***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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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

But on the issue of Peter, WAS he the leading of the Church? It seems like there was a plurality in every discussion of leadership (”Apostles and Elders” being used most common, and when names were used, Peter was among the few mentioned) and in the one instance we see anything like a council or synod of the Church, it was James who made the final pronouncement, and even that seems to have then been ratified by “whole Church”. Going on from there, hierarchies and structure slowly developed, but there is no evidence of Rome’s primacy among the Bishops for a good while and even then only in a very limited manner to start off with.

As for “what would have happened”, it is hard to say how things would have progressed with a less centralized and absolute structure. I think there would have been councils of the leaders of the communities and general consensus reached, but that there would still be fringe groups and dissenting segments of the Church body on many issues. I think it would, to some extent look like the Protestant landscape we have now, and I would be perfectly comfortable with that, as “messy” as it may seem. Hard to say, but I really do feel more comfortable with that “organic” and dynamic process than what actually did develop up to the Reformation.

Regardless, the idea still goes back to the idea of acceptance of authority. I think Catholics DO tend to accept the authority in a circular reasoning process, whether they know it or not. They accept the Church’s interpretation of Scripture because the Church has authority to interpret Scripture. And the Church’s interpretation of Scripture IS that it has this authority. How many Catholics really start with an independent analysis of whether that authority exists in the first place?

If Catholics and Protestants talk past each other that is something that needs to be worked on. I think your comments on the term “authority” are accurate. Right there is a problem because we both can use the same words but with different meanings. When we do that any discussions are lost and become fruitless.

I would like to make a few comments on your response to Felicity. I think Protestants tend to view the church as something that solely emanated from the Scriptures. From a Catholic view point it helps to keep in mind that all of Jesus’ teachings, death, resurrection and ascension all occurred before one word of the New Testament was written down. Peter was leading the Christians before anybody recorded Christ’s words to him.

We see the Holy Spirit as working among the earliest Christians to write and record what was happening in those communities. So it doesn’t come as any shock or surprise that the Catholics would claim to find support for their doctrines in Scripture since they would view it as their product.

I also don’t find it to be a stretch to imagine that Christ established things like a Papacy and apostolic succession to protect the teachings he left with his followers. Can you imagine what would’ve happened to Christianity if there wasn’t an authority to protect Christ’s teachings? We would’ve ended up with theological anarchy where the interpretations of the Gnostics enjoyed just as much legitimacy as that of the Arians and the four Gospels would’ve been only a few choices among two dozen or more “gospel” accounts. I don’t think anybody here would have to think too hard to imagine how disastrous that outcome would be. Even among Protestant traditions there is a wide range of interpretations that are quite at odds with each other. Is a theologically diverse and at times mutually exclusive theologic systems something Christ desired for his followers? I sincerely do not believe that to be so.

I can also admit that the Papacy and apostolic succession may not have always existed in the exact forms we know and recognize today. Having said that though the mission of both the Papacy and role of the apostolic succession is still the same. It’s only natural that offices like the Papacy would develop over time. For the first 300 or 400 years of its existence Christians were on the run from persecutions. As the persecutions ended and the Church stabilized and its influence grew of course the office would develop. I suspect over the last few centuries the power of the papacy has actually waned.

To use an American example did George Washington have just as much power as say Bush or Clinton did? I don’t think so but would anyone argue that Washington was any less of a president because he didn’t have those powers? Or would anyone say that perhaps Abraham Lincoln was actually the first president and any attempt to stretch the office of the Presidency back past 1860 is an attempt by 21st century Americans to give credence to what they believe and that perhaps George Washington didn’t really believe in a Constitution or the United States didn’t exist until Lincoln came along. Of course this is ridiculous and nobody would take any arguments like that seriously.

Catholics accept the idea that doctines and institutions can develop over time. However we do not accept that the idea of ongoing revelation — all public revelation ceased at the death of the last Apostle. The Holy Spirit does continue to guide and lead the Church and help it develop and clarify its teachings when and where necessary.

I will look into Kung’s work to see what he has to say. If I remember correctly he had his license to teach at Catholic Universities pulled for his views. Vance, thanks for your thoughtful comments.

ChadS

In short, I believe the evidence shows that the very earliest structure of the Church did not involve the level of hierarchy and centralization of authority we see today, and definitely not a primacy of the Bishop of Rome. These seem to have been growing developments over the course of the first couple of centuries. And the idea of apostolic succession did not seem to be as rigid, formal and legalistic a process as was later developed and then projected backward as if it had been such all along.

I would recommend it regardless of whether you end up agreeing with him, simply to see him lay out the evidence.

Since this is getting somewhat off the subject of the text of the Scripture as Dan’s post originally started, I will post a blog that I have been waiting for some time to post concerning the canon which may help us get to the heart of the matter.

I remind everyone that we must persue this with an irenic tone. There are many posts on this particular blog that take a rather defensive tone and mischaracterize the issues. This will cause people to immediately be turned off, not by your arguments, but by the way your arguments are presented.

Whether you agree with each other or not, let us go out of our way to be respectful and truly deal with the issues.

I think God inspired Paul to write the Epistles and inspired the contents, but I do not think Paul had Authority to make every decision for the operation of the Church, and I do not think everything Paul said in life was inspired by God and the same would go for the Gospel writers, etc. And the Catholic Church would say the same. So, the idea of having faith in limited authority, specific inspiration, and selective “jobs to do” is not something unreasonable in Christianity.

I think part of the problem is that Catholics and Protestants use the word “authority” differently. Catholics tend to view this in a legalistic and very concrete manner, whereas Protestants see it more organically and less “institutional”. I think, I have FAITH that Paul was given authority to preach the gospel and write those letters. I believe and have faith that God directed the early fathers in the collection of the texts of Scripture in the first few centuries. I have FAITH that they were given this specific authority. This is not because they had some general authority over the Church in all areas of doctrine and procedure, etc.

This is where Catholics and Protestants tend to talk past each other. At some point, ALL of us have to take something entirely and wholly on faith when it comes to authority. There is simply not sufficient historical evidence to rely entirely on that for a decision. Catholics swallow the blue pill very early and accept a series of presumptions which form the foundation of their current position:

1. That the Scriptures in Matthew DO indicate that Peter was meant to be “THE” leader of the Church, and not just “A” leader.

2. That this authority was meant to continue throughout his life and on to Rome.

3. That the idea of appointing leaders was meant to be exclusive to the Apostles.

4. That this appointment authority was meant to create an apostolic succession process.

5. That process was meant to create some sort of “magisterium” authority for the Church body.

6. That this magisterium authority was meant to extend to all the areas that the Catholic Church developed it into, including ongoing revelation.

etc, etc. You have to buy into at least the first few of these concepts as a matter of faith and reason and Scriptural interpretation on your own, OUTSIDE of Church authority, and NOT based on the Magisterium and Church teaching, in order to buy into the rest, and accept the full Authority of the Catholic Church. If you say that you accept the Authority of the Church and the Magisterium based on the teaching of the Church and the Magisterium, then you can see that this is entirely circular reasoning.

At some point, there is the individual, on his own, making the decision that, yes, the Church DOES have that authority. At that point, if such an INDEPENDENT decision is made, I would agree that a person should follow the dictates of the Magisterium and accept its interpretation, etc. But there HAS to be a point of independent determination of the validity of that authority, based entirely on faith, reason and interpretation.

So, where does THAT original faith and reason and interpretation come from, since it can NOT come from the Church itself (without there being circular reasoning)? It must come from EACH PERSON, taking responsibility for their faith and making a decision.

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/ttp/about

“If you have ever asked these questions, then this is the program for you:

How do we know what books belong in the Bible? ”

THAT’S the question I’ve been asking! If the Bible is authoritative–the “paper pope” many here claim they believe it to be, I think it’s appropriate for you to reveal how we know those texts are “inspired” and therefore authoritative.

Let me first point out that whether Peter was the Bishop of Rome or not in no way diminishes the authority Christ gave him to lead the Church on earth. Despite your assertion there is plenty of evidence that shows that Peter was indeed in Rome. One example is the letter of 1 Peter is addressed to Christians from Rome — Babylon was an early code word for Rome. Just because the Bible doesn’t say Peter was in Rome neither is there a denial of the fact that he was in Rome — you can not argue a negative where contrary evidence is not present.

You also claim that Apostolic succession wasn’t practiced until the 3rd or 4th centuries and only then to bolster Rome’s claims. That is patently false. There is plenty of examples from the historical record that shows that earliest Christians from the death of the last Apostle onward have held to this idea of succession and have passed on distinctly Catholic understandings of Scripture and tradition. The Protestant assertion that the early Church was more Protestant in it’s theology and somehow went off the rails by the 4th century in favor of Romish inventions is absurd and does serious abuse to the historical record.

Athanasius — Catholics have always been free to study Scriptures on their own. No matter how many times Protestants repeat the old saw that they gave the Bible back to the masses does not make it true. Don’t forget that for a long time after the fall of the Roman Empire Latin remained the language of the literate classes. Also, outside of nobility and clergy the vast majority of people were illiterate and Bible copies were prohibitively expensive for average people to effectively use or own. Wycliffe’s translation of the Bible into English wasn’t condemned because it was in English and somehow dangerous, but because it contained multiple errors which cast doubt on its translations.

Murmex — What horrible things have Catholics done in the past that they aren’t owning up to? I think Catholics have been pretty open about their history and any times they have been evasive about things has more to do with the people in the Church at the time and says nothing about the nature or Christ-given authority of the Church. Have Protestants been free and open about the terrible things done in their history? Where is their ‘mea culpa’? I’m not sure what that sidebar about Catholic history had to do with anything discussed in this thread.

ChadS