***From Cory:
Please show me one variation that affects a core doctrine of the Christian faith.

REPLY:
Sola Scriptura denies the Apostolic authority that is the New Covenant fulfillment of the Levitical priesthood.

I was referring to textual variations of the Bible. Your response is therefore irrelevant to the question I asked. But, since you brought it up, sola scriptura does no such thing. For Christ is the fulfillment of the priesthood:

This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him,

“You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek.”

For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
‘You are a priest forever.’”

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. (Heb 7:15-22)

As to what is the accepted canon of Scripture, no serious Protestant apologist would argue that we accept it based on anything other than church tradition. That isn’t what I’m saying. Apostolic succession and granting said tradition equal authority with Scripture, however, is a mistake.

The problem as I see it isn’t so much that the Protestants have set up the Bible as a “paper Pope,” but that they have set themselves up individually as their own “little Popes.” Protestants have taken Scripture and removed it from a communal setting, devoid of history and tradition. In it’s place they have established the individual as the final arbiter of how scripture should be read.

I actually agree with this premise, but not ChadS’s ultimate conclusion. But, again, what Catholics sometimes miss is that no Protestant is suggesting that tradition doesn’t play a role in how we read and interpret Scripture! If someone actually suggests that, then I suggest that they are a false teacher.

Matthew, I only wish you’d write more comments on the blogs posted at Parchment and Pen! You have a wealth of knowledge and a spirit of love and unity that I deeply appreciate. Thanks for always illuminating us and for your warm acceptance of Christian brothers and sisters from ‘another flock.’

I had wondered about how official Catholicism views its many distinguished biblical studies professors (some of the very finest in the world today, by the way), and your explanation goes a long way to helping me understand it better.

Thanks again for your good words.

Dr Wallace (and Readers!),

I appreciated your remarks.

Of course, the question of the Magisterium is one that continues to vex ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. Yet I think it is helpful to point out that the Catholic Church actually believes that there are two kinds of Magisteria that St Thomas Aquinas speaks of: the magisterium cathedrae pastoralis, that is, of the episcopal college, and the magisterium cathedrae magistralis, that is, of the theologian-professors.

Although I’m a Catholic, I would not be quick to accuse Protestants of making the Bible a “paper pope.” If anything, credible Protestant theologians are very attentive to “university theology” and I would even suggest that you, as an exegete, are a member of the “magisterium of the professor’s chair.”

Leaving aside the question of papal magisterium, I think there is a real issue of the more simplistic outlook (e.g. Fundamentalism) that relies either on the pastor or even the individual as a kind of pope. (Case in point: most Fundamentalist churches post the name of their pastor immediately after the name of the church building, a practise that is rare in mainstream Protestant churches and even rarer in Catholic parishes).

Polemical discussions (and I intensely dislike Catholic apologetics precisely for this reason) should not get in the way of the questions that need to be addressed. The recent situation with Dr Beckwith, I should hope, would spur non-Catholics to educate themselves about what the Church means by Magisterium and the various levels of teaching (non-infalliable, defninitive, ordinary, extraordinary, etc.). I’m rather astonished at the paucity of awareness of such theologians as Gaillardetz, Sullivan, Dulles, Grisez, etc., on matters of the Magisterium. On the Catholic side, I must admit that the theology of the Magisterium is not without its problems.

Whatever approach my non-Catholic fellow-believers in Christ have towards the Bible, there is, doubtless, some kind of “magisterium” at work.

Thanks for opening this discussion. It’s a refreshing and fruitful change from the tired, overused diatribes I often read and hear.

Fraternally in Christ,
Matthew

Just a quick comment. I have not really been able to stay up with this, but please understand I appreciate all of your comments.

One thing that I am beginning to realize is that this blog, at least right now, is being used as forum. While I am all for discussion, I don’t want this to be a place to debate or challenge people by calling them out every chance we get.

As well, this is not a quick place to come and post your own blog (as well of writers as many of you are). Friends of RMM have a place for this called Euangelion which can be found at euangelion.wordpress.com.

Neither do I want it to be a place where it seems to be Catholics vs. Protestants. What we are really trying to do is challenge thinking, whether Protestant, Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Yet, our primary audience is going to be Protestant. Being such, we need to be self-critical. It is hard to our own beliefs when those from the outside begin to mount a charge. We quickly find ourselves defending home, rather than cleaning it up.

I don’t want this to sound as if we don’t want the perspective of others at all–we do. But please understand our purpose for Parchment and Pen. It is not YOUR blog, or a forums, or a place to debate each other at every turn. If you need clarification on an issue, that is great. If you want to answer a question posted, great. If you want to discuss with others, great. If you want to challenge the writer of the blog, great. But be careful and respectful of the time of the blogger and the topic of the thread.

Granted, there is only one person who is causing this to spin out of control (and I love that one person ), but as one has said, others are sure to follow the traffic.

I hope you all understand.

With all due respect, Felicity, I have found your arguments to be obscure and your approach to be overly aggressive. Further, I think that the arguments others and I have used (like Michael’s response to you immediately above) are clear and honest. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Felicity, although this is not the subject of this blog AT ALL, your accusations cause me to have to clarify for others what you misreprented completely by not telling the whole story.

For the record, I said that the “closed” canon is simply a phrase we use to describe the fact that God has not been giving any inspired text for the last 2000 years. What I said was that WE did not close the canon if it is “closed,” God did. And being such, if He should so decide, He can add to it. While I don’t expect him to add to it, it is certainly up to Him, not you or the Catholic church.

Please stay to the subject and quit getting so defensive. You are a bright gal, but your rhetoric and defensive attitude will gain no following nor cordial discourse on this blog. This is not a debate and all the issues cannot be covered in one blog. Please stick to the subject. If you don’t agree that you are off subject, that is fine, but you must remember this is a Protestant evangelical blog not Catholic Answers. While we deal with apologetic issues, you still must respect the particular subject of each post.

With all due respect, Dr. Wallace, the Catholic posters here are not “bludgeoning [you] with obscure arguments and demand[ing] that [you] bow to an authority.” We are merely asking you to be honest and back up the claims you make. After all, you fellows here at Parchment and Pen are not merely offering your personal observations—you are “teachers” and “preachers” by virtue of the “Theology Program” that is at the root of this blog site. You assume an authority, and when you do that, you are responsible to be precise and truthful—and you also assume the burden of being challenged on that authority. If you propose to be an authority on the topic of theology, it is only proper that your feet be held to the fire—especially when you are guilty of making heretical claims that can lead people from Faith such as your position on removing texts from Sacred Scripture and Michael’s claim that at some future date the Sacred Scriptures may be added to (from his lecture series linked to elsewhere). I’m fairly certain the Lord Jesus Christ ain’t smilin’ at that!

Folks, I wanted to let this one run by itself without jumping back into the fray too quickly. I find an interesting sociology developing with my blogs, and I suspect it’s just a seasonal thing. Virtually no matter what I write on, there will be some who want to see me trying to divide Catholics and Protestants. Some Catholics and some Protestants are, in fact, pushing the envelope. I guess I’m a little more amazed at Catholics doing this since your claim is that the Protestant Reformation wrecked the unity of the body of Christ (of course, nothing is said about what the Catholics did to the Orthodox to help dissolve that unity a few centuries earlier). Protestants I understand: our very name says we’re contumacious! But bludgeoning us with obscure arguments and demands that we bow to an authority that we don’t recognize is not the way to bring us back into the fold. As Vance said, let’s just agree to disagree on that point.

A second observation is that regardless of the initial topic, it seems to soon spiral out of control and off-topic. I thought this blog was mostly about whether the text of the New Testament was basically reliable and how Protestants have had to modify their doctrinal statements in light of evidence that Catholics supplied. I was actually giving some decent compliments to Catholic scholars for showing some of the weaknesses in the Protestant lines of argument, but one commenter (yes, Felicity, you know who you are!) seemed to think that I was bashing Catholics with my rhetoric. Of course, I also noted several things about how Protestants got a lot of things wrong. I mean, really, any time a Reformed Protestant picks on the Westminster Confession it’s almost tantamount to a Catholic telling the pope he’s a _____ (I’ll let Luther fill in the blanks; he had some juicy ones!). I’m an equal opportunity critic, after all. I just don’t hold to Catholic infallibility or Protestant infallibility. Our history has some terribly troubling things about it—on both sides of the fence. We might as well admit it, because all the non-Christian onlookers already know about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, and Christians killing and persecuting other Christians. I think we’re all messed up sinners who are saved by God’s mercy in spite of ourselves.

But the comments soon escalated or degenerated (depending on your perspective, I suppose) into a battle over what one’s final authority was. Fair enough. It’s good to see you all talking. But, like Michael, I would urge you to show a little more civility and perhaps even to listen to each other a bit.

If I wrote a blog on, say, charismatic Christianity, whether Jesus really changed water into wine, or Christian responsibility toward the environment, I wonder if some of you would see this as some sort of attack on Catholicism or Protestantism. It would be amusing if it weren’t so sad. And I have to suppose that the Lord Christ Jesus is not smiling.

Oh, there would definitely be something wrong that needs to be rectified to the extent possible. The Church is made up of fallible humans, and our understanding will never be complete while here on earth as we see “through a glass darkly” (there is exception in this verse for actually being able to see all clearly during this time). The question would be whether the resolution of the council or consensus would be some kind of binding “you must believe X to be part of the Church” or not. As it is now, I consider myself part of the Church and I can participate in the Church even though I believe differently on many, many doctrines with the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations, and even within the denomination of the church I attend.

Yes, there are inherent problems that arise with this, but I find it preferable to a situation in which fallible humans make dogmatic doctrine and then mandate that belief, for the simple reason that I am not convinced that this is how it was meant to work, and thus am not convinced that such authority exists. This means I simply can’t entrust my theology to an organization that I am not convinced has a mandate to determine that theology. Since you ARE convinced, then it is proper for you to do so.

We would just have to agree to disagree on the issue of what happened at that Council. I think the evidence is that James was the leader of that Church, and even then not considered an exclusive “head”.

Vance,

In the Council of Jerusalem I believe the text in Acts bears a certain argument for a Church authority that few Protestants would even begin to recognize. Acts clearly describes a deliberative process among the Church leaders. Notice, it was Peter, as head of the Church, that got up and spoke — in a sense giving the verdict of the Council, Peter also stated that their decision was guided by the Holy Spirit — in line with Christ’s promise to send the Spirit to always be with and guide the Church. Most Protestant apologists say that James is the one that made the final decision. But, in his role as Bishop of Jerusalem, he was given the privliege of speaking — and all he added was “I agree with Peter’s interpretation because this is what Scripture tells us.” James wasn’t a decider but more of a validater (if that is the right word I want).

Also notice that this passage is an argument against Sola Scriptura. The Judaizers were rightly pointing out that a literal interpretation of scripture and it’s application would call for all new believers to be circumcised. Peter, says the Holy Spirit is showing us a different way now. That particular law no longer applies to the Jews that accept Jesus Christ as messiah (the Christians hadn’t left the synagogue system at this time so it would’ve been very bold of them to overturn an age old law without some divine proof — namely their decision at the Council being ratified by the Holy Spirit).

If the multiplicity of doctrines and beliefs does not bother you, as you claim, why would Christians even have to bother with Councils or church meetings to hash out issues? Having Councils implies that something is wrong and needs to be rectified. This begs the question then of which group would have the authority to call that meeting and why would anybody submit to its authority if the basic rule of thumb had been to believe what you like and interpret how you feel?

ChadS