"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8
"But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things, suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it" - Tertullian (Against Praxeas, 10)
Anybody who knows much about church history knows why Catholic apologists appeal so often to development of doctrine. Concepts like the Immaculate Conception, private confession of all sins to a priest, and the existence of no less and no more than seven sacraments didn't arise until long after the apostles died. To make such doctrines appear credible, Catholic apologists have to argue that these post-apostolic developments are approved by God. They'll argue for the acceptance of the papacy on philosophical and speculative grounds, then they'll appeal to the authority of the papacy for the acceptance of other developments (the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, etc.).
I address some of the problems with Catholic appeals to development of doctrine in another article at this web site (http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/develop.htm). In this article, I want to respond to a recent defense of development of doctrine, written by Dave Armstrong of Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZHOME.HTM). His article is at:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ423.HTM
What follows, below, are eight messages I posted in a forum on America Online. These were written in response to Irishchico@aol.com, who cited Dave Armstrong's article as a refutation of what I've argued about development. (John Betts, Irishchico@aol.com, is planning to leave America Online soon, so you may not be able to contact him at the address just mentioned.)
Dave Armstrong responded to what's below, and his response can be read at:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ430.HTM
My reply is at:
http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/devdef2.htm
Post 1
I've made three arguments against the Roman Catholic appeal to
development of doctrine:
1.) The appeals are speculative. They're unverifiable.
2.) The appeals to development contradict what the RCC has
taught. For example, if the Council of Trent teaches that
transubstantiation has always been the view of the
eucharist held by the Christian church, Catholic apologists can't
rationally argue that transubstantiation is a later development
of an earlier belief in a more vague "real presence".
To make such an argument would be a contradiction of the
teachings of the institution Catholic apologists claim to be
defending.
3.) What Catholic apologists call developments are sometimes contradictions
instead. For example, if the most straightforward readings of
passages like Luke 1:47 and John 2:3-4 are that Mary was a
sinner, and church fathers teach for centuries that she was a
sinner, it's irrational to argue that a later belief in a sinless
Mary is a development of the earlier belief. Such a change would
be more accurately described as a contradiction, not a
development.
I've made these three arguments, summarized above, many times.
I've written about them in this forum probably hundreds of times
by now, in one way or another. Recently, Irishchico posted a link
to an article that he considers to be a refutation of what I've
argued about development of doctrine. The article is by Dave
Armstrong, and it's at:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ423.HTM
Dave Armstrong wrote the article primarily in response to William
Webster, though he also mentions other people (George Salmon,
James White, etc.), and Irishchico obviously thinks that the
article is applicable to me. Of my three arguments, summarized
above, Dave Armstrong focuses on the second one, while the first
and the third are only addressed more vaguely and in passing. But
I'm going to use my response to defend all three of the
arguments.
In my next post, I'll address a popular misconception among
Catholic apologists. Then, I'll quote some portions of Dave's
article. After the quotes, I'll summarize the arguments he's made
that I'll be responding to. In the posts following that, I'll
explain how and why Dave is wrong.
====================
The thorns on His head were worn in my stead
For me the Saviour died;
For guilt of my sin the nails drove in,
When Him they crucified.
Though the crown that He wore
And the cross that He bore
Were His own,
They rightly were mine, instead.
(anonymous, Borrowed)
====================
Jason Engwer
Christian Liberty
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath
made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of
bondage." - Galatians 5:1
====================
Post 2
I want to begin by discarding with a popular misconception
among Catholic apologists. Dave Armstrong writes:
"The Anglican George Salmon's The Infallibility of the
Church (originally 1890) apparently remains an inspiration for
the anti-infallibility, anti-development polemics of the current
generation of anti-Catholic crusaders, such as William Webster
and James White."
In a recent post in this forum, I explained the difference
between acceptable and unacceptable forms of development of
doctrine. I compared a Trinitarian doctrine that can be said to
have developed in some way (the co-existence of the three
Persons) with a Roman Catholic doctrine that's said to have
developed (the Immaculate Conception). As I explained in that
earlier post, the co-existence of the three Persons is a necessary
and non-speculative conclusion drawn from Matthew
3:16-17 and other passages of scripture. The Immaculate
Conception, on the other hand, is an unnecessary and speculative
conclusion drawn from Luke 1:28 and other passages of scripture.
To argue that this Trinitarian doctrine and this Roman Catholic
doctrine developed in the same way is fallacious. The
Trinitarian doctrine is a necessary and non-speculative
development, something that's already in scripture. The Roman
Catholic doctrine (the Immaculate Conception), on the other hand,
is an unnecessary and speculative attempt to give a scriptural
foundation to a much later concept. In other words,
there's a difference between a.) developing an understanding of
something already in scripture and b.) trying to read a
post-scriptural concept into scripture in ways that are
unnecessary and speculative.
Clearly, then, I don't object to all forms of development of
doctrine. I object to the Roman Catholic version of
development as it's used to defend the early absence of doctrines
like the papacy and the Immaculate Conception. In other
words, if Catholic apologists want to argue that people's
understanding of the implications of a passage like Matthew
3:16-17 developed over time, I don't object to that. But if these
same Catholic apologists want to argue that the Immaculate
Conception is a development of what the earliest Christians
believed about Mary, I do object to that use of
the development argument. As far as I know, the Protestant
apologists mentioned by Dave Armstrong (William Webster, James
White, etc.) agree with me on this.
In his article on development of doctrine and the papacy, William
Webster makes some comments that could be interpreted as
opposition to all forms of development. Or, the comments could
be interpreted as William Webster saying that the RCC has
condemned all forms of development. But if you read William
Webster's article, it becomes clear that he's addressing some specific
arguments for development, not all forms of the concept. Namely,
he specifically objects to Catholic apologists appealing to
development on issues such as the primacy of Peter and the
universal jurisdiction of the earliest Roman bishops. This
doesn't mean that William Webster is objecting to every
appeal to development, nor does it mean that he thinks the RCC
has condemned every form of development.
I think Dave Armstrong's response to William Webster is off the
mark, in that he reads too much into what Webster has argued.
There are some comments Webster makes that could be interpreted
as a condemnation of all forms of development. But you'd have to
ignore what Webster argues elsewhere, in the same article. And I
don't think we should do that. Webster begins his article on
development by qualifying his comments with the phrase "as
an institution" (emphasis mine). That's a vague
qualifier, but I think Webster clarifies what he means as the
article progresses. He's addressing specific issues such
as the primacy of Peter and the universal jurisdiction of the
earliest Roman bishops. He's not addressing all forms of
development on every issue. He closes his article with this
paragraph:
"So when we analyze these papal teachings in the light of
history it is perfectly legitimate to ask the question on two
levels. As to the actual insitution of the papacy, do we find the
teachings of Vatican I expressed by the fathers of the Church in
their practice? And secondly, as to the issue of interpretation,
do we find a unanimous consent of the fathers regarding Vatican
I’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18, John 21:15-17 and Luke
22:32 that supports papal primacy and infallibility? In both
cases the answer is a decided no."
Obviously, Webster is addressing two specific issues here, the
"two levels" he refers to. He's not denying all
forms of development, nor is he accusing the RCC of having denied
all forms of development.
James White, in his most popular book on Roman Catholicism, The
Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany
House, 1996), specifically advocates development of doctrine. He
also contrasts acceptable forms of development with unacceptable
forms of development (pp. 80-85). White's book has been out for a
few years now, so he can't be accused of just recently coming up
with this argument.
When evangelicals criticize Catholic apologists for appealing to
development of doctrine, they're not condemning all forms of
development. They have something specific in mind. And
if you read their writings, you can see what specifically they're
objecting to. Therefore, an article like Dave Armstrong's, which
makes such vague references to evangelicals opposing
Catholic appeals to development, is misleading. Evangelicals are
more specific in their arguments than Dave implies. William
Webster in particular has produced hundreds of pages of
documentation of specifically what he means when he says
that the First Vatican Council is a contradiction of modern
Catholic appeals to development. Yes, the First Vatican Council
believed in some forms of development of doctrine, as
Dave argues in his article. But, at the same time, there are some
specific cases, such as Vatican I's claims about Matthew
16, where development just isn't a valid argument.
====================
"If any in their sluggishness are disposed to think that a
perpetual body of infallible teachers would be a blessing, all
must admit that the assumption of infallibility by the ignorant,
the erring, and the wicked, must be an evil inconceivably great.
The Romish theory, if true, might be a blessing; if false, it
must be an awful curse." - Charles Hodge (cited in Philip
Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom [Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1998], Vol. I, p. 171)
====================
Jason Engwer
Christian Liberty
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath
made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of
bondage." - Galatians 5:1
====================
Post 3
Regarding Peter, the papacy, and the later development of the
doctrine, Dave Armstrong writes:
"The primacy itself was given to him [Peter]; the duty and
prerogatives of the papal office, and the keys of the kingdom,
but none of that implies that a full understanding or
application, or unanimous acknowledgement by others is therefore
also present from the beginning. The thing itself - in its
essential aspects, or nature, is present. And that is what
develops, without inner contradiction or change of principle, as
Newman ably pointed out in the long citation above."
Concerning passages like Matthew 16 and John 21, often cited by
today's Catholic apologists, Dave writes:
"Thus, even if not all Fathers accepted the interpretations
of certain 'papal' passages which are frequently used in Catholic
apologetics today, that does not mean that they therefore
rejected the doctrine of the papacy."
He comments elsewhere:
"Indeed, jurisdiction was present from the beginning, and
recognized by the Fathers, as fully evidenced in my 50 NT Proofs
for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy and in great depth in Steve
Ray's book Upon This Rock. It was present when Jesus gave to St.
Peter the 'keys of the kingdom,' and renamed him 'Rock,' with
strongly implied (and soon-exercised) ecclesiological
preeminence, as shown in the many passages I detail. The
successors are a matter of historical fact. Rome became the
center of the Church by God's design: Sts. Peter and Paul were
martyred there, after all. American Christians have scarcely any
notion of the place and function of martyrdom in the Christian
life. Rome was also obviously key in terms of influencing the
Roman Empire."
Dave gives a citation of Cardinal Newman, the most popular
advocate of the Roman Catholic version of development of
doctrine. Part of what Newman wrote, as cited by Dave Armstrong,
is the following:
"As to this doctrine the question is this, whether there was
not from the first a certain element at work, or in existence,
divinely sanctioned, which, for certain reasons, did not at once
show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs, and of
which events in the fourth century are the development; and
whether the evidence of its existence and operation, which does
occur in the earlier centuries, be it much or little, is not just
such as ought to occur upon such an hypothesis....No doctrine is
defined till it is violated...It will be said that all this is a
theory. Certainly it is: it is a theory to account for facts as
they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us
about the Papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory
to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it; and,
which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and
acts of the Ante-nicene Church with that antecedent probability
of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual
exemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their
presumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that
presumption."
I now want to summarize the arguments of Dave Armstrong that I'm
going to respond to:
1.) The papacy has existed since the time of Peter in at least a
seed form, but it later developed into something more. The
development isn't a contradiction. It's a progression. The seed
we can see early on consists of concepts such as the universal
jurisdiction of Peter. However, even this seed may not have been
fully understood or universally recognized early on.
2.) Even if some church fathers rejected the papal interpretation
of a passage like Matthew 16 or John 21, that doesn't change the
fact that others accepted the papal interpretation. Or,
they at least accepted a seed form of the papal
interpretation, one that would later develop into the papal
interpretation. And a church father could possibly believe in the
doctrine of the papacy even if he didn't see a papacy where
Catholics see it today (Matthew 16, Luke 22, John 21, etc.).
3.) The prominence of the Roman church early on is evidence of a
papacy. Even if there are other explanations for the prominence
of the Roman church, such as Peter and Paul having been martyred
there and the city's prominence within the Empire, the papacy
could also be a factor.
4.) As Cardinal Newman explains, the doctrine of the papacy
wouldn't have been defined until it was violated. Therefore, it's
not surprising that it isn't until later centuries that explicit
evidence for a papacy can be seen.
5.) As Cardinal Newman explains, accepting the development of the
papacy as a doctrine depends on the "probability of a
monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme". In other words,
accepting the development of the papacy as a Divinely appointed
development requires the assumption that God would want there
to be a papal office in the Christian church. As Newman
explains, "All depends on the strength of that
presumption."
Having quoted Dave's article, and having summarized five specific
arguments I want to respond to, I now move on to my responses to
each argument.
====================
"I think it much better, then, instead of running away from
this ghost of tradition which Roman Catholic controversialists
dress up to frighten us with, to walk up to it, and pull it to
pieces, when it is found to be a mere bogey. You say that you
have other evidence as to the teaching of our Lord and His
Apostles as trustworthy as the Books of the New Testament. Well,
produce your evidence, and let us see what it is worth. When the
question is looked at in this way it will be found that the
appeal to tradition by Roman Catholics means no more than this:
that there are doctrines taught by the Church of Rome which, it
must be acknowledged, cannot be found in Scripture, and which she
is unwilling to own that she invented, or to pretend that they
were made known to her by a new revelation. It remains, then,
that she must have received them by tradition. But the
baselessness of this pretence appears when we come to look into
the testimony of antiquity with respect to each of the peculiar
doctrines of Romanism." - George Salmon, The
Infallibility of the Church (London, England: John Murray,
1914), p. 133
====================
Jason Engwer
Christian Liberty
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath
made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of
bondage." - Galatians 5:1
====================
Post 4
This is Dave's first argument, as I summarized it:
1.) The papacy has existed since the time of Peter in at least a
seed form, but it later developed into something more. The
development isn't a contradiction. It's a progression. The seed
we can see early on consists of concepts such as the universal
jurisdiction of Peter. However, even this seed may not have been
fully understood or universally recognized early on.
One of the problems with Dave's argument is that it's so
speculative. Might the keys of Matthew 16 be a reference to papal
authority? Yes. Might they also be something else, such as a
reference to Peter's authority in preaching the gospel at
Pentecost? Yes. As we'll see later, the evidence is against the
papal interpretation. But even without knowing that, isn't it
problematic when people like Dave want to build an institution
like the papacy, with all of its major implications, on something
as speculative as the papal interpretation of Matthew
16? How much is this sort of speculation worth?
Elsewhere at his web site, Dave explains that the Biblical
evidence for the papacy, aside from passages like Matthew 16 and
Luke 22, consists of things like Jesus preaching from Peter's
boat and Peter being the first apostle to enter Jesus' tomb after
the resurrection. Again, do you see the role speculation is
playing here? Does Peter say and do many things that are unique
in one way or another? Yes. So do the other apostles. John is
called "the beloved disciple", is referred to as living
until Christ's return, and lived the longest among the apostles.
Paul is called a "chosen vessel" who will bear Christ's
name before the world, he repeatedly refers to his authority over
all the churches, and he's the only apostle to publicly
rebuke and correct another apostle (Peter). Can you imagine what
Catholic apologists would make of these things, if they
had been said about Peter rather than about another person? What
if Peter had been uniquely called "the beloved
disciple"? What if Peter had uniquely been referred to as
living until Christ's return? (Catholic apologists would probably
cite the passage as evidence that Peter was to have successors
with papal authority until Christ returns.) What if it had been
Peter rather than Paul who had repeatedly referred to his
authority over all churches, and had publicly rebuked
and corrected another apostle? If Catholic apologists are going
to see papal implications in Jesus preaching from Peter's boat or
in Peter being given some keys, why don't they see papal
implications in these other passages involving other
people? The passages involving Paul, for example, such as his
references to having authority over all churches, are
closer to a papacy than anything said about Peter.
Notice something Dave Armstrong says about the alleged early
evidence for a papacy:
"The primacy itself was given to him [Peter]; the duty and
prerogatives of the papal office, and the keys of the kingdom,
but none of that implies that a full understanding or
application, or unanimous acknowledgement by others is therefore
also present from the beginning."
It's important to notice what Dave seems to be arguing here. Apparently,
he's saying that even the seed form of the papacy wasn't
necessarily understood or universally recognized early on.
But think of the logical implications of this. If there was no
oak tree early on, and even the existence of an acorn is
questionable, isn't that problematic for the claims of the RCC?
If all Catholics have is a series of speculations about
passages like Matthew 16 and John 21, followed by a later
development of a papal office with all that it involves today,
aren't they basically admitting what Eastern Orthodox,
Protestants, and others have been saying all along? As Peter de
Rosa wrote in Vicars of Christ (New York, New York:
Crown Publishing, 1988), "The gospels did not create the
papacy; the papacy, once in being, leaned for support on the
gospels" (p. 25).
I think it would be helpful at this point to repost a citation
I've used before from a Roman Catholic historian:
"There appears at the present time to be increasing
consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the
Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question
whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond
Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms,
should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask
whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected
him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of
Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter
and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community
who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably
'no.'…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was
aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to
the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the
community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the
Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in
Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must
certainly be given a negative answer....Rome did not succeed in
maintaining its position against the contrary opinion and praxis
of a significant portion of the Church. The two most important
controversies of this type were the disputes over the feast of
Easter and heretical baptism. Each marks a stage in Rome’s
sense of authority and at the same time reveals the initial
resistance of other churches to the Roman claim." (Klaus
Schatz, Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The
Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2, 11)
Notice that this Catholic historian:
1.) Acknowledges that he's describing a consensus among Catholic
and non-Catholic scholars.
2.) Describes a consensus that contradicts what the RCC
has taught at the First Vatican Council and elsewhere.
Schatz doesn't just say that the papacy developed over time. He
specifically refers to concepts such as Peter having universal
jurisdiction and being succeeded to in that role exclusively by
Roman bishops. And he says that there's a consensus, even
among Catholic scholars, that the earliest Christians had no such
concepts. In other words, even the seed form of the papacy
that people like Dave Armstrong try to defend didn't exist early
on.
====================
"Let [the gospels'] testimony be sifted, as it were given in
a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness
being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it
is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of
their integrity, ability, and truth." - Simon Greenleaf, The
Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel
Classics, 1995), back cover
====================
Jason Engwer
Christian Liberty
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath
made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of
bondage." - Galatians 5:1
====================
Post 5
This is Dave's second argument, as I summarized it:
2.) Even if some church fathers rejected the papal interpretation
of a passage like Matthew 16 or John 21, that doesn't change the
fact that others accepted the papal interpretation. Or,
they at least accepted a seed form of the papal
interpretation, one that would later develop into the papal
interpretation. And a church father could possibly believe in the
doctrine of the papacy even if he didn't see a papacy where
Catholics see it today (Matthew 16, Luke 22, John 21, etc.).
Dave's argument is spurious. Here's what the First Vatican
Council claimed in chapter 1 of session 4, concerning the papal
interpretation of Matthew 16 (emphasis mine):
"To this absolutely manifest
teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always
been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the
distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of
government which Christ the lord established in his church and
deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken
singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and
proper primacy of jurisdiction.
The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was
not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself,
but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that
it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not
appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and
visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a
primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper
jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our
lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema."
Elsewhere, this same council refers to the papacy as described
above as something "known to all ages", something that
"none can doubt". What are we to make of Dave
Armstrong's argument, in light of what the First Vatican Council
taught?
Notice, first of all, that Vatican I claims that the papal
interpretation of Matthew 16 is clear, that only distorters
would deny it, and that it's always been accepted by the
Christian church. Catholics may appeal to development of doctrine
on other issues, but these claims of Vatican I don't allow for
any appeals to development with regard to the papal
interpretation of Matthew 16.
Yet, what do we see when we examine the history of the
interpretation of this passage of scripture? As William Webster
documents in his books and at his web site ( http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html
), the earliest interpretations of Matthew 16 are either
non-papal or anti-papal. Even among the later church fathers,
there's widespread ignorance of, and even contradiction of, the
papal interpretation. Even in some cases where a papal
interpretation might be in view, the papal
interpretation is at best a minority viewpoint. Augustine,
writing as late as the fifth century, specifically denies that
Peter is "this rock", and he gives no indication that
he's thereby doing something revolutionary or something that
would be perceived as "distorting", as Vatican I would
put it.
What we see in the history of the interpretation of Matthew 16 is
just what William Webster has described. Catholic apologists are
forced, by the facts of history, to argue for a gradual
development of the papal understanding of Matthew 16. Yet, the
First Vatican Council claimed that the papal interpretation had always
been accepted by the Christian church. According to the First
Vatican Council, the papacy is clear in Matthew 16, and only
perverse distorters would deny that. But the papal interpretation
of Matthew 16 is actually absent and contradicted early on. The
facts of history fly directly in the face of what the RCC has
taught.
====================
"If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me
[Ephesians 2:5-6]. But if he has wronged you in any way, or owes
you anything, charge that to my account [2 Corinthians 5:21]; I,
Paul, am writing this with my own hand, I will repay it [2
Corinthians 8:9]" - Philemon 17-19
====================
Jason Engwer
Christian Liberty
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath
made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of
bondage." - Galatians 5:1
====================
Post 6
This is the third argument made by Dave Armstrong, as I
summarized it earlier:
3.) The prominence of the Roman church early on is evidence of a
papacy. Even if there are other explanations for the prominence
of the Roman church, such as Peter and Paul having been martyred
there and the city's prominence within the Empire, the papacy
could also be a factor.
The problem with Dave's argument is that all of the earliest
references to the Roman church's prominence are non-papal. The
apostle Paul, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others give non-papal
reasons for commending the Roman church. They mention things like
the Roman church's faith, its love, its generosity, its location
in the capital of the Empire, Paul and Peter having been there
and having been martyred there, etc. Rather than the prominence
of the early Roman church being an argument for the papacy
existing at the time, it's an argument against it. When
one source after another commends the Roman church, and all sorts
of reasons are given for commending it, and those reasons never
include a papacy, that speaks volumes. It's a confirmation of
what Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and others have been saying
for centuries. The Roman church rose in influence for various practical
reasons. Once the bishop of Rome had attained a wide influence,
that influence was increasingly attributed to Divine appointment.
As Peter de Rosa said in my earlier citation, the gospels didn't
create the papacy; the papacy, once in being, leaned for support
on the gospels.
To admit that there were practical factors involved in the rise
of the Roman church's influence, then suggest that a papacy may
have been a factor as well, is just a begging of the question.
The practical factors are specifically mentioned by the early
writers (Paul mentions the Roman church's faith, Ignatius
mentions its love and generosity, Irenaeus mentions that Paul and
Peter were there, etc.). A Divinely appointed papacy, on the
other hand, is not mentioned by the early writers. So
it's just more question begging on the part of Catholic
apologists for them to ask us to assume that the papacy was a
factor at a time when it's never mentioned. Could documents like
First Clement and Irenaeus' letter to Victor be interpreted in a
papal way? Yes. Could they also be interpreted in non-papal and
even anti-papal ways? Yes.
====================
"It is a blessing for us that as sin lives and the flesh
lives and the devil lives, so Jesus lives. It is also a blessing
that whatever strength these may have to ruin us, Jesus has still
greater power to save us." - Charles Spurgeon, All of
Grace (Springdale, Pennsylvania: Whitaker House, 1983), p.
96
====================
Jason Engwer
Christian Liberty
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath
made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of
bondage." - Galatians 5:1
====================
Post 7
Dave's fourth argument:
4.) As Cardinal Newman explains, the papacy wouldn't have been
defined until it was violated. Therefore, it's not surprising
that it isn't until later centuries that explicit evidence for a
papacy can be seen.
See my earlier citation of Catholic historian Klaus Schatz. The
second century controversy over Easter and the third century
controversy over heretical baptism involved entire regions of the
world, even churches across the world, disagreeing with
the bishop of Rome. To say that the concept of a papacy wasn't
significantly challenged until the fourth century, as Newman
implies in my earlier citation of him, is erroneous. Anytime a
heretical group like the Judaizers, Gnostics, or Montanists would
arise, that would inherently be a challenge to the papacy, if one
existed at the time. If the papacy needed to be defined when
challenged, it should have been defined in the first century.
Early on, we see specific defenses of Christ's deity, the
Trinity, the physical resurrection of the dead, etc. Even as
early as Paul's writings, only halfway through the first century,
we see specific and explicit defenses of Christ's deity
(Colossians 1-2), the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians
15), etc. Why don't we see any specific defenses of the papacy?
When disputes and questions arose over matters of church
government, the earliest responses were to teach about bishops,
deacons, how church services should be conducted, etc. (1
Corinthians 1, 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy,
Titus, 3 John, etc.). Yet, in all of these many writings about
church government, church discipline, and doctrinal authority, we
never see any reference to a papacy. When Newman and other
Catholic apologists suggest that the absence of early references
to a papacy are due to an absence of opportunity to discuss the
subject, they're wrong. If a context like Galatians 1-2, 1
Timothy, or 2 Peter 1:13-15 doesn't cry out for a mention of a
Divinely appointed papacy, what would? If the early
disputes over Christ's deity, the resurrection, the celebration
of Easter, heretical baptism, etc. didn't cry out for appeals to
a Divinely appointed papacy, what would? Yes, Peter and some
Roman bishops were involved in some of these controversies, but
never as a Pope. In some cases, their role in the controversy is
disregarded and even contradicted by other Christians
across the world.
If you were Paul, and you viewed yourself as being in submission
to Peter as Pope, would you write a passage like Galatians 1-2?
Would you refer to how you're independent of human authority
(Galatians 1:1, 1:12, 1:16, 2:6)? Would you compare your
apostleship with Peter's (Galatians 2:7-8)? Would you refer to
Peter as just one of three reputed pillars, naming him second
(Galatians 2:9)? If you were writing a document like 1 Timothy or
2 Timothy, in which you're giving all sorts of instruction on
matters of church government, church discipline, and doctrinal
authority, would the papacy be the sort of thing you wouldn't
mention? If you were Peter, and you wanted to explain to people
how they could remember what you had taught and know the truth
after you die (2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2), would you never mention
the doctrine of the papacy or the fact that a man in Rome will
always be the infallible standard of orthodoxy?
Contrary to what Newman and others argue, there were a lot of
opportunities for a papacy to be explicitly mentioned and
defended early on. But it wasn't. Instead, the concept is
repeatedly either ignored or contradicted. Perhaps this is
because there just wasn't a papacy at the time?
====================
"It is hard to understand how an orthodox, evangelical,
Bible-believing Christian can fail to be excited. The answers in
the realm of the intellect should make us overwhelmingly excited.
But more than this, we are returned to a personal relationship
with the God who is there. If we are unexcited Christians, we
should go back and see what is wrong. We are surrounded by a
generation that can find 'no one home' in the universe. If
anything marks our generation, it is this. In contrast to this,
as a Christian I know who I am; and I know the personal God who
is there. I speak, and he hears. I am not surrounded by mere
mass, nor only energy particles, but he is there. And if I have
accepted Christ as my Savior, then though it will not be perfect
in this life, yet moment by moment, on the basis of the finished
work of Christ, this person-to-person relationship with the God
who is there can have reality to me." - Francis Schaeffer, The
God Who is There (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity
Press, 1998), p. 190
====================
Jason Engwer
Christian Liberty
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath
made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of
bondage." - Galatians 5:1
====================
Post 8
And, finally, the fifth argument:
5.) As Cardinal Newman explains, accepting the development of the
papacy as a doctrine depends on the "probability of a
monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme". In other words,
accepting the development of the papacy as a Divinely appointed
development requires the assumption that God would want there
to be a papal office in the Christian church. As Newman
explains, "All depends on the strength of that
presumption."
Here we come to the heart of the matter. This is, I believe, the
true reason why most Catholic apologists accept the doctrine of
the papacy. They find it philosophically appealing.
(Colossians 2:8) They like the idea of there being an
institution with all of the authority the RCC claims to have,
specifically the authority the papacy claims to have.
Obviously, philosophical preferences can go in all sorts of
different directions. Do Catholics think a papal office seems
like an appropriate way for God to operate? What if I think some other
way is more appropriate? Are you going to argue that the RCC's
dogmatic teaching and anathemas on this issue are justified by a philosophical
preference?
As I explained earlier, the Old Testament actually gives us
precedent for expecting God to fulfill His promises to the
Christian church differently than Catholic apologists think He
would. God hasn't kept His promises to Israel by means of an
infallible, unbroken succession, with an infallible Vicar of
Yahweh in Jerusalem. God worked through remnants then (Romans
11:2-5), and Paul implies in Romans 11 that He's continuing to
work through remnants in this New Testament era.
I could say more, but I think it's already clear that Dave
Armstrong's defense of development of doctrine (as conservative
Catholics define it) is erroneous. It's speculative, it ignores
or minimizes a lot of historical facts, and it misrepresents its
opposition. Irishchico ought to look for a defense of Roman
Catholic development elsewhere, because what he's found in Dave
Armstrong is irrational and contrary to the facts. Dave makes
some valid points, such as that everybody believes in some
form of development of doctrine, but who denied that? As far as
the issues in dispute are concerned, Dave Armstrong's
article isn't worth much.
====================
"An unlearned Protestant perceives that the doctrine of Rome
is not the doctrine of the Bible. A learned Protestant adds that
neither is it the doctrine of the primitive Church. These
assertions are no longer denied, as in former days. Putting the
concessions made us at the lowest, it is at least owned that the
doctrine of Rome is as unlike that of early times as an oak is
unlike an acorn, or a butterfly unlike a caterpillar. The
unlikeness is admitted: and the only question remaining is
whether that unlikeness is absolutely inconsistent with
substantial identity. In other words, it is owned that there has
been a change, and the question is whether we are to call it
development or corruption." - George Salmon, The
Infallibility of the Church (London, England: John Murray,
1914), p. 39
====================
Jason Engwer
Christian Liberty
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath
made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of
bondage." - Galatians 5:1
====================