I had the opportunity to read the
transcript of your 1993 debate with Patrick Madrid on the issue
of sola scriptura. As a Catholic Apologist, I believe that
you failed to answer Mr. Madrid's arguments on a number of
issues, but I also think that Mr. Madrid did not have the time to
address some of the philosophically untenable arguments which you
presented. I offer some observations here for your comment. I
have numbered my points so you can refer to them accordingly.
Point #1:
I should say that none of your
arguments caused me or Mr. Madrid much difficulty, but I believe
that there was one argument that you raised which did, at least
initially, propose a problem for the Catholic stance. It relates
to your question regarding the man who lived 50 years before
Christ: How
did the Jewish man 50 years before Christ know that the books of
2 Chronicles and Isaiah were Scripture? (Second Question from JW to PM, Paragraph 1). This
is a fair question which needs to be addressed.
The Catholic Argument goes like
this:
Premise 1: Jesus Christ
established an infallible church.
Premise 2: This church teaches
that the bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God.
Conclusion: The bible must be
infallible since the church is infallible.
But, you say, Premise 1 above is
not necessary for the scriptures to be infallible (Paragraph 4)
because:
Premise 1: The Old Testament
Church regarded 2 Chronicles and Isaiah to be inspired.
Premise 2: This Old Testament
Church erred i.e. in the Canon and binding Corban tradition.
Conclusion: Infallibility is not
necessary for determining the canon, and therefore, the Church
can be fallible, and must be rejected as a source of infallible
authority.
Now, the Catholic must reject, you
say, one of these two premises in order to maintain an infallible
church. The Catholic accepts that 2 Chronicles and Isaiah were
considered inspired although there was no complete canon until
the first century A.D. for the Jews. Hence, Premise 2 must be
rejected. In order to reject Premise 2, I must challenge the two
examples of alleged error that you have posed.
The first instance poses little
difficulty. A Jewish Council meeting in 90 A.D. is hardly going
to have the authority or the charism from God to correctly choose
the canon after the Christian Church has been established. At
Christ's crucifixion, the Old Covenant was replaced with the
New Covenant, and so the authority to teach and protect the
Church from error rested with the 'new Israel'. The
Jews rejected Christ, and are technically the first heretics of
the Church so their decisions are quite irrelevant (Cf. Isaiah
2:15-25).
Your second point, however, is a
more substantial one. You claim that the Pharisees and scribes
didn't believe that the Corban rule was a mere human
tradition, but rather one having divine authority. I tend to
agree with your assessment that their tradition was binding, and
you couldn't pick and choose. You then point to Matthew 15
which shows Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for their criticism of
the Apostles not washing their hands, and you also note
Jesus' 'rejection' of the Corban rule. Because of
this rejection, you assert that Jesus has implied that the
scribes and Pharisees are in error. So the bottom line is this:
if the Catholic cannot prove that Jesus accepted these teachings
as binding, then his case falls. In order to do so, he must
demonstrate an almost impossible task: Jesus accepting erroneous
tradition but still binding his followers to it!!!
Of course, it is the Catholic
contention that Christ did not reject the Corban rule but the
Scribes ABUSE of it. This view has been dealt with satisfactorily
by many Catholic apologists so I do not want to revisit it here.
But let us say, for the sake of argument, that the Corban rule
itself was in error, and the Old Testament Church was not
preserved from error.
In Matthew 23:2, Jesus makes a
morally binding argument, warning his followers to submit to the
seat of Moses, which the Pharisees and scribes hold. "All
that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according their
deeds…" Now, you try and reconcile this teaching with
his condemnation of the Pharisees and Scribes' traditions (
in Matthew 15 and later in Matthew 23) by massaging what Jesus
meant by 'all that they tell you'. You take the line of
Gundry, claiming that 'all things whatever does not include
their interpretative tradition' (Closing Statement,
Paragraph 8). If it did, then your whole case would fall.
My view is this: When Jesus said
'All that they tell you...', He meant exactly that (in
matters of religion which of course included the interpretative
tradition). The reconciliation of Jesus' rejection of SOME
of their traditions with their infallibility appears to be a
contradiction, but it is no more a contradiction than Jesus'
abrogation of the Mosaic Law which was the Word of God, most
notably in Matthew 5:31-42. And even then, it is not even an
abrogation or abolishment of the law (Cf. Matthew 5:17). Jesus
will not abolish the Old Testament traditions and laws while
LEGITIMATE authority, which He recognizes, still exists. Even
though some of these human traditions and laws will not be
binding in the New Covenant, Christ warns His disciples that
"not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter
will pass from the law, UNTIL all things have taken place"
(Matthew 5:18).
So, in other words, the Old
Testament Church had full authority to bind and loose, and all
God's people were morally bound (Cf. Isaiah 22:15-25,
Matthew 23:14) to follow it. And this is not just a Catholic view
either:
"The astonishing authority
conceded 'the teachers of the law and the Pharisees' in
[Matthew 23] v.2 becomes explicit in v.3. Even if the emphasis in
v.3 falls at the end, where Jesus denounces the Jewish
leaders' hypocrisy, the beginning of the verse gives them
full authority in all they teach, even if they do not live up to
it. 'Panta hosa' ('everything') is a strong
expression and cannot be limited to 'that teaching of the
law that is in Jesus' view a faithful interpretation of
it'; they cover everything the leaders teach, including oral
tradition as well (Garland, pp. 48f.; contr Allen; Plummer;
Schlatter; Stonehouse, Witness of Matthew, pp 196f.; and others)
Nor does the test say their authority rest in roles but not in
their doctrine; on the contrary, v.3 affirms their doctrine but
condemns their practice." [D.A. Carson, "Matthew",
in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible
Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1984), 471-472 {additional editors include Walter C.
Kaiser, Jr. ofTrinity Divinity School; Bruce K. Waltke of Regent
College; James Montgomery Boice, Pastor of Tenth Presbyterian
Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Merrill C. Tenny of
Wheaton College}].
And in your rebuttal to Mr.
Porvaznik, you admit this: "One does not have to be
infallible to have authority" (Pt.6). So the argument of the
Old Testament Church knowing Isaiah and 2 Chronicles was inspired
goes something like this:
Premise: The Old Testament Church
had authority from God (Cf. Deuteronomy 17:8-11, Isaiah 22:15-25,
Matthew 23:2)
Premise: The Old Testament Church
erred in 'binding' the Jews to erroneous doctrines(Cf.
Matthew 15), but still regarded Isaiah and 2 Chronicles to be
inspired.
Conclusion: Infallibility is not
necessary to know whether Scripture is inspired.
Well, lets see if that works with
the New Testament Church.
Premise: Jesus Christ established
a church with authority as evidenced from the writings of the
early Christians, including but certainly not limited to the
current New Testament Scriptures.
Premise: This authoritative church
exercised its authority to 'bind' Christians on what
should be considered the inspired Word of God since there was no
widespread agreement theron.
Premise: The inspired word of God
says that the New Testament Church is infallible (OT- Isaiah
35:8, Isaiah 59:20-21, NT-Matthew 16:18,28:19-20, Jn 14:16-17, 1
Timothy 3:15, John 16:13, Ephesians 4:11-14).
Conclusion: Although infallibility
is not required to prove canonicity, legitimate authority is.
So, in other words, I believe
(with good historical reasons) the Catholic Church has authority
from Christ, and I am bound to believe what she says about the
canon, irrespective of her possible fallibility - because we
don't know whether she is like the alleged fallible Old
Testament Church or if She has an infallible charism. The
question of infallibility is irrelevant AT THIS POINT because the
authority over the Jewish people that the Old Testament Church
had is the SAME authority that the New Testament Church has over
Christians.
On examining the canon that this
authoritative, binding , and possibly fallible church defined, I
discover that these particular Scriptures point to an infallible
Church. Since I am bound to believe the Scriptures, I am
therefore bound to believe that the Catholic Church has this
particular charism of infallibility. If the Catholic Church is
infallible, then the canon which it defined as coming from the
Apostles and as the inspired 'Word of God' must be
infallible.
But you will say, "you
can't derive an infallible result (the Church's
infallibility or Scripture's infallibility) from an argument
based on fallible premises (Jesus establishing an authoritative
church)." Well, can you derive an infallible result from an
argument based on INFALLIBLE premises? Of course not - there is
no such thing as an infallible premise *a priori* unless God
revealed it. Your whole objection necessitates God *directly*
revealing to you an infallible truth - anything less is a
fallible premise, which you reject. Hence, BY YOUR OWN CRITERIA,
unless God has *directly revealed* the composition of the
inspired Word of God to you, you can't rely on anybody or
anything else for an infallible truth. So my question to you is:
are you hiding something from us O Prophet?
Point #2
In your opening statement
(Paragraph 6), you were defining what 'sola scriptura'
is not when you said, "it is not a denial of the
Church's authority to teach God's truth. 1 Timothy 3:15
describes the Church as the 'pillar and foundation of
truth'. The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The
Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and , in so doing,
functions as the pillar and foundation thereof."
Now, Dr. White, if the Church is
the 'pillar and foundation of truth' and the
'Church teaches the truth' as you claim, then HOW CAN
IT NOT BE INFALLIBLE? As a Protestant, you must necessarily
assert that the Church (or anyone, for that matter) is NOT
infallible - that is, anyone can make a mistake. So I infer from
your above comments that your intention in making those remarks
was to suggest that the Church does teach truth, but she can also
can teach error. (Please correct my understanding of your
comments if I am mistaken.)
Assuming, for the moment, that my
understanding is correct, your argument against infallibility of
the church in the debate falls even before you begin to discuss
it later on. First of all, if ALL humans are fallible in their
interpretation of the bible's teaching on faith and morals,
then how can anyone be SURE of their beliefs? The inevitable
answer that you must give is that no one can be. No one can be
sure at all since everyone, by definition, is fallible. And if
that is the case, then what good is an infallible bible when no
one can say, definitively, what the infallible books say? In
essence therefore, the inevitable conclusion to the belief in an
infallible bible but fallible teachers is that God is pulling our
leg: He has not provided the means of knowing the truth
DEFINITIVELY since no one can say what the truth is. In my
opinion, this situation would be anarchical and absurd. Under
that scenario, God would be either be a contradiction or a
sadist, neither of which is possible.
Secondly, the very nature of
'truth' is that it does not contain any error, or else
it would not be 'truth' at all, but only 'some
truth' or 'much truth' but not the
'truth' in its totality. Hence, when St. Paul claims
that the Church is the 'pillar and foundation of
truth', you have two possible interpretations of this
passage, namely, that St. Paul meant the truth in its entirety or
only 'much truth with some error'. Which do you think
he meant??? Personally, I think the latter alternative is
untenable, and the former one is the only real choice.
Point #3
Later on in your opening
statement, you remarked (Paragraph 26), "the Church is not
left without the voice of God. For when the Church listens to
Scripture, she is hearing her Lord speaking to her. The authority
of the Church, then in teaching, and rebuking, and instructing,
is derived, despite Roman Catholic claims to the contrary, from
Scripture itself."
There are three things here on
which I wish to comment. My first comment is a point of order.
Dr. White, it IS true that the Roman Catholic Church claims its
authority to teach, rebuke, and instruct from Scripture. There is
no dispute with you on that point. You are guilty, however, of
the same disastrous error that your predecessors were: inserting
or implying the word ALONE into the meaning of a teaching: the
bible ALONE, faith ALONE, 'Me and Jesus' ALONE, etc.,
etc. You are guilty of suggesting that the Church looks at
Scripture ALONE in justifying its authority - it does no such
thing.
What exactly do you mean when you
say, "when the Church listens to Scripture…"? Are
you suggesting that there are times when She doesn't? And if
there are, how do I OBJECTIVELY tell when the Church is
'listening to Scripture" and when She is not? By
appealing and comparing Her teachings to Scripture? If that is
your answer, then it looks like we have an impossible situation -
it is one's own personal 'fallible' interpretation
versus the Church's alleged fallible interpretation. Under
that scenario, the truth ends up in the trash…
Finally, I find it quite
inexplicable that while you admit that the 'Lord speaks to
the Church' and that the Church can 'teach, rebuke, and
instruct', the Church can nevertheless somehow bungle
God's message to His people, and therefore teach a FALSE
gospel which of course impacts a Christian's salvation. For
me, that would be like General Motors selling you a car without a
steering wheel. You'd be all over the road. Come to think of
it…that looks a lot like Protestantism's doctrines
today, doesn't it - all over the religious landscape? Where
is the 'pillar and foundation of truth' in that?!?
Point #4
The major thrust of your debate
was to appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in order to prove 'sola
scriptura' (Opening Statement, Paragraphs 27-36).
"All Scripture is inspired by
God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for
training in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete,
fully equipped for every good work."
I have carefully read the sources
you cite, and with the exception of the last scholar, none of the
sources even suggest 'sufficiency' as the primary
meaning of the word 'artios'. So you have a serious
problem because there is no widespread agreement on what the word
MEANS. As soon as you start bringing in scholars to tell you what
a word means, then you are relying on someone, some expert
OUTSIDE of the Scriptures to tell you what the Gospel means, and
you'd better be sure you've got the right scholar. What
is the implication of this? Well, it seems to me that since you
do not have unanimous agreement on this translation even WITHIN
Protestantism, then your whole argument for the formal
sufficiency of Scripture falls, which by definition, claims that
doctrinal disputes can be settled CONCLUSIVELY without an appeal
to another authority.
In Paragraph 31, you state,
"surely, here Paul would have to direct us to any and all
other rules of faith that we would need to be complete, but he
does not." You have committed the philosophical fallacy
known as an 'appeal to a false alternative' by
excluding relevant possibilities without justification. For
instance, if you were to tell me that someone was rich, I would
commit the fallacy by inferring the person was poor when, in
fact, he may be middle-class. In this case, Dr. White, you
presuppose that Paul was giving a complete and exhaustive
discourse on rules of faith, which he was not, no more than Jesus
was talking about the sufficiency of justification when Christ
taught that "by your words you shall be justified, and by
your words you shall be condemned" (Matthew 12:37).
In the very next paragraph, you
make the same error again when you ask, "what does it mean
to say that one is 'fully equipped', if not to say that
one is sufficient for a task?" Well, consider this
alternative. If a good soccer player's qualities include
quickness, agility, endurance, and instinct, could it not mean
that if a soccer player has three of the four qualities, he is
yet incomplete and only by having the fourth one, he is made
complete? Likewise, a man of God must have many attributes and
instruments, one of which is the Scriptures which
'complete' and 'fully equip' him to preach
the Gospel. Therefore, just as one quality ALONE of a soccer
player does not make him complete, nor does Scripture ALONE make
a man complete. And I must insist that the passage suggests this
since St. Paul already recognizes 'the man' as a
'man of God' before 'completing" him with
Scripture. How is it possible that a man can be a 'man of
God' if he does not yet have the Scriptures and the
revelation of those scriptures (as the passage suggests)? A
possible solution, of course, is oral tradition!!! (Understand
that all I have to do is give you a POSSIBLE alternative to your
question, Dr. White, in order to disprove the formal sufficiency
of Scripture.)
When Patrick Madrid pointed to
James 1:4 to refute your claim of the sufficiency of
'artios', you remarked that (Rebuttal, Paragraph 1),
"the terms used in Matthew 19:21 are 'teleios',
Colosians 1:21 'teleios', Colosians 4:12
'teleio', and James 1:4 'teleios' and
'holoklepoi'", suggesting that Mr. Madrid was
appealing to different Greek words which do not carry the meaning
of sufficiency as 'artios' in 2 Timothy 3:17. However,
you conveniently failed to mention in your debate with Mr. Madrid
that 'artios' occurs only once in Scripture, so even if
it did mean 'sufficiency' (which it likely does not as
discussed above), you would not even be able to appeal to other
passages to support your position. Secondly, as Mr. Madrid
rightly pointed out in his observations of the debate (This Rock,
Oct. 1993), the passage in James 1:4 uses much more stronger
language in both the English and the Greek to suggest sufficiency
than it does in 2 Timothy 3:17. So it seems to me, Dr. White,
that if you are going to argue sufficiency for 2 Timothy 3:17 by
a mere implication and possible meaning, then a Catholic or
anyone else can make even a stronger case for sufficiency in
James 1:4, which of course dilutes your position quite
thoroughly.
Point #5
In Patrick Madrid's opening
statement, he noted that Catholics reject 'formal
sufficiency', the idea that Scripture's meaning is so
clear that the Church and Tradition are unnecessary to arrive at
an accurate interpretation of the meaning of Scripture.
(Catholics, of course, accept 'material sufficiency',
the idea that all necessary Christian truth is, at least,
implicitly present in Sacred Scripture.) He proceeded to give the
most obvious problem with formal sufficiency of Scripture,
namely, the plethora of contradicting doctrines in Protestantism,
and the consequent difficulty of objectively discerning the truth
in the Reformed tradition. You still have yet to provide an
answer to that problem. In the hopes of finding an answer, I have
provided you with the dilemma you face in analytical form.
Argument 1
Premise 1: The bible is God's
word.
Premise 2: The truth exists.
Premise 3: The bible is the
inspired word of God who wants us to know the truth.
The bible, therefore, contains the
truth and no error.
Premise 4: There are many
interpretations of God's word, claiming to be guided by the
Holy Spirit.
Premise 5: Many of these
interpretations contradict each other.
Conclusion: One interpretation on
any particular doctrine must be true, while the others must be
false, at least partially.
Argument 2
Premise 1: If the conclusion of
Argument 1 has been accepted, then it serves as the first premise
of Argument 2. One interpretation on any particular doctrine must
be true, while the others must be false, at least partially.
Premise 2: Therefore, in order to
know the truth, there must be true or accurate interpretations of
the Scriptures.
Premise 3: The Scriptures
themselves do not DIRECTLY say what the true interpretation of
any particular doctrine is. [It does not say, for instance, that
infant baptism (as held by Lutherans, Methodists, and
Presbyterians) is the correct interpretation.]
Premise 4: If the Scriptures do
not say what the true interpretation of itself is (Premise 3,
Argument 2), then in order for the truth to exist (Premise 2,
Argument 1), there must be another source OUTSIDE of the
scriptures to identify the true interpretation.
Conclusion: In order for the truth
(i.e. complete truth) to exist, there must be an authoritative
source outside of the Scriptures.
Argument 3
Premise 1: If the conclusion of
Argument 2 has been accepted, then it serves as the first
premiseof Argument 3. In order for the truth (i.e. complete
truth) to exist, there must be a source outside of the
Scriptures.
Premise 2: Dr. White says,
however, that the Scriptures are not in need of any supplement,
and that a Christian can know the truth without any other source.
Conclusion: Dr. White holds an
untenable and fallacious belief.
In order to reject the final
conclusion, Dr. White, you must either reject one of the premises
or demonstrate where my conclusion cannot be drawn from the
premises presented.
It is my opinion that since 'sola
scriptura' cannot be the objective avenue to the Truth -
the question must change from what the bible says to who should
interpret it. Jesus Christ appointed twelve apostles to teach His
doctrines and exercise His authority once He ascended into heaven
(Cf. Matthew 28:16-20). He gave them specific authority to speak
and teach what He taught (Cf. Ephesians 2:19-20, 1 Thessalonians
4:2, 2 Peter 3:2), and He warned all of His followers of the
consequences of private teaching OUTSIDE of the Church (Cf.
Matthew 18:16-17, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 2:20, 2 Peter
1:20-21). Most importantly, however, Jesus promised the Holy
Spirit to guide the Apostles in truth (Cf. John 14:16-17), which
would distinguish them from the false prophets who would later
introduce false doctrines and heresies (Cf. 2 Peter 2:1). This is
the reason why St. Paul described the Church as the 'pillar
and foundation of truth' (Cf. 1 Timothy 3:15), and not the
bible which can be twisted by the untaught and unstable (Cf. 2
Peter 3:16). It is not unlike a secular court interpreting what
the laws of society mean. Without lawful justice to interpret the
laws, there would be anarchy in society. Dr. White, what is the
ultimate authority in the United States - the Constitution or the
Supreme Court? And EVEN if you were to maintain that the
Constitution was, can you have one without the other? Likewise,
in trying to determine what the sacred writers and apostles
meant, there must be a group who has the authority from God to
make such interpretations and binding pronouncements. That was
true with the Old Testament People of God as it is with the New
Testament People of God. The alternative is duplicity and error
which is personified in the 30,000 Protestant denominations.
Point #6
In your Rebuttal to Mr. Madrid
(Paragraph 7), you attempted to prove that 2 Thessalonians 3:6
was referring to "the tradition he had already delivered to
them, that is, in writing (Cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:14)." This
is true, Dr. White. Catholics do not bring up this passage to
defend oral tradition PRIMARILY, but only as a secondary defense
in order to demonstrate that NOT ALL TRADITION IN GENERAL IS
HUMAN TRADITION, and therefore cannot be dismissed quite that
easily. You know, of course, that many Fundamentalists (perhaps
not you) blindly condemn any 'tradition' other than the
bible. This verse is used to refute this thinking. Later in that
same paragraph, you assert that "2 Thessalonians
2:15…is talking about the gospel. Not oral traditions
somehow passed down through the episcopate…We are talking
here about the gospel itself, the teaching of the Gospel, which,
of course, is found in the New Testament." There are a few
observations to make here.
If I ask you to tell me what is
the Gospel, you'll point to New Testament - which of course,
begs the question, namely, is the Gospel JUST committed to
writing? You say the 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is talking about the
Gospel, which is found in the New Testament. Yes, that's
correct. But how does that support your claim that the Gospel is
committed to written tradition ONLY i.e. in the New Testament?
You have made an assertion, but have offered no support!!! Jesus
said 'preach' the Gospel, not 'write' the
Gospel. He chose a living, breathing transmission of it -
that's why he established a visible Church. There is no
evidence that he chose written tradition only!!! In fact, if the
Gospel is found in the New Testament ALONE and no where else,
then the Church cannot be called the 'pillar and foundation
of truth', can it?
If 'oral tradition' is
just written tradition and nothing else, then why does St. Paul
make a distinction between the two? Why does he not say or even
imply that we should hold fast to written tradition only. I think
that would have been much clearer than inserting 'oral
tradition', don't you?
Why do you insist on pitting the
oral tradition of the Church against the written tradition? Can
you not admit the possibility that the Gospel can be given
through oral tradition?
Point #7
In Mr. Madrid's first
question to you, he asked you how you were SURE that an early
work, known today as the Book of Thomas the Contender, was not
what it claimed to be, namely, written by the Apostle Matthew.
Your responded (First Question from PM to JW, Paragraph 3),
"it is contradictory to that which is
'theopneustos' (God-breathed). And since it is
contradictory to that which is 'theopneustos' and
inconsistent therewith - it is not testified historically - I do
not know of any Christians who ever accepted it."
Let's take your last comment
first, "I do not know of any Christians who ever accepted
it." This is an appeal to a source OUTSIDE scripture, is it
not? Why are you appealing to an authority outside scripture to
determine if scripture is inspired?
Secondly, you are engaging in
circular reasoning when trying to determine whether the Book of
Thomas should be included as Scripture since you are comparing it
to an existing canon when you say it is contradictory.
Contradictory to what? That which you are trying to establish in
the first place? In order for this book to 'contradict
Scripture', we must first establish what Scripture is. Let
us examine your argument analytically:
Premise 1: The bible is inspired
Premise 2: The bible is the ONLY
infallible authority on matters of faith.
Premise 3: No book of the bible
lists all the inspired books.
Conclusion: There is no way of
telling which books are inspired.
I can reject premise 2, and
therefore reject the conclusion. What is your solution?
[By the way Dr. White, as Mr.
Madrid kept asking you the same question, you kept appealing to
tradition:
"…you see that no one
has ever believed that it was Scripture, and hence you don't
believe that it is Scripture." (Second Question from PM to
JW, Paragraph 2) "…because Christians knew, or claimed
to know, that Matthew wrote Matthew…" (Second Question
from PM to JW, Paragraph 7). Exactly, Dr. White, so in order for
you to know definitively that Matthew wrote Matthew, you must be
relying on an infallible group of Christians.]
Point #8
You claimed that "it is the
Roman assertion that what is in these supposed Apostolic
Traditions is different than what we have in the New
Testament" (Fourth Question from PM to JW, Paragraph 3), and
later you asserted that "apostolic tradition must exist
since the time of the apostles, but Mr. Madrid has been telling
us that we had to wait until the end of the fourth century until
we knew what the canon of Scripture was!" (Paragraph 6). And
in your closing statement (Paragraph 5), you make the same
comment that "what was passed on is different in substance
from what is found in the New Testament."
First of all, it most certainly is
NOT the Catholic assertion that Apostolic Tradition is different
in substance than what we have in the New Testament. The Roman
Catholic Church claims to interpret the Bible, and draw out the
deposit of divine revelation therein. Why would the oral
tradition of the Apostles be substantially different from their
written tradition? If you want to invent Catholic beliefs, you
can continue to argue against a straw man and therefore continue
to delude yourself.
Your second claim is rather
remarkable. Why do you necessarily equate the existence of
apostolic tradition with knowing what the canon was *immediately*
after all the books had been written? Is there some kind of
litmus test which says, 'unless you can establish the canon
right away, your claim of apostolic oral tradition is
invalid'? Implicit in your belief is that all of divine
revelation was already explicitly developed and defined right
away. What is your reason for believing this? (Recall, Dr. White,
that although the seeds of the Trinity are established in the
bible, for instance, the idea of 'homoousios' is a
DEVELOPMENT of Church doctrine, which all Christians must accept.
And you would be hard-pressed in trying to convince a
Jehovah's Witness (who, of course, belongs to a bible-only
church) that the Trinity is an explicit biblical doctrine.)
I also find it interesting that
you speak of the canon as if we had a defined canon before the
fourth century ("Mr. Madrid has been telling us that we had
to wait until the end of the fourth century until we knew what
the canon of Scripture was!"). Well, what evidence do you
have that we did have the same canon of NT books that we have
today? In fact, Dr. White, there is no such evidence since there
was hardly any definite agreement on the entire collection of
authentic Apostolic letters because there were many spurious
fabrications claiming to be Apostolic (i.e. the Gospel of James,
the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Pilate, Acts of Paul and Thecla
and 50 other 'Acts' as well as a small number of
Epistles and Apocalypses.) There were also the Apocrypha or
contested books which were considered by many to be inspired and
apostolic as much as the current canon. These included the
'Shepherd' of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache,
the Gospel According to the Hebrews, St. Paul's Epistle to
the Laodiceans, and the Epistle of St. Clement. AND NOT ONLY
THAT!!! There were a number of books which were not originally
widely received as 'authentic' until the Church finally
decided the question , including the Epistle of St. James,
Epistle of St. Jude, 2nd Epistle of St. Peter, 2nd and 3rd of St.
John, Hebrews, and Revelation.
Augustine on the Canon of
Scripture Chapter 8. The Canonical Books 12:
But let us now go back to consider
the third step here mentioned, for it is about it that I have set
myself to speak and reason as the Lord shall grant me wisdom. The
most skillful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be
he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in
his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with
such knowledge as reading gives, those of them, at least, that
are called canonical. For he will read the others with greater
safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they
will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it
with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices
adverse to a sound understanding. Now, in regard to the canonical
Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of
catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must
be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an
apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical
Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to
prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to
those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are
not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of
the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are
held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If,
however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater
number of churches, and others by the churches of greater
authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I
think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be
looked upon as equal." Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First
Series: Volume II, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
1997. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume II, On
Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8.
