![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/04\/JesusPeterRaphael.jpg\")
<\/center>TABLE OF CONTENTS<\/span><\/strong> I. Introductory Remarks<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p> III. Deductive vs. Speculative Developments (the Holy Trinity vs. the Immaculate Conception)<\/b><\/p>\n IV. Development and the New Testament Canon (Difficulties for Protestantism)<\/b><\/p>\n V. The Development of the Papacy<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p> If I didn\u2019t think what I wrote was relevant, I wouldn\u2019t have written it. In any event, those remarks stand unrefuted. Mainly I cited these men as a sort of \u201creview of the literature,\u201d to demonstrate how misinformed many Protestant apologists are as to the definitions and historical progression of doctrinal development (and how they don\u2019t seem to recognize the double standards routinely applied, where Protestant developments are fine, but Catholic ones which are operating on the same principle are \u201cexcessive\u201d).<\/p>\n I ask the reader, whether he\u2019s Catholic or non-Catholic, to try to think about what he\u2019s reading as objectively as possible. I think that if we approach these things more from a rational and evidential standpoint and less from an emotional and speculative standpoint, we\u2019re more likely to arrive at the truth.<\/span><\/p>\n This is well-stated, and I couldn\u2019t agree more. I always wish and hope that readers will react in this fashion.<\/p>\n These are important issues with a lot of temporal and eternal consequences. They should be taken more seriously, by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, than they usually seem to be. If there are some problems in how you\u2019re perceiving the issue of development of doctrine, you should be more concerned with correcting those problems than with trying to avoid the difficulties involved in changing your position on the issue.<\/span><\/p>\n Amen!<\/p>\n [ . . . ]<\/p>\n <\/p> Fair enough. I thought this might be the case, since I have yet to hear from William Webster in a year-and-a-half, as of this writing. I did inform him that I wrote my paper. I remain very interested in seeing his response, if he should ever change his mind.<\/p>\n [deleted citation of my words]<\/p>\n In my first reply, I specifically quoted Dave saying that people like William Webster and James White are \u201canti-development\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Mr. White certainly is to some serious degree, judging by his words in a personal letter to me, cited in our last exchange (emphasis and note added):<\/p>\n You said that usually the Protestant misunderstands the concept of development. Well,\u00a0before Newman [who lived in the 19th century]\u00a0came up with it<\/i>, I guess we had good reason,\u00a0wouldn\u2019t you say? . . . Might it actually be that the Protestant fully understands development\u00a0but rightly\u00a0rejects\u00a0<\/i>it?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dave cited Vincent of Lerins, and he repeatedly referred to how the First Vatican Council accepted \u201cdevelopment\u201d . . .<\/span><\/p>\n As Newman drew directly from the 5th century work of St. Vincent of Lerins, it is exceedingly strange that Mr. White (and George Salmon) seem to think that Newman was the originator of \u201cthe concept of development\u201d 1400 years later.<\/p>\n . . . Dave considers George Salmon to have rejected all forms of development of doctrine. (I\u2019m not going to be addressing George Salmon in this article.)<\/span><\/p>\n He seems to, yes, as I think I showed near the beginning of my paper.<\/p>\n In his first article, Dave repeatedly associates William Webster with George Salmon. Yet, in his second article, Dave distinguishes between Webster and Salmon, explaining that he\u2019s not accusing Webster of rejecting all forms of development. If you\u2019re not making that accusation against Webster, Dave, then why repeatedly tie him together with Salmon in your first article,<\/span><\/p>\n Because their methodologies are quite similar. Neither understands development of doctrine, and both think that Newman was a special pleader who used his theory of development to rationalize away Catholic \u201cproblems\u201d with regard to the history of doctrine. Mr. White implied that Salmon\u2019s book (now well over a hundred years old) was the last word on the subject, and asked me if I had read it. Actually, I had consulted it when I was warring against infallibility as an evangelical Protestant in 1990. I\u2019m quite familiar with this way of thinking because it was my own in those days. Webster and White argue on this topic much like I would have in 1990.<\/p>\n why cite Vincent of Lerins,<\/span><\/p>\n Because he so obviously, clearly, espouses so-called \u201cNewmanian\u201d development in the 5th century. He came up because William Webster stated that Vatican I rejected development of doctrine. I showed how the Council cited the very work in which St. Vincent\u2019s explicit treatment of development appears.<\/p>\n and why make unqualified references to how Vatican I accepted \u201cdevelopment\u201d?<\/span><\/p>\n Because it did! Webster denied this in his original paper, with statements like the following:<\/p>\n The papal encyclical,\u00a0Satis Cognitum<\/i>, written by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, is a commentary on and papal confirmation of the teachings of Vatican I. As to the issue of doctrinal development, Leo makes it quite clear that Vatican I leaves no room for such a concept in its teachings. Leo states over and over again that the papacy was fully established by Christ from the very beginning and that it has been the foundation of the constitution of the Church and recognized as such from the very start and throughout all ages.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n It is true that Mr. Webster is a bit unclear in his choice of words. I see that more clearly now, with the benefit of Jason\u2019s clarifications. I think I was assuming that he couldn\u2019t have been so misinformed as to think that the Catholic Church would rule out development of doctrine on one issue (the papacy), and allow it in others, when in fact, we hold that\u00a0all<\/i>\u00a0doctrines develop over time. Webster\u2019s arguments about the papacy and what Vatican I supposedly taught about it vis-a-vis development were so wrongheaded that I may have assumed wrongly that he was trying to deny\u00a0all\u00a0<\/i>development (I\u2019d have to re-read it to get inside of my specific train of thought once again).<\/p>\n But Webster \u2014 without a doubt \u2014 badly botches the facts of the matter with regard to what Vatican I\u2019s teaching on the papacy, and how it relates (or doesn\u2019t relate) to development of doctrine. One has to read my paper itself to see how he does this. It is much too complicated to summarize here.<\/p>\n Webster\u2019s confusion pertaining to the development of doctrine is revealed in statements like, \u201cLeo states over and over again that the papacy was fully established by Christ from the very beginning . . . ,\u201d as if this is a contradiction of development. Of\u00a0course<\/i>\u00a0the papacy was there from the beginning; we believe all Catholic doctrines were present in the apostolic age, whether explicitly or in kernel form (the \u201capostolic deposit\u201d of Acts 2:42 and Jude 3). The early papacy was very much a kernel, but that is no argument whatever as to its somehow not being capable under the same premises of much subsequent development, or not established by Christ Himself.<\/p>\n As I explained in my first reply, William Webster seems to object to Catholic apologists appealing to development on some specific issues, not on any and every issue.<\/span><\/p>\n I can understand that, and agree that this shouldn\u2019t be done (though I would disagree with his assessment as to how often Catholic apologists commit this error).<\/p>\n If Dave now agrees with me about this, then much of his first article was inaccurate and irrelevant.<\/span><\/p>\n Not really, because it would be limited to a discussion of papal development only, rather than development in general. But since the former subject was the main topic of discussion in both his article and Vatican I itself, my points still stand. I believe Mr. Webster was shown to be in great error with regard to the fact of what was taught by the Council.<\/p>\n If Webster would agree with Dave that Vatican I and Pope Leo XIII would accept some forms of development of doctrine, while rejecting other forms (and Webster thinks modern Catholic apologists are advocating some of those other forms), then what\u2019s the point of Dave citing Vincent of Lerins, Cardinal Newman, etc.? What\u2019s the point of making unqualified references to \u201cdevelopment\u201d, as though Webster would deny that Vatican I and Pope Leo XIII accepted development on any issue? I think my argument that Dave misrepresented William Webster\u2019s position has yet to be refuted.<\/span><\/p>\n I have no problem admitting that Webster accepts some forms of development and rejects others. That is no big deal, and I accept your word on that. I continue to maintain that he neither understands the true nature of development, nor what Vatican I taught about\u00a0papal<\/i>\u00a0development; and I say he accepts or denies developments arbitrarily, based on Protestant axiomatic presuppositions of which are \u201cproper\u201d and which are not. And Webster seems not to know that the Catholic Church thinks\u00a0all<\/i>\u00a0Christian doctrines undergo development.<\/p>\n The issue isn\u2019t: \u201cMariology develops but the papacy does not,\u201d but rather: \u201cby what principle do we determine what is a proper development of doctrine x and what is a corruption of doctrine x?\u201d For the Catholic (to offer an example), transubstantiation would be a \u201cproper development\u201d of patristic views with regard to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Zwinglian purely symbolic presence would be a corruption of same.<\/p>\n <\/p> When a skeptic of Christianity proposes a highly unlikely alternative theory to the resurrection, such as that all of the witnesses were either lying or hallucinating, and that the corroboration from non-Christians was either forged or reliant on Christian sources, conservative Catholics and evangelicals alike condemn that. When Catholics are responding to skeptics of Christianity, they\u2019re careful in distinguishing between possibilities and probabilities. They ought to do the same when responding to evangelicals, but they often don\u2019t.<\/span><\/p>\n I agree with the abstract principle Jason sets down here, but I\u2019m sure we will disagree on its\u00a0application\u00a0<\/i>in individual instances.<\/p>\n Let me cite an example I referred to in my first reply to Dave. According to Dave and other Catholic apologists, Roman Catholic doctrines rejected by evangelicals have developed in a way comparable to how Trinitarian doctrine developed.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes. There is no difference in principle. Protestants will always argue, of course, that distinctive Catholic doctrines have no biblical support (and I imagine you will do that here), but that is a separate issue. One can quibble about relative support from the Bible, and then one can wrangle over the actual historical process of development.\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0itself is false on other grounds (not the least of which are strong biblical arguments), and the canon of the New Testament is utterly without biblical support, yet Protestants accept it as a legitimate development. That flaw and blatant inconsistency in their system has never been adequately overcome.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s compare the development of a Trinitarian doctrine, the co-existence of the three Persons, with the development of a Roman Catholic doctrine, the Immaculate Conception. Can it be said that the concept of the co-existence of the three Persons developed over time? Yes, if what\u2019s meant is that people\u2019s understanding of the concept and its importance, as well as its presence in various passages of scripture, expanded over time. <\/span><\/p>\n However, as I explained in my first\u00a0reply to Dave, the difference between something like the co-existence of the three Persons and\u00a0something like the Immaculate Conception is that the former is logically necessary and\u00a0non-speculative in what Jesus and the apostles taught, whereas the latter is logically unnecessary\u00a0and speculative.<\/span><\/p>\n Okay; how is the canon of the New Testament logically necessary and non-speculative like the Trinity? If you can\u2019t give any support for that, your argument collapses, since Protestants would then be accepting a notion which is parallel logically and in terms of \u201csolid biblical evidence\u201d with the Immaculate Conception, and you would then have to explain your own arbitrariness in accepting the canon on a different logical basis than something like the Holy Trinity.<\/p>\n When a passage like Matthew 3:16-17 refers to all three Persons of the Trinity existing at once, or some other passages refer to all three Persons raising Jesus from the dead,\u00a0meaning that they had to have existed at the same time, the co-existence of the three Persons is unavoidable. Might it take a while for a person to realize this, and might his views be said to have developed in that sense? Yes. But does that make this Trinitarian doctrine comparable to a doctrine like the Immaculate Conception? No, it doesn\u2019t. Let me explain why.<\/span><\/p>\n I agree that the Holy Trinity is the only possible deduction and consistent interpretation of all the biblical data (and I have two lengthy papers on my website presenting the hundreds of biblical proofs for the Godhood of Jesus<\/a> and for the\u00a0Holy Trinity<\/a>). I also agree that the biblical evidences for the Trinity are far, far stronger than for the Immaculate Conception (though the latter are not entirely lacking, as Protestants suppose). But that is not relevant to the truthfulness of the Immaculate Conception; it is only relevant as to the extent and type of biblical\u00a0proofs\u00a0<\/i>which can be given.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t believe that every Christian doctrine has to be found whole and entire in the Scriptures, because Scripture itself does not lay that concept down as a principle for believing something or not. Protestants simply assume that\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0is true (thus making many of their arguments about doctrine circular), but, as I said, that is another argument. This discussion is about development of doctrine.<\/p>\n When a passage like Luke 1:28 is cited in favor of the Immaculate Conception, is it logically necessary to conclude that the passage is teaching the concept that Mary was conceived without sin? No, and not only is it not logically necessary, but it\u2019s also highly speculative. The passage doesn\u2019t say anything about sinlessness, much less sinlessness since the time of conception. The \u201cfull of grace\u201d translation is an old one, and it\u2019s widely rejected today. <\/span><\/p>\n But even if we assume that it\u2019s the best translation of the passage, the Greek just can\u2019t carry the weight that Catholic apologists want to place on it. There\u2019s nothing in the Greek that leads to the conclusion of conception without sin. Even if we just consider the English translation, could \u201cfull of grace\u201d be a reference to sinlessness? Yes. Could it also be a reference to sinfulness (Romans 5:20)? Yes. And however we interpret \u201cfull of grace\u201d, it doesn\u2019t tell us anything about how Mary was conceived.<\/span><\/p>\n One mustn\u2019t claim too much for one\u2019s argument. The Catholic apologist cannot possibly assert that the entire concept of the Immaculate Conception is included in Luke 1:28; only that that verse is entirely\u00a0consistent<\/i>\u00a0with Mary being sinless, which itself is a\u00a0prerequisite<\/i>\u00a0for the Immaculate Conception (and, we say, the\u00a0kernel<\/i>\u00a0of the doctrine). That the verse strongly suggests\u00a0sinlessness<\/i>, however, can be shown by examining the linguistic considerations and cross-referencing.<\/p>\n Clearly, it\u2019s false to claim that a concept like the co-existence of the three Persons developed in a way similar to how the concept of the Immaculate Conception developed. I\u2019ll give further evidence to that effect in my section below that specifically addresses the Immaculate Conception doctrine.<\/span><\/p>\n I agree with this, but I don\u2019t see how it renders the Immaculate Conception unworthy of belief, except under the assumption of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>, which is a falsehood. You can\u2019t simply assume\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0as some Eternal, Unquestioned Principle Etched in Stone when arguing with a Catholic apologist (because you are assuming what you are trying to prove; thus begging the question). We reject the notion as unbiblical and unworkable and illogical. Your comparison would be like saying:<\/p>\n \u201cThe Trinity has far more biblical support than does the canon of the New Testament [which has none whatsoever]; therefore, we gladly accept the Trinity but reject the New Testament canon.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Obviously Protestants don\u2019t do that, and therein lies their logical dilemma. But with regard to the Immaculate Conception, there is indeed an argument which I have developed from the Bible Alone:<\/p>\n 1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God\u2019s grace.<\/p>\n 2. The Bible teaches that we need God\u2019s grace to live a holy life, above sin.<\/p>\n 3. To be \u201cfull of\u201d God\u2019s grace, then, is to be saved.<\/p>\n 4. Therefore, Mary is saved.<\/p>\n 5. To be \u201cfull of\u201d God\u2019s grace is also to be so holy that one is sinless.<\/p>\n 6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.<\/p>\n 7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.<\/p>\n 8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, is directly deduced from The logic would seem to follow inexorably, from unquestionable biblical principles. The only way out of it would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold that either (1) grace doesn\u2019t save, or that (2) grace isn\u2019t that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. In this fashion, the entire\u00a0essence<\/i>\u00a0of the Immaculate Conception is proven (alone) from biblical principles and doctrines which every orthodox Protestant holds.<\/p>\n Note again that I do not say the entire\u00a0doctrine\u00a0<\/i>can be deduced from Scripture, but only its essence, which is sinlessness. That is already quite enough for Protestants to be alarmed about . . . The argument is fleshed out to a greater extent in the above-cited papers.<\/p>\n So, then, I ask the reader to remember the difference between a possibility and a probability as you read the rest of this article. Is Dave, along with other Catholic apologists, showing a\u00a0preference for highly unlikely possibilities over far more likely probabilities? If a skeptic of Christianity did the same thing with regard to the issue of creation or Christ\u2019s resurrection, how\u00a0would you respond?<\/span><\/p>\n And I ask the reader to remember how Jason absolutely will\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>be able to show that the canon of Scripture has any more support in the Bible than the Immaculate Conception does. In fact, it undeniably has no support\u00a0at all<\/i>\u00a0(whereas I have given support for the Immaculate Conception and have provided much more elsewhere). Everyone admits that the canon is not in the Bible itself.<\/p>\n Yet the Protestant never doubts it. It is as indubitable to him as the Trinity, even though it has not a shred of biblical evidence in its favor, and was, in fact, a decree of a Catholic local synod (a rather late development, coming in the late 4th century; more than 350 years after Jesus\u2019 death), authoritatively accepted by two popes.<\/p>\n If Catholic apologists want to argue that the authority of the Catholic Church makes otherwise unlikely doctrines likely, isn\u2019t that just the point that evangelicals are making? Evangelicals accuse Catholics of accepting doctrines that aren\u2019t supported by the evidence, because the Roman Catholic Church teaches those doctrines.<\/span><\/p>\n I vigorously deny that they have no evidence. And I assert that they have much more\u00a0biblical\u00a0<\/i>evidence than the canon of the New Testament and\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>, which have absolutely\u00a0no<\/i>\u00a0biblical support, yet are bedrock fundamentals of the Protestant system of authority and theology. And since biblical support is made a requirement for every Protestant belief (excepting the two concepts above, though), that is quite a greater internal difficulty in\u00a0your<\/i>\u00a0position than anything you can come up with in our system.<\/p>\n If Catholics are going to admit that concepts such as the Assumption of Mary and the seven sacraments are speculative, and that they can\u2019t be traced back to the apostles historically, that\u2019s an admission of what evangelicals have been saying.<\/span><\/p>\n We don\u2019t admit those things in those terms (much as you would love us to, to make your job much easier). All the sacraments are indicated in Scripture, and even the Assumption can be deduced from it (though the historical evidence is weaker than that of perhaps any other Catholic doctrine).<\/p>\n As we\u2019ll see in the section of this article that addresses the papacy, the concept that the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to develop doctrine for us is itself an unlikely and speculative development.<\/span><\/p>\n Authority, too, is a very complex (and separate) issue. It seems that Jason\u2019s ambitions in this paper are rather grand. I find that dialogues are more constructive, however, in proportion to how narrow the subject matter is. I will have to limit my answers on all these side issues, having written about all these things at length elsewhere.<\/p>\n [deleted citation of mine and Jason\u2019s reiteration of his argument]<\/p>\n Before going on to some specific doctrines, I want to respond to a comment Dave made in his reply to me. This is an argument that\u2019s made by a lot of Catholic apologists, despite how irrational\u00a0it is:<\/span><\/p>\n In Catholicism, it is not the individual who reigns supreme, but the corporate Christianity and\u00a0\u2018accumulated wisdom\u2019 of the Church (itself grounded in Holy Scripture);<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Relying on your own personal judgments is impossible to avoid. Evangelicals trust the Bible as their rule of faith because of their personal interpretation of the evidence. Catholics trust their rule of faith as a result of their personal interpretation of the evidence. So if Dave is referring to reliance on personal judgment, he\u2019s criticizing something that every person does, including Catholics. If Dave wants to argue that he was criticizing something else, then what was he criticizing? <\/span><\/p>\n He can\u2019t say that he was criticizing evangelicals for ignoring the conclusions reached by most of professing Christianity, because it seems that most of professing Christianity actually disagrees with Dave on some issues, such as transubstantiation and papal infallibility. According to polls, even many Catholics oppose some of what the Catholic Church teaches. So if Dave\u2019s criticism of \u201cthe individual reigning supreme\u201d isn\u2019t a criticism of personal interpretation (which Catholics also rely on), and it isn\u2019t a criticism of ignoring majority conclusions (some of what the Catholic Church teaches is rejected by the majority), then what is Dave criticizing?<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve dealt with this vexed issue of\u00a0private judgment<\/i>\u00a0(yet another rabbit trail) many times . . .<\/p>\n [ . . . ]<\/span><\/p>\n In my first reply to Dave, I explained that the most straightforward reading of passages like Luke 1:47 and John 2:3-4 is that Mary was a sinner. Just after quoting me saying that, Dave made the following comment regarding Luke 1:47:<\/span><\/p>\n The Immaculate Conception was a pure act of grace on God\u2019s part, saving Mary by\u00a0preventing her from entering the pit of sin as she surely would have, but for that\u00a0special grace.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Is this interpretation of Luke 1:47, that God is Mary\u2019s Savior in the sense of keeping her from ever sinning, a possibility? Yes, it is. But remember what Dave was responding to. He was responding to my argument that viewing Mary as a sinner is the more straightforward interpretation of the passage. And is it? Yes, it obviously is. There\u2019s no scriptural precedent for Dave\u2019s interpretation of Luke 1:47, whereas there are all sorts of scriptural examples of God being a Savior to a person by saving him from sins actually committed. <\/span><\/p>\n In other words, Catholics are appealing to an unlikely interpretation of scripture in order to reconcile scripture with a Roman Catholic doctrine that wouldn\u2019t be dogmatized until about 1800 years later. The point I made, that the more straightforward reading of Luke 1:47 is that Mary was a sinner, is valid.<\/span><\/p>\n On the face of it, yes, but this is an overly simplistic reading, without the proper exegesis. I agree that talk of a \u201cSavior\u201d most plausibly (and normally) refers to the need of redemption from sin. But there are exceptions to every rule, too. Just 19 verses earlier than Luke 1:47 we have a statement that Mary is \u201cfull of grace\u201d (the Greek word is\u00a0kecharitomene<\/i>\u00a0\u2014 which includes the root word\u00a0charitoo<\/i>\u00a0\u2014 Greek for\u00a0grace<\/i>).<\/p>\n I made a deductive biblical argument above showing that she is sinless, based on the straightforward meaning of this verse. If she is sinless then she wouldn\u2019t have sinned! That being the case, then in order to harmonize two seemingly contradictory statements in one passage, one must either reinterpret \u201cSavior\u201d or \u201cfull of grace.\u201d The Catholic reinterprets the first; the Protestant reinterprets the second.<\/p>\n The difference is that the linguistic considerations for\u00a0kecharitomene\u00a0<\/i>are fairly strong arguments favoring the Catholic position, whereas the Catholic argument with regard to \u201cSavior\u201d does not attempt to deny that Mary is saved; we are only saying that she was saved by grace in a\u00a0different fashion<\/i>\u00a0than those who fall into actual sin.<\/p>\n She needed a Savior by the simple fact that she was a member of the fallen human race, just like every other creature. Yet the essence of being a human being is not sinfulness. If that were true, then Jesus wasn\u2019t truly man; nor were Adam and Eve ever sinless at any time, nor was God\u2019s creation originally \u201cgood.\u201d<\/p>\n [deleted further material on the Immaculate Conception, private confession, the seven sacraments, and transubstantiation, so as to concentrate on the underlying premises of development itself, not specific doctrines dealt with elsewhere in my writings and website \u2014 all of which deserve their own in-depth treatments]<\/p>\n <\/p> Can Jason and other Protestant apologists make an argument that the concept of biblical books is biblical? Yes, they can. But can they make a rational biblical argument for numbering the New Testament books at twenty-seven? No, they can\u2019t.<\/p>\n Notice, then, what\u2019s going on here. Dave is taking something not being disputed in this context (that the concept of sacraments can be defended as Biblical), and he\u2019s saying that it represents the \u201cessence\u201d of what is in dispute (numbering the sacraments at seven).<\/span><\/p>\n I may have been unclear in my wording. What I was intending to argue was that (biblically established) sacramentalism itself is the essence of having seven sacraments, just as\u00a0charisms\u00a0<\/i>in Scripture form the basis of spiritual gifts, no matter how many gifts are determined to exist. Having seven sacraments is, of course, not any bit more arbitrary than Luther\u2019s and Calvin\u2019s two, or Baptists having none.<\/p>\n Likewise, the essence of the biblical books is that they are all inspired. But determining exactly which and how many books possess this characteristic, and why, is another matter entirely, just as the determination of the number of sacraments must necessarily rely on human authority (guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth).<\/p>\n The same sort of thing is done by Catholic apologists on other issues. For example, the concept that Mary is a Second Eve is portrayed by Catholic apologists as an expression of the \u201cessence\u201d behind the Immaculate Conception, the \u201cessence\u201d that hasn\u2019t changed over the years. But is that accurate? No, the concept of a Second Eve doesn\u2019t have to involve an immaculately conceived Mary.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s right, but it is irrelevant, because no one is saying that it does. The Immaculate Conception is the\u00a0development<\/i>\u00a0of the Second Eve concept, so by\u00a0definition<\/i>, the latter wouldn\u2019t fully contain the former, else there would be no development\u00a0at all\u00a0<\/i>to speak of. This is such an elementary consideration that Jason seems to have completely overlooked it.<\/p>\n The essence in this instance is sinlessness. That is what doesn\u2019t change through the years, with increased understanding. So the Second Eve (as advanced by Church Fathers such as St. Irenaeus) doesn\u2019t\u00a0have<\/i>\u00a0to be without sin from conception, but the Immaculate Mary has to be sinless.<\/p>\n Upon reflection of what it means to be sinless and to be the\u00a0Theotokos<\/i>, or \u201cGod-bearer,\u201d and \u2014 following the parallelism \u2014 how original sin stands in relation to the First Eve and the Second Eve (itself an analogy to the Pauline motif of \u201cin Adam all men fell \/ in Christ all men are saved\u201d), the mind of the Church arrived in due course at the Immaculate Conception, which amounts to no more than God bringing Mary to the place that Eve was before the Fall and the introduction of original sin.<\/p>\n It is really quite simple. Protestants make it much more complicated than it has to be, because of their prior hostility to a sinless creature, and what they falsely\u00a0think\u00a0<\/i>this means with regard to the inherent nature of Mary (i.e., they suspect that Catholics are raising her to an idolatrously exalted position that no human being can attain).<\/p>\n To say that the concept of a New Eve is an expression of the \u201cessence\u201d that Roman Catholics still believe today, and to act as though that proves that the Immaculate Conception has always been a doctrine of the Christian church (as Pope Pius IX taught), is fallacious.<\/span><\/p>\n Jason\u2019s reasoning is what is \u201cfallacious\u201d here. He doesn\u2019t understand how the Catholic Church\u00a0applies<\/i>\u00a0development in individual instances. When the Church states that something has \u201calways been believed,\u201d what it is saying is that the\u00a0kernel<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0essence\u00a0<\/i>has always been believed, not the entire developed doctrine (just as St. Vincent of Lerins combined his famous \u201ccanon\u201d or \u201cdictum\u201d \u2014 \u201cwhat has been believed everywhere, always, and by all\u201d \u2013 with a superb exposition on development, in the very same writing).<\/p>\n In other words, it is not a matter of the Church being intellectually dishonest with history and engaging in self-serving historical revisionism (as is the charge from the contra-Catholic critics of development); rather, it is the Protestant polemicist who has only a dim understanding at best of how we view development of doctrine.<\/p>\n Catholic apologists are taking concepts that aren\u2019t in dispute and are calling them expressions of the \u201cessence\u201d of what is in dispute, even when there\u2019s nothing that logically requires the disputed concept to be part of the undisputed concept that allegedly has the \u201cessence\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n But again, this is a\u00a0non sequitur<\/i>. Apparently Jason is looking at\u00a0Second Eve<\/i>\u00a0without taking into consideration that sinlessness is part and parcel of that concept, by its very nature, and can\u2019t be separated from it. Eve was originally sinless. This is the whole\u00a0point<\/i>\u00a0of the Second Eve analogy in the Fathers. Mary is a \u201csecond chance,\u201d so to speak, for the human race to do the right thing, rather than rebel against God.<\/p>\n Mary\u2019s \u201cyes\u201d at the Annunciation undoes Eve\u2019s \u201cno\u201d at the Fall. They both had to be without sin for their acts to have the significance that they both did, and for the parallelism to apply. Therefore, the initial concept or \u201ckernel\u201d (New Eve = Mary\u2019s sinlessness) is disputed by Protestants, just as the development (Immaculate Conception) is, and Jason\u2019s point has no force, based as it is on a misunderstanding once again.<\/p>\n The example I used earlier was the fact that somebody like Tertullian could see Mary as a New Eve, yet consider her a sinner at the same time.<\/span><\/p>\n There are always exceptions to the rule. Catholics don\u2019t say that all Fathers agree on any given point; only that there was a great consensus; precisely as with the canon of Scripture. Protestants minimize the dissenting opinions on the canon of Scripture, whereas they maximize them when it comes to Mary\u2019s sinlessness and the Second Eve patristic motif. The only difference is that one involves a notion they accept, and the other, one that they reject; hence the historical bias and conveniently selective historical emphasis.<\/p>\n But that\u2019s not fair, open-minded inquiry. It is special pleading. Rather than acknowledge the patristic consensus on Mary, Protestant polemicists dwell on the exceptions to the rule, as if this disproves anything (as the Catholic Church already agrees that exceptions will and do occur).<\/p>\n I could just as easily make a vacuous, specious argument that the 27-book New Testament canon is illegitimate because, up to 160 A.D no one seemed to acknowledge the canonicity of the books of Acts, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation (that\u2019s 10 out of 27 books). Justin Martyr (d.c. 165) didn\u2019t recognize Philippians or 1 Timothy, and his Gospels included apocryphal material. Clement of Alexandria and Origen (before the mid-3rd century) seemed to think that the Epistle of Barnabas was inspired Scripture.<\/p>\n They thought the same about the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas (along with Irenaeus and Tertullian, in the latter instance). Clement of Alexandria (d.c. 215) also thinks that The Apocalypse and Peter and the Gospel of Hebrews were Scripture, and Origen accepted the Acts of Paul. No Father got\u00a0all<\/i>\u00a0the books right (and excluded others later decided to be uncanonical) until St. Athanasius in 367, more than 300 years after Christ\u2019s death.<\/p>\n The famous Muratorian Canon of c. 190 excluded Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter and included The Apocalypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon. The Council of Nicaea in 325 questioned the canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. James wasn\u2019t even quoted in the West until around 350 A.D.! Revelation was rejected by Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, and Gregory Nazianzen, and the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas were included in the Codex Sinaiticus in the late 4th century.<\/p>\n By Jason\u2019s reasoning process, then, we ought to reject the New Testament canon, as there were so many anomalies in lists of the books well into the 4th century (people didn\u2019t know what the\u00a0essence<\/i>\u00a0of the canon was, and later interpreters anachronistically imposed their views back upon the earlier Fathers). Some local Catholic Councils make an authoritative list in 393 and 397 (which are authoritatively approved by two popes as binding on all the faithful), and this is accepted pretty much without question by all Christians subsequently, as if the list itself were inspired.<\/p>\n Yet when it comes to something like the Immaculate Conception, the fact that some altogether predictable anomalies in the Fathers can be found is proof positive to Jason and many Protestants that the doctrine is illegitimate and to be discarded, on that basis alone, not to mention alleged complete lack of scriptural proofs. Here is some of the evidence which\u00a0is<\/i>\u00a0present in the Fathers for the Second Eve concept and Mary\u2019s sinlessness, and kernels of the later fully-developed Immaculate Conception:<\/p>\n In the second century, St. Justin Martyr is already expounding the \u201cNew Eve\u201d teaching:<\/p>\n Christ became man by the Virgin so that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might be destroyed in the same way it originated. For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. The Virgin Mary, however, having received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced to her the good tidings . . . answered: Be it done to me according to thy word. (Dialogue with Trypho, 100:5, in Graef, Hilda,\u00a0Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion,<\/i>\u00a0combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965 \u2014 as are all patristic quotes following unless otherwise noted)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Irenaeus, a little later, takes up the same theme: \u201cWhat the virgin Eve had tied up by unbelief, this the virgin Mary loosened by faith.\u201d (Against Heresies<\/i>, 3,21,10) In the third century, Origen taught Mary as the second-Eve (Homily 1 on Matthew 5) Eusebius, the first Church historian, calls her\u00a0panagia<\/i>, or \u201call-holy.\u201d (Ecclesiastica Theologia<\/i>) St. Ephraem is thought to be the first Father to hold to the Immaculate Conception: \u201cYou alone and your Mother are good in every way; for there is no blemish in thee, my Lord, and no stain in thy Mother.\u201d (Nisibene Hymns, 27,8) He invokes the Blessed Virgin in very \u201cCatholic\u201d fashion:<\/p>\n O virgin lady, immaculate Mother of God, my lady most glorious, most gracious, higher than heaven, much purer than the sun\u2019s splendor, rays or light . . . (\u201cPrayer to the Most Holy Mother of God\u201d)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Gregory Nazianzen, still in the same century, frequently refers to Mary as \u201cundefiled.\u201d (Carmina, 1,2,1) St. Gregory of Nyssa calls her \u201cundefiled,\u201d (E.g., Against Appolinaris, 6) and develops the Mary-Eve theme. (Homily 13 on the Canticle \/ On the Birth of Christ) St. Epiphanius, like all the Fathers, he places Mariology under the category of Christology and states: \u201cHe who honours the Lord honours also the holy vessel; he who dishonours the holy vessel, also dishonours his Lord.\u201d (Panarion, 78,21) St. Epiphanius also teaches the parallelism of Eve and Mary (which was the common belief of Eastern, Greek Christianity, and concludes that Mary is \u201cthe mother of the living.\u201d (Panarion, 78,18).<\/p>\n He identifies the Woman of Revelation 12 with Mary and suggests that she may have been assumed bodily into heaven (Panarion, 78,11). St. Ambrose contended that she was sinless. (Commentary on Luke, 2,17 \/ Commentary on Psalms 118, 22,30) St. Jerome, in the late fourth and early fifth century, continued the Second Eve motif. St. Augustine affirms the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary:<\/p>\n The holy Virgin Mary, about whom, for the honour of the Lord, I want there to be no question where sin is mentioned, for concerning her we know that more grace for conquering sin in every way was given to her who merited to conceive and give birth to him, who certainly had no sin whatsoever \u2014 this virgin excepted, if we could . . . ask all saints, whether they were without sin, what, do we think, would they answer? (Nature and Grace<\/em>, 36,42)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Just as Catholics argue for seven sacraments, somebody else could argue for two, three, six, or twelve.<\/span><\/p>\n Precisely my point earlier. It obviously rests on human ecclesiastical authority. That Calvin and Luther (or Zwingli) would possess this necessary authority, rather than the Fathers or the Council of Trent and other Ecumenical Councils, or popes, are different questions entirely, and ones which cause innumerable problems for the Protestant position vis-a-vis any consistent notion of Church history and the biblical basis of authority.<\/p>\n In fact, before the Middle Ages, there were all sorts of numbers given to the sacraments. The concept that there are no less and no more than seven is a concept of the Middle Ages that cannot in any rational way be traced back to the apostles.<\/span><\/p>\n In fact, before 367, there were all sorts of books considered to be inspired and part of the New Testament (and a lack of acknowledgment of certain inspired books). The notion that there are no less and no more than twenty-seven is a concept of the mid-4th century at the earliest (St. Athanasius), that cannot in any rational way be traced back to the apostles.<\/p>\n Therefore, the New Testament canon is every bit as arbitrary as the seven sacraments of Catholicism (and Orthodoxy).<\/p>\n What if some group was to declare dogmatically that there are nine sacraments, the seven of the Roman Catholic Church, along with foot washing (John 13:5-15) and taking offerings (1 Corinthians 16:1)? What if this group would anathematize anybody who disagrees, and would claim that its tradition of nine sacraments had developed no differently than Trinitarian doctrine has?<\/span><\/p>\n We would show that such a group has neither the authority of the Catholic Church, nor the historical or biblical arguments which we have in support of our notions of development of doctrine.<\/p>\n This<\/span>\u00a0[the canon]\u00a0is an issue that Catholic apologists consider one of their greatest strengths.<\/span><\/p>\n Indeed. We are seeing a demonstration of the weakness of opposing arguments unfold before our very eyes. :-)<\/p>\n It\u2019s actually one of their greatest weaknesses.<\/span><\/p>\n We shall see as the discussion unfolds. It is always to a person\u2019s \u201ctactical\u201d advantage if their dialogical opponent greatly underestimates the strength of their arguments. It\u2019s like the old Chinese maxim about warfare: that one must always start with a proper respect for their adversary, in order to prevail in battle.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, most evangelicals, even well-known evangelical apologists, haven\u2019t thought through the issue enough to realize its potential for disproving Roman Catholicism.<\/span><\/p>\n The first part doesn\u2019t surprise me at all; the second part is simply untrue, as will be shown.<\/p>\n . . . I\u2019m aware that Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and other church fathers held a different New Testament canon than I hold today. And I would add, . . . that there were disagreements on the New Testament canon even beyond the fourth century.<\/span><\/p>\n Okay.<\/p>\n 1. True developments must be explicitly grounded in Scripture, or else they are\u00a0arbitrary and \u201cunbiblical\u201d or \u201cantibiblical\u201d \u2014 therefore false. Dr. James White (a la\u00a0Confucius) says: \u201cThe text of Scripture provides the grounds, and most importantly,\u00a0the limits for this development over time\u201d (Roman Catholic Controversy<\/i>, p. 83).<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 2. The Trinity and the Resurrection of Christ and the Virgin Birth, for example, are thoroughly\u00a0grounded in Scripture, and are therefore proper (but Catholics also hold to these\u00a0beliefs).<\/p>\n 3. The canon of the New Testament is (undeniably) not itself a \u201cbiblical doctrine.\u201d The\u00a0New Testament never gives a \u201ctext\u201d for the authoritative listing of its books.<\/p>\n 4. Therefore, the canon of the New Testament is not a legitimate development of\u00a0doctrine (according to #1), and is, in fact, a corruption and a false teaching.<\/p>\n 5. Therefore, in light of #4, the New Testament (i.e., in the 27-book form which has\u00a0been passed down through the Catholic centuries to Luther and the Protestants as a\u00a0received Tradition) cannot be used as a measuring-rod to judge the orthodoxy of\u00a0other doctrines.<\/p>\n 6. #5 being the case, the Engwer\/White criterion for legitimate developments is\u00a0radically self-defeating, and must be discarded (along with\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0itself).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Roman Catholic rule of faith doesn\u2019t list its own canon either. There is no allegedly infallible ruling of the Roman Catholic Church that lists every oral tradition, every papal decree, every council ruling, etc. that\u2019s infallible.<\/span><\/p>\n We\u2019re talking about the canon of the New Testament at the moment. Switching the subject does not alleviate internal Protestant difficulties and inconsistencies (in fact, Catholic views \u2013 whatever one thinks of them \u2013 obviously have\u00a0nothing<\/i>\u00a0to do with alleged\u00a0Protestant\u00a0<\/i>inconsistencies). We\u2019re not discussing at the moment which system is\u00a0preferable<\/i>, but rather, whether Protestantism is logically consistent with regard to the canon and other developments which proceed on (we hold) scarcely any different principles. These are two separate discussions. At the moment, I hope that Jason will deal with my critique of\u00a0his<\/i>\u00a0system, per the lengthy citation of my words he has posted above.<\/p>\n At least evangelicals have a specific canon for their rule of faith, which is more than can be said for Roman Catholics.<\/span><\/p>\n That is not at issue here. We know what the Protestant measuring-rod is. We want to know the\u00a0process<\/i>\u00a0by which it is arrived at within Protestant presuppositions, and\u00a0how<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0why<\/i>\u00a0this (epistemological) process is self-consistent and supposedly different in kind than the same sort of processes we would cite pertaining to the development of doctrines with which Protestants disagree.<\/p>\n There is no \u201cmeasuring rod\u201d in Roman Catholicism that\u2019s specifically defined. That\u2019s why the path is wide open to whatever speculations and heresies Roman Catholic theologians can convince their hierarchy to teach.<\/span><\/p>\n This is simply evasion of Protestant difficulties by switching the topic over to Catholicism.<\/p>\n Do you want to claim that Mary was immaculately conceived? How about calling her the dispenser of all grace?<\/span><\/p>\n This is even further removed from our topic (perhaps we could also take up the subjects of plate tectonics or how to improve the fortunes of the Detroit Lions next season?). The Mediatrix issue is complex in and of itself, and involves a huge discussion (and many elements vastly misunderstood by Protestants).<\/p>\n Maybe you want to proclaim her the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, as I\u2019ve heard some Catholic theologians have proposed?<\/span><\/p>\n Name them . . . and explain what you think they mean (in another exchange, where it is on the subject).<\/p>\n There is no specific canon for the Roman Catholic rule of faith. The sky is the limit, and it seems that even the sky can be removed if it gets in the way of elevating Mary, for example. Catholics claim that \u201cSacred Tradition\u201d is part of their rule of faith, but the term is so unspecified as to lead to all sorts of speculative and unverifiable conclusions. If the absence of a specific list of canonical books in scripture has been a fault in evangelicalism, then the absence of a specific list of all \u201cSacred Traditions\u201d in Catholicism has been an even worse fault. <\/span><\/p>\n Why do I say that it\u2019s been even worse? Wouldn\u2019t it just be an equal problem? I say that it\u2019s been worse because at least evangelicals have used specific principles to define a specific canon, whereas Catholics leave their canon undefined and ripe for abuse. (The reader may want to see my article titled \u201cA Question for Those Who Oppose Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u201c)<\/span><\/p>\n This is all perfectly irrelevant to my immediate critique, as succinctly summarized in my six-part argument that Jason cited above. The only relevant part is the half-sentence: \u201cat least evangelicals have used specific principles to define a specific canon.\u201d I hope that Jason will expand upon that and actually deal with my arguments. It is sort of like the child\u2019s taunt, \u201cwell, well, . . . well,\u00a0your<\/i>\u00a0dad\u2019s uglier than\u00a0my<\/i>\u00a0dad!\u201d \u201cAt least\u00a0my\u00a0<\/i>dad doesn\u2019t do so-and-so like\u00a0yours<\/i>\u00a0does!\u201d This sort of \u201creasoning\u201d is also often applied to political matters and (as we see) to religious issues as well.<\/p>\n The primary canonical criterion of evangelicals is the same as that of the church fathers: apostolicity. And the concept of the unique authority of the apostles is undeniably Biblical. The\u00a0Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly explains in\u00a0Early Christian Doctrines<\/i>\u00a0(San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978) that \u201cthe criterion which ultimately came to prevail was apostolicity. Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be.\u201d (p. 60)<\/span><\/p>\n This is fine, but it has no bearing on the arguments I have presented with regard to Protestants and the canon, according to their own principles of authority, and in relation to other developments. We\u00a0agree<\/i>\u00a0on this general notion of apostolicity, so it is not at issue.<\/p>\n The criterion of the early post-apostolic Christians was whether a book was apostolic (John 16:13-15, Acts 1:8, 1 Corinthians 12:28, 2 Peter 3:2), not whether a hierarchy in Rome approved of the book.<\/span><\/p>\n How come no one in the early period seemed to know that the book of Acts was apostolic then (written, as it was, by Luke, whose Gospel was accepted early on)? We don\u2019t hold that a book is apostolic simply because Rome says so. The Church merely recognizes what is inherently what it is: an inspired document. But there still must be some authoritative recognition. This is part of my point.<\/p>\n To the contrary, Eusebius tells us in his church history (3:3) that most churches accepted the canonicity of Hebrews even while the Roman church was not accepting it. And individuals and churches accepted and rejected other books that were not accepted and rejected by the Roman church. The early church\u2019s approach toward the canon contradicts the Roman Catholic approach.<\/span><\/p>\n Be that as it may, it doesn\u2019t affect my argument one way or another. You have to answer to my specific arguments, both in the original paper, and elaborations in this one. So far you haven\u2019t touched them with a ten-foot pole.<\/p>\n It will do no good to argue that the Roman church allowed people to follow whatever canon they wanted to follow early on.<\/span><\/p>\n I agree, which is why I didn\u2019t make such an argument.<\/p>\n The early writers cite books of scripture as Divine revelation, and they hold all people responsible for obeying those books as the word of God. They didn\u2019t view this as a\u00a0matter of freedom that was allowed by a Pope. Rather, they personally evaluated the evidence for\u00a0which books should be considered canonical, and they arrived at their own conclusions. <\/span><\/p>\n They were just as confident in and reliant upon personal judgments in these matters as evangelicals are\u00a0today. They obviously didn\u2019t agree with the modern Catholic apologists who argue that we can\u2019t be confident about whether a book is scripture unless we have an infallible ruling from the Roman Catholic Church.<\/span><\/p>\n More\u00a0non sequiturs<\/i>\u00a0. . .<\/p>\n I referred to personally evaluating evidence to arrive at a canon. And here I want to quote a comment Dave made:<\/span><\/p>\n So I guess that means Jason thinks he has \u201creplied\u201d to my six-point argument and is now content to \u201cmove ahead.\u201d<\/p>\n On what basis can you absolutely bow to (Catholic) Church authority in that one\u00a0instance, while you deny its binding nature in all others, and fall back to Scripture\u00a0Alone, the very canon of which was proclaimed authoritatively by the Catholic\u00a0Church?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Elsewhere at his web site, Dave argues that one of the regional councils in Africa late in the fourth century settled the canon. How can a regional council in Africa settle the canon for Roman\u00a0Catholics? The council of Carthage in 397 doesn\u2019t even correspond with the canon of Roman Catholicism. For example, it apparently defined 1 Esdras differently than the Roman Catholic Church does. (Different groups have defined 1 Esdras in different ways over the centuries. The term \u201c1 Esdras\u201d refers to different books in different contexts.) Getting back to the main point, though, how does a regional council in Africa settle the canon for Dave and other Catholics?<\/span><\/p>\n Because it was granted the authority of papal approval, just as Ecumenical Councils historically were.\u00a0Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the councils of Hippo and Carthage (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse<\/i>) in 405 (he also reiterated this in 414).\u00a0Carthage and Hippo were preceded by a Roman Council (382) of identical opinion, and were further ratified by Pope Gelasius I in 495, as well as the 6th Council of Carthage in 419.<\/p>\n The Protestant reference work,\u00a0Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church<\/i>\u00a0(2nd edition, edited by F. L. Cross & E. A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, 232) states:<\/p>\n I\u2019ve noticed an inconsistency on the part of Catholic apologists. When discussing papal infallibility, we\u2019re repeatedly told that we must be careful to realize just what is infallible and what isn\u2019t. In fact, we must be so careful that perhaps only two or three documents in church history qualify as representing an exercise of papal infallibility. But, on the other hand, when discussing an issue like the canon, it seems that just about anything will do. Does a regional council in Africa agree with most of the Roman Catholic canon, but not all of it? Close enough! We thereby have an infallible ruling on the Roman Catholic canon.<\/span><\/p>\n I have explained it sufficiently above, I think. This will suffice for fair-minded and open-minded readers.<\/p>\n The truth is that the Roman Catholic canon was settled for Catholics at the Council of Trent.<\/span><\/p>\n In the highest level of authority, yes. But that was simply a stronger statement of what had occurred more than 1100 years earlier.<\/p>\n But, if you\u2019re a Catholic apologist, try telling people that Christians for over 1500 years had no reason for being confident in what is and isn\u2019t scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n Note that Jason is again (maybe he is unaware of his tendencies) speaking about alleged\u00a0Catholic<\/i>\u00a0internal inconsistencies (and in a factually-incorrect manner at that), rather than dealing with\u00a0my<\/i>\u00a0critique of the\u00a0Protestant system<\/i>. and what I contend is internal incoherence\u00a0<\/i>and\u00a0radical inconsistency<\/i>.<\/p>\n Actually, we can go back more than 1500 years. James White has made an argument on this subject for years now, and I\u2019ve never seen a Catholic apologist respond to it intelligently. Jesus and the apostles repeatedly held people responsible, in the strongest terms, for knowing the Old Testament scriptures and obeying them. How did a man living at the time of Christ or earlier know that a book like Psalms or Isaiah was scripture, the word of God? Did he have some infallible ruling on the matter comparable to how Catholics view the Council of Trent? No, he didn\u2019t.<\/span><\/p>\n There was no significant disagreement as to the books (unlike that of the New Testament canon, for over 300 years), excepting the deuterocanonical books, which might be regarded as a \u201cpost-canonical\u201d dispute. These books were included in the Greek Septuagint, which was the one the apostles were most familiar with, but Protestants later saw fit to exclude them from their canon. This by no means overcomes my objection, and is only barely relevant.<\/p>\n The practice of people living in the Old Testament era was to accept books as scripture as a result of a personal judgment of the evidence, without any infallible hierarchy passing an infallible ruling on the matter. The people of Jesus\u2019 time, the apostolic Christians, and the early post-apostolic Christians did the same. Modern evangelicals do that as well.<\/span><\/p>\n Quite the contrary: the Jews had an authoritative oral tradition, and rejected\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>. They were far more similar to Catholics in terms of authority-structure, than to Protestants. I demonstrated this at length in the chapter, \u201cThe Old Testament, the Ancient Jews, and\u00a0Sola Scriptura,<\/i>\u201d on pages 52-60 of my second book,\u00a0More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism<\/i>.<\/p>\n On the other hand, we have modern Catholic apologists. (Some modern Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and other groups make similar arguments, though there are some differences.) Who do you think is right? The people mentioned in the paragraph above? Or the people mentioned in this paragraph? I side with the former, and I see no rational argument for doing otherwise.<\/span><\/p>\n I think both are right, because they operate on a largely analogous principle, whereas Protestants have adopted a radically different principle.<\/p>\n And just what am I referring to when I say that evangelicals arrive at their canon by means of examining evidence? Are Dave and other Catholic apologists correct in saying that I\u2019m just\u00a0referring to \u201cSacred Tradition\u201d? No, that\u2019s a false label. When a manuscript of the gospel of John is discovered that dates to the early second century, using such evidence to reach your conclusion about the dating of the gospel of John is not equivalent to relying on Roman Catholic \u201cSacred Tradition\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course it isn\u2019t. Who ever stated otherwise? But I fail to see how this has anything to do with what we are (supposedly) talking about.<\/p>\n What Catholics call \u201cSacred Tradition\u201d didn\u2019t even exist during the earliest centuries of Christianity. The church fathers who referred to \u201ctradition\u201d in one way or another defined it in different, and sometimes contradictory, ways. They never defined it just as Catholics do, with a Pope, a magisterium, and concepts like the seven sacraments and the Assumption of Mary.<\/span><\/p>\n So now we are off to the dog races of the nature of Tradition (a\u00a0gigantic<\/i>\u00a0topic in and of itself), and indeed, the papacy, the magisterium, seven sacraments, and the Assumption (practically every topic except the kitchen sink). This is most unimpressive.<\/p>\n Do evangelicals rely on post-apostolic Christian documents as part of the evidence that leads them to their canon? Yes, they do. They also rely on internal evidence within the New Testament documents, archaeology, manuscript evidence, non-Christian writers, etc. To say that doing this is equivalent to \u201cabsolutely bowing to (Catholic) Church authority\u201d, as Dave claims, is irrational. Agreement isn\u2019t equivalent to submission. I agree with the monotheism of Islam, but that doesn\u2019t mean that I submit to the Moslem hierarchy as my infallible guide in matters of faith. <\/span><\/p>\n And I agree with the New Testament canon of the Roman Catholic Church, but that doesn\u2019t mean that I submit to the Roman Catholic Church as my infallible guide in matters of faith. It doesn\u2019t even mean that I submit to the Roman Catholic Church on this one issue. I agree with the Catholic Church\u2019s New Testament canon. I disagree with its Old Testament canon. Both conclusions are the result of my personal evaluation of evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n And this entire paragraph does nothing whatsoever to soften my critique of Jason\u2019s position, because it never\u00a0deals<\/i>\u00a0with my critique. I already\u00a0knew<\/i>\u00a0that Jason didn\u2019t submit to the authority of the Catholic Church. Nothing new or surprising\u00a0there<\/i>.<\/p>\n In closing this section of my article, I want to address the claim that the canon is a development of doctrine comparable to the seven sacraments, the Assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, etc. We have specific evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament books. Even most liberal scholars date all of the New Testament books, or the large majority at least, to the first century. The arguments against the authenticity of a book like 1 Timothy or 2 Peter are, in my view, unconvincing. <\/span><\/p>\n The grammatical arguments can reasonably be answered on the grounds of the use of a secretary (1 Peter 5:12). The internal arguments for authenticity, along with the external evidence, outweigh the arguments against authenticity. 2 Peter is the most doubted book in the evangelical canon. Yet, I think even the evidence for that book is more than sufficient. (See, for example, the discussion of this issue in D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris,\u00a0An Introduction to the New Testament<\/i>\u00a0[Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992], pp. 433-443. <\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/p>\n
\nI. Introductory Remarks
\n*<\/b><\/span><\/center>In replying to Dave Armstrong\u2019s article addressed to me, I\u2019m not going to respond to every subject he raised. He said a lot about John [Henry] Newman, George Salmon, James White, etc. that\u2019s either irrelevant to what I was arguing or is insignificant enough that I would prefer not to address it.<\/span>\n
\n*<\/b><\/span><\/center>Dave raised the possibility that William Webster asked me to reply to his (Dave\u2019s) article. He didn\u2019t. I decided myself to reply to Dave, and I haven\u2019t had any discussions with William Webster on the subject.<\/span>\n\n
\nthe strong evidence of many biblical passages, which teach the doctrines of #1 and\u00a0#2.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nA council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the \u2018Gelasian Decree\u2019 because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent.<\/ul>\n