . . . (Ep. 43 [3, 7]: to Glorius, Eleusius, the Two Felixes, and Grammaticus [397] )

For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! (Serm., 81, 10 [CXXXI] )

I desire with the Lord’s help to use the necessary measures in our Council, and, if it be necessary, to write to the Apostolic See; that, by a unanimous authoritative decision of all, we may have the course which ought to be followed in these cases determined and established. (Ep. 250: to Classicianus [unknown date] )

Apostolic Succession

[T]hey admit the necessity of baptizing infants—finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles . . . (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 39 [XXVI] )

We, namely, the catholic faith, coming from the doctrine of the apostles planted in us, received by a line of succession, to be transmitted sound to posterity—the catholic faith, I say, has, between both those parties, that is, between both errors, held the truth. (L.John, 37, 6)

Now who is there that would not be afraid, from the voice of God through the Apostles, the voice of God through the Scriptures, through His clouds? (E.Ps., 104:7 [104, 7] )

The authority of our books, which is confirmed by the agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you. (C.Faust. xiii, 5)

[I]f you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all. There the Old Testament too has its difficulties solved, and its predictions fulfilled. (C.Faust. xxxiii, 9)

[T]his which we hold is the true and truly Christian and catholic faith, as it was delivered of old by the Holy Scriptures, and so retained and kept by our fathers and even to this time, in which these heretics have attempted to destroy it, and as it will hereafter by God’s good will be retained and kept. (C.Ep.Pel. iv, 32 [XII] )

Abbreviations and Links and Dates

400 / 401 Bapt. On Baptism, Against the Donatists (De baptismo) [tr. J. R. King; rev. Chester D. Hartranft; NPNF 1-4]

391 Believ. On the Usefulness of Believing (De utilitate credendi) [tr. C. L. Cornish; NPNF 1-3]

420 C.Ep.Pel. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians (Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum) [tr. Peter Holmes and Robert E. Wallis, rev. Benjamin B. Warfield; NPNF 1-5]

397-398 C.Faust. Against Faustus the Manichee (Contra Faustum Manichaeum) [tr. Richard Stothert; NPNF 1-4]

393 Cat.Creed Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed [tr. by H. Browne; NPNF 1-3]

400 Cat.U. On Catechizing the Uninstructed (De catechizandis rudibus) [tr. S. D. F. Salmond; NPNF 1-3]

396-420 E.Ps. Explanations of the Psalms (Enarrationes in Psalmos) [tr. J. E. Tweed; NPNF 1-8]

386-429 Ep. [#] Letters (Epistulae) [tr. J. G. Cunningham; NPNF 1-1]

418 Grace.Orig. On the Grace of Christ and on Original Sin (De gratia Christi et de peccato originali) [tr. Peter Holmes and Robert E. Wallis, rev. Benjamin B. Warfield; NPNF 1-5]

400 Harm.G. Harmony of the Gospels(De consensu evangelistarum) [tr. S. D. F. Salmond; NPNF 1-6]

406-430 L.John Lectures on the Gospel of John(In euangelium Ioannis tractatus) [tr. John Gibb; NPNF 1-7]

393-430 Serm. Sermonson the New Testament (Sermones) [tr. R. G. MacMullen; NPNF 1-6]

412 Sin.I.Bapt. On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins and on Infant Baptism (De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum) [tr. Peter Holmes and Robert E. Wallis, rev. Benjamin B. Warfield; NPNF 1-5]

399-419 Trin. On the Trinity (De trinitate) [tr. Arthur West Haddan; NPNF 1-3]

***

Gavin replied to a portion of my argument in his combox:

Dave, thanks for engaging my videos, and for the kind words. I’m reading this post now and I’ll just give a response to your interaction with the first quote.

The contrast here between Scripture and subsequent councils is not, as you say, that the former is merely inspired revelation, but that it alone is infallible. That is explicit in what he says: “that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true.” He is not talking about biblical inspiration. He is talking about how you can know the bible is true, unlike everything subsequent, which can err. The Scripture is confined in its own limits in this specific sense, per Augustine’s words; not because it alone is inspired, but because it alone must be true.

That is why it is so significant that he includes the “plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world” as those that can err, such that “the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them.” Every time the verb “corrected” appears in the context, it has to do with doctrinal error (e.g., in the next sentence dealing with Cyprian’s error). This is not doctrinal development; this is error needing a correction. Augustine is evidently thinking of the official declaration of the council (hence needing to be corrected by a subsequent, separate council), and Catholic teaching does hold that that is infallible, per Vatican 1. Trying to apply Augustine’s statement to something short of that happening at a council vitiates the whole point of his sentence and would then undermine his originating point at the climactic point (because then the Scripture would no longer be confined within its own limits such that about it alone do we know it’s true).

In terms of Augustine’s views on apostolic succession, tradition, etc. (regarding the quotes you provide at the end), I got into this in my response videos somewhat. The basic point would be these things are not inconsistent with sola Scriptura. E.g., believing in an authoritative council doesn’t mean believing in infallible councils. Or believing in apostolic succession is manifestly not at odds with sola Scriptura. And so forth. They don’t tell you whether the bible alone is infallible. My response to Lofton and Little especially stresses this point.

Anyway, let me know if you watch the later videos (if you have time) and have any further thoughts. Take care and thanks again!

Thanks for your reply (again very quick!).

You make your point vigorously, but I still don’t see it. It remains true that 1) only Scripture is completely error-free, and that 2) nothing else rises to that level. We all agree on that. One can quibble about whether he is referring to inspiration or infallibility, but I don’t think that changes my argument. Catholics don’t think that tradition or councils or papal encyclicals are always infallible everywhere. You seem to be assuming otherwise. If universal infallibility were what we believed about those other things, I’d agree with you, but since we don’t . . .

He’s certainly talking about doctrinal development in the final sentence. That’s what I was referring to. We know that he wrote about development elsewhere; e.g., City of God , Book XVI, ch. 2:

For while the hot restlessness of heretics stirs questions about many articles of the catholic faith, the necessity of defending them forces us both to investigate them more accurately, to understand them more clearly, and to proclaim them more earnestly; and the question mooted by an adversary becomes the occasion of instruction . . .

Likewise, Commentary on Psalm 55 (section 21; I rephrased some things and changed sentence order for syntactical improvement, due to the very awkward, almost unreadable literal translation):

[B]y heretics the Catholic Church has been vindicated, . . . For many things lay hidden in the Scriptures: and when heretics, who had been cut off, troubled the Church of God with questions, then those things which lay hidden were opened, and the will of God was understood . . . Many men that could understand and expound the Scriptures very excellently, were hidden among the people of God, and they did not declare the solution of difficult questions, until a reviler again urged them. For was the doctrine of the Trinity perfectly expounded upon before the Arians snarled at it? Was repentance perfectly treated before the opposition of the Novatians? Likewise, Baptism was not perfectly understood, before rebaptizers from the outside contradicted; nor even the very oneness of Christ . . .

Philip Schaff wrote, accordingly, about Augustine’s views:

Augustine . . . manifestly acknowledges a gradual advancement of the church doctrine, which reaches its corresponding expression from time to time through the general councils; but a progress within the truth, without positive error. (History of the Christian Church, vol. 3: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1974 [orig. 1910], 344)

Schaff wrote elsewhere:

Within the limits of the Jewish theocracy and Catholic Christianity Augustin admits the idea of historical development or a gradual progress from a lower to higher grades of knowledge, yet always in harmony with Catholic truth. He would not allow revolutions and radical changes or different types of Christianity. “The best thinking” (says Dr. Flint, in his Philosophy of History in Europe, I. 40), “at once the most judicious and liberal, among those who are called the Christian fathers, on the subject of the progress of Christianity as an organization and system, is that of St. Augustin, as elaborated and applied by Vincent of Lerins in his ‘Commonitorium,’ where we find substantially the same conception of the development of the Church and Christian doctrine, which, within the present century, De Maistre has made celebrated in France, Mohler in Germany, and Newman in England. (Editor’s Preface to City of God, 38-volume set of the Church Fathers, December 10, 1886)

I suppose one could interpret all the quotes I compiled in that way, but I don’t find it plausible. And I don’t because it is evident (to me, anyway) that Augustine doesn’t think like a Protestant. He doesn’t “answer” the way a Protestant would. Thus, time and again, when he says an error must be corrected, he doesn’t appeal to Scripture alone, as I think you or most Protestants would, but he includes the church, universal tradition, councils, and apostolic succession. The habitual conclusion of those things proves to my satisfaction that he is indeed thinking in terms of the Catholic “three-legged stool” rule of faith. He doesn’t appear to be assuming that Scripture is the only “final court of appeal” as you put it.

If he is wrong concerning the rule of faith, it causes no harm to Catholicism. He could have been wrong, just as he was on some aspects of predestination, according to our dogma on that. But I don’t think he is wrong. I think it’s just as “clear” that he was thoroughly Catholic in this regard, as you think it couldn’t be clearer in your quotes that he thought more like a proto-Protestant.

My view of Augustine and the rule of faith is not just my own. Several reputable Protestant historians and scholars agree (and I am happy to defer to them as experts; I’m just a lay apologist): Historian Heiko Oberman notes concerning St. Augustine:

Augustine’s legacy to the middle ages on the question of Scripture and Tradition is a two-fold one. In the first place, he reflects the early Church principle of the coinherence of Scripture and Tradition. While repeatedly asserting the ultimate authority of Scripture, Augustine does not oppose this at all to the authority of the Church Catholic . . . The Church has a practical priority: her authority as expressed in the direction-giving meaning of commovere is an instrumental authority, the door that leads to the fullness of the Word itself.

But there is another aspect of Augustine’s thought . . . we find mention of an authoritative extrascriptural oral tradition. While on the one hand the Church “moves” the faithful to discover the authority of Scripture, Scripture on the other hand refers the faithful back to the authority of the Church with regard to a series of issues with which the Apostles did not deal in writing. Augustine refers here to the baptism of heretics . . . (The Harvest of Medieval Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, revised, 1967, 370-371)

J. N. D. Kelly, the great Anglican patristic scholar, wrote:

The three letters [Epistles 175-177] relating to Pelagianism which the African church sent to Innocent I in 416, and of which Augustine was the draughtsman, suggested that he attributed to the Pope a pastoral and teaching authority extending over the whole Church, and found a basis for it in Scripture. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, fifth revised edition, 1978, 419)

According to Augustine [De doct. christ. 3,2], its [Scripture’s] doubtful or ambiguous passages need to be cleared up by ‘the rule of faith’; it was, moreover, the authority of the Church alone which in his eyes [C. ep. Manich. 6: cf. De doct. christ. 2,12; c. Faust Manich, 22, 79] guaranteed its veracity.” (Ibid., 47)

Philip Schaff again:

[I]n a certain sense, as against heretics, he made the authority of Holy Scripture dependent on the authority of the catholic church, in his famous dictum against the Manichaean heretics: “I would not believe the gospel, did not the authority of the catholic church compel me.” . . . The Protestant church makes the authority of the general councils, and of all ecclesiastical tradition, depend on the degree of its conformity to the Holy Scriptures; while the Greek and Roman churches make Scripture and tradition coordinate. (History of the Christian Church, vol. 3: Chapter V, section 66, “The Synodical System. The Ecumenical Councils,” 344-345)

He adopted Cyprian’s doctrine of the church, and completed it in the conflict with Donatism by transferring the predicates of unity, holiness, universality, exclusiveness and maternity, directly to the actual church of the time, which, with a firm episcopal organization, an unbroken succession, and the Apostles’ Creed, triumphantly withstood the eighty or the hundred opposing sects in the heretical catalogue of the day, and had its visible centre in Rome. (Schaff, ibid., Chapter X, section 180, “The Influence of Augustine upon Posterity and his Relation to Catholicism and Protestantism,” 1019-1020)

Lutheran Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan concurs with this general assessment of St. Augustine’s views:

This authority of orthodox catholic Christendom . . . was so powerful as even to validate the very authority of the Bible . . . But between the authority of the Bible and the authority of the catholic church (which was present within, but was more than, the authority of its several bishops past and present) there could not in a real sense be any contradiction. Here one could find repose in “the resting place of authority,” [Bapt. 2.8.13] not in the unknown quantity of the company of the elect, but in the institution of salvation that could claim foundation by Christ and succession from the apostles. (The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: Vol.1 of 5: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 303-304)

Augustine, writing against the Donatists, had coined the formula, ‘the judgment of the whole world is reliable [securus judicat orbis terrarum].’ [Parm. 3.4.24] Catholicity was a mark both of the true church and of the true doctrine, for these were inseparable.” (Ibid., 334)

So what can I say? If I look over relevant Augustine texts, and — taken cumulatively –, they seem to point to what I recognize as the Catholic rule of faith, and not only that, I find that these great Protestant scholars (Schaff, Kelly, Oberman, and Pelikan) — who can’t be accused of a natural Catholic bias, as I could be — agree with me in their interpretation of all the data, that seems to me compelling. Their job is to summarize what Church fathers held regarding any given doctrine, and this is their judgment. It fits with what I see, and I accept it on their authority and based on a congruence with my own amateur observations and speculations.

One more thing. You wrote: “believing in apostolic succession is manifestly not at odds with sola Scriptura. And so forth. They don’t tell you whether the Bible alone is infallible.” I would say it’s so at odds with sola Scriptura that the Calvinists and most of the Lutherans and certainly the Zwinglians and more radical Anabaptists, etc. all rejected it. I don’t see Protestants today appealing to that, except for perhaps some Anglo-Catholics. It’s simply not on their radar screen. You don’t appeal to it. You act consistently with sola Scriptura: the Bible is always the final norm and appeal.

Augustine and the fathers, generally, on the other hand, don’t approach the issue that way at all. For them, the appeal to apostolic succession and the (somewhat exaggerated language of) the Vincentian canon, “what was always believed everywhere by all . . .” was conclusive in and of itself and especially a “slam dunk” against heretics with no early history at all. It was very useful because the heretics could always come up with heretical interpretations of Scripture, but they couldn’t make up a history that didn’t happen. So for the fathers, appeal to unbroken apostolic succession was usually central to their defenses of orthodoxy.

Thanks for reading all this and interacting! I plan on taking a look at your other two videos tomorrow.

Thanks for the comment Dave! A few replies:

Whether Augustine is talking about inspiration or infallibility is not a quibble. If the scripture were confined to its own limits merely in the sense that it alone is inspired, then your argument would work and that would not be at odds with the Catholic position. But he is saying that the scripture is confined to its own limits in the sense that it alone is infallible. This is the explicit claim of the passage: he locates his contrast between the scripture and subsequent councils on the grounds that former is infallible and the latter are fallible. That is, The Bible must always be true, but in contrast even the plenary councils can err. The passage says nothing about inspiration.

I am not assuming that traditions and councils and papal encyclicals always are infallible, but rather, per Vatican 1, that the official and formal deliverances of ecumenical councils are considered infallible by the Roman Catholic Church. I’ve not had this point contested before by other Catholics. Vatican II has the same understanding. Later magisterial teaching can clarify but not contradict earlier magisterial teaching.

The fact that Augustine believes in some conception of doctrinal development does not mean that the verb “corrected” does not have reference to an error here. In the context, I think it’s obvious that it does. But it sounds like we’ll just have to disagree on that, and that is OK!

I fail to see the relevance of the quotes from Oberman and Schaff and others. They’re basically saying things that are consistent with sola Scruptura, such as the fact that the authority of the church and the authority of Scripture are not at odds with one another. There is no problem for that with sola Scriptura. A real contradiction with sola Scriptura would be if Augustine maintained that the church possessed infallibility in some sense. You were very clear and charitable to define sola Scriptura accurately early on in the post so I don’t really understand this aspect of your response. It sounds like you’re reverting to the claim that sola Scriptura is somehow at odds with authoritative councils. It is not. It is only at odds with infallible councils.

I’ll leave it there for now as I’m at the park watching the kids! Forgive if my comments seem blunt or forceful, I am typing this out by my voice automation so there may be typos as well. Thanks again for the engagement.

Thanks for this reply. At this point, I truly don’t know what else to add or say. We seem to be at a total impasse. Of course, as you know, that’s often what happens, in these discussions of deeply-held beliefs, but we have done it without acrimony and perhaps we have both learned something in the conversation, so that makes it worthwhile. One thing I’ve I’ve learned — though we disagree on this — is that you are a very good debater, and I always respect that because it challenges me (a person who loves debates and challenges both). It’s my honor and privilege to interact with you.

You said somewhere that you hope that at least Catholic viewers can see how someone might take a different view on these matters. I do see that. As I’ve always said, everything goes back to premises, and at some point, people disagree on some premise that they follow. These determine what is built upon them. I think that’s largely what we have in Protestant-Catholic disputes (when examined closely).

The premises split at some point (usually the 1500s) and that in turn caused the two parties to think differently about a lot of things. They may be internally consistent and perfectly honest but arrive at different conclusions because of these different premises. And both sides sincerely, honestly “see” the same things differently: whether in Scripture or patristic quotations. I think our present dialogue shows that quite clearly.

Your other two videos will offer fresh material for me to critique, but this particular discussion seems exhausted. Let readers judge . . .

Thanks Dave. Yes, I have observed that it is very common for discussions to reach an impasse, and I agree with you that having different starting points often is a factor for that. When that happens at any rate it is always pleasant and good to be able to recognize it and remain charitable in the process, so I truly appreciate your observations and remarks, which I will continue to think on as well! Take care.

See the follow-up discussion: Augustine & Sola Scriptura, Pt. 2 (vs. Gavin Ortlund) [4-29-22]

***

Summary: Baptist Gavin Ortlund provides three proofs about Augustine & sola Scriptura. I offer counter-replies & additional counter-evidence from many Augustine citations.