Vicar of Jesus Christ?

[BobRyan]

Gal 1:6-9
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (APOSTLES), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

And of course we know what Paul was teaching 2000 years ago - -because we can "read" the Bible where Paul's teaching is found in his own letters to the church.

Paul does not merely say "THOSE guys who claim to be APOSTLES" but rather he says 'WE" Apostles. Paul is holding himself - as a first-order primary Apostle in the NT - to this rule.

3 of 3:

Galatians 1:6-9

Response: A Catholic affirms every word of this and every other Scriptural passage in the Bible, rightly understood. In order to appeal to this verse to substantiate your position, there are certain things you must presume about competing positions, namely, that they preach “another Gospel.”

One does not have to read the text assuming that the RCC is in error - to get the point. We do not assume Paul is in error when he writes it - even though he insists that the rule applies to himself as well.

The ONLY way we can hold ALL Apostles to that rule - even Paul -- is to accept the Bible as the word of God and read it - and judge them against it.

But if your “version” of the Gospel was reached mistakenly (and is thus false to some degree), are you in a position to, by comparative analysis, deem other “versions” of the Gospel false?

A. you frame your rebuttal as an "argument with the text" when you say it that way. Are you sure you want to do it.

B. you distort the text to 'assume' that Paul is saying "make up a gospel of your own - then judge Apostles and Angels against it" -- rather Paul appeals to the objective standard of scripture - and even Peter admits that in the NT - Paul's letters were being accepted as continued - "scripture". But nobody was writing words like "the only scripture we have - is what Paul just wrote today". No NT author claims such a thing.

C. Paul's instruction cannot be followed at all - using your rule of the form "you don't actually understand anything correctly so you cannot read this text and do what Paul is saying"

Once again, you’re begging the question. You’re presuming the validity of your understanding of things when your understanding of things is the very thing in question which has yet to be demonstrated through Scripture or anything else.

Here again you circle back to your own doctrine of "you don't understand anything so you cannot do as Paul commands you to do -- judging Apostles and even Angelic teaching" -- which I think everyone here would agree - is not a doctrine of the "Baptist Herbert". So we are again left asking "how in the world did the Baptist Herbert ever come to oppose Paul in Gal 1 and suppose that he could not do what Paul commanded"?

So without having demonstrated the point, you’re presuming that your position (that the Catholic Church teaches “another Gospel.”) is true.

None of my posts argue that a specific Catholic teaching needs to be found to be in error in order to accept and follow Paul's teaching in Gal 1:6-9 -- other than the teaching that opposes sola scriptura testing of all doctrine - as Paul also requires in this chapter.

Only if such a conclusion has already been reached is your appeal to St. Paul’s words here even remotely addressing the question of Sola Scriptura

I fail to see how you are getting to that conclusion.

 

[herbert]

I of X

Hello, DHK, you asked that I read Dr. Geisler’s article. I have done that. Here is my response. Please know that I strive to sound polite and courteous. Sometimes, though, it’s hard to ensure that the right tone comes through to a reader. So please be assured of my goodwill toward Dr. Geisler!


His article begins: As convincing as these arguments may seem to a devout Catholic, they are devoid of substance. As we will see, each of the Roman Catholic arguments against the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura fails, and they are unable to provide any substantial basis for the Catholic dogma of an infallible oral tradition.


Response: First of all, there’s not just one “Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura.” There are many. The “doctrine” in question provides the springboard by which people jump off in any and every doctrinal direction. From Unitarians, to Marcionites, from Westboro Baptist to my friend’s Baptist friend who’s come to reject everything St. Paul wrote, the “doctrine of sola Scriptura” is simply not one objective thing which leads to an essential unity among its adherents. Further, a member of the Christian Reformed denomination will hold to a number of doctrines which you, DHK, reject on account of your many Baptist “refinements.” And the fact that Norman Geisler is engaged in on-going conflicts concerning the fundamental nature of grace and justification with a Bible teacher such as James White such as this one (http://vintage.aomin.org/CBFRep2.html) while both men claim to be following the doctirine of Sola Scriptura seriously calls into question the validity of the doctrine to which both men appeal.


The article continues: Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?

Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.


Response:

1) It is true that “many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly” present in the Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity being one such case. But I’d like to stress the importance of Dr. Geisler’s use of the word “necessary” here. For in such cases, the the contents of Scripture are still two separate things. There is, on the one hand the actual words of Scripture (1) and then there is, on the other hand, the “mind” of the interpreter (2). And what’s fundamental to his argument here is not the actual content of Scripture, but the second of the two things at work here: the “mind” of the interpreter. For it just so happens that what is or what is not recognized as “necessary” has everything to do with the public and objective status of the individual or community of faith who is going about the business of interpreting the Scripture. So it is that Dr. Geisler reads the Scripture and considers a “necessary logical deduction” to be, for example, the doctrines many refer to as “Total Depravity” and “the Perseverance of Saints.” Meanwhile, another man with a Ph.D, a Reformed Baptist himself, walks away from the Scriptures, and with John Calvin, affirms all Five Points of Calvinism and deems them each “necessary logical deductions” from Scripture. The problem here, though, lies in that word “necessary.” For neither Dr. White nor Dr. Geisler has an upper hand over the other. One recognizes some doctrines as necessary logical deductions and the other identifies another set. Already, then, in the first three sentences of the article, Dr. Geisler has revealed the Achilles’ Heel of Sola Scriptura.


2) Dr. Geisler’s final sentence, which reads “Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.” Speaks only to the mere possibility of something. What is he saying? Is he imagining some sort of “binding possibility”? The fact that this statement represents some of the groundwork that Dr. Geisler is laying as a foundation for his article reminds me of my comment to both of you above in which I state that the best you have to offer, as far as your understanding of Sola Scriptura is concerned, is an “opinion.”


The article continues: Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice.


Response:

1) This is a rather ambiguous way of referring to the status of the Scriptures. If they’re formally and explicitly teaching everything one needs to know, then why doesn’t Dr. Geisler just say so? Why does he say that the Bible “does teach implicitly and logically” that it is the only basis for “faith and practice” only to suggest that it may also do so “formally and explicitly”? Which one is it?

2) I want to focus in upon one word here. Dr. Geisler has carefully placed the word “alone” here in his claim. I want to focus upon that because it is central to the question as to whether or not the doctrine of Sola Scriptura stands or falls.


The article continues: This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient.


Response:

1) This claim represents a non sequitur. Just as you, DHK and BobRyan, have made similar claims, which I’ve described as non sequiturs, so does Dr. Geisler’s conclusion not follow from its premises. If a Detroit Piston walked into the room and I introduced him as a genuine Detroit Piston would the fact that he is an authentic Detroit Piston indicate that he is the only such athlete in the Universe? Certainly not. And the mere acknowledgment and recognition of the fact that the Scriptures are God-breathed in no way demands that we conclude that they are thus, as a logical corollary, understood to operate alone.

2) For it isn’t by a stubborn and willful insistence that the Church calls upon Christians to acknowledge Sacred Tradition. Our understanding of the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition could be, on some level, understood as an analogue between the Lord (the Divine Logos) and the Apostles themselves (the Community of Hearers and Witnesses). A measured recognition of the role of Sacred Tradition is, far from being the result of a corrupt Church’s desperate attempt to cling to temporal power, something that flows naturally from a recognition of the relationship between a reader and a text or the Deposit of Faith, and the moral agency of that community of people which has come to receive it and live it out.

3) Further, for the reasons described by John Henry Newman above, Dr. Geisler is wrong. Further, I’ve read a host of modern Catholic responses which acknowledge that St. Paul’s writing, even during those days, were already regarded as Scripture. But the identification of some New Testament letters as Scripture, though, is not the sticking point here. As St. Paul describes things to Timothy, all Scripture, as I said above, is profitable to teach, reprove, correct, and instruct. Again, though, according to the text here, these qualities are ascribed to “all Scripture.” That means, Psalm 23, for example is “God-breathed” and is “profitable” all of the things St. Paul states. St. Paul’s words, though, aren’t addressing the question of Canonicity, however. Neither are his words addressing the role of those who exercise various roles in the Church according to its divine constitution.

4) Finally, this passage says nothing about Scripture alone or the “Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.” It says things about Scripture. But as far as Sola Scriptura goes, it suggests no such thing.


The article continues: This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition.


Response: No, it doesn’t. It does not “fly in the face” of Catholic teaching any more than the fact that many 1st Century Jews didn’t recognize Christ demonstrates the idea that He wasn’t God in the flesh. Scripture is God-breathed. Christ is God. The fact that these two things aren’t obvious to every person in the world doesn’t indicate otherwise. And the fact that the Ethiopian Eunuch, when asked if he understood the Scriptures he was reading, responded, saying “How can I, unless someone guides me?” far from “flying in the face” of the Catholic Church’s claim, actually stands in complete harmony with it. Indeed, the Ethiopian Eunuch was among the first of the world’s Catholic Christians.

 

[herbert]

II of X

The article continues: And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.


Response: What “some” Catholic apologists say has no bearing on what the actual text in question says or what the Church actually teaches concerning the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Further, I am not aware of anyone who’s ever claimed that “God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.” I believe that is likely an unintentional misconstrual of an argument that Dr. Geisler must have read somewhere. And as I said above, the passage is rather uncontroversial in its claim that all Scripture is indeed profitable for all the things St. Paul describes there for the Christian who is, after all, a person who is seeking to become “perfect” and “fully equipped” for every good work.


The article continues: Further, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal.


Response: No he didn’t. And no they didn’t. Jesus said “Destroy this temple and I will build it up again in three days.” Jesus spoke with authority. And as far as His use of Scripture goes, a certain complementarity is evident between Christ and the Scriptures. And though the Scribes and Pharisees had the Scriptures, they certainly didn’t guarantee their adoption of the rightful interpretation of them or the proper understanding of the nature and Advent of the Anointed One of God. But most certainly Dr. Geisler has mischaracterized the whole landscape by asserting that the Scriptures were the final “court of appeal” for the Lord and the Apostles. Just as Dr. Geisler sees an “only” where there isn’t one when it comes to the role of Scriptures in the life of the modern believer, so Dr. Geisler’s even gone so far as to cast that “final” back into the very days during which the Lord walked the Earth. The very Judge of Creation is, according to Dr. Geisler, overlooked for the sake of the maintenance of Dr. Geisler’s doctrine. All things are under His feet, even Scripture is His servant.


The article continues: This they often did by the introductory phrase, “It is written,” which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in His dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). Of course, Jesus (Matt. 5:22, 28, 31; 28:18) and the apostles (1 Cor. 5:3; 7:12) sometimes referred to their own God-given authority.


Response: First of all, the fact that Christ appealed to Sacred Scripture as a valid divine authority when disputing Satan poses no problem for the Catholic. And I am pleased to see that Dr. Geisler’s acknowledged the Authority of Christ in this essay, also. Further, I am pleased to see that he acknowledges the fact that “as the Father sent” Christ (that is, with all authority), so Christ sent the Apostles, even going so far as to literally breath on them and say “Receive the Holy Spirit.”


The article continues: It begs the question, however, for Roman Catholics to claim that this supports their belief that the church of Rome still has infallible authority outside the Bible today. For even they admit that no new revelation is being given today, as it was in apostolic times. In other words, the only reason Jesus and the apostles could appeal to an authority outside the Bible was that God was still giving normative (i.e., standard-setting) revelation for the faith and morals of believers.


Response: Dr. Geisler must not understand the nature of the Catholic Church’s claim to infallibility. For he sees Sacred Tradition as an authority “outside of the Bible.” If he were to take a closer look at the Church’s understanding of Sacred Tradition, he’d notice that though Scripture and Tradition are indeed separate, they are at the same time joined together and are utterly complementary. They, along with the Magisterium of the Church are sometimes likened unto a 3-legged stool. The Catechism says this about their relationship: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

So, far from being an infallibility which should be likened unto anything like what occurred during the Apostolic Age, the infallibility which may be exercised within the Church today is an infallibility focused upon remaining faithful to the Deposit of Faith. It is an infallibility which is meant to secure things as one would on a tumultuous sea. The infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium is something which, far from threatening Orthodoxy, is the very thing we Christians should flock to as Christ’s provision by which Orthodoxy is maintained. When Saint Pope John Paul the 2nd wrote, for example, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, his appeal was not to his authority to make determinations concerning the question of women in the priesthood. His appeal was to his inability to make such determinations. His appeal was about not making the appeal that the rest of the world was making at the time and has continued to make. The world seeks to break down the pillars of cultural security represented by man and woman, pillars we Christians see as embodiments of the unique and complementary nature of Christ and His Church.


The article continued: This revelation was often first communicated orally before it was finally committed to writing (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:5). Therefore, it is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today.


Response: Again, Dr. Geisler is building his case against a Sacred Tradition which he sees as contradicting Scripture rather than as being complementary to it and as finding its Source in the same Holy Spirit. In this way, he too is begging the question by presupposing the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.


The article continues: What is more, Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting sola Scriptura and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions, saying, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?…You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3, 6).


Response: Yes, it was wrong of the Pharisees to do what they did. No Catholic is arguing otherwise. But by no means was Christ rebuking the Pharisees for not holding to “Sola Scriptura.” That notion is simply not present in the text he cites. Further, Catholics, too, affirm the idea that Sacred Scripture is in a “class of its own.” See what the Catechism says about this very question: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm


The article continues: It is important to note that Jesus did not limit His statement to mere human traditions but applied it specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their tradition to misinterpret the Scriptures.


Response: Yes, correct. Christ was condemning those traditions which nullified the Word of God.


The article continues: There is a direct parallel with the religious traditions of Judaism that grew up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures and the Christian traditions that have grown up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures since the first century.


Response: This is where Dr. Geisler has revealed his bias. This is where he glosses over the centuries of the development of the Christian Church with the bogeymen of million imagined heresies. It is true that all human organizations from Westboro Baptist to the Roman Curia are subject to corruption and a host of indiscretions. But to suggest that the very presence of such problems within the Catholic Church amount to an essential compromise in its nature and a threat to the Holy Spirit’s ability to guide the Church Christ established is to, as is so often the case, beg the question by presupposing the soundness of one’s pre-existing assessment of the Christian landscape.

 

[herbert]

III of X

The article continues: Indeed, since Catholic scholars make a comparison between the Old Testament high priesthood and the Roman Catholic papacy, this would seem to be a very good analogy.


Response: Although this statement strays from the central subject here, it’s worth pointing a few things out. We do see in the various priesthoods which existed among the Israelites certain parallels with the structure and organization of any hierarchical institution. Even my former Baptist Church had its Senior Pastor, its Associate Pastor and a number of Deacons. So what does this have to do with the supposed illegitimacy of the Church? It would be nice to see what Catholic scholars had in mind as they drew such comparisons. That way, there’d be something more substantial to consider.


The article continues: Finally, to borrow a phrase from St. Paul, the Bible constantly warns us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). This kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture. Moses was told, “You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it” (Deut. 4:2). Solomon reaffirmed this in Proverbs, saying, “Every word of God is tested….Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver” (Prov. 30:5-6). Indeed, John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life…” (Rev. 22:18-19). Sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically.


Response: For the most part, this section just repeats the same error. It mistakes an affirmation of Scripture as a valid authority for Scripture as the only valid authority. Again, though, things aren’t that simple because for a text to do anything, it must be read. Again, that’s where the disagreement between Dr. Geisler and a Catholic lies. About First Corinthians 4:6, though, I’ll ask this: What is the context of St. Paul’s remarks? When we consider the fact that this letter to the Corinthians was written without helpful chapter and verse markers, we see that opens his letter in an effort to address the divisions present in the church there. He is speaking to the “puffing up” of certain figures in the community, of the idea of one person claiming to follow Apollos or Paul or Cephas or whomever. And throughout his counsel he presents various Scriptural passages in his efforts to direct the Christians there in Corinth. He cites Isaiah repeatedly. He’s specifically appealing to Old Testament verses which speak to the problem there in Corinth. He’s speaking to those who’d “puff themselves up” as wise. His exhortation continues and culminates there in First Corinthians 3:19-21 when he really drives the point home about the foolishness of those who, thinking themselves wise, most certainly cannot outwit God. Then he proceeds with quite a sobering self-consideration in light of these texts and, presenting himself as a model, exhorts those would-be boasters in Corinth to mind the Word of God and “not go beyond what is written.” Again, taken in its rightful context, this passage has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.


The article continues: Of course, none of these are a prohibition on future revelations. But they do apply to the point of difference between Protestants and Catholics, namely, whether there are any authoritative normative revelations outside those revealed to apostles and prophets and inscripturated in the Bible.


Response:

1) Again, I see a problem in Dr. Geisler’s understanding of the nature of Sacred Tradition. If one conceives of Sacred Tradition like one lung, Sacred Scripture like the other, and the Magisterium of the Church as a Heart, one sees how the three things, all drawing from the same Source, work co-operatively with each other. Remember, Catholics understand these things to be guided by one Holy Spirit and thus to be operating toward one goal. Dr. Geisler’s assessment of things is based upon a conception of these things which allows for their disharmony, which is itself a thing Catholics can’t accept.

2) Here again, in this last sentence above, just as both of you have done, Dr. Geisler re-presents that unsubstantiated leap from the persons of the Apostles to the (apparently formal) sufficiency of Scripture. He imagines a baton being handed from Christ to the Apostles and on to Scripture. But such a series of events is not recorded in Scripture. After acknowledging that the Lord and the Apostles appealed to their own authority, suddenly in some grand transitional sweep, he imagines all of that authority which was held by Christ and then conferred upon the Apostles as its Stewards under the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit is somehow transferred and then replaced by the texts of Scripture. This despite the fact that over the preceding centuries, as any scholar will tell you , the oral traditions which accompanied the written texts were always of great importance. To this day Talmudic scholars are seen as holding the keys by which the Scriptures are unlocked. The Jewish Virtual Library, going so far as to say that “common sense suggests that some sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written Law” says it this way:


“The Oral Law is a legal commentary on the Torah, explaining how its commandments are to be carried out. Common sense suggests that some sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life. For example, the fourth of the Ten Commandments, ordains, "Remember the Sabbath day to make it holy" (Exodus 20:8). From the Sabbath's inclusion in the Ten Commandments, it is clear that the Torah regards it as an important holiday. Yet when one looks for the specific biblical laws regulating how to observe the day, one finds only injunctions against lighting a fire, going away from one's dwelling, cutting down a tree, plowing and harvesting. Would merely refraining from these few activities fulfill the biblical command to make the Sabbath holy? Indeed, the Sabbath rituals that are most commonly associated with holiness-lighting of candles, reciting the kiddush, and the reading of the weekly Torah portion are found not in the Torah, but in the Oral Law.”


Further, Dr. Geisler suggests that Scripture contains all that is needed to be “normative” among Christians when the means by which something might be normalized (i.e. the community of faith within which the faith is practiced) is the very thing from which he’s stripped every ounce of its rightful and Scripturally complementary authority.


The article continues: And this is precisely what these texts say. Indeed, even the prophet himself was not to add to the revelation God gave him. For prophets were not infallible in everything they said, but only when giving God’s revelation to which they were not to add or from which they were not to subtract a word.


Response: No. This is not what the texts say. Not a single text has said “only” or “alone” the way that Dr. Geisler seems to wish they would. For such a fundamental tenet of the Protestant conception of the Christian faith, surely one would expect something far more than what can only be described as an inference.


The article continues: Since both Catholics and Protestants agree that there is no new revelation beyond the first century, it would follow that these texts do support the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura.


Response: No it wouldn’t. The termination of these various forms of special revelation doesn’t by logic require us to affirm Sola Scriptura. This, too, is a non sequitur.


The article continues: For if there is no normative revelation after the time of the apostles and even the prophets themselves were not to add to the revelations God gave them in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures alone are the only infallible source of divine revelation.


Response: Though I see Dr. Geisler as a wonderful person and a very intelligent man, I must say that, again, it appears to me that is position represents his tendency to present non sequiturs as he seeks to substantiate his doctrine. What, also, does he mean by “normative revelation”? If something is “revelation” well, I sure do hope it’s “normative.” Who ever heard of divine revelation which had a sort of “take it or leave it” status? Who ever heard of divine revelation that was anything but normative? And again, he closes his last sentence there with another “alone” and another “only.” While neither of those words necessarily follows from anything he’s offered in reference to Holy Scripture.

 

[herbert]

IV of X

The article continues: Roman Catholics admit that the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching we have from the first century. However, they do not seem to appreciate the significance of this fact as it bears on the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. For even many early fathers testified to the fact that all apostolic teaching was put in the New Testament.


Response: Here we see Dr. Geisler wading into some seriously extraBiblical waters. Why does he seek to validate his point by a democratic appeal to the authority of early Christian consensus? Even in doing so, he’s forced to acknowledge JND Kelly’s affirmation of the acknowledgement among the Early Christians of the validity of Sacred Tradition (below). So why does he seek to identify writings and opinions of these early Christians who offered prayers for the dead, believed in Baptismal Regeneration, participated in the Sacraments of the Church, and called each other to remain obedient to their respective bishops in an effort to validate his doctrine of Sola Scriptura? I guarantee that by barking up this tree he will find no support for his conception of the Christian Faith among these early figures. Here I’ll once again offer John Henry Newman’s comments concerning the place of Protestant theology in the ancient world:


“And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.”


The article continues: While acknowledging the existence of apostolic tradition, J. D. N. Kelly concluded that “admittedly there is no evidence for beliefs or practices current in the period which were not vouched for in the books later known as the New Testament.” Indeed, many early fathers, including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine, believed that the Bible was the only infallible basis for all Christian doctrine.

Response: At this point, again, though I do indeed see Dr. Geisler as a wise and intelligent man, I must say that it seems his efforts to maintain his position are clouding his vision.

1) For one thing, he just referred to these early Christians as “fathers.” He’s just violated a rule of Sola Scriptura Biblicism 101: “Call no man father.”

2) He’s appealing to JND Kelly, a man who was raised a Presbyterian but was later confirmed in the Anglican Church. Presumably, then, Mr. Kelly held to quite few doctrines which stand in stark contrast to those affirmed by Dr. Geisler, one of the most peculiar of which is the co-leadership of the Church and State exercised by the British Monarch.

3) Sts. Athanasius, Cyril, Chrysostom, and Augustine were all four bishops in the Catholic Church whose ecclesiology, soteriology, and understanding of the sacraments was nothing like the theological Biblicism which Dr. Geisler affirms and demonstrably so. The idea that these men held to the material sufficiency of Scripture would be a rather uncontroversial assertion. The idea that they held to Sola Scriptura or that “they believed that the Bible was the only infallible basis for all Christian doctrine” is just not at all true.


The article continues: Further, if the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching, then every other record from the first century is fallible.


Response: Sure. This is also a rather uncontroversial claim. If Dr. Geisler wants to use this idea to in some way discredit the Church, though, more explanation of this particular point’s pertinence is needed.


The article continues: It matters not that Catholics believe that the teaching Magisterium later claims to pronounce some extrabiblical tradition as infallibly true. The fact is that they do not have an infallible record from the first century on which to base such a decision.


Response: The Church should be understood as a tree that is growing according to its being nourished by the Holy Spirit. Though it is no longer a seed, everything which it becomes in its fullness was present there in its seed. It grows, then, in self-understanding. It becomes more assured of its constitution as it, sailing over the tempestuous waves of the Centuries, gets closer to its Homeland and becomes more like its Groom, the Lord. According to such an understanding, the Church never “invents” doctrines or pronounces novel ideas as infallible. For the Lord Himself said that their were things which would yet be revealed to the Apostles through the Holy Spirit. And though that delivery of truth indeed ended with the Apostolic Age, there is a similar growth in both development of doctrine and self-understanding within the Church which is present within any organism which is subject to trials and changes in its own development and in its natural environment. The Catholic Church doesn’t need an extraBiblical written record apart from Scripture for such a natural development to take place under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Here, it seems that Geisler is suggesting that the Church needs something that doesn’t exist to do what it’s doing without the thing he demands that it needs in order to do it.


The article continues: Sola Scriptura: All Apostolic “Traditions” Are in the Bible

It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20).


Response: So far so good.


The article continues: When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1).


Response:

1) And here’s where Dr. Geisler makes that unBiblical leap. He suggests that the offices of the Apostles were vacated at their deaths. Such a position is nowhere validated within the pages of the Bible. It is true that the Apostles themselves died. So it is that Catholics don’t refer to later figures in the Church as Apostles. Successors to the Apostles, however, there are many of those. And these Successors, they have a very important responsibility: They hand down the faith as they receive it from the preceding generation. The distinction between Apostolic identity and the exercise of Apostolic authority, then, needs to be addressed in order for Dr. Geisler to speak to the Church’s understanding of the responsibilities of her bishops.

2) Further, the position that Dr. Geisler is promoting here imagines that after the long-awaited Messiah comes and with finality establishes a New Covenant in His Blood, and goes through the process of conferring, in the loftiest of terms, His very divine authority upon the Apostles, making them literally God-breathed men on a mission, the grandeur, the glorious Advent, the hopeful arrival of all these things went back underground within a few short decades. As the biblicist imagines things, this New Covenant, so long-anticipated and the Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, all of these things, were as a spark of hope on the otherwise dim landscape of history. For when the Apostles died, according to the biblicist, all that were left was the Old Testament and those various letters which, unfortunately, were prone to misinterpretation to such an extent that within a short period of time the whole enterprise was derailed and God’s true followers became a persecuted minority again, forced underground and exploited by the rich and powerful. According to the biblicist, corrupt doctrines ascended and the truth of the Scriptures was shrouded under layers of unGodly tradition. Is that narrative really consistent with the entire tone of the New Testament? Is that narrative really consistent with the social, moral, political, and judicial fruit that came about after the fall of Rome as Christianity made inroads into all aspects of life and became what we now know as Western Culture, complete with its rich musical, theological, religious, and anthropological beauty?

2) This, too, is where the inconsistency of Dr. Geisler’s appeal to Sts. Athanasius, Cyril, Chrysostom, and Augustine becomes quite apparent. For these four men understood themselves to be Successors to the Apostles. Ambrose of Milan, a friend and mentor to St. Augustine, as we’ve discussed, went so far as to excommunicate Emperor Theodosius in his role as Bishop and Shepherd. And Dr. Geisler says that this man held to a view which was quite consistent with his view of Sola Scriptura?

 

[herbert]

V of X

The article continues: Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament.


Response:

1) Again, this is a non sequitur. As long as there will be people reading the Bible, the Holy Spirit will be at work guiding them. This process of reading and accessing the Scriptures didn’t die with the Apostles. It continues to this day. To imagine some sort of rupture here at the death of the Apostles is to ignore Scripture, history, and reason for the sake of the maintenance of one’s preferred worldview. Nothing about the death of the Apostles, despite the fact that no more Scripture would be forthcoming, requires us to believe that we were then left with nothing but “the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament.”

2) A former Baptist minister who’d become Catholic once discussed the idea of a Pastor writing letters to his congregants for a few years and then leaving the Church. He imagined a new crowd of people joining the Church and getting their hands on his letters. He then described what it would look like if these new congregants read ideas into his letters that he had never intended to relay. He imagined them claiming that, based upon his letters, he must have held to a number of unorthodox teachings. Then he began describing the congregants who’d been there with him years ago as they reacted to these newcomers’ false notions about what their former Pastor believed. He said that their witness on his behalf would be somewhat analogous to the interpretive witness of Sacred Tradition. It’s the witness that, without going above Scripture, says things such as “The true teaching of Scripture is that marriage is indeed between a man and a woman.” We should recognize the importance of this particular affirmation of Sacred Scripture nowadays as even prominent ministers and teachers are swaying from this natural teaching of the Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, the 3-legged stool set there by Christ upon the stage of history for the purpose of supporting those doctrines to which the Holy Spirit bears witness.


The article continues: That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.


Response: Again, repeating a position should not be confused with making a valid argument for a position. Further, repeating of a particular non sequitur does even less to demonstrate one’s point.


The article continues: This does not necessarily mean that everything the apostles ever taught is in the New Testament, any more than everything Jesus said is there (cf. John 20:30; 21:25). What it does mean is that all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Tim. 3:15-17).


Response:

1) And here Dr. Geisler spells out his inference in terms which are quite clear. Is this inference binding upon its hearer? Is it revealed by God? Can’t I just affirm the material sufficiency of Scripture and carry on as a Catholic in light of Dr. Geisler’s inference?

2) Further, is this an inference which was drawn by John Calvin? Is this an inference which is drawn by every Christian who’s honest or intelligent enough to receive it? And if it wasn’t drawn by someone like John Calvin, what does that say about it? For John Calvin said that a person had to have a proper understanding of the nature of Holy Communion in order to be saved. Is Dr. Geisler’s understanding of the nature of Holy Communion compatible with John Calvin’s? And John Calvin said that when a genuine challenge arose within the faith community an assembly of “true bishops” should be convened to iron things out. Would Dr. Norm Geisler qualify as a “true bishop” in John Calvin’s eyes? If not, why not? And if both men affirmed the infallibility and final authority of Scripture, how could they find themselves on in different doctrinal galaxies? Can we attribute their differences to the “refinements” you spoke of, DHK? Would not Calvin consider your refinements to be blatant heresies?


The article continues: It is only reasonable to infer that God would preserve what He inspired.


Response: Absolutely. This idea is not held in question. What’s being questioned here is the particular means by which God preserves that which He inspired.


The article continues: The fact that apostles sometimes referred to “traditions” they gave orally as authoritative in no way diminishes the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. First, it is not necessary to claim that these oral teachings were inspired or infallible, only that they were authoritative. The believers were asked to “maintain” them (1 Cor. 11:2) and “stand fast in them” (2 Thess. 2:15). But oral teachings of the apostles were not called “inspired” or “unbreakable” or the equivalent, unless they were recorded as Scripture.


Response: Jesus said “As the Father sent me, so I am sending you.” Well, since the Father sent the Son infallibly, so, it follows that the Apostles were sent infallibly, as well. Further, at the Council of Jerusalem, the Holy Spirit of God is understood as having validated the decision made there. Further, a similar appeal was made at the end of Acts 1 at the appointment of Matthias. Dr. Geisler seems to be attempting to posit a distinction without a difference here in order to draw a contrast between Christ and the Apostles. This contrast won’t hold, though, as the Apostles themselves are described by Saint Paul as foundation stones of the Church with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone. Also, what exactly is a binding teaching if it’s not true? Is Dr. Geisler suggesting that God would have the Apostles teaching bind untruths? And if that’s not the case, why, apart from representing an attempt to squirm into a position which seems a little more secure for his doctrine, would he be splitting these hairs?


The article continues: The apostles were living authorities, but not everything they said was infallible.


Response: Yes, and not Catholic ever made such a claim. The straw men, non sequiturs, and moot points are adding up here.


The article continues: Catholics understand the difference between authoritative and infallible, since they make the same distinction with regard to noninfallible statements made by the Pope and infallible ex cathedra (“from the seat” of Peter) ones. Second, the traditions (teachings) of the apostles that were revelations were written down and are inspired and infallible. They comprise the New Testament. What the Catholic must prove, and cannot, is that the God who deemed it so important for the faith and morals of the faithful to inspire the inscripturation of 27 books of apostolic teaching would have left out some important revelation in these books.


Response:

1) The Catholic need not prove anything here. As the Jewish Virtual Library says, it’s” common sense” that a text must be read and interpreted. The mere existence of truthful textual content does not, standing alone, represent a principle of unity by which, for example, Christ’s prayer for Christian unity could be realized. Indeed, Martin Luther and Dr. Geisler, two champions of Sola Scriptura disagree as far as fundamental doctrines are concerned. And I could multiply examples. Remember, even John Smyth’s life reads like a game of doctrinal pinball.

2) Further, it’s not like it was hard for God to inspire the writing of Scripture. He could both inspire the Biblical authors and maintain His Church, the one founded by Christ. What does Dr. Geisler mean to suggest here, that God wouldn’t or couldn’t go about doing two separate things for the sake of the superintendence of Christ’s Bride?


The article continues: Indeed, it is not plausible that He would have allowed succeeding generations to struggle and even fight over precisely where this alleged extrabiblical revelation is to be found.


Response: For a Protestant Biblicist to complain of the implausibility of God “allowing” people to “struggle and even fight” over doctrinal matters seems to me to be rather interesting in light of the numerous disagreements which exist among those who claim to follow Sola Scriptura. Not only that, we needn’t look too far back in history to find Protestants burning each other at the stake, or beheading one another. And Hong Xiuquan wasn’t converted by Catholics.


The article continues: So, however authoritative the apostles were by their office, only their inscripturated words are inspired and infallible (2 Tim. 3:16-17; cf. John 10:35).


Response: The Apostles weren’t only authoritative by their office. They were authoritative in their persons. And Dr. Geisler’s assertion here is really just another restatement of the same thing he’s already said so many times in this article. But, again, the repetition of an assertion which is itself based upon an inference does not make up for the absence of an argument.

 

[herbert]

VI of X

The article continues: There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated by them in the only books — the inspired books of the New Testament — that they left for the church. This leads to another important point. The Bible makes it clear that God, from the very beginning, desired that His normative revelations be written down and preserved for succeeding generations. “Moses then wrote down all the words of the Lord” (Exod. 24:4), and his book was preserved in the Ark (Deut. 31:26).


Response:

1) Dr. Geisler’s inference concerning the nature and role of the New Testament, and his attempt at analogizing its status with the status of the Pentateuch, is revealed as completely invalid by the Pentateuch itself. Just one Chapter from the book of Numbers, Chapter 16, should provide sufficient grounds to invalidate his argument. For though Moses was instructed to write things down, Moses himself was there to guide the People (Again, see Numbers 16).

2) Further, as I said earlier, Christ made reference to Moses’ Seat and instructed the Jews of His day to follow the instructions of those who occupied Moses’ Seat even though such men were hypocrites.

3) As has been the case throughout this entire article, Dr. Geisler’s attempts at identifying Scripture as the “only” authority amount only to demonstrations of Scripture’s status as a divine authority.


The article continues: Furthermore, “Joshua made a covenant with the people that day and made statutes and ordinances for them… which he recorded in the book of the law of God” (Josh. 24:25-26) along with Moses’ (cf. Josh. 1:7). Likewise, “Samuel next explained to the people the law of royalty and wrote it in a book, which he placed in the presence of the Lord” (1 Sam. 10:25). Isaiah was commanded by the Lord to “take a large cylinder-seal, and inscribe on it in ordinary letters” (Isa. 8:1) and to “inscribe it in a record; that it may be in future days an eternal witness” (30:8). Daniel had a collection of “the books” of Moses and the prophets right down to his contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2). Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “It is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) over 90 times, stressing the importance of the written word of God.


Response: Indeed, the importance of the written Word is not to be diminished.


The article continues: When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29).


Response: In other words, they had an “interpretation” problem. For the Scriptures they read weren’t the problem. The fact that their minds and hearts had gone astray was the problem. So it is that Peter warns the reader of the New Testament (2nd Peter 3:16) that St. Paul writes things that are “hard to understand” which “ignorant and unstable men wrest to their own destruction.” Notice, too, that St. Peter doesn’t say that it’s only evil men who do this. Even ignorance, which is often accompanied by the best of intentions, may account for an unintentional distortion of Scripture on the part of its reader.


The article continues: All of this makes it clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition. To claim that the apostles did not write down all God’s revelation to them is to claim that they were not obedient to their prophetic commission not to subtract a word from what God revealed to them.


Response: The fact that one doesn’t write something down cannot be understood as a the “subtraction” of anything. For to “subtract” one must take something away. If that something was never there in the first place, subtraction isn’t possible. So it is only by imagining that the Apostles recorded everything (so as to cause the Scriptures to achieve the status of formal sufficiency) that he could turn around and claim that the Catholic has to explain how the Apostles could have failed to be “obedient to their prophetic commission.” In other words, as usual, Dr. Geisler is begging the question by building his entire analysis around his presuppositions rather than forming his conception of Christianity according to the terms it claims for itself.



The article continues: Sola Scriptura: The Bible Does Not State a Preference for Oral Tradition

The Catholic use of 3 John to prove the superiority of oral tradition is a classic example of taking a text out of context.


Response: Of everything I’ve read, I’ve never read a Catholic say that “oral tradition” is “superior” to Scripture. Indeed the Catechism describes the Magisterium as the servant of Scripture. Paragraph 86 of the Catechism, citing Dei Verbum, reads as follows: "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith." As is often the case, Dr. Geisler, along with many critics of the Catholic Faith don’t allow the Church to define herself. They mischaracterize the Church’s self-understanding and are thus condemning a straw man of their own making and decidedly not what the Church actually teaches.


The article continues: John is not comparing oral and written tradition about the past but a written, as opposed to a personal, communication in the present. Notice carefully what he said: “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face” (3 John 13). Who would not prefer a face-to-face talk with a living apostle over a letter from him? But that is not what oral tradition gives. Rather, it provides an unreliable oral tradition as opposed to an infallible written one. Sola Scriptura contends the latter is preferable.


Response: This is mostly a moot point because of Dr. Geisler’s mischaracterization of what it is a Catholic might seek through an appeal to this passage. At the end of this remark, though, he closes by repeating his basic begging the question assessment of things by discussing the unreliability of oral tradition compared to the reliability of written Scripture. I guess we’re supposed to overlook the passages about which biblicists themselves can’t agree such as passages which disuss the nature of baptism, the efficacy of baptism, the nature of Holy Communion, and the Church’s ecclesial organization. For those things, though they’re spoken of quite clearly in Scripture, they are anything but uniformly understood among Protestant faith communities.


The article continues: Sola Scriptura: The Bible Is Clear Apart from Tradition

The Bible has perspicuity apart from any traditions to help us understand it. As stated above, and contrary to a rather wide misunderstanding by Catholics, perspicuity does not mean that everything in the Bible is absolutely clear but that the main message is clear. That is, all doctrines essential for salvation and living according to the will of God are sufficiently clear.


Response: This assessment is problematic for a number of reasons.

1) He stops short of claiming formal sufficiency. But still claims that sufficient perspicuity exists by which essential doctrines may be recognized.

2) The Apostles didn’t present a hierarchy of truths among which existed some more and less important doctrines. Certainly there is a certain hierarchical nature to the truths of the Christian faith. But if we appeal to Scripture, we’ll find that St. Paul had no patience for even the slightest division. He went so far as to say the following: “I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.” With that kind of standard for agreement explicitly laid out by an apostolic author, how is it that Dr. Geisler can justify his maintenance of his position which claims that everything that needed to be passed on was inscripturated? For such to be the case, it seems to me that the Apostles wouldn’t have bothered writing letters and traveling and breaking bread together, they’d have just convened and set out to write an encyclopedic manual covering every single idea they had concerning the Christian faith. Since they didn’t do that, however, yet we still have the written record of St. Paul’s standard for Christian unity, together with Christ’s prayer for our unity (so that the unbelieving world would see and believe), a strong case is made for the societal, organic, sacramental, hierarchical unity of the early Christian Churches.

3) On a strictly logical level, the means by which one determines which doctrines are essential cannot be the same means by which one determines whether or not the Bible contains sufficient information concerning those doctrines which are allegedly essential.

 

[herbert]

VII of X

The article continues: Indeed, to assume that oral traditions of the apostles, not written in the Bible, are necessary to interpret what is written in the Bible under inspiration is to argue that the uninspired is more clear than the inspired. But it is utterly presumptuous to assert that what fallible human beings pronounce is clearer than what the infallible Word of God declares.


Response:

1) This is absolutely not the case. On a strictly natural level, the fact that I can read the Constitution and determine the intentions of its Authors and subsequently present what I learned from the Document to other people doesn’t make mine out to be some sort of legal mind which is greater or superior to the collective legal mind of the Founders. Neither does the Ethiopian Eunuch’s appeal to St. Philip make him out to be somehow above the infallible Scripture.

2) Only when we approach the Church’s claims with the intention of deconstructing them do we encounter the conundrums which Dr. Geisler describes. If we approach the Scriptures with a similar skepticism and prejudice we encounter similar problems related to various apparent contradictions. For example, how do reconcile the differing accounts of the personages present at the Empty Tomb? If Dr. Geisler approached that apparent problem with the same incredulity with which he assesses the Catholic Church’s claims, he’d likely join Dr. Bart Ehrman on his next book tour.


The article continues: Further, it is unreasonable to insist that words of the apostles that were not written down are more clear than the ones they did write. We all know from experience that this is not so.


Response:

1) What is or isn’t “reasonable” is a matter of opinion. And what he considers here to be unreasonable is, once again, based upon a mischaracterization of what the Church teaches about the Magisterium’s relationship to Sacred Scripture. On the other hand, if Scripture records Christ saying “This is my body” though His words combined with the context are themselves clear enough to justify one’s affirmation of the Doctrine of the Real Presence, clarity is indeed provided when the Church, the safeguard of Sacred Scripture definitively affirms the clearest and most obvious reading of Scripture which has always been held within the Christian Church since the days of the Apostles and which was, according to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, spoken of in these terms:

“On the night he was betrayed our Lord Jesus Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: “Take, eat: this is my body”. He took the cup, gave thanks and said: “Take, drink: this is my blood”. Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question it and say that it is not his blood?

Therefore, it is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us under the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.

Once, when speaking to the Jews, Christ said: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no life in you. This horrified them and they left him. Not understanding his words in a spiritual way, they thought the Savior wished them to practice cannibalism.

Under the old covenant there was showbread, but it came to an end with the old dispensation to which it belonged. Under the new covenant there is bread from heaven and the cup of salvation. These sanctify both soul and body, the bread being adapted to the sanctification of the body, the Word, to the sanctification of the soul.

Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith.

You have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and the blood of Christ. You know also how David referred to this long ago when he sang: Bread gives strength to man’s heart and makes his face shine with the oil of gladness. Strengthen your heart, then, by receiving this bread as spiritual bread, and bring joy to the face of your soul.

May purity of conscience remove the veil from the face of your soul so that be contemplating the glory of the Lord, as in a mirror, you may be transformed from glory to glory in Christ Jesus our Lord. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

2) Part of what Dr. Geisler is overlooking is the nature of Sacred Tradition as far as the application of the principles of the Deposit of Faith are concerned. In other words, over time the Church has come to face challenges which weren’t present during Biblical Times. Times of great social upheaval, cultural shift, economic transition, humanitarian crisis, etc. During all of those times the Church remains as a voice of wisdom among us, representing both the inherent weaknesses of humanity as well as the profound dignity which God has granted us by His grace.


The article continues: Sola Scriptura: Tradition and Scripture Are Not Inseparable

Kreeft’s claim that Scripture and apostolic tradition are inseparable is unconvincing.


Response: What is convincing to Athanasius wasn’t convincing to Arius. What is convincing to Dr. Geisler may or may not be convincing to another Christian.


The article continues: Even his illustration of the horse (Scripture) and the rider (tradition) would suggest that Scripture and apostolic tradition are separable.


Response: I’ve read a lot of Kreeft and have even had the chance to hear him speak in person. One thing he isn’t is careless with his analogies. If Dr. Geisler considers the nature of God, that God works through our nature to bring about His desired ends, and that He doesn’t force Himself upon us, even going so far as to send the Angel Gabriel to the young Mary at the Annunciation, he may consider Dr. Kreeft’s argument more amenably. For in Dr. Kreeft’s analogy of the horse and the rider, though the two are separable, from the Catholic perspective, as a matter of faith, we have God’s assurance that the Groom will hold true to His Bride. So it is by Christ’s promises to the Church that we see that although a horse and a rider are separable, according to the relationship between Christ and His Church, we may remain confident nonetheless.


The article continues: Further, even if it is granted that tradition is necessary, the Catholic inference that it has to be infallible tradition — indeed, the infallible tradition of the church of Rome — is unfounded. Protestants, who believe in sola Scriptura, accept genuine tradition; they simply do not believe it is infallible.


Response:

1) Quite confusing is the idea that the “necessary” and “genuine traditions” which Protestants receive are not believed to be infallible (certain, unconditionally reliable, completely sound). That is, they could be wrong. Well, since we’re talking about the Christian faith here, if they’re:

a. From God

b. Necessary

c. Genuine

d. Received as an element of the Faith

How could they be anything but infallible? Dr. Geisler is suggesting that the Protestant believer could hold to a “genuine and necessary” tradition of the Christian faith, received from God, which could be something other than completely reliable. Of what value is a “genuine” and “necessary” tradition received from God which could be wrong?

2) Another problem, which is continually spoken past with phrases such as “Protestants, who believe in sola Scriptura, accept genuine tradition” is the fact that “Protestantism” isn’t one thing. It’s not a monolithic system. It’s anything a person wants it to be. http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html

I don’t imagine that Dr. Geisler would agree with the understanding of Scripture presented in this article. But it is certainly a variation of Sola Scriptura. In contrast, the Catholic Faith, through the mooring of its binding Sacred Tradition responds to believers with same-sex attraction in an entirely different way, such as this one: https://couragerc.org/

3) Finally, this pair of sentences reads a lot like RC Sproul’s suggestion that the best that he can have as far as the Canon of Scripture goes is a “fallible list of infallible books.”

 

[herbert]

VIII of X

The article continues: Finally, Kreeft’s argument wrongly assumes that the Bible was produced by the Roman Catholic church. As we will see in the next point, this is not the case.

Sola Scriptura: The Principle of Causality Is Not Violated

Kreeft’s argument that sola Scriptura violates the principle of causality is invalid for one fundamental reason: it is based on a false assumption. He wrongly assumes, unwittingly in contrast to what Vatican II and even Vatican I say about the canon, that the church determined the canon. In fact, God determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined (inspired) to be in the canon. This being the case, Kreeft’s argument that the cause must be equal to its effect (or greater) fails.


Response:

1) Here Dr. Geisler argues not against the actual teaching of the Catholic Church, but against Dr. Peter Kreeft’s possibly confused statement. If Dr. Kreeft was confused on a particular point, someone should point it out so he can adjust his position. That’s all.

2) It is true that the Scriptures which the Church came to accept were already Scripture before any formal recognition of them took place. And they could have been buried in a box for all of history and retained that same status sitting underground somewhere. But it is true that the Church “determined” the Canon. They could have done so wrongly. The could have done so rightly. Protestants believe the former, Catholics the latter. But it does not good to say that “God determined the Canon” by the act of inspiring Scripture. For it was we humans who had to discover, determine and decide which books we were to rightly accept. God did the inspiring. He left the work of identifying and determining to the Church. Had God truly “determined” the Canon, there’d be an inspired Table of Contents somewhere. And that’s why I don’t think Dr. Geisler is catching Dr. Kreeft’s point here. Let’s look at Dr. Kreeft’s comments to see:


Third, sola scriptura violates the principle of causality: that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The Church (the apostles) wrote Scripture, and the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Church, decided on the canon, the list of books to be declared scriptural and infallible. If Scripture is infallible, then its cause, the Church, must also be infallible.


Since Catholic believe that the Catholic Church was “born” on Pentecost Sunday, we do indeed believe it was that early Christian community which was the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church in its acorn stage. So as Dr. Kreeft states “The Church” wrote Scripture and the successors to the Apostles through a process of discernment, wrote down a Canon which was itself not written by an inspired author (such as an Apostle). So indeed Catholics are right to recognize in this process two effects (Inspiration of Scripture & Identification of the Canon) with one divine cause, both of which are infallible, that is, not capable of being in error.

3) One more thing about the infallibility of Sacred Tradition: It is the definitive, final, case closed witness provided by the Catholic Church which stands against people like my Baptist friend’s friend who’s come to reject St. Paul. And I didn’t even mention the fact that in Bible school he also came to reject Justification by Faith Alone. But trust me, he’s nowhere near being a Catholic. He’s just busy taking Sola Scriptura, the doctrine to which he clings unwaveringly, where it may take him. And he really should be the poster boy for Dr. Geisler’s doctrine. Because Dr. Geisler imagines “necessary” and “genuine” traditions which aren’t infallible. My Baptist friend’s friend is just living out the implications of such a position. Peter Kreeft spoke to this problem when he said this:


Fourth, there is the practical argument that private interpretation leads to denominationalism. Let five hundred people interpret the Bible without Church authority and there will soon be five hundred denominations. But denominationalism is an intolerable scandal by scriptural standards (see John 17:20-23 and 1 Corinthians 1:10-17)


The article continues: Sola Scriptura: Rejection of Tradition Does Not Necessitate Scandal

Kreeft’s claim that the rejection of the Roman Catholic view on infallible tradition leads to the scandal of denominationalism (see above) does not follow for many reasons. First, this wrongly implies that all denominationalism is scandalous. Not necessarily so, as long as the denominations do not deny the essential doctrines of the Christian church and true spiritual unity with other believers in contrast to mere external organizational uniformity.


Response:

1) As I said before, John Calvin often said things like this, which link our salvation directly with our intellectual understanding of the role and nature of the “ordinances.”:


“However, as it is a very perilous thing to have no certainty on an ordinance, the understanding of which is so requisite for our salvation, I have thought it might be a very useful labour to treat briefly and, nevertheless, clearly deduce a summary of what is necessary to be known of it.”


I bring this up because it demonstrates the point that Dr. Geisler and John Calvin, though they both affirm Sola Scriptura, have entirely different views concerning the just what the “essentials” are. I’d guess that by Calvin’s standards, Dr. Geisler was a manifest heretic.

2) The problem is that if “essential doctrines” are determined according to the principle of Sola Scriptura, which privatizes the process by which binding doctrines are identified, we’ve lost any basis for the public and objective recognition of those principled and consistent means by which right doctrine can be recognized. This is why a Catholic can actually sway from authentic Catholic teachings. Whereas, a biblicist, being finally accountable to Scripture alone, doesn’t see a problem in ending up in a “Church of one” as long as he understands himself to be the one who’s holding to Scripture.


The article continues: Nor can one argue successfully that unbelievers are unable to see spiritual unity.


Response: This statement represents another straw man. For it is the Catholic Church which teaches the following: Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”... In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church. (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html)


The article continues: For Jesus declared: “This is how all [men] will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).


Response: He was saying this to His disciples, a community of people who lived prior to the establishment of the Church and who were already following Him, not a diverse group of people living centuries later whose very ecclesiology renders pointless St. Paul’s Apostolic charge to be completely united, allowing no divisions among you.


The article continues: Second, as orthodox Catholics know well, the scandal of liberalism is as great inside the Catholic church as it is outside of it.


Response:

1) Yes, indeed the scandal is great. However, within Catholicism it is actually possible to determine whether or not someone is professing the authentic faith, hence the “scandal” that comes about when, for example, a prominent politician doesn’t. Among Biblicists, however, such is not the case. 2) When a Biblicist believes what she believes the Bible to say, she’s believing the Bible, despite the fact that another million Biblicists may disagree with her. Compound that with the fact that Dr. Geisler’s suggests that any “necessary” and “genuine” Protestant traditions of faith are anything but certainly true. This is a genuine recipe for Christian division. So much for St. Paul’s exhortation to “perfect unity in mind and thought” not to mention his affirmation of the fact that there is one Lord, one faith, and one Baptism.

 

[herbert]

IX of X

The article continues: When Catholic apologists claim there is significantly more doctrinal agreement among Catholics than Protestants, they must mean between orthodox Catholics and all Protestants (orthodox and unorthodox) — which, of course, is not a fair comparison.


Response: From what I’ve read, presentations of Catholic unity focus upon the objective principles which exist in the Church as Christ established them and not on the demographic and sociological trends within a particular area during a given time period. The “doctrinal agreement” presented by the Church is maintained according to, for example, the Motives of Credibility, which the Catechism explains in this way: “What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe "because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived". So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit." Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind." (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/156.htm)


The article continues: Only when one chooses to compare things like the mode and candidate for baptism, church government, views on the Eucharist, and other less essential doctrines are there greater differences among orthodox Protestants.


Response:

1) Dr. Geisler groups the Eucharist among other “less essential” doctrines? He groups church government among other “less essential” doctrines? If there really was a Deposit of Faith once given for all the saints, can we really be so compromising as to take or leave various doctrines which early martyrs died to uphold?

2) And where does this process stop? Is “Gay Marriage” also a “less essential” doctrine? For that matter, how can something even be “less” essential? If it is essential it is essential, that is, by definition it is “absolutely necessary.” So how can something be “less absolutely necessary” or “more absolutely necessary”? So what is the authentic content of the Christian Faith, then? When people affirm the validity of marriage and remarriage, make exceptions for abortion in cases of rape, or redefine marriage as any union between two people (regardless of sex) are then compromising on the “less essential” or the “more essential” doctrines? And who says?


The article continues: When, however, we compare the differences with orthodox Catholics and orthodox Protestants or with all Catholics and all Protestants on the more essential doctrines, there is no significant edge for Catholicism. This fact negates the value of the alleged infallible teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church.


Response: No it doesn’t. There is a categorical difference between the Church’s identification of the authentic Christian faith and having people choose to ignore it for the sake of their pursuit of mammon (which is exactly the same problem St. Paul and the Apostles faced) and the rank inability to even identify the “essential” doctrines of the Christian faith.


The article continues: In point of fact, Protestants seem to do about as well as Catholics on unanimity of essential doctrines with only an infallible Bible and no infallible interpreters of it!


Response:

1) When we are comparing two systems of Christianity, we’ve already missed the point because we’re already in violation of St. Paul’s exhortation. For there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

2) What Protestantism is rightly clinging to can’t be attributed to anything essential to Protestantism. Rather, where Protestants tend to be right is precisely where they’re still clinging to Catholic doctrines.

2) Any unity that Protestants enjoy is unity which is accidental and not essential to their respective communions. The one Church, established by Christ is the Church whose essential nature consists of unity, holiness, apostolicity, and catholicity, all of which are received on account of the divine founding of the Church and the Holy Spirit’s continual safeguarding of the Deposit with which the Church has been entrusted.

3) For all this talk of “essential” and “less essential” doctrines, I’d like to know where such a list of doctrines may be found. Where is this list of “secondary” and “not primary (fundamental)” issues?


The article continues: Third, orthodox Protestant “denominations,” though there be many, have not historically differed much more significantly than have the various “orders” of the Roman Catholic church.


Response:

1) The degree to which a Protestant community should be recognized as “orthodox” is determined according to the extent to which its doctrines yet align with those of the Catholic Church. Therefore, this is a completely inaccurate statement. Any right doctrines which a Protestant community of faith still holds can be traced back to the Catholic Church. And where error has made inroads into their particular conception of Christianity, their novel and protest-ant doctrines will be found. For there in that first generation of what we call the Reformation Era, John Calvin said this: “Every state [of life] has its own Gospel, which they forge for themselves according to their appetites, so that there is as great a diversity between the Gospel of the court, and the Gospel of the justices and lawyers, and the Gospel of merchants, as there is between coins of different denominations.”

2) The various Orders in the Church all operate according to the same Sacraments, Faith (Doctrine), and the same Government. Nothing like that exists among the Protestant Biblicism which is capable of producing only accidental measures of unity. And any more substantial unity which they enjoy, for example through the Sacrament of Baptism, is something that they received not from their respective faith traditions but which represents a Catholic Sacrament which they still affirm.


The article continues: Orthodox Protestants’ differences are largely over secondary issues, not primary (fundamental) doctrines. So this Catholic argument against Protestantism is self-condemning. Fourth, as J. I. Packer noted, “the real deep divisions have been caused not by those who maintained sola Scriptura, but by those, Roman Catholic and Protestant alike, who reject it.” Further, “when adherents of sola Scriptura have split from each other the cause has been sin rather than Protestant biblicism….” Certainly this is often the case. A bad hermeneutic (method of interpreting Scripture) is more crucial to deviation from orthodoxy than is the rejection of an infallible tradition in the Roman Catholic church.


Response:

1) There is no basis by which Dr. Geisler may justify his attribution of division to “sin” rather than the essential failure of Sola Scriptura to function as an objective means of the identification and maintenance of Christian Orthodoxy.

2) Further, Dr. Geisler uses the term “orthodox” quite loosely, ascribing it to both Catholics and Protestants in various contexts. This is problematic because it muddies the waters of discernment. For he has yet to demonstrate the fact that he’s even got a means to identify and maintain such a thing.

3) One man’s “bad hermeneutic” is another man’s orthodoxy.


The article continues: Sola Scriptura: First Century Christians Had Scripture and Living Apostles

Kreeft’s argument that the first generation of Christians did not have the New Testament, only the church to teach them, overlooks several basic facts. First, the essential Bible of the early first century Christians was the Old Testament, as the New Testament itself declares (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6).


Response: Sure, but Dr. Kreeft is probably speaking a bit more directly to the early Community’s faith concerning the coming of the Messiah. And certainly, there were various factions among the Jews, some of whom believed while others didn’t. The Church was there in that community, as we see in Acts 15, presenting binding teachings according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and, importantly, doing so in a manner which would seem inconsistent with the Old Testament Scriptures as far as the Covenant was concerned and its relationship to the practice of circumcision.

 

[herbert]

X of X

The article continues: Second, early New Testament believers did not need further revelation through the apostles in written form for one very simple reason: they still had the living apostles to teach them. As soon as the apostles died, however, it became imperative for the written record of their infallible teaching to be available. And it was — in the apostolic writings known as the New Testament.


Response: Catholics aren’t saying that is was not imperative that the Scriptures were given to the Church. What Catholics are saying is that, from the earliest days, the Church played an essential role in God’s plan of salvation, something which the Scriptures attest to. So it is that we have a real Church, a divine society founded by Christ. And within that Church we have the Sacred Scriptures inspired by God. None of that entails the “Scripture alone” which Dr. Geisler fallibly demands that we read into the scenario.


The article closes: Third, Kreeft’s argument wrongly assumes that there was apostolic succession (see Part Four, next issue). The only infallible authority that succeeded the apostles was their infallible apostolic writings, that is, the New Testament.


Response: And here Dr. Geisler closes with one more repetition of the question he’s been begging all along.

 

[utilyan]

2 peter 3
16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

This states scripture alone without guidance is dangerous. You need to be officially taught and stable.


If we hand some young kid a Chinese Library. He still has to learn the language, figures of speech, the conversion of those ideas through the Hebrew and Greek. He needs someone to hand pick the particular 66 books or so that will be his bible. Scripture alone is false, because it can't identify itself.

You take a kid teach him black means white and white means black.........he'll go with it if no one tells him otherwise.

None of you knew what a bible was till your ultimate authority put it in your hands and claimed that was it.

That's why authenticity starts whats handed to you.....so if your bible 30 books big. Well of course the first thing handed to you is most authentic. And everyone is automaticly wrong cause look my bible says its 30 books big. Besides it says Jesus in my book. And God wrote this book.
Anyone with more then 30 books is a fake....my bible says so. Says right here in revelation your going to get in trouble for adding all that falsehood.

^ that's the logic we put up with. And that's just the book then the faith swears every other faith is ran by Satan. Our faith is the only right one..........Bet you never heard that one. Satan has pulled cover over everyone eyes on earth.

Let us pity that sorry bastard who can't even read his proper 30-book bible, under the control of satanic influences.

This guy's son he ain't a 30-book bible Christian, he's a 23-book bible Christian. He started 30 learned none of his faith, didn't care for it, left did drugs, wasted his life, drunk, abusive, murderer thief.......And he was cryin and sad............oh Jesus I give my life to you I hate this life lookie me im bad bad so everyone in the world is bad bad.

And the next day who showed up......23-book man. easy pickins. Doesn't get along with father.
Son believes you have to put God in Favorites. Father says Favorites + Friends.

 

[herbert]

DHK and BobRyan,

I know I've written a lot. What else would we expect, though, with this 500 year old disagreement? There's a lot to pore over. There is much homework to be done. And with what I posted yesterday I tried to address the big picture. Today, my responses to Dr. Geisler's article got into a little more detail. Now I'd just like to present one more quote. This quote relates to what Peter Kreeft was getting at with some of his remarks. I know that Dr. Geisler didn't agree with Dr. Kreeft, but it sure does look like St. Irenaeus did:

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same. And… nor will any of the rulers in the churches, whatever his power of eloquence, teach otherwise, for no one is above the teacher; nor will he who is weak in speaking detract from the tradition."

In Him,

Herbert

 

[DHK]

I of X

Hello, DHK, you asked that I read Dr. Geisler’s article. I have done that. Here is my response. Please know that I strive to sound polite and courteous. Sometimes, though, it’s hard to ensure that the right tone comes through to a reader. So please be assured of my goodwill toward Dr. Geisler!

His article begins: As convincing as these arguments may seem to a devout Catholic, they are devoid of substance. As we will see, each of the Roman Catholic arguments against the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura fails, and they are unable to provide any substantial basis for the Catholic dogma of an infallible oral tradition.

Response: First of all, there’s not just one “Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura.” There are many. The “doctrine” in question provides the springboard by which people jump off in any and every doctrinal direction. From Unitarians, to Marcionites, from Westboro Baptist to my friend’s Baptist friend who’s come to reject everything St. Paul wrote, the “doctrine of sola Scriptura” is simply not one objective thing which leads to an essential unity among its adherents. Further, a member of the Christian Reformed denomination will hold to a number of doctrines which you, DHK, reject on account of your many Baptist “refinements.” And the fact that Norman Geisler is engaged in on-going conflicts concerning the fundamental nature of grace and justification with a Bible teacher such as James White such as this one (http://vintage.aomin.org/CBFRep2.html) while both men claim to be following the doctirine of Sola Scriptura seriously calls into question the validity of the doctrine to which both men appeal.

There is only one doctrine of sola scriptura.
Briefly it is:

Scripture alone (from the Reformation slogan Sola Scriptura) is the teaching that Scripture is the Church's only infallible and sufficient rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. While the Bible does not contain all knowledge, it does contain that which is necessary for salvation. Indeed, if something is not found in Scripture, it is not binding upon the believer. This view does not deny that the Church has the authority to teach God's Word. Furthermore, while tradition is valuable, it but must be tested by the higher authority of the Scriptures.

http://www.theopedia.com/sola-scriptura
The more extensive definition can be found at the theopedia website above. It is a generally accepted Protestant Bible encyclopedia/dictionary of terms. The dispute between Geisler and White is underscored in two respective books, which you can find here:
--It is a dispute between what Geisler terms as "extreme Calvinism" and White defending Calvinism. I myself, am not a Calvinist. Many on this board are. We both practice sola scriptura. We come to different conclusions. That is the wonderful freedom we have in one of our other distinctives called "soul liberty," a distinctive that Baptists shed their blood for, and died at the hands of the RCC because of it. On this particular issue many of us simply agree to disagree. You can look in the Cal/Arm forum and see the many debates that swirl around this topic and have been since apostolic times. They won't be resolved until Jesus comes again. This has nothing to do with the validity of the doctrine of sola sriptura just as it has nothing to do with the validity of the trinity.
Some of the sects you mentioned such as the Unitarians do not believe in the trinity. Does that invalidate the doctrine of the trinity? This is the logic you are using. The doctrine of the trinity is not taught explicitly in the Bible just as sola scriptura is not taught explicitly in the Bible. Both are taught through the principles that are given, sound statements that uphold both doctrines.

The article continues: Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?
Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.

Response:
1) It is true that “many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly” present in the Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity being one such case. But I’d like to stress the importance of Dr. Geisler’s use of the word “necessary” here. For in such cases, the the contents of Scripture are still two separate things. There is, on the one hand the actual words of Scripture (1) and then there is, on the other hand, the “mind” of the interpreter (2). And what’s fundamental to his argument here is not the actual content of Scripture, but the second of the two things at work here: the “mind” of the interpreter. For it just so happens that what is or what is not recognized as “necessary” has everything to do with the public and objective status of the individual or community of faith who is going about the business of interpreting the Scripture. So it is that Dr. Geisler reads the Scripture and considers a “necessary logical deduction” to be, for example, the doctrines many refer to as “Total Depravity” and “the Perseverance of Saints.” Meanwhile, another man with a Ph.D, a Reformed Baptist himself, walks away from the Scriptures, and with John Calvin, affirms all Five Points of Calvinism and deems them each “necessary logical deductions” from Scripture. The problem here, though, lies in that word “necessary.” For neither Dr. White nor Dr. Geisler has an upper hand over the other. One recognizes some doctrines as necessary logical deductions and the other identifies another set. Already, then, in the first three sentences of the article, Dr. Geisler has revealed the Achilles’ Heel of Sola Scriptura.

You are using these men to disprove a doctrine which cannot be disproved.
Dr. Geisler does believe in the depravity of man.
Dr. White has redefined "depravity of man to mean "total inability of man."
Both men do not believe that men were born in complete innocence as Adam and Eve were.
One might see a fine line of difference and why there is room in the Bible to teach either position, whereas the last position I stated would be heresy, since the Fall of man altered man's moral makeup. This is easy to see.
Sola scriptura is still scriptural. And it is not unscriptural for two men to come to different conclusions. It happens all the time. We are only human. We adhere to the fundamentals of the faith. Some of those fundamentals, which all Baptists adhere to, the RCC denies. Therein lies a big difference, and a difference why you could not rely on sola scripture, because those ungodly or unbiblical doctrines do not have their source from the Scripture but from man. That is, they are not inspired. They are simply "the traditions of men," which Christ condemned.

 

[DHK]

2) Dr. Geisler’s final sentence, which reads “Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.” Speaks only to the mere possibility of something. What is he saying? Is he imagining some sort of “binding possibility”? The fact that this statement represents some of the groundwork that Dr. Geisler is laying as a foundation for his article reminds me of my comment to both of you above in which I state that the best you have to offer, as far as your understanding of Sola Scriptura is concerned, is an “opinion.”

This is what the Bible says to do.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--We are to study the Word of God thoroughly, come to our own conclusions as we are guided by the Holy Spirit, and then preach the truth. We all agree on the fundamentals of the faith, probably more than the RCC does when it takes into consideration all of its various factions and in-fighting. We are more agreed than it appears to be. We preach the same message, the message of the Great Commission.

The people of the RCC go directly against this command of Scripture. They cannot obey it.
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
--The RCC has its own "private interpretation" of the Scriptures which is explained in its Catechism, and no Catholic dare go against it. There is no room for soul liberty, sola scriptura, the priesthood of the believer, all distinctives which the Baptists cherish.

The article continues: Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice.

Response:
1) This is a rather ambiguous way of referring to the status of the Scriptures. If they’re formally and explicitly teaching everything one needs to know, then why doesn’t Dr. Geisler just say so? Why does he say that the Bible “does teach implicitly and logically” that it is the only basis for “faith and practice” only to suggest that it may also do so “formally and explicitly”? Which one is it?

It does and he has given many scriptures to prove this, as Bob Ryan has also given you, such as:
Acts 17:11 and Isa.8:20

2) I want to focus in upon one word here. Dr. Geisler has carefully placed the word “alone” here in his claim. I want to focus upon that because it is central to the question as to whether or not the doctrine of Sola Scriptura stands or falls.

Alone refers to the Scripture. There is never any other authority referred to.

The article continues: This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient.

Response:
1) This claim represents a non sequitur. Just as you, DHK and BobRyan, have made similar claims, which I’ve described as non sequiturs, so does Dr. Geisler’s conclusion not follow from its premises. If a Detroit Piston walked into the room and I introduced him as a genuine Detroit Piston would the fact that he is an authentic Detroit Piston indicate that he is the only such athlete in the Universe? Certainly not. And the mere acknowledgment and recognition of the fact that the Scriptures are God-breathed in no way demands that we conclude that they are thus, as a logical corollary, understood to operate alone.

The Bible never makes an appeal to tradition. What is written are the very words of God. The "tradition" taught was the Word of God taught to Timothy before it became scripture or was inscripturated.

con't

 

[herbert]

Alone refers to the Scripture. There is never any other authority referred to.

DHK,

I know exactly what Dr. Geisler's "alone" refers to. And it represents an "inference" on the part of Dr. Geisler. As David Anders said, neither Scripture, a prophet, or an Angel of God, nor God Himself revealed to us the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura. That's why Catholics, remaining true to the Deposit of Faith, reject it.

Simply put, the Scriptures nowhere state what it is that you and Dr. Geisler are trying to draw from the texts. They didn't say it back when you were convinced of your friends' illegitimate arguments years ago. And they don't say it now.

I have read accounts of the process of conversion to Christianity offered by some Atheists and some Jews. In these accounts it is frequently the case that these converts recognize the obvious fact that Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible and that it clearly does not mean the same thing to everybody who claims to follow it.

Further, only when the authority of the Church was rejected in Western Europe did Sola Scriptura become such a popular concept among those who deserted their Catholic heritage. It represented an attempt on the part of those who were deserting Christ's Church to force-fit another authority into the space which had previously been occupied by an entirely different thing: the Catholic Church.

Yet even during the time of the Great Schism, the various Orthodox Churches didn't appeal to Sola Scriptura. And to this day they are seen as Churches with valid Sacraments and a true claim to Apostolic Succession. And we pray for our mutual reconciliation.

But ultimately, what baffles me is this claim: "There is never any other authority referred to."? Such a statement is simply anything but the truth.

The whole point of the Bible is focused upon the authority of Christ.

GK Chesterton described idolatry as "the preference for the incidental good over the eternal good which it symbolizes." Now, I am not accusing you of idolatry. Please understand that. I am, however, asking you to consider how, from my perspective, it seems as though you're denying Christ's authority as well as that of the Apostles for the sake of the maintenance of your doctrine: Are you not preferring the Scriptures to Christ? Doesn't your statement "There is never any other authority referred to." not put Christ in the backseat with the Apostles so that the Scriptures can take the wheel?

Your statement is so problematic for a million reasons because He, His very Person, is the authority of the Church. He is the King of the entire Universe and all creation. He is the whole point of everything. And you go so far to uphold your view of the Bible as to say "There is never any other authority referred to." Statements like these and this kind of intractability in general do indeed confuse me.

And to re-iterate, beyond His authority, the Apostles, as I've said numerous times, were also "referred to" in authoritative terms. Not only were they granted the authority to bind and loose, they were given the authority to forgive sins. The Apostles received his authority for just as the Father sent the Son, so the Son sent them as recorded in John 20:20-23. In Luke 10 He says "He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me." He gives the very "keys" to St. Peter singularly and to the Apostles collectively, Keys which signify a steward's authority to act on behalf of the King in his absence, incidentally, as the title of this thread says, to be the King's Vicar (which is defined as one who serves as a substitute, agent, or administrative deputy in the absence of an authority).

I feel like I am just recycling through things I've already said a number of times which have yet to be addressed and which are only met with repetition of the same statements. Yet just as Dr. Geisler begged the questions which separate us from the beginning of his article all the way to the very last sentence, so do you do the same thing.

Although I am speaking frankly concerning the content of our discussion, please receive my words in charity and good will. I know that, as I've said before, when dealing with sensitive subject matter, the written word has a way of not carrying with it our charity and goodwill toward one another.

In Him,

Herbert

 

[herbert]

By the way, DHK, this definition:

Scripture alone (from the Reformation slogan Sola Scriptura) is the teaching that Scripture is the Church's only infallible and sufficient rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. While the Bible does not contain all knowledge, it does contain that which is necessary for salvation. Indeed, if something is not found in Scripture, it is not binding upon the believer. This view does not deny that the Church has the authority to teach God's Word. Furthermore, while tradition is valuable, it but must be tested by the higher authority of the Scriptures.

of Sola Scriptura avoids none of the pitfalls of the other two definitions you and BobRyan presented. And although it sounds as though it affirms a sort of "subsidiary authority" for the Church, it boils down to individualism.

Simply put, if we identify the doctrines to which we subscribe and then identify a church which teaches our pre-accepted doctrines, that Church isn't really teaching us. We stand over and above the Church which we claim to "learn from."

What we're supposed to do is identify the Church which Christ established and then accept the teachings safeguarded there according to the divine caretaking of the Holy Spirit.

In other words, adherence to the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates a cart-horse/horse-cart problem which, as I said, reveals the fact that "submission" to Church authority for an adherent really reduces to submission to one's own views concerning the content of Scripture.

This is why in an earlier post I repeated a line I read somewhere that goes like this:

"When I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me."

In Him,

Herbert

 

[DHK]

The article continues: This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient.

Response:
2) For it isn’t by a stubborn and willful insistence that the Church calls upon Christians to acknowledge Sacred Tradition. Our understanding of the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition could be, on some level, understood as an analogue between the Lord (the Divine Logos) and the Apostles themselves (the Community of Hearers and Witnesses). A measured recognition of the role of Sacred Tradition is, far from being the result of a corrupt Church’s desperate attempt to cling to temporal power, something that flows naturally from a recognition of the relationship between a reader and a text or the Deposit of Faith, and the moral agency of that community of people which has come to receive it and live it out.

First, only the Bible is "God-breathed" or inspired.
Second, only the Apostles of the first century had that apostolic authority to write the NT scriptures, and it was their writings that were incorporated into the Word of God.
Third, the word "tradition" as it is used in the Bible always refers to the Word of God that was taught in NT times. It does not have the RCC meaning of "tradition" as given in any RCC encyclopedia. When Paul wrote the epistle, 2Thes., as early as 52 A.D., when he was still at Corinth. Pentecost took place 30 A.D. That leaves 22 years. That is not enough time, according to RCC definition of tradition for any "tradition" to be handed down. It contradicts the very Catholic meaning that the Catholics want to assign to the word found in 2Thes.2:15; 3:6. Not enough time had passed for tradition to have been formed. Christianity was still new. Paul still preached in the synagogues. There were not church buildings. They met in homes, anonymous places (the catacombs (a burial place), open fields, etc. There was nothing traditional about their services. The one in Acts 20:1-7 was not your traditional one hour service. It started in the evening. He preached through midnight and they finished at the "break of day." I don't believe it was "traditional." It also involved one being raised from the dead.
"The Deposit of Faith" is the Bible that Paul taught.
"The Tradition" that the RCC teaches are traditions of men which have been introduced through the influence of paganism. Many of them are anti-biblical which Christ himself would never approve of.

3) Further, for the reasons described by John Henry Newman above, Dr. Geisler is wrong. Further, I’ve read a host of modern Catholic responses which acknowledge that St. Paul’s writing, even during those days, were already regarded as Scripture. But the identification of some New Testament letters as Scripture, though, is not the sticking point here. As St. Paul describes things to Timothy, all Scripture, as I said above, is profitable to teach, reprove, correct, and instruct. Again, though, according to the text here, these qualities are ascribed to “all Scripture.” That means, Psalm 23, for example is “God-breathed” and is “profitable” all of the things St. Paul states. St. Paul’s words, though, aren’t addressing the question of Canonicity, however. Neither are his words addressing the role of those who exercise various roles in the Church according to its divine constitution.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--All scripture means all scripture: Old and New.
In Acts 17:11 the Bereans took the inspired OT and used it to verify a NT message preached by Paul. Paul condoned them for doing so.
In this verse:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--The command is not given just to a pastor or leader. It is a command that is for every born again believer. It doesn't matter what your role is in the church.
It reminds my of William Tyndale who translated the Bible into the common English.
In 1522, in Gloucester, Tyndale proclaimed to a Catholic bishop, the ambition that drove him: “If God spare my lyfe, ere many yeares, I wyl cause a boye that dryveth the plough shall know more of the scripture than thou doest.”
By the end of his life he had translated the Bible into English and the common person was now able to read it. The Guttenberg printing press had just been invented, and it was easily printed and distributed. The RCC could no longer keep the Bible from the common person. Tyndale’s “prophecy” came true.

4) Finally, this passage says nothing about Scripture alone or the “Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.” It says things about Scripture. But as far as Sola Scriptura goes, it suggests no such thing.

Do you mean the scripture: "All Scripture is inspired of God..."?
It is scripture that is inspired, and nothing else. Papal bulls for example, are not inspired. The decrees made at various councils, such as the Council of Trent, are meaningless. The Bible alone is our divine authority. It alone is inspired of God.

The article continues: This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition.

Response: No, it doesn’t. It does not “fly in the face” of Catholic teaching any more than the fact that many 1st Century Jews didn’t recognize Christ demonstrates the idea that He wasn’t God in the flesh.

They did, once they were saved. A Muslim today doesn't recognize that same fact. It takes the moving of the Holy Spirit. But even then, a mental consent to its fact doesn't guarantee salvation. I believed it for years as a Catholic but was not saved.

Scripture is God-breathed. Christ is God. The fact that these two things aren’t obvious to every person in the world doesn’t indicate otherwise. And the fact that the Ethiopian Eunuch, when asked if he understood the Scriptures he was reading, responded, saying “How can I, unless someone guides me?” far from “flying in the face” of the Catholic Church’s claim, actually stands in complete harmony with it. Indeed, the Ethiopian Eunuch was among the first of the world’s Catholic Christians.

No, he wasn't. The RCC. wasn't even in existence then. Obviously Peter was not in Rome as the RCC claim. It was a member, a servant of the church of Jerusalem which was pastored by James, not Peter, that led the Eunuch to the Lord. Peter was rather insignificant then.
What did Philip use?
He used the Bible, that is the Book of Isaiah
What method? It was sola scriptura. Using only the scriptures that he had he demonstrated that Christ was the Messiah and that he died for his sins. Thus the Eunuch trusted Christ and was also baptized. All because Philip chose to use "sola scriptura."

 

[herbert]

DHK,

At this point, we've resorted to what might be called "Table pounding." You're repeating things. I'm repeating things. We're not getting anywhere.

I keep repeating things because you're not addressing the points I am making. I have written about 2 Timothy 3:16-17 at least three times now and you have not interacted with what I have said.

I have presented an understanding of 1 Corinthians 4:6 which is entirely compatible with the Catholic Faith. Instead of showing me why my reasoning is wrong, you just keep citing those verses.

But the Bible isn't yours to "beat me over the head with." Your claim to be faithful to the Bible stands against my claim to be doing the same thing.

Further, you continue claiming that Paganism came into the Church and corrupted her teachings. I have asked you to substantiate that claim with historical fact. You've not done so.

I've repeated the observation of David Anders, which states that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine which has not been revealed by God and is therefore not binding upon believers. You've not responded to that directly, either, by, for example, producing evidence to the contrary.

I went through Dr. Geisler's article and spoke to every point he made which I felt could be addressed. The points I make in my response are right there for you to refute.

Yet instead of "reasoning" with me, you keep citing verses and saying things like "The RCC" killed Baptists. Paganism corrupted the Church. Jesus wouldn't approve of Catholic teachings, etc. All of these things "beg the question."

The phrase "beg the question" means to presume (without demonstration) the very thing in question. Here is a definition: "Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself.

This is what you're doing. Until you stop committing this logical fallacy, I don't see how we'll make any progress.

Herbert

 

[utilyan]

First, only the Bible is "God-breathed" or inspired.
Second, only the Apostles of the first century had that apostolic authority to write the NT scriptures, and it was their writings that were incorporated into the Word of God.
Third, the word "tradition" as it is used in the Bible always refers to the Word of God that was taught in NT times. It does not have the RCC meaning of "tradition" as given in any RCC encyclopedia. When Paul wrote the epistle, 2Thes., as early as 52 A.D., when he was still at Corinth. Pentecost took place 30 A.D. That leaves 22 years. That is not enough time, according to RCC definition of tradition for any "tradition" to be handed down. It contradicts the very Catholic meaning that the Catholics want to assign to the word found in 2Thes.2:15; 3:6. Not enough time had passed for tradition to have been formed. Christianity was still new. Paul still preached in the synagogues. There were not church buildings. They met in homes, anonymous places (the catacombs (a burial place), open fields, etc. There was nothing traditional about their services. The one in Acts 20:1-7 was not your traditional one hour service. It started in the evening. He preached through midnight and they finished at the "break of day." I don't believe it was "traditional." It also involved one being raised from the dead.
"The Deposit of Faith" is the Bible that Paul taught.
"The Tradition" that the RCC teaches are traditions of men which have been introduced through the influence of paganism. Many of them are anti-biblical which Christ himself would never approve of.


2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--All scripture means all scripture: Old and New.
In Acts 17:11 the Bereans took the inspired OT and used it to verify a NT message preached by Paul. Paul condoned them for doing so.
In this verse:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--The command is not given just to a pastor or leader. It is a command that is for every born again believer. It doesn't matter what your role is in the church.
It reminds my of William Tyndale who translated the Bible into the common English.
In 1522, in Gloucester, Tyndale proclaimed to a Catholic bishop, the ambition that drove him: “If God spare my lyfe, ere many yeares, I wyl cause a boye that dryveth the plough shall know more of the scripture than thou doest.”
By the end of his life he had translated the Bible into English and the common person was now able to read it. The Guttenberg printing press had just been invented, and it was easily printed and distributed. The RCC could no longer keep the Bible from the common person. Tyndale’s “prophecy” came true.

Do you mean the scripture: "All Scripture is inspired of God..."?
It is scripture that is inspired, and nothing else. Papal bulls for example, are not inspired. The decrees made at various councils, such as the Council of Trent, are meaningless. The Bible alone is our divine authority. It alone is inspired of God.


They did, once they were saved. A Muslim today doesn't recognize that same fact. It takes the moving of the Holy Spirit. But even then, a mental consent to its fact doesn't guarantee salvation. I believed it for years as a Catholic but was not saved.

No, he wasn't. The RCC. wasn't even in existence then. Obviously Peter was not in Rome as the RCC claim. It was a member, a servant of the church of Jerusalem which was pastored by James, not Peter, that led the Eunuch to the Lord. Peter was rather insignificant then.
What did Philip use?
He used the Bible, that is the Book of Isaiah
What method? It was sola scriptura. Using only the scriptures that he had he demonstrated that Christ was the Messiah and that he died for his sins. Thus the Eunuch trusted Christ and was also baptized. All because Philip chose to use "sola scriptura."

"First, only the Bible is "God-breathed" or inspired."


False statement. The CHURCH was God-breathed.

John 20
22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

1 timothy 3
15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.


The Eucharist, communion. Is auto-authorized by Jesus Christ.

It is a man-made tradition that ink and paper is a superior form of communication.

In Christ time and the early church, a book is a expensive luxury and so is being able to read.

Bibles had locks and chains.

When Jesus established communion his tools of choice was PEOPLE-GOD BREATHED, BREAD and WINE.


Where do we get off insisting our method of communication is more reliable then God?

When there is a dispute between us, Jesus says take it to the church. If YOUR Jesus was in a dispute he would say crack open a King James and lets see what it says.

Who believes God had the power to inspire church members to write holy scripture and to author it infallibly, Right off the bat God gives 40 or so people infallibility to WRITE scripture. But God is too weak to give the same infallibility to the God-breathed church bishops.


2 Corinthians 3
1Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? 2You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

Look Paul challenges at the beginning does he need to write scripture to validate or be validated?

He says the Christian HIMSELF is his SCRIPTURE. WRITTEN NOT WITH INK.


WRITTEN WITH THE SPIRIT OF GOD, NOT ON STONE OR PAPER. but on HUMAN HEARTS.



You might think well a person is not as trust worthy as INK and PAPER. But that's part of the lesson because your trust ought to be on God and whatever method he pleases.


If there is a race. And you see the options of driving a Ferrari, a Lamborghini, and God appears and wants you to take a Volkswagen Beetle with three wheels and a flat.

What car do you pick? The lesson over and over again, is don't underestimate God almighty.

Whether its a perfect church or a complete mess church that isn't the question or concern. Did God pick it is the bottom line.

For people who swear on FAITH ALONE its hypocritical to contemplate.
Yah we only need to trust God, faith alone.........but I better do it over here!
Or when some baby is baptized, yet swear salvation is God's choice not ours. No kidding that's prob why he got baptized with no choice. Mind Blown.