![\"TempleHerod\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/04\/TempleHerod.jpg\")
<\/div>\nReconstruction of Herod\u2019s Temple (at the time of Jesus), with Robinson\u2019s Arch in the foreground<\/span> [Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/\u00a0 Creative Commons<\/a> Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic<\/a> license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n This is a continuation of my series of responses to anti-Catholic luminary James White\u2019s response to a talk I gave on Sola Scriptura<\/i> on the radio show, Catholic Answers Live<\/i>. [I offer a<\/span> free download of this interview<\/a> from 10-10-03]<\/span><\/p>\n I have decided to provide a lengthy response to White\u2019s \u201crebuttal\u201d of just one of the ten points I presented in that appearance. Remember (as I noted before), my talk was a mere summary. I estimated that I had about three minutes to elaborate upon each point, due to radio time constraints. So this was no in-depth analysis (which the extremely multi-faceted and complex topic of sola Scriptura<\/i> ultimately demands). It doesn\u2019t follow, however, that I am unable to provide a much more in-depth treatment of the topic. <\/span><\/p>\n White, after dodging my critiques of his work for nine years now, seized upon this great \u201copportunity\u201d of my introductory talk on the radio to pretend, on his Dividing Line<\/i> webcast, that I have \u201cno clue\u201d what I am talking about and \u201cnot a bit of substance\u201d (his stock \u201cresponses\u201d and insults where I am concerned). In his eyes, I am a complete ignoramus, a pretender, and utterly over my head in this discussion. White was trying to turn this into a half-baked \u201coral debate\u201d and (as always, as with all his Catholic opponents) to embarrass me as a simpleton and lightweight apologist. We know he thinks this, because he made a statement like the following on his second show: <\/span><\/p>\n The problem, of course, is that this is, quite seriously, one of the things I\u2019ve said about Mr. Armstrong and about many Catholic apologists, from the very beginning. They don\u2019t do exegesis, and they don\u2019t know how<\/i> to. Um, of course, I could argue that they\u2019re not allowed<\/i> to.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Be that as it may, for my part, I replied that I have dealt with most or all these points (agree or disagree) in lengthy papers elsewhere, which he is most welcome to attempt to refute as he pleases. This one point is no exception. Here is the material upon which I based my radio presentation (I added just a little on the air, but rather than do more tedious transcription, I will cite the original \u201cnotes\u201d: indented): <\/span><\/p>\n In the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit<\/i>) which was binding<\/i> on all Christians:<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 15:28-29: For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around \u201cthrough the cities,\u201d and Scripture says that:<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n . . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached\u00a0by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. (Acts 16:4)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n This is Church authority. They simply proclaimed the decree as true and binding \u2014 with the sanction of the Holy Spirit Himself! Thus we see in the Bible an instance of the gift of infallibility that the Catholic Church claims for itself when it assembles in a council.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s it! Obviously, this is a bare-bones summary of one argument, that can be greatly expanded, with many aspects and facets of it examined. Also, it is important to note that I was writing a refutation of sola Scriptura<\/i>, not an apologia for the full authority of the Catholic Church, and papal infallibility, etc. The two things are logically and categorically distinct. One could easily reject sola Scriptura<\/i> without accepting the authority of Rome and the pope. Many Christians, in fact, do this: e.g., Anglicans and Orthodox. The subject at hand is \u201cwhether sola Scriptura<\/i> is the true rule of faith, and what the Bible can inform us about that.\u201d I made a biblical argument that does not support sola Scriptura<\/i> at all (quite the contrary). But White, using his usual illogical, wrongheaded, and sophistical techniques, which he has honed to perfection, tried to cleverly switch the topic over to Catholic ecclesiology.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Beyond that, he also foolishly (but typically) implied that my intent in this argument was some silly notion that I thought I had demonstrated all that<\/i> (Catholic ecclesiology, the papacy and magisterium, etc.) by recourse to this reasoning. This is part of his opinion that I am so stupid that I am unaware of such elementary logical considerations. Vastly underestimating one\u2019s opponent makes for lousy debates and embarrassing \u201ccome-uppances\u201d when the opponent proceeds to demonstrate that he is not nearly as much of a dunce and clueless imbecile as was made out. The Democrats have used this tactic for years in politics. It is disconcerting to see anti-Catholic Baptists follow their illegitimate model in theological discourse. <\/span><\/p>\n He is way ahead of the game, of course, and this is a straw man, since I believe no such thing at all. Sola Scriptura<\/i> means something. It has a well-established definition among Protestant scholars. In the next excerpt, we will see it defined by the well-known, influential Reformed Presbyterian R.C. Sproul. The question at hand is whether sola Scriptura<\/i> is indicated in the Bible. I gave ten reasons in my talk which suggest that it is not.<\/i> This particular case, in fact, offers not only non-support, <\/i>but also direct counter-evidence.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n This argument concerning the Jerusalem Council was used in expanded form in my book,<\/span> The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants<\/a><\/i>. Here is that portion of the book, in its entirety (indented): <\/span><\/p>\n THE BINDING AUTHORITY OF COUNCILS, LED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Acts 15:28-29:<\/b> \u201cFor it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.\u201d<\/span> These passages offer a proof that the early Church held to a notion of the infallibility of Church councils, and to a belief that they were especially guided by the Holy Spirit (precisely as in Catholic Church doctrine concerning ecumenical councils). Accordingly, Paul takes the message of the conciliar decree with him on his evangelistic journeys and preaches it to the people. The Church had real authority; it was binding and infallible.<\/span><\/p>\n This is a far cry from the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura<\/i> \u2014 which presumes that councils and popes can err, and thus need to be corrected by Scripture. Popular writer and radio expositor R.C. Sproul expresses the standard evangelical Protestant viewpoint on Christian authority:<\/span><\/p>\n For the Reformers no church council, synod, classical theologian, or early church father is regarded as infallible. All are open to correction and critique . . .<\/span><\/p>\n (in Boice, 109)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Arguably, this point of view derives from Martin Luther\u2019s stance at the Diet of Worms in 1521 (which might be construed as the formal beginning of the formal principle of authority in Protestantism: sola Scriptura<\/i>). Luther passionately proclaimed:<\/span><\/p>\n Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason \u2013 I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other \u2013 my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me, Amen. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.<\/span><\/p>\n (in Bainton, 144)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n One Protestant reply to these biblical passages might be to say that since this Council of Jerusalem referred to in Acts consisted of apostles, and since an apostle proclaimed the decree, both possessed a binding authority which was later lost (as Protestants accept apostolic authority as much as Catholics do). Furthermore, the incidents were recorded in inspired, infallible Scripture. They could argue that none of this is true of later Catholic councils; therefore, the attempted analogy is null and void.<\/span><\/p>\n But this is a bit simplistic, since Scripture is our model for everything, including Church government, and all parties appeal to it for their own views. If Scripture teaches that a council of the Church is authoritative and binding, then it is implausible and unreasonable to assert that no future council can be so simply because it is not conducted by apostles.<\/span><\/p>\n Scripture is our model for doctrine and practice (nearly all Christians agree on this). The Bible doesn\u2019t exist in an historical vacuum, but has import for the day-to-day life of the Church and Christians for all time. St. Paul told us to imitate him (see, e.g., 2 Thess. 3:9). And he went around proclaiming decrees of the Church. No one was at liberty to disobey these decrees on the grounds of \u201cconscience,\u201d or to declare by \u201cprivate judgment\u201d that they were in error (per Luther).<\/span><\/p>\n It would be foolish to argue that how the apostles conducted the governance of the Church has no relation whatsoever to how later Christians engage in the same task. It would seem rather obvious that Holy Scripture assumes that the model of holy people (patriarchs, prophets, and apostles alike) is to be followed by Christians. This is the point behind entire chapters, such as (notably) Hebrews 11.<\/span><\/p>\n When the biblical model agrees with their theology, Protestants are all too enthusiastic to press their case by using Scriptural examples. The binding authority<\/i> of the Church was present here, and there is no indication whatever that anyone was ever allowed to dissent<\/i> from it. That is the fundamental question. Catholics wholeheartedly agree that no new Christian doctrines were handed down after the apostles. Christian doctrine was present in full from the beginning; it has only organically developed since.<\/span><\/p>\n John Calvin has a field day running down the Catholic Church in his commentary for Acts 15:28. It is clear that he is uncomfortable with this verse and must somehow explain it in Protestant terms. But he is not at all unanswerable. The fact remains that the decree was made, and it was binding. It will not do (in an attempt to undercut ecclesial authority) to proclaim that this particular instance was isolated. For such a judgment rests on Calvin\u2019s own completely arbitrary authority (which he claims but cannot prove). Calvin merely states<\/i> his position (rather than argue<\/i> it) in the following passage:<\/span><\/p>\n . . . in vain do they go about out of the same to prove that the Church had power given to decree anything contrary to the word of God. The Pope hath made such laws as seemed best to him, contrary to the word of God, whereby he meant to govern the Church;<\/span> Far more sensible and objective are the comments on Acts 15:28 and 16:4 from the Presbyterian scholar, Albert Barnes, in his famous Barnes\u2019 Notes<\/i> commentary:<\/span><\/p>\n For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost<\/i>. This is a strong and undoubted claim to inspiration. It was with special reference to the organization of the church that the Holy Spirit had been promised to them by the Lord Jesus, Matthew 18:18-20; John 14:26.<\/span><\/p>\n In this instance it was the decision of the council in a case submitted to it; and implied an obligation on the Christians to submit to that decision.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Barnes actually acknowledges that the passage has some implication for ecclesiology in general. It is remarkable, on the other hand, that Calvin seems concerned about the possibility of a group of Christians (in this case, a council) being led by the Holy Spirit to achieve a true doctrinal decree, whereas he has no problem with the idea that individuals<\/i> can achieve such certainty:<\/span><\/p>\n . . . of the promises which they are wont to allege, many were given not less to private believers than to the whole Church [cites Mt 28:20, Jn 14:16-17] . . . we are not to give permission to the adversaries of Christ to defend a bad cause, by wresting Scripture from its proper meaning.<\/span><\/p>\n (Institutes<\/i>, IV, 8, 11)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n But it will be objected, that whatever is attributed in part to any of the saints, belongs in complete fulness to the Church. Although there is some semblance of truth in this, I deny that it is true.<\/span><\/p>\n (Institutes<\/i>, IV, 8, 12)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Calvin believes that Scripture is self-authenticating. I appeal, then, to the reader to judge the above passages. Do they seem to support the notion of an infallible Church council (apart from the question of whether the Catholic Church, headed by the pope, is that Church)? Do Calvin\u2019s arguments succeed? For Catholics, the import of Acts 15:28 is clear and undeniable.<\/span><\/p>\n Sources<\/b><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Bainton, Roland H., Here I Stand<\/i>, New York: Mentor Books, 1950.<\/span><\/p>\n Barnes, Albert [Presbyterian], Barnes\u2019 Notes on the New Testament<\/i>, 1872; reprinted by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, Michigan), 1983.<\/span> Available online<\/a>.<\/p>\n Boice, James Montgomery, editor, The Foundation of Biblical Authority<\/i>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1978, chapter four by R.C. Sproul: \u201cSola Scriptura: Crucial to Evangelicalism.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Calvin, John, Calvin\u2019s Commentaries<\/i>, 22 volumes, translated and edited by John Owen; originally printed for the Calvin Translation Society, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1853; reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1979.<\/span> Available online<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n<\/b>Acts 16:4:<\/b> \u201cAs they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nThis strikes me as somewhat desperate argumentation. First of all, Catholics never have argued that the pope has any power to make decrees contrary to the Bible (making Calvin\u2019s slanderous charge a straw man). Calvin goes on to use vivid language, intended to resonate with already strong emotions and ignorance of Catholic theology. It\u2019s an old lawyer\u2019s tactic: when one has no case, attempt to caricature the opponent, obfuscate, and appeal to emotions rather than reason.<\/span><\/p>\n