I think you may have missed Warren. If I could paraphrase what I just read from Warren in your post, it seems he's saying this:

"Prayer alone isn't going to grow any churches. You have to actually get out there and work at it! And that takes skill. We can't be a bunch of unskilled people who merely claim that if we pray and preach that our churches will grow or flourish."

If this is a correct reading then I do not see the problem. I will admit that his wording isn't well chosen and thus opens himself up to easy misunderstandings. I think if Warren read your post he would certainly reword what he stated and clear things up.

Hi,

I'm open to being wrong in my understanding of what Warren said, but I think there is good reason to go with my interpretation...

1) Warren cites Bill Hybels as one of the greatest preachers in history. He's saying that Hybels has the the preaching skill, but people still aren't growing. So the skill Warren is talking about must be something other than preaching. He also says there are men who prayer more than he does, but their churches aren't growing. So the skill he is talking about must be something other than prayer.

2) After putting down preaching and prayer and loving others (the closest "formula for church growth" one actually finds in the Bible), Warren describe baits and hooks. So it seems to me the skill he is talking about is being a good salesman.

So apart from ripping a verse from Ecclesiastes out of context and having an unbiblical concept of faith ("come and see"), Warren is advocating a "church growth" model that is at best absent from Scripture at the expense of what Scripture actually teaches (see the second Fide-o link).

I do agree with you that Warren is not dismissing prayer and preaching completely, but he is relegating them to a less important role than Scripture teaches.

I still don't see how that's being a salesman. You could just as easily say that it's merely being wise. That is, know your culture's needs and then meet them. Sure, salesmen do that, but is this somehow wrong (biblically)? Again, I think Warren is saying that you can't just pray and try and love people and not put any effort into anything else.

how is "come and see" an unbiblical concept of faith? It's one of the themes of John's gospel

EE,

"Come and see" is simply an invitation and faith isn't necessarily required to respond. Lots of people came and saw Jesus, and then turned out to be bad seed.

In other words, if Warren is equating faith with "a response to 'come and see'", then he's got an unbiblical concept of faith. But that may not have been what he was saying.

I think I would put more stock in the power of "come and see." Jesus was not simply offering himself as a tour guide. He was offering himself. Come and See captures the incarnation of God with us. So yes, faith is to come and see. It's to come and experience God. I reject the definition of faith as come and see and decide. Faith is to walk with the Jesus who invites us to come and see his 'hood.

Yes, He was offering Himself. But not all those who came and saw Him had faith. That's all I'm saying. And, again, Warren may not be equating the two. In fact he said that "come and see" is the "entry point for faith", so I'm inclined to think that he's not.

Where in the gospel according to John do you see "come and see" (as described by Warren as merely sitting in the back row) being equated with faith?

It seems that the underlying problem is the belief that there is a human way to achieve "success," where success means what I think the church should be doing or be like. Warren is right that many churches are using old methods, methods that should be updated. He is wrong to think that this is the ultimate solution or the critical issue. Is it not possible to do all the right things, yet not see the success you desire, given that true spiritual growth and success is God-given? The sovereign lord will do as He pleases, and we should therefore put the emphasis on faithfulness, not fruitfulness.

Perhaps I'm just being too empathetic, but I don't hear Warren saying that this is the critical issue. I also don't think he would claim that there is a human way to success, but again, he seems to be stating that people are neglecting this aspect of church ministry. It's as if people are hyper-calvinists. If we just pray and do this and that then God will grow our church. Warren is saying, "no, you can't just leave it at that." Perhaps Warren is more Arminian than we realize (I don't know) and he makes Reformed people uncomfortable. But then again, I don't know if anyone here is Reformed or not. Just a guess.

Just from the clips we have here (and I admit we could be missing something important), I think it's clear that Warren DOES think this is the critical issue. Preaching and prayer have been the "church growth" methods of the majority of Christians in every generation, but now Warren thinks they can't do the job.

More importantly, implicit in his talk about knowing which bait the fish will bite is the assumption that the fish determine what bait must be used, rather than the fisherman. You might be right that Warren is an Arminian, but the reasons that most Reformed people don't like him go far beyond anything having to do with TULIP. Reformed Christians believe strongly that God HAS given us a basic template for what our worship and evangelism ought to look like, and hasn't simply given us free reign to change whatever we want based on the culture we live in. Warren may have made a feeble attempt at biblical support for his incoherent view, but no one who takes biblical teaching about worship and evangelism seriously can give preaching and prayer such backhanded, dismissive comments. If he doesn't think good preaching will grow a church, he should talk to John Piper. And if he thinks that evangelism in the 21st century won't work unless we update our practices, he should talk to a local Orthodox Priest.

I still think you're missing my point. I understand Warren to be saying that preaching and prayer alone won't cut it. If you have an unskilled preacher and a bunch of people who pray (and that's all) then I doubt you'll have much of a church. John Piper preaches and prays, but he is also very good at what he does - we could say that he has skill, yeah?

I don't agree with everything I've heard Warren say (or have read), but I do want to cut him some slack and I hope others will do the same. He is called to a high standard as a preacher (esp. with preaching at a megachurch and writing best-selling books), but I tire of reading so many comments of those who are quick to judge and give off the impression that they could somehow do a better job. We have little idea what Rick Warren goes through on a daily basis. Until we know, our judgments shouldn't be so definitive

"John Piper preaches and prays, but he is also very good at what he does - we could say that he has skill, yeah?"

Exactly. But this is just what Warren is arguing against. As Roger pointed out, Warren thinks that Bill Hybels has great skill in preaching, but he goes on to say, "They forget 95% of what they hear within 72 hours. Well if you’re forgetting 95% of everything you’ve heard in your lifetime, that is not going to produce spiritual maturity."

In effect, Warren is suggesting that even the most skilled preaching will have little to no impact on one's spiritual growth.

I don't want to be hasty or judgmental either, but I'm afraid that such a sentiment is just plain unbiblical. If you'd like to take a stab at interpreting this comment in a way that doesn't evacuate preaching of all its power and importance, I'd be happy to think about it.

While I have some concerns of the ways that the Purpose Driven material is used in churches, and I can have some critiques of Rick Warren, I don't see anything in what he said to be unbiblical.

I certainly hope that skill be developed in any sort of profession--including ministry. Whether someone is a heart surgeon or a leader of a mega-church, skill is an important and necessary element.

Also, it seems that Warren's understanding of skill is not the capitalistic way we may define skill. The heart of what he seems to be getting at is that preaching and praying don't grow churches, relationships do--and as one who has been in ministry for 10 years, I would say that we teach people how to build relationships and how to love. It is a skill that unfortunately doesn't come naturally or easily.

I also have to point out the source for your post. I'm not a fan of the "Way of the Master." I have a critique for it's theological basis as well as practice, but that's for another post

Finally, it sounds like you may have friends or family who have been "Neglected, Abused, and Starved" by Rick Warren's leadership. I guess I'd like to hear more of their experience... could you elaborate on that?

The problem with this current discussion is precisely that none of us is sure what exactly he means by skill.

But Roger is right to point out that he isn't talking about skillful preaching or skillful prayer.

This is where his comments are strikingly unbiblical. Paul tells us that the GOSPEL is the power of salvation, not warm and inviting relationships. God's Word will not return to Him void. If preaching isn't growing your church, that means it isn't good (i.e. sound, biblical, God-glorifying, passionate, edifying, etc.) preaching.

In any case, your suggestion that he's talking about relationship-building seems unlikely, since he includes "love people" in the list of things that don't grow churches. But this just illustrates the problem even more clearly. Warren really didn't say ANYTHING of substance, at least not in these clips. His talk of needing "skill" means nothing without elaboration on what kind of skill is needed.

David, you are free to disagree and critique Warren, but i think what gets me is that you are emphatic that his comments are "strikingly unbiblical." I seriously doubt Warren would say that warm and inviting relationships is the power of salvation. But I certainly hope that the gospel comes through warm and inviting relationships rather than cold and offensive ones.

I'm not dismissing warm and inviting relationships. You said in your last comment: "The heart of what [Warren] seems to be getting at is that preaching and praying don't grow churches, relationships do." Now you say: "I seriously doubt Warren would say that warm and inviting relationships is the power of salvation." I'm a bit confused. Surely whatever grows churches also brings people to saving faith?

In any case, my only point is that the gospel is a message, and a message is given through preaching. I fully agree that it ought to be done in the context of warm and inviting relationships. The two are not mutually exclusive.

"The gospel is a message, and a message is given through preaching." Therein lies your "strikingly unbiblical" theology.

It would help the discussion if you told us what is unbiblical about that statement. As it stands, there's really nothing for me to respond to. But here's a stab at a defense.

You might be getting at the fact that the gospel can be "embodied" in the lives of loving Christians (I could be wrong, since you didn't elaborate on your statement, but given our talk about relationships, this is just an educated guess). While I would agree, the gospel is still a message. Being a really good, loving person and a shining example to your unsaved neighbor does nothing for evangelism until you tell them WHY you strive to be so good and loving and then tell them HOW they can find the power to do so as well. The gospel must be lived out and preaching must be supported by loving relationships, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that the gospel is a message and the primary mode of getting that message out is to preach it. As Paul says, "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?"

I apologize if this has nothing to do with your comment. Like I said, it was just an educated guess at your meaning.

EE, I almost forgot. I'm still interested in what you were trying to get at with your statements about relationships in your last two comments (specifically the two statements that seemed to contradict each other). Would you mind clearing that up for me? I think I may have just misunderstood you.

Hi David,

In the clip I linked to below, it seemed that Warren used "skills" and "tools" interchangeably, and then went on to identify sermon outlines as a "tool." It would seem then that what he has in mind fits right in with his whole MO - better strategies (in this case, learning strategies).

I don't see relationships=skill in anything Warren said. Warren actually loving people doesn't grow churches. I agree with you that relationships are important, and they flow from love by the grace of God as taught in the Scriptures. A bunch of loving people without God's Word makes the church a support group- not Christ's body.

This was the first time I've heard anything from "Way of the Master." While I agree with many of the points the host made, I did not care for how they chopped up the interview audio. That makes it difficult for the listener to get a good understanding of what Warren is trying to say before hearing the critique. That's why I transcribed what I could. It's not perfect, but at least we can get a better idea of what Warren said so we can discuss it as we are doing.

I did not have anyone in mind who has been effected by Warren's leadership when I wrote this post. The title is simply pointing to the focus on church marketing at the expense of preaching and prayer and a dangerous and damaging practice.

I don't think I need to respond to your other points as David's done so quite nicely. I would only ask that you go to the second link on Fide-o (http://fide-o.blogspot.com/2008/05/will-real-church-growth-expert-please.html)
They provide a list of commands from Paul to Timothy about the church. This list, in contrast to what Warren said, is why what Warren said is strikingly unbiblical.

I really appreciate the dialogue on this blog. With that being said, I would like to point out that Moses wasn't the most eloquent of speakers. He didn't find himself to be qualified or "skilled", to use the term that is being applied here. I don't see the 12 disciples as being the most "skilled" either. In fact, it is pretty amazing to think that Jesus took a bunch of fishermen and tax collectors and changed the world. The fact is that God doesn't call the qualified, he qualifies the called. The only "skill" necessary is to answer the call. We must obey...bottom line. Warren may be correct in saying that relationships can "grow" a church. But what "church" is he talking about? Is he talking about Saddleback? Is he talking about a denomination? Or is he talking about he body of Christ? When Warren talks about skill, I can't help but think he means marketing. The mega church is quite a trend right now and numbers = success. I would agree that we need to give people a context for them to embrace the gospel, but what is more powerful than Jesus Christ enthroned on the cross...or what the early fathers called the "Tree of Life?" What is more powerful than the face to face encounter with the living God?

The part I struggle with is the subjectivity of all the arguments presented here. There is no doubt that Rick Warren knows scripture. He got his PhD from Fuller, which is a pretty conservative seminary. I am sure that everyone who has posted an opinion has a pretty good idea what scripture says. So how do we determine what is biblical and what is not?

"The fact is that God doesn't call the qualified, he qualifies the called."

I couldn't agree more.

David
Did you and Derek end your dialogue regarding your "This is My Body" post?

Actually, I completely forgot about it! In fact, if he has written a response recently I may not have even read it yet. Thanks for reminding me!

What did you mean about the "subjectivity" of Biblical interpretation in this discussion? Could you elaborate more on your question?

Some good points, and I appreciate the tone in which you make them.

Roger,

Here's the actual interview w/o WOTM's annoying editing.

Hmm...This version looks like it has been edited too, just in a different way. There is more in this one than in the version Roger transcribed, but there are also chunks missing (no mention of Bill Hybels or his friend who prays more, etc.). This version definitely shows a bit more of Warren's bias against Reformed churches though (his use of the phrase "frozen chosen" is a tip off).

Too bad we can't see the whole thing, unedited.

That's funny, I didn't see any signs of editing. That was recorded live streaming. I wonder if WOTM Radio didn't draw from some other interview for those parts.

Sorry, I only saw the text, I didn't realize that there was also a video. I don't think the video was edited, so ignore my last comment.

Thanks for posting this!

I should add, there's a lot more here than what TWOTM Radio played, but it doesn't really help Warren in my eyes. It was just much clearer that his ecclesiology and soteriology are fundamentally different from mine. He repeatedly keeps going back to numbers as success, no matter what the question was that was put to him. Aargh!

David
The term "unbiblical" is very interesting to me. I have heard it used many times and have used it myself. But in recent years, I have started to discover that many times people will use the term to dismiss that which doesn't fit into their own interpretation of scripture. There is no doubt that Rick Warren knows scripture. I have no doubt that the authors of the blog know scriputre. I would like to think that I know scripture pretty well. However, if all of us were in a room together, we would probably come up with some doctrinal area where we would not agree. We would also say that our stance would be biblical. For example: infant or believer baptism; imparted or imputed righteousness etc. So my question is this: How does one determine what is biblical? How can one arrive at this conclusion to the point of being able to say that another point of view that was based on an interpretation of scripture is "unbiblical?" If we all agree that scripture is God's inerrant written Word revealed to us, then how do we know for sure what interptetation is correct?

That's a very good question, and not easy to answer. But I'd say it has a lot to do with hard work and clear thinking. The meaning of the Bible is not hidden or difficult to understand, but it sometimes requires a lot of hard work to grasp properly. Understanding genre, context, historical setting, etc. are all important, as well as looking back to what Christians in the past have believed.

When it comes to arguing about what is and isn't biblical, again I think a lot of hard work and clear thinking is involved. If we disagree on who should receive baptism, we must both present the best possible case we can for our positions. Then we could present each other with objections to the opposing view, and then rebuttals to the objections, and so on. Sometimes this process seems never-ending, and it often is. But frequently people will change their minds about something if they feel the evidence presented is strong enough.

And of course, many of the finer points of doctrine will probably never receive a full consensus in this life. The Bible may be clear revelation, but we remain finite and fallen, and so we can't expect to understand everything perfectly.

David
I completely agree with your determination on how we would decide what is biblical. The problem that I see is that many folks come to the Bible with a pre determined opinion and look for proof texts in order to justify their opinion. I have heard it said that a proof text is often a text taken out of context which makes it a pretext. Unfortunately, many will read scripture through the lense of 21st century America. However, Jesus' teaching took place in a particular place in history. He was speaking to 1st century Jews living in the second temple era. The culture of that day is nothing like our culture which makes it very difficult for a guy living in California in 2008 to grasp the real meaning without the aid of other scholars and exegetes that have gone before us. Not many people have the ability nor the time to look into "genre, context, historical setting, etc." So we begin to rely on commentaries and such. Now one's biblical interpretation is being shaped by something other than scripture itself. So my question is this: Who do we trust? Do we open up our study bible and buy into the study notes in the margin? Do we go to the commentaries of MacArthur, McGee, Matthew Henry, Wycliff, etc? Do we read the commentaries by St. Thomas Aquinas? Do we read the church fathers? Or do we trust in the authority of the Church? Where do we get our scriptural world view?

You've touched on the biggest problem for "sola scriptura." I once heard an Eastern Orthodox person say that every Protestant just becomes his own Pope, because in the end "scripture alone" really means "whatever-I-think-scripture-means alone."

Of course, I don't think the problem has any less sting for the Orthodox or for Catholics. All Christians have always tried, at least in principle, to base their beliefs on Scripture, including the Fathers. And despite a few references to tradition and apostolic succession, the majority of what the Fathers did was to present the best possible case from Scripture to defend their beliefs. In a lot of ways, I think the Fathers were closer to Protestants in their manner of doing theology than to Catholics or the Orthodox. And with the exception of the doctrines of Christ and the Trinity, there really has never been a consensus among all Christians from any group or denomination. So I don't think it will do to simply defer to the authority of the Church, if by that you mean either Catholics or the Orthodox.

But neither do I suggest completely deferring to any other authority. You are quite right that we all must accept the word of some authority for most of what we believe, but that doesn't mean we stop thinking for ourselves, and that doesn't mean we assume that any single authority (MacArthur, McGee, Henry, or whoever) has got everything 100% right. I'm a big fan of John Piper (HUGE fan actually), but I don't (at the moment, anyway) agree with his position on baptism.

Now, this rightly leads to the suspicion that Protestants simply pick and choose what they like and don't like based on their 21st century prejudices. And I don't deny that many do. But this is where the value of listening to many voices from many different times and places comes in, as well as the hard work and rational thinking I talked about before. Studying the Bible and doing Theology is hard work, and I'd like to think that I've done enough research into views on baptism to be rational when I decide to reject Piper's view. But when it comes to other areas where I have not studied as deeply, I will hold on my belief on the basis of trusted authority. But I will also not hold it as strongly, and I will be more open to opposing views. An example of this would be the simplicity of God. I have not studied this area very carefully, and I have heard many good arguments from some Orthodox friends that God is not absolutely simple. I still feel justified in believing that God is simple, because I have the majority of Western theology on my side. But I only hold to this belief tentatively, and I will make every possible effort to study it further.

You said that many people simply don't have the time to study genre, context, etc. I think that's only partly true. Everyone has some time to at least try to study those things, even if only for a few minutes a day, and not very deeply. The problem is usually that people are unwilling to put the time into it. But what I find more interesting is the way you asked your question. It seemed to me that you were asking, "A lot of people simply can't think well about theology, so they need someone else to think for them, who should it be?"

I would begin to answer that question like this: Everyone should at least try to be familiar enough with the Bible and the history of Christian thought to least be rational in making the decision of which authority to follow. Beyond that, I think it will be quite subjective. Imagine a woman who grew up Presbyterian, memorized the confessions and catechisms, but didn't think very well about theology on her own, and couldn't argue with others about theology. If I walked up to her and told her she should stop being Presbyterian and should begin to accept the authority of the Southern Baptist church, would she be rational to do so? I don't think so. Not even if I was convinced that Southern Baptists were closer to the Truth of Christianity than any other denomination would I think her rational. And this is where our being finite and fallen comes back into play. No single denomination has all the correct answers and no church is infallible. But I don't think this should cause us to distress. We simply have to do the best we can with all the tools God has given us, and make sure to remain humble and charitable in all our doctrinal disputes.

David
I have to say that I really appreciate your sincerity and thoughtfulness. You have been tremendously patient with your responses, thank you. I also appreciate and respect the approach you take to determining which areas you will be dogmatic about and which beliefs you will hold tentatively. I apologize if I wasn't clear in my previous comments regarding each believer's responsibility to understand his faith. I agree with you whole heartedly that each of us must do what we can to study and combine our faith with a rational understanding. Agustine said that "I believe that I may understand." The point that I was trying to make was in regards to the huge amount of scholarship that goes into a tiny bit of doctrine. Your average believer simply cannot put in the time that a scholar would in order to come to some conclusions. However, when I have reached my capacity for finding truth (my skills as an exegete are limited), there must be some final authority to which I can turn. Jesus told his disciples in John 16:12-15,
"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. RSV
That leads me to believe that there shouldn't be doctrinal issues that are left to personal interpretation. I can't see God leaving this up to subjective interpretation. I struggle with the idea that today I may believe in infant baptism and tomorrow believer's baptism and then next week decide that baptism isn't essential for salvation at all. I struggle with that because God has revealed it all; and God is not a God of confusion. He reversed the confusion of the Tower of Babel with Pentecost.

Your reference to sola scriptura raises a few questions. Isn't it ironic that the doctrine of sola scriptura isn't actually found in scripture? Where did this doctrine come from? You also mentioned that "the majority of what the Fathers did was to present the best possible case from Scripture to defend their beliefs." How can this be if there were no New Testament books written until decades after Christ's ascension and the NT canon wasn't closed until centuries later. How could the early church depend on sola scriptura if there was no Bible? For that matter, how do we really know which books of the bible are actually inspired? Augustine said, "I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church." (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6) Paul tells Timothy that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. (cf. 1Timothy 3:15).

No matter what, if there is not a final authority to which we can turn, we do in fact become the measure of all truth ourselves; or our own Popes as your Orthodox friend suggested. This is very much Kantian philosophy, which is very dangerous for a seeker of objective truth.

Your last sentence is fantastic. We do have to do our best with the tools God has given us and remain humble and charitable (you have been a great example of humility and charity, by the way). However, we need to be aware of the tools that we do have at our disposal. If an infallible church is one of them, we must expolre that possibility.

Hi David (Cox),

You said,

"You also mentioned that "the majority of what the Fathers did was to present the best possible case from Scripture to defend their beliefs." How can this be if there were no New Testament books written until decades after Christ's ascension and the NT canon wasn't closed until centuries later."

It can be (and is so) because the the Fathers also lived decades (or more) after Christ's ascension and in fact quoted the books of the New Testament to such an extent that we could reliably reconstruct the whole thing from Patristic sources alone. Also, just because the canon was not officially determined until later, that does not mean that the early church had no Scripture that was accepted and in use from very early on.

I'd love to say more, but my time is short, and I may not be able to get back online for a while, so please forgive me if you don't hear back!

Hello Aaron,
I hope that you are enjoying your first official day of summer vacation; although I am sure that you are swamped with your personal studies.

You are correct in saying that scripture was quoted long before the close of the NT cannon. However, there was not a common consensus as to what was considered scripture until the end of the 4th century. Many christians accepted the writings of Clement as well as The Shepherd of Hermas as scripture. So, my questions would be: How do we know which books are to be included in Scripture? Scripture itself doesn't determine which books to accept, so the authority to make that determination must have come from somewhere else. This pokes a pretty big whole in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

If we are going to accept Patristic sources, as you suggest, then, again, we are no longer using scripture alone as our sole source of authority. We are including tradition. The fact remains that scripture is not a self interpreting document, as proponents of Sola Scriptura would suggest. And there were many teachings of Christ that were not documented in scripture (cf. John 21:25). And not all of the teachings of the apostles were documented in scripture (1Cor 11:34) Paul told the Thessalonians to hold fast to the teachings which came by word of mouth or by letter (2Thess 2:15) so Paul himself didn't preach Sola Scriptura.

This takes us back to my original question: How do we determine whether or not something is biblical? And how does one come to the conclusion that scripture alone is our authority when it comes to faith and morals?

"Isn't it ironic that the doctrine of sola scriptura isn't actually found in scripture?"

I heard this before, but it seems to represent a misunderstanding of sola scriptura (SS). As far as I know, SS means only that the Bible is the final (not only) authority for Christian doctrine and practice. It does not mean, for example, that we cannot accept the deliverances of science about the natural world because those truths are not found in Scripture. So it shouldn't be at all troubling that SS is not in the Bible.

"So, my questions would be: How do we know which books are to be included in Scripture?"

I think, by the same sort of process I talked about above. From what little I've studied of the history of the formation of the canon, it doesn't seem as though the church simply divined the answer to this question, but rather the issue was debated. Clement and Hermas did not bear the marks of inspired Scripture (not written by Apostle or using direct Apostolic material, etc.). And I believe Hermas actually says somewhere, perhaps only implicitly, that it is not Scripture, but I don't have a referencne for that. In any case, there were criteria used to determine which books were in and which weren't. I beleive the Holy Spirit guided the process, but like RC Sproul once remarked, getting 100% on one spelling test doesn't make you an infallible speller.

I share your concern about authority and subjectivity. But I also realize that we are finite and fallen human beings, and any kind of infallibility should not reasonably be expected in this life. And frankly, it doesn't seem to have been a huge problem for the Jews. Certainly the Old Testament is Scripture, but no infallible Jewish authority made it so.

"As far as I know, SS means only that the Bible is the final (not only) authority for Christian doctrine and practice."

I can agree with that. However, what other authority is there? I would agree that scripture is materially sufficient for all things in faith and morals (or doctrine and practice as you stated). I just can't say that scripture is formally sufficient. If scripture was was formally sufficient, then there wouldn't be so many doctrinal disputes that have fragmented the church.

"...it doesn't seem as though the church simply divined the answer to this question, but rather the issue was debated."

I would agree with that too. But, who had the authority to enter the debate? The cannon wasn't formally decided upon until the end of the 4th century. Obviously, all the apostles had died by then so God's formal revelation had ended. So who decided which books to include? If RC Sproul doesn't accept that the church is infallible, how does he know that the collection of books in the bible is infallible?

"But I also realize that we are finite and fallen human beings, and any kind of infallibility should not reasonably be expected in this life."

The authors of scripture were fallen human beings that were guided by the Holy Spirit. Why can't that be true for the church that Jesus founded on Peter in Matt 16:18? Why can't the Holy Spirit protect the church that Christ founded from error?

Infallibility doesn't meant that everything that the church will know everythign. Infallibility simply means that the church won't teach error. I would say that it is reasonable to think that the same spirit that guarantees scripture would be able to guarantee its interpretation.

David, the bottom line is that you believe the Holy Spirit guided the process, but you have no authority to say so. I don't either. RC Sproul, as great a teacher as he may be, doesn't have that kind of authority. The only entity that would have that kind of authority is the Church that Jesus founded in Matt. 16. Where is that Church today?

Sorry, I really butchered that second to last paragraph. It must be time for bed.

I will try again:

Infallibility doesn't mean that the church has all the answers. Infallibility is a negative protection; it just means that the church can't teach error. Like you said, scripture doesn't contain all truths that we can find through science. However, scripture doesn't claim things about science or nature that aren't true...that is the same with church infallibility. That isn't too far fetched if we can believe that the Holy Spirity can inspire fallen men to write infallibly.

Certainly, I agree with that. When I brought up the fact that the Bible isn't a science textbook, my only point was that SS doesn't mean that we can only know what is written in the Bible. So even if the list of books that make up the canon isn't in the Bible, it doesn't follow from SS that we can't know that list. How do we know that list? Reason. Rational debate. The internal moving of the Holy Spirit. A host of things.

Who is qualified to enter the debate about which books belong in the canon? Anyone with a sound argument. The reason I brought up the process of forming the canon was to show that there was no ecumenical council where representatives of the whole church sat down and made an infallible decision. There were multiple councils, multiple debates. The best arguments won out.

Consider this. In recent years the church has come under attack due to big "scandals" like The Da Vinci Code. The argument is that the Catholic church picked whichever books furthered its own agenda and squashed all others, such as those of the gnostics. But this notion is easily refuted. How? Because there were arguments given in favor of the current canon that still hold up today. The church did not simply wield some infallible authority and create the canon by fiat. There was a specific rationale employed in determining which books belonged in the canon, a rationale that remains sound. All the arguments that can be used in defense of the canon to unbelievers also work quite well to ease the concerns of believers, I think. And, interestingly, I think that rationale was deviated from when the Catholic church officially declared the Apocryphal books to be inspired Scripture.

"So who decided which books to include? If RC Sproul doesn't accept that the church is infallible, how does he know that the collection of books in the bible is infallible? "

The same way you can recognize any fact to be the correct one. Or, using the illustration, the same way you can recognize that all the words are spelled right. And if you ask how we can recognize that all the words are spelled right, then we're simply back to my point about all the arguments and rationales given in favor of the current canon. In short, there is simply no need to postulate an infallible authority in order to get a single infallible decision.

"Why can't the Holy Spirit protect the church that Christ founded from error?"

Two responses immediately come to mind here. First, of course it's possible that the Holy Spirit do this, but as a Protestant looking at Catholic doctrine through (what I believe to be) the eyes of Scripture, I think I see pretty clear errors. How then can I still postulate that the Holy Spirit guided the formation of the canon? Well, for one thing, I look at that process and I can't detect any errors. We have not yet discovered any book that perhaps should have been included, and no other extant book that was not placed in the canon seems like it should have been. So far as I can tell, the job was done right. Not to mention, if SS were true, it would only make sense that God would ensure that Scripture itself was assembles correctly.

Second, I'm not sure how the Holy Spirit could guard the church completely from error, given free will. Certainly there are hypotheticals in which the Holy Spirit could ensure doctrinal purity without infringing on human freedom, but to hold to absolute infallibility would require the absolute impossibility of error, and that doesn't seem possible given libertarian freedom.

"RC Sproul, as great a teacher as he may be, doesn't have that kind of authority."

Actually, Sproul doesn't believe that the Holy Spirit infallibly guided the formation of the canon, although he thinks its possible. I only think it to be the case because of what I mentioned above, that it makes sense given SS. I'm not sure I understand your comment about authority, though. What authority is required to make an argument?

In any case, I disagree that my whole argument rests on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That isn't my primary argument here. If anything it was more of an afterthought.

"Where is that Church today? "

Everywhere. I agree with Augustine's distinction between the visible and invisible church, except that I see no reason to confine the invisible within any single, visible body.

I'm tired as well, and feeling too lazy to proof-read, so I hope there are no errors! :)

David
It is amazing to me how much of this we agree upon. In some ways, I think we are saying the same thing but in a different way.

When it comes to infallibility, I get the impression that you see it as some magic wand that the Church arbitrarily waves when it suits itself. Infallibility is simply the guarantee of the Holy Spirit that they got it right. Sure reason, debate, multiple councils played into it. The church has always taught that faith and reason go hand in hand. I hope that you aren't hearing me say that there was some divine table of contents that fell from the sky or God spoke from heaven, "these are the books to be considered scripture."

In fact Jerome believed that the Deuterocanonical were not to be included in the cannon, but he ultimately submitted to the authority of the Pope. Jerome felt that way because the Rabbis rejected these books. However, the rabbis rejected them primarily because of the fact that they were being accepted by the Christians. (that is probably a very long rabbit trail that we may not want to travel down.)

"There were multiple councils, multiple debates. The best arguments won out."

You are correct. But who made the final decision? There ultimately had to be a final stamp of approval. That stamp was provided by Pope Innocent.

"And, interestingly, I think that rationale was deviated from when the Catholic church officially declared the Apocryphal books to be inspired Scripture. "

The deuterocanonicals (Apocryphal) books have always been accepted by the Church. Luther made the change. (He also wanted to eliminate the book of James, which makes sola fide tough to swallow, calling it an "epistle of straw.) One of the main reasons for his decision to leave out the Deuterocanonicals is the fact that there was no Hebrew translation of those books. That was true up until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. That discovery didn't cause the Church to deviate anything. It just confirmed what it always held to be true.

"First, of course it's possible that the Holy Spirit do this, but as a Protestant looking at Catholic doctrine through (what I believe to be) the eyes of Scripture, I think I see pretty clear errors."

I would have agreed with you 100% about 5 years ago. I then began to study what the Catholic Church actually taught and not what I was told that the Church taught. It was then that I discovered that the Catholic interpretation of scripture is very rational, very coherent and connects Genesis through Revelation as one amazing story of salvation history. The problem usually is that among Protestants, the Catholic view is simply not possible because, well, it is Catholic. And if the Catholic view is correct then a Protestant has nothing to protest.


"Well, for one thing, I look at that process and I can't detect any errors. We have not yet discovered any book that perhaps should have been included, and no other extant book that was not placed in the canon seems like it should have been. So far as I can tell, the job was done right. Not to mention, if SS were true, it would only make sense that God would ensure that Scripture itself was assembles correctly. "

Lack of errors doesn't prove inspiration. I could produce a math book free of errrors and that doesn't mean that it is inspired. What is it about Philemon or 3John or Ruth that make them obviously scripture while the letters of Clement or the Didache or Letter of Barnabas among others are not scripture?

"Second, I'm not sure how the Holy Spirit could guard the church completely from error, given free will. "

The same way that the Holy Spirit guarded the authors of scripture from error; the same way that any truth that you and I come to believe is a truth that comes directly from God. If you truly doubt that then you have to doubt whether or not the apostles actually understood Christ correctly. It is like a game of telephone...the more times the message is passed along, the more inaccurate it gets. Infallibility simply guarantees that the message comes through loud and clear. That is why we look at Patristic sources, that which the early church believed, to help us with our interpretation of scripture. This is what Catholics mean by tradition. It is simply the deposit of faith that has been handed down from Christ to the Apostles to the church today.

"I'm not sure I understand your comment about authority, though. What authority is required to make an argument? "

This is the same authority that Jesus gives Peter and the Apostles to "bind and loose". It takes more than just a good argument to define truth. However, if one stands on truth, it is easier to make a good argument.

I appreciate your willingness to dialogue with me about this.
Thank you.

"I hope that you aren't hearing me say that there was some divine table of contents that fell from the sky or God spoke from heaven, "these are the books to be considered scripture." "

No I'm not hearing you say that at all. Here's what I'm hearing you say: You agree with me that the church put forth sound, rational arguments in favor of the current canon of 27 books, while also postulating that the process was guided by the Holy Spirit such that the final decision was an infallible one. I believe your argument for this second part is that God would not allow the church to fall into doctrinal error.

If this is correct, then I simply haven't heard any good arguments for why the church cannot fall into error. As I said, from a Protestant perspective, it appears that the church has indeed fallen into error from time to time. Citing passages where Jesus appears to give authority to the Apostles doesn't show that the same authority was meant for future generations of the church.

You asked: "What is it about Philemon or 3John or Ruth that make them obviously scripture while the letters of Clement or the Didache or Letter of Barnabas among others are not scripture?"

I don't know the arguments very well myself, but you've already conceded that arguments were given. The church gave good reasons for accepting Philemon and 3 John and rejecting Clement and the Didache. Haven't you already answered your own question then? And if good reasons can indeed be given for the inclusion of Philemon and the rejection of Clement, I don't see how this question says anything about the need for an infallible church.

See, most of the arguments I'm hearing from you seem to be saying, "if we don't have an infallible church then we can't know with absolute certainty that the Bible is infallible." But that isn't really an argument for thinking that the church actually is infallible. It would simply make things more convenient if it was. In other words, it sounds a bit like adding a safety net. But if I think that all the evidence leads persuasively to the conclusion that the Bible we have today is the inspired word of God, then there isn't really an urgent need for this safety net.

You seem to be arguing that I can't have any degree of certainty that the Bible is God's word without believing that the church is infallible. But the early church didn't seem to think so.

As for the apocryphal books, there is plenty of dispute among scholars about whether or not it was accepted as inspired from the 1st century onward. But again, I find the arguments against the inspiration of the apocryphal books so overwhelming that I can only see an error in the Roman Catholic insistence that they are inspired, indicating to me that the church is not infallible.

Again, for me all of this hinges on whether or not a solid case from Scripture can be presented that God must guard the church from error. As I said, He doesn't seem to have done so with the Jews, and yet we have no problem accepting the Old Testament as inspired. I don't see why the same principle cannot apply to the New Testament.

I appreciate your willingness as well. I typically have these discussions with Orthodox brothers. It's nice to have the opportunity to discuss this with a Catholic.

David
I think it boils down to this: You are a philosophy major and I am an math major, which means that we both appeal to logic. I find your arguments fascinating. However, in order for sola scriptura to be tenable there are a couple of conditions that must be met.

1. One must be able to deduce the doctrine of SS by exegesis alone.

The fact is that there is no way to do this. Scripture doesn't claim to be the final authority on matters of faith and morals. Even if it did, that would still be a weak argument. If I wrote a book and in it claimed that it was a "final authority" that would prove nothing. Those who hold fast to the doctrine of SS do so because they held that view before opening the bible. The fact that you will find SS nowhere mentioned in scripture makes the doctrine itself something that has been handed down, a tradition, if you will. However, tradition is the very thing that Protestants claim is a Catholic invention.

2. The general public must be able to access scripture.

Personal copies of the bible were not available until recent years and if they were, it is doubtful that the masses would be able to read them. The printing press was not invented until the 1500's, right about the time of Luther's Reformation (or Rebellion, depending on how you look at it.) Illiteracy was the rule and not the exception.

"If this is correct, then I simply haven't heard any good arguments for why the church cannot fall into error. As I said, from a Protestant perspective, it appears that the church has indeed fallen into error from time to time. Citing passages where Jesus appears to give authority to the Apostles doesn't show that the same authority was meant for future generations of the church."

Jesus guaranteed that they wouldn't fall into error when he states that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." What is "it"? It is the Church. Paul tells Timothy that he must hand on that which he has been taught. The teaching of the apostles was not handed down through scripture for the first few decades, it was handed down orally(2 Thess 2:15). This oral teaching is what the Church calls Tradition. If the oral teaching were not infallible, then there would be nothing to record in scripture.

The early church did believe in the infallibility of the "Church." I quoted Augustine in an earlier post and other quotes are not difficult to come by.

As for your question regading the cannonicity of the apocryphal books, in the interest of space, I will provide a link rather than the quotes. http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

"But that isn't really an argument for thinking that the church actually is infallible. It would simply make things more convenient if it was. In other words, it sounds a bit like adding a safety net. But if I think that all the evidence leads persuasively to the conclusion that the Bible we have today is the inspired word of God, then there isn't really an urgent need for this safety net."

There is a very fatal flaw in this logic. It is circular. It is as if you are saying, "Scripture is inspired." I say, "How do you know?" You say, "The arguments are clear." How do you know the arguments are clear? It is like saying "scripture is inspired because scripture says so." The best argument didn't necessarily win out. Jerome was pretty smart and he ultimately submitted to the Pope. I am sure that he could have provided many compelling arguments for his case. So end the end, there had to be an arbiter to determine which "arguments won out." That arbiter is the church. You are accepting the authority of scripture because it has been handed to you by the authority of the church. If you don't accept the authority of the church, then you have no real leg to stand on when it comes to the authority of scripture.

" As I said, He doesn't seem to have done so with the Jews, and yet we have no problem accepting the Old Testament as inspired. I don't see why the same principle cannot apply to the New Testament. "

Looking at Israel actually works in favor of accepting the authority of the church. Much of what Israel did was handed down by oral tradition. By accepting the oral tradition you are accepting the authority of the one who spoke it to you.

Just to clear things up: Catholics believe in the authority of scripture. However, as Catholics we also believe in Sacred Tradition (the oral teaching of the apostles that has been handed down through the Patristic writings and the church councils) and the Magesterium (the teaching authority of the bishops). This isn't unrealistic as that is how the church functioned from the beginning. History is on our side.

As for you stating that there are clear errors in Catholic doctrine, I would ask you to provide an example of these errors. As I have stated before, I was in your shoes a few years ago and before I decided to become Catholic, I tested every doctrine that I took exception with. I am telling you, David, the Catholic interpretation of scripture isn't as tough to swallow as you might think.

God Bless you.

I need to add something to my comments...

You have said many times that the best arguments won out. Let's suppose that is true...then what keeps us from allowing those arguments to resurface and make changes to the cannnon?

"1. One must be able to deduce the doctrine of SS by exegesis alone."

I still don't see why this must be the case. If I think there are good reasons to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that no other documents/councils/Popes are an infallible source of authority, then SS simply follows quite naturally.

"2. The general public must be able to access scripture."

This has no bearing on whether or not SS is true. If SS is true, however, then this follows logically. Which explains why Protestantism has always worked so hard to spread literacy and to get a Bible in the hand of every person we can.

"If the oral teaching were not infallible, then there would be nothing to record in scripture."

Then why isn't the oral teaching recorded as Scripture? All of the oral tradition that Rome accepts and Protestants deny are precisely those teachings that are NOT recorded as Scripture (though Rome will always at least attempt to make a Biblical case).

"There is a very fatal flaw in this logic. It is circular. It is as if you are saying, "Scripture is inspired." I say, "How do you know?" You say, "The arguments are clear." How do you know the arguments are clear? It is like saying "scripture is inspired because scripture says so." "

I don't see any circularity at all. Nowhere did I say anything close to "scripture is inspired because scripture says so." When you asked me how I know that the arguments are clear, I responded that I know in the same way that I can know and judge any argument to be clear. There is no circularity there.

"The best argument didn't necessarily win out. Jerome was pretty smart and he ultimately submitted to the Pope."

This only proves one of my points, that Rome ultimately made errors.

"Looking at Israel actually works in favor of accepting the authority of the church. Much of what Israel did was handed down by oral tradition."

But that's not the point, since I'm talking about the written Old Testament itself. The tradition wasn't inspired, the written scripture was. You seem to be suggesting that the books of the Old Testament were merely a collection of oral traditions, which were somehow already inspired? I don't think I've ever heard that before. I thought the traditional view (and the view of Rome as well) was that the inspiration took place as the author was actually writing his book.

"This isn't unrealistic as that is how the church functioned from the beginning. History is on our side."

I'm afraid this remains a contentious claim, as plenty of church historians (Protestant, of course) will disagree that the 1st or 2nd century church looked anything like Rome today.

"As for you stating that there are clear errors in Catholic doctrine, I would ask you to provide an example of these errors."

This can of worms is far too big to open in a setting like this. I'm a Calvinist, if that tells you anything. :) Moreover, if I were ever to be convinced of the truth of church authority, tradition, etc., I would become Eastern Orthodox, not Roman Catholic. Their arguments against Rome (the Pope, the filioque, and many others) are quite persuasive.

"You have said many times that the best arguments won out. Let's suppose that is true...then what keeps us from allowing those arguments to resurface and make changes to the cannnon?"

Well, first of all, I think it IS the resurfacing of such arguments during the Reformation that gave the Reformers cause to reject the Apocryphal books.

Theoretically it would be possible to find more Scripture (Paul did write other letters that we don't currently have, after all).

Does that answer your question?

David
Thanks again for the dialogue. I am afraid that we have probably ridden this bus as far as it will take us. The bottom line is this: Where did the Bible come from? It came from the Catholic Church. All arguments ended regarding the cannon when Pope Innocent ratified the 73 books. History is history.

I will continue to check your blog and drop a few comments here and there.

BTW, there is a pretty popular Catholic author who used to be a staunch Calvinist named Scott Hahn. If you are truly interested in looking at Catholic doctrine from a Catholic perspective, you may want to check him out.

Thanks again. :)

I slept on it and didn't like the way I left our discussion.

My original comment had to do with the subjectivity of how one determines something to be biblical or unbiblical. You replied that it took "clear thinking and hard work." It has to take a bit more than that because there are many clear thinking hard workers that come up with opposing views of scripture. You and I have had this discussion for a while and we could go point/counterpoint forever. Which of us is correct? Protestant readers would side with you and Catholics with me. However, the truth isn't subject to compelling arguments.

Your decision to accept scripture as the inerrant inspired word of God has no basis if you reject the authority of the Church that gave it to you. You said in a previous post that I was "quite right that we all must accept the word of some authority for most of what we believe." Here in lies the death blow to the doctrine of sola scriptura. It isn't a self interpreting document. Scriputre isn't a literary corpse to be dissected through exegesis, although exegesis is very important to understanding the meaning.

Authority is the real issue. Doctrinal disputes will always be around, but at the end of the day there has to be a final authority to end all disputes. For the first 1000 years all Christendom was Catholic. Then we had the Orthodox schism. 500 years or so later we had Luther and the Reformation. Shortly after that we have Knox and Calvin. Here is the part about SS that really troubles me: It creates division. Once Luther proclaimed that people should be able to interpret scriputre on their own, without the aid of any other authority, he opened a huge can of worms. He took scriputre out of its context, the Church. All disputes about the cannon were to decide which books were to be read in church. Fast forward 500 years and what do we have? A fragmented church where there are 1000's of denominations all claiming to hold the true interpretation of scriputre. It is like the Tower or Babel all over again. Christians can't even speak the same language any more. And if I don't like your interpretation, I start a new church. Sola Scriputra simply doesn't work. Protestant churches aren't really churches, they are voluntary assemblies. One will volunteer to stay in a church as long as the teaching agrees with him. And what if the teaching ceases to agree with his interpretation? When that happens, he finds a new church or start one of his own. Where is the logic in that? Sola Scriptura has made the individual believer the measure of all truth. You will claim that you are being led by the Holy Spirit...but so does the guy across the street with whom you won't worship because of doctrinal disputes.

So we can talk about logic and clear thinking all day long, but there is nothing logical or clear about sola scriptura. It is a doctrine that one holds before going to scripture. The final authority, scripture, isn't even consulted when one decides that he is going to follow this doctrine. This argument may not be circular, but it makes no sense. Right off the bat, a proponent of SS must look to some other authority besides scripture in order to even hold the belief.

Out of respect for you and your blog, I will allow you the last word. Thanks again for this exchange. I pray that one day we all may be united as the true Body of Christ.

God Bless.

Yeah, that's the one big drawback to new media. We finally have a system in place where anyone, anywhere can dialog with anyone else on any topic...but all of the intimacy and longevity is taken out of it. If only you and I could sit in the pub, pipe in hand, and carry on this conversation in person.

Don't get me wrong, though. While I agree with you that this discussion seems to have run its course, we must continue this Catholic-Protestant dialog in the future (especially as I continue to read through the church fathers). And I'll definitely look into that former Calvinist author you mentioned.

Having said that, I've noticed something in your final comment that interests me. You said: "You and I have had this discussion for a while and we could go point/counterpoint forever. Which of us is correct?" You then added: "However, the truth isn't subject to compelling arguments."

All true. But my question is, what is your proposed to solution? You seem to be suggesting two things. The first that my protestant method of reason and argument is endlessly regressive and doomed to failure. The second is that accepting the church as an infallible authority will somehow solve this problem. But how? If I am convinced by your arguments that SS is incoherent and I choose to abandon it, have I not in fact followed my own system of reason and argument to arrive at that conclusion (which turned out to be not so endless after all)?

If not, then perhaps you're proposing a kind of radical fideism? Am I supposed to accept the infallibility of the church on blind faith, when my best reason still tells me not to?

"The final authority, scripture, isn't even consulted when one decides that he is going to follow this doctrine. This argument may not be circular, but it makes no sense."

Let me ask you this, where does the basis for infallible church authority come from? The church? That would be circular. The Bible? That too would be circular, since the canon is apparently invested with its authority because of the infallibility of the church. Thus, your only basis for believing in the infallibility of the church must be reason. You muse have some good (compelling?) reason to think that the church is infallible, and this reason must be apart form the church or the Bible.

And that is precisely what I am arguing regarding SS. No matter where you find your infallible authority, you must always use the best possible case of fallible reason to get there, whether the authority is the Bible or the church. It's as simple as that.

Again I would invite you to present your case for thinking that the church is infallible. So far your only case has been a negative one, attempting to show SS to be false. I believe I have adequately defended against this negative case already. So now, if you are still willing, I would invite you to make a positive case for your own position (and please feel free to use the Bible, as I'm interested to hear what other verses besides the one in Matt. you think support your case).

Keep in mind that while protestants will say "scritpure alone" is the final authority, catholics will say "the Word of God alone" is the final authority. The difference in the two is that the Word of God takes on two forms...the Written Word of God and the Living Word of God (Jesus Himself). Let's suppose that scripture is a pile of bricks. All the information is there, but how does it all go together? Sola Scriptura leaves the bricks to be put together by the individual, which will result in many different configurations all subject to the individuals interpretation. The Catholic view of Scripture, Tradition (oral teaching of the apostles) and the Magisterium (teaching authority) allows the church to be built. Scripture being the bricks, Tradition being the blueprint and the Magesterium acting as the mortar.

You asked previously why the oral teaching isn't recorded as scripture. Not all of Jesus' teachings are recorded in scripture (cf. John 21:25). Paul himself refers to this in 2 Thess 2:15:
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
RSV

Below is a excerpt from an article that I found online at http://cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=149. I am not sure that I could explain it any better, so I am quoting part of it.

Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church into all truth. The Holy Spirit teaches the Church "all things," bringing to mind everything that Christ first taught His apostles (cf. Jn. 14:26). That is why Jesus can say, regarding His apostles and their bishop successors, "He who receives you receives me" (Mt. 10:40). Chosen by Christ, they exercise the Church's Magisterium or teaching office. Christ sends His apostles and their successors as the Father sent Him-with "all authority in heaven and on earth" (Mt. 28:18).

To provide a sure source of teaching and to maintain unity in the Church, Christ established the papacy with supreme authority in the Church. The Pope's office is one of succession from Peter and is marked by the authority of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (cf. Mt. 16:18-19; Is. 22:15-25). As the Second Vatican Council reminds us, "the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered" (Lumen Gentium, no. 22). Thus, only in union with the Pope does the college or body of bishops have supreme and full authority over the universal Church (ibid.).

Jesus did not leave His people vulnerable to the doctrinal whims of competing leaders. Rather, He built the Church on the solid foundation of the apostles (cf. Eph. 2:19-20). He gave the Church His Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, to enable her to be "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Despite the cultural winds that have blown through the ages, the faithful have always had a visible, easily identifiable magisterial "rock" on which they could safely stand in all seasons. As the Catechism provides, quoting Vatican II:

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ" [Dei Verbum, no. 10]. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome (no. 85, emphasis added).

Jesus declared that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church (cf. Mt. 16:18-19). This protection from evil includes protecting the Magisterium from teaching error. Regardless of who the Pope and bishops in union with him may be at a particular time in Church history, the faithful have Christ's Word that the Holy Spirit will guide His Magisterium in preserving and teaching the truth.

I would never ask you to accept anything on blind faith, nor would the Church. As I said before, the Church has always taught fide et ratio, faith and reason.

I agree with you that while blogging is a great way to communicate, it has its drawbacks. Perhaps one day we will be able to hold this conversation in person...who knows. In the meantime, I will be glad to continue dialoguing with you on these matters and will continue to offer my two cents on your blog. Drop by mine sometime and leave a comment (protoevangelium.blogspot.com).

If you really are interested in Scott Hahn, you may want to check out his website. It is the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology (salvationhistory.com).

David, I really appreciate your sincerity with which you have approached this discussion.

BTW, have you checked your post on "This is my body?" I left a comment there a while back. Maybe the start of round 2? :)

God bless us all as we seek the truth...

One more thing I may add, if I haven't made it clear to this point is that the Church is chronologically prior to any scripture. The oral teaching preceded the written. Therefore, the church was already established by Christ and scripture was intended to be used within its context.

The Magisterium (bishops) is the office handed down directly from the Apostles. Every bishop in the Catholic as well as Orthodox church can trace their succession all the way back to one of the apostles. This office was handed down (literally) by the laying on of hands.

I think it would be best to take this slow and not get carried away into really long comments, so I'll start with one question and one possible critique.

My questions is, are there any specific traditions of the Catholic church that are considered to be from Biblical references. By that I mean, are there any specific traditions where a Catholic theologian might argue "tradition x is likely the one that Paul was referring to in 2 Thess...", or would Rome simply say that all of her traditions not recorded in Scripture are equally a part of the oral teachings that Paul referred to?

As for the possible critique, it has to do with what I've been wondering all along, and that is: can a case be made for the infallibility of the church apart from Scriptural references? If not, then wouldn't that whole excerpt you just quoted essentially be saying "the church is infallible because the tradition of the church (which was later recorded as Scripture) says so"?

I'm afraid that our discussion will get away from us if we're posting too many comments about too many topics at once, but I felt I should briefly comment on your second post (don't feel the need to reply to this unless you think it's vital).

"...the Church is chronologically prior to any scripture. The oral teaching preceded the written. Therefore, the church was already established by Christ and scripture was intended to be used within its context."

Yes, but for a Protestant this isn't at all troubling because we understand the Apostles to be the foundation of the church (as do you I'm sure), and it just so happens that the closing (or completion) of the canon coincides with the end of the Apostolic ministry. In other words, you could say that a Protestant views Apostolic succession as the passing of absolute authority from the Apostles to Scripture.

"The Magisterium (bishops) is the office handed down directly from the Apostles. Every bishop in the Catholic as well as Orthodox church can trace their succession all the way back to one of the apostles. This office was handed down (literally) by the laying on of hands."

Do you mean that every single bishop can literally trace his succession back, name by name, to an Apostle, like a detailed genealogy?

When I've pushed my Orthodox friends on this topic, they've admitted to me that apostolic succession isn't really about the laying on of hands (after all, ordained bishops can become apostate), rather it is about the succession of right (Apostolic) doctrine. Obviously a Protestant can agree with that, so apostolic succession itself doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion, because the debate remains about what is/is not right doctrine.

All traditions can be found in scripture, but not necessarily in the form of a proof text. When a non-Catholic asks, "Where is that in the Bible?", they are usually really asking, "Can you give me a proof text?" There may or not be a specific verse to answer that question, but if one takes the Bible as a whole, then, yes, there will be a scripture reference. If you have a specific "tradition" that you would like to discuss, I would be glad to do so. I did post an elementary Catholic explanation on the real presence as a comment on your "This is my body" post.

To answer your last question, yes the bishops can trace their succession back to the apostles.
You can check out a pretty good explanation here.

That makes sense. I'm no fan of proof-texting either.

But I'm still curious as to whether or not a case can be made for the infallibility of the church without reference to Scripture. Like I mentioned before, appeals to Scripture sound like saying "the church is infallible because church tradition says so."

If you believe that scripture is the final authority now, I am not quite sure why you would need references outside scripture to prove the church's authority and/or infallibility. I think it takes more blind faith to believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture without the aid of church authority than it does with it. With that being said, I'll do my best. It seems to me that the only three options for demonstrating the infallibility of the church would be scripture, Patristic sources or history. Do you see another option that I may be missing?

Let's suppose that the bible is an historical book and set aside the idea that it is inspired. From the history alone we can conclude that Christ established a Church that He claimed the Holy Spirit would lead into all truth. The apostles then established a organization where the teaching authority would be passed down (eg. Paul to Timothy to next generation). Establishing and organization implies that there is intent for it to continue beyond the first generation. These are facts that are not disputed.

The question that you really seem to wrestle with is this: Did Jesus really set up a visible church that was to be truly united as one Body? History will attest to this as you see that the apostles had set up a hierarchy of bishops, deacons and presbyteroi(priests). Doctrine was to be handed down. When there was a doctrinal dispute, they had a council (Council of Jerusalem re: Judaizers). There have been councils since then. Never has the church contradicted itself in any doctrine. Doctrine has developed, but never has there been a contradiction (ie. the term trinity isn't found in scripture, but the doctrine developed quite logically). If you could find a contradicion some where in the line of Apostolic succession, you would have a case to reject Church infallibility. You mentioned ordained bishops could become apostates...true. However, when the college of bishops gather to make a pronouncement as the magisterium, or the Pope speaks ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter) they can't change doctrine...they can't teach error. There were Popes who were grave sinners, but they didn't teach error. Infallibility doesn't mean that the members of the magisterium are saints, it just means that they can't change the truth. Remember, Jesus told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would "lead them into all truth." I realize that quote is from scripture, but biblical scholars could prove that those words actually historically came from Jesus. You will also find plenty of references in the church fathers demonstrating that they believed in the infallibility of the Church. I gave you a quote by Augustine saying that he wouldn't believe in the Gospels had not the Church told him to.

I found another quote online that explains this idea pretty well:

Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.

The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.

This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.

One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.

All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).

It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.

But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).



Keep in mind, that 4 years ago, I was in your shoes. I was pretty anti catholic. I held all of the same positions on scripture, tradition, authority and doctrine that you do now. However, I began to look at catholic doctrine from the mouth of the church and not the mouths of non catholics and began to recognize that the catholic postion is more rational than any other I have ever heard. I would encourage you to pick an area of catholic doctrine that you seem to find obvious errors with and let's look at it.

Roger,

As a big fan of you and your blog (and of course the rest of the ateam) I must say I am blown away that you would have written such scathing and hurtful criticisms of Warren prior to hearing the clip in full. You are one of the strongest people I know when it comes to pushing CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT in scripture and yet you went with a critics hit piece edit for this post. Hope the scholarship of you site doesn't continue to deteriorate to support you agenda. I do value reading it even when we disagree.

David
Just curious as to whether or not we are going to continue our discussion. I have been checking the blog daily. If not, please drop a quick comment and I will stop checking. If so, I look forward to hearing from you.

Roger, I know this is a little late, but I wanted to acknowledge your update and apology. While we may still disagree on some things with Warren, I appreciate and admire someone who is willing to say that they were wrong (even if it is over one point among many others). You didn't treat this like a game (where you had to admit failure), and so I appreciate your honesty and integrity. I know I don't read every blog there is, but out of the many I do, you don't see much of that.