![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/11\/whitecaricature.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Reformed Baptist anti-Catholic apologist\u00a0Bishop<\/a>\u00a0\u201cDr.\u201d [???<\/a>] James White wrote a book in 1990, entitled,\u00a0Answers to Catholic Claims<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>(Southbridge, Massachusetts: Crowne Publications). He was kind enough to give me a free copy in 1995 at the time of our\u00a0lengthy postal debate<\/a>. Bishop White\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n On page 51 he wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n Until the teaching magisterium of the Catholic church officially and formally dogmatizes a particular teaching, claiming it comes from \u201ctradition,\u201d it is not known whether those \u201cbeliefs\u201d that are held by many Roman Catholics are actually a part of the \u201ctradition\u201d or not.<\/span><\/p>\n The problem is that this argument is just as effective against his own<\/em> distinctive Protestant beliefs. If I may be so bold as to paraphrase the good bishop and turn his argument back onto him:<\/span><\/p>\n Until the teaching magisterium of the Catholic church officially and formally dogmatized a particular set of books in the biblical canon, claiming it comes from \u201ctradition,\u201d it was not known for sure whether the \u201cbeliefs\u201d regarding the canonicity of several individual New Testament books that were held by many Catholics were actually a part of the canon \u201ctradition\u201d or not.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let\u2019s take a closer look at this. It\u2019s an argument from analogy. Remember, White\u2019s argument is against sacred tradition. Now I have applied the same reasoning to the biblical canon, to see how analogous it really is. In other words: White and Protestants can accept a long, confusing, almost 400-year process of canonization with no problem, so why not also a long process to proclaim with definite dogmatic certainty, Catholic doctrines that they do not accept? <\/span><\/p>\n The only difference is that White \u201clikes\u201d the biblical canon (minus seven books), but he does not<\/em> like the Marian doctrines, purgatory, the papacy, and so forth. Nevertheless, the historical processes were largely the same for both. Sometimes Catholic developments for certain doctrines took quite a while longer, but the essential process was the same.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I summed up some of the confusing historical details regarding the canon of the New Testament in<\/span> a 2006 paper<\/a>:<\/p>\n Even St. Paul\u2019s books were disputed by at least two major early figures, or at least not introduced as \u201cScripture\u201d per se.\u00a0For example, we have no positive evidence that St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165) regarded\u00a0Philippians, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, or 1, 2, and 3 John, as biblical books. That\u2019s eleven out of 27 books. The same is true of 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, with regard to St. Polycarp (c. 69 \u2013 c. 155). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, 1 Peter\u00a0was not considered canonical in the period from 30-160, and was first accepted only by St. Irenaeus (c. 130 \u2013 c. 200) and St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 \u2013 c. 215). The same is true of\u00a01 John, which was also first accepted by St. Irenaeus. It was still being disputed by a minority in the \u201clate\u201d period of 250-325 (as was 1 Peter). The\u00a0Book of Acts\u00a0was scarcely known or quoted in the period of 30-160, and only gradually accepted from 160 to 250. It was either not known or not cited by St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius, and Papias, and the\u00a0Didache\u00a0(all prior to 150 A. D.).<\/span><\/p>\n St. Justin Martyr, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen all cite or allude to it, but do not specifically refer to it as canonical or inspired Holy Scripture. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As for books eventually decided to\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0be part of the biblical canon: The Acts of Paul was accepted by Origen, and appeared in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations.\u00a0The Gospel of Hebrews\u00a0was accepted by St. Clement of Alexandria.\u00a01 and 2 Clement\u00a0and\u00a0Psalms of Solomon\u00a0were included in the Codex Alexandrinus from the early fifth century. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3, 16) tells us that 1 Clement had been read in many churches.\u00a0The Epistle to the Laodiceans, known to be a forgery by St. Jerome, was included in many Bibles from the sixth to fifteenth centuries; even reappearing in 16th-century German and English Protestant Bibles. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Justin Martyr also repeatedly cites a work called\u00a0Memoirs of the Apostles\u00a0(e.g., ten times in his\u00a0Dialogue With Trypho). St. Athanasius thought The Didache was good enough to include alongside the canonical books, in the same list where he first lists the 27 NT books, and to be profitably read in churches for edification . . . St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) took the same position . . ., as did Rufinus (d. 410).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In a<\/span> 2017 article on the biblical canon<\/a>, I observed:<\/span><\/p>\n Numerous books were disputed up until the fourth century: notably, Hebrews, James, Revelation, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and also including 2 Peter: the very book that is cited as corroborating the Pauline corpus. The 1910\u00a0Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>, in its article on the \u201cEpistles of St. Peter\u201d chronicles the uncertainty about this book in the early Church:<\/span><\/p>\n In the first two centuries there is not in the Apostolic Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, if we except Theophilus of Antioch (180), a single quotation properly so called from this Epistle\u00a0 . . . In the Western Church there is not explicit testimony in favour of the canonicity and Apostolicity of this Epistle until the middle of the fourth century. Tertullian and Cyprian do not mention it, . . .\u00a0 Eusebius of Caesarea (340), while personally accepting II Peter as authentic and canonical, nevertheless classes it among the disputed works (antilegomena<\/em>), . . . St. John Chrysostom does not speak of it, . . .<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n St. John Henry Cardinal Newman compared the patristic evidence for purgatory (rejected by Protestants), to that for original sin (accepted by Protestants):<\/span><\/p>\n Some notion of suffering, or disadvantage, or punishment after this life, in the case of the faithful departed, or other vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory, has in its favour almost a consensus of the first four ages of the Church.\u00a0(An\u00a0Essay\u00a0on the Development of Christian Doctrine<\/em>, University of Notre Dame Press, 1989, from the 1878 edition of the original work of 1845,\u00a0p. 21)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s a serious problem for Protestantism that it inconsistently rejects many doctrines that have a consensus in the early Church, such as purgatory, the papacy, bishops, the Real Presence, various Marian doctrines, regenerative infant baptism, apostolic succession, and intercession of the saints, while accepting others with far less explicit early sanction, such as original sin.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The divinity of Christ was dogmatically proclaimed only at the \u201clate\u201d date of 325, the fully worked-out doctrine of the Holy Trinity in 381, and the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) in 451, all in Ecumenical Councils which are accepted by most Protestants.<\/span><\/p>\n White derides the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by the Catholic Church in 1854, and states that \u201cuntil this time [it] had been a belief held mainly<\/em> by devotees of Mary\u201d<\/span> (p. 52; my italics). But what he doesn\u2019t understand is that belief in Mary\u2019s sinlessness is<\/span> firmly rooted in patristic tradition<\/a>, and was held by fathers considered great heroes by Protestants, such as Athanasius, and Augustine, among many others. Sinlessness is the very essence of the Immaculate Conception. There was also a feast day for the Immaculate Conception in the east from the 7th century on.<\/span><\/p>\n All that doctrine developed was the idea that this sinlessness extended back to Mary\u2019s conception and original sin. Nothing much was added to the thinking concerning Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception, since the time of Duns Scotus (c. 1266-1308). According to the Wikipedia article<\/a> devoted to him:<\/span><\/p>\n Citing\u00a0Anselm of Canterbury\u2019s principle, \u201cpotuit, decuit, ergo fecit<\/i>\u201d (He [i.e., God] could do it, it was appropriate, therefore He did it), Duns Scotus devised the following argument: Mary was in need of redemption like all other human beings, but through the merits of Jesus\u2019\u00a0crucifixion, given in advance, she was conceived without the stain of original sin. God could have brought it about (1) that she was never in original sin, (2) she was in sin only for an instant, (3) she was in sin for a period of time, being purged at the last instant. It was a further development of a development, which happens all the time in Church history. The Two Natures of Christ was a further development of the deity of Christ. The latter was proclaimed dogma in 325, and the former in 451. Thus, this development took 126 years.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The problem is that Bishop White<\/span> (like many<\/em> anti-Catholic Protestant apologists<\/a>) doesn\u2019t fully comprehend the development of doctrine. So, for example,<\/span> he wrote to me in May 1995<\/a>:<\/p>\n You said that usually the Protestant misunderstands the concept of development. Well, before Newman came up with it, I guess we had good reason, wouldn\u2019t you say? . . . those who hang their case on Newman and the development hypothesis are liable for all sorts of problems . . . And as for Newman\u2019s statement, \u201cto be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant,\u201d I would say, \u201cto be deep in Newman is to cease to be an historically consistent Roman Catholic.\u00a0(part of a lengthy exchange now uploaded as<\/span>\u00a0Is Catholicism Christian or Not?<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n To say \u201cNewman came up with it\u201d is abominably ignorant, as it was clearly being discussed by St. Augustine and St. Vincent of Lerins in the 4th and 5th centuries. Cardinal Newman merely developed the thinking of development of doctrine, which had been<\/span> going on for at least 1400 years<\/a>. He didn\u2019t \u201cinvent\u201d anything out of thin air. Moreover, it can be shown in several ways to be a teaching of Holy Scripture as well:<\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, Bishop White needs to get up to speed in understanding development of doctrine: which took place with regard to all<\/em> Christian doctrines. Then he needs to grasp how specifically Catholic development is hardly different in essence from development of doctrines that Catholics accept.<\/span><\/p>\n Sadly, we can\u2019t reasonably expect this to happen anytime soon<\/em>, and so White will keep making wrongheaded arguments such as this one.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n ***<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\nNewman then recounted sixteen Church fathers who hold the view in some form. But in comparing this consensus to the doctrine of original sin, we find a fascinating thing:<\/span><\/div>\n\n
No one will say that there is a testimony of the Fathers, equally strong, for the doctrine of Original Sin. (Ibid<\/em>., p. 21)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\nIn spite of the forcible teaching of St. Paul on the subject, the doctrine of Original Sin appears neither in the Apostles\u2019 nor the Nicene Creed.\u00a0(Ibid<\/em>., p. 23)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nDevelopment of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?<\/a>\u00a0[1995]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nOverview of Development of Doctrine (TV Interview)\u00a0<\/a>[5-1-99]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\nA Brief Introduction to the Development of Doctrine\u00a0<\/a>[8-30-06]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nDevelopment of Catholic Doctrine: A Primer<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 1-5-18]<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\nUnfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist<\/strong>:<\/span>\u00a0If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 \/ month \u2014 a mere 33 cents a day \u2014 would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see\u00a0my Resume<\/a>).\u00a0My work has been proven (by God\u2019s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences\u00a0from unsolicited \u201ctestimonies\u201d<\/a>).\u00a0I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMy book royalties from\u00a0three bestsellers in the field<\/a>\u00a0(published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.\u00a0 I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have\u00a0written 50 books<\/a>.\u00a0It\u2019ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and \u201clikes\u201d and links and shares). Thanks!<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSee my\u00a0information on how to donate<\/a>\u00a0(including 100% tax-deductible donations). It\u2019s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my \u201cbusiness name\u201d there is called \u201cCatholic Used Book Service,\u201d from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through\u00a0Zelle<\/a>. Again, just send to my e-mail address.\u00a0May God abundantly bless you.<\/div>\n