![\"WhoreOfBabylon\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2014\/04\/WhoreOfBabylon.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n***<\/p><\/div>\n
*<\/p><\/a>**<\/div>\n
I consider Rod a good friend (full disclosure), and part of my motivation is to see that he is defended from ludicrous and groundless charges, and that the Catholic Church is also vindicated against such patent, relentless absurdities as we find in Ken\u2019s three-part treatment. That\u2019s plenty enough motivation for me to suspend temporarily my policy of not debating anti-Catholics (in place since 2007). This is only the third or fourth time that I have made an exception to my rule, and it is on behalf of a friend, for whom I have a great deal of personal and professional respect.<\/p>\n
because of the negative aspects that lead people astray from Biblical truth, I give it a \u201c2 star\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n I hope to show, of course, that this is wrong, and that it is Ken who is straying from biblical truth, not Catholics.<\/p>\n The book is a Roman Catholic apologetic and biased popular introduction to these four men in early church (adding others in also to expand the RC idea that the whole early church agreed with Roman Catholic centuries later doctrines and dogmas).<\/span><\/p>\n I can assure everyone, from years of personal experience observing and debating with Protestants concerning the Church fathers, that there is plenty of bias to go around. I\u2019ve seen Ken argue about these things, too, and he \u2014 along with the secondary anti-Catholic sources he cites \u2014 certainly has a strong bias, that (I will contend) stretches the \u201cpatristic facts\u201d (as far as we can ascertain them) beyond the breaking point.<\/p>\n he also leaves out some key parts of Clement (page 87, see below), and especially Irenaeus that actually go against his stated purpose. (to let the early church speak for itself) <\/span><\/p>\n Well, that remains to be seen<\/i>. Anti-Catholic patristic analysis is nothing<\/i> if not super-selective prooftexting, with other relevant or contradictory (to their purpose) passages being utterly ignored, as if they didn\u2019t exist. This is its leading trait, that I\u2019ve observed every<\/i> time I refute it. It\u2019s become the usual modus operandi<\/i>, a given, when anti-Catholics try to futilely mold early history into an argument for their side. The results are always humorous and pathetic, once readers learn the relevant facts that had been ignored (provided by the Catholic debater). Stay tuned! It\u2019s gonna happen again here; I guarantee it.<\/p>\n He skewed Cyprian of Carthage (died, being beheaded, around 258 AD) by leaving out important aspects of his life and writings, that pertain to the whole Roman Catholic vs. Protestantism debate.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, we\u2019ll see what Ken comes up with and if it is any evidence against Catholicism.<\/p>\n However his real purpose seems to be \u2013 to show that Protestantism is not historical, which is subtle. His main purpose seems to be to show that Sola Scriptura and Protestantism is wrong, especially when we read the afterward and the appendix of all the Roman Catholic distinctive doctrines that are the main issues that Protestants have against the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m sure that\u2019s central to the book (or at least its premises), which is historical argumentation. Protestants and Catholics both claim the fathers for themselves, so it\u2019s a battle as to who can more accurately<\/i> claim them. This is established by the abundance of historical facts \/ writings that can be brought to bear.<\/p>\n The intro is skewed in a few places toward the RC side of things, as is the Afterward and the Appendix; \u2013 the last 2 sections of the book, Afterward, and on \u201cCatholic Teaching in the Early Church\u201d and \u201cCatholic Teaching Today\u201d are very skewed, in that they are trying to show that the doctrines and dogmas of the RCC that Protestants dis-agree with were there from the beginning of church history. They were not.<\/span><\/p>\n Well, yes they were<\/i>, but in more primitive form. All doctrines develop. The classic one that we all agree on is the Trinity, which developed in all its aspects for over 600 years.<\/p>\n The biggest problem is that he leaves out key elements of the quotes from Clement, which would show that Clement treated presbyterois (elders) and episcopais (overseers\/bishops) as one church office\/same person \u2013 as in Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4; 1 Timothy chapter 3.<\/span><\/p>\n Here\u2019s the first actual argument<\/i>, rather than merely bald assertion. It is true that in the early Church and the New Testament, the offices were much more \u201cfluent\u201d and overlapping than they are now (I noted this in my first book, completed in 1996; mentioning three of the passages Ken brings up above). We see this clearly in the essentially synonymous use of the different terms in Titus 1:5-7. What is not<\/i> true, however, is that the Bible teaches no <\/i>distinctions in these offices at all. It certainly does<\/i>.<\/p>\n St. Peter himself functions as a \u201csuper elder\u201d or \u201csuper bishop\u201d. He casually assumes this overarching authority in, e.g., his first Epistle. He is exhorting the elders, as if he is higher in authority than they are: \u201cTend the flock of God that is your charge . . .\u201d (1 Pet 5:2; RSV, as throughout). The letter reads as if it were an early sort of papal encyclical letter. It\u2019s not written to one church, but to people from all over the place. His second Epistle is the same: \u201c. . . To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours . . .\u201d (2 Pet 1:1). I wrote in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/i> (Sophia Institute Press, 2003, p. 252):<\/p>\n Well, I hate to say it, but hey, I just showed several things \u2014 didn\u2019t I? \u2014\u00a0 that Ken<\/i> conveniently omitted in order to put forth his <\/i>Protestant case . . .<\/p>\n He is a former Protestant, a Southern Baptist, and evangelical, and by leaving out certain parts of Irenaeus and Clement, at the exact places that balance these men and their writings a little more toward Protestantism, his purpose seems clear.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ll deal with those as ken proceeds. But again, I guarantee that Ken will do exactly that which he condemns. I will demonstrate<\/i> it, as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Now, there is nothing wrong with being selective, and no one can include everything in his or her research, <\/span><\/p>\n Of course one can\u2019t do everything<\/i>. But it is dishonest to omit crucial evidence<\/i> that can be brought to bear, when discussing a Church father. Protestants habitually do this, in direct proportion to how anti-Catholic and agenda-driven or polemically motivated they are. In doing so, they are not presenting the \u201cwhole truth\u201d (as they say in court cases in the swearing in). A half-truth is as good as a lie. This will be (as I\u2019ll prove) Ken\u2019s downfall as he tries to make his case.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n And certainly, I realize that I would be accused of the same thing, if I wrote an apologetic for Protestantism and the early church and I leave out some parts of Irenaeus and Tertullian that seem to teach Mary as the New Eve (that, according to R. Catholic claims, provide seeds of the later ideas of the intercession of Mary, prayers to Mary, that she is an advocate for us, a co-mediatrix ideas of Mary); or if I leave out other passages of other early church fathers\/writers that seem to teach some kind of baptismal regeneration or apostolic succession.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes he would<\/i>!<\/p>\n Some ancient passages are anachronistically interpreted to be something about the Roman Catholic church, the Pope, etc.; but they do not really teach that at the time of the early church, in the Roman Catholic Papal sense that took centuries to develop.<\/span><\/p>\n Likewise, the Protestant polemicist of a certain sort (ahem, Ken<\/i>\u2018s sort) will often project or \u201csuperimpose\u201d back onto the early Church later Protestant doctrines that would have been completely foreign and utterly unknown to the minds of that period (being inventions of the 16th century).<\/p>\n . . . someone else also the right to come along and show how certain things have been left out, and at just the precise place, so as to seemingly, although innocently, skew the evidence. <\/span><\/p>\n Yes! That\u2019s what I\u2019ll be doing here<\/i>; already have<\/i> done so. It\u2019s always droningly the same in these discussions of the fathers with anti-Catholic Protestants.<\/p>\n Clement of Rome<\/span><\/p>\n In his section on Clement, on page 87, Rod Bennett stops the quote short of confirming that episcopais<\/em> (overseer or bishop) and presbuteras<\/em> (elder) are used interchangeabl[y] and teach that they are the same office in the local church. (see I Clement 43:6 \u2013 44:1-4) In 44:3-6, if the quote is allowed to continue, shows that the earliest churches, closest to the written Scriptures, still held to the teaching that elders and overseers were one and the same office in the church, charged with the responsibility of teaching, pastoring, and guarding the flock from false teaching. (Acts 20:17-30, Titus 1:5-7, I Timothy 3, I Peter 5:1-5) All of these passages show that elders and bishops are the same, and that their job is to pastor\/ feed\/ shepherd the flock, and do the work of \u201coverseeing\u201d (leading).<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve already granted that this is sometimes, even often the case, in the New Testament and in the earliest fathers, but I deny that it is always<\/i> the case, as already shown from both. A very clear case of \u201csuper bishops\u201d occurs in the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29), comprised of \u201capostles\u201d and \u201celders\u201d (15:2, 4, 6, 22-23). Now, when this council finished its business and made its decrees, we see St. Paul\u00a0 and St. Timothy proclaiming it as binding. In order for this to be the case, there had to be an authority overarching the local churches. Thus, the Bible states:<\/p>\n Acts 16:4<\/b> 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That isn\u2019t just ordinary elders. It\u2019s elders who clearly<\/i> have authority over elders in many other regions<\/i>. And that is Catholic<\/i> ecclesiology, not Protestant. The decisions were not optionally received. They were delivered in no uncertain terms \u201cfor observance.\u201d If someone tries to argue, \u201cwell those were apostles, so it was a special case,\u201d there are two responses:<\/p>\n 1) why would God provide an example of a council in Church governance in Scripture, only to be ignored altogether later, as if it has no modeling significance?<\/p>\n 2) It is said of Judas that \u201cHis office [episkopos<\/i>] let another take\u201d (Acts 1:20). That was passed on to Matthias. Thus, an apostle was called a bishop and succeeded by another man, which is apostolic succession: another very Catholic (and alas, biblical) doctrine.<\/p>\n Paul himself has authority over many churches. The counter-argument would be, again, that he was an apostle, so that it is a special, temporary case. Yet, even being an apostle, he is subject to the authority of Peter when he went to visit him early in his ministry, and also the the Jerusalem council, that confirmed or ratified Paul\u2019s practice of not circumcising Gentile converts to Christianity and then sent him out to proclaim what the council had decreed. Therefore, Paul was under authority, and we once again see multi-level hierarchy in the Church, right in the New Testament. I fail to see what could be clearer than that. Ken\u2019s conclusions are incomplete, ignore large relevant portions of Scripture, and half-truths. I have presented the whole<\/i> truth of the matter, granting some of what he claims, but introducing equally important themes that he ignored.<\/p>\n Clement agrees with this, with the Scriptures, that elders and bishops are the same,<\/span><\/p>\n No he doesn\u2019t, because he himself commands elders in other regions and says that if they disobey it is a sin. In Scripture, Paul, Peter, and the Jerusalem council act similarly.<\/p>\n so this is hardly an early church document in which teaches a papacy or Roman Catholicism. <\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s precisely<\/i> such (as is Peter\u2019s predominance at the Jerusalem council and precedence in many ways: that I have documented<\/a>).<\/p>\n Also, in the Irenaeus section, he cuts the quotes and re-arranges them out of order in such a way as to give a false impression.<\/span><\/p>\n This appears to be a charge of deliberate deception.<\/p>\n Irenaeus believed in the rule of faith, but how does Irenaeus define the rule of faith?<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m delighted that Ken asked. Here is how St. Irenaeus defined the rule of faith, according to the prominent Protestant church historian Philip Schaff:<\/p>\n Ken goes on to argue:<\/p>\n Irenaeus On page 247, Rod claims that the Gnostics always appealed to Scripture for their views:<\/p>\n \u201cTo what did they appeal when they offered their various insights? To Scripture always . . . though always to Scripture properly understood of course.\u201d<\/p>\n Where is the proof of this? I have not found this anywhere in Irenaeus. Rod is making it seem like Protestantism is like Gnosticism. Actually, Irenaeus says just the opposite! He says that the Gnostics:<\/p>\n a. gather their knowledge from other sources other than the Scriptures. (Against Heresies, 1:8:1) Thus, according to Schaff, Ken has fundamentally distorted Irenaeus\u2019 views. He tried to make out that Irenaeus was opposing any extrabiblical tradition, or oral tradition, and by extension, apostolic succession. In fact, according to Schaff\u2019s reading, Irenaeus opposed the Gnostics\u2019 false heretical traditions not with Scripture only<\/i>, but with true, apostolic, oral Catholic<\/i> tradition, pointing to Rome as the orthodox center and guarantor of true Christian doctrine. It\u2019s all (true) tradition and church authority.<\/p>\n Schaff even goes so far as to say (shockingly to Protestant ears!): \u201cHe might conceive of a Christianity without scripture, but he could not imagine a Christianity without living tradition\u201d. That is hardly sola Scriptura<\/i>, by any stretch of the wildest imagination. So how could Ken get it so wrong? Well, it\u2019s that bias we\u2019ve both been talking about. He saw what he wanted to see in Irenaeus and ignored the rest, and his it from his readers; whereas Schaff, as an honest (still thoroughly Protestant) historian, presents the whole picture and doesn\u2019t try to hide things.<\/p>\n Ken pretends that Irenaeus would deny authoritative apostolic tradition (his take of Against Heresies<\/i>, 1:8:1). This is a joke. And we can show that it is by looking at he next passage he trots out (3:2:1), which Ken tries to summarize as an \u201canti-tradition\u201d sentiment. It clearly is not. In 3:2:1 Irenaeus refers to the Gnostics being \u201cconfuted from the Scriptures\u201d but then in 3:2:2 he positively endorses Christian \/ Catholic <\/i>tradition (my bolding and italics):<\/p>\n 2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles<\/i><\/b>, [and] which is preserved by means of<\/i> the succession of presbyters in the Churches<\/b>, they object to tradition<\/b>, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor<\/i> to tradition<\/b>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Once again, then, we see that it is not a \u201cBible [Protestantism] vs. [evil Catholic] Tradition\u201d scenario. It is, rather, a \u201cbad, false<\/i> tradition vs. true apostolic<\/i> tradition scenario\u201d: with the Bible (rightly interpreted in light of the passed-down tradition) being the trump card for the Catholic position. It turns out that Ken has engaged in thoroughly distorted interpretation of fundamental aspects of Irenaeus, making him out to be some sort of primitive or proto-Protestant, when he is not at all. His teaching bears little or no resemblance at all to the Protestant rule of faith, sola Scriptura<\/i>. He\u2019s not nearly as concerned with prooftexts from Scripture here as he is with apostolic succession and true tradition.<\/p>\n But these 3 things are what the Roman Catholic church actually does do. <\/span><\/p>\n Yes we do; so does (very clearly) Irenaeus.<\/p>\n They have other sources of authority that the Scriptures. Secret oral tradition, historical development of interpretation throughout history, the other councils after the first four ecumenical councils, creeds, and interpretations that grew centuries later, writings of the Popes, and the Apocrapha [sic]<\/span> books, which are called \u201cDeutero-canonicals\u201d, meaning, \u201csecondarily received into the canon as God-breathed.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Yes we do. And the fathers and the Bible agree with us all down the line.<\/p>\n Jerome and Athanasius and Melito of Sardis have enough evidence to show the Apocrapha [sic] books were not inspired or part of the canon in the way that Roman Catholic apologists try to make them out to be.<\/span><\/p>\n Is that so<\/i>? Ken misrepresents (we will assume out of ignorance) St. Athanasius, who accepts several deuterocanonical books as canonical. St. Athanasius is one of the favorites of Protestants (probably second to St. Augustine in that regard). It\u2019s true that he did seem to lower the status of the deuterocanonical books somewhat, but not to a sub-biblical level, as noted by my good friend Gary Michuta, in his excellent book, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger<\/span><\/i> <\/a>(Port Huron, Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007, 110-112; footnote numbering my own):<\/p>\n Athanasius quotes both Baruch and Susanna right along passages from Isaiah, Psalms, Romans, and Hebrews; he makes no distinction or qualification between them [1]<\/span>. Wisdom also is used as an authentic portion of sacred Scripture . . .:<\/p>\n But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago<\/i>, when it said, \u2018The devising of idols, as the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the corruption of life . . .\u2019 [Ws 14:12]<\/span> <\/span>[2]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n And later in the same work:<\/p>\n For since they were endeavouring to invest with what Scripture calls the incommunicable name . . . [3] <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This reference to the \u201cincommunicable name\u201d comes from Wisdom 14:21 . . .<\/p>\n Athanasius quotes another passage from Wisdom as constituting the teachings of Christ, the Word of God. He undoubtedly uses it to confirm doctrine. [4] <\/i><\/span>In another argument against Arians, he calls both the Protocanonical Proverbs and the Deuterocanonical Wisdom \u201choly Scripture\u201d . . . [5] <\/span>. . .<\/p>\n Athanasius also quotes the book of Sirach without distinction or qualification, in the midst of several other scriptural quotations. [6] <\/span>. . . Athanasius calls the Book of Judith Scripture. [7] <\/span>Tobit is cited right along with several Protocanonical quotations [8] <\/span>, and even introduced with the solemn formula \u201cit is written.\u201d [9]<\/span><\/p>\n [1] <\/span>Four Discourses Against the Arians<\/i>, Discourse 1.12. The great Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce confirms Michuta\u2019s analysis (my bracketed comments):<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\nOn page 246, he leaves out part of the quote that shows that Irenaeus is using Scriptural proofs for his arguments against the Gnostics.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nb. claim that the Jesus gave the apostles a secret, oral tradition. (3:2:1)
\nc. accuse the Scriptures of being unclear and ambiguous. (3:2:1)<\/p>\n
\n[2] Against the Heathen<\/i>, 11.1. Emphasis added.
\n[3] Against the Heathen<\/i>, 1, 17.3.
\n[4] On the Incarnate Word<\/i>, 4.6; 5.2.
\n[5] Defense Against Arius<\/i>, 1, 3.
\n[6] Life of Anthony<\/i>, 28 and Apology Against the Arians<\/i>, 66.
\n[7] Four Discourses Against the Arians<\/i>, Discourse 2.35 . . .
\n[8] Defense of Constantius<\/i>, 17. Tobit is cited after Matthew and Isaiah.
\n[9] Defense Against Arius<\/i>, Part 1, 11.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n