James White

[AugustineH354]

While I would certainly argue that Oberman and Mathison present a more balanced view of scripture and tradition than Protestant polemists such as White, Webster and King, there are Protestant patristic scholars who most certainly exceed even Oberman and Mathison in their overall balance. One such scholar is D. H. Williams. Though us Catholics will not agree with everything Williams personally believes, we can certainly appreciate the depth and fairness with which he approaches the Church Fathers, and the issue of development concerning scripture and tradition. Williams’ fairly recent book, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism, is a must read for all thoughtful Christians. In an appendix of the book, Williams provides a condensed version of his insightful essay “The Search for Sola Scriptura in the Early Church” (*Interpretation *vol. 52.4, pp. 354-366; not pp. 338-50 as wrongly cited in the book), in which he writes:

Several publications by evangelicals have argued that the doctrine of sola scriptura

was practiced, though implicitly, in the hermeneutical thinking of the early church. Such an argument is using a very specific agenda for the reappropriation of the early church: reading the ancient Fathers through the lens of post-Reformational Protestantism and looking for criteria, such as sola scriptura, embedded within the religious consciousness of the patristic church… Witness the recent attempts to find a “patristic principle of sola scriptura” in Irenaeus or Athanasius, from which the conclusion is reached, “Sola scriptura has long been the rule of believing Christian people, even before it became necessary to use the specific terminology against later innovators who would usurp the Scriptures’ supremacy in the church.” (Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism, pp. 229, 230.)

The above quote provided by Williams is from James White’s essay “Sola scriptura and the Early Church,” in the book *Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible *(p. 53). In a footnote in his book, Williams has the following to say concerning that essay:

The essay entitled “Sola scriptura and the Early Church,” exhibits an extremely limited familiarity with patristic doctrinal history such that it claims Athanasius stood against Liberius’, bishop of Rome (p. 42), whereas in fact, Athanasius sought the protection of Liberius’ successor, Julius, during his exile, and he, of all the Greek fathers, remained the most intimate with Rome after Julius’ death in 352. There is hardly a case for a proto-opposition between “Protestants” and “Roman Catholics.” Moreover, it is striking White argues that Athanasius makes no appeal to unwritten tradition, and yet in the very citation offered as proof of this point (Oration Against the Arians

3:29) Athanasius refers to Mary as Theotokos, bearer of God; an Alexandrian tradition which few Protestants would espouse! (Ibid. p. 230 – note #4; see also *Interpretation *vol. 52.4, p. 365 – note #12.)

More later, the Lord willing.

Aug

 

[JasonTE]

AugustineH354,

I’m at somewhat of a disadvantage here, because I’ve never read the D.H. Williams book from which you’re quoting, and I gave away my copy of the book to which James White contributed. I’m going by my memory of what James White wrote. But I see some problems with the comments of Williams that you’ve quoted, assuming you accurately copied what he wrote.

He criticizes James White for saying that Athanasius opposed Liberius. He criticizes White on the basis that Athanasius “sought the protection of Liberius’ successor, Julius, during his exile, and he, of all the Greek fathers, remained the most intimate with Rome after Julius’ death in 352”. Julius was Liberius’ predecessor, not his successor. And how would seeking Julius’ help refute White’s claim that Athanasius opposed Liberius? How would Athanasius being “intimate with Rome” refute what White said? Williams’ comments are erroneous and irrelevant.

He goes on to say:

“There is hardly a case for a proto-opposition between ‘Protestants’ and ‘Roman Catholics.’”

I know that James White has said that there are some similarities between the beliefs of some church fathers and the beliefs of Protestants. He refers to people like Athanasius acting Protestant in that sense. How could anybody object to such an observation? Is D.H. Williams claiming that no patristic beliefs or behavior could possibly be cited in support of an element of Protestantism? If so, I would say that such a standard is irrational. You can cite patristic support for a Protestant belief or practice without thereby implying anything unhistorical.

Williams’ comments about Athanasius referring to Mary as God-bearer are likewise unreasonable. People can consider Mary a God-bearer for Biblical reasons. How does Athanasius’ use of such a term contradict what James White said?

You commended Williams for his “depth and fairness”. Maybe his work has depth and fairness in many ways. I don’t know. But what you cited from him is neither deep nor fair. The paragraph you cited regarding James White contains at least a few different errors.

I would ask you the same question I asked Phil Porvaznik in another post. You’ve contrasted the “balance” of Protestants like Keith Mathison with the alleged lack of balance of Protestants like William Webster and David King. But Mathison has given the King/Webster series on sola scriptura a highly positive review (ligonier.org/review/revheader.php?resourceid=657 ). How significant is the contrast between Mathison and King/Webster likely to be if Mathison speaks so highly of the King/Webster series?

I’m not saying that people like White, Webster, and King are always correct or are never to be criticized. We’re all fallible. But it doesn’t seem that you’re as critical of people like Mathison and Williams as you are of people like White and King. It may have something to do with the fact that White and King are more active in opposing Roman Catholicism.

I also would ask, in closing, why somebody who refers to wanting “fairness”, “balance”, etc. would be a Roman Catholic. When reading a document such as Pope Pius IX’s Ineffabilis Deus or session four of the First Vatican Council, I don’t think that terms like “fair” and “balanced” come to mind. Whatever errors are committed by a White, a Webster, or a King, they’re far less than the quantity and quality of errors made by your denomination, even in its most authoritative documents. Isn’t it ironic that the RCC’s apologists are asking for more “fairness” and “balance” from their opponents at a time when one of the RCC’s most recent actions was to dogmatize the bodily assumption of Mary, accompanied with a threat of loss of salvation to those who oppose the doctrine? Who’s really in more need of balance?

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

 

[JPrejean]

JasonTE:

Whatever errors are committed by a White, a Webster, or a King, they’re far less than the quantity and quality of errors made by your denomination, even in its most authoritative documents.

That’s comparing apples to oranges. Augustine’s critique here is one of scholarly methodology and detachment (hence the reference to “fairness and depth”), because White, Webster, and King are presumably attempting to persuade some “objective” third party based on historical evidence. The popes are speaking to people who understand the faith and accept the Catholic view of it already; they aren’t presenting an “objective” argument (viz., one that doesn’t take the Catholic faith as true). If White, Webster, and King are merely attempting to explain to people who are already Protestants why Protestants shouldn’t be Catholic (in essence, preaching to the choir), then their scholarly detachment isn’t even an issue, and there is no need for you to defend them.

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

I was addressing whether Irenaeus was supporting Roman Catholicism, not whether he was supporting Protestantism. I don’t claim that Irenaeus was a Protestant.

You don’t use ECF’s to support Protestantism. Only to tear down the Catholic Church. You are trying to build nothing.

Irenaeus was referring to the condition of the churches in his day.

He saw the Church of Rome of his day as being in its condition because of its special apostolic succession. In running through the list of succession, he didn’t mention past periods as being bad and others, including that of his day, as being good. It was the line of succession itself which upheld the authority and purity of the Church of Rome. Furthermore, I don’t see any other source to judge whether the line of succession is doing its job, other than the fact of succession itself.

Many churches claim that an apostle was in their city or claim a succession from the apostles. And they contradict each other in what they teach.

That’s why they must agree with the Church at Rome.

The Laodicean church had the oversight of at least one apostle, yet it was in danger of being spewed from Christ’s mouth after only several decades of corruption at most (Revelation 3:16).

And noticeably, the Church at Rome wasn’t chastized in Revelation. If these other Churches were in agreement with Rome, they wouldn’t have been chastized either. (Unless they were in agreement and the chastizement was for another eason.)

The RCC has had many corruptions for a much longer period of time.

So you say. But the Holy Catholic Church has always been theologically pure. And it never received a letter from Christ chastizing it despite, as you say, having “corruptions for a much longer period of time.”

Physical survival doesn’t prove spiritual health.

Obviously. Look at all of the non-Catholic religions still around.

When I stated that the Church of Rome is the only apostolic Church still around, I had in mind the onslaught of Islam. Islam swept out of the desert of Arabia and inudated the church in the Middle East. Also the Church in Africa. None of these ancient churches exist in their former glory, if they exist at all.

The Church at Rome is the only apostolic, biblical Church that is still around in any real glory.

Nothing in Romans 1:8 or 16:19 logically leads to Roman Catholicism. The Roman church was in the capital of the empire. No papacy or Roman Catholic system of doctrine is needed to explain why the Roman church would be well known. The Thessalonian church was also well known (1 Thessalonians 1:8).

I don’t read 1 Thessalonians 1:8 as having the worldwide impact as the Church at Rome referenced in Romans. This worldwide impact continued after Rome was no longer the capital.

But to get back to the point of all of this:

1. The list of succession in the Church at Rome is itself the source of its authority; there is no other source,
2. This defines the papacy, whether they used the term or not. All other churches must agree with the succession in the Church at Rome.

 

[Apolonio]

Jason: I don’t have to. I can be confident without being certain, just as you would claim to be confident about your historical conclusions even though it’s possible that a piece of evidence you’re unaware of would change your view.

Response:
I don’t think this is an adequate response to my challenge. You said, “The best argument for sola scriptura is process of elimination.” But when have you eliminated all of the possibilities? The fact is that you claim and maintain that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and your argument for that is the process of elimination. If the argument is process of elimination for the belief that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith, then you must eliminate all possibilities of any other infallible rule of faith since you are claiming that there are no other infallible rule of faith than Scripture. Saying “I don’t have to” just shows that there is no argument. You said that the best argument for sola scriptura is process of elimination. Let’s see that argument. You said that you are simply “confident”. Confident on what? On your belief? On your argument? Both your belief and agument have no substance in my view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apolonio
Are you saying that if I only have 40 books in my Bible, I am still supposed to practice Sola Scriptura? I don’t understand that. If all scripture makes a man fully-equipped (understanding that revelation has been closed), then I do not think that anything less of “all” would make man fully-equipped simply because he is “missing” some of God’s Word; he does not have the fullness of God’s Word.

“If only 40 books existed at the time, then 40 books would be the fullness at that time. You refer to how “revelation has been closed”, but we were discussing 2 Timothy. Revelation wasn’t closed at that time.”

Response:
First, if you are saying that in the time of 2 Timothy, revelation wasn’t closed at that time (I agree), and therefore you cannot practice Sola Scriptura, what exactly was it teaching then?

Again, I don’t think you get the argument. If 2 Timothy is the argument for Sola Scriptura (I’m assuming you think it’s an argument, though you may not accept it), and revelation is closed, and there are 27 books that are objectively inspired, yet some churches only had 20, would they also practice Sola Scriptura? Remember, all scripture is needed to make the man of God fully-equipped, not “some” scripture.

You answered this question when you said:

Jason: To answer your current argument, yes, a church without all 27 books could practice sola scriptura, though the content would be different.

Response:
Oh really? So if there are 27 inspired books yet some churches only had 20, they can still practice Sola Scriptura? Why? How can they do that when it doesn’t make them fully-equipped?

Jason The content would be different for the Roman Catholic rule of faith as well. If you’re going to argue that somebody like Justin Martyr couldn’t have practiced sola scriptura without the 27-book canon, because the content of his rule of faith would be less than the full potential, then you would also have to conclude that people who didn’t have all of the content of the Roman Catholic rule of faith weren’t following that rule. Therefore, the Christians who lived before John wrote the book of Revelation or the church fathers who didn’t agree with the Roman Catholic canon of scripture, for example, couldn’t have been following the Roman Catholic rule of faith.

Response:
They were still following the Catholic rule of faith because 1) they believed in Scripture 2) they believed in Tradition and 3) they obeyed Church authority. Your argument above is not analogous at all because my argument is that Protestants claim that 2 Timothy proves Sola Scriptura. But how does a person practice sola scriptura if one does not have all scripture and knowing that it must be all scripture to make the man of God fully-equipped?

Jason: It would vary from person to person, just as it would for the Roman Catholic rule of faith. Some people who were contemporaries of the apostles would have a memory of what the apostles had taught orally. But not everybody would. There would be some people who only knew what had been passed down through scripture, church tradition, etc., and there would be others who also had personal memories of apostolic teaching. We don’t have that problem today, because we’re so far from the time of the apostles, but the historical difficulty for those living closer to that time would exist for either rule of faith, not just sola scriptura.

Response:
Can you give me a date (estimated) when these people practiced Sola scriptura? Also, when those people had memory of what the apostles taught orally, did they still practice sola scriptura? If not, were they wrong?

 

[Mfaustina1]

Mr. Engwer,

When I stated that Jesus said there would be tares among the wheat, I in no way meant to say nor imply that this should stand over Church authority. I most certainly DO believe in Church authority as a Catholic, but you should already know that. HAVE all of the Bishops disharged their duties as faithfully as they should have in the case of the sex abuse scandals? No, I think not! But I don’t jump ship and deny my faith due to some who are NOT faithful, and neither would you I am sure. But this thread isn’t about the scandals either. - Mfaustina1

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

That’s comparing apples to oranges. Augustine’s critique here is one of scholarly methodology and detachment (hence the reference to “fairness and depth”), because White, Webster, and King are presumably attempting to persuade some “objective” third party based on historical evidence. The popes are speaking to people who understand the faith and accept the Catholic view of it already; they aren’t presenting an “objective” argument (viz., one that doesn’t take the Catholic faith as true). If White, Webster, and King are merely attempting to explain to people who are already Protestants why Protestants shouldn’t be Catholic (in essence, preaching to the choir), then their scholarly detachment isn’t even an issue, and there is no need for you to defend them.

AugustineH354 referred to “a more balanced view of scripture and tradition”. The audience to whom that view is presented doesn’t change the quality of the view.

And I don’t think your presentation of the documents produced by the Roman Catholic hierarchy is accurate. The documents do assume some truth claims, but so do the works produced by White, Webster, King, etc. The RCC expects all Christians to submit to it, and it often makes an argument for what it teaches in the documents it produces. The decrees issued by Popes Pius IX and Pius XII regarding the recent Marian dogmas, for example, present a historical case for those doctrines.

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

 

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

You don’t use ECF’s to support Protestantism. Only to tear down the Catholic Church. You are trying to build nothing.

Your response doesn’t address what I said. I was addressing whether Irenaeus supported Roman Catholicism, not whether he supported Protestantism. Therefore, your comment that I didn’t prove that Irenaeus supported Protestantism was irrelevant.

But since you’ve raised the irrelevant charge that I “don’t use ECF’s to support Protestantism”, I would ask you to explain why I’ve cited the fathers in support of my beliefs at my web site and in online forums. Not only is your claim irrelevant, but it’s also false.

SPH1:

He saw the Church of Rome of his day as being in its condition because of its special apostolic succession. In running through the list of succession, he didn’t mention past periods as being bad and others, including that of his day, as being good. It was the line of succession itself which upheld the authority and purity of the Church of Rome. Furthermore, I don’t see any other source to judge whether the line of succession is doing its job, other than the fact of succession itself.

Irenaeus gives multiple reasons for commending the Roman church. (See the documentation in my last post addressed to you.) The succession of bishops is one of the reasons. It’s not the only reason, and, contrary to what you claim, it’s not unqualified. As Irenaeus writes elsewhere, the succession must be accompanied with moral and doctrinal standards. We’re to “keep aloof” from bishops and other church leaders who don’t meet those standards (Against Heresies, 4:26:2-5).

Even if Irenaeus had only cited the succession of bishops and had made no qualifications, would such an argument be equivalent to the doctrine of the papacy? No. You can believe that a church is significant because of a succession of bishops without thereby believing that the bishops are Popes. Irenaeus says nothing of a papacy.

You tell us that “I don’t see any other source to judge whether the line of succession is doing its job, other than the fact of succession itself.” Should we assume, then, that Copts, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and others who claim a succession are “doing the job”? They contradict much of what the RCC’s succession teaches. And you claimed that Rome is the only apostolic church that remains. Yet, these other churches claim a succession from the apostles. If such a succession is enough by itself to “do the job”, then how can you claim that only Rome remains?

SPH1:

And noticeably, the Church at Rome wasn’t chastized in Revelation. If these other Churches were in agreement with Rome, they wouldn’t have been chastized either. (Unless they were in agreement and the chastizement was for another eason.)

Why should we believe that the churches mentioned in Revelation had to be “in agreement with Rome” in the sense of Rome having papal authority? Are you saying that what Irenaeus wrote a century later must be the standard throughout church history? Irenaeus doesn’t mention a papacy. But, regardless, Irenaeus also mentions Smyrna and Ephesus, not just Rome. Yet, you said in your last post that Rome is the only apostolic church that remains. If what Irenaeus said about Smyrna and Ephesus was just temporarily true, then why can’t the same be said of his comments on Rome?

But the Holy Catholic Church has always been theologically pure.

In what way? Are you only including behavior that meets modern Roman Catholic standards of infallibility? If so, how is that relevant to what we read about in Revelation 2-3? Jesus doesn’t evaluate the churches on the basis of modern Roman Catholic standards of infallibility. He doesn’t tell the Laodiceans that He’ll retain fellowship with them despite their errors, since their errors weren’t spoken ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

The Church at Rome is the only apostolic, biblical Church that is still around in any real glory.

That’s a significant change from what you said earlier. It’s also a highly subjective claim that many people would dispute.

I don’t read 1 Thessalonians 1:8 as having the worldwide impact as the Church at Rome referenced in Romans. This worldwide impact continued after Rome was no longer the capital.

We were discussing what the book of Romans tells us, not what happened hundreds of years after the book of Romans was written. Nothing in the book of Romans logically leads to the conclusion of the papacy.

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

 

[AugustineH354]

Jason posted,

I’m going by my memory of what James White wrote. But I see some problems with the comments of Williams that you’ve quoted, assuming you accurately copied what he wrote.>>

Aug: It is accurate; word for word.

Jason>>He criticizes James White for saying that Athanasius opposed Liberius. He criticizes White on the basis that Athanasius “sought the protection of Liberius’ successor, Julius, during his exile, and he, of all the Greek fathers, remained the most intimate with Rome after Julius’ death in 352”. Julius was Liberius’ predecessor, not his successor.>>

Aug: You are correct; Liberius succeeded Julius I. Given professor Williams’ credentials, it was probably the publisher’s error.

Jason:>>He goes on to say:

“There is hardly a case for a proto-opposition between ‘Protestants’ and ‘Roman Catholics.’”

I know that James White has said that there are some similarities between the beliefs of some church fathers and the beliefs of Protestants. He refers to people like Athanasius acting Protestant in that sense. How could anybody object to such an observation?>>

Aug: Here is what James White actually wrote:

Conflict is often a great and rich source of information regarding the beliefs of the early Fathers. When faced with opposition the Fathers “show their true colors,” so to speak. How do they handle the claims of gainsayers? Do they do as modern Roman Catholics and refer to “tradition” as the basis of their doctrinal beliefs? Or do we find them presenting Scriptures as their final and full authority?

No early Father answers this question more clearly and with more power than Athanasius. For years he stood against the combined might of the Empire and the Church, firmly clinging to the Nicene faith in the full deity of Jesus Christ. For a time he even stood against the Roman See under Liberius, the bishop of Rome who gave in to the pressures placed upon him. Truly it was said of him, Athanasius contra mundum, “Athanasius against the world.” What an amazingly Protestant attitude was displayed by this bishop of Alexandria!

Aug: Now, I cannot read either Williams’ or White’s minds, but, given what they have written, I think I understand why professor Williams has taken his fellow Baptist, Mr. White, to task concerning the above comments. First, Athanasius did not “stand against the Roman see under Liberius.” Fact is, Athanasius had nothing but praise and support for Liberius; and even apologizes for Liberius’ temporary lapse! Note the following:

But Liberius after he had been in banishment two years gave way, and from fear of threatened death subscribed. Yet even this only shews their violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. For that which men are forced by torture to do contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors. (“History of the Arians” 41, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

, Second Series, vol. 4, p. 284.)

And second, nothing about Athanasius’ actions were Protestant in any real sense; rather, his actions were contra Protestant! Athanasius supported the apostolic see at Rome; supported Rome’s bishops; opposed the anti-Pope; appealed to “the faith of the Catholic Church”; appealed to Catholic councils; and importantly, did not start his own church during his banishments.

Aug

 

[JasonTE]

Apolonio:

You said, “The best argument for sola scriptura is process of elimination.” But when have you eliminated all of the possibilities?

As I said before, you don’t have to be certain in order to be confident. When a historian writes about Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians being the only extant document we have from Polycarp, he’s making a statement of historical probability, not certainty. He hasn’t searched the world, reading every document, doing archeological research on every part of the earth, etc. to eliminate all possibility that there’s another document in existence written by Polycarp. He doesn’t have to prove a universal negative. If Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians is the only document of Polycarp that he knows of, other historical sources don’t refer to any other document still extant, other historians have agreed with him that only one letter is extant, etc., then he can be confident that the letter to the Philippians is the only document of Polycarp that we have today. Historians regularly use this sort of reasoning, and you as a Roman Catholic use it in order to arrive at your belief system. The fact that there’s a theoretical possibility that one of your historical conclusions is wrong doesn’t keep you from being confident about that historical conclusion. If an atheist came into this forum and raised the theoretical possibility that there are documents in existence somewhere that would significantly change our conclusions about the historical Jesus, you wouldn’t lose your confidence in the orthodox Christian view of Christ and become an agnostic on the issue.

Apolonio:

yet some churches only had 20, would they also practice Sola Scriptura? Remember, all scripture is needed to make the man of God fully-equipped, not “some” scripture.

If a church was to follow 20 books of scripture as its rule of faith, then what would you call such a view if not sola scriptura? Not having all of the books doesn’t change the fact that their rule of faith consists only of scripture (sola scriptura). Thus, many Roman Catholics will criticize Martin Luther for removing some book or another from the canon, yet will refer to him advocating sola scriptura. You can criticize somebody for not having the correct canon, yet acknowledge that their rule of faith consists only of that canon.

Besides, as you acknowledged earlier, the fact that Athanasius was the first person to list the 27 books in an extant document doesn’t prove that nobody could have had that canon prior to that time. Even if you assumed that all 27 books are needed in order to practice sola scriptura, all 27 would be available from the late first century onward.

Apolonio:

They were still following the Catholic rule of faith because 1) they believed in Scripture 2) they believed in Tradition and 3) they obeyed Church authority.

You believe that a person would have to have all of the Roman Catholic rule of faith in order to be fully equipped. You believe that the bodily assumption of Mary and papal infallibility, for example, are part of the apostolic deposit of faith. If they are, then how can you claim that a church father was following the Roman Catholic rule of faith if he didn’t accept every element of it? You as a Catholic believe that 2 Timothy 3 is correct about scripture equipping people. If you must be fully equipped by a rule of faith in order to be considered a follower of that rule of faith, then how could people like Melito of Sardis and Jerome have been fully equipped by the Roman Catholic rule of faith in light of their rejection of your canon of scripture?

Apolonio:

Can you give me a date (estimated) when these people practiced Sola scriptura?

Why would a date be needed? If it’s needed for sola scriptura (a claim I reject), it would be needed for the Roman Catholic rule of faith as well.

Apolonio:

Also, when those people had memory of what the apostles taught orally, did they still practice sola scriptura? If not, were they wrong?

I’ve already answered both questions. Nobody who remembered such oral teachings would follow sola scriptura, nor would they follow the Roman Catholic rule of faith. And they would be correct in rejecting both. The modern dispute between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics is about what the rule of faith should be today. To ask whether it was appropriate for Papias or some other contemporary of the apostles, or to ask for a date for when it went into effect, as if Papias rejecting sola scriptura or an inability to give a date for its origin would refute sola scriptura, is to misunderstand the issue in dispute.

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

 

[JasonTE]

AugustineH354:

Fact is, Athanasius had nothing but praise and support for Liberius; and even apologizes for Liberius’ temporary lapse!

How can you speak of Athanasius having “nothing but praise” for a man who had a lapse into heresy for which he “apologizes”? Athanasius didn’t have any “praise” for Liberius’ lapse, even though he did think highly of Liberius in general. The lapse of Liberius is what James White had in view. Any suggestion that White was denying Athanasius’ support for Liberius aside from his lapse is unreasonable. You have to take White badly out of context in order to portray his reference to Liberius as inaccurate. The fact is that Liberius did have a lapse, while Athanasius remained faithful.

Before I address the remainder of your post, I would ask the readers to note that nothing in your response refutes what I said about Williams’ evaluation of White containing multiple errors. Yet, you referred to how “fair” and “balanced” Williams is, and you approvingly quoted his erroneous evaluation of White.

AugustineH354:

And second, nothing about Athanasius’ actions were Protestant in any real sense; rather, his actions were contra Protestant!

There was nothing Protestant about what Athanasius did in any sense? And you accuse people like White and King of not being “fair” and “balanced”?

AugustineH354:

Athanasius supported the apostolic see at Rome

So could a Protestant. Cyprian supported Rome, when he agreed with Rome. On other occasions, he condemned Rome and denied that Rome had any jurisdiction over him. Athanasius can hold a high view of Rome, seek the help of Rome, etc. without any invalidation of what James White was arguing.

AugustineH354:

supported Rome’s bishops

When they supported orthodoxy.

AugustineH354:

opposed the anti-Pope

So do Protestants. I don’t know of any Protestant who supports the Arian Roman bishop Felix II.

AugustineH354:

appealed to “the faith of the Catholic Church”

So do Protestants. The same Athanasius who appealed to church tradition in opposition to Arianism also appealed to it in opposition to Arianizing Roman bishops and in opposition to the Roman Catholic Old Testament canon, for example.

AugustineH354:

appealed to Catholic councils

So do Protestants.

AugustineH354:

and importantly, did not start his own church during his banishments

I don’t know of any Protestant who argues that you must start your own church under Athanasius’ circumstances. Some Protestants act irresponsibly, but there’s nothing inherent in all Protestant belief systems that requires every Protestant to start his own church whenever any disagreement arises.

Athanasius wasn’t a Protestant. He agreed with Roman Catholicism on some issues, but he wasn’t a Roman Catholic either. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying that Athanasius took a Protestant approach toward an issue. I think your comments and the comments you’ve quoted from D.H. Williams are more unreasonable than what you quoted from James White.

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

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

Athanasius wasn’t a Protestant. He agreed with Roman Catholicism on some issues, but he wasn’t a Roman Catholic either.

This is at least the second time in this thread you’ve been wishy-washy with a Church Father: supposedly being neither Protestant nor Catholic.

I don’t get what you are trying to accomplish (other than further tearing down of the Catholic Church.)

1. Are you saying that the Church of the ECF’s was a true Church, something we should all return to?
2. Are you saying that the Church of the ECF’s was also wrong, and that only Protestantism…especially your version…is the truest expression of Christianity?
3. Are you merely seeking validation and acceptance of your views? That we’re okay and your okay?

Thanks in advance for some clarification.

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE,

Okay, I scanned your “Catholic but not Roman Catholic” page here:

members.aol.com/jasonte3/cbnrcc.htm

I’ve seen your site some time ago.

You give alot of purported conflicts between ECF’s and the Catholic Church. Basically, conflicts between ECF’s. What you present is chaos and anarchy; pretty much what we see in Protestantism as a whole.

Are you presenting this picture as what the Church should be? If not, I don’t see that you give a solution. Why should we follow you or your pope, James White? Doesn’t that just add to the chaos?

 

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

This is at least the second time in this thread you’ve been wishy-washy with a Church Father: supposedly being neither Protestant nor Catholic.

I don’t get what you are trying to accomplish (other than further tearing down of the Catholic Church.)

1. Are you saying that the Church of the ECF’s was a true Church, something we should all return to?
2. Are you saying that the Church of the ECF’s was also wrong, and that only Protestantism…especially your version…is the truest expression of Christianity?
3. Are you merely seeking validation and acceptance of your views? That we’re okay and your okay?

Thanks in advance for some clarification.

Steve, when I began my Catholic, But Not Roman Catholic series on the church fathers in 2002, you were one of the first Roman Catholics to respond to it. I repeatedly explained the purpose of the series to you, and I repeatedly went into detail about my view of the church fathers. If you still don’t understand my view, more than two years later, I think you should consider the possibility that it’s at least partially your fault. It may be partly my fault. Maybe I haven’t been as clear in some things as I should have been. But I know for a fact that some of the questions you’re asking have been answered many times.

Let me address your third question first. No, I don’t want people to have an “I’m okay, you’re okay” mindset. Truth is important, and truth is exclusive.

To answer your other two questions, the term “church” can be defined in a number of ways. It can refer to a local assembly, such as the church that met in Philemon’s house or the church of Laodicea. It can also refer to a spiritual entity consisting only of believers, such as we see in Ephesians 4:16. And it can refer to all local assemblies collectively or a denomination, for example. When we refer to the church of the church fathers, we should be careful to distinguish between the possible definitions we could be referring to. Was there a church of the fathers in the sense of all orthodox local assemblies taken together as a collective entity? Yes. Did those local assemblies all submit to the bishop of Rome as a Pope? No. Did they all hold the same doctrines on every theological issue? No.

You claim that I’m “wishy-washy” for saying that the fathers were neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic. Why? Are you saying that there’s no other alternative? It’s a fact that people like Irenaeus and Cyprian agreed with Protestants on some issues, agreed with Roman Catholicism on other issues, and agreed with neither on others. Why would we have to place such men in either the Protestant or Roman Catholic category? Why not just let Irenaeus be Irenaeus and let Cyprian be Cyprian? You can refer to local assemblies they belonged to, and you can refer to them belonging to a larger church in the sense of the spiritual entity consisting of believers or all orthodox local assemblies as a collective entity, for example. But why would they have to be categorized into a Protestant denomination or the Roman Catholic denomination? There’s no need for it.

You refer to me thinking that my view of Christianity is the correct one. How could I not view it in such a way? If I didn’t think my view was correct, I wouldn’t hold it. That doesn’t mean that I’m claiming infallibility or that I’m claiming to be a better person than every church father. In many ways, we all stand on their shoulders. We benefit from what they’ve taught us, the sacrifices they made, etc. When I conclude that a church father was wrong on an issue, I do so with respect and with an acknowledgement of my own fallibility.

“Neither will I myself shrink from inquiry, if I am anywhere in doubt; nor be ashamed to learn, if I am anywhere in error. Further let me ask of my reader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go on with me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to join with me in inquiring; wherever he recognizes himself to be in error, there to return to me; wherever he recognizes me to be so, there to call me back: so that we may enter together upon the path of charity, and advance towards Him of whom it is said, ‘Seek His face evermore.’ And I would make this pious and safe agreement, in the presence of our Lord God, with all who read my writings” (Augustine, On the Holy Trinity, 1:4, 1:5)

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

 

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

Are you presenting this picture as what the Church should be? If not, I don’t see that you give a solution. Why should we follow you or your pope, James White? Doesn’t that just add to the chaos?

No, I don’t think that the disagreements among the church fathers are an ideal. And I do think steps can be taken and should be taken to produce more unity. One of the first steps is to acknowledge the truth. Unity must be built upon truth. Denominational unity, such as your unity with Hans Kung and Ted Kennedy, is of less significance than spiritual unity. As the bishop Firmilian commented, in the context of writing against the Roman bishop Stephen:

“For even as the Lord who dwells in us is one and the same, He everywhere joins and couples His own people in the bond of unity, whence their sound has gone out into the whole earth, who are sent by the Lord swiftly running in the spirit of unity; as, on the other hand, it is of no advantage that some are very near and joined together bodily, if in spirit and mind they differ, since souls cannot at all be united which divide themselves from God’s unity.” (Cyprian’s Letter 74:3)

We have to acknowledge the disunity that existed among the church fathers if we’re going to be honest about church history. Celsus, a second century critic of Christianity, wrote the following. He surely was being hyperbolic, but the general thrust of what he says is that there was widespread disunity:

“Christians at first were few in number, and held the same opinions; but when they grew to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing to have his own individual party: for this was their object from the beginning…being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects.” (cited in Origen’s Against Celsus, 3:10, 3:12)

Similarly, John Chrysostom would write the following about two centuries later:

“Thus a thousand similar errors are daily introduced into the Church, and we are become a laughing-stock to Jews and Greeks, seeing that the Church is divided into a thousand parties.” (Commentary on Galatians, 1:7)

“What is one to say to the disorders in the other Churches? For the evil did not stop even here [Constantinople], but made its way to the east. For as when some evil humor is discharged from the head, all the other parts are corrupted, so now also these evils, having originated in this great city as from a fountain, confusion has spread in every direction, and clergy have everywhere made insurrection against bishops, there has been schism between bishop and bishop, people and people, and will be yet more; every place is suffering from the throes of calamity, and the subversion of the whole civilized world.” (Correspondence of St. Chrysostom with the Bishop of Rome, Letter 1:4)

Was there also some unity among the fathers, and did they often speak highly of that unity? Yes. The same is true today. There’s much disunity among professing Christians, but there’s also some unity.

What is the solution? Going to God’s word. Studying it. Seeking God’s face in prayer. Repenting of our own errors. Discussing these issues with one another. Some things can be accomplished through church discipline, church councils, etc. Some recent examples that come to mind are the Council on Biblical Inerrancy and some of the documents put out by Evangelical leaders on the doctrine of justification. Some of the disputes may last hundreds of years. There were disagreements during the Old Testament era that lasted for centuries. When Jesus came, there was widespread disagreement among the religious leaders of Israel and widespread ignorance of the true meaning of the Messianic prophecies. In this New Testament era, it wasn’t until hundreds of years after the time of the apostles that what we now consider the orthodox view of the Trinity was widely codified by means of councils, the decrees of church leaders and individual churches, etc. The mills of God grind slowly, but wonderfully fine.

One thing that is not a solution to Christian disunity is to be dishonest about its existence, its nature, and the solution to it. To act as if all or almost all of the church fathers were Roman Catholics in submission to a Pope is not helpful. It’s also not helpful to propose submission to a denomination, namely the RCC, as the solution to disunity. The fact that Ted Kennedy and Robert Sungenis belong to the same denomination doesn’t prove that the RCC is the fulfillment of John 17:21.

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

 

[JPrejean]

JasonTE:

AugustineH354 referred to “a more balanced view of scripture and tradition”. The audience to whom that view is presented doesn’t change the quality of the view.

It may not change the quality of the view from a particular standard, but it does determine whether the standard one is applying is appropriate. Papal documents are not intended to be persuasive scholarly works that lay out the entire historical case for every single belief. They are pastoral documents intended for the edification of the flock. To evaluate those documents by the same standard one would evaluate a purportedly scholarly work is simply inappropriate. It is, for example, every bit as inappropriate as an athiest applying the standards for scientific experimentation to determine the validity of one’s belief in God. No one ever claimed that the existence of God could be proved by scientific experimentation, so the fact that it is not demonstrated in a conclusive scientific manner is completely irrelevant.

Similarly, the fact that papal documents don’t meet the standards for an academic work is utterly irrelevant; they are only supposed to serve their pastoral purpose of educating Catholics (and notably, they are NOT aimed at convincing them; they are informing Catholics of what the doctrine is). On the other hand, the standard for academic works is properly applied to people who have claimed to produce such a work. In that case, the work is properly judged by the academic standard, and Augustine’s point was that White’s work (which purports to be academic) is inferior by that standard.

And I don’t think your presentation of the documents produced by the Roman Catholic hierarchy is accurate. The documents do assume some truth claims, but so do the works produced by White, Webster, King, etc. The RCC expects all Christians to submit to it, and it often makes an argument for what it teaches in the documents it produces. The decrees issued by Popes Pius IX and Pius XII regarding the recent Marian dogmas, for example, present a historical case for those doctrines.

Previously, you agreed with me that we should attempt to understand the other person’s methodology in order to have meaningful dialogue. This would be an excellent opportunity for you to put that aspiration into progress.

Certainly, Popes Pius IX and Pius XII expect all Catholics to submit to the belief, but the document is aimed at saying what the belief is so that they can better understand it, not convincing them that they ought to believe it. That may seem a bit abrupt for someone who mistrusts the Church, but we don’t.

Apart from that mischaracterization, you’ve also committed a logical fallacy in concluding from the premises (1) that the Catholic Church expects all all Christians to submit to the belief and (2) that it makes arguments for what it teaches, that (Concl.) the Church expects all Christians to submit to the belief based on the arguments. Even if one were to take premise (2) as true (which isn’t the case), it would be fallacious to presume that the Church expects all Christians to believe the dogma based on the argument. In fact, the closer description to the actual case is that (1) the Church expects all Christians to be Catholic, and (2) that the arguments for belief assume that one is already Catholic.

So I say once again, papal documents are not intended to speak to non-Catholics. They are pastoral documents by Catholics for Catholics. You must at least be able to accept Catholic premises, if only for the sake of interpreting the documents, in order to take their meaning properly. centuri0n has wasted an enormous amount of time on spurious arguments (“Pius IX anathematized Abraham!”) that could have been avoided by this simple exercise of interpreting a document using the principles and intent of those who wrote it, and I hate to see you falling into that error as well.

 

[AugustineH354]

Jason,

I am trying to understand your interpretation of James White; but it just does not seem to make any sense. Perhaps you can clarify the following from your post:

Jason:>>How can you speak of Athanasius having “nothing but praise” for a man who had a lapse into heresy for which he “apologizes”? Athanasius didn’t have any “praise” for Liberius’ lapse, even though he did think highly of Liberius in general. The lapse of Liberius is what James White had in view. Any suggestion that White was denying Athanasius’ support for Liberius aside from his lapse is unreasonable. You have to take White badly out of context in order to portray his reference to Liberius as inaccurate. The fact is that Liberius did have a lapse, while Athanasius remained faithful.>>

Aug: It sure seems to me that you have not carefully read Athanasius on Liberius (see “History of the Arians” chapters 35-41). Once again, you will find “nothing but praise” from the pen of Athanasius. He clearly does not fault Liberius for his temporary lapse, but faults his torturers. Now, that is how I read Athanasius; but I am certainly not infallible: do you know of anything from Athanasius’ pen that condemns Liberius? I know of none.

If all James White is saying is that Liberius temporally lapsed, how is that “an amazing Protestant attitude”? Further, if Athanasius does not condemn Liberius for his temporary lapse, how can it be construed that “he even stood against the Roman See under Liberius”? Once again, I may be reading James incorrectly, but if I read it in the sense you are supporting, it just doesn’t make any sense.

Have more to say concerning your last post, but feel it best to take one issue at a time at this point.

Aug

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

Steve, when I began my Catholic, But Not Roman Catholic series on the church fathers in 2002, you were one of the first Roman Catholics to respond to it. I repeatedly explained the purpose of the series to you, and I repeatedly went into detail about my view of the church fathers. If you still don’t understand my view, more than two years later, I think you should consider the possibility that it’s at least partially your fault. It may be partly my fault.

If that’s the case, then it’s my fault. About two years ago I began a new business with one of my sisters. Haven’t been around much since then; until lately was a stranger on my own board/site (which badly needs updating.)

Thanks for the reply. I’ll study it.

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

Papal documents are not intended to be persuasive scholarly works that lay out the entire historical case for every single belief.

They don’t have to be “scholarly works that lay out the entire historical case” in order to be relevant to what I was discussing in my previous post. The article by James White that AugustineH354 cited wasn’t published in a scholarly journal, nor was it meant to be “the entire historical case”. AugustineH354 cited a variety of works in a variety of formats by authors with a variety of backgrounds addressing a variety of audiences. If he was only addressing some narrow field of scholarly work, then why did he cite such a variety of authors and genres and contrast “polemists” with “patristic scholars”?

JPrejean:

No one ever claimed that the existence of God could be proved by scientific experimentation, so the fact that it is not demonstrated in a conclusive scientific manner is completely irrelevant.

I wasn’t criticizing the Roman Catholic hierarchy for not being exhaustive in presenting evidence. I was criticizing the hierarchy for making false claims and for teaching things that shouldn’t be taught. The problem I was referring to wasn’t brevity. The problem was error.

JPrejean:

Similarly, the fact that papal documents don’t meet the standards for an academic work is utterly irrelevant; they are only supposed to serve their pastoral purpose of educating Catholics (and notably, they are NOT aimed at convincing them; they are informing Catholics of what the doctrine is).

No, in the papal documents I cited, the definition of the dogma is only a relatively small part of the document. The documents make many claims about the history of the doctrines in question, and they present many arguments for those doctrines.

JPrejean:

Apart from that mischaracterization, you’ve also committed a logical fallacy in concluding from the premises (1) that the Catholic Church expects all all Christians to submit to the belief and (2) that it makes arguments for what it teaches, that (Concl.) the Church expects all Christians to submit to the belief based on the arguments. Even if one were to take premise (2) as true (which isn’t the case), it would be fallacious to presume that the Church expects all Christians to believe the dogma based on the argument.

I didn’t say that all Christians are expected to submit because of the argument given. What I said is that there is an argument given.

New Advent is a popular Roman Catholic web site. Go to their edition of Pope Pius IX’s Ineffabilis Deus:

newadvent.org/docs/pi09id.htm

Read the titles for the different sections of the decree. For example, notice the word “reason” in the second title. Notice the word “argument” in the third title. The document repeatedly cites alleged reasons and evidence for the dogma.

Similarly, read Pope Pius XII’s Munificentissimus Deus:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM

The document refers to “a certain and firm proof”, “proofs and testimonies”, etc.

If you, AugustineH354, and other Roman Catholics were as critical of your hierarchy’s claims as you are of the writings of men like James White and David King, I don’t see how you could remain Roman Catholic. The same people who will strain the smallest gnat in an article by James White or a book by David King will follow a denomination that claims that Mary was bodily assumed to Heaven and that the Immaculate Conception is a doctrine always held and taught by the Christian church.

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

 

[JasonTE]

AugustineH354:

If all James White is saying is that Liberius temporally lapsed, how is that “an amazing Protestant attitude”? Further, if Athanasius does not condemn Liberius for his temporary lapse, how can it be construed that “he even stood against the Roman See under Liberius”?

The lapse was a departure from orthodoxy. Athanasius remained orthodox and continued to oppose Arianism during that time. Liberius was temporarily a part of the movement Athanasius was opposing. J.N.D. Kelly refers to how Liberius “acquiesced in Athanasius’s excommunication” and how “His capitulation is pathetically mirrored” in letters he sent to Arianizing bishops. Kelly writes of Liberius being “ready to pay almost any price to return home” (Oxford Dictionary of Popes [New York: Oxford University Press, 1996], p. 31). The fact that Athanasius was sympathetic to Liberius doesn’t change the fact that Liberius placed himself in opposition to Athanasius and temporarily became part of the movement he was opposing. Athanasius refers to how Liberius “gave way…from fear of threatened death” (History of the Arians, 5:41) and how he “did not endure to the end” (Defense Against the Arians, 2:6:89). He was sympathetic to Liberius because Liberius had previously opposed Arianism and supported it only under pressure. But surely you wouldn’t suggest, would you, that Athanasius thought there was nothing wrong with what Liberius did? Even if he had thought so, the fact would remain that Liberius temporarily became part of the Arian opposition.

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