Jason Engwer, who runs the Tribalblogue <\/em>site, wrote a post entitled, \u201cThe Authority Debate Between Jimmy Akin And The Other Paul\u201d<\/a> (10-29-22). This is my reply. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Jimmy appealed to the paradigm of scripture, tradition, and magisterium that he claims we see during the time of the apostles. But he acknowledged that Divine revelation started orally during the Old Testament era, without scripture or a magisterium.<\/span><\/p>\n Indeed it did. Before there was a Bible, God communicated with Moses the oral law on Mt. Sinai. This is what Judaism believes, and Christians, to varying degrees, do also. See my paper,\u00a0Biblical Evidence for the Oral Torah & Oral Apostolic Tradition<\/a> (10-18-11). In it I provide nine biblical arguments for an oral law that was in place in Old Testament times. Jewish oral tradition was accepted by Jesus and the apostles:<\/p>\n 1) Matthew 2:23<\/b>: the reference to \u201c. . . He shall be called a Nazarene \u201d cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was passed down \u201cby the prophets.\u201d Thus, a prophecy, which is considered to be \u201cGod\u2019s Word\u201d was passed down orally, rather than through Scripture.<\/p>\n 2) Matthew 23:2-3<\/b>: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on\u00a0Moses\u2019 seat<\/i>, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of \u201cteaching succession\u201d from Moses on down is taught. Thus, \u201capostolic succession,\u201d whereby the Catholic Church, in its priests and bishops and popes, claims to be merely the custodian of an inherited apostolic tradition, is also prefigured by Jewish oral tradition, as approved (at least partially) by Jesus Himself.<\/p>\n See my huge interaction with Baptist anti-Catholic apologist James White on this topic: Refutation of James White: Moses\u2019 Seat, the Bible, and Tradition\u00a0(Introduction: #1)<\/a>\u00a0(+Part II\u00a0<\/a>|\u00a0Part III<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part IV<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part V<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part VI<\/a>)\u00a0[5-12-05]<\/p>\n 3) In 1 Corinthians 10:4<\/b>, St. Paul refers to a rock which \u201cfollowed\u201d the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13). Rabbinic tradition, however, does.<\/p>\n 4) 1 Peter 3:19<\/b>: St. Peter, in describing Christ\u2019s journey to Sheol \/ Hades (\u201che went and preached to the spirits in prison . . . \u201c), draws directly from the Jewish apocalyptic book 1 Enoch (12-16).<\/p>\n 5) Jude 9<\/b>: about a dispute between Michael the archangel and Satan over Moses\u2019 body, cannot be paralleled in the Old Testament, and appears to be a recounting of an oral Jewish tradition.<\/p>\n 6) Jude 14-15<\/b>\u00a0directly quotes from\u00a01 Enoch 1:9<\/b>, even saying that Enoch \u201cprophesied.\u201d<\/p>\n 7) 2 Timothy 3:8<\/b>: Jannes and Jambres cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exodus 7:8 ff.).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Furthermore, the forms those oral revelations took varied a lot, and we have no reason to think that everything God revealed during the Old Testament era was infallibly maintained throughout Old Testament history by some sort of equivalent of the Roman Catholic paradigm. To the contrary, revelation was sometimes lost or disregarded on a significant scale (e.g.,<\/span>\u00a02 Kings 22:8-13<\/a>,\u00a0Nehemiah 8:13-17<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n Since this was before the Church Age, and the much greater gifts that God provided, full infallibility was likely not maintained in an unbroken fashion. God hadn\u2019t promised that, as He did to Peter. But infallibility did exist in some times and in some persons, and many analogies existed, as I shall explore as we proceed. The prophets, for example, received their inspiration by the Holy Spirit (2 Chron. 24:20; Neh. 9:30; Zech. 7:12) and routinely purported to proclaim the very \u201cword of the LORD\u201d: a sort of \u201crevelation on the spot\u201d:<\/p>\n 1 Samuel 15:10<\/strong> (RSV) The word of the LORD came to Samuel:<\/p>\n 2 Samuel 23:2<\/strong> The Spirit of the LORD speaks by me, his word is upon my tongue. [King David]<\/p>\n 1 Chronicles 17:3<\/strong> But that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan,<\/p>\n Isaiah 38:4<\/strong> Then the word of the LORD came to Isaiah:<\/p>\n Jeremiah 26:15<\/strong> . . . the LORD sent me to you to speak all these words in your ears.<\/p>\n Ezekiel 33:1<\/strong> The word of the LORD came to me: [\u201cword of the LORD\u201d appears 60 times in the Book of Ezekiel]<\/p>\n Haggai 1:13<\/strong> Then Haggai, the messenger of the LORD, spoke to the people with the LORD\u2019s message, \u2018I am with you, says the LORD.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Priests in the Old Testament were also highly gifted by God:<\/p>\n Malachi 2:6-8<\/strong> True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Francis de Sales, in his book,\u00a0The Catholic Controversy<\/em><\/a>, argued that even the old covenant institutional religious system possessed the characteristic of indefectibility (passages: RSV; all comments are his own, except for a few of my bracketed interjections):<\/p>\n 2 Chronicles 15:3<\/strong>\u00a0For a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law;<\/p>\n Elijah lamented that he was alone in Israel (1 Ki 19:14) [\u201cI, even I only, am left\u201d]. Answer: Elijah was not the only good man in Israel, for there were seven thousand men who had not given themselves up to idolatry [1 Ki 19:18: \u201cI will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Ba\u2019al\u201d], and what the Prophet says here is only to express better the justice of his complaint. It is not true again that if all Israel had failed, the Church would have thereby ceased to exist, for Israel was not the whole Church. Indeed it was already separated therefrom by the schism of Jeroboam; and the kingdom of Judah was the better and principal part; and it is Israel, not Judah, of which Azarias predicted that it should be without priest and sacrifice. (p. 61)<\/p>\n Isaiah 1:4-6<\/strong>\u00a0Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the LORD, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged. [5] Why will you still be smitten, that you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. [6] From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, . . .<\/p>\n . . . these are forms of speaking, and of vehemently detesting the vice of a people. And although the Prophets, pastors and preachers use these general modes of expression, we are not to understand them of each particular person, but only of a large proportion; as appears by the example of Elijah who complained that he was alone, notwithstanding that there were yet seven thousand faithful. [1 Ki 19:14, 18] S. Paul complains to the Philippians (2:21) that all seek their own interest and advantage; still at the end of the Epistle he acknowledges that there were many good people with him and with them. [4:10, 14-18] (p. 61)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And to the extent that Jimmy had\u00a0fallible<\/i>\u00a0oral communication in mind during the Old Testament era, a Protestant paradigm allows for that in the New Testament era as well. <\/span><\/p>\n Protestant authority is nothing if not fallible. And that is contrary to New Testament teaching: which constantly expresses the notion that God wants the Christian believer to have certainty of belief; not the relativism and denominational chaos that Protestantism invariably logically reduces to, and as it exists in practice.<\/p>\n There wasn\u2019t a paradigm of scripture, tradition, and magisterium comparable to Roman Catholicism during at least most of the Biblical era.<\/span><\/p>\n I strongly disagree. There were strong analogies.\u00a0The Jews had a very strong paradigm of authoritative interpretation: far closer to the Catholic rule of faith than to the Protestant late-arriving rule of faith (sola Scriptura<\/em>). Protestants have, of course, teachers, commentators, and interpreters of the Bible (and excellent ones at that \u2013 often surpassing Catholics in many respects). They are, however, in the final analysis optional and non-binding when it comes down to the individual and his choice of what he chooses to believe. This is the Protestant notion of private judgment<\/i> and the nearly absolute primacy of individual conscience (Luther\u2019s \u201cplowboy\u201d). Luther\u2019s own revolt against Catholic authority and (partially) against Catholic tradition presupposes this freedom of the individual Christian.<\/p>\n In Catholicism, on the other hand, there is a parameter where doctrinal speculation must end: the magisterium, dogmas, papal and conciliar pronouncements, catechisms \u2014 in a word (well, two words): Catholic tradition. Some things are considered to be settled issues. Others are still undergoing development.\u00a0All binding dogmas are believed to be derived from Jesus and the apostles. Now, who did the Jews resemble more closely in this regard? Did they need authoritative interpretation of their Torah, and eventually, the Old Testament as a whole? The Old Testament itself has much to \u201ctell\u201d us:<\/p>\n 1) Exodus 18:20<\/b>: Moses (with his brother Aaron: Lev 10:11) was to teach<\/i>\u00a0the Jews the \u201cstatutes and the decisions\u201d \u2014 not just\u00a0read<\/i>\u00a0it to them. Since he was the Lawgiver and author of the Torah, it stands to reason that his interpretation and teaching would be of a highly authoritative nature.<\/p>\n 2) Deuteronomy 17:8-13<\/b>: The Levitical priests had binding authority in legal matters (derived from the Torah itself). They interpreted the biblical injunctions (17:11). The penalty for disobedience was death (17:12), since the offender didn\u2019t obey \u201cthe priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God.\u201d Cf. Deuteronomy 19:16-17; 2 Chronicles 19:8-10.<\/p>\n 3) Deuteronomy 33:10<\/b>: Levite priests are to teach Israel the\u00a0ordinances<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0law<\/i>. (cf. 2 Chronicles 15:3; Malachi 2:6-8 \u2014 the latter calls them \u201cmessenger of the LORD of hosts\u201d).<\/p>\n 4) Ezra 7:6, 10<\/b>: Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (7:25-26).<\/p>\n 5) Nehemiah 8:1-8<\/b>: Ezra reads the law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem (8:3). In 8:7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra, and \u201cwho helped the people to understand the law.\u201d Much earlier, in King Jehoshaphat\u2019s reign, we find Levites exercising the same function (2 Chronicles 17:8-9). There is no\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>, with its associated idea \u201cperspicuity\u201d (evident clearness in the main) here. In Nehemiah 8:8: \u201c. . . they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly [footnote, \u201cor with interpretation\u201d], and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.\u201d So the people did indeed understand the law (8:12), but not without much assistance \u2014 not merely upon hearing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Old Testament and Jewish history attest to a fact which Catholics constantly assert, over against\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0and Protestantism: that Holy Scripture requires an authoritative interpreter, a Church, and a binding tradition, as passed down from Jesus and the apostles.<\/p>\n Many people do not realize that Christianity mostly developed from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. It was really the only viable option in the Judaism of that era. Since Jesus often excoriated the Pharisees for hypocrisy and excessive legalism, some assume that He was condemning the whole ball of wax. But this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Likewise, the Apostle Paul, when referring to his pharisaical background doesn\u2019t condemn Pharisaism per se.<\/p>\n The Sadducees, on the other hand, were much more \u201cheretical.\u201d They rejected the future resurrection and the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but never Christian Sadducees. The Sadducees\u2019 following was found mainly in the upper classes, and was almost non-existent among the common people.<\/p>\n The Sadducees also rejected all \u201coral Torah,\u201d \u2014 the traditional interpretation of the written that was of central importance in rabbinic Judaism. So we can summarize as follows:<\/p>\n 1) The Sadducees were obviously the elitist \u201cliberals\u201d and \u201cheterodox\u201d amongst the Jews of their time.<\/p>\n 2) But the Sadducees were also the sola Scripturists<\/i>\u00a0of their time.<\/p>\n 3) Christianity adopted wholesale the very \u201cpostbiblical\u201d doctrines which the Sadducees rejected and which the Pharisees accepted: resurrection, belief in angels and spirits, the soul, the afterlife, eternal reward or damnation, and the belief in angels and demons.<\/p>\n 4) But these doctrines were notable for their marked development after the biblical Old Testament canon was complete, especially in Jewish apocalyptic literature, part of Jewish codified oral tradition.<\/p>\n 5) We\u2019ve seen how \u2014 if a choice is to be made \u2014 both Jesus and Paul were squarely in the \u201cPharisaical camp,\u201d over against the Sadducees. We also saw above how Jesus and the New Testament writers cite approvingly many tenets of Jewish oral (later talmudic and rabbinic) tradition, according to the Pharisaic outlook.<\/p>\n Ergo) The above facts constitute one more \u201cnail in the coffin\u201d of the theory that either the Old Testament Jews or the early Church were guided by the principle of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>. The only party that believed thusly were the Sadducees, who were heterodox according to traditional Judaism, despised by the common people, and restricted to the privileged classes only. The Pharisees (despite their corruptions and excesses) were the mainstream, and the early Church adopted their outlook with regard to eschatology, anthropology, and angelology, and the necessity and benefit of binding oral tradition and ongoing ecclesiastical authority for the purpose (especially) of interpreting Holy Scripture.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Therefore, based on the many reasons just presented, Jason\u2019s claim:<\/span> \u201cThere wasn\u2019t a paradigm of scripture, tradition, and magisterium comparable to Roman Catholicism during at least most of the Biblical era\u201d is false.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Even during the time of the apostles, was there an infallible magisterium in any relevant way? Jimmy\u2019s appeal to the inclusion of the elders in<\/span>\u00a0Acts 15:23<\/a>\u00a0is insufficient.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve addressed the question of the magisterial authority of the Jerusalem Council many times. It\u2019s one of my favorite topics. What we know about it proves in several ways, I believe, that a self-perceived infallible authority (in this instance, conciliar in nature) existed in the early Church:<\/p>\n If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us<\/em><\/span>, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger \u2026 (59)<\/p>\n Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit <\/em><\/span>root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. (63)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jason loves to ask provocative questions. I have a few of my own for him (but alas, he has refused to reply to me for some ten years now; he used<\/em> to, quite a bit):<\/p>\n Catholics would respectfully ask Protestants or Orthodox: Why is it that Clement is speaking with authority from Rome, settling the disputes of\u00a0other<\/i>\u00a0regions? Why don\u2019t the Corinthians\u00a0solve it themselves<\/i>, if they have a proclaimed bishop or even if they didn\u2019t claim one at the time? Why do they appeal to the bishop of Rome? These are questions that I think need to be seriously considered.<\/p>\n Clement definitely asserts his authority over the Corinthian church far away. Again, the question is: Why? What sense does that make in a Protestant-type ecclesiology where every region is autonomous and there is supposedly no hierarchical authority in the Christian Church? Why must they \u201cobey\u201d the bishop from another region? Not only does Clement assert strong authority\u00a0\u2014 he also claims that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are speaking \u201cthrough\u201d him.<\/i><\/p>\n That is extraordinary, and very similar to what we see in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:28 (\u201cFor it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things\u201d) and in Scripture itself. It\u2019s not strictly inspiration but it is sure something akin to\u00a0infallibility<\/i>\u00a0(divine protection from error and the pope as a unique representative of God).<\/p>\n Why do the Christians atCorinth have to obey Romein the first place? Who determined\u00a0that<\/i>\u00a0set-up? Why does it evencross their minds to write to a local church far away to settle their problems, and why does Clement assume that they should\u00a0obey<\/i>\u00a0him, and that it would be \u201ctransgression and serious danger\u201d if they don\u2019t?<\/p>\n Similarly,<\/span>\u00a0Acts 15:23<\/a>\u00a0could cite the elders who were present without their having the attributes Jimmy assigns to them. We know from other evidence, such as what\u2019s discussed\u00a0<\/span>here<\/a>, that the apostles had more authority than non-apostolic elders. The Jerusalem elders mentioned in<\/span>\u00a0Acts 15:23<\/a>\u00a0were respected leaders who were worth citing (after the apostles) in that context, but it doesn\u2019t follow that they had the role Jimmy assigns to them. Verse 22, like First Clement, even refers to \u201cthe whole church\u201d, but we don\u2019t conclude that the laymen, deacons, etc. involved were acting as an infallible magisterium.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course, overall, apostles had more authority than elders as a general matter, yet in this council, they acted in concert<\/em>. This has tremendous implications, as I have written about in one of my articles<\/a> on that council:<\/p>\n The Jerusalem council presents \u201capostles\u201d and \u201celders\u201d in conjunction six times [Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4].\u00a0What is striking is that the two offices in the Jerusalem council are presented as if there is little or no distinction between them, at least in terms of their practical authority<\/em>. It\u2019s not an airtight argument, I concede. We could, for example, say that \u201cbishops and the pope gathered together at the Second Vatican Council.\u201d We know that the pope had a higher authority. It may be that apostles here had greater authority.<\/p>\n But we don\u2019t know that with certainty, from Bible passages that mention them. They\u00a0seem<\/em>\u00a0to be presented as having in effect, \u201cone man one vote.\u201d They \u201cconsider\u201d the issue \u201ctogether\u201d (15:6). It\u2019s the same for the \u201cdecisions which had been reached\u201d (16:4).<\/p>\n Therefore, if such a momentous, binding decision was arrived at by apostles and elders, it sure seems to suggest what Catholics believe: that bishops are successors of the apostles. We already see the two offices working\u00a0together<\/em>\u00a0in Jerusalem and making a joint decision. It\u2019s a concrete example of precisely what the Catholic Church claims about apostolic succession and the sublime authority conveyed therein. There are three additional sub-arguments that I submit for consideration:<\/p>\n 1) The council, by joint authority of apostles and elders, sent off Judas and Silas as its messengers, even though they \u201cwere themselves prophets\u201d (15:32).\u00a0 Prophets were the highest authorities in the old covenant (with direct messages from God), and here mere \u201celders\u201d are commissioning them.<\/p>\n 2) St. Paul himself is duty-bound to the council\u2019s decree (16:4), which was decided in part by mere elders. So this implies apostolic succession (and conciliarism), if elders can participate in such high authority that even apostles must obey it.<\/p>\n 3) Paul previously \u201chad no small dissension and debate\u201d with the\u00a0 circumcision party (15:1-2), but was unable to resolve the conflict by his\u00a0own<\/em>\u00a0profound apostolic authority. Instead, he had to go to the council, where apostles and elders decided the question. All he is reported as doing there is reporting about \u201csigns and wonders\u201d in his ministry (15:12). He\u2019s not the leader or even a key figure. This is\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0what the Protestant \u201cPaulinist\u201d view would have predicted.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Appeals to other passages, like<\/span>\u00a01 Timothy 3:15<\/a>, are likewise insufficient<\/span>\u00a0for reasons Protestants have discussed many times<\/a>.<\/p>\n I\u2019m sure they have, but they (including Jason himself) haven\u2019t interacted with my<\/em> particular argument from that passage (see especially the first article):<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/12\/Peter4B.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n*<\/div>\n
\n*<\/div>\n