James White has posted a (satirical) letter to St. Paul, chastising him for not being "loving" (i.e. ecumaniac enough) in his letter to the Galatians.
Off topic:
I have been asked by one of my church's deacons to do a Bible study series, and I have elected ;) to do it on apologetics. So...my review of DA's book will have to slow down (as it already has).
Monday, November 12, 2007
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Eisegeted Verses, Matthew 18:15-18
[This is part of an ongoing series. See my introduction.]
[Before I finish my review of Mr. Armstrong’s chapter on the church, I thought that I would exegete two other commonly used texts in support of high church-ism, Ephesians 3:10 and Matthew 18:17. Though they are not cited in Mr. Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses, I have seen them used by both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists in the past, and so, I believe that it would be helpful to include them in this series.]
Matthew 18:15-18
“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” –Matthew 18:15-18
Issue Raised: Does the Church Hierarchy Have Binding Infallible Authority?
Roman Catholic apologists will sometimes cite this text to support the belief that the church, being defined as the order of higher clerics (or in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, the universal church as a whole), has binding infallible authority in its pronouncements. But is this really saying that?
Exegesis
Just before the instructions in vv.15-18 are given, Christ gave the parable of the lost sheep (vv.12-14). In it, He teaches that if one sheep (i.e. in this parable, representing a believer) goes astray (i.e. temporarily falls into sin or separates from the church), that the shepherd (i.e. God) will search for it until He finds it. If the lapsed Christian returns to the flock, then God will rejoice over it for it is the will of God that no believer should perish.
This is a teaching about what to do when a lapsed Christian returns to the church. A repentant Christian should be accepted back into the body of Christ without hesitation or anger but with happiness and praise to God.
Christ then turns to the opposite situation in which an unrepentant member refuses to leave the church, and the Lord gives an outline on how to deal with this situation.
“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.” –Matthew 18:15
The first step is to approach the sinful member privately and rebuke him gently for his acts (or in the case of heresy, his false beliefs). If he repents, then great! If not, then…
“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.” –Matthew 18:16
Here, Christ tells the church to use standard Israelite legal proceedings for dealing with this man. If after a private attempt at correction fails, two or three should gently rebuke the man to get him to repent so that the sinful member may know that it was not just the personal opinion of the first corrector. If this attempt fails, then…
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” –Matthew 18:17
If a private attempt fails and an attempt with two or three fails, then the correctors are to go to the church with the matter. Now, back in the life and times of the Lord Jesus, the word, “ecclesia,” simply meant “congregation”, referring to the attendance at the local synagogue. It is a semantic anachronism (see the intro., part a.) to assert that the word, “church,” here refers to the bishops and other clergy (as it later came to mean in Roman Catholicism) comprising the hierarchy of the church to the exclusion of the rest of the Christian congregate. As the commentary to the NAB on the USCCB website explains:
“[17] The church: the second of the only two instances of this word in the gospels; see the note on Matthew 16:18. Here it refers not to the entire church of Jesus, as in Matthew 16:18, but to the local congregation.”
-Commentary on Matthew 18:17 NAB
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew18.htm#foot11
If the sinful brother does not repent at even this, then he is to be treated as an unclean heathen; that is, he is to be excommunicated.
“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” –Matthew 18:18
Now, the NASB is the only translation (that I have seen) which translates the meaning of this verse in the sense indicated by the context. That is, it recognizes (as the side margin informs the reader) that this phrase “shall be loosed” is, in Greek, a future perfect passive. In other words, the sense of the phrase (as is translated literally in the NASB) should be: “shall have been bound.” The IVP New Testament Commentary notes:
“God authorizes the Christian judicial assembly that follows these procedures to act on the authority of heaven. The unrepentant person has already left God's way and cannot be restored without repentance. The verb tenses allow (though do not demand) the meaning the context suggests: the earthly action follows the heavenly decree (compare Mantey 1973). By removing an unrepentant sinner from the Christian community, believers merely ratify the heavenly court's decree (see Keener 1991a:141-43; in Jewish courts, compare t. Rossashana 1:18), removing branches already dead on the vine (compare Jn 15:2, 6).” (bold emphasis mine)
- IVP New Testament Commentary, Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 18:15-20
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=1&source=1&seq=i.47.18.7
Thus, whatever the church (again, the local congregation) decides in regards to this unrepentant member, the decision by the church was simply to recognize what God had already seen in the sinner’s heart and decreed in terms of the means of correction (see also 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:18-20, Titus 3:10-11, and Hebrews 12:6). Again, the decision is merely a public recognition of what God in heaven has already said should happen to this man or woman.
So, the “binding” given is a real authority given to the local congregation of Christ to excommunicate unrepentant members, not the ability to make infallible doctrinal pronouncements.
[Note: When this procedure is not followed correctly, a sinful member can be left within the congregation causing others to follow into wicked ways, or a faithful member could be unjustly excommunicated. In the first case, the church failed to do what God decreed should happen, and in the latter, the church did what God never commanded.
This has happened on several occasions in many denominations. For instance, according to the Roman Catholic Church, Joan of Arc was excommunicated and burned at the stake only to be made a saint many years later.
The most famous example of this in the Protestant movement was when Luther was unilaterally excommunicated by Pope Leo X when the latter ignored the to-be reformer’s historic right to a council. Tim Enloe documents this here:
http://www.timenloe.net/original/ecclesiologyoneveofreformation.pdf]
[Before I finish my review of Mr. Armstrong’s chapter on the church, I thought that I would exegete two other commonly used texts in support of high church-ism, Ephesians 3:10 and Matthew 18:17. Though they are not cited in Mr. Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses, I have seen them used by both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists in the past, and so, I believe that it would be helpful to include them in this series.]
Matthew 18:15-18
“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” –Matthew 18:15-18
Issue Raised: Does the Church Hierarchy Have Binding Infallible Authority?
Roman Catholic apologists will sometimes cite this text to support the belief that the church, being defined as the order of higher clerics (or in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, the universal church as a whole), has binding infallible authority in its pronouncements. But is this really saying that?
Exegesis
Just before the instructions in vv.15-18 are given, Christ gave the parable of the lost sheep (vv.12-14). In it, He teaches that if one sheep (i.e. in this parable, representing a believer) goes astray (i.e. temporarily falls into sin or separates from the church), that the shepherd (i.e. God) will search for it until He finds it. If the lapsed Christian returns to the flock, then God will rejoice over it for it is the will of God that no believer should perish.
This is a teaching about what to do when a lapsed Christian returns to the church. A repentant Christian should be accepted back into the body of Christ without hesitation or anger but with happiness and praise to God.
Christ then turns to the opposite situation in which an unrepentant member refuses to leave the church, and the Lord gives an outline on how to deal with this situation.
“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.” –Matthew 18:15
The first step is to approach the sinful member privately and rebuke him gently for his acts (or in the case of heresy, his false beliefs). If he repents, then great! If not, then…
“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.” –Matthew 18:16
Here, Christ tells the church to use standard Israelite legal proceedings for dealing with this man. If after a private attempt at correction fails, two or three should gently rebuke the man to get him to repent so that the sinful member may know that it was not just the personal opinion of the first corrector. If this attempt fails, then…
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” –Matthew 18:17
If a private attempt fails and an attempt with two or three fails, then the correctors are to go to the church with the matter. Now, back in the life and times of the Lord Jesus, the word, “ecclesia,” simply meant “congregation”, referring to the attendance at the local synagogue. It is a semantic anachronism (see the intro., part a.) to assert that the word, “church,” here refers to the bishops and other clergy (as it later came to mean in Roman Catholicism) comprising the hierarchy of the church to the exclusion of the rest of the Christian congregate. As the commentary to the NAB on the USCCB website explains:
“[17] The church: the second of the only two instances of this word in the gospels; see the note on Matthew 16:18. Here it refers not to the entire church of Jesus, as in Matthew 16:18, but to the local congregation.”
-Commentary on Matthew 18:17 NAB
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew18.htm#foot11
If the sinful brother does not repent at even this, then he is to be treated as an unclean heathen; that is, he is to be excommunicated.
“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” –Matthew 18:18
Now, the NASB is the only translation (that I have seen) which translates the meaning of this verse in the sense indicated by the context. That is, it recognizes (as the side margin informs the reader) that this phrase “shall be loosed” is, in Greek, a future perfect passive. In other words, the sense of the phrase (as is translated literally in the NASB) should be: “shall have been bound.” The IVP New Testament Commentary notes:
“God authorizes the Christian judicial assembly that follows these procedures to act on the authority of heaven. The unrepentant person has already left God's way and cannot be restored without repentance. The verb tenses allow (though do not demand) the meaning the context suggests: the earthly action follows the heavenly decree (compare Mantey 1973). By removing an unrepentant sinner from the Christian community, believers merely ratify the heavenly court's decree (see Keener 1991a:141-43; in Jewish courts, compare t. Rossashana 1:18), removing branches already dead on the vine (compare Jn 15:2, 6).” (bold emphasis mine)
- IVP New Testament Commentary, Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 18:15-20
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=1&source=1&seq=i.47.18.7
Thus, whatever the church (again, the local congregation) decides in regards to this unrepentant member, the decision by the church was simply to recognize what God had already seen in the sinner’s heart and decreed in terms of the means of correction (see also 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:18-20, Titus 3:10-11, and Hebrews 12:6). Again, the decision is merely a public recognition of what God in heaven has already said should happen to this man or woman.
So, the “binding” given is a real authority given to the local congregation of Christ to excommunicate unrepentant members, not the ability to make infallible doctrinal pronouncements.
[Note: When this procedure is not followed correctly, a sinful member can be left within the congregation causing others to follow into wicked ways, or a faithful member could be unjustly excommunicated. In the first case, the church failed to do what God decreed should happen, and in the latter, the church did what God never commanded.
This has happened on several occasions in many denominations. For instance, according to the Roman Catholic Church, Joan of Arc was excommunicated and burned at the stake only to be made a saint many years later.
The most famous example of this in the Protestant movement was when Luther was unilaterally excommunicated by Pope Leo X when the latter ignored the to-be reformer’s historic right to a council. Tim Enloe documents this here:
http://www.timenloe.net/original/ecclesiologyoneveofreformation.pdf]
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The Eisegeted Verses, Ephesians 3:10
[This is part of an ongoing series. See my introduction.]
[Before I finish my review of Mr. Armstrong’s chapter on the church, I thought that I would exegete two other commonly used texts in support of high church-ism, Ephesians 3:10 and Matthew 18:17. Though they are not cited in Mr. Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses, I have seen them used by both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists in the past, and so, I believe that it would be helpful to include them in this series.]
Ephesians 3:10
“…so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” –Ephesians 3:10 NASB
Issue Raised: Is the Church the Infallible Guide for God’s Truth?
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists will sometimes cite this text to support the notion that God gives His truth and its infallible interpretation only through the Church (here being defined as the church hierarchy of priests and bishops in the case of Roman Catholicism and the universal church as a whole in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy), but does this verse really say that?
Context
First, before exegeting this passage, it would be helpful to display its fuller context:
“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles--if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power. To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” –Ephesians 3:1-10
Exegesis
The Epistle to the Ephesians was written by Paul, not to battle a specific heresy, but as some believe, to simply broaden the horizons of his readers. It explains the eternal purposes of God’s actions in history and salvation and the implications of these things for both the Church and the individual.
In chapter one, Paul discussed the mystery of the eternal predestination of God’s chosen (1:3-12, 17-19a), their eschatological sealing by the Holy Spirit (1:13-14), and Christ’s victory over death and dominion over all things (1:19b-23).
In chapter two, the apostle wrote about the former state of Christians (and the current state of all who are unbelievers) being by nature children of wrath and how God, in his love and mercy, decided to save us in Christ by grace through faith so that we might live in holiness (2:1-10). He then speaks of how, through the work of Christ on the cross (2:13-18), He (i.e. Christ) brought together both Jew and Gentile into one church (2:11-19) which is likened unto a holy temple of which Christ is the corner stone upon which it is built (2:19-22).
This brings us to chapter three which starts off with:
“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles--if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you;” –Ephesians 3:1-2
Here, Paul, being under house arrest and having suffered many terrible afflictions in obedience to Christ’s calling of him as a steward of God’s grace (i.e. an apostle), explains that he has endured all of this for the sake of the Gentiles (cf. 2 Timothy 2:10) of which he was commissioned to.
“…that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;” –Ephesians 3:3-5
Paul explains that his calling unto the Gentiles was because of the mystery revealed to him in Christ.
What is a mystery? That question is answered in verse 5. It is a truth which God has kept secret in the past but which has now been revealed (see also 3:9, Matthew 13:11, Romans 11:25, 16:25, 1 Corinthians 2:7, Colossians 1:26, 4:3, Revelation 10:7, etc.; cf. Hebrews 1:1-2, Jude 3).
What is this mystery? In general, it refers to everything that he stated in chapters one and two, but more specifically, he identifies it in the next verse:
“…to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,” –Ephesians 3:6
Here, Paul is specifically identifying “the mystery of Christ” in verse 4 with the inclusion of the Gentiles into the covenant of grace. Although the predestination of individuals is a mystery that was revealed to Paul (1:9) and the means by which Christ builds His Church one redeemed sinner at a time (2:1-10), the mystery of the inclusion of the Gentiles which he spoke of before in 2:11-22 is what is in view here. As my study Bible notes:
“The repetition of [“fellow”] indicates the unique aspect of the mystery that was not previously known: the equality and mutuality that Gentiles had with Jews in the church, the one body. That Gentiles would turn to the God of Israel and be saved was prophesied in the OT (see Rom 15:9-12); that they would come into an organic unity with believing Jews on an equal footing was unexpected.”
-Kenneth L. Barker et al., The Zondervan NASB Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), p.1721.
“…of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power.” –Ephesians 3:7
Paul was, by God’s power, made the instrument of the unveiling of this glorious mystery.
“To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” –Ephesians 3:8-10
Here, Paul sums up what he said in verses 1-7. Paul was commissioned to preach the gospel of the grace of God to the Gentiles, and their inclusion into this covenant of grace unveils God’s plan which he had kept hidden until the church age.
Why did God do all this? It was so that His eschatological wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16) might now be shown forth to all the spiritual powers which control the happenings of men on earth (Daniel 10:10-13, Ephesians 1:21, 2:2, 6:12, Colossians 2:15).
In other words, the inclusion of men from all the nations of the earth into one church (Revelation 5:9) was Christ’s proclamation and display of victory over the devil and his angels who had for the longest time ruled the gentiles and kept them in the darkness of their ignorance (Acts 26:18, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 2:2, 6:12, 2 Timothy 2:26, 1 John 5:19, Revelation 12:9). Because He has created “all things” (v.9), this is part of His exaltation in which “He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church…” (emphasis mine; Ephesians 1:22). In the unveiling of this mystery, Christ is reclaiming in victory what is His by right as Creator.
Conclusion
Ephesians 3:10 does not refer to the church being the infallible interpreter through which God distributes his Truth. That would be a classical case of verse isolation (see the intro., part f.). Rather, it refers to God’s eschatological wisdom being displayed through the inclusion of the gentiles into the covenant of grace. This is His display of victory to the evil spiritual forces which once ruled the gentiles and kept them in ignorance but now are being and have been subjected to the rule of Christ.
[Before I finish my review of Mr. Armstrong’s chapter on the church, I thought that I would exegete two other commonly used texts in support of high church-ism, Ephesians 3:10 and Matthew 18:17. Though they are not cited in Mr. Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses, I have seen them used by both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists in the past, and so, I believe that it would be helpful to include them in this series.]
Ephesians 3:10
“…so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” –Ephesians 3:10 NASB
Issue Raised: Is the Church the Infallible Guide for God’s Truth?
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists will sometimes cite this text to support the notion that God gives His truth and its infallible interpretation only through the Church (here being defined as the church hierarchy of priests and bishops in the case of Roman Catholicism and the universal church as a whole in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy), but does this verse really say that?
Context
First, before exegeting this passage, it would be helpful to display its fuller context:
“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles--if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power. To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” –Ephesians 3:1-10
Exegesis
The Epistle to the Ephesians was written by Paul, not to battle a specific heresy, but as some believe, to simply broaden the horizons of his readers. It explains the eternal purposes of God’s actions in history and salvation and the implications of these things for both the Church and the individual.
In chapter one, Paul discussed the mystery of the eternal predestination of God’s chosen (1:3-12, 17-19a), their eschatological sealing by the Holy Spirit (1:13-14), and Christ’s victory over death and dominion over all things (1:19b-23).
In chapter two, the apostle wrote about the former state of Christians (and the current state of all who are unbelievers) being by nature children of wrath and how God, in his love and mercy, decided to save us in Christ by grace through faith so that we might live in holiness (2:1-10). He then speaks of how, through the work of Christ on the cross (2:13-18), He (i.e. Christ) brought together both Jew and Gentile into one church (2:11-19) which is likened unto a holy temple of which Christ is the corner stone upon which it is built (2:19-22).
This brings us to chapter three which starts off with:
“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles--if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you;” –Ephesians 3:1-2
Here, Paul, being under house arrest and having suffered many terrible afflictions in obedience to Christ’s calling of him as a steward of God’s grace (i.e. an apostle), explains that he has endured all of this for the sake of the Gentiles (cf. 2 Timothy 2:10) of which he was commissioned to.
“…that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;” –Ephesians 3:3-5
Paul explains that his calling unto the Gentiles was because of the mystery revealed to him in Christ.
What is a mystery? That question is answered in verse 5. It is a truth which God has kept secret in the past but which has now been revealed (see also 3:9, Matthew 13:11, Romans 11:25, 16:25, 1 Corinthians 2:7, Colossians 1:26, 4:3, Revelation 10:7, etc.; cf. Hebrews 1:1-2, Jude 3).
What is this mystery? In general, it refers to everything that he stated in chapters one and two, but more specifically, he identifies it in the next verse:
“…to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,” –Ephesians 3:6
Here, Paul is specifically identifying “the mystery of Christ” in verse 4 with the inclusion of the Gentiles into the covenant of grace. Although the predestination of individuals is a mystery that was revealed to Paul (1:9) and the means by which Christ builds His Church one redeemed sinner at a time (2:1-10), the mystery of the inclusion of the Gentiles which he spoke of before in 2:11-22 is what is in view here. As my study Bible notes:
“The repetition of [“fellow”] indicates the unique aspect of the mystery that was not previously known: the equality and mutuality that Gentiles had with Jews in the church, the one body. That Gentiles would turn to the God of Israel and be saved was prophesied in the OT (see Rom 15:9-12); that they would come into an organic unity with believing Jews on an equal footing was unexpected.”
-Kenneth L. Barker et al., The Zondervan NASB Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), p.1721.
“…of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power.” –Ephesians 3:7
Paul was, by God’s power, made the instrument of the unveiling of this glorious mystery.
“To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” –Ephesians 3:8-10
Here, Paul sums up what he said in verses 1-7. Paul was commissioned to preach the gospel of the grace of God to the Gentiles, and their inclusion into this covenant of grace unveils God’s plan which he had kept hidden until the church age.
Why did God do all this? It was so that His eschatological wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16) might now be shown forth to all the spiritual powers which control the happenings of men on earth (Daniel 10:10-13, Ephesians 1:21, 2:2, 6:12, Colossians 2:15).
In other words, the inclusion of men from all the nations of the earth into one church (Revelation 5:9) was Christ’s proclamation and display of victory over the devil and his angels who had for the longest time ruled the gentiles and kept them in the darkness of their ignorance (Acts 26:18, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 2:2, 6:12, 2 Timothy 2:26, 1 John 5:19, Revelation 12:9). Because He has created “all things” (v.9), this is part of His exaltation in which “He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church…” (emphasis mine; Ephesians 1:22). In the unveiling of this mystery, Christ is reclaiming in victory what is His by right as Creator.
Conclusion
Ephesians 3:10 does not refer to the church being the infallible interpreter through which God distributes his Truth. That would be a classical case of verse isolation (see the intro., part f.). Rather, it refers to God’s eschatological wisdom being displayed through the inclusion of the gentiles into the covenant of grace. This is His display of victory to the evil spiritual forces which once ruled the gentiles and kept them in ignorance but now are being and have been subjected to the rule of Christ.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Sola Ecclesia: Steve Hay's Rejoinder to Philip Blosser
I don't know when Steve released this, but I read it today. Very Good.
http://www.reformed.plus.com/triablogue/SolaEcclesia.pdf
If that link doesn't work, then go here.
http://www.reformed.plus.com/triablogue/SolaEcclesia.pdf
If that link doesn't work, then go here.
Friday, October 26, 2007
The Eisegeted Verses, Matthew 13:24-30
[This is part of an ongoing series. See my introduction.]
[In his chapter on the Church, Mr. Armstrong has a section entitled “Sinners in the Church” in which he uses 2 Corinthians 11:2-4, Galatians 1:1-6, and Revelation 3:1-6. This is a section which I don’t have too much disagreement with, and so, those verses do not need to be exegeted. However, though Matthew 13:24-30 is not one of his “Catholic Verses,” Mr. Armstrong uses it eisegetically in this section, and so, an exegesis of this passage will serve as an introduction to my review of the rest of this section of his book.]
Matthew 13:24-30
“Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’” –Matthew 13:24-30
Issue Raised: The Wicked in the True Church?
Dave Armstrong, after citing 2 Corinthians 11:2-4, Galatians 1:1-6, and Revelation 3:1-6, writes:
“St. Paul “betrothed” the Corinthians to Christ and writes to the “churches” of Galatia, even though he rebukes both churches for turning to a “different gospel.” He does not claim that they never were Christians, nor does he take away that title from them. Jesus refers to the “seven churches” in the book of Revelation, despite the host of sins and shortcomings for which he rebukes them. This is the Catholic position: there are sinners in the Church alongside “saints,” as in the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24-30)…The Bible teaches that there are sinners in the true Church.” -Dave Armstrong, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2004), p.16, 19.
As I take it, Mr. Armstrong is implying that the “tares” in Christ’s parable represent true Christians, those who had at one time been regenerated and included into the covenant by the Holy Spirit, albeit ones that have since turned to wickedness.
Exegesis
The exegesis of this text is really quite simple since it is explained by Christ in vv.36-43:
“Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.”” –Matthew 13:36-43
So, the “tares” in vv.24-30 are sinners, just as Mr. Armstrong said. However:
a.) They were sowed into the “field” by Satan, not the Holy Spirit.
b.) They were always “tares” from the beginning implying that they were never true Christians at any time.
c.) Most importantly, according to v.38, the field is “the world,” not the Church. Thus, the tares would be unbelievers, not sinful Christians.
A Review of Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses on “Sinners in the Church”
Before I review this section of Mr. Armstrong’s book, some things need to be stated:
a.) I do not disagree with the belief that sinners are in the true church since every saint is also a sinner until death (iustus et peccator simul, at once both saint and sinner).
b.) I do not deny that many of those who will be condemned to perdition are found in the visible church.
c.) I agree that leaving a church because of a few bad apples is wrong (though there is a limit to this principle as I will spell out below).
However, there are standards by which the members of the church must live up to, especially the church leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9). Both Christ and Paul gave clear directions for excommunication (Matthew 18:15-17, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 1 Timothy 1:18-20, Titus 3:10-11, etc.), and if a church no longer enforces these standards, then it is no longer a church (e.g. Revelation 2:5, 15-16, 3:15-19).
[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 citing the above passage on Matthew 13:24-30, Mr. Armstrong writes:
“Many Protestants persist in believing that the Christian Church can be pure and without sinners or instances of hypocrisy, even though these passages show that this was not anticipated by the Apostles or by the Lord Jesus. In hopes of finding this “pure” church, Protestants proceed to form new sects all the time.” (Armstrong, op. cit., p.17)
The very individualistic tendencies of many American Protestants who practice “church hopping” should be rightly condemned, and every Christian is bound to endure the instances of sin that happen within a church body since everyone is by nature a sinner. However, when a church refuses to enact church discipline, whether it is correction or excommunication, then it is no longer a functioning church. Mr. Armstrong cited one of the letters of Christ to the seven churches in Revelation, but he did not note that Christ told the other churches who tolerated heresies and the wicked that these churches would be destroyed (Revelation 2:5, 15-16, 3:15-19).
This is exactly the kind of thing we find within the structure of the modern Roman Catholic Church: a refusal to excommunicate both heretics and the wicked. Ever since the Darwinist writings of Teilhard de Chardin, the Catholic hierarchy and priesthood in general have slid into all sorts of problems, one of which is the (unofficial) belief in universalism. As Michael Whelton writes:
“In spite of de Chardin’s ideas being officially censured, by the opening of the Second Vatican Council in 1960, Fr. Malachi Martin states that “his name and theories were bathed in a vogue that could not be breached by mere ecclesiastical documents…This man’s influence on Jesuit thinking and on Catholic theologians as well as on the thought processes of Christians in general has been and still is colossal.””
-Michael Whelton, Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims (Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 2006), p.28.
Also, the Roman Catholic hierarchy refuses to excommunicate those who believe in and advocate abortion. The works of Teilhard de Chardin in the mid-twentieth century have taken their heavy toll. The past claim that the Catholic Church is “never changing, always the same” is no longer true; it has…evolved…into a “church” filled with the most monstrous heresies and toleration of wickedness. As the voice from heaven in the book of Revelation would say, “Come out of her, my people…” (Rev. 18:4, cf. 2 Cor. 6:17).
BTW: I encourage my readers to give comments on what I can add to these posts to make my arguments/counter-arguments more complete, and of course, I encourage criticism as well.
[In his chapter on the Church, Mr. Armstrong has a section entitled “Sinners in the Church” in which he uses 2 Corinthians 11:2-4, Galatians 1:1-6, and Revelation 3:1-6. This is a section which I don’t have too much disagreement with, and so, those verses do not need to be exegeted. However, though Matthew 13:24-30 is not one of his “Catholic Verses,” Mr. Armstrong uses it eisegetically in this section, and so, an exegesis of this passage will serve as an introduction to my review of the rest of this section of his book.]
Matthew 13:24-30
“Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’” –Matthew 13:24-30
Issue Raised: The Wicked in the True Church?
Dave Armstrong, after citing 2 Corinthians 11:2-4, Galatians 1:1-6, and Revelation 3:1-6, writes:
“St. Paul “betrothed” the Corinthians to Christ and writes to the “churches” of Galatia, even though he rebukes both churches for turning to a “different gospel.” He does not claim that they never were Christians, nor does he take away that title from them. Jesus refers to the “seven churches” in the book of Revelation, despite the host of sins and shortcomings for which he rebukes them. This is the Catholic position: there are sinners in the Church alongside “saints,” as in the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24-30)…The Bible teaches that there are sinners in the true Church.” -Dave Armstrong, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2004), p.16, 19.
As I take it, Mr. Armstrong is implying that the “tares” in Christ’s parable represent true Christians, those who had at one time been regenerated and included into the covenant by the Holy Spirit, albeit ones that have since turned to wickedness.
Exegesis
The exegesis of this text is really quite simple since it is explained by Christ in vv.36-43:
“Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.”” –Matthew 13:36-43
So, the “tares” in vv.24-30 are sinners, just as Mr. Armstrong said. However:
a.) They were sowed into the “field” by Satan, not the Holy Spirit.
b.) They were always “tares” from the beginning implying that they were never true Christians at any time.
c.) Most importantly, according to v.38, the field is “the world,” not the Church. Thus, the tares would be unbelievers, not sinful Christians.
A Review of Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses on “Sinners in the Church”
Before I review this section of Mr. Armstrong’s book, some things need to be stated:
a.) I do not disagree with the belief that sinners are in the true church since every saint is also a sinner until death (iustus et peccator simul, at once both saint and sinner).
b.) I do not deny that many of those who will be condemned to perdition are found in the visible church.
c.) I agree that leaving a church because of a few bad apples is wrong (though there is a limit to this principle as I will spell out below).
However, there are standards by which the members of the church must live up to, especially the church leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9). Both Christ and Paul gave clear directions for excommunication (Matthew 18:15-17, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 1 Timothy 1:18-20, Titus 3:10-11, etc.), and if a church no longer enforces these standards, then it is no longer a church (e.g. Revelation 2:5, 15-16, 3:15-19).
[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 citing the above passage on Matthew 13:24-30, Mr. Armstrong writes:
“Many Protestants persist in believing that the Christian Church can be pure and without sinners or instances of hypocrisy, even though these passages show that this was not anticipated by the Apostles or by the Lord Jesus. In hopes of finding this “pure” church, Protestants proceed to form new sects all the time.” (Armstrong, op. cit., p.17)
The very individualistic tendencies of many American Protestants who practice “church hopping” should be rightly condemned, and every Christian is bound to endure the instances of sin that happen within a church body since everyone is by nature a sinner. However, when a church refuses to enact church discipline, whether it is correction or excommunication, then it is no longer a functioning church. Mr. Armstrong cited one of the letters of Christ to the seven churches in Revelation, but he did not note that Christ told the other churches who tolerated heresies and the wicked that these churches would be destroyed (Revelation 2:5, 15-16, 3:15-19).
This is exactly the kind of thing we find within the structure of the modern Roman Catholic Church: a refusal to excommunicate both heretics and the wicked. Ever since the Darwinist writings of Teilhard de Chardin, the Catholic hierarchy and priesthood in general have slid into all sorts of problems, one of which is the (unofficial) belief in universalism. As Michael Whelton writes:
“In spite of de Chardin’s ideas being officially censured, by the opening of the Second Vatican Council in 1960, Fr. Malachi Martin states that “his name and theories were bathed in a vogue that could not be breached by mere ecclesiastical documents…This man’s influence on Jesuit thinking and on Catholic theologians as well as on the thought processes of Christians in general has been and still is colossal.””
-Michael Whelton, Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims (Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 2006), p.28.
Also, the Roman Catholic hierarchy refuses to excommunicate those who believe in and advocate abortion. The works of Teilhard de Chardin in the mid-twentieth century have taken their heavy toll. The past claim that the Catholic Church is “never changing, always the same” is no longer true; it has…evolved…into a “church” filled with the most monstrous heresies and toleration of wickedness. As the voice from heaven in the book of Revelation would say, “Come out of her, my people…” (Rev. 18:4, cf. 2 Cor. 6:17).
BTW: I encourage my readers to give comments on what I can add to these posts to make my arguments/counter-arguments more complete, and of course, I encourage criticism as well.
Monday, October 22, 2007
The Eisegeted Verses, 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2
[This is part of an ongoing series. See my introduction.]
“Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you…The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” -2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2
Issue Raised: Oral Tradition
Many Roman Catholic apologists will use these texts in support of the concept of oral tradition passed down from the apostles to their successors, the bishops, which acts as an interpretive grid for Scriptural exegesis. Dave Armstrong is an example:
“Catholics believe that these verses clearly set forth a notion of a binding oral tradition that has as much authority as the written word of Scripture.”
- Dave Armstrong, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2004), p.12.
Context
First, before exegeting this passage, it would be helpful to display its context:
“Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher. For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day. Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you… You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.” -2 Timothy 1:8-14, 2:1-2
Exegesis
The letter of Second Timothy was likely written during the reign and tyranny of the Emperor Nero (c.66-67). This was during Paul’s second imprisonment, the first being recorded at the end of the book of Acts (Acts 28). The first time he was imprisoned, he was allowed to stay in a rented house (Acts 28:30), but now, he was chained (1:16, 2:9) and placed in a cold dungeon (4:13). As he could foresee, his life was at an end, and he would soon be beheaded during this awful persecution.
Paul is thus instructing Timothy on how to supervise and lead his church now that Paul won’t be around. Paul instructs Timothy to pass on the teachings he taught him before many witnesses to other teachers who will faithfully teach the faith.
Is this Proof of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Sacred/Holy Tradition?
Can this be used as proof that we must adhere to the RC/EO concept of Sacred/Holy Tradition? There are a number of problems with using this as a proof-text for that concept:
a.) There is no proof that these traditions were any different in content or clarity than that which was or would be enscripturated. Why should we believe that the apostles’ preaching and teaching was any less clear in writing than in their oral proclamation? The Roman Catholic is the one making the claim here, and so, he has the burden of proof to show that the contents and/or clarity of these oral traditions were in any way different than that which is stated in Scripture.
b.) In fact, from the surrounding context, he identifies that “standard of sound words which you have heard from me” and the “the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses” as the gospel:
“Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher. For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.” -2 Timothy 1:8-12
As Tertullian pointed out concerning this passage:
“Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy: “O Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to thee;” and again: “That good thing which was committed unto thee keep.” What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, “This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy?” and also of that precept of which he says, “I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment?” Now, what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetcheddoctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: “Before many witnesses” is his phrase. Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these “many witnesses,” it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced “before many witnesses.” Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to “commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also,” be construed into a proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says “these things,” he refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself.” (emphasis mine)
-Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, ch.25
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iii.xxv.html
[I will note in passing that, according to the standards used by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, this interpretation of Tertullian’s should be considered “an early witness” to the interpretation of this verse that likely went back to the apostles.]
This teaching which Timothy was instructed to hand on, the gospel itself, is found written in the previous sentences, can be found elsewhere in Scripture, and is quite clear. Timothy is simply being instructed to teach the things of the gospel to other ministers, something that Protestants carry out quite faithfully.
c.) I actually have no problem with the idea of apostolic tradition. If a teaching can be proven to have its origin from the apostles, then it is apostolic and binding on the conscience. The problem comes in proving a tradition to be apostolic. How are we to know if the tradition in question is truly apostolic or a teaching that started in a later age? How can we tell the difference between a truly apostolic tradition and a belief that came into the church via the influence of pagan religion, philosophy, language, or culture? As Alister McGrath pointed out:
“…it is necessary to observe that the early theologians of the western church were dependant upon their Latin versions of the Bible, and approached their texts and their subject with a set of presuppositions which owed more to the Latin language and culture than to Christianity itself. The initial transference of a Hebrew concept to a Greek, and subsequently to a Latin, context point to a fundamental alteration in the concepts of ‘justification’ and ‘righteousness’ as the gospel spread from its Palestinian source to the western world…The earlier patristic period represents the age of the exploration of concepts, when the proclamation of the gospel within a pagan culture was accompanied by an exploitation of both Hellenistic culture and pagan philosophy as vehicles for theological advancement…Indeed, by the end of the fourth century, the Greek fathers had formulated a teaching on human free will based upon philosophical rather than biblical foundations. Standing in the great Platonic tradition, heavily influenced by Philo, and reacting against the fatalisms of their day, they taught that man was utterly free in his choice of good or evil…It is quite possible that the curious and disturbing tendency of the early fathers to minimize original sin and emphasize the freedom of fallen man is a consequence of their anti-Gnostic polemic…Justin’s anti-fatalist arguments can be adduced from practically any of the traditional pagan refutations of astral fatalisms, going back to the second century B.C.”
–Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2nd edition (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, reprinted 1998), pp.15, 17, 19, 20.
As the Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church states:
“The appeal to Holy Tradition (q.v.) (including Scripture and/or the Councils [qq.v.]) is recognized as of ultimate authority…The primary hurdle in appealing to Holy Tradition as an authority lies in the selection of appropriate sources, applicable to a given situation…Similarly, precedent is difficult to establish quickly, since the selection of sources itself is a matter of interpretation, and the question raised might not have been asked previously…Everyone agrees that Holy Tradition is authoritative, but which beliefs and practices truly manifest Holy Tradition is open to a variety of interpretation.”
-M. Prokurat et al., Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church (Scarecrow Press 1996), p.50.
So, how are we to determine what is an apostolic tradition unless it was written by the apostles, passed on, and documented? Yes, a teaching found in the early church could provide some degree of probability (depending on the doctrine and the time period), but the only way to confirm that a tradition came from the apostles is to have it written by their own pen.
d.) It is the Protestant contention that all the doctrines that were preached by the apostles, concerning both faith and morals, were eventually committed to writing in clarity. As Irenaeus said:
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”
-Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html
[Again, I must note that, according to the standards used by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, this belief of Irenaeus’ should be considered “an early witness”, likely dating back to the apostles themselves, to the relationship between the early oral proclamation of the apostles and the content of Scripture.]
The evangelists wrote the gospels and the churches reproduced all the apostles’ writings for the very purpose that it should be reliably preserved for posterity. It would only be logical for them to do so since it was the policy given by God to the prophets before them (e.g. Isaiah 30:8, Jeremiah 36:2-4). Only the time-preserving medium of written documents could reliably accomplish that task.
A Review of Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses on 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2
[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).]
[The section in his book on 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2 also covers Jude 3 and Acts 2:42. However, the last two will not be covered since the counter-arguments given here are sufficient to answer the use of these Scriptures as well.]
First, it should be noted that there is no attempt at even a brief exegesis of the text. There is no attempt to connect verses 1:8-12 with 1:13-14 or 2:2. This is typical proof-texting all too common amongst Roman Catholic apologists, and thus, he commits the exegetical fallacy of text isolation (see the intro., part f.). While Mr. Armstrong’s stated purpose of his book was not to provide a full-length exegesis of the text, he could have at least provided a single paragraph or two to give some context to the verse he was citing.
After saying what the Roman Catholic interpretation of these verses are, Mr. Armstrong writes:
“The oral, spoken component of 2 Timothy 1:13-14 and 2:2 is also noteworthy (and potentially troubling to Protestants). St. Paul seems to make no distinction between written and oral teaching. He considers both equally authoritative (and able to be “guarded by” or “entrusted” to men).” (Armstrong, op. cit., p.12)
I don’t see how this is troubling to Protestants. Of course the apostles taught and preached orally before there was any New Testament, but the Protestant contention is that the content and clarity of their preaching and teaching did not differ in any way from what they later recorded in Scripture.
Secondly, from the context, the content of the oral teaching is the gospel message and its doctrines which are listed quite clearly in vv.8-12. Paul is simply telling Timothy to teach these doctrines to other faithful men. Protestants carry this out when we teach future pastors and theologians in our seminaries.
“The usual Protestant argument I have encountered when bringing up this topic has been to assert that this apostolic deposit was authoritatively contained and summarized in the Bible, and nowhere else.” (ibid. p.12)
I don’t know who Mr. Armstrong has talked to, but this is a straw-man (see intro., part b.) of the common Protestant counter-argument. It would have been fine if he hadn’t added on “and nowhere else.” Of course the gospel and its doctrines were contained in an oral message at first, but it was later summarized in Scripture with clarity (Luke 1:1-4, John 20:30-31, 1 John 1:4, 5:13, etc.). All the necessary ingredients that are needed for sola Scriptura are material sufficiency and the perspicuity of the key doctrines. The faith could be summarized elsewhere, but as long as Scripture is formally sufficient, it is enough to serve as the sole infallible rule of faith.
“Apart from the vexing problems of biblical interpretation, this reply fails to take into account the fact that none of the four passages just cited even mentions the Bible in this regard.” (emphasis in original; ibid. pp.12-13)
As to the issue of biblical interpretation, we must ask Mr. Armstrong, “How is the interpretation of which “Traditions” throughout church history exhibit the true Traditions of the apostles any less difficult?” Many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox simply assume that the traditions of their church were the original traditions handed down by the apostles. However, as both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox as well as Protestant church historians have come to realize, things are not so simple. [I am not going to go into this here. I may write several posts in the future on these topics, though.]
Secondly, as to his comment that the verses don’t mention Scripture: So what? They refer to the previous verses which spell out the content of these oral teachings. These oral teachings are the doctrines of the gospel in almost creedal form which are clearly summarized in Scipture.
Next, he comments on one of Charles Spurgeon’s sermons (though without quoting a word of it):
“Spurgeon rejects the very notion of a true Christian tradition and the historical sense of continuity.” (ibid. p.13)
No, just unverifiable oral tradition.
“Rather than follow the Pauline injunction to follow oral tradition, Spurgeon advises his hearers to give no heed to traditions that have been passed down.” (ibid. p.13)
No, he says not to naively follow any oral tradition that comes down the line, but to judge its veracity by Scripture. Does Mr. Armstrong believe that we should just accept any oral tradition? By this standard, how could he *ever* judge which traditions are truly apostolic and which came in via the influences of pagan philosophy, religion, language, and culture?
Secondly, how does Mr. Armstrong know that the oral traditions that Paul says to pass on are *his* Church’s traditions?
“Of course, no reason is given for this belief.” (ibid. p.13)
What, you want him to give a doctoral dissertation in the middle of a sermon?
“That the Catholic Church is corrupt and compromised beyond all hope is part of classical Protestant mythology. It need not be argued; it is assumed and is common “knowledge” in certain anti-Catholic Protestant circles.” (ibid. p.13)
That’s because its dogmas contradict both Scripture as well as many of the beliefs of the early church. [The latter is an internal critique, by the way.]
“What Catholics believe in faith is that the apostolic doctrine or Christian Tradition (uniquely preserved by the Catholic Church) does not and will not conflict with Holy Scripture.” (ibid. p.14)
This begs the question: Are the traditions of Rome truly apostolic, and how could we know? RC and EO apologists like to ask this kind of question to the Protestant about the Scriptural canon, but yet, when it is turned on their Tradition, it is far more damaging.
“Protestants believe that God protected Holy Scripture from error, by means of inspiration, even though sinful, fallible men wrote it. Catholics agree with that and also believe that God (the Holy Spirit: John 14-16) can protect His church from error by means of infallibility…” (ibid. p.15)
The reference to chapters 14 through 16 of John’s Gospel only refers to the gift of inspiration being given to the apostles; there is no mention of any alleged successors to their office.
“If God can do the one thing, he can do the other. Since both are indicated in Scripture and apostolic and patristic tradition, we believe them.” (ibid. p.15)
First of all, the question is not over possible worlds but over the actualized world. It is, of course, possible for God to preserve traditions within an infallible church. However, this begs the question: has He?
Second, he mentions the early church fathers, but yet, they believed that the key doctrines of the faith, such as the deity of Christ and the Trinity, are found in Scripture with clarity.
Third, he has yet to show that those traditions mentioned by Paul are *Rome’s* traditions.
Fourth, those oral teachings in 2 Timothy are listed in the previous verses and found elsewhere in Scripture with clarity.
The attempt to use this verse as a proof-text for Sacred Tradition fails to prove anything.
BTW: I encourage my readers to give comments on what I can add to these posts to make my arguments/counter-arguments more complete, and of course, I encourage criticism as well.
“Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you…The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” -2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2
Issue Raised: Oral Tradition
Many Roman Catholic apologists will use these texts in support of the concept of oral tradition passed down from the apostles to their successors, the bishops, which acts as an interpretive grid for Scriptural exegesis. Dave Armstrong is an example:
“Catholics believe that these verses clearly set forth a notion of a binding oral tradition that has as much authority as the written word of Scripture.”
- Dave Armstrong, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2004), p.12.
Context
First, before exegeting this passage, it would be helpful to display its context:
“Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher. For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day. Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you… You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.” -2 Timothy 1:8-14, 2:1-2
Exegesis
The letter of Second Timothy was likely written during the reign and tyranny of the Emperor Nero (c.66-67). This was during Paul’s second imprisonment, the first being recorded at the end of the book of Acts (Acts 28). The first time he was imprisoned, he was allowed to stay in a rented house (Acts 28:30), but now, he was chained (1:16, 2:9) and placed in a cold dungeon (4:13). As he could foresee, his life was at an end, and he would soon be beheaded during this awful persecution.
Paul is thus instructing Timothy on how to supervise and lead his church now that Paul won’t be around. Paul instructs Timothy to pass on the teachings he taught him before many witnesses to other teachers who will faithfully teach the faith.
Is this Proof of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Sacred/Holy Tradition?
Can this be used as proof that we must adhere to the RC/EO concept of Sacred/Holy Tradition? There are a number of problems with using this as a proof-text for that concept:
a.) There is no proof that these traditions were any different in content or clarity than that which was or would be enscripturated. Why should we believe that the apostles’ preaching and teaching was any less clear in writing than in their oral proclamation? The Roman Catholic is the one making the claim here, and so, he has the burden of proof to show that the contents and/or clarity of these oral traditions were in any way different than that which is stated in Scripture.
b.) In fact, from the surrounding context, he identifies that “standard of sound words which you have heard from me” and the “the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses” as the gospel:
“Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher. For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.” -2 Timothy 1:8-12
As Tertullian pointed out concerning this passage:
“Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy: “O Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to thee;” and again: “That good thing which was committed unto thee keep.” What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, “This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy?” and also of that precept of which he says, “I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment?” Now, what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetcheddoctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: “Before many witnesses” is his phrase. Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these “many witnesses,” it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced “before many witnesses.” Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to “commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also,” be construed into a proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says “these things,” he refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself.” (emphasis mine)
-Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, ch.25
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iii.xxv.html
[I will note in passing that, according to the standards used by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, this interpretation of Tertullian’s should be considered “an early witness” to the interpretation of this verse that likely went back to the apostles.]
This teaching which Timothy was instructed to hand on, the gospel itself, is found written in the previous sentences, can be found elsewhere in Scripture, and is quite clear. Timothy is simply being instructed to teach the things of the gospel to other ministers, something that Protestants carry out quite faithfully.
c.) I actually have no problem with the idea of apostolic tradition. If a teaching can be proven to have its origin from the apostles, then it is apostolic and binding on the conscience. The problem comes in proving a tradition to be apostolic. How are we to know if the tradition in question is truly apostolic or a teaching that started in a later age? How can we tell the difference between a truly apostolic tradition and a belief that came into the church via the influence of pagan religion, philosophy, language, or culture? As Alister McGrath pointed out:
“…it is necessary to observe that the early theologians of the western church were dependant upon their Latin versions of the Bible, and approached their texts and their subject with a set of presuppositions which owed more to the Latin language and culture than to Christianity itself. The initial transference of a Hebrew concept to a Greek, and subsequently to a Latin, context point to a fundamental alteration in the concepts of ‘justification’ and ‘righteousness’ as the gospel spread from its Palestinian source to the western world…The earlier patristic period represents the age of the exploration of concepts, when the proclamation of the gospel within a pagan culture was accompanied by an exploitation of both Hellenistic culture and pagan philosophy as vehicles for theological advancement…Indeed, by the end of the fourth century, the Greek fathers had formulated a teaching on human free will based upon philosophical rather than biblical foundations. Standing in the great Platonic tradition, heavily influenced by Philo, and reacting against the fatalisms of their day, they taught that man was utterly free in his choice of good or evil…It is quite possible that the curious and disturbing tendency of the early fathers to minimize original sin and emphasize the freedom of fallen man is a consequence of their anti-Gnostic polemic…Justin’s anti-fatalist arguments can be adduced from practically any of the traditional pagan refutations of astral fatalisms, going back to the second century B.C.”
–Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2nd edition (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, reprinted 1998), pp.15, 17, 19, 20.
As the Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church states:
“The appeal to Holy Tradition (q.v.) (including Scripture and/or the Councils [qq.v.]) is recognized as of ultimate authority…The primary hurdle in appealing to Holy Tradition as an authority lies in the selection of appropriate sources, applicable to a given situation…Similarly, precedent is difficult to establish quickly, since the selection of sources itself is a matter of interpretation, and the question raised might not have been asked previously…Everyone agrees that Holy Tradition is authoritative, but which beliefs and practices truly manifest Holy Tradition is open to a variety of interpretation.”
-M. Prokurat et al., Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church (Scarecrow Press 1996), p.50.
So, how are we to determine what is an apostolic tradition unless it was written by the apostles, passed on, and documented? Yes, a teaching found in the early church could provide some degree of probability (depending on the doctrine and the time period), but the only way to confirm that a tradition came from the apostles is to have it written by their own pen.
d.) It is the Protestant contention that all the doctrines that were preached by the apostles, concerning both faith and morals, were eventually committed to writing in clarity. As Irenaeus said:
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”
-Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html
[Again, I must note that, according to the standards used by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, this belief of Irenaeus’ should be considered “an early witness”, likely dating back to the apostles themselves, to the relationship between the early oral proclamation of the apostles and the content of Scripture.]
The evangelists wrote the gospels and the churches reproduced all the apostles’ writings for the very purpose that it should be reliably preserved for posterity. It would only be logical for them to do so since it was the policy given by God to the prophets before them (e.g. Isaiah 30:8, Jeremiah 36:2-4). Only the time-preserving medium of written documents could reliably accomplish that task.
A Review of Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses on 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2
[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).]
[The section in his book on 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2 also covers Jude 3 and Acts 2:42. However, the last two will not be covered since the counter-arguments given here are sufficient to answer the use of these Scriptures as well.]
First, it should be noted that there is no attempt at even a brief exegesis of the text. There is no attempt to connect verses 1:8-12 with 1:13-14 or 2:2. This is typical proof-texting all too common amongst Roman Catholic apologists, and thus, he commits the exegetical fallacy of text isolation (see the intro., part f.). While Mr. Armstrong’s stated purpose of his book was not to provide a full-length exegesis of the text, he could have at least provided a single paragraph or two to give some context to the verse he was citing.
After saying what the Roman Catholic interpretation of these verses are, Mr. Armstrong writes:
“The oral, spoken component of 2 Timothy 1:13-14 and 2:2 is also noteworthy (and potentially troubling to Protestants). St. Paul seems to make no distinction between written and oral teaching. He considers both equally authoritative (and able to be “guarded by” or “entrusted” to men).” (Armstrong, op. cit., p.12)
I don’t see how this is troubling to Protestants. Of course the apostles taught and preached orally before there was any New Testament, but the Protestant contention is that the content and clarity of their preaching and teaching did not differ in any way from what they later recorded in Scripture.
Secondly, from the context, the content of the oral teaching is the gospel message and its doctrines which are listed quite clearly in vv.8-12. Paul is simply telling Timothy to teach these doctrines to other faithful men. Protestants carry this out when we teach future pastors and theologians in our seminaries.
“The usual Protestant argument I have encountered when bringing up this topic has been to assert that this apostolic deposit was authoritatively contained and summarized in the Bible, and nowhere else.” (ibid. p.12)
I don’t know who Mr. Armstrong has talked to, but this is a straw-man (see intro., part b.) of the common Protestant counter-argument. It would have been fine if he hadn’t added on “and nowhere else.” Of course the gospel and its doctrines were contained in an oral message at first, but it was later summarized in Scripture with clarity (Luke 1:1-4, John 20:30-31, 1 John 1:4, 5:13, etc.). All the necessary ingredients that are needed for sola Scriptura are material sufficiency and the perspicuity of the key doctrines. The faith could be summarized elsewhere, but as long as Scripture is formally sufficient, it is enough to serve as the sole infallible rule of faith.
“Apart from the vexing problems of biblical interpretation, this reply fails to take into account the fact that none of the four passages just cited even mentions the Bible in this regard.” (emphasis in original; ibid. pp.12-13)
As to the issue of biblical interpretation, we must ask Mr. Armstrong, “How is the interpretation of which “Traditions” throughout church history exhibit the true Traditions of the apostles any less difficult?” Many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox simply assume that the traditions of their church were the original traditions handed down by the apostles. However, as both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox as well as Protestant church historians have come to realize, things are not so simple. [I am not going to go into this here. I may write several posts in the future on these topics, though.]
Secondly, as to his comment that the verses don’t mention Scripture: So what? They refer to the previous verses which spell out the content of these oral teachings. These oral teachings are the doctrines of the gospel in almost creedal form which are clearly summarized in Scipture.
Next, he comments on one of Charles Spurgeon’s sermons (though without quoting a word of it):
“Spurgeon rejects the very notion of a true Christian tradition and the historical sense of continuity.” (ibid. p.13)
No, just unverifiable oral tradition.
“Rather than follow the Pauline injunction to follow oral tradition, Spurgeon advises his hearers to give no heed to traditions that have been passed down.” (ibid. p.13)
No, he says not to naively follow any oral tradition that comes down the line, but to judge its veracity by Scripture. Does Mr. Armstrong believe that we should just accept any oral tradition? By this standard, how could he *ever* judge which traditions are truly apostolic and which came in via the influences of pagan philosophy, religion, language, and culture?
Secondly, how does Mr. Armstrong know that the oral traditions that Paul says to pass on are *his* Church’s traditions?
“Of course, no reason is given for this belief.” (ibid. p.13)
What, you want him to give a doctoral dissertation in the middle of a sermon?
“That the Catholic Church is corrupt and compromised beyond all hope is part of classical Protestant mythology. It need not be argued; it is assumed and is common “knowledge” in certain anti-Catholic Protestant circles.” (ibid. p.13)
That’s because its dogmas contradict both Scripture as well as many of the beliefs of the early church. [The latter is an internal critique, by the way.]
“What Catholics believe in faith is that the apostolic doctrine or Christian Tradition (uniquely preserved by the Catholic Church) does not and will not conflict with Holy Scripture.” (ibid. p.14)
This begs the question: Are the traditions of Rome truly apostolic, and how could we know? RC and EO apologists like to ask this kind of question to the Protestant about the Scriptural canon, but yet, when it is turned on their Tradition, it is far more damaging.
“Protestants believe that God protected Holy Scripture from error, by means of inspiration, even though sinful, fallible men wrote it. Catholics agree with that and also believe that God (the Holy Spirit: John 14-16) can protect His church from error by means of infallibility…” (ibid. p.15)
The reference to chapters 14 through 16 of John’s Gospel only refers to the gift of inspiration being given to the apostles; there is no mention of any alleged successors to their office.
“If God can do the one thing, he can do the other. Since both are indicated in Scripture and apostolic and patristic tradition, we believe them.” (ibid. p.15)
First of all, the question is not over possible worlds but over the actualized world. It is, of course, possible for God to preserve traditions within an infallible church. However, this begs the question: has He?
Second, he mentions the early church fathers, but yet, they believed that the key doctrines of the faith, such as the deity of Christ and the Trinity, are found in Scripture with clarity.
Third, he has yet to show that those traditions mentioned by Paul are *Rome’s* traditions.
Fourth, those oral teachings in 2 Timothy are listed in the previous verses and found elsewhere in Scripture with clarity.
The attempt to use this verse as a proof-text for Sacred Tradition fails to prove anything.
BTW: I encourage my readers to give comments on what I can add to these posts to make my arguments/counter-arguments more complete, and of course, I encourage criticism as well.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Notables: 10/13/07
There are a couple things that I would like to direct everyone to:
First, Gene Bridges posted and expanded upon one of the counter-arguments that I used against Dave Armstrong on 1 Timothy 3:15.
Second, James White's October 4, 2007 broadcast focuses on the church fathers, whether they were Roman Catholics and why or why not we should follow their teachings. Great show.
First, Gene Bridges posted and expanded upon one of the counter-arguments that I used against Dave Armstrong on 1 Timothy 3:15.
Second, James White's October 4, 2007 broadcast focuses on the church fathers, whether they were Roman Catholics and why or why not we should follow their teachings. Great show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)