The Spiral Argument Argument

[Contarini]

Bauckham in context from your link:

“I guess I ought to clarify my position on eyewitness testimony in the Gospels, since it has been raised and you, Larry, say: ‘As I understand him, he doesn’t mean that the Gospels are “eyewitness testimony” such as a court transcript would provide, but that the Gospels draw on “eyewitness testimony” as it circulated in early Christian circles.’ Well, no, certainly nothing like a court transcript, more like “oral history.” But my point was that the Gospels are CLOSE to the eyewitnesses’ own testimony, not removed from them by decades of oral tradition. I think there is a very good case for Papias’s claim that Mark got his much of his material directly from Peter (and I will substantiate this further with quite new evidence in the sequel to [my book] Jesus and the Eyewitnesses that I’m now writing). I think that the ‘Beloved Disciple’ himself wrote the Gospel of John as we have it, and that he was a disciple of Jesus and thus an eyewitness himself, as he claims, though not John the son of Zebedee. Of course, his Gospel is the product of his life-long reflection on what he had witnessed, the most interpretative of the Gospels, but still the only one actually written by an eyewitness, who, precisely because he was close to Jesus, felt entitled to interpret quite extensively. Luke, as well as incorporating written material (Mark’s Gospel, which he knew as substantially Peter’s version of the Gospel story, and probably some of the “Q” material was in written form), also, I think, did what ancient historians did: he took every opportunity to meet eyewitnesses and interviewed them. He has probably collected material from a number of minor eyewitnesses from whom he got individual stories or sayings. Matthew is the Gospel I understand least! But whatever accounts for Matthew it is not the form-critical picture of anonymous community traditions, which we really must now abandon!”

Randy, can you point to the post where I have championed “the form-critical picture of anonymous community traditions”?

I was persuaded by Bauckham on this point some time ago. At the same time, if we’re talking about the consensus, then in fact the picture Bauckham attacks is still largely dominant, I think. He’s raised what I find to be quite powerful objections, but only time will tell if the fortress will fall.

But for our present purposes what matters is that he says “whatever accounts for Matthew.” He does not, as you claim, say that Matthew was in fact directly written by an eye-witness.

I have long wondered about the possibility that Matthew the tax-collector may have recorded the collection of Jesus’ sayings scholars call “Q.” I would be surprised if the claims of Papias and others about Matthew turned out to have no foundation at all. But I’m pretty sure that Matthew did not write the Gospel in the form we have it, and Bauckham does not actually suggest this.

No “anonymous community traditions” are implied by my position–rather, an author writing sometime after the fall of Jerusalem, using Q (perhaps the original “Matthew”?) and Mark. I have consistently spoken of Matthew’s own “theological elaborations” rather than form-critical “communities.” (I’m sure communities did play a role, of course, but Bauckham’s point is persuasive that the time scale is just too short for the kind of complex evolution of tradition that the standard scholarly position requires.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think you’re getting your causality backwards.

I’ve seen critics argue that we can’t take the NT seriously, since we don’t have attestation from non-Christians that Jesus was in fact the Son of God.

The illogic of such a statement is quite startling.

I think you may be doing something akin to that, albeit on a much smaller scale.

I don’t follow you here.

I don’t know of anyone who has argued that attestation from non-Christians that Jesus was the Son of God is needed. If they have, they are indeed confused. The point some critics make is that surely someone who did and suffered the things recorded in the Gospels would have made more of a mark in non-Christian records. I don’t think this is actually the case. But either way, that’s quite different from what I’m saying.

I’m not talking about primary-source testimony, but about scholarly interpretation. What I’m saying is that if you claim to be treating the Gospels “like any other book,” then your arguments shouldn’t be supported only by scholars who are committed to a conservative version of the Christian faith. That casts doubt on whether you are really treating the texts “like any other book.”

I suspect that your implicit argument here is that people who really treat the Gospels like any other book come to believe in Christianity, so that all skeptics are by definition stubborn or dishonest people who refuse to look at the evidence.

And that is circular. It’s like the people who cite Newman and say “anyone who studies church history honestly will conclude that Catholicism is true” (which isn’t what Newman said, but that’s what he’s often misinterpreted to have meant), and when I point out all the excellent scholars who show no such inclination, people on this forum say, “well, they can’t really be excellent scholars then.”

If your supposition were true, then there would be a consistent pattern of excellent, credentialed scholars saying “you know what–I have to believe in this Christian stuff because the evidence is so overwhelming.” That just isn’t the case. I don’t mean that such things never happen, but it isn’t that common. In fact I can think more easily of examples of people who have gone the other way. (Bart Ehrman, for instance, though Ehrman himself says that he abandoned Christianity because of the problem of evil and not because of Biblical criticism per se. But he certainly was led by his studies to a much more liberal position on Scripture, and since he no longer believed that the evidence demonstrated the divine origin of Scripture he was more open to questioning the faith based on the problem of evil.) Now maybe this is just because all of modern Biblical studies is dominated by an anti-Christian culture and rests on false assumptions. But it’s also possible (and this is what I believe) that the methodology of treating the Bible like any other book is not guaranteed, or even terribly likely, to lead to the conclusion that it is entirely accurate and/or divinely inspired. And even if the more “conspiratorial” hypothesis were true, that sad situation would make the spiral argument and its kin rather ill-advised until the present state of affairs was reversed.

Randy may be right that it is being reversed (with regard to the New Testament–clearly not with regard to the Old, I fear). The tide may well have turned. But it’s early days yet.

Edwin

 

[benhur]

TSA is just a tool, an attempt to explain how we can know that the Bible is the Word of God, used by Catholic apologists when speaking with non-Catholic Christians and non-believers as we endeavor to help them understand our Catholic faith.

Hi RC,

Isn’t it all just a fancy, mental way of saying, “look P’s, you believe in our bible, why don’t you just believe in our church, the caretakers, even progenitors of your bible ?”

Another words the real intent of the logic is to authenticate the CC, not so much the Word of God.

I respect it more when one just quotes scriptural evidence for their position, and not also say they are “authors” of the evidence (scripture). I suppose TSA is an contrived way of circumventing the obvious.

What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

Is that like saying without an Earth Christ would have never come ???

I do believe that if a tree does fall in the woods it does make a sound, whether or not we are there to hear it.

Of course Writ was and is thru Israel first, then the church to the world. But it is circular to then say Peter and Paul were Catholics (and really not Orthodox or Protestant). Would that be like a pharisee saying Abraham and Moses were Pharisees ?

The OT Jews never institutionally canonized Writ, nor did the wildfire growing early church.

The Corinthians, Galatians, or Philippians etc., did not wait for a council to convene hundreds of years later to revere and even die for a fragment or copy of Paul’s letter to them.

This all in my not so humble opinion, Blessings to all here and thank you Randy for “hosting”.

 

[SyCarl]

From: “Habermas, Gary”
Date: April 10, 2015, 10:26:52 AM EDT
To: Randy Carson
Subject: RE: Christ 101, General Reliability and the New Testament

Randy:

I could accept those 3, but if I were trying to build an argument for the inspiration of Scripture, I think there is a stronger way than using 2) & 3). I would argue 1) resurrection, 2) Deity of Christ, 3) Jesus as spokesman for God, 4) Jesus’ teaching of inspiration. Here is the URL for a journal article from the “Areopagus Journal” where I present points 1, 3, 4: digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=lts_fac_pubs I have also argued pt 2 in print.

Gary Habermas, PhD
Distinguished Research Professor
Chair, Department of Philosophy
Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

www.garyhabermas.com

Liberty University | Training Champions for Christ since 1971

+++

Did everyone catch that? Referring to my simple, three-point reduction of the Spiral Argument, Habermas wrote, “I could accept those 3.”

I’m reading his article, “Jesus and the Inspiration of Scripture” now. I hope you will, also.

it should be noted that the article assumes the general reliability of the Gospel texts but that is the issue which is the subject of the debate in this thread. I think that it is important that the article indicates that there are scholars who don’t accept the general reliability of the Gospels. Pg 14 (trying to paste from the article puts each word on a different line.) It seems that much depends on what a person feels is enough to establish general reliability but it appears clear that there is no unanimity that the Gospels are generally reliable, never mind Matthew itself.

Saying that Matthew is not generally reliable is not the as denying the truth of Matthew. It is merely stating that the truth cannot be established by treating it as one would any other historical document which is the premise of the spiral argument.

 

[benhur]

]And that is circular. It’s like the people who cite Newman and say “anyone who studies church history honestly will conclude that Catholicism is true” (which isn’t what Newman said, but that’s what he’s often misinterpreted to have meant),

Hi C, I have seen that quote often,and I took it at face value, that for him, history became evidence for change in faith to Catholicism (and I would reply for others, same history leads to another conclusion). But if you don’t mind sharing, what was his context or meaning?

 

[Contarini]

Hi C, I have seen that quote often,and I took it at face value, that for him, history became evidence for change in faith to Catholicism (and I would reply for others, same history leads to another conclusion). But if you don’t mind sharing, what was his context or meaning?

It’s early on in the Essay on Development, and he’s responding to a famous Protestant apologist of the 17th century (William Chillingworth), who had said that historically Popes and Councils contradicted each other (this is also something Luther and many of the early Reformers had said) and so the only safe guide was Scripture: “The Bible, I say, and the Bible alone, is the only religion of Protestants.” Newman’s argument is that this represents a kind of cynicism about history–history is just a mess of contradictions and the Bible somehow floats above history. He also suggests that this kind of cynicism can easily lead people to abandon Christian faith entirely. He makes the telling point that probably the English scholar of the previous couple centuries who was most deeply immersed in church history was Edward Gibbon–who of course was a skeptic about Christianity. (In fact, though Newman doesn’t say this, Gibbon tried to convert to Catholicism as a teenager and was “deprogrammed” by his family who sent him to a Swiss Protestant minister for re-education. The result was not that he became a devout Protestant, but that he decided that Catholicism was indeed false and so was Christianity as a whole.)

So his argument seems to be that if you become “deep” in history–which I think may mean more than just knowing quite a bit about it but making it central to your identity–then you aren’t going to construct anything like 19th-century evangelical Protestantism on the basis of that. You may abandon the Christian faith entirely, but you can only remain a devout Protestant by rejecting the relevance of history and placing the Bible above history. (Of course, as Newman was writing this, the movement was gaining ground to look at the Bible historically. Newman disapproved of this, but he would argue later on that the Church was needed to protect the Bible from this kind of “destructive” criticism.)

Another point to be made is that in the Essay (written during the closing stages of his conversion, so he was still technically an Anglican) consistently treats Anglicans as something other than Protestants. He is not, in that quote, attacking his previous position of high-church Anglicanism, which I think he would acknowledge is deep in history. So no, I don’t think he’s saying in context so much that history necessarily led him to Catholicism (though of course it did play a huge role–but that’s not his main point here), but that if we want to ground Christianity in history, then Protestantism (as he defines it) is ruled out from the start. We may reject Christianity, we may try to construct a kind of primitivist “pure Catholicism” (as, in his view, the high-church Anglicans had been doing), we may become Orthodox (though he doesn’t talk about that as far as I remember), or we may (as he’s about to do) just accept “Roman” Catholicism with all its historical barnacles as the proper development of early Christianity. All of these options would be consonant with being “deep in history” in the sense he uses the term there.

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, my point in citing Habermas was that Habermas very clearly says that apologists need to pay attention to critical arguments as well as arguments from general reliability, and that he favors a “minimal facts” approach.

You seem to miss the part where he says that your approach isn’t the one he would favor.

Really? Do you REALLY think I missed that, Dr. Tait?

Tell you what…why don’t YOU write to him and make YOUR case.

In fact, why don’t you write anything…get it published…and let your academic peers respond.

Sheesh.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi RC,

Isn’t it all just a fancy, mental way of saying, “look P’s, you believe in our bible, why don’t you just believe in our church, the caretakers, even progenitors of your bible ?”

Of course.

Another words the real intent of the logic is to authenticate the CC, not so much the Word of God.

I think that TSA proves both.

I respect it more when one just quotes scriptural evidence for their position, and not also say they are “authors” of the evidence (scripture). I suppose TSA is an contrived way of circumventing the obvious.
Is that like saying without an Earth Christ would have never come ???

Catholics wrote your New Testament, Ben. That should be significant to you.

I do believe that if a tree does fall in the woods it does make a sound, whether or not we are there to hear it.

If the tree falls, it does produce sound waves. However, absent a means by which to translate the information contained in those oscillations…

Of course Writ was and is thru Israel first, then the church to the world. But it is circular to then say Peter and Paul were Catholics (and really not Orthodox or Protestant). Would that be like a pharisee saying Abraham and Moses were Pharisees ?

The followers of Jesus were first called Christians in Antioch. In AD 107, Ignatius of Antioch uses the term “Catholic Church” in a manner which suggests that he was not coining a new phrase but using a term well known to his readers. Thus, within the lifetime of the Apostle John, the group which included Peter and Paul was calling itself the Catholic Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi C, I have seen that quote often,and I took it at face value, that for him, history became evidence for change in faith to Catholicism (and I would reply for others, same history leads to another conclusion). But if you don’t mind sharing, what was his context or meaning?

It’s early on in the Essay on Development, and he’s responding to a famous Protestant apologist of the 17th century (William Chillingworth), who had said that historically Popes and Councils contradicted each other (this is also something Luther and many of the early Reformers had said) and so the only safe guide was Scripture: “The Bible, I say, and the Bible alone, is the only religion of Protestants.” Newman’s argument is that this represents a kind of cynicism about history–history is just a mess of contradictions and the Bible somehow floats above history. He also suggests that this kind of cynicism can easily lead people to abandon Christian faith entirely. He makes the telling point that probably the English scholar of the previous couple centuries who was most deeply immersed in church history was Edward Gibbon–who of course was a skeptic about Christianity. (In fact, though Newman doesn’t say this, Gibbon tried to convert to Catholicism as a teenager and was “deprogrammed” by his family who sent him to a Swiss Protestant minister for re-education. The result was not that he became a devout Protestant, but that he decided that Catholicism was indeed false and so was Christianity as a whole.)

So his argument seems to be that if you become “deep” in history–which I think may mean more than just knowing quite a bit about it but making it central to your identity–then you aren’t going to construct anything like 19th-century evangelical Protestantism on the basis of that. You may abandon the Christian faith entirely, but you can only remain a devout Protestant by rejecting the relevance of history and placing the Bible above history. (Of course, as Newman was writing this, the movement was gaining ground to look at the Bible historically. Newman disapproved of this, but he would argue later on that the Church was needed to protect the Bible from this kind of “destructive” criticism.)

Another point to be made is that in the Essay (written during the closing stages of his conversion, so he was still technically an Anglican) consistently treats Anglicans as something other than Protestants. He is not, in that quote, attacking his previous position of high-church Anglicanism, which I think he would acknowledge is deep in history. So no, I don’t think he’s saying in context so much that history necessarily led him to Catholicism (though of course it did play a huge role–but that’s not his main point here), but that if we want to ground Christianity in history, then Protestantism (as he defines it) is ruled out from the start. We may reject Christianity, we may try to construct a kind of primitivist “pure Catholicism” (as, in his view, the high-church Anglicans had been doing), we may become Orthodox (though he doesn’t talk about that as far as I remember), or we may (as he’s about to do) just accept “Roman” Catholicism with all its historical barnacles as the proper development of early Christianity. All of these options would be consonant with being “deep in history” in the sense he uses the term there.

Edwin

Wow. So that’s what you got out of that famous passage, eh? Hoo, boy! Tell you what…let’s see what Cardinal Newman wrote in context, shall we?

John Henry Newman on History’s Judgment of Protestantism

[Some Protestants say], “There are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age:”—Hence they are forced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible as the sole source of Revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment as the sole expounder of its doctrine. This is a fair argument, if it can be maintained, and it brings me at once to the subject of this Essay . . .

“Before setting about this work, I will address one remark to [these people]:—Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. It might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is no great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. **And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

“And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [history] aside, unless they had despaired of it … To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”** (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, 4,5)

 

[Novocastrian]

Wow. So that’s what you got out of that famous passage, eh? Hoo, boy! Tell you what…let’s see what Cardinal Newman wrote in context, shall we?

John Henry Newman on History’s Judgment of Protestantism

[Some Protestants say], “There are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age:”—Hence they are forced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible as the sole source of Revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment as the sole expounder of its doctrine. This is a fair argument, if it can be maintained, and it brings me at once to the subject of this Essay . . .

“Before setting about this work, I will address one remark to [these people]:—Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. It might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is no great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. **And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

“And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [history] aside, unless they had despaired of it … To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”** (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, 4,5)

Randy, read again what Contarini wrote. His analysis of this passage is entirely accurate; it’s almost a paraphrase. He’s right to point out that in this passage Newman shuts the door to private interpretation Protestantism, but it doesn’t follow from this particular argument that Rome is the answer. Both Orthodoxy and high Anglicanism are also capable of the historical realism this passage demands.

 

[benhur]

Wow. So that’s what you got out of that famous passage, eh? Hoo, boy! Tell you what…let’s see what Cardinal Newman wrote in context, shall we?

John Henry Newman on History’s Judgment of Protestantism

[Some Protestants say], “There are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age:”—Hence they are forced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible as the sole source of Revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment as the sole expounder of its doctrine. This is a fair argument, if it can be maintained, and it brings me at once to the subject of this Essay . . .

“Before setting about this work, I will address one remark to [these people]:—Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. It might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is no great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. **And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

“And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [history] aside, unless they had despaired of it … To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”** (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, 4,5)

Let the games begin…

Quickly Randy, just reminds of OT Jews steeped in history and tradition, not recognizing the essence of their Messiah, their deep sense of Abrahamic sonship clouding their vision. They did tell Jesus that "we are the sons of Abraham, strict followers of Moses, who are you ?).
But thanks.Will have to reread Ed’s and your posts on newman

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, read again what Contarini wrote. His analysis of this passage is entirely accurate; it’s almost a paraphrase. He’s right to point out that in this passage Newman shuts the door to private interpretation Protestantism, but it doesn’t follow from this particular argument that Rome is the answer. Both Orthodoxy and high Anglicanism are also capable of the historical realism this passage demands.

Well, I read Contarini’s post twice BEFORE responding and once now at your recommendation.

I feel that in this passage, Newman was FAR stronger in his condemnation of sola scriptura (and Protestantism overall) than Dr. Tait seems to suggest, and I read it as a scathing broadside against Protestantism which an Anglican may not find. That is what prompted my post.

However, if you feel his “paraphrase” is a fair representation, then I will defer to you in this matter and withdraw my comments.

 

[benhur]

If the tree falls, it does produce sound waves. However, absent a means by which to translate the information contained in those oscillations…

That is right, “to him that has an ear let him hear”, no translation needed, just an ear,(a spiritual ear I am told).

As Elihu said in Job, “age should teach wisdom” but didn’t in that case, but God puts understanding in the spirit of a man.

 

[Abu]

Contarini #262
It’s like the people who cite Newman and say “anyone who studies church history honestly will conclude that Catholicism is true” (which isn’t what Newman said, but that’s what he’s often misinterpreted to have meant),

The critique of Mathhew !6:18-19 is as shallow as the critique of John Henry Cardinal Newman who rebutted such fancies.

During the first three centuries of persecution until the conversion of the Emperor Constantine and his Edict of Tolerance in 313 A.D., the Church could neither build public edifices nor consolidate itself as an organised ecclesiastical institution. From his studies, however, he [Newman] concludes that there is **“nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict” Papal Supremacy “as part of Christianity.” The great Petrine texts (Matt., 16:18-19; Lk., 22:32; Jn., 21:15-17) he declared to be not only precepts, but prophecies and promises to be clarified, in a way not necessary while the apostles were still living, by subsequent events — events which brought out the logical consequences of the original teaching of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. **

As for the earliest of the Fathers, Newman insisted that their writings contained indications of the later developed doctrine of Papal Supremacy. He declared that the doctrine’s substance, principle and essential features are found “in writers of many times and countries, illustrative of each other,” instances of which he duly quotes. And he concludes that the guidance of the Church by the Infinite Wisdom of the Holy Spirit justified interpreting earlier indications by the way they in fact developed and became the defined teaching of the Church in later ages. Having completed his study of the case, Newman felt that he had no option except to become a Catholic.
[See Dr Rumble *Questions People Ask, Chevalier Books, 1972]. [My emphasis].

Liberalism and Newman:
The Anglican Vision and Response
A Doctoral Dissertation by Father John McCloskey
Extract:
‘As we have seen earlier, probabilities play an important role in the Newman epistemology of belief. The argument of probability along with the study of history convince Newman that divine infallibility must exist in some visible apparently human institution. The only institution that has existed continuously since the time of Christ and in fact founded by Him is the Roman Church. Thus later referring to the Church he will be able to state that “the essence of all religion is authority and obedience.” 110 [My emphasis].

’ “The common sense of mankind does but support a conclusion thus forced upon us by analogical consideration. It feels that the very idea of revelation implies a present informant, and guide, and that an infallible one.” 112 Newman knew well that throughout history men had always searched for guidance from above, whether through pagan priests, astrologers, or a formal hierarchical religion. The appeal to private judgment or a complete reliance on reason was a recent development. The reality of the goddess of Reason being enthroned in the Cathedral of Notre Dame is an aberration that clearly cannot satisfy for long the needs of the human heart nor of the human intellect… If a guide does not offer complete assurance, why follow him at all? As Newman so aptly puts it, “a revelation is not given if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.” 113

'This argument can be used as a proof of the need for the Church to interpret and for the role of tradition in Revelation. If Christ had not founded a hierarchically structured Church and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it, it is hardly likely that Revelation would have arrived to us in the present day.

‘Newman strikes the key note when he insists that if Christianity is both social and dogmatic and intended for all ages, it must humanly speaking have an infallible expounder. Else you will secure unity of form at the loss of unity of doctrine or unity of doctrine at the loss of unity of form; you will have to choose between a comprehension of opinions and a resolution into parties, between latitudinarianism and sectarian error. 114
Notes:
Ess. I, Private Judgment, July 1841: 338.
(110) Ibid., 340.
(112) Ibid., 351-2.
(113) Contra Gentiles, Ch. IV, No. 3.
(114) Ward, M., op. cit., 353’
.catholicity.com/mccloskey/thesis/chapter5-4.html

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Wow. So that’s what you got out of that famous passage, eh? Hoo, boy! Tell you what…let’s see what Cardinal Newman wrote in context, shall we?

John Henry Newman on History’s Judgment of Protestantism

[Some Protestants say], “There are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age:”—Hence they are forced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible as the sole source of Revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment as the sole expounder of its doctrine. This is a fair argument, if it can be maintained, and it brings me at once to the subject of this Essay . . .

“Before setting about this work, I will address one remark to [these people]:—Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. It might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is no great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. **And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

“And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [history] aside, unless they had despaired of it … To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”** (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, 4,5)

If you read closely your own quote from the Essay, it is clear that Cardinal Newman is not saying that one become Catholic by studying Christian history, but that one ceases to be a Protestant.

To cease being a Protestant is not to exclusively become Catholic. In fact, Cardinal Newman doesn’t only include leaving Christianity altogether, but leaves the door open for Non-Protestant Christianity.

Dr. Tait’s post is not only accurate but dead on.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If you read closely your own quote from the Essay, it is clear that Cardinal Newman is not saying that one become Catholic by studying Christian history, but that one ceases to be a Protestant.

To cease being Protestant is not to exclusively become Catholic. In fact, Cardinal Newman doesn’t only include leaving Christianity altogether, but leaves the door open for Non-Protestant Christianity.

Dr. Tait’s post is not only accurate but dead on.

 

[SyCarl]

Wow. So that’s what you got out of that famous passage, eh? Hoo, boy! Tell you what…let’s see what Cardinal Newman wrote in context, shall we?

John Henry Newman on History’s Judgment of Protestantism

[Some Protestants say], “There are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age:”—Hence they are forced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible as the sole source of Revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment as the sole expounder of its doctrine. This is a fair argument, if it can be maintained, and it brings me at once to the subject of this Essay . . .

“Before setting about this work, I will address one remark to [these people]:—Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. It might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is no great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. **And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

“And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [history] aside, unless they had despaired of it … To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”** (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, 4,5)

I cannot claim to be an expert on the writings of the church fathers. I do not read Greek or Latin. However I do have more than 50 volumes of translations from the early church and I try to read some every day.

What appears to me is that the doctrinal scope allowed by the early church was much broader than what developed later. I think they would have found many Protestant views to have been entirely acceptable. The same could be said about most later Catholic teachings. I think that they would have taken issue, for example, with the decision that the laity did not have to receive the cup in the Eucharist. The fathers were not always consistent and their emphasis often changed based on which group they were dealing with. It is also possible for Catholic and Protestants to reach different conclusions on what was actually taught and required because your mind set can affect how you understand what you read.

As time passed the writings tended to become somewhat narrower as doctrine “:developed”. However I have yet to find any condemnation made of those who had commented on things like faith alone so far in my reading.

I must say that I am not a fan of the “development of doctrine”. Jesus kept his promise that the Holy Spirit would provide the whole truth to the apostles and the faith was once for all given. Jesus did not say that all truth would be given but it would take hundreds of years to figure out what it was.

Defining new doctrines that must be believed appears to me to indicate that the apostles were not given the whole truth. If something had to be believed it must have been necessary from the beginning. God does not change His requirements because men decide that something previously could be believed now had to be believed.

If God does not raise the bar on what must be believed and the developed doctrine is true, then the Church failed earlier generations by allowing them to believe things that were later condemned or by not by not telling them all that had to be believed.

 

[icamhif]

Actually, it’s worse than that. I still don’t buy the line of the TSA that we can approach The Gospels “like any other ancient text” and confidently conclude that we can give every book and verse in the Gospels “the benefit of the doubt.”

Where is that stated in TSA?

Implicitly here:

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration

…

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

…

On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Matthew 16:18-19 is the basis on which the Spiral Argument makes those deductions. In order to back that up, one must prove that Matthew’s account of Jesus saying those words is historically reliable. However, Matthew has a tendency to add theological illustrations to his Gospel narrative, so given the absence of this saying from Christ in both Mark and Luke, it is likely (though not certain) that Matthew could have added to Christ’s words in those verses. So, in order to earn Matthew’s account “the benefit of the doubt,” one needs to show some historical events that are only found in Matthew, verified by outside sources. It is not enough just to say that Luke is a credible historian (which is also debated among scholars) and that both Matthew and Luke got some of their information from Q. No matter how credible Luke is, or how much Matthew shared information from Luke (which is the basis of the two-source hypothesis), it tells us nothing about Matthew’s own credibility in regards to the accounts that are only found in his version.

 

[Contarini]

Well, I read Contarini’s post twice BEFORE responding and once now at your recommendation.

I feel that in this passage, Newman was FAR stronger in his condemnation of sola scriptura (and Protestantism overall) than Dr. Tait seems to suggest, and I read it as a scathing broadside against Protestantism which an Anglican may not find. That is what prompted my post.

However, if you feel his “paraphrase” is a fair representation, then I will defer to you in this matter and withdraw my comments.

On this one I don’t really know what we are disagreeing about.

What exactly am I denying about Newman’s statement that you affirm, or affirming that you deny?

You really seem to go off at triggers a lot rather than engaging in careful, logical analysis.

Edwin

 

[icamhif]

By Holy Tradition. It was the Church that recognized that the Scriptures are sacred.

How do I know that the Church is true?
Well, the overwhelming majority of reputable scholars agree that Jesus existed, that He was baptized by John in the River of Jordan, and that He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There is not much serious dispute among scholars that the Apostles actually died for their faith. That is good enough reason for me to assume that Christ taught His followers some distinctive teachings and intended for His message to be passed down across the generations. The continuity between the beliefs of the Early Church and the teachings of the Churches today which validly claim to have Apostolic lineage gives me confidence beyond reasonable doubt that what the Church teaches is what Christ taught.

Now that I think about my own post…all my reasoning, at best, proves that Christ intended his teachings to be passed down, and that there is continuity in His teachings throughout the history of the Church. That tells us nothing about whether Christ’s teachings are true, in and of itself. Unfortunately, there is no scholarly consensus on whether Christ resurrected (one of the key points on which the Spiral Argument needs to lend much credibility to Christ and His claim to have Divine authority.)

Contarini, is there any scholarly consensus on whether Jesus claimed to be God?