I believe that I will only be doing one of these replies to his replies for each one of the verses he cited in his book (if that). I simply don’t have the time to do more. Also, I’ll try to make it brief and to the point.
“I find it a bit amusing, however, that S&S (being an adherent of Reformed "low church" presbyterian ecclesiology) wants to avoid the term bishop, even though that is the usual translation of the Greek words episkope and episkopos, found in 1 Tim 3:1 and 3:2.”
This is a semantic anachronism. The translation of episkopos into “bishop” is fine as long as one understands that, in the New Testament, it refers to a church elder, the office one place higher than a deacon. Under this definition, my local church pastor would be given the title, “bishop”. Also, the associate pastor in the same church would be called “bishop” as well. Thus, there could be as many as 4-5 “bishops” in a local church congregation numbering as few as 200 members. It does not mean (as it later came to mean) the head of several pastors/priests in a city or district.
The definition of “bishop” that Dave wants to read into the text is anachronistic.
“He mistranslates episkope / episkopos as elder because that is more amenable to his low-church Reformed ecclesiology.”
I did not mistranslate it since it is the meaning of the text. Of course, we’d have to go into what the Bible says about church government in order to settle this dispute, and so, he is now guilty of committing a red herring from the real issue of the interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15 by distracting us with another issue, the Biblical form of church office. [Though the two issues are connected, whether the church has “bishops” in the RC sense is a separate issue from whether the church is declared to be infallible in 1 Tim. 3:15.]
He then goes on to the translations of the Bible which translate episkopos as bishop. Of course, they translate it this way because it has historically been translated this way since the Middle Ages (in English). Thus, if his argument is that it should mean “bishop” because it has meant “bishop” since the Middle Ages, a time period long after the term episkopos lost its Biblical meaning, then he is guilty of circular reasoning.
So, just for the record:
“The terms Presbyter (or Elder) and Bishop (or Overseer, Superintendent) denote in the New Testament one and the same office, with this difference only, that the first is borrowed from the Synagogue, the second from the Greek communities; and that the one signifies the dignity, the other the duty.
1. The identity of these officers is very evident from the following facts:
a. They appear always as a plurality or as a college in one and the same congregation, even in smaller cities) as Philippi.
b. The same officers of the church of Ephesus are alternately called presbyters and bishops.
c. Paul sends greetings to the "bishops" and "deacons" of Philippi, but omits the presbyters because they were included in the first term; as also the plural indicates.
d. In the Pastoral Epistles, where Paul intends to give the qualifications for all church officers, he again mentions only two, bishops and deacons, but uses the term presbyter afterwards for bishop.
Peter urges the "presbyters" to "tend the flock of God," and to "fulfil the office of bishops" with disinterested devotion and without "lording it over the charge allotted to them."
e. The interchange of terms continued in use to the close of the first century, as is evident from the Epistle of Clement of Rome (about 95), and the Didache, and still lingered towards the close of the second.
With the beginning of the second century, from Ignatius onward, the two terms are distinguished and designate two offices; the bishop being regarded first as the head of a congregation surrounded by a council of presbyters, and afterwards as the head of a diocese and successor of the apostles. The episcopate grew out of the presidency of the presbytery, or, as Bishop Lightfoot well expresses it: "The episcopate was formed, not out of the apostolic order by localization, but out of the presbyteral by elevation; and the title, which originally was common to all, came at length to be appropriated to the chief among them." Nevertheless, a recollection of the original identity was preserved by the best biblical scholars among the fathers, such as Jerome (who taught that the episcopate rose from the presbyterate as a safeguard against schism), Chrysostom, and Theodoret.”
-Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church 1.10.61
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc1.i.X.61.html
Even the commentary on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops website explains:
“Overseers: the Greek term episkopos literally means "one who oversees" or "one who supervises," but since the second century it has come to designate the "bishop," the official who heads a local church. In New Testament times this office had not yet developed into the form that it later assumed, though it seems to be well on the way to such development in the Pastorals; see 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:7, where it is translated bishop. At Philippi, however (and at Ephesus, according to Acts 20:28), there was more than one episkopos, and the precise function of these officials is uncertain. In order to distinguish this office from the later stages into which it developed, the term is here translated as overseers.”
-Commentary on Phil. 1:1 NAB
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/philippians/philippians1.htm#foot2
He then remarks about me being a young-earth creationist. I don’t really see what this has to do with issue at hand. I have heard that Dave can go all over the place when responding to someone, and now my faith has become sight! I may post on this topic in the distant future but not now.
“Other than this trivial aside, I have no beef with what S&S wrote about verses 14 and 15. It doesn't really prove anything against my position (and I wonder why S&S would think that it does do so?).”
That’s because I wasn’t giving a critique of your book yet. To make my exegesis complete, I was going through the entire chapter.
He then asks how the presbyterian (with a lower-case “p” referring simply to a plurality of elders) form of church government works. For that, he can pick up a systematic theology such as Robert Reymond’s.
But again, this is another red herring. The issue here is whether 1 Timothy 3:15 can be used as a proof-text for Roman Catholicism that supposedly “confounds Protestants”. Since it is his book making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on him to prove that this verse says what he thinks it means.
He then goes into a discussion he had with Dr. White in the past. Of course, many of his counter-arguments against Dr. White give a question begging response, and Dr. White probably got tired of Dave’s long-winded, question begging, red-herring rants. Perhaps in the later future (much later!), I’ll respond to the philosophical and historical arguments (which are mostly ipse dixits) put forward by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists.
Next, he goes into a long quote on the topic of what is usually termed “doctrinal chaos”. Of course, this gets into a philosophical argument which was never the topic at hand, and yet again, Dave has merited the red-herring award.
“S&S has also assumed certain things above without proving them; namely, that "church" here means simply all believers.”
Actually, if one reads what I wrote, I made this case in the third paragraph after my first citation of Dave’s book. I didn’t want to go into a long-winded dissertation (like Dave) on the meaning of the word, “church”, in Scripture.
“He also blithely assumes without evidence that "truth" in 1 Timothy 3:15 refers to the gospel only, not all spiritual matters. This is not at all obvious, and I see nothing in the immediate context that proves it beyond any doubt. The gospel is certainly a very important part of Christian truth, but not the sum and total of it.”
This is actually a fair criticism. The church was entrusted with and given the duty of proclaiming the whole counsel of God (2 Timothy 2:15). Of course, the gospel encompasses all these things (compare 2 Timothy 2:15 with Colossians 1:5). Nevertheless, I will make a change to my original post with a footnote and the date of the change.
He then goes on to use more RC proof-texts against my reading of 1 Timothy 3:15. I’ll get to these in later posts. [In fact, Acts 15-16 is next.]
“Fundamental to any interpretation of an author's work is an understanding of the purpose of that work…The book itself, however, made no pretense of being an elaborate commentary of biblical evidences for Catholic positions. I had done that already in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. The purpose here was to examine how Protestants try to exegete verses that we Catholics believe don't fit particularly well into a Protestant framework.”
But how can you say that these verses don’t fit into the Protestant framework without showing what they mean in their context?! You could, at the very least, have given mention in one or two short paragraphs of how verses 1-14 and verse 16 fit together with verse 15. Context is everything, and a verse without a context is simply a pre-text.
“Technically speaking, I wouldn't say that the Church is the "source" of Christian truth, if by that one means “origin.””
I didn’t mean to imply that, and many of the readers understood what I meant. Perhaps I shall change that too.
“Even his crony "theojunkie", writing…”
Great. Now I’m a crime lord, and all my Protestant brethren are my ‘crony’ mobsters. [Eyes rolling.]
He then goes into the translation of hedraioma. Of course, it wasn’t so much the translation that was the issue as the extent of the theology one could derive from that translation.
He again goes into Acts 15 (which I will get to in the next post). It should be noted that he is using one disputed text in order to interpret another disputed text, and thus, commits the fallacy of circular reasoning.
“Yet I am accused of equating the "Church" with "just the clergy" as if I were not even myself part of it (if I am not, how could I be "received" into it?). This is ludicrous. Catholics believe also in the consent of the faithful or the sensus fidelium.”
As Turretinfan pointed out, this is an unworkable rule of faith since the Popes and councils are believed to be infallible and thus irreformable.
“It may very well mean that. But that doesn't let S&S off the hook, because he still has to explain how the entire mass of Christians can be the pillar and support / foundation / bulwark / ground, etc. of the truth, when Protestants cannot even agree amongst themselves on so many things.”
Again, this is a red-herring. I was giving a critique of Dave’s exegesis, and so, he bears the burden of proof of showing how 1 Timothy 3:15 proves the infallibility of the church. This goes into a philosophical argument which was not the issue under discussion.
“In OT times, the Jewish assembly was not yet given the gift of infallibility. Things change after Jesus comes and the Holy Spirit indwells believers. Is this not elementary?”
I am indwelt with the Holy Spirit but am not infallible, and all the passages that he normally cites to prove that the church is infallible don’t really prove that (I’ll get to them eventually).
He then quotes my paragraph on the perspicuity of the Old Testament and gives several quotes from his past writings. However, all of his points/Scripture citations either prove too much or too little. Also, one of the points he made in application to sola Scriptura commits the straw-man + false antithesis fallacy (see the introduction to this series, part d.). I will get to all of this when I critique the use of Nehemiah 8 in his book.
“Furthermore, the only ones who believed in "Bible alone" in Jesus' time were the Sadducees, or theological liberals.”
This is false since they rejected the rest of the Old Testament due to a pre-commitment to Greek philosophy.
“We also saw earlier how Jesus and the New Testament writers cite approvingly many tenets of Jewish oral (later talmudic and rabbinic) tradition, according to the Pharisaic outlook.”
This is incredibly false. See my post, Alfred Edersheim on Matthew 15 and Tradition.
“As I have contended above, even if we grant this invisible church, the problem remains of identifying the doctrines of this ethereal, nebulous, mysterious entity.”
Again, as I noted in my second post on the invisible church, this is a category error that plays off of a straw-man.
“The fact is that he contradicted himself: sometimes speaking of the invisible church and other times of a visible one (Lutheranism, after all, adopted a state church model and gave secular princes the power that bishops once had, and this was quite concrete and "visible" indeed).”
Again, the two are not mutually exclusive since they are different *kinds* of churches.
“It's a falsehood to say that Catholic visible authority "died" during the Arian crisis. It may have among eastern bishops, but not at Rome, which always held the correct faith and supported St. Athanasius in it.”
It was more resistant to the heresy of Arianism, but that did not prevent an Arian bishop, Felix II, from ascending the papal throne and promulgating the heresy. It also did not prevent Liberius (though under pain of torture) to profess semi-Arianism (as proven in the Collectanea Antiariana Parisina). Since Dave is fond of appeals to authority (which is not necessarily wrong, especially in the case of the many nuances of history), Klaus Schatz, a (seemingly conservative) Roman Catholic professor of church history, writes:
“The further course of the Arian controversy seems to present the picture of a conflict in which Rome by no means prevailed; in fact, it appears that Rome did not even make an energetic and deliberate attempt to counteract the increasing deviation from Nicea. The Roman bishops Julius and his successor Liberius (352-366) did at first belong to the small group of those who remained true to Athanasius. Over time this certainly contributed to the strengthening of Rome’s authority, especially in the East, but we can by no means speak of anything like success at first. Even the Roman church had its weak moments: Bishop Liberius, under imperial pressure (he was separated from his community, sent into exile, and replaced by an antibishop) accepted a formula of faith that, while not expressly denying the formula of Nicea, deviated from and practically abandoned it. Liberius also broke communion with Athanasius.” (emphasis mine)
-Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy, English trans. (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996), p.26.
Lastly, your analysis of Sardica is overblown as Schatz also points out.
[As an as aside, one of the posters in DA’s combox, Randy, wrote:
“Even their own example of St Athanasius does not work. He is help up as a remnant but he is hardly protestant. How can your remnant be wrong about Mary, the eucharist, the papacy, etc. In fact, it was the authority of the pope that saved his bacon. So he wan't a successful remnant in spite of his belief in the pope but rather because of that belief. So how can you put him up as the small, true church and still say he was so wrong.”
Whether he was a Protestant is irrelevant since I was presenting an internal critique of Dave’s claims. Secondly, he was a Christian and part of the true orthodox catholic Church which I claim to be part of as well even though we differ in theology in some areas. So, the example of Athanasius is perfect for the point I am trying to make. Thirdly, Athanasius did not believe in many of the things that you ascribe to him in your post. This is a classic case of a patristic ananchronism, reading a modern idea into the words and deeds of the church fathers.]
“Al this is secondary. I was simply trying to show that both Luther and Calvin applied 1 Timothy 3:15 to a supposed "hidden" or "invisible" church that was to be regarded as the primary meaning of "church" over against the apostolic, patristic, Catholic visible conception.”
Again, this is the category error + straw-man that I pointed out above. Secondly, Dave did not just note their beliefs, he dismissed them as being ahistorical which both Calvin and Luther actually gave arguments that it wasn’t. I realize that he was limited in space, but he could have at least dealt with this somewhere in his book since it was a key argument for the Reformation’s dismissal of Rome’s authority.
“The contradiction, however, lies in the assertion that great men of the past "agreed with Rome on almost everything" yet were still somehow Christians. Today, the standard anti-Catholic line is that in order to be a good Christian, a man has to be a bad Catholic; i.e., dissent on any number of doctrines that Protestants don't like.”
Well, since I’m not an “anti-Catholic” but a historic Protestant, I guess this doesn’t apply.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Friday, October 5, 2007
The Eisegeted Verses, The Invisible Church, Part II
Since some of the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox continue to post straw-man attacks on the Protestant doctrine of the invisible church, I thought I would post one last time on this topic before moving on.
When Christ and the apostles spoke of the “church”, almost always, they were referring to a group set called the “elect”, those who had been predestined unto eternal life from the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:1-4, 2 Timothy 2:10, 1 Peter 1:1-2, Jude 1, etc.). The “invisible” church (which may be a bad term for it) at any one time consists of all those elect men and women who have come to a knowledge of the truth, repented, and are redeemed. It was to this “church” that the promises of the New Covenant were made in the Old Testament and to which the promises of Christ were made. This church is indestructible and will triumph in invading Satan’s dominion in its proclamation of the gospel of the grace of God (Matt. 16:18, 2 Cor. 4:3-4, 15). [Note: Matthew 16:18 will be exegeted later.]
The visible church is the congregate of the invisible church plus the unbelieving who may profess the faith with words but who are unregenerate (Matthew 13:24-30). This is indeed the “church” where the ordinances/sacraments are administered. However, since no such promise was made to the visible church as was made to the invisible church, out of all possible worlds (to use philosophical terminology), it is possible for the visible church to be taken over by the unregenerate or at least influence the doctrines of the body as a whole to a point where it is no longer a church at all but a “synagogue of Satan” (Matt. 24:24, Jude 4, Revelation 2:9, etc.). God will then send one or many of His servants to correct the error in the already existing visible church or to start a new visible church altogether using the same indestructible “invisible” church. This is what the Reformers were claiming. [Of course, this is not to say that none of those still in the false church are elect. Sometimes, there is enough truth still preached in that old structure so that one can come to a saving knowledge of the truth, repent, and be saved.]
The invisible church and the visible church are two different *kinds* of churches, and so, to say that Protestants believe that the invisible “replaced” the visible is to commit a straw-man that stems from a category error.
P.S. I noted in my post on 1 Tim. 3:15 that Dave likes to quote Protestant exegetes who agree with him as if “the scholars” are finally coming to an agreement that the Roman Church has been right all along. I then noted that this is false by pointing out that I could probably find as many or more modern Roman Catholic exegetical scholars who agree with me. I have recently found out that there are two such scholars, Monsignor Quinn and Luke Timothy Johnson, who give such an interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15.
I do not have the money to go around purchasing these commentaries just for the sake of getting a couple quotes to post on the internet. So, if anyone has these commentaries or access to them, I would like to have a relatively short quote or two from each to add to my post on 1 Timothy 3:15.
I only do this so as to counter Dave’s argument from authority. Personally, I usually don’t like arguments from authority myself, but this is a point that needs to be made.
P.P.S. Here’s Dave’s attempted rebuttal. I would encourage everyone (who has the time!) to read my post, write down the specific points/arguments/counter-arguments that I made, read Dave’s post, and see if he actually responded meaningfully with anything I said. Good luck!
Voluminous writing tends to obscure the real issues, divert the topic elsewhere, and make one’s opponents look like they said something they didn’t.
Also, here is Turretinfan’s analysis of Dave’s ‘rebuttal’.
When Christ and the apostles spoke of the “church”, almost always, they were referring to a group set called the “elect”, those who had been predestined unto eternal life from the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:1-4, 2 Timothy 2:10, 1 Peter 1:1-2, Jude 1, etc.). The “invisible” church (which may be a bad term for it) at any one time consists of all those elect men and women who have come to a knowledge of the truth, repented, and are redeemed. It was to this “church” that the promises of the New Covenant were made in the Old Testament and to which the promises of Christ were made. This church is indestructible and will triumph in invading Satan’s dominion in its proclamation of the gospel of the grace of God (Matt. 16:18, 2 Cor. 4:3-4, 15). [Note: Matthew 16:18 will be exegeted later.]
The visible church is the congregate of the invisible church plus the unbelieving who may profess the faith with words but who are unregenerate (Matthew 13:24-30). This is indeed the “church” where the ordinances/sacraments are administered. However, since no such promise was made to the visible church as was made to the invisible church, out of all possible worlds (to use philosophical terminology), it is possible for the visible church to be taken over by the unregenerate or at least influence the doctrines of the body as a whole to a point where it is no longer a church at all but a “synagogue of Satan” (Matt. 24:24, Jude 4, Revelation 2:9, etc.). God will then send one or many of His servants to correct the error in the already existing visible church or to start a new visible church altogether using the same indestructible “invisible” church. This is what the Reformers were claiming. [Of course, this is not to say that none of those still in the false church are elect. Sometimes, there is enough truth still preached in that old structure so that one can come to a saving knowledge of the truth, repent, and be saved.]
The invisible church and the visible church are two different *kinds* of churches, and so, to say that Protestants believe that the invisible “replaced” the visible is to commit a straw-man that stems from a category error.
P.S. I noted in my post on 1 Tim. 3:15 that Dave likes to quote Protestant exegetes who agree with him as if “the scholars” are finally coming to an agreement that the Roman Church has been right all along. I then noted that this is false by pointing out that I could probably find as many or more modern Roman Catholic exegetical scholars who agree with me. I have recently found out that there are two such scholars, Monsignor Quinn and Luke Timothy Johnson, who give such an interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15.
I do not have the money to go around purchasing these commentaries just for the sake of getting a couple quotes to post on the internet. So, if anyone has these commentaries or access to them, I would like to have a relatively short quote or two from each to add to my post on 1 Timothy 3:15.
I only do this so as to counter Dave’s argument from authority. Personally, I usually don’t like arguments from authority myself, but this is a point that needs to be made.
P.P.S. Here’s Dave’s attempted rebuttal. I would encourage everyone (who has the time!) to read my post, write down the specific points/arguments/counter-arguments that I made, read Dave’s post, and see if he actually responded meaningfully with anything I said. Good luck!
Voluminous writing tends to obscure the real issues, divert the topic elsewhere, and make one’s opponents look like they said something they didn’t.
Also, here is Turretinfan’s analysis of Dave’s ‘rebuttal’.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
The Eisegeted Verses, The Invisible Church
Just so that everyone’s clear…
According to Protestant theology, the visible church is composed of all who call themselves ‘Christian’ and profess the essential doctrines of the faith.
On the other hand, the invisible church is composed only of the elect. This is why Peter, instead of addressing his letter to the ‘Church’, addresses it instead to the ‘elect’ (1 Peter 1:1). This is also why Paul says that he endures all things for the sake of the ‘elect’ (2 Timothy 2:10). According to Protestant theology (and the Scriptures!), the non-elect within the visible church are interlopers.
As to the charge that this doctrine cannot be found in church history (as if the Bible isn’t part of church history!), I cite two of the fathers:
“For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church.” –Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata 7.5
“The second rule is about the twofold division of the body of the Lord; but this indeed is not a suitable name, for that is really no part of the body of Christ which will not be with Him in eternity. We ought, therefore, to say that the rule is about the true and the mixed body of the Lord, or the true and the counterfeit, or some such name; because, not to speak of eternity, hypocrites cannot even now be said to be in Him, although they seem to be in His Church.” – Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.32
According to Protestant theology, the visible church is composed of all who call themselves ‘Christian’ and profess the essential doctrines of the faith.
On the other hand, the invisible church is composed only of the elect. This is why Peter, instead of addressing his letter to the ‘Church’, addresses it instead to the ‘elect’ (1 Peter 1:1). This is also why Paul says that he endures all things for the sake of the ‘elect’ (2 Timothy 2:10). According to Protestant theology (and the Scriptures!), the non-elect within the visible church are interlopers.
As to the charge that this doctrine cannot be found in church history (as if the Bible isn’t part of church history!), I cite two of the fathers:
“For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church.” –Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata 7.5
“The second rule is about the twofold division of the body of the Lord; but this indeed is not a suitable name, for that is really no part of the body of Christ which will not be with Him in eternity. We ought, therefore, to say that the rule is about the true and the mixed body of the Lord, or the true and the counterfeit, or some such name; because, not to speak of eternity, hypocrites cannot even now be said to be in Him, although they seem to be in His Church.” – Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.32
Monday, October 1, 2007
The Eisegeted Verses, 1 Timothy 3:15
[This is part of an ongoing series. See my introduction.]
“I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” -1 Timothy 3:14-15 NASB
Exegesis
Paul begins verse 14 by telling us that he wrote “these things”. This begs the question: what are “these things”? They are the subject of the previous 13 verses: the qualifications and proper behavior for church leaders in the local church (3:1-13).
Verses 1-13
He starts off chapter 3 with the qualifications for an overseer (i.e. an elder): he must be monogamous, slow to anger, loving, a good teacher, not an alcoholic, not a new convert, and have a good reputation. Paul then moves on to the qualifications for a deacon: he must be a man of dignity, a non-alcoholic, etc. He also mentions female leaders within the church: they must not be gossips but temperate and faithful.
Verses 14-15
He wrote the things mentioned above so that the leaders within Timothy’s church would know how to conduct themselves. After all, this isn’t something like a college fraternity. Rather, it is the remnant that God chosen to redeem (Romans 9:22-27), to purchase their salvation with His own blood (Acts 20:28). It is the group that God has called out of the world for His own eternal glory (Ephesians 1:12) and to be the chosen ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20) by which to spread the word of His covenant lawsuit against the heathen (Acts 17:22-31).
The church is to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16) in that we are the representatives of God to a world in rebellion against Him and bearers of the truth now revealed to us at the first coming of Christ (John 17:14-21). As such, the church is to “conduct” itself worthy of such a calling by its Master (1 Thessalonians 2:12, cf. 1 Timothy 3:15).
The next verse should also be noted: “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He [i.e. Jesus] who was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory” (v.16). Here, Paul recites what is believed to be an ancient Christian hymn, and he cites this to show that the proper behavior we are to imitate (i.e. “the mystery of godliness”) is that of Christ Himself. In other words, because we are Christ’s representatives to the world, we are to act like Christ before the world so as not to bring reproach upon the truth of God’s Word** (cf. v.7).
“The Pillar and Support of the Truth”
This brings us to the phrase we are inquiring as to its meaning. From the context I explained above, the church, the entire body of Christ and not just the clergy, is the “pillar and support of the truth” in that it is the representative of God and bearer of the truth of God’s Word**. The church is to conduct itself so that it will not bring disrepute on Him who gave it such a mission. Instead, it is to hold up the truth of the living God so that the unbelieving would either: a.) be convicted of their rebellion and repent or b.) be judicially hardened in their unbelief and bring greater condemnation upon themselves, storing it up for the judgment.
Conclusion
The church (i.e. the body of all Christians) is the bearer (“pillar and support”) of the whole counsel of God** (“the truth”) to the unbelieving world. The church is to behave in such a manner as to not bring disrepute upon the One whom they serve, but instead, they are to act like Christ seeing that they are His representatives.
The High Church [Mis]interpretation
Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and various cult apologists will cite “the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” in v.15 to allegedly prove their doctrine that their church is either infallible or that the clarity of the truths of the Christian faith depend upon their church’s pronouncements. Since this is part of a review of Dave Armstrong’s book, The Catholic Verses, I shall use him as an example and review the other minor arguments put forth in the section of his book dealing with 1 Timothy 3:15.
A Review of Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses on 1 Timothy 3:15
[Unless otherwise stated, all of these quotes come from Dave Armstrong, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2004).]
After quoting only verse 15, Dave writes his commentary on the verse:
“Catholics accept this passage at face value: the Church is the ground or foundation (the word used in the New International Version [NIV] translation) of the truth; it is infallible; it is specially protected by the Holy Spirit so that it can be the Guardian and Preserver of apostolic tradition and truth and doctrine.” (emphasis original; Armstrong, op. cit., p.3)
That’s it!!! There was neither a discussion of the entire previous passage, an entire 14 verses that preceded verse 15, nor of verse 15’s connection to verse 16! The context of the previous verses is primarily ethical/moral, not epistemological. This should have some bearing on one’s interpretation (if not an overriding one). This is a classical case of Text Isolation (see my intro. to this series, part f).
Second, the term “foundation” in the Greek text, hedraioma, can be translated as either “foundation” or “support”, neither of which necessarily mean (in this context) “source of knowledge” or “dependent upon for clarity”***. Even apart from the previous verses, the phrase “pillar and support of the truth” could mean any number of things only one of which is “source of knowledge” or “dependent upon for clarity”***. It was Armstrong’s underlying presuppositions that caused him to see in this verse a proof for infallibility. Thus, this is also a case of Superficial Reading (see intro., part i.).
Likewise, he commits the fallacy of anachronism (see intro., part a.) when he equates the word “church” with the clerical orders. The word ecclesia in the New Testament referred to the entire people of God (laity and clergy), not just the clergy as it came to mean in later times. This is quite manifest by the fact that the phrase referred to in this very verse, “the household of God, which is the church of the living God,” is used elsewhere and in equivalent phrases (1 Cor. 3:16, 2 Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:21, 1 Peter 2:5, and 4:17) all of which refer to the entire body of the redeemed. This fact also shows quite clearly in the inclusion of women in this “church” (v.11).
Lastly, even under the assumption that “pillar and support of the truth” means that the church is the source of the truth, this does not necessarily mean that the church is *infallible* as Mr. Armstrong claims. The Old Testament clerical authority, the Levites, were given the task of being the guardians and teachers of the Torah, but yet, they fell into grave error time and again resulting in God sending the prophets. [Although it should be noted that the Levites weren’t the only ones given the task of teaching the Torah since it was given to every head of each household to teach their sons and daughters God’s law privately (Deut. 6:7-9), another proof that God intended His word to be perspicuous to the common man. However, I’m getting off track, and that shall be saved for a later discussion.] Thus, Armstrong commits the fallacy of the overextended conclusion (see intro., part g.).
Moving on:
“Reluctant to acknowledge the Catholic Church headed by the Pope in Rome, Protestants must fall back on an alternative notion of an invisible, spiritual church that cannot be identified in earthly, historical, concrete terms.” (ibid., p.4)
This is a straw-man. The invisible church manifests itself visibly when it congregates, but not every one who congregates is truly a member of the redeemed. This can hardly be denied since the New Testament witnesses to it (Acts 20:28, 2 Cor. 11:13-15, 1 John 2:19, Rev. 2:14-15, 2:20, etc.)
He notes Martin Luther’s stance on the subject of the visibility of the church, but yet, he never deals with the Reformer’s defenses of it. To quote Luther himself:
“Under Elijah the prophet, all the people and every public institution among them had gone astray into idolatry, so that he thought he was the only one left; yet, while the kings and princes, priests and prophets, and all that could be called the people and church of God, were going to ruin, God had reserved seven thousand to Himself (1 Kings 19:18). But who saw them, or knew them to be the people of God? And who will dare to deny that in our day, under these principal men of yours (for you only mention persons of public office and of great name), God has kept to Himself a church among the common people, while allowing all whom you mention to perish like the kingdom of Israel? For it is God’s prerogative to bring down the chosen ones of Israel, and, as Psalm 77 says, to slay their fat ones (Psalm 78.31); but to preserve the dregs and remnant of Israel, according to Isaiah’s words (Isaiah 10.22).” –Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1957), p.120.
And again:
“Look at the time of the Arians, when scarcely five catholic bishops were preserved in the whole world, and they were driven from their sees, while the Arians reigned everywhere, taking to themselves the public name and office of the church. Yet under these heretics Christ preserved His church; though in such a way that it was not for a moment thought or held to be the church.” –Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1957), p.121.
Thus, Mr. Armstrong fails to take into account the very Biblical and historical doctrine of the “remnant” (Romans 9:24-33). The visible succession of office does not necessarily guarantee the truthfulness of the teaching authority. To quote John the Baptist speaking to the Pharisees:
“…do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham” -Matthew 3:9
[As with modern Jews, the Pharisees supposed themselves to be not only God’s chosen people but also His spiritually redeemed people, those that would receive the resurrection unto eternal life (Dan. 12:2), simply because they were genealogically descended from Abraham. Some modern Jews even believe that atheists will be saved as long as they’re ethnically Jewish!]
Moving along:
“According to sola Scriptura, the Protestant is ultimately free to pick and choose his doctrines in a sort of “cafeteria Christianity” – so long as he can reconcile them with his own interpretation of Scripture.” (Armstrong, op. cit., pp.4-5)
This is a straw-man. What Mr. Armstrong just described, “cafeteria Christianity,” (which sadly, is all too common not only among Protestants but Catholics as well) is not sola Scriptura, but a perversion of it, solo Scriptura.
Does Mr. Armstrong deny the individual believer the right of conscience? Didn’t he join the RCC because “he can reconcile” its teachings “with his own interpretation” of church history and Scripture?
Moving on:
“But because Calvin disagrees with the theology of the Catholic Church (and causally assumes the prerogative to judge that Church), he manages to believe that it “died” and that somehow a “new church” (of course, the one he advocates) has arisen to take its place…” (ibid., p.5)
This is also a straw-man. The true remnant of God never died and cannot die (Matthew 16:18), but the visible/outward authority can just as it did under Elijah the prophet or under Athanasius during the Arian ascendancy (see the Luther quotes above). This is clearly what Calvin meant. Again, Mr. Armstrong cites Calvin’s opinions but never deals with the arguments Calvin presented: the instances in which the Old Testament “Church” became corrupted and God had to send the prophets (a remnant in themselves) to restore the “Church” (Institutes 4.2.10). [I realize that he has limited space in his book, but he could have at least spent a page or even a paragraph dealing with the Reformer’s main arguments.]
Also, it is *NOT* the position of historical Protestantism that the church didn’t exist for 1,400 years. Rather, there were many great and godly men in all ages and not just a few of them within the Church of Rome itself (including a few Popes, no doubt!) who, although they agreed with Rome on almost everything, were part of that Remnant. We still hold that there are still many within the RC and EO communions.
Finally, didn’t Mr. Armstrong have to “judge that Church” in order to determine it was the true Church and become a Roman Catholic? Why should we limit private judgment to the Scriptures? [I suppose that one could argue at this point that the data from church history is much clearer than the Scriptures. However, that is a debatable point and makes the separation of perspicuity between ‘T’radition and Scripture one of degree, not of kind.]
Continuing:
“Almost by logical necessity, then, Calvin too must appeal to an invisible church, a concept not taught in Scripture at all…” (emphasis original; ibid., p.6)
Of course, this is plainly false. The concept of the Remnant is found all throughout Scripture and is termed a number of things: the “remnant” (obviously; Romans 9:27), the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16), “servant” in Isaiah (through chapters 40-53, the term oscillates in reference between the nation of Israel as a whole, the remnant, and the Messiah), etc. The Remnant was an Israel within Israel, an Israel of God.
Moving on:
“Methodist commentator Adam Clarke, in his commentary, illustrates Protestant confusion and mixed feelings over this seemingly easily understood verse…” (ibid., 6)
First of all, just because you are a Protestant commentator doesn’t mean that you’re a good commentator. There are plenty of Protestant commentators who try to interpret a verse in isolation from its surrounding text (just like Mr. Armstrong :) ). It amazes me how many Calvinist commentators get stumped by 2 Peter 3:9, but that’s a different discussion.
Second, Mr. Armstrong likes to cite Protestant commentators in favor of the Catholic interpretation all throughout this book as if *everyone* is finally coming to the realization that the Roman Catholic teaching on the Bible has been right all along. Yeah right!
He’s blithely unaware of the many (if not most) modern Roman Catholic scholars who give the same interpretation of the Bible as Protestants. I’ll try to note that throughout this series.
** I had originally said “gospel” which is true since all of God’s Word is contained in it (compare 2 Timothy 2:15 with Colossians 1:5). However, God has given all of His truth to the Church, not just evangelism, and so, I felt that I should change it to be more clear. This change was made on October 7, 2007.
*** I had originally said, “…‘source’ or ‘dependent upon’.” Though it was not my intention, I can see how one might assume that it meant that the Roman Church was the source of truth as if it made it up. This, of course, would be an error since Roman Catholicism teaches that God is the source of all truth, but He has set up the Church to be the epistemic source through which He mediates His truth for Christians. This change was made on October 7, 2007.
“I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” -1 Timothy 3:14-15 NASB
Exegesis
Paul begins verse 14 by telling us that he wrote “these things”. This begs the question: what are “these things”? They are the subject of the previous 13 verses: the qualifications and proper behavior for church leaders in the local church (3:1-13).
Verses 1-13
He starts off chapter 3 with the qualifications for an overseer (i.e. an elder): he must be monogamous, slow to anger, loving, a good teacher, not an alcoholic, not a new convert, and have a good reputation. Paul then moves on to the qualifications for a deacon: he must be a man of dignity, a non-alcoholic, etc. He also mentions female leaders within the church: they must not be gossips but temperate and faithful.
Verses 14-15
He wrote the things mentioned above so that the leaders within Timothy’s church would know how to conduct themselves. After all, this isn’t something like a college fraternity. Rather, it is the remnant that God chosen to redeem (Romans 9:22-27), to purchase their salvation with His own blood (Acts 20:28). It is the group that God has called out of the world for His own eternal glory (Ephesians 1:12) and to be the chosen ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20) by which to spread the word of His covenant lawsuit against the heathen (Acts 17:22-31).
The church is to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16) in that we are the representatives of God to a world in rebellion against Him and bearers of the truth now revealed to us at the first coming of Christ (John 17:14-21). As such, the church is to “conduct” itself worthy of such a calling by its Master (1 Thessalonians 2:12, cf. 1 Timothy 3:15).
The next verse should also be noted: “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He [i.e. Jesus] who was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory” (v.16). Here, Paul recites what is believed to be an ancient Christian hymn, and he cites this to show that the proper behavior we are to imitate (i.e. “the mystery of godliness”) is that of Christ Himself. In other words, because we are Christ’s representatives to the world, we are to act like Christ before the world so as not to bring reproach upon the truth of God’s Word** (cf. v.7).
“The Pillar and Support of the Truth”
This brings us to the phrase we are inquiring as to its meaning. From the context I explained above, the church, the entire body of Christ and not just the clergy, is the “pillar and support of the truth” in that it is the representative of God and bearer of the truth of God’s Word**. The church is to conduct itself so that it will not bring disrepute on Him who gave it such a mission. Instead, it is to hold up the truth of the living God so that the unbelieving would either: a.) be convicted of their rebellion and repent or b.) be judicially hardened in their unbelief and bring greater condemnation upon themselves, storing it up for the judgment.
Conclusion
The church (i.e. the body of all Christians) is the bearer (“pillar and support”) of the whole counsel of God** (“the truth”) to the unbelieving world. The church is to behave in such a manner as to not bring disrepute upon the One whom they serve, but instead, they are to act like Christ seeing that they are His representatives.
The High Church [Mis]interpretation
Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and various cult apologists will cite “the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” in v.15 to allegedly prove their doctrine that their church is either infallible or that the clarity of the truths of the Christian faith depend upon their church’s pronouncements. Since this is part of a review of Dave Armstrong’s book, The Catholic Verses, I shall use him as an example and review the other minor arguments put forth in the section of his book dealing with 1 Timothy 3:15.
A Review of Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses on 1 Timothy 3:15
[Unless otherwise stated, all of these quotes come from Dave Armstrong, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2004).]
After quoting only verse 15, Dave writes his commentary on the verse:
“Catholics accept this passage at face value: the Church is the ground or foundation (the word used in the New International Version [NIV] translation) of the truth; it is infallible; it is specially protected by the Holy Spirit so that it can be the Guardian and Preserver of apostolic tradition and truth and doctrine.” (emphasis original; Armstrong, op. cit., p.3)
That’s it!!! There was neither a discussion of the entire previous passage, an entire 14 verses that preceded verse 15, nor of verse 15’s connection to verse 16! The context of the previous verses is primarily ethical/moral, not epistemological. This should have some bearing on one’s interpretation (if not an overriding one). This is a classical case of Text Isolation (see my intro. to this series, part f).
Second, the term “foundation” in the Greek text, hedraioma, can be translated as either “foundation” or “support”, neither of which necessarily mean (in this context) “source of knowledge” or “dependent upon for clarity”***. Even apart from the previous verses, the phrase “pillar and support of the truth” could mean any number of things only one of which is “source of knowledge” or “dependent upon for clarity”***. It was Armstrong’s underlying presuppositions that caused him to see in this verse a proof for infallibility. Thus, this is also a case of Superficial Reading (see intro., part i.).
Likewise, he commits the fallacy of anachronism (see intro., part a.) when he equates the word “church” with the clerical orders. The word ecclesia in the New Testament referred to the entire people of God (laity and clergy), not just the clergy as it came to mean in later times. This is quite manifest by the fact that the phrase referred to in this very verse, “the household of God, which is the church of the living God,” is used elsewhere and in equivalent phrases (1 Cor. 3:16, 2 Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:21, 1 Peter 2:5, and 4:17) all of which refer to the entire body of the redeemed. This fact also shows quite clearly in the inclusion of women in this “church” (v.11).
Lastly, even under the assumption that “pillar and support of the truth” means that the church is the source of the truth, this does not necessarily mean that the church is *infallible* as Mr. Armstrong claims. The Old Testament clerical authority, the Levites, were given the task of being the guardians and teachers of the Torah, but yet, they fell into grave error time and again resulting in God sending the prophets. [Although it should be noted that the Levites weren’t the only ones given the task of teaching the Torah since it was given to every head of each household to teach their sons and daughters God’s law privately (Deut. 6:7-9), another proof that God intended His word to be perspicuous to the common man. However, I’m getting off track, and that shall be saved for a later discussion.] Thus, Armstrong commits the fallacy of the overextended conclusion (see intro., part g.).
Moving on:
“Reluctant to acknowledge the Catholic Church headed by the Pope in Rome, Protestants must fall back on an alternative notion of an invisible, spiritual church that cannot be identified in earthly, historical, concrete terms.” (ibid., p.4)
This is a straw-man. The invisible church manifests itself visibly when it congregates, but not every one who congregates is truly a member of the redeemed. This can hardly be denied since the New Testament witnesses to it (Acts 20:28, 2 Cor. 11:13-15, 1 John 2:19, Rev. 2:14-15, 2:20, etc.)
He notes Martin Luther’s stance on the subject of the visibility of the church, but yet, he never deals with the Reformer’s defenses of it. To quote Luther himself:
“Under Elijah the prophet, all the people and every public institution among them had gone astray into idolatry, so that he thought he was the only one left; yet, while the kings and princes, priests and prophets, and all that could be called the people and church of God, were going to ruin, God had reserved seven thousand to Himself (1 Kings 19:18). But who saw them, or knew them to be the people of God? And who will dare to deny that in our day, under these principal men of yours (for you only mention persons of public office and of great name), God has kept to Himself a church among the common people, while allowing all whom you mention to perish like the kingdom of Israel? For it is God’s prerogative to bring down the chosen ones of Israel, and, as Psalm 77 says, to slay their fat ones (Psalm 78.31); but to preserve the dregs and remnant of Israel, according to Isaiah’s words (Isaiah 10.22).” –Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1957), p.120.
And again:
“Look at the time of the Arians, when scarcely five catholic bishops were preserved in the whole world, and they were driven from their sees, while the Arians reigned everywhere, taking to themselves the public name and office of the church. Yet under these heretics Christ preserved His church; though in such a way that it was not for a moment thought or held to be the church.” –Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1957), p.121.
Thus, Mr. Armstrong fails to take into account the very Biblical and historical doctrine of the “remnant” (Romans 9:24-33). The visible succession of office does not necessarily guarantee the truthfulness of the teaching authority. To quote John the Baptist speaking to the Pharisees:
“…do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham” -Matthew 3:9
[As with modern Jews, the Pharisees supposed themselves to be not only God’s chosen people but also His spiritually redeemed people, those that would receive the resurrection unto eternal life (Dan. 12:2), simply because they were genealogically descended from Abraham. Some modern Jews even believe that atheists will be saved as long as they’re ethnically Jewish!]
Moving along:
“According to sola Scriptura, the Protestant is ultimately free to pick and choose his doctrines in a sort of “cafeteria Christianity” – so long as he can reconcile them with his own interpretation of Scripture.” (Armstrong, op. cit., pp.4-5)
This is a straw-man. What Mr. Armstrong just described, “cafeteria Christianity,” (which sadly, is all too common not only among Protestants but Catholics as well) is not sola Scriptura, but a perversion of it, solo Scriptura.
Does Mr. Armstrong deny the individual believer the right of conscience? Didn’t he join the RCC because “he can reconcile” its teachings “with his own interpretation” of church history and Scripture?
Moving on:
“But because Calvin disagrees with the theology of the Catholic Church (and causally assumes the prerogative to judge that Church), he manages to believe that it “died” and that somehow a “new church” (of course, the one he advocates) has arisen to take its place…” (ibid., p.5)
This is also a straw-man. The true remnant of God never died and cannot die (Matthew 16:18), but the visible/outward authority can just as it did under Elijah the prophet or under Athanasius during the Arian ascendancy (see the Luther quotes above). This is clearly what Calvin meant. Again, Mr. Armstrong cites Calvin’s opinions but never deals with the arguments Calvin presented: the instances in which the Old Testament “Church” became corrupted and God had to send the prophets (a remnant in themselves) to restore the “Church” (Institutes 4.2.10). [I realize that he has limited space in his book, but he could have at least spent a page or even a paragraph dealing with the Reformer’s main arguments.]
Also, it is *NOT* the position of historical Protestantism that the church didn’t exist for 1,400 years. Rather, there were many great and godly men in all ages and not just a few of them within the Church of Rome itself (including a few Popes, no doubt!) who, although they agreed with Rome on almost everything, were part of that Remnant. We still hold that there are still many within the RC and EO communions.
Finally, didn’t Mr. Armstrong have to “judge that Church” in order to determine it was the true Church and become a Roman Catholic? Why should we limit private judgment to the Scriptures? [I suppose that one could argue at this point that the data from church history is much clearer than the Scriptures. However, that is a debatable point and makes the separation of perspicuity between ‘T’radition and Scripture one of degree, not of kind.]
Continuing:
“Almost by logical necessity, then, Calvin too must appeal to an invisible church, a concept not taught in Scripture at all…” (emphasis original; ibid., p.6)
Of course, this is plainly false. The concept of the Remnant is found all throughout Scripture and is termed a number of things: the “remnant” (obviously; Romans 9:27), the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16), “servant” in Isaiah (through chapters 40-53, the term oscillates in reference between the nation of Israel as a whole, the remnant, and the Messiah), etc. The Remnant was an Israel within Israel, an Israel of God.
Moving on:
“Methodist commentator Adam Clarke, in his commentary, illustrates Protestant confusion and mixed feelings over this seemingly easily understood verse…” (ibid., 6)
First of all, just because you are a Protestant commentator doesn’t mean that you’re a good commentator. There are plenty of Protestant commentators who try to interpret a verse in isolation from its surrounding text (just like Mr. Armstrong :) ). It amazes me how many Calvinist commentators get stumped by 2 Peter 3:9, but that’s a different discussion.
Second, Mr. Armstrong likes to cite Protestant commentators in favor of the Catholic interpretation all throughout this book as if *everyone* is finally coming to the realization that the Roman Catholic teaching on the Bible has been right all along. Yeah right!
He’s blithely unaware of the many (if not most) modern Roman Catholic scholars who give the same interpretation of the Bible as Protestants. I’ll try to note that throughout this series.
** I had originally said “gospel” which is true since all of God’s Word is contained in it (compare 2 Timothy 2:15 with Colossians 1:5). However, God has given all of His truth to the Church, not just evangelism, and so, I felt that I should change it to be more clear. This change was made on October 7, 2007.
*** I had originally said, “…‘source’ or ‘dependent upon’.” Though it was not my intention, I can see how one might assume that it meant that the Roman Church was the source of truth as if it made it up. This, of course, would be an error since Roman Catholicism teaches that God is the source of all truth, but He has set up the Church to be the epistemic source through which He mediates His truth for Christians. This change was made on October 7, 2007.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
The Eisegeted Verses, An Introduction
I have decided to begin a new series of posts dealing with the common proof-texts that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox apologists put forth to prove their doctrines. I’m all too used to visiting websites or blogs where these Scriptures are put forward as the “final word” proofs for Catholic and Orthodox dogma.
I’ll seek to accomplish this by doing a lengthy book review of Dave Armstrong’s work, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants, since it is a book that lists nearly all of the most common proof-texts that Roman Catholic (RC from now on) and Eastern Orthodox (EO from now on) use. Thus, this series of posts shall be called “The Eisegeted Verses”.
As I’ve begun to read through Mr. Armstrong’s book, I’ve noticed several fallacies in his attempt at exegesis of the Biblical text. It’s not that I haven’t noticed many of these errors before in my past dialogues with Roman Catholics. It’s just that when Mr. Armstrong tries to give a commentary on these verses, the underlying presuppositions and exegetical errors come bubbling to the surface. Sadly though, unlike in the past, many Protestants today aren’t exegetically trained to any degree, and thus, they easily fall prey to the use of these fallacies. So, I’d think it would be helpful to give a list of the more common fallacies I have noticed:
Common Fallacies:
a.) Anachronism: This is a fallacy of history in which one imports a modern or later concept or definition back into a belief or word of a previous age. For instance, it is all too common for a Roman Catholic apologist to see the word, “church,” in the Biblical text and say that it is referring to the clergy, i.e. the priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the Pope. However, in the New Testament, the word, “church,” Greek: ecclesia, simply meant “congregation” which referred to the entire people of God, the laity and the clergy. [It should also be noted that, in the New Testament, the distinction between laity and clergy is one of degree, not of kind, but this is a point that will be argued elsewhere.] Thus, this anachronism results in giving more power to the clerical authority that would and should be given to all the people of God.
b.) Straw-Man: A straw-man is a logical fallacy in which one debate disputant will misrepresent the other debater’s position in order to more easily defeat his opponent’s “position” (which isn’t really his) and give the illusion that the latter was refuted. This typically occurs, for instance, when the RC and Protestant are debating John 6, and the RC accuses the Protestant of being inconsistent in his exegesis because he is not interpreting Jesus’ words ‘literally’. Except for hyper-dispensationalists, this is a misrepresentation of the Protestant method of interpretation, the grammatico-historical method or GHM. GHM does not mean that everything should be taken ‘literally’ but that a Biblical text should be interpreted in light of its surrounding context, culture, language, etc. Thus, some passages and sayings should be taken ‘literally’ and some metaphorically or figuratively all depending on the context.
c.) False Antithesis: A false antithesis is when a debater sets up a situation in which either position ‘A’ is the case (which happens to be the debater’s position) or position ‘B’ is the case and argues that since the facts are definitely not in favor of ‘B’, then ‘A’ must be the case even though his opponent’s position is neither ‘A’ nor ‘B’ but some other position ‘C’. Thus, just because ‘B’ is eliminated as being true doesn’t necessarily mean that ‘A’ is true since there is still the possibility that ‘C’ is true. This is also called the “either-or” fallacy.
This happens when discussing James 2:24. A Roman Catholic will assert that the “faith” spoken of in James is the same as the “faith” spoken of in Paul’s letters, and thus, they say, faith is simply an assent to truth which we must add good works in order to attain the expiation of sin. To them, faith is an assent to truth and there is no other possible Biblical definition of “faith”. However, the Protestant Reformers made a distinction between three different kinds of knowledge or faith: noticia, assensus, and fiducia. Noticia is simple understanding of the truth, assensus is an assent to the truth, and fiducia is a trusting commitment to this knowledge or a ‘living’ faith. Thus, the Protestant would say that James is speaking of (and condemning) a simple assent to the truth (assensus) while Paul is speaking of a ‘living’ faith (which includes repentance), fiducia, which alone results in justification.
d.) Straw-Man + False Antithesis: A more common fallacy that happens in these Roman Catholic/Protestant dialogues occurs when the previous two fallacies are combined. This can happen when, for example, a Roman Catholic says that either meritorious good-works are necessary for the Christian (the RC position) or good works aren’t necessary at all for the Christian (a misrepresentation or “straw-man” of the Protestant position). They will then point to passages such as Matthew 7:21-23, John 5:29, Hebrews 12:14, or James 2:24 and say that since the “Protestant” position (again, a straw-man of it) is not the case, then the Roman Catholic position must be the case. Of course, since that is not the Protestant position, and the real Protestant position falls in between the two extremes presented (holding that good works are *descriptive* of a true Christian but not prescriptive to be saved as the RC holds), the RC argument does not follow.
e.) Fallacy of Equivocation: This is a logical fallacy which occurs when one definition of a word or phrase is imported into that same word which, from the context, does not bear the same meaning or connotation.
An example of that would be the same example used in the fallacy of anachronism (a.) in which a modern definition of the word, “church,” is imported into a first century text. Thus, the RC argument actually utilizes both an anachronism and an equivocation of terms.
Another example would be when RC’s say that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) teaches sola gratia, salvation by “grace alone,” just as Protestants do. However, what a Roman Catholic means by that and what an historic Protestant means by that are two totally different things. The RCC means that grace is *necessary* for salvation but positive human effort must be added (which, they say, is itself moved by grace). The Protestant, however, holds that sola gratia means that, not only is grace necessary, it is *sufficient* to save the sinner. Thus, while in RC theology, a person can be given saving grace and yet fail to be saved, in Protestant theology, a person who is given saving grace cannot fail to be saved.
f.) Text Isolation: This is an exegetical (i.e. interpretive) fallacy. This occurs when an interpreter takes a verse, ignores the surrounding context, and (since the verse, phrase, or word is without context) imports a meaning or interpretation into the passage. This is an extremely common fallacy in Roman Catholic apologetics, and Dave Armstrong uses it on the majority of the verses that he cites. Thus, we will see this often.
g.) Over-extended Conclusion: This is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion to the argument is more than that which can be supplied by the premises. For instance, if one has the premises:
A ---> B (If A is the case, then B is also the case.)
and
A (A is the case.)
the maximum conclusion that can be had from these premises is that B is the case since B flows from the conditional. An over-extended conclusion is where one would (falsely) conclude from the above premises that B+C+D+E are also the case. C, D, and E weren’t even in any of the premises, and so, it is impossible for them to be in the conclusion.
One case of this in Roman Catholic apologetics is in their interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, the alleged proof of Papal Primacy. Even if the “rock” of verse 18 refers to Peter, and he has the power to “bind” and “loose” in the sense of Roman Catholic dogma, it does not at all follow that this power was passed on to his “successors” as bishops of Rome. The word ‘successor’ or any variant of it is not even mentioned in the text and neither is there any suggestion of such a concept.
h.) Infinite Regress: This is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of the premises results in an endless necessity of preconditions. The classic case of an infinite regress is the example of Indian cosmogony.
According to Indian cosmogony, the earth must sit on the back of an elephant, otherwise, it would fall. When asked what the elephant sits on (since, according to the same logic used in the premise, it would also fall), the Indian cosmogonist replies that it sits on the back of a turtle. When asked what the turtle sits on (otherwise, it too would fall), the Indian cosmogonist thinks a little bit longer and says, “Another turtle.” When asked what *this* turtle sits on (yet again: otherwise, it would fall), the cosmogonist replies with yet another turtle (or if he’s smarter than that, he’d realize the problem). Under the assumption that the world requires something to sit on lest it fall, it would require an infinite number of things to sit on each other lest they fall as well with no end in sight since it simply pushes the problem one step back each time. Thus, Bertrand Russell called the infinite regress “Turtles all the way down.”
The simplest way to solve this is to deny the premise. In this case, either one of those turtles must rest on nothing but be suspended by its own power, or (since the entire premise for the world resting on something is denied) the world rests on nothing but is suspended by itself. In the latter case, there would be no need for any elephants or turtles.
The extremely common case of an infinite regress in the Roman Catholic/Protestant dialogues is when the RC states that in order to know the right theology with certainty, one must know (with certainty) what books should be in the Bible (true), and according to the RC, the only way to know what books should be in the Bible is for an infallible authority to give us infallible knowledge of which books should be included in the Bible. This authority, they say, is the Roman Catholic Church. Subtly assumed in this argument is the presupposition that for someone to have any knowledge with certainty, one must have *infallible* knowledge.
Other than the fact that this is an overextended conclusion (why not fill that answer with the Mormon prophet or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society or some cult leader receiving “revelations”?), it commits the infinite regress. When asked how *they* know with infallible certainty that that allegedly infallible authority is indeed infallible, they must either invent another infallible authority (like another turtle which would further push the problem backward, yet again) or say that this infallible authority is authenticated through weighing the facts (i.e. historical research, other empirical data, etc.) without the need of infallible knowledge from another source (like a turtle resting on nothing but suspended on its own power). Of course, to say that something can be authenticated through fallible means (and thus, fallible knowledge) is to deny the premise put forward at the beginning, and then, this begs the obvious question: why can’t the canon of Scripture be determined in the same fashion (like the world resting on nothing but suspended in space by itself)? Thus, we would not need an infallible authority to tell us what Scripture is since we can do so through historical research.
Since God alone possesses infallible knowledge, we fallible human beings are always going to be limited to fallibility no matter which point we start at. Whether it is Scripture or the allegedly infallible Church, there must be a terminus. One does not have to have infallible knowledge in order to have any knowledge, but rather, one must have *reliable* (though fallible) knowledge in order to have certainty.
i.) Superficial Reading: This is an exegetical fallacy in which the interpreter finds a passage of Scripture that sounds like their theology’s position and conclude that that passage must be teaching that peculiar doctrine. It is usually combined with the fallacy of text isolation. This occurs when the Roman Catholic points to the term, “disqualified” [from receiving the reward], in 1 Corinthians 9:27 to “prove” the concept of mortal sin (i.e. the loss of the “reward” of eternal life). However, the reason why it sounds like (i.e. superficially) his theology is because he ignored the surrounding context and ended up seeing what he wanted to see. The passage starts in verse 1 and has as its context (by verse 23) the reward for preaching the gospel. Although he has the right to certain things (vv.1-14), if Paul does anything that will allow his opponents to bring disrepute upon him and his message (i.e. by making it look like he was in it for the money; vv.3, 6-15, 18, 26), then he will be “disqualified” (using Greek game terminology) in the eyes of his hearers from his gospel proclamation being successful (v.27). If this happens, then he will not receive the reward that he normally would have if his message was successful (vv.16-18). The passage has absolutely nothing to do with the loss of salvation.
I’ll seek to accomplish this by doing a lengthy book review of Dave Armstrong’s work, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants, since it is a book that lists nearly all of the most common proof-texts that Roman Catholic (RC from now on) and Eastern Orthodox (EO from now on) use. Thus, this series of posts shall be called “The Eisegeted Verses”.
As I’ve begun to read through Mr. Armstrong’s book, I’ve noticed several fallacies in his attempt at exegesis of the Biblical text. It’s not that I haven’t noticed many of these errors before in my past dialogues with Roman Catholics. It’s just that when Mr. Armstrong tries to give a commentary on these verses, the underlying presuppositions and exegetical errors come bubbling to the surface. Sadly though, unlike in the past, many Protestants today aren’t exegetically trained to any degree, and thus, they easily fall prey to the use of these fallacies. So, I’d think it would be helpful to give a list of the more common fallacies I have noticed:
Common Fallacies:
a.) Anachronism: This is a fallacy of history in which one imports a modern or later concept or definition back into a belief or word of a previous age. For instance, it is all too common for a Roman Catholic apologist to see the word, “church,” in the Biblical text and say that it is referring to the clergy, i.e. the priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the Pope. However, in the New Testament, the word, “church,” Greek: ecclesia, simply meant “congregation” which referred to the entire people of God, the laity and the clergy. [It should also be noted that, in the New Testament, the distinction between laity and clergy is one of degree, not of kind, but this is a point that will be argued elsewhere.] Thus, this anachronism results in giving more power to the clerical authority that would and should be given to all the people of God.
b.) Straw-Man: A straw-man is a logical fallacy in which one debate disputant will misrepresent the other debater’s position in order to more easily defeat his opponent’s “position” (which isn’t really his) and give the illusion that the latter was refuted. This typically occurs, for instance, when the RC and Protestant are debating John 6, and the RC accuses the Protestant of being inconsistent in his exegesis because he is not interpreting Jesus’ words ‘literally’. Except for hyper-dispensationalists, this is a misrepresentation of the Protestant method of interpretation, the grammatico-historical method or GHM. GHM does not mean that everything should be taken ‘literally’ but that a Biblical text should be interpreted in light of its surrounding context, culture, language, etc. Thus, some passages and sayings should be taken ‘literally’ and some metaphorically or figuratively all depending on the context.
c.) False Antithesis: A false antithesis is when a debater sets up a situation in which either position ‘A’ is the case (which happens to be the debater’s position) or position ‘B’ is the case and argues that since the facts are definitely not in favor of ‘B’, then ‘A’ must be the case even though his opponent’s position is neither ‘A’ nor ‘B’ but some other position ‘C’. Thus, just because ‘B’ is eliminated as being true doesn’t necessarily mean that ‘A’ is true since there is still the possibility that ‘C’ is true. This is also called the “either-or” fallacy.
This happens when discussing James 2:24. A Roman Catholic will assert that the “faith” spoken of in James is the same as the “faith” spoken of in Paul’s letters, and thus, they say, faith is simply an assent to truth which we must add good works in order to attain the expiation of sin. To them, faith is an assent to truth and there is no other possible Biblical definition of “faith”. However, the Protestant Reformers made a distinction between three different kinds of knowledge or faith: noticia, assensus, and fiducia. Noticia is simple understanding of the truth, assensus is an assent to the truth, and fiducia is a trusting commitment to this knowledge or a ‘living’ faith. Thus, the Protestant would say that James is speaking of (and condemning) a simple assent to the truth (assensus) while Paul is speaking of a ‘living’ faith (which includes repentance), fiducia, which alone results in justification.
d.) Straw-Man + False Antithesis: A more common fallacy that happens in these Roman Catholic/Protestant dialogues occurs when the previous two fallacies are combined. This can happen when, for example, a Roman Catholic says that either meritorious good-works are necessary for the Christian (the RC position) or good works aren’t necessary at all for the Christian (a misrepresentation or “straw-man” of the Protestant position). They will then point to passages such as Matthew 7:21-23, John 5:29, Hebrews 12:14, or James 2:24 and say that since the “Protestant” position (again, a straw-man of it) is not the case, then the Roman Catholic position must be the case. Of course, since that is not the Protestant position, and the real Protestant position falls in between the two extremes presented (holding that good works are *descriptive* of a true Christian but not prescriptive to be saved as the RC holds), the RC argument does not follow.
e.) Fallacy of Equivocation: This is a logical fallacy which occurs when one definition of a word or phrase is imported into that same word which, from the context, does not bear the same meaning or connotation.
An example of that would be the same example used in the fallacy of anachronism (a.) in which a modern definition of the word, “church,” is imported into a first century text. Thus, the RC argument actually utilizes both an anachronism and an equivocation of terms.
Another example would be when RC’s say that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) teaches sola gratia, salvation by “grace alone,” just as Protestants do. However, what a Roman Catholic means by that and what an historic Protestant means by that are two totally different things. The RCC means that grace is *necessary* for salvation but positive human effort must be added (which, they say, is itself moved by grace). The Protestant, however, holds that sola gratia means that, not only is grace necessary, it is *sufficient* to save the sinner. Thus, while in RC theology, a person can be given saving grace and yet fail to be saved, in Protestant theology, a person who is given saving grace cannot fail to be saved.
f.) Text Isolation: This is an exegetical (i.e. interpretive) fallacy. This occurs when an interpreter takes a verse, ignores the surrounding context, and (since the verse, phrase, or word is without context) imports a meaning or interpretation into the passage. This is an extremely common fallacy in Roman Catholic apologetics, and Dave Armstrong uses it on the majority of the verses that he cites. Thus, we will see this often.
g.) Over-extended Conclusion: This is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion to the argument is more than that which can be supplied by the premises. For instance, if one has the premises:
A ---> B (If A is the case, then B is also the case.)
and
A (A is the case.)
the maximum conclusion that can be had from these premises is that B is the case since B flows from the conditional. An over-extended conclusion is where one would (falsely) conclude from the above premises that B+C+D+E are also the case. C, D, and E weren’t even in any of the premises, and so, it is impossible for them to be in the conclusion.
One case of this in Roman Catholic apologetics is in their interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, the alleged proof of Papal Primacy. Even if the “rock” of verse 18 refers to Peter, and he has the power to “bind” and “loose” in the sense of Roman Catholic dogma, it does not at all follow that this power was passed on to his “successors” as bishops of Rome. The word ‘successor’ or any variant of it is not even mentioned in the text and neither is there any suggestion of such a concept.
h.) Infinite Regress: This is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of the premises results in an endless necessity of preconditions. The classic case of an infinite regress is the example of Indian cosmogony.
According to Indian cosmogony, the earth must sit on the back of an elephant, otherwise, it would fall. When asked what the elephant sits on (since, according to the same logic used in the premise, it would also fall), the Indian cosmogonist replies that it sits on the back of a turtle. When asked what the turtle sits on (otherwise, it too would fall), the Indian cosmogonist thinks a little bit longer and says, “Another turtle.” When asked what *this* turtle sits on (yet again: otherwise, it would fall), the cosmogonist replies with yet another turtle (or if he’s smarter than that, he’d realize the problem). Under the assumption that the world requires something to sit on lest it fall, it would require an infinite number of things to sit on each other lest they fall as well with no end in sight since it simply pushes the problem one step back each time. Thus, Bertrand Russell called the infinite regress “Turtles all the way down.”
The simplest way to solve this is to deny the premise. In this case, either one of those turtles must rest on nothing but be suspended by its own power, or (since the entire premise for the world resting on something is denied) the world rests on nothing but is suspended by itself. In the latter case, there would be no need for any elephants or turtles.
The extremely common case of an infinite regress in the Roman Catholic/Protestant dialogues is when the RC states that in order to know the right theology with certainty, one must know (with certainty) what books should be in the Bible (true), and according to the RC, the only way to know what books should be in the Bible is for an infallible authority to give us infallible knowledge of which books should be included in the Bible. This authority, they say, is the Roman Catholic Church. Subtly assumed in this argument is the presupposition that for someone to have any knowledge with certainty, one must have *infallible* knowledge.
Other than the fact that this is an overextended conclusion (why not fill that answer with the Mormon prophet or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society or some cult leader receiving “revelations”?), it commits the infinite regress. When asked how *they* know with infallible certainty that that allegedly infallible authority is indeed infallible, they must either invent another infallible authority (like another turtle which would further push the problem backward, yet again) or say that this infallible authority is authenticated through weighing the facts (i.e. historical research, other empirical data, etc.) without the need of infallible knowledge from another source (like a turtle resting on nothing but suspended on its own power). Of course, to say that something can be authenticated through fallible means (and thus, fallible knowledge) is to deny the premise put forward at the beginning, and then, this begs the obvious question: why can’t the canon of Scripture be determined in the same fashion (like the world resting on nothing but suspended in space by itself)? Thus, we would not need an infallible authority to tell us what Scripture is since we can do so through historical research.
Since God alone possesses infallible knowledge, we fallible human beings are always going to be limited to fallibility no matter which point we start at. Whether it is Scripture or the allegedly infallible Church, there must be a terminus. One does not have to have infallible knowledge in order to have any knowledge, but rather, one must have *reliable* (though fallible) knowledge in order to have certainty.
i.) Superficial Reading: This is an exegetical fallacy in which the interpreter finds a passage of Scripture that sounds like their theology’s position and conclude that that passage must be teaching that peculiar doctrine. It is usually combined with the fallacy of text isolation. This occurs when the Roman Catholic points to the term, “disqualified” [from receiving the reward], in 1 Corinthians 9:27 to “prove” the concept of mortal sin (i.e. the loss of the “reward” of eternal life). However, the reason why it sounds like (i.e. superficially) his theology is because he ignored the surrounding context and ended up seeing what he wanted to see. The passage starts in verse 1 and has as its context (by verse 23) the reward for preaching the gospel. Although he has the right to certain things (vv.1-14), if Paul does anything that will allow his opponents to bring disrepute upon him and his message (i.e. by making it look like he was in it for the money; vv.3, 6-15, 18, 26), then he will be “disqualified” (using Greek game terminology) in the eyes of his hearers from his gospel proclamation being successful (v.27). If this happens, then he will not receive the reward that he normally would have if his message was successful (vv.16-18). The passage has absolutely nothing to do with the loss of salvation.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Objective, Truth-Seeking Scientists? Yeah, Right!
This yet again destroys the myth that scientists are objective seekers of the truth:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200709.htm#20070919a
It is amazing to me how many people simply accept something to be true simply because "the majority of scientists say so." Blah, blah, blah...
Scientists are just as worldview driven as the medieval inquisitors.
Plus, they are some of the worst logicians. Their apologetic defenses of Darwinism exhibit the worst examples of circular reasoning, straw-men, and affirming the consequent fallacies out there, not to mention their selective use of evidence.
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200709.htm#20070919a
It is amazing to me how many people simply accept something to be true simply because "the majority of scientists say so." Blah, blah, blah...
Scientists are just as worldview driven as the medieval inquisitors.
Plus, they are some of the worst logicians. Their apologetic defenses of Darwinism exhibit the worst examples of circular reasoning, straw-men, and affirming the consequent fallacies out there, not to mention their selective use of evidence.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Alfred Edersheim on Matthew 15 and Tradition
A frequently used Scriptural argument put forth by Protestants (such as myself) against an undiscerning reliance on the so-called ‘Sacred Tradition’ of both the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is an appeal to Matthew 15:1-9:
Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ ” –Matthew 15:1-9 NASB
The argument presented by the Protestant is that the Lord Himself judged the verity or falsehood of a doctrine based upon whether it conformed to the clear teaching of Scripture. Therefore, the Christian should judge allegedly “Divine” traditions by Scripture instead of letting the alleged tradition be the interpretive grid from which we should read Scripture (and thus, it is presupposed that “Tradition” can never contradict Scripture). [The latter is the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox view.]
It is frequently objected by RC’s and EO’s that Jesus is only condemning human traditions and not Divine or “Sacred” traditions.
This is the reason for writing this post, to show that the “tradition of the elders” held by the scribes and Pharisees were believed to be, *not* simply human traditions, but rather, traditions that were given by God to some of the Old Testament recipients of revelation such as Moses and Solomon. In fact, my goal is to bolster the Protestant argument by showing that the view of tradition held by the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day (which He condemned) is eerily similar to the view of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
To quote Alfred Edersheim:
“But, in another aspect, the objection of the Scribes was not a mere cavil. In truth, it represented one of the great charges which the Pharisees brought against Jesus, and which determined them to seek His destruction…The second charge against Jesus was, that He was ‘not of God;’ that He is ‘a sinner’ (John 9:16, 24). If this could be established, it would, of course, prove that He was not the Messiah, but a deceiver who misled the people, and whom it was the duty of the Sanhedrin to unmask and arrest. The way in which they attempted to establish this, perhaps persuaded themselves that it was so, was by proving that He sanctioned in others, and Himself committed, breaches of the traditional law; which, according to their fundamental principles, involved heavier guilt than sins against the revealed Law of Moses…It was in support of the second of these charges, that the Scribes now blamed the Master for allowing His disciples to eat without having previously washed, or, as St. Mark - indicating, as we shall see, in the word the origin of the custom - expresses it with graphic accuracy: ‘with common hands.’…At the outset we have this confirmation of the Gospel language, that this practice is expressly admitted to have been, not a Law of Moses, but ‘a tradition of the elders.’ Still, and perhaps on this very account, it was so strictly enjoined, that to neglect it was like being guilty of gross carnal defilement. Its omission would lead to temporal destruction, or, at least, to poverty. Bread eaten with unwashen hands was as if it had been filth. Indeed, a Rabbi who had held this command in contempt was actually buried in excommunication. Thus, from their point of view, the charge of the Scribes against the disciples, so far from being exaggerated, is most moderately worded by the Evangelists…Jewish tradition traced, indeed, the command of washing the hands before eating - at least of sacrificial offerings - to Solomon, acknowledgment of which ‘the voice from heaven’ (Bath-Qol) had been heard to utter Prov. xxiii. 15, and xxvii. 11…That, in replying to the charge of the Scribes against His disciples, He neither vindicated their conduct, nor apologised for their breach of the Rabbinic ordinances, implied at least an attitude of indifference towards traditionalism. This is the more noticeable, since, as we know, the ordinances of the Scribes were declared more precious, of more binding importance than those of Holy Scripture itself…It has already been told, how Rabbinism, in the madness of its self-exaltation, represented God as busying Himself by day with the study of the Scriptures, and by night with that of the Mishnah; and how, in the heavenly Sanhedrin, over which the Almighty presided, the Rabbis sat in the order of their greatness, and the Halakhah was discussed, and decisions taken in accordance with it…The attitude of antagonism to traditionalism was never more pronounced than in what He said in reply to the charge of neglect of the ordinance about ‘the washing of hands.’ Here it must be remembered, that it was an admitted Rabbinic principle that, while the ordinances of Scripture required no confirmation, those of the Scribes needed such, and that no Halakhah (traditional law) might contradict Scripture. When Christ, therefore, next proceeded to show, that in a very important point - nay, in ‘many such like things’ - the Halakhah was utterly incompatible with Scripture, that, indeed, they made ‘void the Word of God’ by their traditions which they had received, He dealt the heaviest blow to traditionalism. Rabbinism stood self-condemned; on its own showing, it was to be rejected as incompatible with the Word of God.” (emphasis mine)
-Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Hendrickson Publishers, 7th printing October 2002), pp.480, 481, 483, 484, 485, and 486.
Also found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes.viii.xxxi.html
So, in summary, the Jews believed that their ‘Tradition’ was:
a.) Received as Divine revelation by King Solomon and passed down from him orally to the Rabbis. In fact, Jews today call it the “Oral Torah”:
“Oral Torah. All Rabbinic traditions relating to the Written Torah and various legal aspects of Jewish life. The traditions were first passed on orally before they were written down…Torah. Literally, “teaching, instruction, law.” It can refer to: (1) the Written Torah (the first division of the Hebrew Bible; see Tanakh); or (2) the Oral Torah in its entirety (this of course includes the Written Torah as well).” (emphasis in original)
-Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2003), pp.236 and 237.
b.) The proper interpreter of Scripture, and thus, Scripture could never contradict it.
c.) Held to be on an equal par (or greater) with Scripture since they were both considered to be the Word of God.
Now, the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox view is that “Sacred” Tradition was/is:
a.) Received as oral Divine revelation from Jesus to the apostles who in turn taught it to their successors, the bishops.
b.) The proper interpreter of Scripture, and thus, Scripture could never contradict it.
c.) Held to be on an equal par with Scripture since they were both considered to be the Word of God.
The similarities are striking. Now, this argument does not prove that all oral tradition is false. Even the kerygma, the gospel proclamation made by the apostles, was originally in oral form (2 Thessalonians 2:15). However, what Jesus’ argument in Matthew 15:1-9 teaches us is that: a.) Scripture is clear and b.) because it is clear, it can judge the veracity of an allegedly Divine tradition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)