A quick note on labels

mocha - miscellaneous thoughts
mousings - posting by Mickey
chewings - posting by Eric
apologies - dealing with apologetics
bio - personal testimony
(not just) guesting - guest post

Those of you posting, feel free to add your own personal bio as well as a special label for your own posts. Edit this post as necessary.

Word avalanching

Their response to my last email. Their point about circular reasoning is right, the rest I'm going to challenge them on.

Oh, and another resource for this stuff is William Webster's page.

Hello, Mickey and Ryan.

Thanks for your recent e-mails! In replying, we'd first like to clarify why we view our position as more grounded, and less circular; in order to do this, we will try to explain our position more lucidly. Then we will try to justify the ideas on which we claim to ground our position and address the concerns you have raised about them.

CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS

If I understand Charlie correctly, he pointed out that the Protestant faith was viciously circular whereas the Catholic one was circular, but better grounded.

Protestant circle (from my view): God inspired Scriptures testify that they're God inspired and sufficient.

Yes, I need to sustain that, and Lord willing, that email (essentially responding to George's earlier email on 2 Timothy 3) will come soon. Personally, I see nothing wrong with such a circle.

Catholic circle: 1. Historically reliable documents testify to Christ. 2. Christ testifies to the Pope and the Church 3.Church testifies to the infallibility of Scriptures and itself.
...
Or do we fall into the same sized circle that you claim Protestants fall into of "It's tradition, because the Church said so, and the Church says it because it's tradition"

First of all, we are not prepared to concede that the Catholic circle is a "circle" at all. Once more, here's the Catholic position:

History
implies
reasonable accuracy of the Gospels as historical texts; Jesus' actions and teaching are reflected in the writings of his earliest followers
implies
Christ is God, and He set up a Church and gifted it with His divine authority
implies
We can have confidence that what the Church defines as Tradition is Tradition, and what the Church defines as Scripture is Scripture.

The key is to differentiate between "inspired," "infallible," and "historically reliable." We derive our claim that Christ set up a Church and gifted it with His authority from 1. the Gospel text taken as historically reliable but not necessarily infallible or inspired; 2. the testimony of early Christians (i.e. other historical evidence); and 3. logic and pragmatic considerations. None of these presupposes a belief in the authority of the Church. Once having established the authority of the Church, we can trust that what it defines to be divine revelation is in fact divine revelation (here is where "infallible" and "inspired" come in). Thus, we are only circular in our reasoning insofar as we claim to derive probable conclusions from the application of reason to historical data (which we supplement with faith) despite providing no basis for trusting the human reason that we are applying to our data. The principles of reason and historical criticism are our premises. Now you might disagree with our derivation of ecclesiastical authority from the three aforementioned sources, but that doesn't make our argument circular. It just makes us wrong.

Now, theoretically, even if you could debunk this argument by disproving our derivation, we could always fall back onto a genuinely circular argument--ie, Scripture and Tradition establish the authority of the Church by virtue of their infallibility, and the Church establishes the infallibility of Scripture and Tradition by virtue of its authority. Thus, AT WORST we are circular, which, as you point out, is at least internally consistent ("I have no problems embracing the circle"). Maybe it's unfair for us to repeat this since you have not yet had a chance to defend yourself against our previous e-mail, but . . . at BEST the reasoning of sola scriptura is circular, and that is only with Olympic-caliber interpretive gymnastics directed at making 2Tim 3:15-17 say what you want it to say and at deriving the Protestant canon from "the Word of God will not fail" in a single logical step.

DERIVATION OF THE CHARISM OF INFALLIBILITY AS WELL AS APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION FROM 1. THE BIBLICAL TEXTS, 2. THE WRITINGS OF EARLY CHRISTIANS AND 3. HUMAN REASON

. . . entails a claim that you can prove the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope/Church as well as apostolic succession from Scripture.
&
So, the follow up questions are:
where's the connection between Peter = prime minister and charism of infallibility?

1. You ask for additional exegetical support for the charism of infallibility and Apostolic succession. Some of this at the beginning will be repetition. We just want to make sure that our argument is clear.

First, we consider infallibility. We turn to Christ's words to Peter in Mt 16:18-19. The language in verse 18 is pretty strong. If Peter is the rock on which Jesus will build His Church and the Church is the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1Tim 3:15) against which the Gates of Hell will not prevail, can we imagine Peter teaching false doctrine? You might come up with other things that "the Gates of Hell will not prevail" could mean, but surely its meaning at least includes freedom from error in serious matters of faith--the Gates of Hell would unquestionably be prevailing if they succeeded in getting the Church to fall away from the truth. If the Church is guaranteed to be free from error, then by definition the Church is infallible.

As we have discussed, verse 19a is a direct reference to Is 22:22 (cf. Rev 3:7). Just to reiterate our points: the keys of the kingdom were a commonly known symbol in Jewish political culture; they were held by the chief steward / prime minister of the Davidic kingdom. A command from the holder of the keys carried the same authority as a command from the king. All of these facts are corroborated by the scholarly works to which we directed you and from which we briefly quoted in one of our earlier e-mails. The keys were not held by a single historical chief steward; they were passed down from chief steward to chief steward. We do not have to turn beyond Is 22 to establish this point. Jesus is clearly instituting an office in His Church (the Kingdom of Heaven) analogous to the pre-existing office in Israelite politics (the kingdom of David). Since Jesus' declaration of the Church's infallibility is associated with his establishment of this office on which the Church is founded, it stands to reason that the Church's infallibility is operating through this office and that therefore the office carries the charism of infallibility. At the moment, this isn't a necessary conclusion, but it is at least reasonable.

The conclusion gathers further weight if we take the Prime Minister analogy further. As shown, the prime minister has the power to act with the king's authority if he so chooses. Since, in the case of the kingdom of heaven (unlike the kingdom of David), the king's authority is infallible authority, the prime minister of the Kingdom of Heaven ought to have the power to speak with infallible authority if he so chooses.

This leads us once more to the point that our reading of Mt 16:18-19 does not prove too much. The pope does not claim infallibility in all aspects of life/opinions. You say, "Certainly prime ministers make (and made) errors, sometimes they didn't act exactly as the king would have wanted to act, right?" and we say you're absolutely right! We have plenty of sinful popes to shame us. But this is irrelevant to our position. We hold that the pope is preserved from error only when he speaks "ex cathedra," i.e. as the chief steward, the holder of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Just as the chief steward of the kingdom of David might give advice to the lesser stewards that he doesn't necessarily intend to be taken as orders carrying the full weight of royal authority, popes can release encyclicals instructing us on how to best live out our Catholic faith without ordering us on pain of disobedience to the King of Heaven to adhere to his every phrase.

Having said this, if the words of the chief steward of the kingdom of David--even those not meant to carry the full authority of the king and those spoken outside the context of his office entirely--would have been accepted with a great deal of respect simply by virtue of his office, how much more should we respect the words of the chief steward of Christ's Kingdom! This is what Pope John Paul II means in the excerpt you quoted, Mickey. The Keys are the symbol of an office which demands a great deal of respect from us; we believe we should hold the words of the pope in high esteem simply by virtue of the fact that the pope is the prime minister of Christ's Kingdom. The respect demanded by the Keys extends even to those cases when the pope is not invoking his full authority as chief steward. So no, we would certainly not disregard JPII's comments as irrelevant just because they are not spoken ex cathedra, but neither do they contradict what we have been saying in the least.

Finally, the case for Petrine infallibility becomes all but inescapable as we consider Mt 16:19b, in conjunction with Mt 18:18 (cf. also Lk 10:16). Christ grants Peter, and later His Apostles as a unit, the power to bind and loose as heaven does. If heaven is infallible in its decisions to bind and loose--something you can hardly deny--then, by a simple step of logic, Peter's decision as an individual to bind and loose is infallible. In 18:18, the Apostles as a combined body are granted a similar infallible authority. Regardless of what binding and loosing means, we feel you are forced to acknowledge that Christ granted Peter as an individual, and later His Apostles as a body, some form of infallible authority. When you combine this evidence with "the Gates of Hell will not prevail" that comprises its context, it becomes clear that the Church will be preserved from error through this infallible authority granted to Peter as an individual and the Apostles as a combined body.

Now, for succession: returning to the Prime Minister analogy, since the office the kingdom of David was characterized by succession with inheritance of authority, it stands to reason that the authority granted by Jesus to the analogous office in the Kingdom of Heaven will likewise be heritable. Are proofs from analogy the strongest type of proofs? No. While we think verse 19 argues very strongly for the authority of Peter as chief steward of the Kingdom of Heaven, we acknowledge that the analogy does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus intended the Keys to be passed down from Peter. We only claim to lay the grounds for the case for Apostolic succession through this analogy. The case will be further strengthened in subsequent sections as we turn to the testimony of ECFs and pragmatic considerations.

Nevertheless, other quotes from Scripture support the case for succession of Apostolic authority. 2Tim 2:2; Acts 1:20-26, 6:1-6, 14:23; and 1Tim 3:1 all suggest that the concept of succession was one with which the early Church was quite familiar.

Along with that, your view needs to be consistent with the view of the "general consent of the Church Fathers" (I believe you used that term). As ambiguous as that sounds, I think it is reasonable for you to demonstrate explicitly that the early Church held the same exact view you hold now (or at least, a simpler version of it).
&
Primarily, we must find them appealing to an infallible teaching authority in addition to appealing to Scripture to settle doctrinal disputes in the Early Church.
&
Did the early church fathers believe (universal consent again) the same interpretation on this passage as the Roman Catholic Church now asserts?

2. We have already given quotes demonstrating the ECF belief that, if a church's teachings differ from those of Rome, then that church is de facto schismatic (Opatus, Cyprian); indeed "all the churches must agree" with the church of Rome "because of its superior origin" (Iranaeus). (See a few additional ones that I have come across more recently below.) I think it is entirely accurate to say that this is at least a "simpler version" of the more precisely defined doctrine we claim for Rome. Admittedly, these authors are not offering a precise definition of infallibility. But you could imagine asking Iranaeus, "What exactly do you mean by that? If the bishop of Rome says that 2+2=5, would all the other bishops have to agree with him?" We both agree that Iranaeus would say, "No, of course not." If the bishop of Rome invokes his authority as successor to Peter and, addressing the whole Church, teaches that Jesus was both fully God and fully Man, would Iranaeus and Opatus and Cyprian and the others think that the other bishops are obliged to follow suit? Their quotes sure seem to suggest "yes"--frankly, I don't see how you could deny it. The underlying belief that you can be sure Rome's teachings aren't wrong is so strongly implied by these statements that, even if it isn't stated in exactly those words, it is a necessary conclusion--a single logical step away.

As the Church matured and transitioned from an age of martyrdom when it focused on survival to an age of social acceptance and institutionalization when it was more active in stifling divisive forces, it became important to define exactly what was meant by this widespread, Scripture- and Tradition-based belief that the See of Peter had responsibility over what Christians believed and that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it. So the doctrine crystallized in the form that we now know it--that the teachings of the bishop who sits in the See of Peter, when making official (ie, invoking his authority as the successor to Peter) proclamations addressed to the whole Church on a matter of faith and morals or when approving the documents put out by a universal council of bishops in which he took part, will be free from error. The doctrine DEVELOPED only in the sense that it became more precisely defined so as to be more practical.

By the way, a few other somewhat more explicit quotes from pre-500AD:

Pope Julius I (341 AD) Letter of Julius to the Eusebians (in Athanasius' Apologia Contra Arianos 1:2:35): "Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us [the Church at Rome], and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us."

Leo the Great (445 AD) Letter 10 12: "Although [the bishops] have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. From this model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that one whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head.

Jerome (396 AD) Letter 15 2: "I . . . join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails."

Innocent I (408 AD) Letter 2 29:1: ". . . [Y]ou have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the Pope] and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the Apostle [ie, Peter] himself, from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of his name have emerged. Following him, we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to approve what is laudable. Or rather, guarding with your priestly office what the Fathers instituted, you did not regard what they had decided, not by human but by divine judgments, as something to be trampled on. They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See, so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and from there [might be promulgated to the] other churches--just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an incorrupted head . . . ."

Peter Chrysologus (449 AD) Letter 25 2: "We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own See, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome."

Ephraim of Syria (350 AD) Homily 4 1: "[Jesus said:] Simon my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples." (This doesn't address succession but does indicate that the ECF interpretation of Matt 16:18 is one of Petrine infallibility with regards to matters of faith.)

Record of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) session 2: "After the reading of the foregoing epistle [of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: 'This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe. Thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo!'" (Leo was pope from 440-461.)

This one very explicitly states the widespread belief that the charism of Peter's Office was passed on to his successors:

Philip the Legate (431 AD) (Acts of the Council of Ephesus): "There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Universal Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors."

Frankly, we're not sure what more you can really ask from these ECFs, both the ones I have quoted here and the ones in my previous e-mail. They were addressing the controversies and burning questions of their day, not the controversy of Mickey Sheu and Ryan Haynes vs. George and Charlie Capps. Nevertheless, in doing so, ECF after ECF clearly referenced a belief in a) the primacy of the authority of Peter among his contemporaries, an authority that pertained both to juridical matters as well as to doctrinal ones; b) the transfer of apostolic authority via succession among all bishops (including that of the See of Peter); and c) the need for all churches to be in communion with Rome on matters of religion. How could they demand that the churches follow Rome no matter what unless they knew that Rome was preserving the truth? They don't have to use the word "infallible" for a belief in some kind of freedom from error to be the self-evident basis for their statements.

Surely with all the early heresies being fought, this must have happened all the time. "No, you Arians are wrong because we have the infallible testimony of (insert Pope here)"

Sure this happened! At the very least they things like said, "No, you Arians are wrong because you differ from the teachings of the Church at Rome." Let's see what I can find in a few minutes of searching.

It was in the context of refuting the heretical teachings of Marcion and Valentius that Iranaeus wrote, "For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of its pre-eminent authority . . . ." Immediately after this, Irenaeus shows that a letter written by Pope Clement contradicted the heresies. To emphasize that Clement's word is final, Irenaeus gives his entire Apostolic pedigree, tracing his line of succession back to Peter. Note that Irenaeus used a passage from Clement, not a passage from Scripture in this case, to prove the heretics wrong. This is from Against Heresies 3:3. The entire chapter is given here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm , and it is a good read, both for the question of Rome's authority and for a detailed description of his belief that the popes and bishops mentioned had "the preaching of the apostles still ringing in their ears."

Augustine (411 AD), speaking of the Pelagian Heresy, wrote that he couldn't understand why people went on believing the heresy after Rome had spoken: "For on this matter two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermon 131 10).

We realize that you'd love other, even more explicit references. These are the results of a very brief search. I am confident that there are others, and I will let you know if I come up with some more. But the point is that, even if ECFs didn't always use the word "infallible," they argued against heretical statements on which Rome had pronounced by invoking the authority of Rome.

. . . [E]ven if we concede that Jesus is making Peter infallible, why apostolic succession? And why an infallible teaching office?
&
How does this demonstrate a succession of Popes all with the same power as Peter?

3. Why Apostolic succession in general and Petrine succession in particular? For the simple reason that the Church did not cease to exist when the Apostles died. If you concede that Christ gave Peter His infallible authority and yet argue that this authority was not passed on, you must claim that up to Peter's death his infallible authority was necessary to settle disputes and to keep the Church maintained in the truth, but when he died suddenly that was no longer necessary . . . presumably because the Christian community finally had its Scriptures. We think you do in fact hold this or something like it, but we find it to be strongly argued against by the preponderance of historical evidence and personal experience. If the Scriptures, apart from a teaching body with the authority to declare how those Scriptures apply to the social and intellectual context of a given age, were so perspicuous as to admit no divergent conclusions, then all the ECFs would teach justification by faith alone and all the Arians would have known that of course Jesus was fully divine and we wouldn't be having this argument right now.

We write this with all due respect to the Scriptures. You claim that the Holy Spirit safeguards Scripture through the individual and, by extension of many individuals, through the community; we claim that the Holy Spirit safeguards Scripture through the Church. We really don't think this entails less respect for Scripture.

You argue that the burden of proof for Jesus intending the Keys to be passed on lies with us; given the clear succession associated with the prime minister office referenced and the apparent need, based on historical evidence of rampant heresy alone, for an unerring teaching authority to ensure that the meaning of Scripture isn't corrupted as it enters new ages and new contexts, I think that Jesus' intent for succession would have to be the default conclusion. We add to this quotes from the NT talking about appointing other men after you, (2 Tim 2:2, Acts 1:20-26, etc.) and the testimony of the earliest Christians that the Apostles DID appoint authoritative successors (Clement of Rome--first century AD!--goes so far as to say that they did so on the instruction of Jesus in the quote I previously sent you), and the idea that there was no need for an Apostolic authority after the Apostles died becomes all but untenable.

Secondly, this idea of an infallible Apostolic tradition is continually appealed to. If this tradition exists and is closed like you say, then in order for the Church to be a servant of Tradition and Scripture as they say, they must back up their doctrines with references to Tradition and Scripture. Namely, "The Assumption of Mary is true because of this verse in the Bible, and these words from the Apostle Peter which were not recorded but handed on orally" Can Rome produce the oral tradition to support its arguments? Or do we fall into the same sized circle that you claim Protestants fall into . . .

Well, first of all, yes! The Church does say, "Such-and-such a belief goes back to the earliest times and thus is likely Apostolic in origin; it is supported by these lines of Scripture and by these quotes from ECFs. It is central to our identity as Catholic Christians and reflects how we view the universe. Therefore, we hereby define this as a dogma of the faith." As we said before, even if they don't follow of necessity from Scripture alone, these dogmatic definitions never just come out of the blue.

Second of all, whether or not the name of a particular Apostle is specifically associated with, for example, the Assumption has nothing to do with whether or not we fall back into the same-sized circle. Even if an early document said, "Peter taught the Assumption," it would still be Tradition-with-a-capital-T not because of the name of the Apostle but because the Church said so. After all, the document isn't infallible and thus we wouldn't know for sure if it was accurate in making this historical statement.

We do not even claim that the association between the name of the particular Apostle(s) responsible and any extrabiblical doctrine has survived. As we said before, the very earliest bishops, two or three generations removed from the Apostles themselves, considered their teaching in general to be derived from the Apostle(s) who taught their predecessors. We have given quotes to support this in a previous e-mail. Therefore, these authors did not bother to repeat, "We got this doctrine from my predecessor who got it from the Apostles" before every statement concerning a belief relevant to a Catholic vs. Protestant debate. Even if the Church never referenced a particular Apostle when dogmatically defining an extrabiblical doctrine, it would in no wise contradict our claims.

Furthermore, it is not fair for you to insist that the Church do so because there was no reason for early Christians to have preserved such associations between names and doctrines. There was certainly reason to preserve the teaching, but there was no reason to continue passing down the information that, for example, it was Jude who taught purgatory while Peter and Bartholomew preached on the truth of the Assumption. Even if there ever was such heterogeneity among the messages of different Apostles (highly unlikely), this would only serve to have conceptually segmented beliefs rather than to have united them into a coherent whole. Hence, because an association between the name of an Apostle and any given piece of Tradition does not follow from our claim, and because the absence of an association does not contradict our claim, you cannot use that absence against us.

Now, I say this without having conducted a thorough search to see how often key extrabiblical doctrines are associated with the teachings of a particular Apostle. A brief search quickly turned up one. In chapter 8 of The Lives of Illustrious Men, Jerome records that Peter endorsed Mark's Gospel and sent it "to the churches to be read by his authority." He says that other ECFs, such as Clement and Papias, taught this as historical fact, too. Since "fit to be read in the churches" was synonymous with "Scriptural" among the ECFs (their controversies were always over the "canon of books to be read in the churches"), here we have the tradition of a specific Apostle making an extrabiblical statement on a key extrabiblical matter of faith an morals--namely, that the Gospel of Mark is Scripture. I strongly suspect that I could find other quotes like this if I kept searching, and I will let you know if you find others. But I'm not sure why it matters.

Moving on, the Church does claim that the truth of, say, the Assumption was handed on orally, and this is evinced by the widespread belief that it occurred from early times. However, this can ultimately only be distinguished from other widespread early beliefs that do not derive from valid Apostolic teaching because the Church said so. We can't a priori look at the writings of a given ECF and say, "Ah, that teaching is in Tradition, but this one is just tradition." Before it is dogmatically defined by the Church, there is no infallible source containing the Tradition to which to appeal like there is for a Scripture-based argument. Therefore, the Church can appeal to reasonable justification (certainly not formal proof, but reasonable justification) for which it is making the decision dogmatically to define an extrabiblical doctrine (eg, this belief is widely attested to among the earliest Christians, it makes a lot of sense given what we already know), but it can't point its finger to some concrete object called Tradition and say, "Here--here's the line in Tradition-with-a-capital-T where this teaching can be found, so its obviously right." We realize this lack of concreteness frustrates someone from a sola scriptura mentality who takes for granted the nicely-bound pocket New Testament that he can whip out at moment's notice, but we don't think that our arguments are therefore fallacious or even unreasonable.

Sorry this is so long! After much discussion, we decided to keep it all down to one e-mail to try to make our thoughts more coherent. As you can see, it did nothing to stem the proliferate tendencies of these kinds of e-mail discussions. Regardless, you had a lot of specific concerns, and we tried to address them thoroughly one by one. We look forward to hearing from you again soon.

keep throwin',

George and Charlie

Sufficiency of Scripture and 2 Timothy 3

As of late, I've been talking with some Roman Catholics who (really) know their stuff, and they've challenged me on Sola Scriptura, specifically in it's defense from 2 Timothy 3. So here's my attempt at defending Sola Scriptura from 2 Timothy 3. As I have no intention of reinventing the wheel, I've done a bit of research. The two major sources for my material has been The Roman Catholic Controversy by James White (abbreviated RCC, not to be confused with the Roman Catholic Church), and Sola Scriptura! edited by Don Kistler (abbreviated SS)

To begin with, I need to define the position I will be defending here. One negative, one positive.

What Sola Scriptura is not -

Sola Scriptura is not a claim that all truth is found in the Bible.
Sola Scriptura is not a claim that for all time God has spoken only through the Bible.
Sola Scriptura is not a claim that every verse is equally clear to every person.
Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Church has no place in interpreting the Bible.
Sola Scriptura is not a denial of all traditions.

Now, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not any of these, what is it?

Sola Scriptura states that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the infallible rule of faith for the Church.
Sola Scriptura states that all that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture, and not in another source.
Sola Scriptura states that all that is not found in Scripture (by good and necessary consequence) is not binding upon a Christian.
Sola Scripture states that all tradition is checked by and subject to Scripture.

Sola Scriptura is simply this, that "all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it in there and understand." (SS p.3)

Ok, so having defined the position I'm trying to defend, let me launch into 2 Timothy 3 to defend the sufficiency of Scripture.

To set the context. Paul is writing to Timothy during what seems to be the last years of his life. In contrast to the book of Philippians where he seems to have an assurance that he will be released to do more ministry (Philippians 1:25), he is evidently preparing for death (2 Timothy 4:6-8). Within the letter, Paul repeatedly warns Timothy of the times to come, and to prepare for them. Chapter three is one of such occasion.

I'm going to quote the whole chapter and focus on the last few verses.

2 Timothy 3 (ESV translation)

1But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. 6For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, 7always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. 8Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. 9But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

v.1-9 emphasize exactly the opposition that Timothy will be facing. There will be times of difficulty because people will be depraved (I note that "disobedient to parents" is located in a list of pretty serious sins, makes you (me!) think). Timothy is encouraged to avoid such people (v.5) for they have nothing.

10You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra--which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

In contrast to these people Paul encourages Timothy, reminding him of all that Paul has taught him and all that Paul has endured at the hands of such men. He warns Timothy that the life that he's encouraging Timothy to live will entail persecution at the hands of evil men.

14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom^[a] you learned it

The word "but" begins verse 14, signifying a contrast from the previous verse. In contrast to the evil people and impostors in verse 13 who go from bad to worse deceiving and being deceived, Timothy is encouraged to continue in what he has learned and has firmly believed. Their deceiving and being deceived is set up against Timothy continuing in what he has learned and firmly believed. Paul then makes a point to note that Timothy is to do this knowing "from whom(plural) [he] learned it", reminding Timothy of how this teaching has borne fruit in the lives of his mother and grandmother (2 Timothy 1:5).

Paul then proceeds remind Timothy exactly what was taught to him.

15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Now, Timothy had followed Paul for so many years through so many trials. He had direct access to a source of great theology and knowledge. If there were traditions that were needed to help Timothy stop from being like the deceivers, Paul would have reminded Timothy of them. But Paul doesn't say "remember those traditions I taught you," (I will deal with the "traditions" passages in a separate post) but he instead reminds Timothy of the source of his faith, the sacred writings. They are "able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God^[b] may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Paul then proceeds to explain why these sacred writings are thus able. They are not written by mere men, but rather "breathed out by God." When Scripture speaks, it's God speaking. The Scriptures thus carry with it God's very own authority. Because they are not written by men, but by God, they carry with it God's authority, and God's power. They are thus supernatural and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. All these things lead Paul to conclude that Scripture allows for the man of God to be "competent, equipped for every good work."

The word translated "competent" is ἄρτιος. What does that mean? Thayer's Lexicon says it means "fitted; complete, perfect," my Greek NT dictionary (UBS 4th edition) says, "fully qualified," Vincent's Word Studies (acessed via e-Sword) says "complete; but the idea is rather that of mutual, symmetrical adjustment of all that goes to make the man: harmonious combination of different qualities and powers."

Related to that word is the word translated "equipped" ἐξηρτισμένος which is the passive perfect participle of ἐξαρτίζω (notice the resemblance to the above word?). Thayer's has "to complete, finish - to furnish perfectly, to finish, accomplish," Greek NT dictionary - "to equip," Vincent's Word Studies - "fills out the idea artios; fitted out."

It's clear that these words are broad in scope. Scriptures come with the authority of God behind it, they are not only useful, but furnish completely, fills out, makes fully qualified. What does this mean? It means that the Scriptures are sufficient for every good work. Indeed, theNIV translates this (which in essence is another definition) as " so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Now, the objection is that if this verse proves sufficiency, it proves too much, for Paul is speaking only of the Old Testament here. In response, i would point out that through Paul is referring to the Old Testament in his initial statement, he broadens his answer to include all that is Scripture. Paul has already quoted Luke as Scripture earlier, and clearly knows that he himself is inspired by God (as I argue here). Vincent Cheung comes to the same conclusion after examining how Paul refers to Scripture elsewhere and the Bible's view on authority in his article "Sufficient and Profitable" (the link is to the relevant excerpt, the entire article is in his book The Ministry of the Word) He concludes with saying,

"Since the New Testament documents are regarded as inspired and even called "Scripture," we may with complete certainty regard them as "God-breathed." Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are "Scripture," and they make up one book that is our Bible. Therefore, there is no problem in regarding the verse as asserting, "The whole Bible is God-breathed." In fact, there is no excuse in thinking otherwise."

Finally, though I feel like I've already addressed this by making a positive presentation, one objection has been brought forth that Paul is speaking to Timothy ceteris paribus argument for "Tradition," where it is claimed that Paul is speaking to Timothy with the knowledge that Timothy already knows tradition so now Scripture is able to make him complete.

My objector wrote, "If a man just has Tradition, he isn't complete. But then the Bible comes along, and suddenly he has been made complete; the Bible made him so. Thus, it is a true statement that the Bible is able to make a man complete. Whether or not the Bible is sufficient depends on the unspoken assumptions as to what the man in need of being completed already has."

In response to this objection there are two remarks -

1) This certainly cannot be established by the text, it may indeed be true (and I have to deal with the "traditions" passages in a future post), but it's certainly not sustainable here. There is no indication of "now the Scripture is able to..." being implied at all. So the objection raises up a possibility without establishing it.

2) In a positive presentation against this possibility, I would say that the context prevents us from understanding Paul to be speaking that way. Paul is talking specifically about not being like these evil men. Paul reminds Timothy of what he's had since birth, the sacred writings. If indeed Paul was talking of (extra-Scriptural) traditions that he's been taught as well, it makes no sense not to remind Timothy of them as well, as he is exhorting Timothy to not be like these evil men. Instead of pointing to both Scripture and (extra-Scriptural) tradition, Paul points to Scripture as the sole source of all things needed to make Timothy perfect, fully equipped for every good work.

So Scripture is sufficient for every good work. If something is not spoken of, it's not necessary.

Examining Roman Catholicism

What follows are two emails I sent off in their entirety. I've realized that we've just given them far too much leeway with their interpretations of things, and the only way to examine their claims is challenge them to support it.

Email 1 - following up on Tuesday's discussion on what tradition is and what it means.

Hey all -

Thanks for the conversation. As usual, I'm glad to know that we're able to have an open and honest conversation, even though the spiritual distance between us (among us?) is huge.

If I understand Charlie correctly, he pointed out that the Protestant faith was viciously circular whereas the Catholic one was circular, but better grounded.

Protestant circle (from my view): God inspired Scriptures testify that they're God inspired and sufficient.

Yes, I need to sustain that, and Lord willing, that email (essentially responding to George's earlier email on 2 Timothy 3) will come soon. Personally, I see nothing wrong with such a circle.

Catholic circle: 1. Historically reliable documents testify to Christ. 2. Christ testifies to the Pope and the Church 3.Church testifies to the infallibility of Scriptures and itself.

(of course, I think I can be clearer on what you mean by "Church" but permit me that loose summary)

I can concede 1, but 2 entails a claim that you can prove the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope/Church as well as apostolic succession from Scripture. Matthew 16 is a step in that direction, and I need to respond to that email as well, but even if we concede that Jesus is making Peter infallible, why apostolic succession? And why an infallible teaching office? You need to establish that from Scripture (as you claim).

Along with that, your view needs to be consistent with the view of the "general consent of the Church Fathers" (I believe you used that term). As ambiguous as that sounds, I think it is reasonable for you to demonstrate explicitly that the early Church held the same exact view you hold now (or at least, a simpler version of it).

To satisfy that, I think you need to establish two things that are reasonable if such a claim is to be considered:

Primarily, we must find them appealing to an infallible teaching authority in addition to appealing to Scripture to settle doctrinal disputes in the Early Church. The quotations previously provided do seem relevant, but you need to establish that they speak of tradition in the same way that you do, which I'm not entirely convinced. Surely with all the early heresies being fought, this must have happened all the time. "No, you Arians are wrong because we have the infallible testimony of (insert Pope here)"

Secondly, this idea of an infallible Apostolic tradition is continually appealed to. If this tradition exists and is closed like you say, then in order for the Church to be a servant of Tradition and Scripture as they say, they must back up their doctrines with references to Tradition and Scripture. Namely, "The Assumption of Mary is true because of this verse in the Bible, and these words from the Apostle Peter which were not recorded but handed on orally" Can Rome produce the oral tradition to support its arguments? Or do we fall into the same sized circle that you claim Protestants fall into of "It's tradition, because the Church said so, and the Church says it because it's tradition"

Now, I have no problems embracing the circle, as ultimately all arguments are circular, and to base my faith in the inspired Word of God on something less than the inspired Word of God is to weaken the Word of God.

So, in summary I would like -

Exegesis of relevant passages establishing

1) Primacy of the Peter over all Christendom.
2) Establishment of the office of the Pope, complete with the chaism (is that spelled right?) of infalliblity along with apostolic succession

As the claim is also that this is the general consensus of the Early Church, you need:

A number of testimonies appealing to the authority of the church as infallible to establish doctrine. I've looked at the quotations and I find them wanting, or at least they need to be set in context more for me to accept them.

Statements along the lines of, "This was what Peter said to us... and that proves..." from ECF where the statement from Peter is not something in Scripture.

~~~~

Quotations from ECF implying they believe in Sola Scriptura to come. Thanks much. Next Tuesday again? Maybe we can talk on something more explicit... Faith Alone?

Email 2 - responding to a response to my request for information regarding the RC interpretation of Matthew 16

On 4/19/07, Charles F. Capps <ccapps@stanford.edu > wrote:

Hey Mickey,

You asked me to supply scholarly evidence for my claims about the office of the prime minister / chief steward in Jewish political culture and how it relates to the keys of the kingdom mentioned in Mt 16:19, Is 22:22 and Rev 3:7. I checked out a handful of books from Green, mostly studies on Isaiah, that contain information about the historical setting of these verses, and I've transposed relevant quotes and bibliographical information below.

Oh wow, thanks much. And sorry for the late reply.

To refresh your memory, we are arguing that in giving Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Jesus was making an unmistakable reference to the keys of the kingdom of David in Jewish politics, the same famous set of keys that appears in Is 22:22. These keys are held by the prime minister of the kingdom as a symbol of the power to lock/unlock (cf. bind/loose). Just as the command of the prime minister of the kingdom of David carried the authority of the king of the kingdom of David, the decree of the prime minister of the kingdom of heaven carries the authority of the King of Heaven.

We are _not_ arguing that everything the pope says is therefore infallible. We touched upon this over dinner. It is only when the pope speaks _as the holder of the keys_; i.e. only when he speaks _as the occupier of the office of prime minister of the kingdom of heaven_ that he speaks with Christ's authority. Catholics' technical term for this is the pope speaking _ex cathedra_ (from the Chair of Peter).

ok. Alright, but this certainly is quite the restriction upon the "keys" is it not? Say a prime minister makes a decree. Does he have to preface his decree with a "I am prime minister right now, so I say this"? Or do his decrees have authority because he's prime minister, whether he states it or not?

In my readings, I've also come across this statement by Pope John Paul II, who saw the powers much broader (and, I would argue, more consistently) as applying even when the charism of infallibility is not invoked.

In Pope John Paul II's statement to the staff of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (English translation from "Inside the Vatican" (January 1996), p.13), referenced in The Roman Catholic Controversy by James White (footnote 27) italics added by myself

It is not possible, however, to overlook one of the decisive aspects that lies at the base of the malaise and uneasiness in certain parts of the ecclesiastical world: it is a question of the way authority is conceived. In the case of the Magisterium, authority is not exercised only when the charism of infallibility is invoked; its exercise has a wider field, which is required by the appropriate defense of the revealed deposit.

For a community based on shared adherence to the Word of God and on the resulting certainty of living in the truth, authority for determining the content to be believed and professed is something that cannot be renounced ... However, this does not entitle one to hold that the pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the Magisterium call for irrevocable assent only when it states them in a solemn judgment or definitive act, and that, consequently, in all other cases one need only consider the arguments or reasons employed.

Of course, I guess he wasn't stating that from an infallible position, so maybe the point is completely irrelevant. But if that's the case, then someone with the keys doesn't understand the keys themselves, which makes you really wonder.

There's one thing I should note before moving on to the quotes: one of the things I remember reading from Catholic apologists is that the prime minister of Judah would serve as a representative of the king with the king's full authority especially during the king's absence. For instance, Mark Bonocore states (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num18.htm):

"So, Peter's primal authority (symbolized by the Keys) is manifested from the time of Jesus' Ascension onward. Just like the OT prime minister of the Kingdom, Peter can only act with the King's authority in the King's physical absence."

I did not find anything to this effect in the brief bit of researching I did today. It is possible our apologists have been sort of exaggerated the historical force "the office of prime minister is particularly relevant during the king's absence" facet of the argument, although I doubt it because I have not extensively investigated their sources. I still thought I should mention the fact that I have not found anything to corroborate such a claim, however, seeing that I did appeal to it as fact on Tuesday.

Cool. Thanks for your honesty on this point, it is much appreciated.

*quotations which all seem to be fine, with which I pretty much all agree with are at the bottom for Ryan and George. *

So I agree that the passage teaches that Peter acts as a representative, with authority, similar to that of the prime minister, supreme rabbi, a chief steward... but I would also say the same for the other apostles, who are given the "binding and loosing" ability in Matthew 18.

I also note that in one of the quotations (Davies and Allison), the authority is explained as "binding and loosing" which is given to all the apostles in Matthew 18:15-20 (which sets this "binding and loosing" specifically within the church context, "two or three are gathered") and John 20:19-23 (where the language is similar, and it's explicitly with regards to forgiveness).

Now, I think the idea of a prime minister is certainly there. But, to take it back to the text, how does that determine papal infallibility? Certainly prime ministers make (and made) errors, sometimes they didn't act exactly as the king would have wanted to act, right? The text doesn't seem to lend itself to a distinction between the keys and the power of binding and loosing.

So, the follow up questions are:

where's the connection between Peter = prime minister and charism of infallibility?
How does this demonstrate a succession of Popes all with the same power as Peter?
Did the early church fathers believe (universal consent again) the same interpretation on this passage as the Roman Catholic Church now asserts?

Is 22:20-22:

20: In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,
21: and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22: And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Mt 16:18-19:

18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Rev 3:7:

7: "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

-

And here is the scholarly support for our claims about the office of prime minister in the kingdom of David:

1. Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison, Jr. _A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew: Volume II_. Ed. J. A. Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield and G. N. Stanton. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.

"…the major opinion of modern exegetes…has it that Peter, as a sort of supreme rabbi or prime minister of the kingdom, is in [Mt] 16:19 given teaching authority…This is the traditional Roman Catholic understanding." (p. 638)

Davies and Allison also quote the Epistle of Clement to James, 5 (which in turn is quoting St. Peter): "Since, as I have been taught by the Lord and Teacher Jesus Christ, whose apostle I am, the day of my death is approaching, I lay my hands upon this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse, even to him who has journeyed with me from beginning to end…Wherefore I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing, so that with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in heavens. For he shall bind what ought to be bound, and loose what ought to be loosed, as knowing the rule of the Church."

2. Herbert, A. S. _The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Chapters 1-39_. Ed. P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, J. W. Packer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

"[with regard to Is 22:22] the key of the house of David: a symbol of full authority delegated by the king (cp. Matt 16:19; Rev. 3:7)."

3. Sweeney, Marvin A. _Isaiah 1-39_. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

"Shebna is identified as the chief steward of the Davidic house, a position that gives him authority to act on behalf of the king as well as supervision of the royal palace complex…" (p. 301).

4. Watts, John D. W. _Word Biblical Commentary: Volume 24: Isaiah 1-33_. Colombia: Nelson Reference and Electronic, 2005.

"He [i.e. the prime minister] will make decisions that carry royal authority and can not be appealed." (p. 349)

"[The position of prime minister] must have been very much like that of a vizier in Egypt. 'All affairs of the land passed through his hands, all important documents received his seal, all the officials were under his orders. He really governed in Pharaoh's name…'" (p. 347)

5. Wildberger, Hans. _Isaiah 13-27_. Trans. Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.

"The power of the keys, which is given to Eliakim at this point, apparently goes far beyond the literal meaning; it means the overall responsibility and authority for the dynasty of the Davidic family, their possessions, and all their affairs." (p. 399)

Wildberger also notes that the Hebrew word for authority (I don't have a Hebrew font so I can't reproduce it here) that is used in Is 22:21 is the same word that "is used elsewhere when the full authority of the king is being discussed" (p. 398).

"Throughout the history of the church, Isa. 22:22 has played an even more important role elsewhere; this verse, significantly altered in Matt. 16:19, is used to paraphrase the full authority accorded to Peter: 'I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.' This passage is quoted 'correctly' insofar as it is…directed towards Peter, who, one might say, is elevated to serve as the one in charge of the palace, the vizier of Christ, and as such is to carry on the affairs of his ascended Lord on earth…one must not overlook that the charge to Peter occurs within a tradition according to which the vizier of the king, in a most unique way, was granted expansive powers." (p. 402)

6. Wolf, Herbert M. _Interpreting Isaiah: The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah_. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.

"Eliakim's close relationship with the king is indicated by his holding the key to the house of David (v. 22). In many matters of government, Eliakim would have the final word because the king would delegate authority to him. The imagery of the key of David is applied to Christ in Revelation 3:7. On His shoulders will rest all the powers of government…" (p. 132)

7. See also http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg01345.html.

-

The books I found that seemed to deal most explicitly with the subject of the office of prime minister / chief steward in Jewish politics were unfortunately not in Stanford's library (all I found there, as you can tell, were books about Isaiah or Matthew). If you are not satisfied with the above sources, however, you might want to consider looking the following up: _The Royal Steward_ by H. J. Katzenstein and _Ancient Israel_ by R. de Vaux.

Hope this helps.

keep throwin',

Charlie