Rome Disease

Over the past 20 years or so, Protestant leaders have grown awfully uncomfortable with a growing trend: Protestant traffic heading in the direction of Rome. And not just any Protestants – while Joe and Jane Pewwarmer may be comfortably ensconced at the corner Baptist or Presbyterian church, Joe and Jane’s pastor and the theologians who taught him may very well be suiting up to swim the Tiber. Over the past few decades such Protestant theologians, philosophers and educators as Francis Beckwith, Thomas Howard, J. Budziszewski, Reinhard Hütter, Bruce Marshall, Trent Dougherty, Robert Koons, Jay Richards, R.R. Reno, Joshua Hochschild, Leroy Huizenga, Richard John Neuhaus, Robert Wilken, Paul Quist, Richard Ballard, Paul Abbe, Thomas McMichael, Mickey Mattox, David Fagerberg, Jason Stellman and many more have left Protestantism for the Catholic Church – and I know this from Protestant articles and websites expressing shock at their conversion. At a loss to explain the defection of these once solidly Protestant luminaries, and unwilling to admit that these people might be reconciling with the Church because they have found the fullness of the Truth therein, Protestant apologists have latched onto a common thread in many conversion stories. Converts to Catholicism often complain that as Protestants they were kept in the dark regarding Church history. Take as an example the tales of those who studied theology at Protestant seminaries:

Over the next year I read several books on Church history. I read the works of men I had never heard of before: Anthony of the Desert, Cyril of Jerusalem, Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Ambrose, Eusebius, Ignatius of Antioch. It felt like finding new friends, Christians who knew my Lord so intimately. But their words also profoundly shook my Evangelical theology. The fact that these men were Catholic made me embarrassed and indignant. In all my years as a Christian I had never heard of these people, let alone studied their writings. I didn’t know much about the early Christian Church. In seminary (we attended Biola, in Southern California) we had been taught to believe that after the death of the Apostles, the Church slid immediately into error and stayed that way until Luther nailed his Theses to the door, and then the “real” Christians came out of hiding. (Kristine Franklin)

Occasional references to St. Augustine did not obscure the fact that the majority of church history was ignored. (“Anthony“)

I had studied some early Church history, but too much of it was from perspectives limited by Protestant history textbooks. I was shocked to discover in the writings of the first-, second- and third-century Christians a very high view of the Church and liturgy, very much unlike the views of the typical Evangelical Protestant. (Steve Wood)

We had never been taught any church history between the time of the apostles and Luther. I first heard of the “Church Fathers” in a Greek class in college. As I translated Irenaeus’ writings from the Greek, the truth of what he had written amazed me. I wondered why I had never been told of him before. None of my theology courses in college ever mentioned the Church Fathers. We were never given any devotional readings beyond what Luther wrote. (Kathy McDonald)

Hmmm… so Church history is the virus behind Catholic fever? They’re demanding access to Church history? Can we manufacture some sort of vaccine against that?

And thus today’s Protestant apologists have to know not only their Augustine, but their Athanasius, their Cyril (of Alexandria and of Jerusalem), their Irenaeus and their Vincent of Lerins (okay, maybe not Vincent of Lerins – “Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est” and all that). These brave souls familiarize themselves with the Fathers not so that they can explain the actual theology of the early Church to fellow Protestants (that would never do), but so that they can extract certain quotes from their writings and distill them into a “proof vaccine,” purporting to demonstrate that core Protestant doctrines were theological staples of the early Church, thereby inoculating potential upstarts (who then believe that they know what the Fathers taught) against Catholicism.

Epidemic contained.

It’s kind of funny, and it’s kind of sad. Because Protestants have their own version of what they think the Catholic Church teaches (you know, works-righteousness, Mary worship, a sinless pope, the Bible is wrong when it contradicts Holy Mother Church, etc.), they believe that by finding remarks in the Church Fathers which indicate that we are indeed “saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (which the Church has been insisting for, oh, about 2,000 years or so now), or that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (there’s never been any argument from the Church on that, either), they have proved Catholicism wrong. It is this fundamental refusal to hear what Catholics are saying when we profess that we can’t work our way to Heaven or that “the Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired they are truly the Word of God” that causes Protestants wielding the Church Fathers to make themselves look so silly. The Fathers were Catholic, you know. There’s just no getting around that point.

Consider the writings of the Church Fathers on the subject of the Holy Scriptures. Modern-day Protestant authors, believing that it is Catholic Church policy to hide the Bible under a bushel whenever it “contradicts” Catholic doctrine, will gladly dish up quotes which are supposed to “prove” that the Fathers were every bit as “sola Scriptura” as Luther or Calvin, quotes like these:

Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it,—those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 2^nd century Church Father

Scripture can indeed be understood by Luther’s proverbial ploughboy – so says Irenaeus!

Hmm… then why did Irenaeus even bother writing his monumental “Against Heresies” if everyone could just pick up a copy of the Scriptures and understand them? Sure, there were bad guys who twisted the perspicuous Scriptures to their own ends:

Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skillful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skillful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels, should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king’s form was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king. St. Irenaeus of Lyons

So, when heretics twisted the Scriptures, Irenaeus advised 2^nd-century Christians to just pull a copy of the KJV out of their hip pocket and set the losers straight, right?

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it. St. Irenaeus of Lyons

That quote from Irenaeus demonstrates Sacred Tradition in action. Note the unity of the Faith that Irenaeus is touting; exactly the opposite of the divisions that plague sola Scriptura adherents running around with KJV’s in their hip pockets. That’s because the Church that Irenaeus defended did NOT believe in sola Scriptura – all believed the same thing because all were taught the same thing by the authoritative Church which “clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood” the Scriptures according to the Tradition handed down by the apostles!

The Catholic Church’s point exactly: Scripture? YES! Tradition? YES! Quotes 1 and 2 and 3? YES! YES! YES!

Undaunted, many Protestant authors trot out St. Athanasius in defense of the indefensible doctrine of sola Scriptura, using this quote:

The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, 4^th-century Church Father

Sounds pretty “sola!” Yet this was the same Athanasius who thundered:

But beyond these sayings [of the Bible], let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it should not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. St. Athanasius

So, the Scriptures, rightly understood through Sacred Tradition, are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth – hardly a Protestant sentiment. When you harmonize ALL that a particular Church Father wrote, rather than pulling statements out of context, there’s simply no way you end up with a proto-Protestant 2^nd-, 3^rd, or 4^th-century Church. Athanasius himself grumbled about the cherry-picking of the Fathers who had gone before him:

Yes, [Church Father Dionysius] wrote it, and we too admit that his letter runs thus. But just as he wrote this, he wrote also very many other letters, and they ought to consult those also, in order that the faith of the man may be made clear from them all, and not from this alone. St. Athanasius

Selective quoting got mighty tiresome even back in those days….

Protestant apologists will earnestly endeavor to persuade you that the Church Fathers held Scripture in high regard, proclaimed the authority of the Bible and believed Scripture to be sufficient in itself, citing passages such as “How can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” and “The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth” and “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source.” If you look into this, you will find that it is certainly true – the Fathers held Scripture in high regard, proclaimed the authority of the Bible, and believed Scripture to be sufficient in itself. Those same Protestant authors will, however, decline to inform you that those same Fathers held Holy Tradition in equally high regard, proclaimed the authority of the Church, and declared that when heretics came up with novel approaches to the interpretation of Scripture, Tradition was essential to protect the orthodox interpretation of those Scriptures. Holy Tradition, the Fathers claimed, makes it possible for the Church to say, “THIS is the interpretation of Scripture that the apostles taught and which has been handed down to us – that’s why your interpretation of Scripture is wrong” when heretics twist the Scriptures and devise new doctrines.

Which doesn’t stop Protestant apologists from propping the Fathers up like ventriloquists’ dummies to mouth the Reformers’ doctrine of sola fide (faith alone). As Frank Beckwith pointed out in his Return to Rome, St. Augustine is often pressed into the service of Martin Luther’s pet doctrine:

St. Augustine of Hippo: [Grace] is bestowed on us, not because we have done good works, but that we may be able to do them – in other words, not because we have fulfilled the Law, but in order that we may be able to fulfill the Law.

See? St. Augustine was Protestant in his understanding of justification!

Or, as Beckwith puts it:

Now, if that’s all one read from the Fathers, one may be led to think that the Reformation attempted to restore what the Church had once embraced, or at least implicitly held, from its earliest days.

And that is, obviously, the fervent hope – that that’s all a questioning Protestant will bother to read of the Fathers – the “proof-texts.” As Dr. Beckwith points out, the understanding of “grace” which St. Augustine propounded is consistent with Protestant theology as well as with Catholic theology. No Catholic would find that quote on the subject of grace at all disturbing, because justification by faith is what Catholics believe. Protestants, however, have a tough time reconciling other quotes from that same Church Father with the Protestant belief system:

St. Augustine of Hippo: We run, therefore, whenever we make advance; and our wholeness runs with us in our advance (just as a sore is said to run when the wound is in process of a sound and careful treatment), in order that we may be in every respect perfect, without any infirmity of sin whatever result which God not only wishes, but even causes and helps us to accomplish. And this God’s grace does, in co-operation with ourselves, through Jesus Christ our Lord, as well by commandments, sacraments, and examples, as by His Holy Spirit also; through whom there is hiddenly shed abroad in our hearts . . . that love, “which makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered,” . . . until wholeness and salvation be perfected in us, and God be manifested to us as He will be seen in His eternal truth.

As Dr. Beckwith points out, the sentiments in this quote from Augustine are reflected, not in Protestant theology (Calvin forbid!), but in a very Catholic statement on justification:

Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting. The Council of Trent on justification

Oops….

The point is that St. Augustine can get an “Amen!” from Catholics on both quotes 1 and 2. Protestants, on the other hand, would much prefer that St. Gus had quit while he was ahead, so to speak. From a Protestant standpoint, the “proof-text” was nifty; the other stuff, not so much….

This kind of proof-texting is inflicted upon the writings of numerous Fathers. The moral of the story: Catholic fever is going around. If you have a vested interest in remaining Protestant, for Luther’s sake don’t sit down and actually read the Church Fathers to learn what they really thought! Get your vaccination against Rome disease: read a few quotes meticulously compiled by Protestant apologists and leave it at that. It’s safer, like a vaccine made of dead cells is a whole lot safer than the real living deal. Catholicism can be highly contagious; get your inoculation today, lest you come down with a bad case of the fullness of the Truth.

 

On the memorial of St. Isaac Jogues and Companions

Deo omnis gloria!

    

Photo credits: Woman receiving rubella vaccination, School of Public Health of the State of Minas Gerais (ESP-MG), Brazil, by Sandra Rugio/Wikimedia Commons

Tom, Dick and Teri Think Things Through

Tom, Dick and Teri are employed by a large corporation. They meet in the lunchroom every day to encourage and pray for one another. Today, Teri is running late. She enters with a large salad, and seats herself next to Dick, who is discussing something earnestly with Tom.

“I’m so hungry, I could bury my head in this salad and eat my way to the bottom of the bowl! Move over, guys. What are you talking about? Not me, I hope!”

Dicks smiles and obligingly scoots to the right. He waits while Teri prays over her food.

“Tom’s just thinking way too much, as usual. He’s all twisted out of shape over Christian history.”

Teri chews on a carrot. “Christian history? You mean, like Martin Luther?”

Tom shoots Dick a “see what I mean?” look. “Yeah, in a way, Teri, that’s exactly what I mean.” Tom glumly slurps his soup, till Dick feels obliged to explain.

“Tom’s worried about people becoming Catholic. For some reason he thinks Christians just don’t know enough about Christian history, and he thinks if we were better informed we wouldn’t be tempted to become Catholic.”

Teri looked shocked. “Who’s tempted to become Catholic? Protestants don’t become Catholic – it’s the other way around! My church is full of ex-Catholics!”

Dick continues to speak for Tom, who is staring down at his soup bowl.

“Yeah, mine too. But he thinks a lot of theologically astute Protestants have become Catholic, and that worries him.” Dick peers skeptically at Tom.

“Name one!” Teri challenges belligerently.

Tom sighs. “Thomas Howard, Robin Maas, Reinhard Hütter, Bruce Marshall, Trent Dougherty, Robert Koons….”

“Who?” Teri asks.

“…J. Budziszewski…”

“Who??” Teri repeats.

“… Jay Richards, R.R. Reno, Joshua Hochschild, Leroy Huizenga, Richard John Neuhaus, Robert Wilken…” Tom drones on.

“Who are these people?” Teri asks. “Do they go to your church?”

“…Paul Quist, Richard Ballard, Paul Abbe…”

Dick speaks up as Tom adds to his list.

“No, they are apparently well known, well respected Protestant scholars – theologians, philosophers, seminary professors, pastors – who have turned Catholic! Tom’s all upset because he thinks this proves something.”

“…Thomas McMichael, Mickey Mattox, David Fagerberg…”

“I haven’t heard of any of these guys!” Teri asserts as she bites into a tomato.

Dick, who has apparently finished his burger, says he knows a few of them.

“I know J. Budziszewski – he was a prominent Protestant philosopher. I heard about Joshua Hochschild getting kicked out of Wheaton when he turned Catholic.”

“…Philip Max Johnson, Michael Root, David Mills…”

Dick perseveres. “And Thomas Howard, he’s Elizabeth Elliott’s brother.”

Teri looks shocked. “THE Elizabeth Elliott?”

“Yep,” Dick continues. “He was a professor at Gordon College before he became Catholic.”

“…Douglas Farrow, Gerald Schlabach…”

“We get the picture, Tom!” Dick cries in exasperation. “What do you think it proves?”

It is Tom’s turn to look exasperated. “Don’t tell me you didn’t hear about Frank Beckwith!”

Teri opens her mouth, but thinks better of it.

Dick explains. “Beckwith was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society. He reverted to Catholicism.”

“And then there was the Geisler/Betancourt fiasco!” Tom blurts out. “Norm Geisler and Joshua Betancourt wrote a book trying to put Beckwith’s reversion into proper perspective from a Protestant point of view. Then, Betancourt becomes Catholic!”

Dick looks shocked. Teri looks bewildered. She stabs at her salad as she speaks.

“Well, I don’t see where it’s a big deal. I’ve never heard of any of these people except Elizabeth Elliott, and she’s not Catholic. So what if these guys wandered off? I mean, it’s tragic, but Catholics become Protestant every day. I mean, Catholics are converting to Protestantism in droves!”

Tom stares out the window.

Dick leans back in his chair. “Tom’s point is that these guys he’s talking about are theologians and professors, the cream of the crop who’ve been recognized by other Protestants as excelling in their fields. You can hardly say that they never really understood what the Bible teaches. So why are they going over to the other side?”

“To the Dark Side, you mean,” Teri snorts.

Tom glowers at her. “A well-known Reformed pastor said that all those former Catholics you’re talking about, the ones who are filling our pews, wouldn’t be welcome at his church because they’re ‘religious consumers’ who don’t care about doctrine! After saying that, HE became Catholic!”

“Look,” Dick says to Tom, who is slumped over his minestrone. “So a bunch of well-known Protestant thinkers defected. Teri’s right. Catholics become Protestant every day. I bet they’re losing their theologians and philosophers to us at 10 times the rate we’re losing ours to them!”

“Oh, yeah?” Tom queries, turning to look at his friend. “Name one.”

“I can name five!” Dick asserts, “Chris Castaldo, Josh McDowell, Rick Warren, James McCarthy, and Tim LaHaye – all well-known Protestants who are former Catholics. I’m sure there are dozens more.”

“You’ve got it exactly backwards,” Tom retorts sourly. “I’m not talking about run-of-the-mill Catholics who converted and then went on to become well-known Protestants. I’m talking about well-known, well-respected, theologically astute Catholics who converted to Protestantism – whether they then became well known as Protestants isn’t my point. And you can’t name anyone like that, can you?”

Dick frowns. “What difference does it make?”

“We’re losing our best and brightest!” Tom laments. “We’re losing our teachers – our leaders! Why? How? These people certainly understand the Bible – a lot of them were seminary professors; they taught the Bible!”

“My pastor didn’t go to seminary,” Teri chimes in. “He studied the word of God for 7 years before he founded our church. He’s like the apostle Paul; he learned the Gospel from no man.”

Dick senses the need to keep Teri on track. “Tom thinks the problem is Christian history.”

Tom becomes animated. “If we could just do a better job of teaching Christian history, I think that would help. I mean, the average Christian thinks that Christian history begins in 1517! People need to know what Christians were doing before the 16^th century! A lot of these Protestants-turned-Catholic quote a 19^th-century Protestant-turned-Catholic who said, “To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.” We just do a lousy job of teaching Christian history!”

Dick looks thoughtful. “Well, yeah, but it’s pretty hard to teach about an underground church that left no records! I mean, after Constantine took over the church, the real Christians moved up into the mountains. Our minister explained that the last real Christians produced the Nicene creed in the 4^th century, and from that point on the church basically lived in hiding. You know, Augustine, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome,” he eyes Teri, but decides not to explain,” they were still Christians – the Reformers referred constantly to their writings. But the reason no one hears about the Christians between the 4^th century and the Reformation is that they went underground! There’s no way to tell the story of those people.”

Tom looks skeptical. “Actually, the ‘church fathers’ you’re talking about were already apostate. Augustine said things like “Faith without works is not sufficient for salvation,” and “Mortal sins are forgiven through repentance, prayer and almsgiving.” Athanasius, too, believed that a Christian could lose his salvation through “mortal sin.” He called Mary “the Mother of God” and believed in her perpetual virginity. He believed that the bread and the wine really become Jesus’ body and blood. I mean, seriously, the men who formulated the Nicene creed were Catholic bishops! No, Christianity went off the rails earlier than the 4^th century. My pastor read to us from Fox’s Book of Martyrs about Ignatius and Polycarp dying for the faith in the 2^nd century – they were real Christians. But after that, it was all downhill. That story about the true Christians going into hiding bothers me, though….”

Dick is about to ask Tom about this, but Teri pipes up.

“I know who those guys are!”

“What guys?” Dick asks.

“Ignatius and Polycarp!” Teri proclaims. “My pastor warned us about them!”

“He did?” Dick asks.

“Yeah, he warned us about the writings of the so-called ‘Christians’ who lived after the apostles. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna were two of the names he mentioned. They were the false teachers mentioned in 2 Peter 2! As soon as the apostles were out of the way, those false teachers commandeered the “Church.” It’s all there in the writings of the “church fathers”! My pastor said there was a first-century document called the DDK which told people to pray the Lord’s Prayer three times a day, and that gave prayers unknown in the New Testament as a pattern for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper! That’s not Christianity! Ignatius of Antioch called his church “Catholic” – that really oughtta tell you something! He said that communion bread really WAS “the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”! That’s cannibalism, not Christianity! Polycarp – he is supposed to have been the disciple of John the apostle, but he went off the rails preaching works-righteousness. He wrote that the Lord Jesus will raise us from the dead IF we do His will and walk in His commandments and love the things He loved, abstaining from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, and false witness. That’s WORKS! And both of those men insisted that Christians must submit themselves to the “presbyters and deacons” as to God and Christ! “Look upon the bishop even as upon the Lord Himself,” is what Ignatius said. My pastor told us to run screaming if anyone tried to get us to read the writings of the ‘church fathers.’ There wasn’t a Christian among them! The true Christians went into hiding just as soon as the apostles died!”

Dick and Tom stare at Teri, and then look at each other.

“So, what’s your problem with the true Christians going into hiding?” Dick asks Tom.

Tom shifts uncomfortably in his seat. “Well, I’ve been thinking about that. That’s the story that I’ve heard all my life – that true Christians were driven out of the “Church” and were persecuted for their beliefs. So they took their Bibles and went up into the mountains, living in their own communities and teaching their children to worship the Lord in spirit and in truth.”

“Right…” Dick says leadingly.

“Well,” Tom admits, “I can think of a few reasons why that seems… implausible.”

“You think too much,” Teri tells him.

Tom continues. “I mean, what if Teri’s version is true – what if the apostasy happened almost immediately? Then there couldn’t have been all that many Christians, but they were scattered over a broad area, from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome. So those Christians went into hiding in “the mountains” where they would escape notice. So that means no one was left in society to give a faithful witness to the truths of the Gospel. Isn’t that the opposite of what Jesus commanded? Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature was the commandment! If they were hiding, how did they do that?”

Dick frowns. “I’ve always assumed that when they went into hiding, they converted the people they came into contact with. I mean, it’s not like they would have refused to share the Gospel. They were running from the Catholic Church that wanted to silence them. Of course they would have converted the people in the areas they settled.”

Tom nods. “Okay, then who did they convert?”

Dick snorts.

“I’m serious!” Tom asks earnestly. “Who did they convert? If they were really fleeing from the reach of the Catholic Church, they would have gone out into barbarian territory, right? Well, who did they convert? Which pagan people groups were ever converted by Bible-believing Christians before the Reformation?”

Teri and Dick stare at Tom, thinking this through.

“The Catholic Church did not control the whole world – far from it! Those people most likely would have moved to other lands to get away from the Catholics, to places where their proclamation of the Good News would have set things on fire! Right? Where did that ever happen??

Tom is not done. “And another thing. My pastor preached a sermon on the canon of Scripture. He told us that the New Testament canon of Scripture wasn’t even decided until the 4^th century. So if I’m right, or if you’re right, Teri, then those real Christians fled to “the mountains” without Bibles! I mean, I suppose they would’ve had the Old Testament, but not the New! How did that work??”

Tom is looking genuinely disturbed. “Seriously, are we talking about a tiny, inbred group of Bible-believing Christians living up in “the mountains” for centuries without Bibles? A group that went unnoticed by Catholic Europe because they were so ineffectual, so silent, so withdrawn, so invisible that no one knew or cared that they were there, until Martin Luther rediscovered the Gospel and they could come out of hiding? Seriously???”

Dick shakes his head slowly. “That doesn’t sound right….”

Teri stands up to go back to work. She scowls at Tom. “You think too much.”

 

On the sixth Sunday of Easter

Deo omnis gloria!

The Shoulders of Joe Schmoe

“On the shoulders of giants!” Can’t you hear the theme music swelling in the background?! It conjures up images of larger-than-life pioneers clearing a path for us lesser sorts, fighting their way through the wilderness to usher us into the land of milk and honey. The Israelites could certainly believe that they stood on the shoulders of giants: of Abraham, who left everything and strode forth in faith; of Moses, who defied the ruler of an empire to lead his people to freedom; of Joshua, who lead those people in the battle for the land promised to them by God; of the judges, and the good kings, and the prophets…. Your average Joe ben Israel knew that he never would have succeeded in become the faithful believer that he was, had it not been for those “giants” in his ancestral past. He was not doomed to commit the mistakes of the patriarchs; instead, he could learn from them and draw closer to God. Standing on their shoulders, he was able to see so much farther than he ever could have seen had his feet remained rooted to the ground.

The same goes for the early Christians: Peter, Paul, James, Andrew, Philip, Timothy… what a list of giants! These men, like mighty sequoias, are silhouetted on the horizon of our Christian past. To this day we marvel at their courage in standing up to the Sanhedrin, to the pagan rioters, to the Roman government. The fledgling community of believers never would have survived had it not been for these leaders. They stood on the shoulders of these giants. The average Christian put her trust in these men, knowing that she could base her understanding of Scripture on their interpretation of it, assured that the doctrines which they taught were sound, and that the doctrines which they condemned were heretical. Christianity was built on the firm foundation of these men, as Ephesians tell us:

…you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Christianity isn’t a matter of each believer going out and erecting his own little Quonset hut! Believers are built together, one building, upon the pre-existing foundation of the apostles and prophets – in other words, as I said, upon the shoulders of giants.

And that’s one problem with Evangelicalism.

Our priest has lamented what he calls the “Evangelical commitment to radical discontinuity,” the skepticism causing every Evangelical to feel honor-bound to reinvent the wheel. In Evangelical circles, of course, this reinvention is looked upon as a good and very reasonable approach to theology. Evangelicals will tell you that they rely on Scripture alone to form their doctrine. That’s why each believer must decide each “Biblical doctrine” for himself. He can consult, naturally, with other Protestants as he forms his opinion, but he knows well that those other Protestants are just as fallible as he is. In the end, it all boils down to what this Bible verse means to him. To build upon the work of another implies trust, trust that that person knows what he’s doing. Sola Scriptura, however, demands faith in one’s own ability to understand the Bible, trust in the acuity of one’s own spiritual hearing as the Spirit whispers the truths of God. To trust another’s teaching looks suspiciously as if one wanted to place a human being between oneself and the Almighty.

So the closest most Evangelicals get to relying on the spiritual insights of another person, to “standing on the shoulders” of anyone, is when said Evangelical chooses a church to attend. He seats himself under the teaching of the pastor of that church and absorbs that pastor’s “Bible-based doctrine.” The pastor, too, is “reinventing the wheel” to a certain extent. He may very well be the pastor of a non-denominational church, with a theology which is primarily Baptist-based, but which he as the pastor is allowed to flavor as he goes along; by playing up the “right” verses and declining to discuss others, he can steer his congregation towards Calvinism, towards charismatic propensities, towards Health and Wealth. No matter – a good Evangelical knows to keep that pastor under close surveillance, scrutinizing the man’s theology and comparing it with his own limited, admittedly shaky grasp of “what the Bible really teaches.” As soon as that pastor appears in the eyes of the individual to have strayed from “Biblical” teaching, the Evangelical hastily jumps down off the sloping shoulders of his former leader, self-ordained Joe Schmoe, or even Joseph Q. Schmoe, D.D., and scurries off to find a mentor who adheres more closely to the individual’s private, and admittedly fallible, interpretation of Holy Scripture.

For the Evangelical, being “grounded in Scripture” is of supreme importance, and it makes standing on anyone’s shoulders a nearly impossible proposition. A pastor’s teaching is trusted only provisionally. In fact, many Evangelical pastors have as their goal that the individuals in their congregation learn to study the Bible for themselves. Some individuals do achieve this goal, and then desert the pastor who taught them to study the Bible because their study of the Bible has convinced them that their pastor’s teaching is “unbiblical.” An Evangelical must admit that even when he is confident enough to stand on his pastor’s figurative shoulders in an effort to gain a better spiritual vantage point, his trust in that pastor is merely provisional. And thus, an Evangelical never gets up very high for very long, and can consequently never see too terribly far.

This confidence in “Bible-based” theology reminds me for all the world of botanical reproduction through stolons. You know what a stolon is – a stolon is a horizontally oriented stem that creeps along the ground. It puts down roots. Think “strawberry runners.” When I think of stolons, I think “grass.” This system of reproduction works very well for grass, which is why you can have such a problem keeping grass out of areas where you don’t want it. It sends those stolons creeping into your garden, and before you know it – you’ve got grass growing among the gardenias.

As successful as this system of reproduction is, there’s one thing we’ve got to admit: Jesus never compared the kingdom of Heaven to a field of grass. He never said, “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like a clump of grass that sprouted in a field, and it put forth stolons which rooted, and it covered the whole field, and sheep came and grazed upon it.”

And that’s funny, because this grass-like propensity for rooting is the perfect image of Protestant “Bible-based” theology. Folks who describe themselves as “Bible-believing Christians” generally mean to say that for every belief and practice of theirs, they can produce a corresponding Bible verse. They like to talk about how their doctrine is “rooted in Scripture.”

And the Catholic Church agrees with them that the Christian belief system must be firmly rooted in Scripture. As Dei Verbum tells us:

Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: “For the word of God is living and active” (Heb. 4:12) and “it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess 2:13).

Yet, we can’t help but see a discrepancy between the “Bible-only” approach and the Catholic approach to rooting our teaching in Scripture. The “Bible-only” approach insists that all beliefs and practices of an individual Christian or a given denomination be backed up by a chapter-and-verse. This of course led the descendants of the Reformers to discard such longstanding Christian practices as asking the saints to pray for us. Yes, Bible-only Christians are familiar with Hebrews 12:1, “since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses…,” and would never dispute that proposition, but they are leery to accept the natural extension of that verse, that those witnesses can not only see us and hear us (otherwise, in what sense are they witnesses?), but are also actively participating in our salvation by praying for us, and that we can ask them for their prayers. They would need a chapter-and-verse to feel comfortable with what Catholics believe just follows (understanding as we do that all members of the body of Christ are called upon to love each other and to pray for each other, and that one does not cease to be a member of the body of Christ when one goes to be with the Lord, and that those members in Heaven have been perfected in love….) This is the “stolon” effect of “chapter-and-verse” theology. The plant is alive, it grows, it thrives… but it never gets off the ground. Like grass. What Jesus envisioned was different:

What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and threw into his own garden; and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air nested in its branches.

Back to those “mighty sequoias” we were talking about….

Grass is not the example Jesus gave us, and grass-like behavior is not the method of growth He envisioned for His kingdom. Yes, our doctrine MUST be rooted in the word of God, but a chapter-and-verse-for-everything scenario binds us to the ground as surely as grass creeps rather than towers. Jesus told us that His kingdom would be like a tree, rooted in Scripture but then growing UP, developing, spreading out, always faithful to its beginnings (i.e., always remaining a mustard tree and not transmogrifying into a baobab), firmly attached at one end to the ground and deriving from that extensive root system the ability to reach for the heavens. Believers can climb high in that tree, for its branches are sturdy and strong.

This explains how Catholics stand on the shoulders of giants like St. Athanasius, whose memorial we celebrate today. I as an individual need not sift through the teachings of Athanasius (or of any other Church Father, for that matter) as would an Evangelical, foraging for sustenance but suspiciously sniffing for rot. As the first Christians implicitly trusted the apostles, assured that the doctrines which they taught were sound, and that the doctrines which they condemned were heretical, so can I as a Catholic trust the decisions made by the successors to those apostles who compose the Magisterium of the Church. As the Catechism instructs us:

The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

The Magisterium, completely faithful to the Word of God, long, long ago sifted through the teachings of bishops like Athanasius (who, in his day, was simply Bishop Joe Schmoe) and determined that his views, and not those of his opponents like Arius (another Bishop Joe Schmoe), were in line with what the apostles taught. I do not have to “reinvent the wheel,” or “start from scratch,” or “sniff suspiciously” – I have to find the Church that Jesus established (Mt
16:18), the Church to whom He granted teaching authority (Lk 10:16, 1 Tim 1:3, 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2:2,
4:2, Titus 2:15), the Church which He promised could promulgate certain infallible doctrines (Mt. 16:18, 1 Tim 3:15), and climb up on her shoulders. From my vantage point, which is 2,000 years tall, I can take up and read Athanasius’ writings and learn from them, thus climbing higher, assured that the doctrines which the Church endorses are sound, and that the doctrines which the Church condemns are heretical. This stands in sharp contrast to my figurative Evangelical twin sister who will, say, embrace St. Athanasius’ teachings on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (because that’s how she reads her Bible), yet reject everything he said about Mary, the Holy Eucharist, confession to a priest, the possibility of losing one’s salvation, etc., etc., etc. (because that’s NOT how she reads her Bible). To the Evangelical, Athanasius is just one more teacher to be evaluated by the supremely knowledgeable, highly competent Bible scholar named “me”. Standing on his shoulders would be fool-hardy – it’s just sooo much safer here on the ground.

And so Evangelicals do not stand on the shoulders of giants; they cannot. To stand on someone’s shoulders implies an implicit trust. That giant must be reliable, and strong enough to bear my weight. When an Evangelical’s experiences of climbing are limited to the very shaky experience of standing on the shoulders of Joe Schmoe, it’s no wonder she has no desire to climb any higher. Not trusting Christ’s Church, she has no assurance that anyone’s shoulders can bear her weight.

For the Catholic, shoulder-climbing is like an Olympic event. We’ve gotten really, really good at it. Our advantage is simply that we know whom we have believed – the apostles taught and commissioned by the Lord, who are the foundation of the church and the Cornerstone, respectively, along with men like St. Timothy and St. Titus whom they selected to faithfully transmit the Faith, and their successors who they were persuaded would do the same. We call them the successors to the apostles, and they make up our teaching Magisterium. So, can we trust those guys??

Oh, yeah.

They’re standing on the Rock.

 

On the memorial of St. Athanasius    

Deo omnis gloria!

Photo credits: Desmoschoenus spiralis by Arne Hückelheim

Setaria verticillata by J.M. Garg

Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens grove, Rotorua, New Zealand by Andrew McMillan

That Principle Is Tradition

Judith cutting off the head of Holofernes

Here is Part Thirty-Six of my series on the canon of Scripture. You can begin at the beginning, or just jump in here as we begin to wrap it all up!

A new day begins for our Protestant protagonist. As he lays his books and notes aside, he mentally runs through his conclusions concerning the canon of Scripture. He recognizes that for a Bible-only Christian, the prospect of a fallible canon is an unimaginable disaster….

You are standing in your living room with a cup of coffee in one hand and a piece of toast in the other, watching the dawn illuminate the eastern sky. You were up all night, but you know it was worth it. All the research that you have put into this subject of the deuterocanonical books and the canon of Scripture has made clear to you that there are two basic approaches to this question among Protestants:

First of all, there is the assertion by R.C. Sproul that Protestants must content themselves with a “fallible collection of infallible books.” When you first heard your pastor say that, you nearly keeled over! But now it has become clear to you why Dr. Sproul insists that this is the best that Protestants can hope for.

You understand now that the question of the canon boils down to the issue of authority. Who has the authority to discern which books are inspired Scripture and to proclaim that discernment? In order to preserve the Reformation pillar of ‘sola Scriptura’ (that is, Scripture and only Scripture is the authoritative basis for all our beliefs), Dr. Sproul feels that Christians must admit that there is no way we can claim to know for sure that our canon is infallible! Think about it – if Scripture alone is the only infallible, authoritative source of our beliefs, then in order for us to have an infallible canon, Scripture would have to include an inspired ‘table of contents’ (something along the lines of some extra verses at the end of the Gospel of John perhaps that read “And Jesus said unto his disciples, ‘Verily, these shall be the books which ye shall regard as Holy Scripture, namely, ….'”). Since we have no such thing, Dr. Sproul logically concludes that we will never know for sure.

So, in order to keep the principle of sola Scriptura in working order – you have to resort to the “fallible collection of infallible books” assumption! If your ‘life verse’ is Revelation 1:5, you just have to say “I’m hoping and praying with all my heart that Luther and Zwingli were wrong – that the book of Revelation and this verse upon which I’ve based my Christian walk are actually, really and truly Holy Scripture!”

After all, the belief that there are 66 and only 66 books in the Bible is an extra-Biblical belief!

That’s not good enough for you. A lot of folks who believe that we cannot know that the 66-book canon is the correct one then go on to state that they derive a sense of security from ‘providence’ – in other words, the idea that God could not leave His church adrift in a foggy sea of ignorance, so OF COURSE the Protestant canon must be the right one – we just can’t ‘prove’ that!

But isn’t that what this whole Apocrypha question is about? Did God leave His church adrift in a foggy sea of ignorance for 1500 years after the Resurrection, until the Reformers came along to straighten things out?? The argument from “providence” runs into one great big difficulty: either the canon that included the Apocrypha for 1500 years was right, and the Protestant canon of the past 500 years is wrong, or the canon that included the Apocrypha for 1500 years was wrong, and the Protestant canon of the past 500 years is right. God either abandoned His church to the errors of the Apocrypha for hundreds and hundreds of years, or Protestants have been limping along with amputated Bibles since the Reformation! Unless you’re willing to say that there were NO Christians on earth for 1500 years before the Reformation, you’re claiming that God did leave His church adrift with a bungled canon for centuries and centuries….

Does it matter? It most certainly does! Everything Protestants believe hinges on the testimony of Holy Scripture, and on the answer to the central question which reverberates down through the ages: “Who do you say that I am?” There is simply no way to answer Jesus’ question with anything approaching certainty if we cannot say that we know that the books we consider to be Holy Scripture actually are Holy Scripture, and that we can be certain that no books of Scripture somehow got left out of that catalogue. Whether Protestants proclaim that Jesus is (in the words of C.S. Lewis) a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord, we must do so based on the evidence presented in the Scriptures, with the confidence that there are no other books of Scripture out there which would cause us to modify our position! The same goes for every other doctrine we place our faith in – we can be fully assured of the correctness of our beliefs only when we are fully assured that there is no other ‘Scripture’ out there which would cause us to change our mind! We can’t cut our canon to fit our theological bed! Our ‘Scriptures’ cannot be determined by our pre-existing convictions – if all our beliefs have to come from the Scriptures, it is ESSENTIAL that we know which books are in the Bible.

So, if the ‘fallible canon’ proposition isn’t good enough for you (and it’s apparently not good enough for many Christians), then you fall back on the second Protestant option: the urban legend (propagated by the popular authors) of a mythical land where all the Christians woke up one morning and just KNEW which books were Holy Scripture – no Church council told them this, because there is no authority for the Christian other than the authority of Holy Scripture! These Christians unanimously accepted the Hebrew canon, and rejected the deuterocanonical books. Christians spontaneously recognized New Testament Scripture when they heard it read to them in their churches and rejected anything spurious. “We can discern which books are Scripture by relying on the theology that we get from the books we have decided are Scripture!!” is the motto of this happy land – a land which can be found nowhere in the historical record….

Then, of course, there’s the inconvenient issue of the confusion among the Reformers concerning the canon. That has to be MAJORLY downplayed to make it sound like it was just a few minor questions that troubled a few folks for a few years, rather than over 100 years of ‘every man for himself’ as far as which books belonged in the Bible. According to this part of the fable, the spiritual descendants of the Reformers apparently just woke up one morning and KNEW which books belonged in the Bible– just as the first Christians had.

At that point, of course, you have to start making up criteria to explain the inclusion or exclusion of books, criteria like “was the book written by a prophet of God?” or “was the writer confirmed by acts of God?” Criteria such as these look so convincing at first glance, and yet upon further examination they prove to be completely unworkable. You have noticed that many different Protestant scholars point out the logical inconsistencies inherent in these ‘tests of canonicity.’ They note the heavy reliance on assumption. There is no way to know, they stress, if these criteria were actually consciously employed by the folks who determined the canon since there is no documentation of these criteria in the historical record. The well-respected Herman Ridderbos writes about this:

As their artificiality indicates, these arguments are a posteriori in character. To hold that the church was led to accept these writings by such criteria, in fact to even speak here of a criteria canonicitatis is to go too far. It is rather clear that we here have to do with more or less successful attempts to cover with arguments what had already been fixed for a long time and for the fixation of which such reasoning or such a criterion had never been employed.

In plain English, these ‘criteria’ are all after-the-fact attempts at explaining something that can’t be explained otherwise, at least not unless you are willing to admit that the first Christians devoted themselves to the teachings of the apostles which were preserved in the ‘tradition’ – and reliance on this ‘tradition’ broke the stalemate of “the doctrine I read in the book of Romans appears to conflict with the doctrine I read in the book of James, so one of these books has got to go!” The Christian church didn’t solve this conundrum using ‘criteria’. Relying on the deposit of faith, they realized that both Romans and James agreed with the doctrine of the apostles, that is, with the tradition handed down from the apostles to the leadership of the church, and therefore both could be recognized as Holy Scripture.

Some popular authors go so far as to claim that Augustine used the criterion “of extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs” to prove that 2 Maccabees was canonical. But Augustine didn’t rely on such ‘criteria’ – as you have noted, Augustine declared that if you wanted to know which books were in the canon, you needed to rely on the judgment of the churches (which was informed by the tradition handed down to them from the apostles!) Lutheran scholar Édouard
Reuss, in his History of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Church, admits:

Whatever merit there may be otherwise in these remarks, they will do good in reminding our Protestant theologians that in any case the collection has been formed in accordance with a principle foreign to our church. That principle is tradition, the succession and authority of the bishops…. Thus, at all periods, under all regimes, for discipline as for dogma, hence also for the canon which is connected with both, tradition ruled the Church, inspired the doctors, opposed the strongest bulwark to heresy; tradition also undertook the task of directing the choice of the holy books. This choice, though its results have not been always and everywhere the same, may have been excellent, at least as good as was possible with the means and material at its disposal; but Protestant theology, which has no desire to elevate tradition, and professes in every other respect to insist on having it first verified, is bound to do the same with regard to the canon of Scripture; it is bound to seek out some other standard than the process which is the very thing to be verified.

“Tradition ruled the church, inspired the doctors, opposed the strongest bulwark to heresy; tradition also undertook the task of directing the choice of the holy books” – not the ‘traditions of men’ but “the tradition which you have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” You have found quotes from the Church Fathers showing that they believed the promise made by the apostle Paul that the Holy Spirit would “guard the good deposit” through the leaders of the church. Irenaeus’ guiding principle from the second century still rings true: “Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important questions among us…. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?… Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches?” Rufinus, following this reasoning, insisted that the “divine record” had been “handed down to the churches by the apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit.” Origen was sure that the Jewish leadership had no right to determine the canon for Christians – the Christians lacked for nothing that was necessary for their salvation, he wrote, and that included the knowledge of the canon of Scripture! In fact, he insisted that “as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved,
that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition.” Athanasius, too, followed the principle of reliance on the tradition handed down from the apostles: “But beyond these sayings [of the Bible], let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the catholic church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the church is founded, and he who should fall away from it should not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called.” Augustine stated that the bishops of the Christian churches, and most especially the bishops of the churches founded by the apostles, could unite and discern what was God-breathed Scripture, and what wasn’t, based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the tradition that had been handed down from bishop to bishop to bishop…. And you note that down through the ages following the councils of Hippo and Carthage, council after council ratified the decision of Hippo and Carthage, which is – there are 46 books in the Old Testament.

Since Protestants have rejected that possibility, all of these ‘criteria’ had to be invented to explain something that just can’t be explained otherwise….

For Part 37 please click here

 

On the third Sunday of Easter

Deo omnis gloria!

A Very Lumpy Rug

Susanna and the Elders

This is Part 32 of my series on the canon of Scripture; we began way back here.

We are approaching the moment of truth – the discernment of the canon by Catholic bishops at the end of the fourth century A.D. There are still some loose ends to tie up before that. As you may have noticed, when counting up votes in favor of the 66-book canon, popular Protestant authors have an awful lot to ignore. Take St. Athanasius as an example. Protestants often cite his 39^th Festal Letter as proof that he rejected the deuterocanonical books:

“There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.”

As you can see, Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah are included with the book of Jeremiah, a discrepancy from the Protestant canon. A minor detail, the popular authors will tell you. As they try to hurry you along, you might ask them where the book of Esther went – it’s not in Athanasius’ list. In fact, Esther is lumped in with the deuterocanonical books. Athanasius writes:

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings.

Notice what he said – the deuterocanonicals are NOT Apocrypha! Yet this is exactly what popular Protestant authors insist that they are! St. Athanasius is instructing us that there are canonical books as well as ecclesiastical books, just as many other Fathers admit. Their canon is NOT the canon of the Jews, those Fathers say – it is the Christian canon, which contains both canonical and ecclesiastical books!

As further evidence, note the following quotes from St. Athanasius’ writings. Remember, the formula “It is written” was used to indicate that the subsequent quote came from Scripture.

And they are not ashamed to parade the sacred mysteries before Catechumens, and worse than that, even before heathens: whereas, they ought to attend to what is written, `It is good to keep close the secret of a king [Tobit 12:7];’ and as the Lord has charged us, `Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine [Mt 7:6].’

I congratulate the most excellent Sarapion, that he is striving so earnestly to adorn himself with holy habits, and is thus advancing to higher praise the memory of his father. For, as the Holy Scripture somewhere says, `though his father die, yet he is as though he were not dead: for he has left behind him a memorial of his life [Sirach 30:4].

Since, however, after all his severe sufferings, after his retirement into Gaul, after his sojourn in a foreign and far distant country in the place of his own, after his narrow escape from death through their calumnies, but thanks to the clemency of the Emperor,-distress which would have satisfied even the most cruel enemy,-they are still insensible to shame, are again acting insolently against the Church and Athanasius; and from indignation at his deliverance venture on still more atrocious schemes against him, and are ready with an accusation, fearless of the words in holy Scripture, `A false witness shall not be unpunished [Proverbs 19:5];’ and, `The mouth that belieth slayeth the soul [Wisdom 1:11];’ we therefore are unable longer to hold our peace, being amazed at their wickedness and at the insatiable love of contention displayed in their intrigues.

That’s something the popular Protestant authors aren’t going to tell you. They want to chalk St. Athanasius up as another Church Father “vehemently opposed” to the deuteros. Take such claims with the giant grain of salt they deserve.

It occurs to you that the question of the canon appears to have been quite open until the fourth century! That means that Christians lived and died for over 350 years after the Resurrection without ever knowing for sure which books were God-breathed! In that period of time, Christianity conquered the Roman Empire! How could it happen that Christians, who weren’t exactly sure which books were a part of the Bible and which weren’t, managed to convert the known world? It must have been a reliance on the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the teaching of the Christian leadership – it could have been nothing else!

What questionable tactics the popular authors employ! “MANY individuals… vehemently opposed” the deuterocanonical books, they cry – they then list four individuals. Hardly impressive when you can quickly find 26 others who accepted the deuterocanonical books, and can’t quite even make the case that the four listed by Geisler and Nix really definitely rejected the deuteros, considering that they quoted from them and called them “divine Scripture!”

You make a mental note not to be fooled by vague claims that include phrases like “many,” “few,” “almost always,” “hardly at all…” – from now on you are taking a head count!!

Some authors try to make it sound like it was a case of the poor benighted Christian church gradually realizing that they had been wandering in a desert of ignorance for more than three hundred years, when some of the ‘more scholarly’ Church Fathers began to wake up to the fact that – oh my gosh! – the Hebrew canon doesn’t contain Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom, Judith, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees or the extra parts of Daniel and Esther! But Christians as far back as the 2nd century noted that the Jews had a different canon! Justin Martyr in his “Dialogue with Trypho” (c. 150 A.D.) complains that he has to be careful which passages of Scripture he cites as proof of doctrine when he dialogues with Jews:

But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation [the Septuagint] made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you.

And the notion that the ‘more scholarly’ Christians gradually began to realize that the Jewish canon was the ‘real’ one doesn’t jibe with what Origen said, does it? Hardly an intellectual slouch (his claim to fame was his Hexapla, the Old Testament written in six parallel columns consisting of the Hebrew, the Hebrew transliterated into Greek characters, the Greek translation of Aquila, the Greek translation of Symmachus, the Septuagint translation, and the Greek translation of Theodotian), Origen knew very well that there were many differences between the Hebrew and the Christian Old Testament; in fact, he writes to Julius Africanus:

I have to tell you what it behooves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours…. Nor do I say this because I shun the labor of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, laboring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy [the translators of the Septuagint], lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community. I make it my endeavor not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them. So far as to the History of Susanna not being found in the Hebrew.

So Origen knew perfectly well what the Hebrew canon consisted of, but he defended the Christian canon of the Old Testament just the same as the one handed down to the church.

And what about John Chrysostom, whom the History of the Christian Church calls “the soundest and worthiest representative of the Antiochian theology,” who “still enjoys the highest honor in the whole Christian world”? He certainly appears to have embraced at least four deuterocanonical books as Scripture. And since when is Augustine of Hippo not numbered among the ‘more scholarly’ of the Church Fathers, the man The History of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures proclaims “undoubtedly the greatest theologian of the early church”?? You find his list of the canon:

Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books: Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges, one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles – these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books just mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets…: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following: Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul – one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John.

Augustine’s canon contains exactly the same books as you find in your great-aunt’s Catholic Bible. (He does not mention Lamentations, Baruch or the Letter of Jeremiah, but Protestant scholars assume that at that time they were considered to be part of the book of Jeremiah as a matter of course).

What you’re having trouble finding is a canon that agrees with the one in your own Bible. Jerome’s seems to match – it depends on whether you take him at his word when he waffles to exclude certain deuterocanonicals or to include them. No Church Father in the first four centuries unequivocally embraces the Protestant canon, and yet many popular authors at this point begin to make misleading comments like Westcott’s in The Bible in the Church: “the Bible of Athanasius is essentially identical with our own” – NOT!!! Your Bible doesn’t contain the book of Baruch or the Letter of Jeremiah! In fact, both F.F. Bruce and Edward Reuss claim that Athanasius’ canon must have also included the extra chapters of the book of Daniel as well! And what about Esther, which Athanasius left out of the Old Testament to include among the books “appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness”? Athanasius’ Old Testament canon is NOT the canon of 21st-century Protestants! The popular sources are just trying to sweep under the carpet all the differences between these conflicting canons, and they are getting a very lumpy rug.

Westcott candidly lists some of these differences in a comment on the books of Esther and Baruch:

Esther is omitted by Gregory of Nazianzus, Amplochius (doubtfully): admitted by Cyril of Jerusalem. (Council of Laodicea), Epiphanius. Baruch and the Letter are admitted by Cyril of Jerusalem. (Council of Laodicea), Epiphanius (once): Baruch is omitted (silently) by Gregor. Naz., Amphilochius ; and, as not in the Hebrew canon, by Epiphanius (once). But it may be added that the writers who omit Baruch also omit Lamentations, which was reckoned with it as an appendix to Jeremiah ; and there can be little doubt that from a mistake as to the extent of the Hebrew book of Jeremiah, dating from the time of Origen, Baruch and the Letter were generally received in the Greek Church in the 4th and 5th centuries. Didymus (De Trin. I. p. 80) expressly says that the book ‘of Jeremiah and Baruch is one.’

And Reuss states bluntly:

Up to this point I have been collecting the testimonies of the principal Greek Fathers of the second half of the fourth century. We have seen that these testimonies do not at all agree with one another, neither regarding the canon of the Old Testament nor regarding the elements of which the sacred collection of the New Covenant ought to be composed. In other words, we have seen that regarding several writings, the general opinion was not at all fixed.

It’s funny – your Protestant sources seem to have all the evidence in front of them – but they are looking for something else, so they just don’t see it! As an Evangelical, you realize that when scientists begin their investigation of the origin of the universe convinced that ‘There is no God; therefore, the universe was not created’ and proceed from there, it’s not surprising that they just can’t see the evidence for creation. Could the same principle be at work here? The Protestant sources BEGIN with the belief that ‘The Apocryphal books are not Holy Scripture’ and proceed from there; in other words, they are assuming what has yet to be proven! Then, any inconvenient historical facts are obligingly ‘tweaked’ to fit what the investigator already believes! You remember how Josh McDowell opined that there has been “no serious questioning of the twenty-seven books accepted books of the New Testament” since the fourth century – you really have to have some BIG BLINDERS on not to see the serious questioning that went on in the 16th and 17th century! In the same way, Westcott admits that the canons of the 4th century differed from one another and from the modern-day Protestant canon, and yet he so badly wants to find a Protestant canon that he would have you believe that “the Bible of Athanasius is essentially identical with our own”! These folks really, really want the sum of all of these conflicting canons to somehow add up to the 66 books Protestants use today! The fact that no individual unhesitatingly promotes a canon identical to ours is simply unacceptable to them – therefore, it cannot be. But you must beg to differ – the majority of Church Fathers, erudite and otherwise, appear to have accepted at least some of the deuterocanonical books as inspired Scripture, and none of them categorically promoted a canon identical to the Protestant 66 books – some came close, but they always included Baruch in with Jeremiah, or left out Esther, or 2 Peter, or Revelation, or included Wisdom, or the Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache…. That a Hebrew canon existed – that was a fact that many Fathers pointed out, but those same Fathers believed that the ‘ecclesiastical’ books were a part of the “divine record handed down to the churches by the apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit!” Only one Christian championed a canon identical to the Protestant 66 books, but his commitment to it left something to be desired….

For Part 33 please click here

 

On Wednesday within the Octave of Easter

Deo omnis gloria!

In Regard to the Canonical Scriptures

Susanna and the Elders

Welcome to Part 30 of my series on the discernment of the canon of Scripture. Please begin with Part One here.

We are examining the views of the 3^rd– and 4^th-century Christians as regards the canon. While the Christians of the 1^st and 2^nd century had no qualms about calling the deuterocanonicals Holy Scripture, 3^rd and 4^th century Christians had begun to question the discrepancy between the Hebrew canon and the Christian canon. Several Church Fathers of this era call the deuterocanonical books “ecclesiastical” rather than “canonical.” However, Church Fathers who suggest that the deuterocanonicals should be counted among the ecclesiastical (Church) books are not saying that they are not inspired Scripture (see the quotation from Rufinus below) – they are merely recognizing that while these books are not found in the Hebrew canon, they ARE found in the Christian canon. The arguments of the popular authors on this subject are very misleading.

The previously quoted assurance by Origen that God would never leave His Church in the lurch really says it all: “And, forsooth, when we notice such things [like the story of Susanna not being found in the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament], we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery? Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died; whom, although His Son, God who is love spared not, but gave Him up for us all, that with Him He might freely give us all things?”

The entire Protestant argument is based on the insistence that Origen was wrong – that God did allow Christians, for hundreds of years, to use a Bible that had been “tampered with” and was full of “forgeries.” They insist that, yes, we are to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures ministered to the edification of all the churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died; whom, although His Son, God who is love spared not, but gave Him up for us all, that with Him He might freely give us all things!

Like Origen, I don’t buy that….

Hmm…. Many sources cite Geisler and Nix’s objection to the Deuterocanon:

There were many individuals who vehemently opposed them [the deuterocanonicals], for example, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, Jerome.

So Geisler and Nix think that Origen “vehemently opposed” the deuterocanonicals, along with three other Fathers. That’s odd, considering his spirited defense of the story of Susanna that you just read. But again, according to the principle set forward by Irenaeus, one man’s objection meant very little – no one could authoritatively discern the canon except the bishops meeting in council, in union with the bishop of Rome. Still, you decide to take a head count of Church Fathers from the 1st century through the 4th to determine who actually spoke out against the deuterocanonicals and who accepted them. After all, by now you’re getting pretty tired of these claims made by the popular authors – they rarely seem to pan out!

It is kind of hard to pin some of these Fathers down when it comes to the deuterocanonicals. Some of them will make statements in one place that seem to dismiss the deuteros, and then in another place they quote from them in ways that show that they considered them to be Holy Scripture! (You also note that when a Church Father vacillates like this, the Protestant popular sources tend to only mention the apparent rejection of the deuterocanonicals – you have to keep checking all by yourself to find any positive remarks that the Father in question might have made. Even when what the Father in question said was mostly positive, the popular authors cling to the negative!) You count up 29 early Christian sources who, by quoting from deuterocanonical books in the same manner that they quote from Scripture, or by making comments that indicate their belief in the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals, or both, apparently believed those books to be Holy Scripture:

– the author of the Didache

– the author of the Shepherd of Hermas

– the author of the Epistle of Barnabas

– Clement of Rome

– Polycarp

– Athenagoras

– Irenaeus

– Tertullian

– Hippolytus

– Clement of Alexandria

– Cyprian of Carthage

– Origen (despite what Geisler and Nix claim, you find that Origen actually calls the deuterocanonicals “Divine Scriptures,” “Holy Scripture,” and “the divine word,” as well as using the formula “It is written…” before quotations from deuterocanonical books – pretty odd if he rejected their inspiration. )

– Dionysius of Alexandria

– Archelaus

– Methodius

– Lactantius

– Aphraates

– Alexander of Alexandria

– Cyril of Jerusalem (Cyril lists the canonical books of the Old Testament, and includes among them Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. He himself quoted from Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach and the deuterocanonical sections of Daniel in his Catechetical Lectures, citing the latter with the formula “It is written….” No real “vehement opposition” here…).

– Athanasius (again, despite Geisler and Nix’s insistence that Athanasius “vehemently opposed” the Apocrypha, he places Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah in his list of the “canon.” He says that the other deuterocanonicals and the book of Esther are books which “are not placed in the canon, but which the Fathers decreed should be read to those who have lately come into the fold and seek to be catechized, and who study to learn the Christian doctrine.” Athanasius then establishes a third category for “Apocrypha” – the deuterocanonicals and Esther are not among them.)

– Hilary of Poitiers (who in his defense of the doctrine of the Trinity actually writes “Such suggestions [as the heretics make] are inconsistent with the clear sense of Scripture. ‘For all things,’ as the Prophet says, ‘were made out of nothing’….” That “prophet” he refers to is the author of 2 Maccabees!)

– Basil the Great (a 4th-century bishop of Caesarea, Basil quotes from Baruch, Wisdom, Judith, and the extra parts of Daniel as Holy Scripture, and holds up the Maccabean martyrs as an example to be followed by Christians.)

– Gregory of Nazianzus (he apparently rejected the book of Revelation as well as Esther. While excluding the deuterocanonical books from “the most ancient Hebrew wisdom,” he still quotes from Baruch, Wisdom, Judith, Sirach and the extra parts of Daniel as Holy Scripture, and holds the Maccabean martyrs up, as did so many Church Fathers, as “men of old days illustrious for piety… brave to the shedding of blood” in the same roll call of faith with the patriarchs of the Old Testament.)

– John Chrysostom (he considered Baruch to be part of the book of Jeremiah, and he quotes from the extra parts of Daniel as well as passages from the books of Wisdom and Tobit as Scripture.)

– Ambrose

– Rufinus (he did separate the books of the Old Testament into the “canonical” [meaning the ones he knew were accepted by the Jews] and the “ecclesiastical” [meaning the ones accepted by the Christians, “ecclesia” meaning “church”]. You note that many popular authors seize upon this to show that he and others like him “knew” that the ecclesiastical books didn’t belong in the Bible! However, Rufinus objected to the rejection of the deuterocanonicals by pointing to Jewish converts to Christianity, none of whom tried to remove the deuteros from the Christian Bible to make it more like the Hebrew Bible. In his words, “In all this abundance of learned men, [Jews who have converted to Christianity], has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the churches by the apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit?” And note what he said: Rufinus is falling back on what has been handed down to the churches by the apostles, and the deposit of the Holy Spirit! Those Christians really did believe that God the Holy Spirit was supernaturally aiding them in guarding the good deposit!)

– Augustine of Hippo (This Church Father even outlines the process he recommends for discerning the canon: “Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical epistles he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive.” Wow! This sounds like what Irenaeus insisted upon nearly 200 years before Augustine’s time! – “Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches?”)

– John Cassian

– Theodoret of Cyrus

The popular authors try really hard at this point to make it look like a lot of Church Fathers accepted the modern-day Protestant canon. They have to fudge quite a bit, though, because even the Fathers who endorse a minimalist, pared-down canon of the Old Testament all “slip up” on a few books of the Deuterocanon like Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, or subtract a few books from the New Testament in their zeal to downsize, or state, like Rufinus, that the deuterocanonical books are ecclesiastical (used by the church) and therefore part of “the divine record handed down to the churches by the apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit”! But you have to give the popular authors credit for trying – they try really, really hard to shoehorn the oversized canons of the Fathers into the Protestant 66-book Bible!

The writings of Origen are a good case in point. When Origen and other Christian writers proclaim that there are twenty-two books in the Hebrew canon, the popular authors insist that this means that the Hebrew canon is the correct one! A few comments from Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce say otherwise:

…it was plain to him [Origen] that, when dealing with the Jews, he could appeal to no authoritative scriptures but those which they acknowledged as canonical.

But in replying to Julius Africanus [who questioned Origen’s use of the story of Susanna as if it were inspired Scripture] he points out that there are many things in the Greek Bible which are not found in the Hebrew text, and the church cannot be expected to give them all up.

He [Origen] is certainly unwilling to deviate from the regular practice of the church.

And H.B. Swete makes the same case when speaking of Augustine:

From the end of the fourth century the inclusion of the non-canonical books in Western lists is a matter of course. Even Augustine has no scruples on the subject. He makes the books of the Old Testament forty-four…. His judgement was that of his Church.

So, you’ve counted up 29 Fathers who endorsed the deuterocanonical books. The popular authors seem to pounce on any whiff of indecision, whereas you’ve tried to give these men’s views a fair hearing. Again, why are the popular authors so keen on proving their point? A little objective scholarship would be a real breath of fresh air, but these guys are more like salesmen moving in for the kill! The quote from Geisler and Nix is a fine example of hyperbole:

There were many individuals who vehemently opposed them [the deuterocanonicals], for example, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, Jerome.

Many?? As far as you can tell, Athanasius, Cyril and Origen did no such thing. Yet Geisler and Nix exaggerate these Fathers’ objections out of proportion, AND try to make it sound like they are just the “tip of the iceberg!”

So, how many Fathers really did oppose the deuterocanonical books?

For Part 31 please click here

 

On the memorial of St. Josef Bilczewski

Deo omnis gloria!