The Harmonization of James.

     The Letter of James (the Apostle James pictured above) has a long and fascinating history. Early patristic writers (such as Eusebius) point out that it was not considered apostolic by a minority voice but that in the majority it has always been considered apostolic. But even among the small dissenters the issue was not one of theology but literary or more commonly that it was quoted less often than the other non-disputed NT writings in the earlier patristic fathers. It was not (as with many other things) contested on theological grounds (mainly the so-called problem of Paul's soteriology with James) until the 16th century, most notable with the attack by Martin Luther¹. In many ways Luther is the father of modern biblical criticism in terms of wielding the blade of the critic in one hand and theological bias in the other. He would push sachkritik (content criticism) farther than anyone before based on a theological notion. Luther's descendants were not long to arrive and would innovate many other modes to question James in general and the relationship of James and Paul in particular². All such complaints and detractions I believe can be explained when we understand the intention behind the writing of James. It is not a systematic theological exposition of soteriology but rather is written in a practical fashion. In other words, James is not turning his equipment and venturing to give a detailed point by point systemic definition of soteriology but rather he is interested in the praxis over the outworking of soteriology. 

     It is very likely that the Apostles James and Paul knew each other in person and hence it becomes harder to believe the notion that they were at odds in doctrine. One way around the dilemma has been to argue that James is writing before he met Paul face to face and thus "not understanding Paul's position fully" he writes to counter a faulty understanding of Paul³. But in order to believe this view and entire reconstruction needs to be erected, all built on an immense argument from silence with no early patristic support at all. Another school has held the idea that what James is refuting is not Paul per se, but a group that has either knowingly or not distorted Paul's gospel⁴. In the final analysis, all such mirror readings that have James refuting some misunderstood Pauline teaching stands on shaky ground and it is best to take James at face value and in a plain reading of the texts. Moreover, the most natural understanding of the events surrounding the composition of James is to assume that he was very familiar with "true" Pauline teaching in general and Pauline soteriology in particular. And it is not Pauline teaching he is attacking (since his soteriology is identical to Paul's) but misunderstandings of Pauline theology⁵. 

     Early and unequivocally in the letter, James makes clear his intention in writing; it is an exhortation for his readers to remain steadfast in their faith, for true faith in times of testing produces (1:2-3). The man who remains steadfast throughout life, will thus receive the στεφανον της ζωης, which God has promised to those who love him (1:12). 

 These seemingly works-righteous statements are prefaced in James as also they are in Paul (cf. Rom 2:6-7, 13 / Rom 3:22, 26; et al.) in that they are not of human origin but they are given to us by God as gifts (1:17). It is not of our will but by God's that he has even brought us forward, by the word of truth, first fruits of his creatures (1:18). Man's anger does not produce the righteousness of God (1:20) but rather we are to receive the implanted λογον which saves us (1:21). It is God who has chosen those who are rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom (2:5) the implication being crystal clear that this richness in faith and subsequent eternal life is not of human origin but of God's grace. This indeed sounds a lot like Paul and is a testament that James and Paul were in agreement theologically not at odds. 

It is with all this in mind that we should be doers of the λογου, and not just hearers (1:22). For what good is it if someone says he has faith but does not have these works? Is this a true saving faith? (2:14). For faith by itself without works is a dead faith (2:17). In contrast, James can say that he can show his genuine faith in that he is exemplifying these works in his life (2:18). The classical example in Scripture of this writes James is Abraham, whom Scripture said was counted righteous because he believed (2:23). But was he counted righteous solely on account of this belief? Absolutely not, it was the outworking of this faith through works in Abraham's life that justified him (2:21-22). 

 All this leads to James stating, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (2:24). This summation coupled with all that James has stated before acts as a perfect capstone on the Catholic conception of justification and salvation. It is a full orbed concept that displays  a multi-faceted doctrine. It is a working faith that justifies not a dead faith. Paul and James are not in disagreement either knowingly or unknowingly but are perfectly in line is the Catholic understanding. The great Catholic Bishop of Hippo, Augustine commenting on James 2:5 is completely in line with Paul's stress (and official Catholic doctrine) on God's initiating grace,

 "The Elect were chosen before the foundation of the world in that predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do...to that end, assuredly, which has no end...By Choosing them, therefore, He makes them rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom. Rightly, then, is He said to choose in them that for the making of which in them He chose them." (De praedestinatione santorum liber ad Prosperum et Hilarium primus. 17, 34). 

 In like manner, according to the patristic father Gregory of Nyssa commenting on James 2:17 (and in line with Paul in Romans 3:28) works in and of themselves can never justify a man, they must be coupled with the correct faith,

"Paul, joining righteousness and faith and weaving them together, constructs of them the breastplates for the infantryman, armoring the soldier properly and safely on both sides...For faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation; neither, however, is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith." (Hom. on Eccl). 

This line of thinking continues in one of the most up to date summaries of Catholic doctrine, (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. Doubleday, 1995). First and foremost, salvation is initiated by God's grace,

 "The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt 4:17). Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high." (CCC. 3. 1. 1989. The Catechism here cites Trent in full agreement (DS 1528)). Grace is a completely free undeserved gift from God which helps us respond to his call (CCC. 3. 2. 1996). Citing 1 Cor 2:7-9, the Catechism states that grace depends entirely of God's gratuitous initiative, which surpasses the power of human intellect and will (CCC. 3. 2. 1998). Justification is the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, (CCC. 3. 1. 1991). Justification is merited for us by the life and death of Christ, (CCC. 3. 1. 1992). 

     In agreement now with James and the rest of the New Testament, the Catholic Catechism now stresses the reality of man's role in justification. Justification establishes (through a renewed will) a cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part this involves two things, his very ascent in faith and in his cooperation in works of charity through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, (CCC. 3. 1. 1993, citing Trent, DS 1525). Citing Augustine (In Jo. ev. 72, 3) the Catechism goes on to state beautifully that of all of God's handiwork, justification is the most excellent works of God's love made manifest in Christ Jesus, granted by the Holy Spirit, (CCC. 3. 1. 1994). Citing Augustine again, (De gratia et libero arbitrio, 17; De natura et gratia, 31) the Catechism confidently holds that the preparation for man to even accept grace is already a free gift from grace. Through this preparation we are sustained in our collaboration in justification through faith and sanctification through charity. It is God's work from first to last, since it is God who began to move our will for us even to will to cooperate in the first place as Augustine notes in the citations, (CCC. 3. 2. 2001). Citing Augustine yet again (Confess. 13, 36, and hence displaying the immense role this great patristic father plays in Catholic soteriology), the Catechism states that God free initiative demands man's free response since God has now created in man his image by conferring on him, along with freedom (of the will), the power to know and love Him (CCC. 3. 2. 2002). 

 Hence these works or fruits in the Christian life are a guarantee that grace is at work in us and should spur us on to an ever greater faith and attitude of trustful poverty (CCC. 3. 2. 2005; citing Matthew 7:20). Citing Augustine in full on this point, "You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts" (En. in Ps. 102, 7) the Catechism sets the record straight on the reality that even our works in life are ultimately God's gifts to us as well, we have received everything from Him, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man, (CCC. 3. 2. 2006-07). 

 "The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful." (CCC. 3. 2. 2008). 

 This is the Christian teaching of salvation stemming from Christ our Lord into the writers of the New Testament (in complete harmony with Paul and James) handed down to the patristic fathers (as seen in Augustine) and codified beautifully in Catholic doctrine. It is not salvation by faith alone, with works playing no part whatsoever (other than show evidence of salvation). James makes this crystal clear and the Greek is unmistakable as most modern translations evince. We are not simply declared righteous with Christ's righteousness alone but rather coupled with the declaration we are also made righteous to be presented as the holy and spotless bride of Christ to the Father. This making is not of our own but even this is God's Trinitarian work in us as a free gift. 

 

____________

1. James, according to Luther, did not exemplify Paul's "true" soteriological teaching, namely sola fide and thus was considered inferior.  James "mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture." (Luther's Works. 35, 397). Furthermore, "it is an epistle of straw" (Ibid., 35, 362). Even though James is not a "chief book," Luther nevertheless did not stop anyone from acknowledging James for it's "good sayings." (Ibid., 35, 397). For a deep analysis of Luther's annotations on James see W. Walther, (TSK: 66, 1893). Notice that in the 16th century the Catholic scholar's Erasmus and Cajetan also disputed James apostolic character but on different grounds, linguistic, grammatical, but even when they did they were very respectable paying full homage to the great lineage of Catholic commentators on James, such as Augustine, Jerome and Bede. James soteriology was in full harmonization with Paul writes Erasmus, while Paul has a different context in mind (law of Moses), James is writing in practical terms, concerned about piety and charity, (Annotationes, 1031). For an equally early and point by point response to these objections to James see Robert Bellarmine, (Prima Controversiae Generalis: De Verbo Dei Quatuor Libris Explicata). On early Protestant positions that Paul and James are in harmony see Philip Melanchton, (Loci Communes Theologici, 1559, IX, V, 2, 12); Ulrich Zwingli, (Expositio Fidei, 1531, fol. 14v); Jean Calvin, (James, pp. 314)

2. Such as the view that James as we have it today was never a Christian work at all, rather an original Jewish source that was later hijacked by early Christian scribes and mixed with dominical Christian traditions, (so. F. Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896, pp. 1-239). Or those that hold James as being pseudepigraphical, (Martin Dibelius, (Epistle of James, Fortress, 1976)).  

3. F. C. Baur (Paul, The Apostle of Jesus Christ, Williams & Norgate, 1875) was one of the first modern historico-critical scholars to give a large presentation that James and Paul were at odds on justification. See also; W. M. L. De Wette, (Jakobus, Hirzel, 1847); H. J. Holtzmann, (Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, JCB Mohr, 1897); G. Kittel, (Zeitschrift fur die deutestamentliche Wissenschaft: 41, 1942); Rudolf Bultmann, (Theology of the New Testament, Charles Schribner's Sons, 1955, pp. 2, 131); Werner G Kummel, (Introduction to the New Testament, Abingdon, 1975, pp. 414-16). And more recently Douglas Moo, (James: PNTC, Eerdmans, 2000, pp. 26) has argued that James at the point of composition was unaware of Paul's "true teaching" on soteriology since they had not met yet. So then what James attacks is a misnomer of Paul's actual teaching. But such an explanation opens up a more gruesome can of worms than it seeks to answer. If this were true, it would call into question the very idea of the inspiration of Holy Scripture since it would contain a book (by an inspired Apostle) attacking a true misunderstanding that he held of the doctrine of another inspired Apostle (Paul). Simply stating that this is because they have not met yet is dancing around the question for even if James was written prior to their physical meeting it is very likely that he has been given a detailed theological account of the "true" Pauline teaching. 

4. J. A. Bengel (Gnomon Novi Testamenti, 1773) gave the best expression of this view in the 18th century. But even Bengel defended the harmonization between James and Paul, (ad loc.) 

5. In fact the view which holds James and Paul in tension or misunderstanding has been aligned by a host of modern commentaries, a few examples from a wide range of theological traditions; A. Neander, (James Practically Explained, 1850); H. Ewald, (Jakobus Rundschreiben, Dieterich, 1870), W. Beyschlag, (Jakobus, 1882); T. Zahn, (Introduction to the New Testament, 1897);  are but a few early examples. Usually Catholic commentators defend the theological harmony between Paul and James while it is Protestant commentators that are the usual suspects that deny this and give alternate explanations.

 

"Is Rome the True Church?" Final Comments.

 It has become clear that this work by Geisler and Betancourt is not a serious exegetical or historical examination of Roman Catholicism. At best it is a popular level diatribe which merely copies poor Protestant polemical (mis)understandings of both Catholic doctrine and suffers from severe selective misrepresentation of both the patristic evidence and Catholic decrees and theologians of the past. This work does not progress the discussion of Catholic shortcomings at all by not seriously engaging (any) secondary literature of decades on ecumenical dialogue by some of the best and brightest thinkers on both sides of the issues. 

 Is Rome the True Church? Stands as a classic example of how not to examine a theological system by not doing your homework, merely restating popular misconceptions, misrepresentation and selective citing. If such a paper such as this would be presented at any serious scientific peer reviewed journal or academy it would be laughed at or more likely not given the chance to be presented at all, an apologetical diatribe written by amateurs in the field they are supposed to be critiquing. 

 This post concludes my review of this book. 

 

John Henry Newman, New Edition!

 What a find, what a gem. Posted as the definitive work on the life of John Henry Newman by one of my favorite Catholic scholars, Avery Dulles. I cannot wait to sink my teeth into this one.

"A High View of Scripture?" Book Review.

 The book is,  A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon, published by Baker 2007 and written by Dr. Craig D. Allert¹ It has been positively reviewed by some close friends of mine but I have not had the time to get to it, until now. 

 In a nutshell, this is perhaps the single best work I have ever read from a Protestant perspective on such touchy issues as the formation of Scripture, the relationship of tradition to Scripture in the early Church (and the Regula Fidei) and most importantly how much of todays Evangelicals have misunderstood and misinterpreted the raw data of history and the patristic fathers. I cannot recommend this book highly enough for a balanced and fair examination of these tuff issues. 

 Dr. Allert represents a growing group of Protestant scholars² that are putting tradition (the fathers) back into Protestantism, just as the original (non radical) Protestant Reformers envisioned. Allert is especially one to follow since he is completely at home with all the issues and the secondary literature. 

 Allert's other works are - Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation: Studies in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, published by Brill, 2002.

As well as Allert's informative entry on sola Scriptura and tradition in Evangelical Quarterly 76 which can be read on line here. 

Bravo for sane Protestant scholarship. 

_________

1. Dr. Allert is chair of religious studies at Trinity Western University, Langley B.C.  

2. Such as among others, Christopher Hall, Lee McDonald, D. H. Williams, Stephen Holmes, Kenneth Tanner, et al. 

 

  

"Is Rome the True Church?" p. 4

 Tonight we continue an examination of the first argument against Catholicism from Geisler and Betancourt which consists of seven points at refuting the quickly emerging episcopal form of Church governance in the early Christian communities. 

 "Fourth, considering the attacks on Christianity at the time, there was a strong motivation to develop an ecclesiology that would provide a united front against the divergent heretical groups emerging. This motivation is reflected in Irenaeus's emerging episcopal view of church government, a view that, ironically, did achieve a more mature form in Cyprian who himself warned against basing something on tradition, not truth." (p. 10-11)

Again this line of argumentation is really frustrating to rebut since the logic is manifestly circular and falls under it's own weight when closely scrutinized. Firstly - the point that the episcopal government was a "united front against heresy" proves the exact point that Geisler is trying to refute. For our Lord Christ knowing perfectly what would befall the early fledgling Church (namely heretical and schismatics attacks from all sides) promised to guard the Church both in her infancy and throughout, συντελειας του αιωνος, as Matthew makes clear (28:20). In fact in this Matthean text Christ in a context of doctrinal transmission and education, "διδασκοντες...τηρειν παντα...ενετειλαμην" makes clear He will remain with the Church during the course of this doctrinal codification. During the difficult times of debate and discussion, Christ being Lord of the Church remains with us, steadily guiding us as has been readily apparent throughout the Catholic Councils such as Ephesus, Chalcedon, Nicea, etc. This very point is made in Matthew as well (18:18-20). Not only Matthew but the Apostle John is privy to this (John 16:13). However in John's Gospel it is the Holy Spirit who guides the early Church into all understanding. We will be guided into αληθεια παση it is promised. Protestant NT scholar Craig Keener in his massive commentary on John makes the following notations on the meaning of the Johannine text,

 "Since Jesus as the agent of the Father is wholly to be trusted and to repudiate Jesus is to repudiate the one who sent him, to repudiate the Spirit's representation of Jesus is to repudiate Jesus himself. In other words, the Spirit is viewed as the agent of  Jesus active in and through the community." The Gospel Of John. V.2, p. 1039. 

 What is clear is that John is unmistakably claiming guardianship of the early Church by the Holy Spirit into doctrinal truth. (For in depth defenses that John is specifically speaking about guardianship on Church doctrinal decisions, see for example L. J. Lutkemeyer, "The Role of the Paraclete: Jn 16:7-15." CBQ 8; H. B. Swete, The Last Discourse and Prayer of Our Lord: A Study of St. John XIV.-XVII.) 

Evangelical commentator D. A. Carson in his entry on John in the Pillar New Testament Commentary Series is as always a model of sober exegesis and clear thinking. After rejecting a strict futuristic interpretation of τα ερχομενα (as referring to eschatological events in the future) and also rejecting a wholly marginal interpretation that holds that these revelatory events only had to do with things that the Apostles were to experience in the first century, Carson remarks,

 "what is yet to come refers to all that transpires in consequence of the pivotal revelation bound up with Jesus' person, ministry, death. resurrection and exaltation. This includes the Paraclete's own witness to Jesus, his ministry to the world (16:8-11) primarily through the church (15:26, 27)...under the inbreaking kingdom, up to and including the consummation." (p. 540)

 Hence it is clear that the promises given to us by the Triune God in the New Testament concerning doctrinal protection for the Church remain strong, clear and valid. Geisler to his own folly thinks this is a drawback but on the contrary, the Church was unanimous in it's consideration of an episcopal system of Church government for it's own protection, surely taking the promises of the New Testament seriously, it is easy to understand why God would protect His Church in this way. Geisler is further confused when he says that this emerging episcopal view of church government was "Irenaeus' view" and that it "matured" in Cyprian and that in fact Cyprian himself warned us not to base things on tradition but rather truth. The episcopalian understanding was not a construct of Irenaeus' imagination but it is a verifiable fact that earlier fathers held and defended it (such as Ignatius and Clement of Rome). It did not mature with Cyprian at all but was already mature and stable as early as the first century as the letters of Ignatius make clear. The final assertion that Cyprian warned against tradition is simply absurd and I have shown Cyprian's true understanding of Tradition (one in line and uniformity with the patristic fathers en toto) in part 2 of my review of Geisler's book. 

 In conclusion we have seen that yet again Geisler and Betancourt are far from hitting their mark. On the flipside, a well written and deep philosophical treatise on the weaknesses of Protestantism is The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, by Louis Bouyer. 

Another Feschrift for Dunn?

 I was just told by a friend that another feschrift for Jimmy Dunn has been announced by McKnight and company. The first was, The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn, published by Eerdmans, 2004. James Dunn is famous for taking E. P. Sanders view that Paul misunderstood Jewish soteriology in the first century as a works-righteous system to a more logical coherence (and less attribution of error on the part of Paul). This site 

is a list of the various issues that surround this "New perspective." 

 There is a two volume set, Justification and Variegated Nomism, which is written by a wide spectrum of scholarship that tackles headlong the shortcomings of this New Perspective school. 

 This new group of essays on Dunn should be an interesting read.

  

"Is Rome the True Church?" p. 3

     So we have shown in part 1 through a faulty exegesis of 3 John 9 that Geisler and Betancourt were far from proving their case that the Apostle John rejected an emerging episcopal system. Furthermore, in part 2 they also failed in (mis)citing Cyprian to cast smoke on the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Let us now continue examining the third point (out of seven) that they use to show that the authoritarian papal system was an erroneous cancer that grew into the Church as time unfolded.

"Third, by the mid-second century, almost a century after most apostles had died - they very time that even apocryphal gospels were emerging - the church embraced a more unorthodox authoritarian structure. Indeed, Irenaeus, writing decades after the time of the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (c. AD 140), spoke of an emerging episcopal form of government. So there was plenty of time for false views to emerge, even among those who were otherwise orthodox." (p. 10)

Again this is poor argumentation and a mistreatment of the historical data. Geisler throws in two references to apocryphal writings for no apparent reason other than to confuse the already confused reader. Surely this tactic is to bring in the idea that the "later" episcopal system was somehow in tandem with the apocryphal and hence unorthodox wings of the Church. But simply saying it (and in this case indirectly saying it) far from proves the point and I simply point the reader to any one of the myriad of responsible works on Patrology or Patristics (even Protestant such as Early Christian Doctrine by J. N. D. Kelly) to prove that the early patristic fathers were uniformly against unorthodox apocryphal writings (such as the Gospel of Thomas) that Geisler cites. 

The second ploy that Geisler attempts is to paint a picture that immense time has now already passed between the pristine time of the Apostles and the later darker time of the first fathers and the nebulous growth of the episcopal system. Again this is nothing new and an old argument that has been used by countless heretical and schismatic groups against the historic position throughout the centuries. What they (and Geisler) fail to mention is the reality that the entire world wide universal Christian Church so quickly adopted this system as coming down from the very Apostles and Christ Himself. All the fathers are unanimous on this episcopal form of Church governance, some even claim that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself in carrying on this form as pristine and apostolic (cf. the Letter's of Ignatius, esp. to the Philadelphians. 7, 1-2). What Geisler fails to mention is the promise of the Holy Spirit that he will guide the early Church into all truth and thus to argue that He led the entire Church astray in such an early and formative stage (that would remain in place for nearly two thousand years) in the very heart of her system (the ecclesiastical governmental form). What Geisler fails to mention is that there is no rival system spoken of at all by the early fathers. There is no Presbyterianism, Congregational, Baptist, or Independent systems held by anyone at all. This is impossible if in fact some early Apostles / Christians would have supported because then there would have been at least some degree of debate and discussion on what was the truest pristine form of Church governance. The fact of the matter is that there is none, all the fathers and early writers are in agreement, the episcopal system is the single system that was handed down by the Apostles and by the Holy Spirit as He illuminated their minds with this reality. 

 None of these deeper issues are even touched upon by Geisler. And again I ask is this a  responsible and a fair presentation of the immense issues that are involved? Absolutely not. Already and at the very start of Geisler's attempt at an expose of Roman Catholicism I am very disappointed. It is clear this small work is not the apex of a Protestant cooperative effort at a clear and sober minded presentation of the issues on Roman Catholicism, for that we will have to continue waiting. In the meanwhile if the reader is interested in a robust but fairer presentation of these particular issues (Church governance in the early Church, which system is the correct one) see, Who Runs the Church? 4 Views on Church Government, published by Zondervan 2004. The episcopal form is presented by the Protestant Anglican Peter Toon who I consider one of the most cogent thinkers of Protestantism of the twentieth century. His philosophical argument is streamline to the extreme - using the clear evidence of history to prove his point. 

"Is Rome the True Church?" p. 2

 So we have seen in our first part of this review that the first biblical passage that Geisler and Betancourt chose in order to rebut Catholicism, namely 3 John 9 was atrociously handled and failed to make their point. Now let us continue with their case against Roman Catholicism.

Let me cite in full their second point (2 of 7) that they cite to refute Catholicism,

"Second, if false traditions could spring up even during the time of the apostles, it is easy to see how quickly they could spread once there was no apostle to squelch them... And written transmission, such as it exists in Scripture and other writings based on it, is the only reliable source we have of apostolic teaching. Indeed even Cyprian, (d. AD 258), who later failed to heed his own wisdom, said, "Hence, it is in vain that some who are overcome by reason oppose to us custom, as if custom were greater than truth" (Epistles, 72.13). He added, "Custom without truth is the antiquity of error" (73.80)" (p.10).

Now let us exam this confused statement point by point. First, as I have shown in response to the ridiculous handling of 3 John 9, Geisler has far from proven his point that John was attacking false tradition and false ecclesial offices. The general idea that is often repeated by Protestant apologists that the One True Church of Christ fell into darkness and heresy early on is the clarion call throughout the centuries of heretics and schismatics against the historic Catholic Church. It was the argument that Mani used against Augustine, it is the argument that Harnack used against conservative Catholic scholars, it is the argument that Jehovah's Witnesses use against Catholics today. This is simply the pinnacle of desperation. The Catholic Church is the only Christian wing that does not employ this argument, all others must fall into this cat and mouse game, we (being the historic Church) fell into darkness, they, (Marcion, Novatian, Montanus, Mani, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Charles T Russel, Joseph Smith, Chuck Smith) have now re-discovered the ancient first century pristine church. 

 Next Geisler cites Cyprian in another often used sham by Protestants in using Catholic Bishops to bolster specific Protestant doctrines. This is an old trick and we are used to it and can easily expose it by now. Protestant apologist William Webster is notorious for this as Steve Ray has exposed time and time again in his writings such as Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church, published by Ignatius 1999. So I am surprised that Geisler would still fall in this trap. The Patristic Fathers are unanimous in their understanding of the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. They are equally authoritative for faith and morals for the Christian, one not being a Lord over the other. The modern novelty that Scripture alone is our sole guide for faith and morals is unheard of in the ancient Church among the orthodox writers. Only the early heretics and schismatics would bite and cling to Scripture alone, usually twisting it like a wax nose. That is exactly why the Fathers held Tradition so strongly, it was a guide, a rule, to measure claims against the orthodox position. Is it even necessary to cite the Fathers on this? For the sake of clarity here is but a small sample that makes this clear,

 Papias the ancient Bishop of Hierapolis makes clear he even gives greater weight to oral Tradition than writings since the margin of error of misunderstanding is much lower since you are hearing doctrines from their very mouths, "...I do not delight in those who talk a great deal, but in those who teach the truth...in those who relate the commandments given by the Lord to the faith, and which are derived from Truth itself... it did not seem to me that I could get so much profit from the contents from books as from a living and abiding voice" (apud Eusebius Church History. 3, 39, 3-4, Cf. Clement of Rome Dial. 80, 30). Irenaeus can say that the oral  Tradition that is handed down in the Catholic Church secures its authenticity, Contra Heresies. 3, 3, 1-2. He goes on to say that throughout the then known world in all the dialects and tribes it is the authority of the oral Tradition in the Catholic Church that validates its place as the one and only Church of Christ, ibid. 1, 10, 2, cf. 5, 20, 1. This following quote also found in Irenaeus Contra Heresies is one of my favorite to refute the fantasy called sola scriptura,

 "What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of Tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted their churches" 3, 4, 1, cf. 4, 33, 8. Such a statement would have never been uttered by a sola scriptura man of any stripe in the ancient Church. 

 According to Clement of Alexandria the oral Tradition of the Church is directly passed on from the Apostles themselves and it is a divine safeguard for the Church, Misc. 1, 1. Origen warns his readers that many of the heretics and schismatics of his day lay claim to the title of true church. Against them he notes, the Catholics can point to their oral Tradition which proves their authenticity, Fundamental Doctrines. 1, 2. Tertullian is clear, the oral Tradition and the written Epistles of the Church are the twin points of the spear against the attacks of the heretics, De praesc. haer. 21, 3-7. Athanasius agrees, if a man does not follow the oral Tradition of the Catholic Church he has no right to call himself a Christian, ad Serapion. 1, 28. In the next sentence Athanasius calls Tradition the very foundation of the Church. The great historian Eusebius writes that in the Fathers is encapsulated the very oral Tradition of the apostles themselves, Church History. 4, 21. For Cyril of Jerusalem it is the oral Tradition of the Holy Catholic Church that stands as a witness against the contradictory positions of the heretics, Catecheses. 18, 1. 

 Let Basil of Caesarea refute Norman Geisler and the novelty of sola Scriptura,

"Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we posses from written teaching and others we receive from the Tradition of the Apostles... in respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospels in its vitals" De Spiritu. sanctum. 27, 66, Cf. the other great Cappadocian, Gregory Nyssa which concurs, Oratio catechetica magna. 3, 4. 

Epiphanius of Salamis also destroys sola scriptura, "It is needful also to make use of Tradition, for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down somethings in Scripture other things in Tradition" Adversus haereses panarium. 61, 6. Cf. Chrysostom whose idea of the relationship of Scripture and Tradition is identical to that of Epiphanius, Hom. Sec. Thess. 4, 2, see also the same exact sentiment of Vincent of Lerins, Notebooks, and also Augustine, Epistulae ad Janaurius. 54, 1, 1. 

 Besides all these let us know consider the Catholic Bishop Cyprian of Carthage that Geisler chose to cite to bolster his argument (against the Catholic concept of Tradition). In contrast to the bleak picture Geisler paints of Cyprian, (one that would have the unsuspecting reader believing that Cyprian held to a sola scriptura notion and a downplaying of Tradition) Cyprian writes against some that were mistreating the Catholic conception of the Eucharist in his day,

 "I wonder indeed, whence this practice has come, that, contrary to the evangelic and apostolic Tradition, in certain places water alone, which cannot signify the Blood of Christ, is offered in the cup of the Lord" Letter to Cecil. 63, 9. Here Cyprian makes clear that the doctrinal acid test is measured against Tradition. In his Letter to Clergy and Laity of Spain. 67, 5, Cyprian makes clear that ecclesiastical matters must be decided on the basis of "divine Tradition" which is indeed observed in all the provinces. In his Letter to Stephen of Rome Cyprian argues that Novatian's usurpation of an ecclesiastical office is null and void, because going against "apostolic Tradition" he has self-elected himself not being in valid succession, 69, 3. Concerning the text that Geisler cites found in Cyprian's Letter to Quintus, Bishop of Mauretania, he fails to give any indication of understanding the background of the letter, the issue that Cyprian is combating, namely the validity of baptism outside the Church. Some argue that baptism done by heretics is valid and this they base on some perceived ancient customs. But they are wrong argues Cyprian, 

"But if he that comes from the heretics was not first baptized in the Church, but comes entirely as a profane stranger, he must be baptized in order to become a sheep; for in the Holy Church is the one water which makes sheep... One must not object however, on the grounds of custom; rather, one must overcome by reasoned argumentation" would be a better citation in context that makes Cyprian clear on what he is trying to convey. 

 In conclusion, again Geisler has failed in his second point at a refutation of the "papal authoritative system" with a gross inaccurate citation of a patristic Father to bolster his (mis)reading of history. Thus far I am sadly disappointed in Geisler's treatment of Roman Catholicism.

 

     

A Review of "Is Rome the True Church?" part 1.

  Is Rome the True Church? is the new book by evangelical apologist Norman Geisler and fellow apologist Joshua Betancourt published by Crossway 2008. In a slim 232 pages these two Protestant writers promise to unmask the fallacy of Roman Catholic assertions. Is this bold claim then a modern day literary example of David slaying the goliath? Or is it closer to yet another sad diatribe by fringe schismatics re-hashing dead arguments that have effectively been put to rest by Catholic scholars centuries ago? Betancourt I am unfamiliar with but Geisler I have read and I had high hopes of at least a decent philosophical challenge (in contrast to the farce Roman Catholicism which I began reviewing below but was filled with so much inaccuracy, straw man argument and misrepresentation on almost every line that I could not bring myself to waste anymore time on). 

The very fist passages of this book nearly caused me to throw it in the trash, exasperated, fearing another set of rambling chapters misleading readers unaccustomed to the sensitive issues involved,

 "While thousands of Catholics have converted to Protestant evangelicalism, strangely, a "number of evangelical intellectuals have gone the other way, deciding that 'Rome is home.'"...While the trade-off numbers significantly favor evangelicalism, one still wonders why some evangelicals see greener grass on the other side of the ecclesiastical fence." -p. 7

 And so starts the "irenic" evaluation of Roman Catholic claims by this dynamic duo. But surely Geisler would cite some evidence of this solid claim? None is given. Moreover, these what I deem cheap numbers game can be turned on evangelicals which much more force than they give. For surely our Protestant friends are aware that the Roman Catholic Church not only is the oldest organization of Western civilization but also boasts the most adherents (1 billion plus) world-wide far ahead of any other Christian branch of the church. Therefore, it stands to reason based on mathematics alone that even granting a few thousand Catholics falling away into Protestantism this, "number of evangelicals" that are joining Rome is far more crippling to their smaller overall numbers in relation to the whole. But now I digress, let us consider the main points of the book starting with chapter 1, "The Roman Claim to be the True Church."

     It is claimed that the "authoritarian papal hierarchical structure" took a long time (centuries in the making) to develop, in contrast to the simplicity and "self-governing independent New Testament churches." (p.10). Seven points of proof are presented;

 1. They posit the old argument that Diotrephes as mentioned in 3 John 9 represents "the seeds of an episcopal form of government" that was beginning to emerge already in the first century, which was spreading "false tradition" concerning some of Jesus' logia sayings, a type of ecclesial system says Geilser and Betancourt that John quickly refuted. (p.10). The problems with this theory are immense and it is poorly handled by Geisler. To begin with there is an enormous debate raging in critical scholarship on not only what the position of this Diotrephes was in the early Church but how did it relate to the author John? At least seven major camps have been identified all complete with their champions. None of this critical background to the issue is even suggested by Geisler on the poor unsuspecting reader. He simply confidently asserts that his particular view must be correct (with no exegesis given at all). In fact this particular view is at least as old as the liberal scholar Harnack (Uber den dritten Johannesbrief, TU 15 in 1897.) In response to this particular view, it must explain why if the Apostle John clearly refuted this "error" did it basically gain world-wide dominance a few decades after the Apostle penned this letter, a "corrupt system" most impressively defended by Ignatius of Antioch? Did the early Church leaders ignore the Apostles warning? Did they have some deep dark hidden agendas? Such chicanery surely belong in the annals of Hollywood rather than history. Or how about the uniform Church view that even saw the Apostle John as being an episcopal president over his group of Bishops in Asia Minor? (such as The Muratorian Fragment, Jerome, Augustine, to name but a few.)  

     What Geisler conveniently leaves out are the other explanations that have been defended in the scientific literature on Diotrephes and his quarrel with John. Such as the view which holds Diotrephes as representing a charismatic emergence within the leadership at his particular congregation. The Apostle John it is stated actually represents the organized and structured ecclesiastical response to this independent, free and chaotic intrusion. Another position represented by Schnackenburg (Der Streit zwischen dem Verfasser von 3Joh und Diotrephes und verfassungsgeschichtliche Bedeutung, MTZ 4) is that Diotrephes does not represent any kind of ecclesiastical office but rather with money and influence he sways the Johannine community into his large home and tries to buy his way in as official teacher. John then in this view represents the official bearers of Tradition and rebukes Diotrephes. Yet another camp argues that Diotrephes represents the anti-Christian secessionists. There is still Kasemann and his co-horts that argue that Diotrephes is actually in the right, representing the Catholic position and that the author John was a proto-Gnostic excommunicated for heresy! Or what of the view of Hilgenfeld ZWT 41 written just as early as Geisler's Harnack theory that argues that Diotrephes represents an early Jewish Christianity which was rejected by the more gentile inclusive John.  There is still to be considered the view of perhaps the most comprehensive commentary ever written on the Epistles of John that of Raymond Brown in the Anchor Bible series (p. 738). After an exhaustive discussion of the issues he rejects all of the above views as lacking any credibility and argues that Diotrephes did in fact host a large house-church for the Johannine community but he does not reach for any kind of ecclesial position whatsoever. Yet the secessionists by this time are raging throughout Asia Minor and both Diotrephes and John reject them. But while John as he makes clear in 2 John asks his readers to avert giving time to these schismatics in their homes Diotrephes goes to the extreme rejecting all missionaries of any kind in his house church in the hopes of steering any pollution. In making this decision though Diotrephes has effectively bypassed the ecclesiastical leaders of the church and has positioned himself over them, illegally. This is the move that is attacked by John.

     All of this however is missed by the reader of Geisler's diatribe. Instead we are given plain bland assertions that must be taken at face value. 

 Part 1 of a series.

Anxiety and the Economy.

 It seems that every morning the reports on the economy are getting worse and worse. Horrendous reports about men killing their families are on the increase, stress, anxiety, worry, psychotropic drugs are no doubt at an all time high. At my company there has been forty lay offs and I might be on the chopping board by the end of the year. People are describing this time as a desperate time, where they feel a sense of drowning or falling into a hole of darkness and despair. 

     Today in my daily reading of Sacred Scripture the wonderful words of Paul rang with a breath of fresh air in my ears,

 "do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." Philip 4:6-7. 

     What words of wisdom and comfort in a perilous time! Paul here is echoing the Apostolic Tradition that handed down the teaching of Jesus in Mat 6:25-34 as well as Lk 12:22-32. We, being children of the Kingdom of God - need not worry about earthly possessions, earthly cares or earthly worries, since these are but transient and none will carry over into our eternal existence. We are in direct opposition to the attitude of those in the flesh. For to them today is all you got, so live while you can, party it up, and cross your fingers you don't lose your job. 

 Our hope and trust is utterly different. We are to set our complete and total trust in the Lord. en pantu Paul says, hymon ta aitemata gnorizestho pros ton theon. In consequence, we acquire a complete eirene tou theou he hyperechousa panta noun. It is this realization that we are taken care of that thanksgiving pours out of our hearts. The Greek of thanksgiving is eucharistias, where we as Catholics derive our word Eucharist, the ultimate form of thanksgiving and dependance on the grace of God as Irenaeus said. Those in the world do just the opposite, lost and desperate "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." Rom 1:21. Our hearts on the contrary Paul writes in Philippians will be guarded. 

Memorize this passage of Sacred Scripture and comfort those in your lives that feel they are drowning.