Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[BobCatholic]

JasonTE:

You asked whether I think that “if a church has bishops that make mistakes, dump it, rail against it, instead of just rebuking the ones doing the error, throw away the baby with the bathwater”. No, that’s not what I said. If something can be corrected by means of “rebuking the ones doing the error”, then we should correct the problem in that manner. But, as we should expect and as history has shown us, rebuking the people who are in error doesn’t always resolve the issue. There are times when error has been widely accepted, even by an entire generation of people or by churches and church leaders who refuse to be corrected (2 Kings 22:8-13, Nehemiah 8:13-17, the Arian lapse of the fourth century, multiple people claiming the papacy at once, etc.).

There are always going to be sinners in Christ’s Church, that doesn’t mean “abandon it” and start your own. Such an attitude is epidemic in Sola Scriptura land.

This issue isn’t as black-and-white as you suggest. Following the Roman Catholic system of authority or something similar to it isn’t the only alternative to “if a church has bishops that make mistakes, dump it, rail against it, instead of just rebuking the ones doing the error, throw away the baby with the bathwater”.

That’s right. The other alternative is starting your own church, with your own interpretation of scripture, then when there’s another controversey, someone else starts a church that breaks away from yours, and then schism, after schism, after schism…with the result being the doctrinal relativism in sola scriptura land.

There’s a large gray area between the two options you’re presenting. I quoted some passages in The Didache that reflect the sort of balance I was referring to. In response, you only quoted one portion of The Didache, a portion about honoring those who teach the word of God to us. I don’t think it’s difficult to figure out why you didn’t quote the rest. You just assume that the leaders in question are Roman Catholic, and you only quote what The Didache says about honoring church leaders, not what it says about judging them and separating from them when their errors warrant such a response.

So there is a balance between spiritual fornication and spiritual purity? So there is a balance between a bottle of poison and a bottle of pure water? (Should we have a glass that’s 50% poison, 50% water?) Just how much poison should people drink in water? Personally my uninfallible opinion is that 0% poison is best and the only way.

You keep suggesting that using personal interpretation is a negative thing. I would ask, again, how do you know that the RCC has the authority it claims to have? How do you arrive at that conclusion without using personal interpretation?

No, what I’m suggesting is that the protestant notion of personal interpretation of scripture is NOT good, since there are thousands of interpretations of scripture. Now, using scripture as the only infallible authority, how do we determine which one of the thousands of interpretations IS the correct one, and be 100% correct? After all, one’s soul are at stake here, and if one doesn’t have the correct interpretation of scripture, one’s soul is at risk of being declared an unfaithful servant.

 

[BobCatholic]

PhilVaz:

Naw, you don’t want to see his sources. We’ve seen his sources for 5 years.

Yeah, those with an agenda, basically, a catholophobic agenda

You and BobCatholic can’t handle him, give JPrejean a shot now

Sounds like a great idea. He’s not answering my inconvenient questions anyway

I haven’t even asked him my infamous 4 questions

 

[JasonTE]

srkbdk:

How many books are in your Bible and how do you know they are the right ones, or even from God?

You’re raising a lot of issues. This forum places space limits on our posts, and we all have time constraints. Let me somewhat briefly address the issue of the canon.

The first ruling on the canon considered infallible by Roman Catholic standards was at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. Jews and Christians for thousands of years, prior to the Council of Trent, thought they could identify scripture, be confident about its identity, and hold other people accountable for recognizing and obeying it. If you’re going to tell Evangelicals that they need the RCC’s allegedly infallible ruling on the canon in order to be confident about a canon of scripture, then you’re going to have to criticize those pre-Trent Jews and Christians as well. They thought they could be confident about a canon without any infallible ruling from the RCC.

Basically, there are three means by which an Evangelical would recognize the canon:

1. The Holy Spirit can lead people to recognize what is and what isn’t the word of God (John 10:4, 1 Corinthians 14:37, 1 Thessalonians 2:13). But in a setting such as this forum, I can’t demonstrate the guidance of the Spirit, so the other two criterion would be more significant.
2. Historical evidence. The apostles had unique authority (John 16:13, Acts 1:8, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20, etc.). Any book written or approved by an apostle would therefore have unique authority. We can arrive at a canon by means of the historical evidence for the apostolic authority of the books. A lot of relevant evidence could be discussed, but I’m not going to go into much depth here. I highly recommend Glenn Miller’s work on pseudonymity (christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html ), and Craig Blomberg, D.A. Carson, and other Evangelical scholars have written at length about the evidence for each of the 27 books of the New Testament. Since the New Testament and other evidence suggests that Jesus and the apostles accepted an Old Testament canon that was generally (but not universally) recognized by the Jews, I would point to historical evidence that the Apocrypha wasn’t part of that canon. Again, I could mention much more, but I’ll stop here.
3. Since Jesus and the apostles seem to have accepted the general (but not universal) Jewish consensus on the Old Testament, and Josephus and other sources refer to the Jews in general having a consensus about the cessation of prophecy and the closing of the canon, it makes sense that God would lead His people to a similar consensus on the New Testament canon. And there was, in fact, a consensus on the 27-book canon, a consensus that was achieved without any allegedly infallible ruling from a church hierarchy. The fact that God seems to have guided His people to a correct Old Testament consensus doesn’t prove that He would do the same with the New Testament, but it does at least give us a precedent.

srkbdk:

You are right all men can be in error but God can not and he promised to protect his Church, and does at all times when it comes to matters of Faith and Morals.

God also promised to protect Israel and every individual Christian. We don’t conclude that Israel and each individual Christian has therefore been infallible on matters of faith and morals.

srkbdk:

Here is a snap shot of what Cyprian had to say on unity.

Again, I want to be brief. The fact is, there’s widespread agreement among scholars, including Roman Catholic scholars, that Cyprian did not believe in the doctrine of the papacy. I can give you citation after citation of Cyprian asserting that there is no bishop with jurisdiction over all other bishops. He viewed all bishops as successors of Peter, and he considered Peter’s primacy to be one of chronology and symbolism, not jurisdiction.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

srkbdk:

One other question why for the first 200 years of Christianity was every Pope but one martyred. Seems to me satan was sure who was the head of the Church, and was motivating Romans and anyone else to kill them. I would still like to see your sources, and my big question here is if the Papacy was not important, and everyone back then knew it was not, then why KILL all the Popes except one???

The claim that all of those Roman bishops were martyred is a late claim without credibility. It’s rejected by modern scholarship. The Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote:

“Irenaeus recognizes among the Roman bishops from Clement to Eleutherus (177), all of whom he mentions by name, only one martyr, to wit, Telesphorus…So Eusebius, H. E. V. 6. From this we must judge of the value of the Roman Catholic tradition on this point. It is so remote from the time in question as to be utterly unworthy of credit.” (ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch04.htm , note 225)

J.N.D. Kelly makes similar comments in his dictionary of the Popes.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[danny]

Jason,

If determination of the canon is as you posed… 1, Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 2. Historical Evidence and 3. A consensus(albeit only General), can you show me a listing of all the books you have in your Bible(no more and no less) held by anyone prior to Luther. And remember Luther tried to exclude Jude, James, Revelation, etc.

Further, you are in error regarding the general Jewish consensus of scriptures. We know that the Sadducees(only the Torah) and Pharisees had different canons. Also, Jesus only mentions the Law, The Prophets and the Psalms(not the Writings). It is obvious from this that the Writings had not been determined. It is generally accepted among Jews(and I have the backing of the rabbi at my local temple) that there was much debate as to what constituted scripture until the middle of the 2nd century if not later.

My argument against your view is quite simply that it is a modern innovation probably no more than 100-150 years old. I’ll expand on this later if you’d like.

I tried to be as brief as possible.

Thank you and God Bless

Danielle

 

[OfTheCross]

Jason,

I’d like to add a couple of my own personal questions on the Canon because quite frankly I’m curious what your take on the following questions would be (as an evangelical), and I haven’t been able to get very straight answers from the sola scriptura crowd up to this point. If you don’t care to answer these questions, that’s fine too (and I’ll move onto the next guy).

1. When was the 66 book Canon (the one you hold) definitively settled (what year)?—>be specific
2. What specific man, or group of men settled this 66 book Canon?—>be specific
3. Why do you believe this man/group of men had the God-given mandate, mission, and authority to undertake such a grave task, and no other man/group of men?
4. Do you believe this group of men made an infallible decision?
5. When was this 66 book Canon first widely used by a significant group of Christians?—> general timeframe, general grouping of Christians.

Thanks,

Peter John

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

In essence, we don’t have a thorough understanding of your patristics methodology because we haven’t seen how you justify your own faith, and we haven’t seen how you answer objections from other students of the “catholic faith” of the Early Fathers, like the Orthodox or even other Protestants (particularly Anglicans and Lutherans).

You don’t have to have “a thorough understanding of my patristics methodology” in order to make a judgment about the accuracy of the historical claims of Roman Catholicism. If I document Augustine denying that Mary was immaculately conceived, for example, you don’t need “a thorough understanding of my patristics methodology” in order to conclude that Augustine disagreed with the Roman Catholic view of Mary. You don’t need to see me discuss an Eastern Orthodox view of Mary or a Lutheran view of Mary in order to conclude that Augustine didn’t agree with Roman Catholicism on this subject. You don’t need to see me discuss Augustine’s childhood, his view of the atonement, or the political climate of North Africa during his lifetime in order to reach some confident conclusions about whether he should be considered a predecessor of Roman Catholicism. My series doesn’t need to be and doesn’t claim to be your only source for information on Augustine. The series isn’t intended to be exhaustive. It has a limited purpose. Objecting that its purpose isn’t broader doesn’t refute its correctness in the limited purpose it has.

Do you apply your reasoning to the material produced by Roman Catholic apologists, such as the work produced by Catholic Answers? Do you expect a Catholic Answers article responding to Protestant eschatology, for example, to also discuss Eastern Orthodox eschatology, Coptic eschatology, Islamic eschatology, etc.? When you read posts in a forum such as this one, do you expect each poster commenting on the church fathers to give you “a thorough understanding of his patristics methodology”?

You said that “we don’t have a thorough understanding of your patristics methodology because we haven’t seen how you justify your own faith, and we haven’t seen how you answer objections from other students of the ‘catholic faith’ of the Early Fathers”. Anybody interested in seeing how I justify my beliefs and how I interact with belief systems other than Roman Catholicism can find much relevant material at my web site and in other places, including the series we’re discussing. (In the introduction to the series and in other parts of it, I describe some of my beliefs and some of the evidence for them.) If you and the other Catholics agreeing with you were interested in such things, I think you would have researched them by now. It seems that you’re more interested in posing an objection to my series than you are in learning more about these things you’re referring to.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

danny:

If determination of the canon is as you posed… 1, Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 2. Historical Evidence and 3. A consensus(albeit only General), can you show me a listing of all the books you have in your Bible(no more and no less) held by anyone prior to Luther.

There’s no need to cite anybody, but, yes, I can. William Webster has some relevant material, including some works not previously translated into English, at:

christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

1. When was the 66 book Canon (the one you hold) definitively settled (what year)?—>be specific

1. What specific man, or group of men settled this 66 book Canon?—>be specific
2. Why do you believe this man/group of men had the God-given mandate, mission, and authority to undertake such a grave task, and no other man/group of men?
3. Do you believe this group of men made an infallible decision?
4. When was this 66 book Canon first widely used by a significant group of Christians?—> general timeframe, general grouping of Christians.

Some of what you’re asking has already been addressed. As I explained earlier, the canon can be perceived by a variety of means without an infallible ruling of a man or a group of men. Jews and Christians for thousands of years thought that they could identify scripture, and hold others accountable for recognizing it, without any allegedly infallible ruling on the subject. We don’t know a year for when a majority agreed on the 27-book New Testament canon, but we do know that there was widespread agreement from the fourth century onward, and the comments of Eusebius suggest that each of the books was widely accepted earlier, even if not collectively in the 27-book form. The fact that we don’t know a specific year for the canonical consensus doesn’t change the fact that such a consensus existed.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JPrejean]

Mr. Engwer:
You said:
“You don’t have to have ‘a thorough understanding of my patristics methodology’ in order to make a judgment about the accuracy of the historical claims of Roman Catholicism. If I document Augustine denying that Mary was immaculately conceived, for example, you don’t need ‘a thorough understanding of my patristics methodology’ in order to conclude that Augustine disagreed with the Roman Catholic view of Mary.”

Sure, but the interesting question is what ramifications such a disagreement would have, and that relates directly to patristics methodology. You could, of course, adopt the standard in patristics that every single misapplication of a principle committed by a Father automatically negates the “catholicity” of its opposite, but if you follow out the consequences of that methodology, it would effectively negate all or nearly all notions of coherent dogma from the Fathers, including the creeds. Moreover, the very process of determining who is and isn’t considered a Father relates to dogmatic coherence, and following the consequences of the extreme methodology you appear to suggest would effectively mean that there are no such people as Church Fathers (hence, the repeated challenge to find even a single Father that meets the Protestant standard of orthodoxy). That’s why patristics scholars don’t use that standard.

The problem is that the exhaustive information isn’t anywhere. I’m not saying that you need to present it here, but it needs to be somewhere, and no one seems willing to point me to a serious Evangelical patristics scholar, if indeed there are any. When I go back to Kelly or Schaff or Bruce or Pelikan, I see a completely different methodology, and my question becomes “where are you getting these principles of patristic interpretation?” And as nearly as I can tell, the answer is “nowhere,” even though you liberally cite these sources as authority for your position. By saying that they are somehow reliable or have some scholarly authority, you are conceding that their methodology has some merit, so I can’t see where you can chuck it out the window to make a completely different type of argument after you’ve already cited them.

In response to your second paragraph, no, no, and no. The reason I don’t have the same expectations from a Catholic apologist is because I can do the reading on my own. Even if he lays the argument out horribly, I can always go back to some scholarly community and check his work. I don’t see that same methodological accountability on your side.

I have read your writings, and Eric Svendsen’s, and James White’s, and David King’s, and William Webster’s, and the problem seems to be endemic (although Webster has made some good arguments from historians in particular instances). This particular contingent seems to be consistently unable to tie the method of inquiry back to any academic community (be it linguistics, patristics, or church history) that might give the methodology some objectivity or credibility, which has drawn heat from all sides: Catholics, Orthodox, the much maligned “Reformed Catholics,” etc. I don’t care if you personally aren’t an academic, but there has to be somebody who is, or your argument basically becomes “take my word for it,” and nobody is going to stand for that. And it’s not because of doctrinal dispute or personal dislike; it’s simply because people are going to call you on that sort of thing in a disagreement.

So you say, “It seems that you’re more interested in posing an objection to my series than you are in learning more about these things you’re referring to.”

Nonsense. I am not interested in obtuse contrarianism without giving the other side a fair hearing. For example, I just bought a $100 worth of books and downloaded numerous articles from actual scholars so that I would be qualified to discuss Tim Enloe’s thesis. I would LOVE to learn about the Evangelical methodology of history that you described in the introduction to your series. The problem is that I can’t find any historian or patristics scholar that actually uses that methdology. It’s the old problem of “if it’s this obvious, why have none of these smart people figured it out before, but you suddenly have?” – JP

 

[PhilVaz]

BobCatholic << I haven’t even asked him my infamous 4 questions >>

Those are actually excellent questions, I’ve seen them. But let JPrejean word them, if he sticks around. He seems to know the “JasonTE arguments” pretty well…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

JasonTE << The fact is, there’s widespread agreement among scholars, including Roman Catholic scholars, that Cyprian did not believe in the doctrine of the papacy. I can give you citation after citation of Cyprian asserting that there is no bishop with jurisdiction over all other bishops. >>

Cyprian apparently believed in some kind of jurisdiction for the bishop of Rome, but perhaps not universal. Rome according to Cyprian was the “principal church” and the “root and matrix” of the Catholic Church.

explained here St. Cyprian, the Church and Papacy

and here Orthodoxy and the Primacy of Rome

Anyway, so what’s the point? Cyprian also clearly believed in priests and bishops, you don’t even believe in those Jason. Some of your arguments would at least make sense if you were Anglican. Not only was Cyprian supposedly wrong on Rome being the “root and matrix” and “principal church” (you don’t believe that), but he was wrong on priests and bishops (you don’t believe those either).

Keep going, this was just a comment from the sidelines.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

JasonTE << If I document Augustine denying that Mary was immaculately conceived, for example, you don’t need “a thorough understanding of my patristics methodology” in order to conclude that Augustine disagreed with the Roman Catholic view of Mary. >>

Augustine “denying the Immaculate Conception” 1500 years before it was defined is irrelevant until JasonTE goes as far as Augustine here

“Now with the exception of the holy Virgin Mary in regard to whom, out of respect for the Lord, I do not propose to have a single question raised on the subject of sin – after all, how do we know what greater degree of grace for a complete victory over sin was conferred on her who merited to conceive and bring forth Him who all admit was without sin – to repeat then: with the exception of this Virgin, if we could bring together into one place all those holy men and women, while they lived here, and ask them whether they were without sin, what are we to suppose that they would have replied?” (St. Augustine, De natura et gratia PL 44:267, from Carol Mariology, volume 1, page 15)

If JasonTE can go that far (make Mary an exception, etc), then sure Augustine might be relevant. Augustine believed Mary was sinless (from whatever point after conception), JasonTE believes Mary was a sinner just like every other Christian. St. Thomas Aquinas “denied the Immaculate Conception” also. Are Augustine and Aquinas both Catholic “but not Roman Catholic” ?

Another comment from the sidelines. Might take a few books to answer the rest of JasonTE’s posts. Glad he’s here anyway…rather lively discussion.

Phil P

 

[QB_of_Fangorn]

Cyprian apparently believed in some kind of jurisdiction for the bishop of Rome, but perhaps not universal. Rome according to Cyprian was the “principal church” and the “root and matrix” of the Catholic Church.

QB: Hello Phil. Indeed I’d agree with you. St. Cyprian is really a push in debates, because he only had his parish priest,Tertullian, and the Bible for sources. Plus only being a Catholic for all of 10 years it’s difficult to know what his actual position is. He seems to adopt a papal view in regards to Marcian of Lyons who held Novatianism views - Ep.68 but I also fail to see Jasons reasoning in bring him up when he supports the basis establishment of bishop,priest and deacon.

Blessings as always,

Tom

 

[PhilVaz]

QB << but I also fail to see Jasons reasoning in bring him up when he supports the basis establishment of bishop,priest and deacon >>

Hey dude, join the party. Hold on, Cyprian “denied the Immaculate Conception” as well, or rather didn’t mention it. So it doesn’t matter about priests, Cyprian is “Catholic but not Roman Catholic” at least on the Blessed Mother

Phil P

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

Sure, but the interesting question is what ramifications such a disagreement would have, and that relates directly to patristics methodology. You could, of course, adopt the standard in patristics that every single misapplication of a principle committed by a Father automatically negates the “catholicity” of its opposite, but if you follow out the consequences of that methodology, it would effectively negate all or nearly all notions of coherent dogma from the Fathers, including the creeds.

The fact that you consider further ramifications to be an “interesting question” doesn’t prove that the further ramifications must be discussed within the series in order for the series to have validity. As I said before, the series isn’t intended to be exhaustive. It doesn’t need to address every ramification you may want to think about in order to be valid in accomplishing a significant purpose.

How much of my series have you read? I don’t argue that one father disagreeing with a Roman Catholic belief necessarily disproves the claims of the RCC. If you read the introduction to my series, as well as some of the individual segments and the conclusion, I address the objection you’re raising above. That’s why I used the example of Augustine and the Immaculate Conception. Anybody who has read my segments on the doctrine, including the segment on Augustine, would know that I quote many sources on the subject and that I address how widespread rejection of the doctrine was. Even when I cite only one father on a subject, that citation has relevance for the conclusions we reach about that father. If you address ten different church fathers by citing them collectively or by citing them individually, you’re addressing ten different fathers either way. If I cite Ambrose disagreeing with the Roman Catholic view of salvation, for example, does citing Ambrose prove that the fathers as a whole disagreed with the RCC on the issue in question? No, but it does tell us something about Ambrose. And when you combine that information about Ambrose with information about other fathers, you begin to form a more complete picture. The series doesn’t have to be exhaustive in order to accomplish a significant purpose.

JPrejean:

The reason I don’t have the same expectations from a Catholic apologist is because I can do the reading on my own. Even if he lays the argument out horribly, I can always go back to some scholarly community and check his work. I don’t see that same methodological accountability on your side.

I have read your writings, and Eric Svendsen’s, and James White’s, and David King’s, and William Webster’s, and the problem seems to be endemic (although Webster has made some good arguments from historians in particular instances). This particular contingent seems to be consistently unable to tie the method of inquiry back to any academic community (be it linguistics, patristics, or church history) that might give the methodology some objectivity or credibility, which has drawn heat from all sides: Catholics, Orthodox, the much maligned “Reformed Catholics,” etc. I don’t care if you personally aren’t an academic, but there has to be somebody who is, or your argument basically becomes “take my word for it,” and nobody is going to stand for that.

You’ve named Eric Svendsen, James White, David King, and William Webster. All of them have written books that have been endorsed by Protestant scholars (Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, Tom Nettles, etc.). They also cite scholars they agree with within the books. If you’re going to object that the scholars don’t all agree with them on every subject, I would ask why they would need to and whether Roman Catholic scholars agree with everything written by Roman Catholic apologists. Would Raymond Brown, for example, when he was alive, have agreed with all of the material produced by Catholic Answers? Would mainstream Roman Catholic scholarship argue in the same manner as Catholic Answers?

You said that nobody is going to stand for saying “take my word for it”. When I cite Augustine denying that Mary was immaculately conceived, I’m not asking you to take my word for it. I’m asking you to read what Augustine wrote. When I cite a scholar such as J.N.D. Kelly referring to Augustine disagreeing with the Roman Catholic view on the subject in question, I’m not asking you to “take my word for it”. My series cites original documents, and it often cites scholars. Since my series doesn’t ask people to “take my word for it”, what’s the relevance of your objection?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JPrejean]

The fact that you consider further ramifications to be an “interesting question” doesn’t prove that the further ramifications must be discussed within the series in order for the series to have validity. As I said before, the series isn’t intended to be exhaustive. It doesn’t need to address every ramification you may want to think about in order to be valid in accomplishing a significant purpose.

That would be fine if you were simply saying “what do you make of this?” and genuinely listening to the answers. But you seem to be arguing that these statements indicate the truth of some proposition, like “the Fathers didn’t agree on the Immaculate Conception.” First, anachronistically reading a Father in the context of modern theological categories is simply unreliable (although people have a bad habit of doing it anyway). Second, if you are going to use that methodology to attack Catholic dogma, you have to use it consistently, and this eventually runs into either a Catholic dogma that you must affirm as catholic that you don’t believe (like apostolic succession or a real sacramentology) or you negate something that you would ostensibly believe (the nature of Christ as against the Monophysites or Nestorians, for example). Sorry, but I have trouble seeing where this is helpful.

My point is that an isolated quote from Ambrose may not even tell you anything about Ambrose, much less the rest of the Fathers, if you don’t interpret Ambrose’s quotes in the context of a consistent patristic methodology that respects the historical context of their utterance. A methodological flaw like that persists whether you cite one quote or a thousand (and in fact, the more quotations you cite, the more your methodology is on trial). If you don’t have a reasonably convincing way of understanding what they mean by their quotations, then you aren’t really letting them speak at all. And it is all the more suspicious when you anachronistically attempting to have them speak in terms of a modern theological formulation. Maybe you have seen Catholic apologists do the same thing in citing the Fathers FOR Catholic dogma, and in that case, what you are doing a useful exercise for the purpose of showing that it’s a bad methodology. But you seem to be going farther than that, and moreover, I’m not entirely sure that you understand what separates the methodology of some of those Catholics, who rely on sources like Jurgens, from your own.

To be clear, I also wasn’t asking for concurrence among the scholarly community on every single subject. But for those of us who consider things like patristics and history to be relevant along with linguistics, we find it somewhat unpersuasive that these people appear to be completely absent from academia (and, I would also note, relying on proxy endorsements from actual academics even in linguistics). So while I think it’s great that a premier New Testament scholar like Metzger or a first-century church historian like Nettles would endorse the reliability of, e.g, Eric Svendsen’s thesis methodology or James White’s exegetical methods, that doesn’t really close the question. Such exercises might be persuasive to someone who is already convinced that linguistics and exegesis are the supreme methodology for discerning Biblical truth (in which case, this is simply preaching to the choir), but it certainly won’t work for people who require that linguistics be harmonized with patristics and history. Again, this isn’t because we’re stubbornly adhering to Catholic dogma; it’s because we consider those fields of endeavor valuable sources of truth.

The relevance of my objection, then, is that your methodology is insufficient to support your purpose, if your purpose is to demonstrate that the Fathers believed doctrine X or proposition Y. Asking us to “read what Augustine wrote” is anachronistic. We are going to interpret Augustine through our modern lenses and without comprehensive familiarity with Augustine’s writings or the cultural milieu in which he wrote them. This is why discerning the meaning of an ancient writer with a high degree of accuracy is an extremely difficult endeavor. Citing Schaff and Kelly is laudable, and I certainly don’t disqualify them merely for being Protestant. But the point is that by citing them, you are also implicitly granting that their overall methodology has validity, but then you proceed to break the rules of the methodology in your unorthodox interpretation of other patristic quotes, effectively calling your own arguments into question. I have no problem with laymen doing history (I am a layman in most historical areas myself), but if you aren’t going to play the game by the rules, you don’t have the same credibility as people who follow a legitimate and thorough methodology.

 

[BobCatholic]

PhilVaz:

BobCatholic << I haven’t even asked him my infamous 4 questions >>

Those are actually excellent questions, I’ve seen them. But let JPrejean word them, if he sticks around. He seems to know the “JasonTE arguments” pretty well…

Phil P

Hehe, I’ll watch this thread, munching on popcorn Grasshopper BobCatholic has a lot to learn

 

[srkbdk]

BobCatholic:

Hehe, I’ll watch this thread, munching on popcorn Grasshopper BobCatholic has a lot to learn

Can I share the popcorn with you Bob?

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

anachronistically reading a Father in the context of modern theological categories is simply unreliable (although people have a bad habit of doing it anyway)

The fathers are to be read in a historical context. A father may have used terminology in a different way than we do, may not have thought in terms of original sin, may have never thought about whether Mary sinned in her behavior, etc. But just as a person living during that time may not have thought in all of the categories that later generations would conceive, it’s also possible that they did think in such categories or that they spoke in other categories that have logical implications for our modern categories. A father doesn’t have to think in all of our modern categories in order to contradict a Roman Catholic claim about Marian doctrine. There’s nothing in John Chrysostom’s historical context, for example, that eliminates the significance of him referring to Mary sinning. Saying that he lived in an earlier time, or that he didn’t think in all of our categories, doesn’t eliminate the problem his view of Mary poses for the claims of Roman Catholicism. Historical context must be taken into account, but so must the possibility that an ancient voice is relevant to a modern controversy.

JPrejean:

Second, if you are going to use that methodology to attack Catholic dogma, you have to use it consistently, and this eventually runs into either a Catholic dogma that you must affirm as catholic that you don’t believe (like apostolic succession or a real sacramentology) or you negate something that you would ostensibly believe

I think you’re making some assumptions that are inaccurate. I don’t know what misconceptions you may have about my methodology, but I do try to apply it consistently. Concepts such as apostolic succession and a presence of Christ in the eucharist are widespread in the fathers. You’re right. I don’t stop thinking consistently just because my methodology leads to the conclusion that the church fathers disagreed with me or agreed with Roman Catholicism about something. I’ve acknowledged that some Catholic beliefs that I reject were widespread among the fathers. I haven’t avoided the issues or changed my methodology so as to arrive at a different conclusion. I’ve said many times that the fathers taught a combination of truth and error that doesn’t completely align with any modern belief system. Sometimes they were closer to Evangelicalism, sometimes they were closer to Roman Catholicism, and sometimes they were close to both or weren’t close to either. Not only does that fact not cause me to change my methodology, but it’s something I’ve acknowledged and have been discussing for years.

JPrejean:

Maybe you have seen Catholic apologists do the same thing in citing the Fathers FOR Catholic dogma, and in that case, what you are doing a useful exercise for the purpose of showing that it’s a bad methodology. But you seem to be going farther than that, and moreover, I’m not entirely sure that you understand what separates the methodology of some of those Catholics, who rely on sources like Jurgens, from your own.

I’m aware of the differences that exist among Catholics in terms of the type of argumentation they use. I have books on the shelves next to me ranging from Hans Kung to Raymond Brown to Robert Sungenis. But some of the most Jurgens-like argumentation comes from the Roman Catholic hierarchy, from the most authoritative and widely read documents of the magisterium. I give many examples in my series. If you don’t want to defend such claims, tell your leadership to stop making such claims.

JPrejean:

So while I think it’s great that a premier New Testament scholar like Metzger or a first-century church historian like Nettles would endorse the reliability of, e.g, Eric Svendsen’s thesis methodology or James White’s exegetical methods, that doesn’t really close the question…it certainly won’t work for people who require that linguistics be harmonized with patristics and history.

Yes, patristics and history must be taken into account, and I don’t see Eric Svendsen and James White denying that they ought to be taken into account. You make many good points. I don’t want to act as though I disagree with almost everything you’re saying. I don’t. There’s much that I agree with. I may sometimes commit some of the errors you’ve referred to (I know I have in the past), but I think the larger problem for you and other Catholics is what my series is right about, not what it’s wrong about. I don’t think it’s a flawed methodology that’s led me to conclude that there are many contradictions between the church fathers and the claims of Roman Catholicism. I think the contradictions are a reality.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org