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

Pop Quiz!

Tobias and Raphael

Okay, folks! Close your books and put your notes away! Get out a piece of paper and a pencil – did I mention that there was going to be a pop quiz at the end of this series?

Not really a test, just a chance to try out what you’ve learned about the canon on some real-life apologetic examples. The quotes below are from Protestant popular authors, the kind of books your next-door neighbor might point to as proof that the Catholic canon is bogus. The quotes are shot through with errors – how many can you spot? What would your well-reasoned response to these assertions be? And if you’d like to post a few (or all) of your answers in the combox, I would love to read what you come up with! (As an aid, I’ve linked to the posts in my series where these issues were discussed – feel free to take a peek if you need to!) Pay special attention to #9 – the subject was mentioned only peripherally in the series, but this kind of objection occurs often in the popular literature, and is easily defused.

Have at it!

1.It was not until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon (with the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh). It is significant that the Council of Trent was the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the teachings of Martin Luther and the rapidly spreading Protestant Reformation, and the books of the Apocrypha contain support for the Catholic teachings of prayers for the dead and justification by faith plus works, not by faith alone. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine)

2. The Apocryphal books were written in Greek after the close of the Old Testament canon. Jewish scholars agree that chronologically Malachi was the last book of the Old Testament canon. The books of the Apocrypha were evidently written about 200 B.C. and occur only in Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament. Since Christ accepted only the books we have in our Old Testament today, we have no reason to add to their number. (Erwin Lutzer, The Doctrines That Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians)

3. Roman Catholics typically argue that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that predates the time of Christ) contained the Apocrypha. This must mean, they reason, that the Apocrypha belongs in the canon. Church fathers such as Iraneaus [sic], Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria also used the apocryphal books in public worship and accepted them as Scripture. Further, it is argued, the great theologian St. Augustine viewed these books as inspired. (Protestants respond, however, that since all these facts were already known in the early centuries of Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church’s delay until the sixteenth century to declare the apocryphal books as canonical depletes these arguments of significant force.) Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures With Catholics

4. In order for a book to be canonical, it must satisfy the tests of canonicity:

a. Was it written by a “prophet” of God? There is neither claim and/or proof that [the deuterocanonicals] were.

b. Did it come with the authority of God? No! There is a striking absence of the ring of authority in the Apocrypha. A step from the canon to the Apocrypha is like leaving the natural sunlight of God for the artificial candlelight of man, which at times becomes very dim indeed.

c. Did it have the power of God? There is nothing transforming about the Apocrypha. Its truth is not exhilarating, except as it is a repetition of canonical books in other books.

d. Did it tell the truth about God, man, etc.? As was mentioned above, there are contradictions, errors, and even heresies in the Apocrypha. It does not stand the test of canonical truth.

e. Was it accepted by the people of God? It is this final question upon which the Apocrypha takes the final and fatal fall. (Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible)

5. The evidence clearly supports the theory that the Hebrew canon was established well before the late first century A.D., more than likely as early as the fourth century B.C. and certainly no later than 150 B.C. A major reason for this conclusion comes from the Jews themselves, who from the fourth century B.C. onwards were convinced that “the voice of God had ceased to speak directly.” (Ewert, ATMT, 69) In other words, the prophetic voices had been stilled. No word from God meant no new Word of God. Without prophets, there can be no scriptural revelation. (Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict)

6. Contrary to the Roman Catholic argument from Christian usage, the true test of canonicity is propheticity… In fact the entire Protestant Old Testament was considered prophetic. Moses, who wrote the first five books, was a prophet (Deut. 18:15.) The rest of the Old Testament books were known as the “the Prophets” (Matt. 5:17) since these two sections are called “all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27). The “apostles and [New Testament] prophets” (Eph. 3:5) composed the entire New Testament. Hence, the whole Bible is a prophetic book, including the final book (cf. Rev. 20:7, 9-10). As we will see, this cannot be said for the apocryphal books. There is strong evidence that the apocryphal books are not prophetic. But since propheticity is a test for canonicity, this would eliminate the Apocrypha from the canon. (Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences)

7. Except for certain interesting historical information (especially in 1 Maccabees) and a few beautiful moral thoughts (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon), these books contain absurd legends and platitudes, and historical, geographical and chronological errors, as well as manifestly heretical doctrines; they even recommend immoral acts (Judith 9:10,13) (René Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture)

8. What then shall be said about the Apocrypha, the collection of books included in the canon by the Roman Catholic Church but excluded from the canon by Protestantism? These books were never accepted by the Jews as Scripture, but throughout the early history of the church there was a divided opinion on whether they should be part of Scripture or not. In fact, the earliest Christian evidence is decidedly against viewing the Apocrypha as Scripture, but the use of the Apocrypha gradually increased in some parts of the church until the time of the Reformation. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine)

9. For instance, the earliest Christian list of Old Testament books that exists today is by Melito, bishop of Sardis, writing about A.D. 170: “When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learnt accurately the books of the Old Testament, and set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names: Five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth; four books of Kingdoms; two books of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job; the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah; the Twelve in a single book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.” It is noteworthy here that Melito names none of the books of the Apocrypha, but he includes all of our present Old Testament books except Esther. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine)

10. The fact that the Roman Catholic church, since the 16th century, considers the Old Testament to contain seven additional books which Protestants reject, does not affect this conclusion [concerning the limits of the canon]. The people of God to whom the Old Testament was given were Jews. At the time of Christ all groups of Jews agreed on the contents of the Old Testament. The New Testament was given to the Christians, who took over the Old Testament from the Jews. Among the Christians unanimity regarding the books of the New Testament came into being within a few centuries, and has continued ever since. (Allan MacRae, “The Canon of Scripture: Can We Be Sure Which Books Are Inspired by God?” in John Warwick Montgomery (ed.), Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question)

And if you are interested in reading more on the subject of the canon, may I recommend these absolutely wonderful books?

Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible by Gary G. Michuta – the gold standard when it comes to books on the Catholic canon.

By What Authority: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition by Mark P. Shea – the book that sealed the deal for me when I was considering becoming Catholic. Holy Tradition can be something of a “slippery fish” for Protestants to grasp. Mr. Shea nails that fish to the carving board and slices it up so that non-Catholics can partake of its benefits!

Below is a bibliography of the sources used in this series on the canon:

Catechism of the Catholic Church: Revised in Accordance with the Official Latin Text Promulgated by Pope John Paul II, 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2000.

Abegg, Martin, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. HarperCollins, 1999.

Boettner, Loraine, Roman Catholicism. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1962.

Bruce, F.F, The Canon of Scripture. Intervarsity Press, 1988.

Cross, F.L. and E.A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2. ed., Oxford University Press, 1983.

Daubney, W.H., The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church, London: C.J. Clay & Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse, 1900.

Davidson, Samuel, The Canon of the Bible: Its Formation, History, And Fluctuations, From the Third Revised and Enlarged Edition, New York, Peter Eckler Publishing Co., 1877.

Geisler, Norman L., and Nix, William E., A General Introduction to the Bible. The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1968.

Hastings, James, Hastings Dictionary of the Bible. Hendrikson Publishers, 1909.

Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed. D.A. Carson, John D. Woodbridge, Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 1995.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Geoffrey William Bromiley, et al., Grand Rapids Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans, 1988-1990.

Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978.

Luther, Martin, Table Talk of Martin Luther, “Of God’s Word,” XXIV. Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society.

Lutzer, Erwin W., The Doctrines That Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians. Kregel Publications, 1998.

Metzger, Bruce, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1957.

Metzger, Bruce, The Canon of the New Testament, Clarendon Press, 1992.

Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, Watson E. Mills, et al., Macon, Ga. : Mercer University Press, 1990.

McDonald, Lee Martin, and Stanley E. Porter, Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature, Peabody, Mass. : Hendrickson Publishers, 2000.

McDowell, Josh, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Thomas Nelson, 1999.

McDowell, Josh, and Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask about the Christian Faith, Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., 1980.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Grand Rapids, Mich., Baker, 1949-50.

Oesterley, W.O.E., An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha, New York, Macmillan, 1935.

Patzia, Arthur, The Making of the New Testament, IVP Academic, 1995.

Reuss, Edward W., History of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Church, James Gemmell, George IV. Bridge, 1890.

Ridderbos, The Authority of the New Testament Scriptures, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963.

Schaff, Philip, The History of the Christian Church, Baker Book House, 1889.

Swete, H.B., Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, New York, KTAV Pub. House, 1968.

Unger’s Bible Dictionary, Chicago : Moody Press, 1966.

Westcott, Brooke Foss, The Bible in the Church, Macmillan and Co., 1887.

I thank all of you who read along. The series began on New Year’s Day and ran through the third week of Easter, lasting considerably longer than any of my other New Year’s resolutions!

On the memorial of St Agnes of Montepulciano

Deo omnis gloria!

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!

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!

If The Apostles Themselves Had Not Left Us Writings

Maccabees

Lord Jesus, give us a pope secundum Cor Tuum, after Your own Heart!

In an effort to distract myself from checking for news of the papal election every 5 minutes – here is Part 27 of my series on the canon of Scripture. Part One can be found here – to make sense of all this, you really need to begin at the beginning. Our Protestant hero has discovered the writings of a second-century bishop named Irenaeus of Lyons, who suggests that consultation with “the most ancient churches” will be an aid in answering questions that are not addressed in Holy Scripture. Might that help with discerning the canon of Scripture?

Irenaeus insists that in order to escape being deceived by the claims of the heretics, Christians needed to listen to the teaching of the churches in union with the teaching of the “greatest and most ancient church known to all,” the church in Rome. You notice especially that Irenaeus is not insisting that any one person can claim to get this right. Irenaeus was himself the bishop of Lyons, France; he is not proclaiming ‘Listen to ME if you want it straight from the horse’s mouth!’ In other words, no one person can be counted on for an answer to a question like ‘what are the contents of the canon?’ The truth lies, Irenaeus stresses, in the unity of the faith taught by the bishops as a group in union with the bishop of Rome. Irenaeus seems supremely unconcerned that the Christians of his time possessed no canon of Scripture. He actually writes:

Let us suppose that the apostles had left us no written records. Would we not have been able to follow the precepts of the tradition that they handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches? It is this precept of tradition that is followed by many barbarian nations that believe in Christ who know nothing of the use of writing, or ink.

He REALLY has faith in ‘the tradition’! Jesus didn’t leave us a list of inspired Scripture, nor did the apostles. But the first Christians, who so serenely accepted the deuterocanonical books as Holy Scripture, appear to have functioned on the principle that Jesus and the apostles did leave behind ‘the good deposit’ that was, through the work of the Holy Spirit, capable of keeping the church on the right track in the years to come. Apparently, when the first Christians finally decided that it was time to determine which books were Holy Scripture and which weren’t, it was this principle that they relied on – the leadership of the churches would be able to make this determination through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The apostles (to whom Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose) were so successful at passing on this ‘good deposit’ (and OF COURSE they were successful, since the church leaders guarded it with the “help of the Holy Spirit” who cannot fail!) that those church leaders were capable of determining authoritatively what was Holy Scripture and what wasn’t. As Irenaeus wrote:

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?

“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important questions among us?” The canon of Scripture would definitely qualify as important! “How should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings?” Well, there is one writing they did not leave us – there is no inspired list of the canon of Scripture. “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?”

Is that what happened? Is that how we got our Bible? Did the deposit of faith guide the leadership of the churches? Were the “most ancient churches” consulted in order to “learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” Is that how the deuterocanonical books finally, after their initial acceptance by the Christian community, got weeded out?

You write these principles as you understand them on a blank page in your notebook:

No one person is capable of determining single-handedly what is Scripture and what isn’t.

In order to break the vicious cycle of “We get our theology from the inspired books of Holy Scripture – and we know which books are Scripture by testing them against our theology” we need to be 100% sure that we’ve got our theology straight – look what happened to Marcion! And the only way to be 100% sure that we’ve got our theology straight is to make sure that we have devoted ourselves to the teaching of the apostles. The early Christians did this, not by relying on the New Testament (since its contents hadn’t been settled yet – in fact, those contents were part of the very question that needed to be settled!) but rather by clinging to the ‘good deposit’ of apostolic teaching handed down with the help of the Holy Spirit.

The first Christians believed that the rabbinical power to “bind and loose” had been handed over to the Christian church (Matthew 16:19). The leadership of the churches is capable of meeting together and making authoritative decisions – just as Jesus gave his apostles the authority to “bind and loose,” so the leadership, made up of men who were ordained by men who were ordained by men who were ordained by the apostles, can discern through the leading of the Holy Spirit which books are Holy Scripture, and their discernment can be binding because of the authority passed on to them as the ones entrusted with “guarding the good deposit.”

The first Christians did not believe that Christianity was to be based on a written record of the apostles’ teaching or that everything they needed to know had been written down. They believed that the faith which had been “once delivered unto the saints” (or “the faith which was once for all entrusted to the saints” as your NIV puts it) was contained both in Scripture and in the ‘good deposit’ guarded by the church. They apparently took quite literally the words that Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 3:15:

“…. that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

You check this verse in your NIV, and it comes out substantially the same:

“…the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

The first Christians really believed that the church was the pillar and foundation of truth, just as 1 Timothy 3:15 asserts. That would explain their lack of concern over a settled canon of Scripture…. The church was capable of preserving and passing on the truth….

Well, this at least sounds like a working theory….

For Part 28 please click here

 

On the memorial of St. Luigi Orione

Deo omnis gloria!

The Authentic Tradition Received from the Apostles

Judas Maccabeus

This is Part 26 of my series on the canon of Scripture – Part One can be found here.

I want to avoid the appearance of claiming that the Protestant scholars whose work is quoted in this series somehow advocate a 73-book canon. They do not. Those historians and theologians recognize a great deal of the historical truth behind the discernment of the canon, but having begun with the assumption that the Protestant canon is, of course, the correct one, they do not take this evidence to its logical conclusion. Herman Ridderbos, for example, who wrote so eloquently on the subject of “tradition,” (as does David Dunbar in his chapter in Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon, cited below) believed that while this “tradition” was both oral and written, in accord with 2 Thessalonians 2:15, once the New Testament books had been written and recognized as Holy Scripture, oral tradition lost its value and gave place to written tradition (the “written fixation of the tradition” as Ridderbos called it), i.e., sola Scriptura. Thus, Ridderbos would not have admitted that what the Church calls “Sacred Tradition” played a role in the discernment of the canon of Scripture. Likewise, scholars such as McDonald and Porter, who recognize that the Old Testament canon simply was not closed before the Resurrection, are amenable to the incomprehensible suggestion that the Pharisees at Jamnia, after the Resurrection, after Pentecost, after St. Paul said, “From now on I will go to the Gentiles,” after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, somehow still had the God-given authority to decide for the bride of Christ which books belonged in her Bible. While recognizing that Church Fathers like St. Irenaeus set great store by apostolic succession and believed that those successors to the apostles faithfully preserved the good deposit, they would never agree that those successors (Catholic bishops!) had the authority to discern the Old Testament canon. Lutheran theologian Albert C. Sundberg, Jr. is one of the few to explore the reality that the Protestant Old Testament canon may be seriously deficient, perhaps enabled in this by the fact that he is Lutheran (the Lutheran denomination has not, to this day, decided on a canon of Scripture). Popular Protestant authors such as Geisler and Nix, McDowell, and Lutzer avoid all these difficulties by claiming doggedly that the Old Testament canon was closed centuries before the time of Jesus, and by steadfastly ignoring the fact that the early Christians placed their faith in oral Tradition (just as St. Paul urged them to) as well as in written Scripture. The picture they paint of a happy, proto-Protestant world filled with Bible-only Christians, with a settled, pre-Resurrection Old Testament canon and an almost complete absence of controversy concerning the books of the New Testament canon, is decidedly ahistorical, a fact which does not seem to affect the sales of their books.

Examining Scripture, our Protestant hero notes that St. Paul insisted over and over again that his teaching, both oral and written, be kept as the pattern of sound teaching, and that it be faithfully transmitted to succeeding generations. The first Christians called this teaching “apostolic tradition.”

One promise given by Paul catches your eye – it seems to be the key to the whole ‘what did they do without a definite canon of Scripture for so many years???’ dilemma:

“Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you – guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.”

Paul certainly seems to be assuring Timothy, whom he ordained to lead the church at Ephesus, that God the Holy Spirit would supernaturally aid him in guarding the “good deposit,” that is, the things that Paul had faithfully passed on to him. Timothy was then to repeat this process – he was to keep Paul’s teaching as the pattern, and entrust that teaching “to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.”

So to the early Christians it wasn’t really of the utmost importance whether or not the epistle of James was Holy Scripture. The important thing was that they knew how to “stand firm,” to “maintain the traditions” and cling to “the good deposit.”

Maybe you’re onto something!

When Marcion, the 2nd-century heretic, tried to make his own canon of Scripture, tossing out the Old Testament and accepting only Paul’s writings (with heavy editing) and the Gospel of Luke (minus its first two chapters – that account of the birth of Christ just had to go!), the Christian church responded. A bishop in France named Irenaeus wrote a treatise against Marcion and folks like him called the “Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge Falsely So Called” (“Against Heresies” for short). Irenaeus wrote about 70 years after the death of the apostle John, and he claimed to have been personally acquainted with Polycarp, a disciple of John’s. You pick up your church library’s copy of Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon and reread Protestant theologian David Dunbar’s chapter entitled “The Biblical Canon.” There Dr. Dunbar writes that Irenaeus had had his fill of the heretics who made all sorts of claims about what was Scripture and what wasn’t, claiming that they were members of an elite group called “the perfect” who were privy to “hidden mysteries” that the average believer knew nothing of. Irenaeus declared that he knew how many Gospels had been written, and who wrote them, because he insisted that certain things had been “handed down” to believers. This is Irenaeus’ enumeration of the Gospels:

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…. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Dunbar comments:

…Irenaeus reflects with greater depth on the nature of apostleship than any before him. The church is founded upon the apostles. They have received from the Lord the power to announce the gospel, and through them we know the truth. It was to the apostles that Jesus said, ‘He who hears you hears me, and he who despises you despises me and the one who sent me” (Lk 10:16). The plan of salvation was first proclaimed publicly by the apostles and then later delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be ‘the future ground and pillar of our faith.’ The two forms, oral and written, of the apostolic witness are a unity. Neither has preeminence over the other, and for Irenaeus there can be no thought of any contrast or conflict between them. This is the error of the Gnostics, for they demean the Scriptures by appealing to esoteric traditions. By contrast, Irenaeus argues that the testimony of the apostles is public, having been proclaimed in the most ancient (apostolically founded) churches and preserved by an unbroken succession of faithful bishops. It is this same tradition, however, that is recorded in the (New Testament) Scriptures, ‘which are indeed perfect since they were spoken by the Word of God and his Spirit.’

So Irenaeus, living in the 2nd century, believed that the testimony of the apostles was safe-guarded in the teaching of the churches, and “preserved by an unbroken succession of faithful bishops”? Your eyes widen as you read on. Dr. Dunbar writes:

The basis for all of Irenaeus’ argumentation is the tradition of the church, which believes that these four Gospels alone had their origins in the ministry of the apostles.

In Irenaeus’ writings you find what he considered to be a fool-proof way to determine how to know that Marcion and his cronies were wrong: Marcion’s teaching was a novel doctrine which disagreed with what the church as a whole was teaching! Irenaeus insisted that the way to determine such issues was to check with the church leadership, most particularly with those churches which had been established by the apostles. Those leaders would be in a position to say what had been handed down to them. Irenaeus wrote:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every church who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves.

The ‘tradition of the apostles’ – that’s something you don’t find any mention made of in the popular literature. You hunt through your reference books to see if you can find out more. Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature claims that while Irenaeus and other second-century Christians denounced Marcion’s stunted canon, they didn’t respond to it by coming up with a canon of their own. Rather:

They responded with the church’s sacred teachings, that is, its regula fidei, which was illustrated by a number of OT and NT Scriptures that only later became part of a fixed biblical canon.

This ‘regula fidei’ (rule of faith) is the ‘tradition of the apostles’, and just as you thought, the early Christians didn’t wave the correct canon in Marcion’s face (since it apparently hadn’t been decided upon yet!) – they responded to his assertions by clinging to ‘the good deposit.’ The doctrine ‘handed down’ from the apostles was their ultimate guide in determining what a canonical book should look like.

McDonald and Porter explain that Irenaeus relied on this ‘rule of faith’ to combat the heretical ideas that people like Marcion were proposing. Irenaeus, according to them,

argued instead for the legitimacy of the truth of the regula fidei that he contends was passed on in the church by apostolic succession through the bishops.

You look this up. Irenaeus claims that he can tell you whom the apostles ordained as bishops, and can demonstrate the succession of those bishops from the time of the apostles down to his own time (circa 180 A.D., over 100 years later!):

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition…. Having founded and built the Church, the blessed apostles entrusted the episcopal office to Linus, who is mentioned by Paul in the Epistles to Timothy; Linus was succeeded by Anacletus; after him, in the third place from the apostles, the bishopric fell to Clement, who had seen the blessed apostles and conversed with them, and still had their preaching ringing in his ears and their authentic tradition before his eyes…. In the same order and the same succession the authentic tradition received from the apostles and passed down by the Church, and the preaching of the truth, have been handed on to us.

The authentic tradition received from the apostles and passed down by the Church – if only you had lived back then, some 150 years after the Resurrection! To be able to say that you had had “the preaching of the truth” handed on to you by your leaders from the apostles themselves! To know people who had known people who still had the preaching of the apostles ringing in their ears and their authentic tradition impressed upon their minds and hearts!

So, what does this Irenaeus of Lyons recommend as far as the canon of Scripture goes?

For Part 27 please click here

 

On the memorial of St. John Ogilvie

Deo omnis gloria!

Awkward Assumptions

With age is supposed to come wisdom. By this point in my life, I really should be getting pretty darn wise. I have at least learned to keep my mouth shut (most of the time), following the old maxim “When in doubt, DON’T SAY IT!” Foot-in-mouth disease is part and parcel of the human condition – rare indeed is the person who can claim never to have given utterance to an unfortunate assumption along the lines of:

–    “When are you due?”

–    “You’re expecting? I didn’t even know you were married!”

–    “And this must be your mother!”

We do this because as human beings we are constantly assuming. I assume when I get up in the morning that there will be hot water for my shower. I assume when I head off for work that I am still employed. I assume when I have put in my 40 hours at work that I am going to get paid.

Fortunately, these are generally speaking well-founded assumptions. I have paid the water bill; I have paid the electric bill – I have good reason to assume that there will be hot water. I have fulfilled my job requirements; I have refrained from succumbing to pugilistic tantrums at work – I have good reason to assume that I still have a job. I signed a contract when I was hired; that contract stipulates that I will be paid a certain amount upon completion of my duties – I have good reason to assume that I will receive remuneration come pay day.

It is when we stray into the territory of unfounded assumptions that we encounter all sorts of unexpected and uncomfortable situations. My employer is reputable – but what if I had signed up with some fly-by-night organization, here today and gone tomorrow? Would my assumption that I will get paid for my efforts necessarily pan out? My job duties have been clearly laid out, and my supervisor will certainly speak up if I am not fulfilling them adequately – but what if I were left unsupervised to decide for myself what exactly my job entailed and how best to achieve the goals of the position? That worked back when I was self-employed, but I now work for an organization – I need to impress, not myself, but my employer with my efforts. What if after all my hard work my employer felt that I hadn’t fulfilled the requirements of my job?

So, assumptions are a part of life – without making any assumptions a human being could scarcely function. However, it is in our own best interest to avoid unfounded assumptions. Unfounded assumptions can lead to some very sticky situations. Assuming that you have a million dollars in the bank, and basing your budget on that assumption can have some really awkward financial consequences. Best to know exactly where you stand financially BEFORE you start spending the money….

As an Evangelical I was operating on the foundational assumption that the Reformation led by Martin Luther was a good thing. I had heard all my life that God in His goodness sent Luther to scrape the barnacles off the foundering ship S.S. Christianity, returning her to her original seaworthy condition. I never questioned that version of events. Our conservative Protestant understanding of Scripture was, I believed, the same as that of the Christians of the New Testament. Every church I had ever attended had assured me that there was a “golden chain of believers” down through the centuries, all professing the same faith taught by whatever Protestant denomination I happened to be affiliated with at the moment. When Luther broke from the Catholic Church, he officially restored the true Christianity that true Christian believers had been preserving in the privacy of their own hearts down through the centuries. I never questioned this. Then one day it occurred to me to try to find out something about the early Christians – surely there must be some writings extant from the Christians who lived in the centuries after the death of the apostles. I googled the term “golden chain of believers,” and came up with … n-o-t-h-i-n-g.

I tried similar terms such as “the scarlet thread of believers” (thinking maybe we had confused it with the “scarlet thread of redemption” that runs through Scripture). I began searching doggedly for some kind of true believer chain or thread akin to the one we always talked about. I finally googled a generic “early Christian beliefs” and got some results, but none of them looked even remotely Protestant. Most of them looked distinctly un-Protestant, as in “Catholic.” Galled, I began reading the writings of those early Christians on the subjects of eternal security, faith and works, baptism, communion, church government, etc., and came to the glum realization that our “golden chain of believers” had been nothing but a great big myth.

The existence of this nonexistent “golden chain,” of course, was never subjected to investigation – it was assumed. It was assumed that the first Christians adhered to the doctrines of sola Scriptura and sola fide, because we Evangelicals read those doctrines into our King James and our NIV, and we could not conceive of “real Christians” who did not see the same things in Scripture that we saw there. It was assumed that the first Christians believed that baptism and communion were symbols rather than sacraments, because that was our “truth” and we knew that those first Christians had the “truth” as well. It was assumed that there was no hierarchical structure in the early Christian churches, no bishops and priests, certainly no pope, because we knew that “real Christians” worshipped God in spirit and in truth, and that necessarily precluded a Spirit-smothering hierarchy.

Finally forced to face my ignorance of Christian history, I set about examining the other unexamined assumptions that formed the basis of my Protestant belief system:

Assumption #2: The Bible says nothing about an authoritative, united Church which guards the doctrine handed down from the apostles with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Following Luther’s lead, my ultimate authority as an Evangelical was the written word of God alone. If Jesus had established a Church which had faithfully guarded the deposit of faith down through the centuries, then no matter how much I disliked that Church, I could not separate myself from it – but I “knew” that Jesus had just left Holy Scripture in charge over His body. Of course, I took it for granted that there was no biblical evidence of a Church with real authority, a Church aided by the Holy Spirit in her efforts to safeguard the Tradition handed down from the apostles:

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Mt 16:18-19

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. Mt 18:17

If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. I Tim 3:15

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. I Cor 11:2

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. II Thess 2:15

What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you, guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. II Tim 1:13-14

Assumption #3: There is no such thing as apostolic succession.

I once attended a Bible study where the speaker made the offhand remark that “OF COURSE, we KNOW that there is no such thing as apostolic succession.” Heads nodded. All heads nodded. It began to look like a bobblehead convention. If the apostles had instituted bishops, and had told those bishops to chose other men to succeed them, providing for an unbroken chain of authority and for the faithful transmission of the deposit of faith, then our pastors lacked that authority and were out of the loop on the transmission of faith. So WE KNEW that there was no such thing as apostolic succession. Of course, WE KNEW no such thing – it was all assumed. The Bible that we were studying says:

At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. “For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.” …Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. Acts 1:15-26

…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. II Tim 2:2

And the early Christians wrote:

Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (St. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians, written late 1st century)

It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times…. (St. Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, written late 2nd century)

Believing as I did that the Reformation had done Christianity a service by doing away with the false notions of apostolic succession and an authoritative Church, I was buying into some seriously unfounded assumptions, assumptions that led me astray spiritually as I determined for myself how best to interpret Scripture. Of course, if there is no Church which teaches doctrine guarded by the Holy Spirit, no Church against whom the gates of hell cannot prevail, no Church with whom Jesus will be always, no Church with leaders who are successors to the apostles themselves, then of course the 1517 reboot of the franchise did no harm. I was betting on that. I bet wrong.

Jesus tells the story of a dishonest steward who, when faced with impending unemployment, made friends with his master’s debtors by falsifying the records in their favor. Jesus then remarks that “the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” The people who buy into the idea of the Reformation-as-a-great-thing are not stupid, but they are not acting wisely, either. The children of this world don’t believe everything they hear. They don’t take things at face value. They don’t buy the Brooklyn Bridge or swampland in Florida. But people who will assure you that they weren’t born yesterday start acting as if they indeed were when they get born again. People who would fact-check the heck out of a sales pitch for vinyl siding will swallow a televangelist’s spiel hook, line and sinker. Protestants who double-check every bank statement and inspect every square inch of every prospective purchase buy into some awful foolishness when it comes to doctrine, because they believe that having faith obviates the need to investigate the system into which they are placing their faith. Falling for a set of unfounded assumptions, folks who would never sign a contract without reading it commit their spiritual fate to a seriously flawed belief system, without ever bothering to read the Biblical fine print.

The children of this world have the right idea – Jesus commends them for their shrewdness – but their values are warped. There are worse things than foolishly buying swampland in Florida, far worse – like buying a timeshare in a belief system that was built on shifting sand.

On the memorial of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius of Antioch

Deo omnis gloria!