Satan Playing the Long Game? What’s the Problem with the Critical Text?

“These copies that were made centuries later contain numerous mistakes. Thousands of mistakes. Tens of thousands of mistakes. Hundreds of thousands of mistakes…” Whatever, Bart. Don’t have a cow.

 

Despite the picture and provocative caption that leads off this post, it is not really about the molehill that is Bart Ehrmann. It rather attempts to critically address, in a thoughtful way, the modernist/Enlightenment world of biblical criticism from which he has come. I make no claim to expertise in what I write of below – my hope is that this post and any subsequent discussion can get interested persons, including myself, thinking more about this important topic.

Pastor Jordan Cooper, the owner of this blog, has written and podcasted about how he is in favor of supporting what is called “the Majority text” over what we today call “the critical text” (think Nestle-Aland, now in its 28th ed.). In his support of this “Ecclesiastical text”, he is decidedly against the mainstream of biblical scholarship.

I think that Pastor Cooper has done us a service is clearly stating his viewpoint and giving persons an accessible introduction to these important issues. If you have not had a chance to look at these yet, I encourage you to do so (here is another good introductory post).

My own view is also that what we might call the Byzantine text is the text that we should trust (and my reading of a recent scholarly treatise on this topic further confirms me in my own view, which I lay out below[i]).

Why do I think this? In brief, I believe that God, in His providence, preserved His word in the churches of the East, and that this word performed two critical functions in history: a) to provide a common, shared text for the churches of the Eastern churches ; and b) to provide a needed corrective to the churches in the West, for whom the highly flawed Latin Vulgate had become the default biblical text.

During the time of the Reformation, apologists from the Roman Catholic church argued that the Greek text of the New Testament and the Hebrew text of the Old Testament had been corrupted and that the Vulgate alone preserved the authentic text. And yet, when it came to the Latin Vulgate, many could see clearly that distrust had rightly been earned here, and a “shake-up” of sorts was necessary. This largely came in the form of what we call the “Textus Receptus” of a Roman Catholic scholar named Erasmus. He introduced this new edition of the Greek text of the New Testament when he did (based largely on what were understood to be Byzantine copies of the original biblical text in Greek) in order to fix problems in the Vulgate. The rest, in the “Protestant” West at least, is history.

Probabilities, i.e. death by a thousand cuts: “If exegesis is to be practiced historico-critically, it must use the methods of secular historical science, i.e. criticism which allows only probability judgments, and the principles of analogy and correlation (cf. [Walter] Troeltsch[, pictured]). Thereby it subjects itself in principle to secular-historical judgment” (theses presented for discussion in the University of Munich, quoted by Kurt Marquart on p. 114, Anatomy of an Explosion)

At least, until the end of the 17^th century and beginnings of the 18^th century, when some doubts about the Textus Receptus’ synonymity with the original texts of the Bible (the “autographs”) begin to emerge – and the “scientific” study (more on the reason for the scare quotes below) of the biblical text took off in earnest. This culminated in a way in the early 1880s, with the publication of Westcott and Hort’s critical edition of the Greek New Testament, which deferred heavily to a couple of manuscripts containing the entire Bible (from the 4^th century): Codex Vaticanus and Code Sinaiticus (see more here).

My impression is that this quest was largely wrongheaded, but let me be clear about why I think this is so. I actually do not have difficulty with a person arguing that these early editions of the Bible, produced as they obviously were with the imprimatur of the church’s hierarchy, are basically indicative of the biblical text the Western church has recognized, preserved, and passed down (here, I think, it is like the Apostle Paul says: “let each be convinced in his own mind”![ii]). In other words, in an effort to address the problems clearly seen in the Vulgate, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater (again, the Vulgate would seem to have been largely based on codexes like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), but this did not need to be the case.

The problem, however, is that the discussion about these things in the church today, because of the impact of a modern scientific and technological mindset (as opposed to using something more akin to a careful legal case) that permeates the academy, basically reduces to the quantitative, i.e. to numbers and percentages. In brief, those advocating for the ever-changing critical text in the train of Westcott and Hort usually do so on the basis of the numbers of the earliest manuscripts (which, as a whole, do tend to conform more to codexes Vatincanus and Sinaiticus), while those in the minority who advocate for what they call the “Majority Text” (basically, the “Byzantine Text”) usually do so on the basis of the total number of manuscripts from the first copies of the Bible up until the Middle Ages.[iii]

In short, I think what this really shows – for all involved – is a lack of trust in the church, and does not show a proper deference to its authority. In general, I suggest a further implication of this, because God preserves His word in His church (a word which is sufficiently clear even to unbelievers – they can indeed, begin to understand the Scriptures and its core theme), is a lack of trust in God and a lack of deference to His authority.[iv]

Speaking of numbers, I am guessing that I might have lost upwards of 99% of the Christians in America with that statement, but stick with me here as I explain my reasoning!

“[Descartes] declared that all past beliefs, all ideas inherited from family or state, or indoctrinated from infancy onwards by ‘authorities’ (masters, priests) must be cast into doubt, and examined in complete freedom by the individual subject… – Luc Ferry, discussing the impact of Rene Descartes, pictured (italics  mine).

Even as Jesus Christ Himself urged the laity of his day to obey those who sat in “Moses’ seat”, He nevertheless blamed those same church leaders for a variety of  theological errors (painful detail here). And yet, in spite of this, He trusted that the Scriptures the church had received had been reliably preserved by God. Jesus’ default position was not that God’s assembly, or church, was the corrupter of the biblical texts, but its grateful recipient.

So, why can’t the churches of the East simply be thankful for and trust the biblical texts that they have received? And why can’t the churches that used the Greek text of Erasmus – largely produced from the aforementioned texts – largely do the same? And why can’t those who think that we should defer to what has been called the more “Alexandrian” “text-type” (this is what the critical, or Nestle-Aland text, is largely based on), simply talk about receiving the text as well, apart from the problems with the Latin Vulgate that derived from them (these texts being exemplified by, but perhaps not limited to, codexes like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)?

Am I saying that it is always wrong to doubt the church? What about “trust but verify”?

To answer these questions in brief, “no, it is not wrong to distrust the church (see more reflection here), but distrust, where it exists, ought to be earned, i.e. justified” (think “Donation of Constantine”[v]) and “’trust but verify’ is really an oxymoronic statement.”[vi]

The fact of the matter is that when it came to receiving the biblical text, distrust was never truly justified, even if some, of course (like the deists and others with anti-Christian motivations), were eager to say that it had been earned. What happened, it seems to me, is that some persons became aware of variants in the various text-traditions (realizing there were rough “text types”, or perhaps, as some say today, “text clusters”), and started exploring more. I don’t have an issue with this per se, because I do believe that God has made all of us simply curious about this or that, and I don’t doubt that he raised up persons who were curious about this kind of thing as well – and that he provided avenues for them, at their unique point in geography and history, to begin further exploration.

The problem, however, is that this exploration was not openly explored and discussed in the church, and with a proper respect of church authorities and their responsibilities in mind.[vii] Persons in the church hierarchy, understandably, were eager to safeguard the integrity of the text, and to let persons know that serious matters about the Bible were not in doubt. Those on the cutting edge of this exciting and attention-getting scholarly work, however, were not always eager to work slowly, carefully, deliberately, and intelligently with the top leadership in the church. They often acted alone in this sense (though not without the help of, for example, the state and the academy), and, at the very least, fueled the impression of a conspiracy among the orthodox (often maligned as “dead” or “Pharisaical”) to hide the “many errors and corruptions” of the biblical text.[viii]

In response, the orthodox leadership could hardly be blamed for seeing something dark in the critical scholar’s work from the beginning (unfortunately, the attempts to “call out” the irreverent – and sometimes downright impudent – critical scholars and their pietistic allies may have, at times, been both too weak and rather ham-fisted). This, it seemed, was something altogether different from the kind of textual criticism the earliest of the church fathers themselves admitted to openly – after all, before the church as a whole (i.e. the leadership), thankfully, had the means to “first, [when doing biblical interpretation] correct your copy of the text” (as Augustine had said), it was these individual Christians who had to make decisions regarding the various variant manuscripts they were aware of.

Lutheran saint Kurt Marquart: “Man is not an objective super-observer in the universe, but a condemned sinner with a vested interest in escape.” And here, Satan urges a long, “frog-in-kettle” game.

So again – none of this means that Christians should be opposed to scholarship per se (see more thoughts on scholarship vis a vis Christianity here). On the contrary, I think all of this comes down to not respecting authority. Of God, the Bible, and the Church.[ix]

Again, didn’t Jesus Christ and His apostles quote the commonly used text of their day – the Torah that people actually had – as God’s inspired Word? As Charles Wiese points out: “We…have evidence of a variety of different textual traditions that pop up in the New Testament. Most of the time, Jesus and the Apostles don’t quote from the textual tradition behind the Hebrew Masoretic text but the tradition stands behind the LXX.” How does this compare with the church’s approach today, where it seems the decisions of an editorial committee in Muenster (home of Nestle-Aland 28, the “standard text” of Christendom) are of inevitable authority for us and our theology?!

In short, the kind of approach advocated in even the most conservative Christian colleges and seminaries is tremendously lacking. It is an atomized individualism – regarding persons, texts, and churches – that is on display in spades. In matters as simple as receiving the Scriptures to the matter of corporate worship, there is no respect shown to the authority of those above one’s self – and so there is also no mutual submission of the brethren to one another.

No thanks. I, for one, will buck this trend and say:

“I will receive in humble and grateful child-like trust what is given unless there is something really off like the glaring Comma Johanneum (even this was not in the earlier editions of Erasmus’ text, and hence is not in Luther’s German Bible). To say the very least, there is no need to give any kind of false impression that the church has anything to be hiding or has been hiding anything when it comes to God’s word.”[x]

Please challenge me on this. Attempt to educate and inform me, and if you suspect I am unteachable, try to do that for others.

Let’s talk more about how the Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum.

FIN

 

Image credits:

Bart D. Ehrmann by Dan Sears UNC-Chapel Hill ; Rene Descartes ; Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923), from http://kcm.kr/dic_view.php?nid=37849 (published in the US before 1923 and public domain in the US) ; Kurt Marquart, by http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/marquartlectures.html maintained by David J. Webber

Notes:

[i] The author of this treatise, erstwhile master’s degree student Ernst Boogert, says at one point: “Truth may and should be questioned, because by testing it, it is strengthened.” (p. 63) My own view on this is a bit more nuanced: it is indeed possible, through God’s providential care, that truth can be strengthened in the act of questioning – but that this is not necessarily the case. In fact, depending on our attitude towards the things of God, I submit that sometimes received truth should not be questioned, even if God might use unwarranted skepticism for good (more on this in the broader piece above).

“It is not enough to say that historical criticism means ‘discriminating appreciation.’ The historian,’ says [David] Lotz, ‘must cross-examine, test, weigh, probe and analyze all written records of the past. If he fails to do this he de facto surrenders his claim to the title of historian!’” (Marquart, Kurt; quoting from a May 1975 issue of Forum Letter, in his Anatomy of an Explosion: Missouri in Lutheran Perspective, p. 114, italics mine). I note that view/attitude well. Evidently, we can’t seek to learn more about history simply because we are curious to do so. Of course questions will come, but no one can question absolutely everything about their own history or history more widely conceived.

With all of that said, I believe that my own view comports quite well with Boogert’s recent and rather detailed study (again available here) that seeks to constructively address and overcome the impasse that currently exists between CT and MT (Byzantine) advocates.  Elsewhere, in his study he writes: “Both Byzantine protagonists and eclectics need to take time for careful analyses of each other’s arguments. This thesis provides a wealth of arguments that need consideration and reinvestigation.” (p. 63)

[ii] Ernst Boogert again (see above endnote): “…theological notions like providence and preservation need to be connected with the content of the New Testament and not with the letter. In that sense, the New Testament is historically and theologically fully preserved.” (p. 66)

[iii] Numbers can wow us to be sure. They might even tempt us with their perceived usefulness. As my pastor put it: “There are a little over 3.5 million letters in the Bible (3,566,480). In that most textual variants have to do with letters, even if the “mistakes” or “conflicts” are determined to be in the thousands, that is still, simply statistically, insignificant. There are 783, 137 words in the Bible. The same could be said about them. Overall agreement between the RT, MT and CT seems to be about 99.5%. So for a book that is from 2000-3500 years old, and copied by hand for much of its existence, that is simply amazing.”

[iv] In other words, I believe that the actions of the church authorities in this case were certainly God-inspired acts of love for good of – and order of – the one church.

From this it simply follows: Those who don’t think this results in an infallible and inerrant text should, at the very least, point out how reliable and firm it is! And this should be, if they desire to be friends of God and His people, their constant public refrain.

Again, recognizing that there are variant traditions, deriving from various schools and centers of Christian influence should not change any of this.

[v] A line from the 2003 movie Luther comes to mind. In it, Martin Luther jests: “the priests assured me that by gazing at sacred relics, I could cut down my time in purgatory. Luckily for me, Rome has enough nails from the holy cross to shoe every horse in Saxony… but there are relics elsewhere in Christendom. Eighteen out of twelve apostles are buried in Spain…” see here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309820/quotes

[vi] And to be honest, I think that after a while, the 16^th century reformer Martin Luther realized, for example, that he should just shut up about his misgivings about the book of James, Hebrews, and Revelation, for example. I suspect that as a good churchman, he recognized it was enough to say what some in the early church said: these books were received as canon, but, since some orthodox persons spoke against their inclusion in the canon, should not be used to determine any doctrine.

[vii] An Eastern Orthodox Christian, Rod Dreher, has expressed this responsibility well: “

“…what I can tell definitively about Orthodox Christian doctrine would be about one-third of the length of my big long Dante blog post yesterday. But I trust the guides who know the territory. I don’t need to know how to read maps to trust them to lead me out of the dark wood. Moreover, I don’t have to worry that there’s a big fight among the guide corps over whether or not the maps and the methods of map-reading have anything true to tell us about where we are in the world, and what we need to do if we are to get out of the dark wood.” (Does Doctrine Even Matter To Liberal Catholics?)

[viii] Those of a more pietist bent, eager to distinguish themselves from the orthodox, also promoted their work.

[ix] Today, we see this in full flower with “progressive religion” and its counterpart tendencies: radical social justice warring, identity politics, and the denial of truth and fact (see here, for example).

[x] Wikipedia has a useful list of the most significant New Testament textual variants here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament”

Should we not be utterly amazed at how not only do none of these variants affect doctrine, but none of these variants can be said to necessarily contradict one another at all?!

As church historian Martin Noland has pointed out (from a private email correspondence, shared with permission): “The textual variants in the New Testament only become a big deal when anti-Christian polemicists blow their significance way out of proportion.  This happened first in the Deist controversies in the 18^th century; and has been resurrected by Bart Ehrmann today, to his great financial and career profit.”

Advertisement

 

Interview with Martin Luther Regarding Question of Who is Qualified to be a Bishop/Pastor

In need of a few good men! Is it only faith that makes a man who aspires to be a pastor “above reproach”?

 

See AE 28:284, 294. Note that I have put words in our interviewee’s mouth in the brackets.

Dr. Luther, thank you for the interview: let’s speak briefly about your position on the qualifications for pastoral ministry.

[The Scriptures give us rather clear guidance in this instance. Of course] he must be above reproach. This is the first quality he must have. The man who wants to investigate, correct, and teach others should be above reproach… that is, that he is beyond accusation and can neither rightly nor justly be accused.

I see. Well, it certainly makes sense that if someone is falsely accused this should not disqualify them.

[Right,] if he is falsely accused, no harm; he is still above reproach; no law can accuse him before men. Samuel and Moses are good examples. Samuel said, “If I have defrauded anyone, etc.” (cf. 1 Sam. 12:3). There he showed how innocent he was, as far as men were concerned. Moses spoke this way before Korah (cf. Num. 16:15). To live this way, that you do not harm your neighbor by theft or adultery, means that no man can accuse you of anything or say: “You have stolen from me; you have raped my wife.”

So, if I understand you correctly, you do not believe that the Apostle Paul simply meant to show the pastor his inadequacy as a sinner, but actually meant to have his requirements followed.

[I am not sure I understand your question. Certainly] there is no one who is above reproach before God. Paul writes: “I am conscious of no evil” (cf. 1 Cor. 4:4). Let the Our Father stand: “Forgive us.” Before God no one is above reproach, but before men the bishop is to be so, that he may not be a fornicator, an adulterer, a greedy man, a foul-mouthed person, a drunkard, a gambler, a slanderer.

But should the church really be so concerned about what those outsiders think who “know” they are better than everybody else, and don’t need the Gospel? Should it not rather focus on proclaiming the Gospel to those who are primarily concerned with their own sin and know they really need it?

[That is a perverse way of looking at things, really. No,] he must be well thought of by outsiders. …[Yes, s]ome theologian of the church might answer: “What is it to us what the heathen think or what the papists think? We live in such a way that the church does not judge us, for it is founded on love and gladly endures the criticism: ‘You bear it … if a man puts on airs’ (2 Cor. 11:20). The heathen, however, do not do this.”

[On the contrary,] Paul says: “It is especially fitting for you, O bishop, to care what the heathen think about you. You see, you have been exposed in your ministry to men and women. Therefore you ought to live in such a way that the heathen are forced to close their own mouths. This is the way you can gain and convert them. If you live in such a way that you are faulted, you frighten them away and force them to blaspheme the name of God.” Cf. Rom. 2:24. Therefore “well thought of.”

I am not sure you are getting the Law-Gospel distinction… Again, I have been taught that one doesn’t actually have to do these things that Paul is talking about… but that all pastors simply need to know they are unqualified. These simply show the pastor his inadequacy as a sinner…

[You try my patience, but may the Lord put up with my bearing with you a bit longer… ] Paul also wrote to Titus (2:8): “Having nothing evil to say to us.” Thus the heathen will say: “People wrong them.” Pliny wrote to Trajan: “There is a certain sect, etc.” He commends the Christians because they live good and holy lives. There those Christians closed the mouths of Pliny and of Trajan himself: “Let men say what they want about those Christians; they are humble and have every good intention.” So a person compares his own shameful life with that of the Christians and is converted. Why does Paul talk about what outsiders think? That he may not fall into reproach.

But the church doesn’t really want to attract persons who are concerned about moral goodness, right? Doesn’t it want to attract persons who realize that no one is morally good – starting with themselves? Don’t we all scandalize the church? Isn’t it only faith that makes a person above reproach?

[Away with such nonsense! This will be my last response to you. The apostle Paul says “He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap”. Therefore, I repeat:] Why does Paul talk about what outsiders think? That he may not fall into reproach.… a slanderer should not have just reason to accuse. Look—let a man so live here, and let us be careful of reproach, lest we fall into it.

…Earlier I mentioned that a bishop can live blamelessly before the world but not before God… Paul intends a blamelessness before the world. It is true that whoever is not sincere in his faith and the purity of his heart does not escape falling into obvious wickedness. If he is greedy, he cannot cover up his greed to keep it from breaking out. If he is proud, he cannot hide and conceal it. It must show. If, then, he can live blamelessly, it is a sign that his soul is blameless before God, but not completely.”

 

“Who’s Afraid of Relativism?” – and Professor James K.A. Smith? (part III of III)

“God’s Word is like bread, intrinsically possessing nutritious power that does not depend on whether it is eaten or not.” – Abraham Calov

Here are part I and part II if you missed those….

d) presenting an alternative model that takes the best of what Smith has to offer into account

1. Is there not a human community of practice?: Throughout his book, Smith’s case seems to carry a real moral weight because he is fighting so that we humbly acknowledge our creaturehood, contingency, dependency, and sociality. He even argues that a view like the one he puts forth may be necessary in order to, for example, help the church defend its Scriptures vs. charges of irrelevance and benightedness (it is the secular world, not Christians, who scorn dependence!).[i] In the process, Smith talks much about our reliance on, and the importance of, “communities of practice” – an idea that came into its own around 1991.

I think that, overall, one can acknowledge what is good and helpful with Smith’s view, while in the end taking a radically different approach – an approach that even seems to me necessary.

What I mean is that there is knowledge that is not “fully relativist” in the Rortyan (or Wittgenstein-ian or Brandon-ian) sense precisely because we are finite, dependent, contingent and social – because we are one with the “human community of practice”. None of us can separate himself from other members of the community, all who depend on God for spirit and life – for moment-by-moment sustenance – in every sense of the word (for all, “He holds everything together with His powerful word” and we all should “live by every word that comes from his mouth”).[ii]

Not only this, but one feature of this human community of practice is that much of what it does – the “game” it plays – is trans-cultural and trans-historical. After all, it seems clear that many of the things in the created world – making their presence known with their more or less intractable ways – have themselves been structuring the attention of human beings (see, for example, Crawford’s “The World Outside Your Head: On Becoming an Individual [me: “Gasp!”] in an Age of Distraction”) since humanity’s first breath. Rorty says that “hermeneutics is the refusal of epistemology, resisting the temptation to ‘ground’ knowledge or truth or justification in something extra-social or extra-linguistic” (93, see fn 16 also). Further, he claims that even our realisms (and attendant claims of correspondence) are dependent upon communities of practice (107). And yet, even if this were in some sense conceded, surely more can and should be said about the significance of – and consistency of – the “antics of things”… presences which impose and impress themselves upon the human community of practice.[iii]

In fact, one need not speak of “representations” in our minds here – but rather simply recognize that it at times makes good sense to insist that “nothing lies between us and the world we know” (p. 25).[iv] (an example: Matthew Crawford says, “the world is known to us because we live an act in it, and accumulate experience… we think through the body”, pp. 50-51, The World Outside Your Head: On Becoming an Individual in an Age of Distraction). In short, while rightly acknowledging the critical and primary role of social reality, does one not need to be careful about being overly anthropocentric (or worse: ethnocentric: is it helpful to insist that epistemology really only comes down to “the ethnography of a particular people”, 85) in one’s reflection here?[v] Another point: for Brandon and Smith, “we” only makes sense relative to a particular community. That said, vis a vis other animals, we recognize other human beings – those we can relate to and communicate meaning with (giving and receiving reasons) – precisely because we are humanity – the human community (we can talk to other human beings and we can sensibly talk about humanity, the thing).

Smith on Robert Brandon: “For Brandon, just by speaking I already functionally take up an ethical stance: ‘Asserting a sentence is implicitly undertaking a commitment’ (AR, 63).” (135, Smith)

It seems clear to me (and perhaps here something does lie between me and the world I know!) that this is not only a default assumption of those holding to the biblical narrative – who, let us emphasize, note a specific wider Heavenly community of practice going beyond human beings (which incidently, also gets the contingent ball rolling: as the late Oxford linguistics professor Roy Harris reminds us, communicative behavior cannot arise from non-communicative behavior) – but seems to be of many others as well. Furthermore, I submit that there is also no evidence from both historical and archaeological sources that should cause us to think otherwise (and, in all honesty, “natural history”, being without human explanation from the time, can only tell us so much). [footnote to Robert Brandon picture: [vi]]

Certainly there are very distinct communities of many kinds who utilize concepts unknown to the wider human community. Sometimes this may be because the “fuzzy concepts” that all humans depend on in practice all the time have been made more explicit, in this or that circumstance, by particular human communities (when they are able to be made more explicit!: see 54-56)[vii], but this is not all. Smith’s account suffers, in fact, because it does not reflect on the wider implications of his, I think healthy, de-Platonizing tendencies: the concepts of thunder and lightning (131), for example, could be understood (post fall!) by the trans-cultural and trans-historical community of practice while “Swatches” (148), of course, could not. In like fashion, while scientific communities, for example, may deal with highly abstract and extrapolated concepts relevant in complicated contexts (where the reality of the concepts and the wisdom of one’s commitment to them may often be readily doubted, see 93, fn 16), this kind of scientific hypothesizing can certainly be distinguished from more regular experiential knowledge – for example, the knowledge that it is raining or fire is burning.[viii]

The point I am making, of course, is that these distinct communities – with their unique concepts – lie within the larger human community of practice. Even conceding that someone like Rorty is worth taking seriously when he insists that “all our differences can [not] be resolved by finding some game-transcendent ‘common ground’ or extra-social ‘foundation’ or game-above-all-games ‘neutral language’ that would reduce all differences to agreement” (Smith, 93, italics mine), this does not preclude the significant amount of agreements we do find through common ground, and which should in fact be emphasized (while not denying the core importance of narrative in talking about the deeper meaning of the things whose presence commonly affects us).

In other words, one can accept the numerous nuances that Smith introduces that show the naivetes and overreaches of modern forms of realism without giving the impression that we should think first of communities of practice as separate human groups without real common ground.

In short, just because “all sorts of deluded people are ‘realists’” (89, see 22, fn 15), the “right community of practice” (where one can “find truth”) (93, italics mine) need not be set against assertions about “the way things are” (89) – as if these can only be “magical” (see 89, 97). For Smith, anyone making such an assertion is acting god-like. We can respond by insisting that if anyone is able to make a true assertion “on her own”, this is not something that happened apart from dependence on a community of practice (contra Rorty’s argument on p. 99). Nor is it likely that such a person – such an Elijah – is really all alone. Martin Luther, for one, found devout believers, though a minority community, who resonated with the truth he spoke and found common cause with him in the dual blessing and tragedy of the Reformation. Luther certainly desired to sing in harmony with the wider Catholic Church, but ultimately his conscience was “captive to the word of God” outside of himself.

I can indeed happily conclude this section with the following words of Smith:

“we creatures are called to depend rightly—relate rightly—to the One who is Absolute but graciously condescends to our finitude in the incarnation. In Jesus—the Absolute becomes dependent, Necessity inhabiting contingency—we learn how to be dependent. And as contingent rational creatures, we are called into rightly ordered communities of discursive practice” (180)

…but as I’ve noted above, there is much more to be said here. Smith’s helpful exposition of these pragmatists should indeed provoke us to think – but to really seek to think anew with the mind of the God-man Christ – whose views, to say the least, could never be suspected for a minute of being influenced by atheism and naturalism.

Has the “Heavenly Community of Practice” not, in fact, spoken with startling clarity?: “And as we catalogue loci communes, clear passage after clear passage on the same topic, in our minds, we overwhelm this hermeneutic of suspicion and doubt with the sheer clarity of God’s word.” – Christian Preus

2. Are not God’s bare words recorded in Scripture teaching, “doctrine”, “theology”?: And just as the antics of things and the human community of practice will not let us just get away with saying anything, the same can be said of the biblical texts.[ix] In this last section, I will start with a longer exposition of Smith’s views concerning doctrine in the Christian church.

Professor Smith makes it clear that there is, in his view, development of doctrine. On p. 164, unpacking the “postliberal” views of George Lindbeck (from his 1984 book, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age), he says that doctrines:

“are not primarily claims about God or the world; instead, they are rules that govern how we can speak about God and God’s relationship to the world on the ‘first-order’ level of prayer and proclamation. Church doctrine is a ‘guide to the fundamental interconnections within a religion’ (ND, 81). In other words, doctrines are about the inferential relationship between confessional claims and not the referential relation between our claims and the world. ‘Doctrines regulate truth claims by excluding some claims and permitting others’ (ND, 19), but they don’t manufacture the criteria for such regulation. Instead, they make explicit the norms already implicit in the biblical narrative and, in turn, Christian practice.[x]

…A grammar makes explicit the rules of discourse that were previously implicit in our linguistic ‘doings.’ So to theology and doctrine make explicit the commitments implicit in – and entailed by – our proclamation, praise, and prayer.”

And here we can see how Smith is clearly eager to put forth views largely in line with what has been called the “coherence theory of truth” (see 158, fn 16) – not the “correspondence theory of truth”. And, in line with the pragmatists he examines throughout the book, he places a priority on doing over thinking, and practice over theory (and as he has noted elsewhere, human beings are primarily lovers, not thinkers, and cultural practices, like church liturgies for example, are basically “pedagogies of desire”)[xi]. I think, in one sense, this is good, right, and salutary. As the early church said, “Lex orandi, lex credenda” (Wikipedia: “Latin loosely translated as ‘the law of praying [is] the law of believing’”).

At this point though, Smith puts forth Lindbeck’s “cognitive-linguistic model” of doctrine (see p. 160) over and against what Lindbeck calls the “cognitive-propositional model” of doctrine (the “experiential-expressive” approach is also decried), where “church doctrines function as informative propositions of truth claims about objective realities” (ND, 16). Smith notes that Lindbeck sees the cognitive-propositional model as a largely premodern approach, in fact being “the approach of traditional orthodoxies…” (see here for example). The problem is that this model has now come to be tethered to what are in fact the Enlightenment-derived referentialist, representationalist, modern realist approaches Smith and his gaggle of pragmatists criticize (see 154-158, particularly 158).

But this begs the question, and relates to my last section: just because the “cognitive-propositional model” is now, in practice, widely tethered to a representationalist epistemology, does this mean that steps cannot be taken to de-tether it? And that it is simply irrelevant in modern society and should not be salvaged? Perhaps with some creative imagination and relevant arguments, it could be re-introduced (again, see, for example, the work of the philosopher Matthew Crawford and the work of literary scholar Hans Gumbrecht, for example)?

Moving on to even weightier matters, one can see from the quote above that the practice of listening to the Word of God (for Smith: “biblical narrative”) is presumed, but I think it is important to ask a deeper question here. For example, read the following passage carefully and think about what might be its implications:

“While doctrine is ‘regulative’ rather than assertive, such an account of doctrine doesn’t preclude assertions; it just locates assertion in the lived communal confession of religious practice. Assertion is something we do; doctrines regulates our assertions by ‘conceptualizing’ them – articulating the norms implicit in them and thereby allowing us to assess those claims in the ‘space of reasons.’ So doctrines articulate the inferential logic that makes our confessions coherent. Doctrine is about our claims, not what/Who are claims are about. But such a regulative understanding of doctrine still makes room for – indeed assumes – that those ‘lived’ claims, the assertions we make in praise and prayers, are about something. These are our material commitments, Brandon would say, and doctrine is the ‘second-order’ attempt to harmonize them as a coherent whole for which we can take epistemic responsibility.” (167)

“Holy Scripture is God’s Word, written and formed in letters, just as Christ is the eternal Word of God enveloped in the human nature.” (see here) – Luther (photo: Dr. Luther debates Dr. Eck – Martin Luther Memorial in Eisleben, Germany)

And here I think: “What about the Material Commitment Incarnate, and His words from which we live? In fact: “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”? What about His “lived” claims, which we say “Amen” to? Are not such bare words “teaching”, “doctrine”, “theology” as well?[xii] If not, why not? Again, note that above I conceded the priority of practice over “theory”, doing over thinking…. That said, is not sitting at the feet of Christ like Mary and listening to words that even a child can understand (but an adult can never get to the bottom of) a practice?[xiii]

And so, for me, this begs the further question: “While Brian McClaren certainly does not share Smith’s ‘catholicizing tendencies’, what, in the end, distinguishes their views of the Word of God?” I struggle to see how anything does. While on the one hand we can talk about our knowledge being “partial, imperfect, and held from a limited point of view” should we not be more ready to talk about how it can also be sure, certain, and true – even if mystery remains and our knowledge has not been brought to its completion?

Smith rightly affirms the significance of language for life in this world: “Language is bound up with our investment in cultural projects; it is part and parcel of our culture making” (53). And yet, more often than not, his account, in line with the relativists he speaks of, is merely about how language helps us “cope” with the world – language is largely reduced to a functional tool for navigation. Likewise, knowledge and truth claims are “commodities”, the “currency” of “distinctly social practices” (85, italics his).

The Apostle Paul: “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.” (I Cor. 13). Impartial knowledge is not necessarily uncertain knowledge: mystery simply remains…..

Are not language, knowledge and truth much more than all this though? Are they not one of God’s supreme gifts of love, meant to help us communicate to one another the love of God in Christ – and to make the historical actions of God gloriously concrete, specific, and explicit in our proclamation, praise, and prayer? I think so, because all language – and even verbal and written language – is not really well-described as a tool, but more as an expression of one’s deepest, shared, humanity. As art. As love. Even as poetry and song. God gives it to us that we may not only understand one another and cope together, but to enjoy, celebrate, and share Him and the wonderful creation He has made together. “[Gloriously] social because [gloriously] dependent” (99), as Smith says.

All created reality is contingent and dependent. I have no trouble with that – I only have trouble with Smith’s sweeping efforts to minimize or even abolish “the approach of traditional orthodoxies…”– instead of using his creative mind to defend it – even if efforts to introduce nuance in light of new threats may be necessary.

FIN

 

Update: I added some words above for the purposes of clarification and for the sake of smoother transitioning.

Images: Christian Preus: http://www.kfuoam.org/files/2012/07/Christian-Preus.png

Notes:

[i] “Embracing contingency does not entail embracing ‘liberalism’: in fact, to the contrary, it is when we deny our contingency that we are thereby licensed to deny our dependence and hence assume the position where we are arbitrators of truth. We then spur our dependence on tradition and assume a stance of ‘objective’ knowledge whereby we can dismiss aspects of Scripture and Christian orthodoxy as benighted and unenlightened. In short, it is the denial of dependence that undergirds a progressive agenda. The picture of knowledge bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment is a forthright denial of our dependence, and it yields a God-like picture of human reason. It is ‘objectivity’ that is ‘liberal’.” (35)

[ii] In other words, Christian Smith’s argument that relativism fails “because there would be no way to step outside a community to check wither our categories ‘match’ an external reality” (summed up by Smith, 31) is not the argument vs. Smith I am using.

[iii] In this post, I touched on how saying all of this – that the “antics of things” are in many cases, for our purposes in this life/world, permanent – is not necessarily opposed to contingency. Here is a relevant clip: “In being sympathetic with arguments like those of Socrates [(“The gods love the holy because it is already holy, not because they regard it so”)], did Christians go badly wrong, philosophizing in such a way (“voluntarism” and the like) that the church was removed further and further from what should have been a simple message? Namely that: while we cannot say that God’s creation and its laws necessarily had to be the exact way that they are, we can – and need to say – that these things are all in line with its Creator? For example, in order to defend God in a scientific age, it seems to me that one simply need not – and in fact should not – insist that God created (or especially needed to create) “the best of all possible worlds”. Could one not posit, for example, an immature and yet pure “very good” – which, had man responded well, could have become a mature and pure “very good” (ultimately becoming better… even more desirable)?”

[iv] Let’s say that all knowledge is not only socially mediated, but a social production, as Smith says – a social “accomplishment”. Rorty says we should not want to “be merely passive mirrors [who] fail to appreciate that knowledge is a human, social accomplishment” (p. 84, see also 24, footnote 22). Questions that follow:

First, is there room in this view to experience things – at least certain things! – as those entities which impact us… impress themselves upon us via their presence, often discerned to be purposeful? (see, e.g., Gumbrecht’s The Production of Presence). Second, if we define accomplishment as “something that has been achieved successfully”, do we cheapen the work done by God to “impose” and “impress” the things around us to us, either through the creation itself or special revelation? Third, if we do see knowledge, like civilization, as an accomplishment, certainly there is some knowledge that is easier to attain to than other knowledge (i.e., learning what a family dog is, does and means vs. learning about the dog’s genealogical heritage or internal workings, for example). Fourth, what about the work of God’s grace which leads to faith in Him (note that faith is *knowledge*, assent, and trust) which, by definition, is not something that we but He achieves – and even, as regards the act of justification, achieves apart from our active efforts?

[v] This is not about “locat[ing] some ‘privileged representations’ that function as the ground or ‘foundation” for knowing” (82). What I am claiming here is that this is naturally something we assume is true. Aristotle held to a similar view – he was not a foundationalist in the modern sense of the word (see here).

[vi] More deep thoughts on ethics from the philosopher-mechanic Matthew Crawford, talking about some ethical matters in a distinctly American context:

“According to the prevailing notion, freedom manifests as “preference-satisfying behavior.” About the preferences themselves we are to maintain a principled silence, out of deference to the autonomy of the individual. They are said to express the authentic core of the self, and are for that reason unavailable for rational scrutiny. But this logic would seem to break down when our preferences are the object of massive social engineering, conducted not by government “nudgers” but by those who want to monetize our attention.

My point in that passage is that liberal/libertarian agnosticism about the human good disarms the critical faculties we need even just to see certain developments in the culture and economy. Any substantive notion of what a good life requires will be contestable. But such a contest is ruled out if we dogmatically insist that even to raise questions about the good life is to identify oneself as a would-be theocrat. To Capital, our democratic squeamishness – our egalitarian pride in being “nonjudgmental” — smells like opportunity. Commercial forces step into the void of cultural authority, where liberals and libertarians fear to tread. And so we get a massive expansion of an activity — machine gambling — that leaves people compromised and degraded, as well as broke. And by the way, Vegas is no longer controlled by the mob. It’s gone corporate.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416469/world-beyond-your-head-nr-interview

[vii] “Wittgenstein asks us to stop expecting our practice to conform to some Platonic idea and invites us instead to attend to what we actually do, how our language works. When we do so, we will find that we are more than able to manage without precise, crisp definitions. In fact, we need fuzzy concepts and depend on them in practice all the time. ‘Consider for example the proceedings that we all “games.” I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games and so on. What is common to them all?’ (66) And he immediately pushes back on our tendency to philosophical superstition – our tendency to impose Platonic expectations on our everyday experience….” (54)

[viii] More on “general knowledge” vs. “scientific knowledge” from an unpublished paper of mine on the Oxford integrationist linguist Roy Harris’s book After Epistemology:

“…is there possibly some bigger reason behind Karl Popper’s distinguishing between general and scientific knowledge, other than a desperate attempt to save himself from “his own epistemological muddle” (AE, p. 128)? Again, is this, perhaps, fundamentally about more than “linguistic connexions”? Regarding Harris’ view of Popper, is it likely that Popper would have agreed with his position being construed as metaphysical, i.e. “as soon as truth is idealized as some distant goal, a reified abstraction, located in a sempiternal vaccuum…”? (AE, p. 129) If not, I really wonder about how he might have countered Harris’ critique, and how Harris would have responded in turn. What if Popper had not equated truth with that which is “objective and absolute” (Horgan, 1996, p. 37), but had endeavored to speak in what are perhaps more measured tones (?) about “objective reality” (perhaps like the “objective truth” Harris speaks of, see AE, p. 147?)? Would this then be permissible? Was not Popper, the kind of scientifically-minded person who had a flawed, but nevertheless more humble view (relatively speaking), of what scientists were capable of, i.e. a friend of those in the humanities? If such is the case, perhaps integrationists could see him as more of an ally of sorts, despite his evidently confused view of language (or perhaps careless explanation of his views) and knowledge (i.e. abstracted from persons!)? Getting back to the “epistemological muddle” claim Harris makes, from my reading of the Popper book quoted in After Epistemology, it seems to me highly unlikely that Popper would have considered the fact that “it is raining” (Popper, 1982, p. 110) to be the kind of hypothetical or propositional knowledge (i.e. theories and “matters of the intellect”, see Popper, 1982, p. 22) that he says we can never know we are talking about (Popper, 1982, p. 27) – but rather something more akin to “knowledge in the ordinary sense”, i.e. regular experiential knowledge – a general awareness or familiarity of a fact or situation (like fire burning) – and something that we could certainly talk about with confidence (vs. Harris, in AE, p. 129). When one considers that the fact that “it is raining” is not any kind of problem to be solved by a theory (see Popper, 1982, pp. 182, 183) it seems clear to me at least that Popper was here simply concerned to draw a distinction between this regular experiential knowledge and the kind of hypothetical or scientific ideas that deal with problem solving and are necessarily built on more difficult interpretations of the world (i.e. dealing with increased levels of context, abstraction, extrapolation, etc.). Further, it seems that he, like Integrationists, emphasized the importance of practical knowledge in one’s local and temporal circumstances, i.e. pointing out that it is proper and necessary to start with the “truth” in your own backyard before trying to solve the world’s problems with ever more comprehensive (i.e. all-encompassing and all-explaining) scientific theories.”

Later in the review:

“….when Harris dismisses Hume’s defenders who speak of the “logical’ connexions between different items”, insisting that “in practice the connexions are linguistic” (AE, p. 46), this reader is greatly puzzled: are there not “natural” or “biological” connections as well? For instance, strictly speaking, even if it is true that smoke does not “mean” fire (AE, p. 123), is there not a kind of natural connection here – even if any particular person does not make this interpretation? And it seems to me that many a “common man”, for example, might point out that the connection between “male”, “female” and “offspring” seems to be a bit more than linguistic as well! After all, one does not require formal syllogisms – but only personal experience perhaps bolstered by historical knowledge – to determine that all children have a mother and a father.”

[ix] As I noted here: “while we should not think that a sincere agnostic, truly seeking to understand the Bible as a complete work, would come up with the Nicene Creed, what Mark Twain said about the Scriptures is certainly relevant here: ‘It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.’ Certainly, as we all know, there are some interpretations that certain words, whatever their context may be, will simply eliminate from the get go.”

[x] He continues: “By making things explicit, Brandon emphasizes, we (i.e., the relevant community of practice) can begin to discern inconsistencies, seek to harmonize our commitments, and, in some cases, renew and redirect our practice accordingly. Christian doctrine can be understood to play the same role: to make explicit the commitments implied in our proclamation, prayer, and praise (all of which themselves ‘live off of’ the narrative world of Scripture that is the self-communication of the Triune God). Thus doctrine articulates the norms implicit in our practice. Doctrines function as the rules of the Christian language-game.” (pp. 164-165)

[xi] As a reviewer notes, “This book therefore also needs to be seen as providing a philosophical framework for Smith’s Cultural Liturgies project, expressed in his books, Desiring the Kingdom (2009), and Imagining the Kingdom (2013) (cf.152, n3).”

[xii] There are other prominent theologians – particularly Eastern Orthodox theologians on the internet – who have touted Lindbeck-ian ideas vs. the traditional way of understanding doctrine. I have written posts challenging these views here, here, here, here, and here, for example.

[xiii] From a review of Smith’s book: “Jesus obviously considered knowing-that important because he spent much of his time teaching, and he also warned against false doctrines. A careful study of Paul’s epistles reveals constant attention to doctrine. Indeed, in most of Paul’s epistles an exposition of theological content precedes practical application. A biblical approach, I believe, requires a balance between doctrine and practice.”

 

 

Church history like a child: Lutherans don’t leave

“Why is everybody leaving us?”  

By asking this question, I am not saying that everyone is leaving the Lutheran Church for other denominations because Lutheranism is insufficient in some way.  Rather, by asking this question I am simply assuming that “the Lutheran Church” never left the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  It is others who have left.

Such a statement may strike some as naive, but as faith in God grows, one may become more firmly convinced.  One growing up in the Lutheran cradle would not be wrong for thinking such a thought.

Going along with this, I submit that the following “family tree” below does indeed give us a good picture of what is going on with Christ’s church.  Note that the line between the united church and the united confessional Lutheran church is a straight one.

http://homepages.csp.edu/tesch/Documents/ChristianChurchFamil.jpg

To read a nice essay that goes with the above picture see Pastor Martin Noland’s short summary of church history

There are a few things about the picture I would tweak (especially if I could make it 3-D!).  If you don’t think this picture accurately represents reality, go here to see other perspectives represented.

Also, I know that many Roman Catholic apologists make a lot of hay about the current divisions in Christ’s Church and how they are the answer to this.  Here, I find the following two charts very interesting, in that they show that historically, it is actually the impulse of Lutherans to unite (even doing so promiscuously and to their detriment, without discernment, when they loose touch with their confessional writings) whereas it seems it is the impulse of Baptists, for example, to fracture.

Lutherans:

Baptists:

church history tree from here: http://homepages.csp.edu/tesch/Course_links/Index.html

Lutheran family tree: http://www.thearda.com/Denoms/Families/Trees/familytree_lutheran.asp

Baptist family tree: http://www.thearda.com/Denoms/Families/Trees/familytree_baptist.asp

 

Babies in Church (part XI): “Trust in God, trust also in me” – and also these men (b)

“…those who are left in Israel; they shall do no injustice and speak no lies… none shall make them afraid.” — Zephaniah 3:13

Here are the preceding posts in this series: I, Can adults be saved? ;  II, Word or the Church? ; III, The unattractive body, IV, Miraculous, ordinary, conversational experience ; V, The arrogance of the infant (a) ; VI, The arrogance of the infant (b) ; VII, The “Church-speak” that we need ; VIII, Judge your mother, o child (the tragic necessity of the Reformation) ; IX, Divine revelation and infallible human opinion [!?] ;

X, “Trust in God, trust also in me” – and also these men (a)

Jesus said to His Apostles, “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16) – and we know we are to not doubt God’s words.  Just because some who are put into positions of authority by God get terribly “off message”, flying “off the rails” (see Matt 5 [“you have heard” and “but I tell you”], 16, 21:25, 22:29, 23:16-22 ; Mark 7:11-12 ; Luke 6:1-11 ; John 5:33-34,39), does not mean that we should think God has no interest in using formal offices – even in spite of their misuse! (see Matt 23:2) – and has not set up a very structured way of handing on testimony that can be relied on.

For in these persons – in whom God has put His trust – we find the preferred way of “verifying” the Church’s claims for ourselves.  In other words, we should, first and foremost, be talking with these persons in authority, who in fact will often be aware of objections to the historical testimony that they bring (having perhaps doubted it themselves)!   When we find ourselves confronted by factual evidence, which on the face of it at least, looks like it should throw our current understandings of our heritage into doubt… the wisdom and discernment of these persons is needed as these facts and accompanying claims are honestly weighed and dealt with.

Now, it is true that – in reaction to the claims of “Enlighten[ment]ed” man – we might be tempted to see this whole matter of God’s divine revelation as not being so grounded in “human” and “earthly” (“worldly”?) things.  Is not the reliable knowledge that we have about math, some science, and certain historical events, for example, at the very least distinct from the reliable knowledge – the divine revelation – that comes from above in the power of His Holy Spirit?  Are not such distinctions absolutely necessary in order to safeguard that which we hold precious and true?

But we must remember what it is that God has safeguarded for us to know (see Luke 1:4, see Phil. 3:1 as well).  In history, he has simply safeguarded the Apostolic deposit –which is simply knowledge – by causing His Church to write the Scriptures, and to further recognize these as His own words (there are key books we know the *entire early church* to have recognized).  Therefore, we must be careful here, for just because something that was revealed by God Himself in an unusual course of human events (for example, as He did with the disciples with His miracles, His transfiguration, His resurrection and the meaning of these) – as opposed to being the kind of knowledge that is gained during the regular course of human events – it does not make it anything different in terms of it being real knowledge that all men can, should and must know.*  For example, the resurrection, after all, would seem to be the ultimate way the true religion is “materialized”, following closely on the heels of the incarnation (again, see Acts 17:31)

No – we cannot fail to realize that faithful people go hand in hand with the evidence – in that they reliably bring forth the objective “good news” (the faithful /true/trustworthy sayings and reports!) – that which comes to us from outside of ourselves – into the present day.   They do not give the Word its power, but their presence is important and cannot be separated from the message’s proclamation: “and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (II Tim 2:2) and “just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts” (I Thes. 2:4 ; see also I Timothy 1:12, 3:11 ; Isaiah 8:2 ; I Cor. 4:2 ; II Peter 1:16 ; Proverbs 12:22, 13:17, 25:13 ; Daniel 6:4 ; Luke 16:11, 19:17 ; Titus 1:9 ; Acts 16:1).

Evidently, Jesus, for example, was at times exempt from this otherwise unavoidable reality (as He did not receive all His divine revelation from parents and teachers): “Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved” (John 5:34) – while others were to hear John the Baptist – “unauthorized” though he may have been! – as we are to hear others today (see John 5:33)

And by the grace of God, among men, those Christians who spend much time learning the Word of God and the Church’s past are the most reliable of men.**  These are the persons we look to when we know we are in desperate need of help.  We look to those who speak the truth and also “speak” the love that God gives them to share with their neighbor.  We look to men who are honest about the “little truths” of everyday life and about their own sin in particular – and, fearing the Lord, are ready and eager to be corrected when wrong.   We look to those who are honest about human nature in general (and if blessed to have such knowledge, honest about the very real helpfulness and real limits of various kinds of scientific methodologies).   We look to persons who are very aware that it is their responsibility also to humbly, patiently, and firmly correct the errors of others – and that repentance and reformation are always needed among God’s people, starting with themselves.  We treasure and pursue those who welcome “interruptions” from those in need and are eager to forgive and give persons the grace of God.  And we look to people who are willing to seriously listen to those who do not embrace them, who  try and understand what they say, and do their best to accurately represent the views of these to others.  We are drawn to those men of God who are honest about the challenges they see with God’s words and events from the past that deeply disturb them and all human beings sensitive to the value of human life.  We are especially impressed when we find people who seem to embody all of these traits.  We are attracted here because we know that the wisdom found among the godly is wisdom more profound or reliable than that of the worldly wise.  “Wisdom is justified by all her children” indeed – God is most definitely not blasphemed because of them (see also this post from Rod Dreher from yesterday, which dovetails nicely with this post. Update: and this one)

And like children, we to can recognize this character and love – this love of the Truth, truth, and each human being (see here, which I linked to in the beginning of part I).  For every one of these that falls into sin and doesn’t get up, there are many more we are confident will never surprise us and never do – because we know and knew them to be those whom we can trust (imperfect though they be – see the “Cretan’s paradox” issue dealt with here) as regards important matters current and past.  And even as some amaze us, we come to be amazed still more by others – and in turn trust them even more than the others. 

To be a Christian is in fact to trust in men more than one’s non-Christian fellows.  In trusting in those who trust the Father, we trust in the Lord indeed – and we are blessed in realizing that authority ultimately goes hand in hand with love, faithfulness, service, beauty, and all things. 

FIN

*-I note that the world is *very confused* about what knowledge is.  Among the elites, there exists an unwarranted trust in many kinds of scientific “knowledge” that are anything but.  On the other hand, their conceptions of what knowledge is are very constrained, anemic, and impersonal.  For example, they might not think that your knowledge of your family’s history is really knowledge if you can’t prove what you know to them (perhaps you even have some tangible evidence but it does not satisfy them).  Nor would they consider your knowledge that you are in a stable marital relationship with a spouse, for example, to be something that you or anyone else can rely upon to any real extent – it is not something that qualifies as knowledge.   Further, we should also point out that some knowledge is dangerous – and some things need not and simply should not be doubted.   Truly, while some knowledge can be created through doubt, much also comes through and from persons we trust, present and past – and which often is able to be backed up with good evidence and reasons (when do new methods and principles that seem to “work” trump what we know from persons and their purposes throughout time?)

**-There are those who have a lot of knowledge of the Bible, but not a living knowledge, formed by trust. In other words, having the most basic outlines of this knowledge in embryonic form is necessary but not sufficient.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aldrin_muya/3217536037

 

Babies in Church (part X): “Trust in God, trust also in me” – and also these men (a)

Reliable (and living!) content passed on to reliable men

Here are the preceding posts in this series: I, Can adults be saved? ;  II, Word or the Church? ; III, The unattractive body, IV, Miraculous, ordinary, conversational experience ; V, The arrogance of the infant (a) ; VI, The arrogance of the infant (b) ; VII, The “Church-speak” that we need ; VIII, Judge your mother, o child (the tragic necessity of the Reformation) ; IX, Divine revelation and infallible human opinion [!?]

Another conversation with Roman Catholic apologists has given birth to a new entry in this series.  I’m not sure if that conversation is over or not, as my last posting is still pending approval after 5 days… (its hard to not want to try and interpret that!)

When it comes to trusting God (not loving Him!), children are tops.  How so?  Click here if you’d like to have a clue to where I am going with this post…

Psalm 146:3 says “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.”  As Christians there is no doubt that we are to put our full trust in God.  He alone is to be the Object in which we hope. 

When we are brought to faith and sustained in that same faith, He is the One to whom we look.  Him and no other!  It is by His Holy Spirit that He calls us, enlightens us, and sanctifies us through His word and sacraments – His “means of grace”.  When we hear His word preached we recognize its truth – and the power that it has to transform not only us – but the world.  It is even, as some say, “self-authenticating” (and it doesn’t matter if Mormons, for example, say the same about their false message).  In addition, those mature in the faith readily recognize this message vis a vis imposter messages – even if an “angel of light” performs the greatest of miracles to support the errors they bring, these faithful stalwarts will not be moved! (see Deuteronomy 13! –they are only interested in the “many infallible proofs” [Acts 1:3, see also Acts 2:22,32-36, 13:34 ; I John 1 ; and I Cor. 15] Jesus did that fulfilled OT prophecies about Him and further bolstered the OT-confirming message He brought)

So we put our emphasis here – on the Word God alone brings and uses!  We put all our eggs in this basket.  Period!  This is the faith we know and proclaim, and it is good, right and salutary to talk this way – these are, we believe “God’s talking points” (aside: to see some Evangelicals beautifully emphasizing and explaining some other doctrines Luther brought to the fore, see Jono Linebaugh and Billy Graham’s grandson, Tullian Tchividjian, discussing Law and Gospel here)

That said… there is something else to be said, even if it is by no means to be made an emphasis in our formal theology.  That thing is that there is no denying that the Church *is* the means of the means of grace!  (note this interesting fact to: we are happy to accept the prophecy made about the “second Hus” as regards Luther even as, when it comes to the matter of determining Church teaching, we hold tenaciously to Luther’s words vs. ”enthusiasm” in the Smalcald Articles).  We cannot eliminate people from the equation, even if they, as the messengers, are often happy to quietly step aside and get no credit!  They are, as one RC apologist puts it “Formal Proximate Objects of Faith”.*  There might seem to be the rare exception of course – like Paul being directly encountered by the living Christ – but note that even here he was sent to Ananias for additional instruction and baptism (note as regards visions God still seems to do this today)

And it has always been so.  Many of us are “cradle Christians”, blessed with the gift of faith early on in our baptisms, nurtured with good words from our earliest days.  We were fed these Spirit-and-life words that transform and reform (see I Thes. 2:13: “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers”).  And of course many of our parents found themselves under the care of reliable men who were appointed to pass on that message – that tradition – from runner to runner.

So who am I really trusting then?  This is how I would put it:  I trust God, by the power of His Holy Spirit, through the words spoken by the Church, which is in line with the Church of the past (particularly “Apostolic Fathers”), which is in line with the Apostolic Deposit in the Scriptures, which is in line with the Old Testament prophets.  And it’s not necessary that I doubt any of these things at all – it is good, right, and salutary to rest in this trust – this trust that is confirmed in me every time I explore the past (whether by the evidence of books of the primary and secondary sort or just living flesh and blood persons I speak with “in the know”) – not necessarily out of any skepticism (anyone else see the problem with the statement “trust but verify”?), but rather out of simple curiosity and a desire to better know the heritage that belongs to me and those who surround me.

For there is a heritage.  A “flesh and blood” heritage that is not only the flesh and blood of God offered at the altar.  Yes, I also mean the “flesh and blood” of reliable eyewitnesses who were the means of the means of grace!  The trustworthy men who were unavoidably part and parcel of this whole saving action of God (even if He *can* bring persons to faith through those true words that are spoken by a lying non-Christian if He so desires).  It is not that “doubting” Thomas had no evidence for faith.  His fellow disciples who brought the testimony of the resurrection were part and parcel of that evidence – that evidence that is in turn inextricably bound up with the powerful Word the Holy Spirit speaks.  On the other hand, saying that the disciples “add to the message” would also not be accurate. 

In the book of Acts especially, God, in the power of His Holy Spirit, proclaimed the resurrection as proof to all men through reliable and trustworthy eyewitnesses – and both the fact and the meaning of this event are objectively “good news” and truth for all persons – whether they are accepted as this or not.  Indeed, the disciples had this knowledge – perhaps something akin to what certain philosophers (of the analytic type) call “justified/warranted true belief” – what they said said is true knowledge whether one uses historical methodologies to verify it or not!  Just because a person may not have inquired further, learning more about these eyewitnesses, their mission, and their claims does not make what they said anything less than reliable knowledge that God means for all persons to have via His reliable messengers! 

The same holds for today – just because a person may not spend serious time listening to and speaking with those who have carried that testimony into the future does not make it anything less then reliable knowledge that God means for all persons to have via His reliable messengers!

I am speaking about the succession of the Apostolic message, carried forward primarily, although not exclusively, by the continuing Apostolic ministry. 

Part (b) coming tomorrow

*-Just one example:  Exodus 15:31 says, “And when the Israelites saw the great power the Lord displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant.”

http://www.flickr.com/photos/53370644@N06/4976497160/sizes/m/in/photostream/

 

Round 3 with RC apologist Dave Armstrong: A few good Pharisees

http://bibleencyclopedia.com/goodsalt/John_3_Jesus_and_Nicodemus.htm

Round 3: A few good Pharisees

(My second response to RC apologist Dave Armstrong is found here, and his counter responses can be found here and here)

“You must listen to those who are seated upon the throne, for by sitting upon the throne they are teaching the Law of God.  Therefore, God teaches through them.   But if they are teaching their own things, do not listen, do not do.”

–Augustine, On John, tractate 46

In the same way, in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, these same two states may be observed.  One is of emptying or humiliation, when the force of persecutions, the cleverness of heretics, or the large number of growing scandals oppress the church.  The other is of exaltation or glorification, when the church enjoys the peaceful administration of its holy things, when it shines with the splendor of an uncorrupted ministry, when it gleams publicly with the quiet exercise of pure divine worship.  In this state the church is visible, manifest, and glorious; in the other it is invisible, hidden, and shameful.

–Johann Gerhard, On the Church, 146.

Prolegomenon (declaration and public email exchange with Dave Armstrong)

First of all, I think it would be good for me to be upfront about this: there is nothing that I find more compelling – or am more confident of – than that the Lutheran faith is the Christian faith, which is the only true faith.  Even if the Pope is who he says he is by Divine Rite, he would need to be disobeyed if he taught falsely (see #38 here).  To deny this would be to deny life itself.

That is what I have been re-affirmed of in the course of my conversation with Dave Armstrong.  Being in conversation with Dave (a great blessing) has only strengthened my convictions.

I hope my reasons for saying this will become more clear as persons read on, assuming I have not just caused them to stop reading!

I thought long and hard about the wisdom of making such a bold pronouncement to open “round 3”.   I know many might think that I can’t possibly be open to hearing from, and considering the views of, anyone who says otherwise (I hope that Dave would not be among those).  That would not be true though.  There are always things we can learn – and I don’t deny that I never have doubts (doubts that perhaps, based on this or that evidence, seem at times to me legitimate….hence my obsession with the papacy…)

But let us go to the Scriptures, that most pure font of God’s word, which are written to dispel such doubts, and were written to encourage us and give us hope…

First though, here is the exchange Dave and I had over my last response.  I consider both his and my words to be important to understanding what is happening in this debate.

Dave,

Regarding my latest response to you, here’s what you said to me in a couple emails and then posted on your blog:

Before you read it:

If it’s all over the ballpark, I will be forced (by time-management considerations) to give short answers (mostly will link to other papers); otherwise it becomes War and Peace II. My main concern (far more than a preference for line-by-line organization) is that we narrow down the subject matter.

We can’t argue everything at once.  No one can do so, no matter how good a debater they are or what their position is. I will respond for sure, but like I said, if the subject matter is too broad or scattered, it won’t be a very extensive reply.

And after you read it you said:

I think I see or conceive better now (having heavily skimmed your reply) how and why we clash methodologically (which is a separate issue from a theological clash). You seem to approach things from what I would call a (holistic) “dogmatic / philosophical” viewpoint, stressing entire worldview and what you think is superior Lutheran coherence, whereas my apologetics is more particular, concentrating on facts and individual issues: either utilizing Scripture (usually systematically or topically) or patristics (dealing with narrowed-down topics or one father and his views), with special emphasis on history and development of doctrine (tying into Catholic tradition).

The only way I could adequately respond to your piece from within your own paradigm would be to unleash extraordinary amounts of energy and spend, say, six-eight weeks on it, and I have neither the energy nor desire to do all that (with other projects in the works), and don’t think it would accomplish much of anything, even if I did. I can write entire books, even two books, in that span of time.

When there are major worldview differences, they have to be dealt with, in my opinion, with “little chunks” at a time.

I think what your presentation does is at least offer some reply to a Catholic apologetic (i.e., mine), which is good for Lutheran readers. It gives them confidence that their view is (according to you) coherent and consistent and able to be believed. I don’t think it would convince many Catholics to become Lutheran (nor would a long, exhaustive reply from me cause many or any Lutherans to become Catholic). It’s “preaching to the choir”, which is what dogmatic (or more catechetical) material does: embolden and exhort those who already hold to it.

As you would guess, I’m not too big on preaching to the choir, either. My task as an apologist, as I see it, and according to my particular style, is to compare Catholicism with non-Catholic views x, y, z, etc., and to show how Catholicism is more believable on matters a, b, c, d, e, etc. It’s particularistic. I believe that if enough doubt is cast on enough different things, then a person starts to experience cognitive dissonance and eventually leans to and then adopts Catholicism, from the accumulation of evidences in its favor. I’ve observed many hundreds (some as a direct result of my work) indeed do that.

I can’t do that from within your method, because everything is undertaken on this grand, holistic scale. I can’t re-invent the wheel or lay the foundations of a skyscraper with every reply I make to something you write.

All I can do (given all this) is pick and choose (just as you are already doing with my material) and cast doubt on small particulars of your huge skyscraper that you have constructed: showing how this foundation has cracks, how that beam will break, or that the windows are drafty and unreliable, the plumbing is bad, etc.

I think this is why it seems frustrating and exasperating to me, to deal with all your arguments. It has little to do with content (I could give some sort of answer to everything you write, if I were motivated enough to do so); it’s almost all about methodology and organization: how things are approached and one’s goals.

Anyway, hopefully this will help you understand the position I am coming from on this stuff. Issues of this sort come up frequently during debates. People have different ideas of how to go about it. Minds work differently. Theological systems differ. I suppose that is why it is usually helpful to have a lot of limitations on numbers of words and on topic, as in formal debates. It does keep things in check to a large extent. (bold portions originally italicized)

In reply, here’s what I said to you by email (I have now added italics to parts I consider really important):

Dave,

I know we are both praying the Holy Spirit would use our words to convict the other person.  This is certainly my prayer.  And it is my prayer that simple followers of Christ who know His word – no matter who they identify with externally – would find truth in my words.  That may mean I need to work on popularizing my arguments (but somehow without losing nuance… [and] misrepresenting persons).

Let me briefly say this: like so many things in life, it really comes down to how someone frames the question/problem.  And ultimately, we want to be in line with Christ’s concerns about how this should be done, thinking God’s thoughts after Him.  And I submit that He is not indifferent to “methodology”, which is hardly a neutral topic! (yes, there is some latitude here, but not full latitude!)

It seems to me my approach is all about content, just as yours is.  Just different content from yours…. (note that there are very few, if any, facts that I do not take account of and offer an explanation for).

Certainly, we all have a worldview, and this impacts what we see as important, and what we pay attention to.

That’s not to say that there is not Truth, or that it is not discoverable.  It is indeed!  And there are all kinds of facts that you and I can agree on.

It seems to me that God often uses little truths (facts) to influence our view of Truth (big t) – showing the cracks [in our worldview] so to speak, as you say.  I agree: “‘little chunks’ at a time.”

My “holistic approach” might be just that, but I submit that we all have these, although we are simply more or less aware of it, and some “mental maps” are more and less developed.  I simply I think my view is more compatible with the available data (and better explains it) than your system (which I must say, is quite all-encompassing and holistic as well!)  The “crack” that I initially focus on is your view of Matthew 23:2,3… as I see it, it all unravels from there…

And if I’m wrong, my apologetic is not good for Lutheran readers or any readers.  They need the truth, for only this will set them free.  Therefore, be vigorous in finding and exposing the cracks Dave – and feel free to “reframe” anyway you like to do it.

Of course, I will probably object here and there that you are not really accurately representing me if you do that.  But that’s unavoidable, I think.  Hopefully, I just won’t feel like that too much.  : )“

(end of email)

Round 3a

Dave, let us first deal with the issues surrounding Matthew 23:2-3, which you cover in this post, “Reply to Lutheran [Infanttheology]: Exegetical Exposition on Whether the “Leaven” of the Pharisees is Hypocrisy or Doctrinal Falsehood” (linked to above)

a)      Christ certainly encounters hypocrisy (and pride, I now add) – but he does not only do this

b)      Even in Matthew 23 he confronts the Pharisees for their false teaching (verses 16-22)

c)      When Jesus says “call no man father” you do not apply this in a wooden, literalistic, and all-encompassing fashion (nor do I, by the way) – why do you do so here, with Matthew 23:2,3 as if context is unimportant?

d)      Jesus confronts the Pharisees over their false teaching… (Mark 7, corban, etc.)

e)      They oppose Jesus himself (John 5:39), and hence the Creeds of the Church.

And I now do so again.  I honestly do not see how any of this can be denied.  Can we still have a conversation if I keep bringing these things up?  : )  I certainly desire to do so, for you are a very friendly adversity who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect.  For this I praise God.

Details:

“It is obviously hypocrisy, again, which is in Paul’s mind, not false teaching per se. The teaching is false, only insofar as the application by bad example is false. The know what is right, but don’t do it. They teach the right thing, but don’t observe it themselves: just like Matthew 23 and the Peter-Paul incident about Jewish-Gentile Christian relations. Paul calls himself (referring to his present Christian state) a Pharisee twice, as I noted in past installments; therefore, neither for Jesus nor Paul, are the Pharisees a completely corrupt entity.” (bold word originally italicized)

Of course the Pharisees and those associated with them aren’t completely corrupt – one thinks of good men like Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramathea for example.  I never did claim this.  And of course Jesus condemns the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, scribes and teachers of the Law (as does Paul in Romans 2, as you point out).  But this is hardly all that is going on here, for these men do not recognize and support the person and teachings of the Author of Scripture itself.  Here they teach falsely in their behavior because they teach falsely (at least to themselves – for they dare not do so to the people, for fear of them) about the Son.  It seems clear to me that this is most likely due to the fact that even though they quite literally sit in Moses’ seat and read the Scriptures to the people week by week in the synagogues, they, like the Saducees, do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.   One thinks about the Sermon on the Mt, where Jesus repeatedly says “ you have heard” and “but I tell you”…. and Jesus does not claim to be bringing new teachings, but to be clearly unveiling what was there all along for those with eyes to see.

John 5:39 disavows us of any notion that the Pharisees, generally speaking, understood the Scriptures either.  Again, to say this does not mean that there were no good Pharisees, or that one could not possibly be a good Pharisee.  Not all Pharisees per se are being condemned, only those who taught falsely: good Pharisees would be those like Nicodemus, who eventually saw that Jesus taught the truth.   This is why Paul also can, without any dishonesty, say in Acts 23:6 that he is a Pharisee.  So, Jesus’ words of condemnation would not hit such Pharisees.  Just because the office of Pharisee was not established by Divine Rite (as it is not present in the Old Testament) does not mean that it was a legitimately established authoritative office in the Church.   Further, there is nothing wrong with their belief in oral tradition per se, just their oral traditions that conflicted with, and mitigated the messages found in the Oracles of God.

Therefore, Dave, when you say “they teach the right thing”, all I can think about are questions like these:   “What about corban?  What about the traditions of men?  What about their telling the persons to swear falsely about the temple and the alter? (Matthew 23)   What about not supporting John?  What about condemning Jesus?”

Honesty Dave – I don’t think this is just my Lutheran spectacles (by which I admittedly view the world) talking.

What would Socrates do?  : )

You go on:

“Nathan states, “he even points out some false teaching in Matthew 23.” I looked through it and I don’t see false doctrinal teaching per se. I see numerous examples of hypocrisy and spiritual pride and lack of foresight.”

Verses 16-22.  They were saying false things, and Jesus rebukes them for it.  We would agree that they knew that what they were doing was wrong, but on the other hand we would say that persons always know, in some sense, that they are doing wrong when they do it.

You go on:

“The clincher for my interpretation, I believe, is another passage where Jesus Himself defines what He means by leaven. This is good ol’ Protestant (and Augustinian and Catholic) hermeneutical principles: interpret the less clear portions of Scripture by the ones that are more plain and clear. If Jesus tells us what He means by using the metaphor of leaven, then we can know for sure! He does this in Luke 12, which follows the latter half of Luke 11: the parallel passage to Matthew 23 (excoriations of Pharisaical hypocrisy). Right after that, He states:

Luke 12:1-3 In the meantime, when so many thousands of the multitude had gathered together that they trod upon one another, he began to say to his disciples first, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. [2] Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. [3] Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. 

So there we have it: precisely as I have been contending all along. This is fascinating, since Nathan seems to think that his interpretation of Matthew 23 and Pharisaical corruption as false doctrine rather than hypocrisy, is some sort of silver bullet and a big plus for his battle for the superiority of Lutheranism and against the indefectibility of the traditional Catholic Church. But it is not, because he has eisegeted the Scripture rather than taking it at face value and according to its own definitions and proper cross-referencing. This is classic erroneous Protestant exegesis and false application of isolated prooftexts, according to man-made tradition.”(bolded parts originally italicized, underlined part originally bolded)

Dave, I do not disagree that Jesus defines “leaven” as hypocrisy. But as you go on to show, there is more to the story.

You go on:

The best contrary argument, I think, comes from a seemingly straightforward interpretation of another passage in Matthew:

“Matthew 16:11-12 How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad’ducees.” [12] Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sad’ducees. 

“Teaching” here is didache, also often translated as “doctrine.” So how do we interpret this, over against Matthew 23:3: “practice and observe whatever they [the Pharisees] tell you,” and Luke 12:1, where our Lord defines “leaven” as hypocrisy? I think we harmonize them by understanding that the notion of “teaching” can have a wider application, beyond content alone: incorporating example and overall living of a life according to one’s own outlook or belief-system. The Pharisees were teaching by their actions and hypocrisy as well as their doctrines. Jesus repudiated their hypocrisy but not their upholding of the Law.”

Dave, I don’t understand this – you say that the notion of “teaching” can have a wider application beyond content alone.  I wholeheartedly agree with this, but does not your definition here exclude content entirely? (in other words: you are not really talking about a “wider application”, but an application that is missing a crucial part).  Again, I am not denying that Jesus said that the leaven of the Pharisees includes hypocrisy.  You, on the other hand, are denying that the leaven of the Pharisees includes what they teach, at least insofar as we are talking about the content of their teachings (in Matthew 16 this is specifically in the context of the Pharisees “teaching” that it is OK to demand a sign).  For you, it all comes down to hypocrisy –they do not embody their teachings.  But that is not what Jesus is getting at here.  Because they did not understand it, they clearly did not uphold the Law – either in their actions, or in what they taught.

Put another way: In order for me to say this, I don’t need to deny that there is a connection between doctrinal teaching and behavior, or that we in fact do teach by our behavior as we embody teachings which others imitate.  Of course right teaching and right behavior are to go hand in hand, and we do teach people by our ways.  As you say, it has a wider application.

So when you quote Paul saying:

“1 Corinthians 4:15-17 For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. [16] I urge you, then, be imitators of me. [17] Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church. “

How can I not pounce on this and point out to you that Jesus said to “call no man father”?  Why is Paul encouraging this kind of behavior?  But here you will say “context” good man.  And this is just what Gerhard and I have been saying as well.

Let’s look at my original list again in more detail (and with even more data points now):

a)      Christ certainly encounters hypocrisy (and pride, I now add) – but he does not only do this

-covered sufficiently above.

b)      Even in Matthew 23 he confronts the Pharisees for their false teaching (verses 16-22)

-would your argument here be that when Jesus confronts the Pharisees about their teaching to swear falsely about the temple and the alter that they did not say this directly to the people?

c)      When Jesus says “call no man father” you do not apply this in a wooden, literalistic, and all-encompassing fashion (nor do I, by the way) – why do you do so here, insisting that context is unimportant?

-dealt with sufficiently above.

d)      When Jesus confronts the Pharisees over their false teaching… (Mark 7, corban, etc.)

-it is not just that the Pharisees majored in the minors (“you neglect the weightier matters of the law… You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former….”), it is that “their teachings are merely human rules” (Mark 7:7).  They are hypocrites in part (Mark 7:6) because they claim to speak God’s words to the people, but speak their own instead:  “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’^[e] But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)—  then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother.  Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” (Mark 7:10-13)

e)      Vs. Jesus himself (John 5:39)

-covered sufficiently above.

I now also mention the additional points:

f)       vs. John the Baptist

-again, they did not acknowledge his teachings as being from God… they did not participate in the repentance John called them to…  like many of the common people did, who recognized the authority that Jesus, for example (and undoubtedly, John), had – in spite of their not sitting in Moses’ seat, and having formal authorization by the Church.  Romans 4:6-8 comes to mind: “it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.”

g)      Did not Jesus and his disciples disobey the head authorities in the Church?

-just curious to know at what point RC teaching thinks that this was permissible.  Keep in mind that Jesus Himself disobeyed the Pharisees man-made additions to the Sabbath commandments, and encouraged his disciples to ignore their commands about washing hands – all before His death and resurrection.

h)      When did the average Jew listen to the Pharisees?

-Andrew M. on my blog says the following: “Note that the average Jew listening to Jesus interacted with the Pharisees very little. When they did they were listening to them read from the Scriptures for it is here that the Pharisees quite literally sat in the seat of Moses. But were the Pharisees always sitting the seat of Moses when they spoke?”  Again, note that Jesus repeatedly says “you have heard” and “but I tell you”…. in the Sermon on the Mount (not bringing new teachings) and “John 5:39 disavows us of any notion that the Pharisees, generally speaking, understood the Scriptures.”  They were like the Sadducees, who did not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

i)        Matthew 16

-covered sufficiently above, in response to your interpretation of that passage.

Dave, near the end of your post you say:

“This is how I harmonize all of the biblical data, as to whether Jesus condemned the doctrine of the Pharisees, or rather (as in my interpretation above), only their “teaching” insofar as it is presented to the world hypocritically, as an entire package. Otherwise, if the entire pharisaical system of doctrine is condemned, Matthew 23:3 seems contradictory to Matthew 16:12, and Paul calling himself a Pharisee, etc. Jesus puts it all together in the Sermon on the Mount. He is not rejecting the continuance of the Mosaic Law in some real, tangible sense, but rather, coupling righteousness and a deeper, more spiritually profound outlook with it…” (bold mine)

Although you claim otherwise, I still can’t escape the sense that it is I, and not you, who has harmonized all of the biblical data.  Again, I am not saying that Jesus condemned the entire pharisaical doctrine, because clearly he did not.  And again, there were good men among the Pharisees such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramathia.  And finally, I agree *totally* with your last sentence about what Jesus was doing with the Mosaic Law.

Dave, I am sorry, but I do not get the sense that you are  arguing with me…

“…[Nathan] can’t just pick out of Scripture what agrees with his previously held dogmatic Lutheranism and polemics against Catholicism (making us analogous to the Pharisees, as is almost always done) and ignore what doesn’t fit. That won’t do. In any event, using a few passages while ignoring others will not provide a pretext for the ignoring of the binding authority of the Church (when an individual — like Luther himself — sees fit to do so), let alone as an undermining of the indefectibility of the Church, according to the worldview that Lutherans and other Protestants must adopt in order to justify their own continuing existence.”

I don’t think that I have just picked what agrees with me – I think that is precisely what you have done, as I have demonstrated above.   I am not sure just what you think I am ignoring that does not fit my viewpoint.  Further, as I demonstrated in my paper, the Confessional Lutheran view is that the Church certainly is indefectible.  Not only this, we also do really believe in authority, and always respecting the person who holds an office, even if they teach falsely, whether in word or deed (i.e. hypocrisy).  Part of this respect for authority would be having the courage to help them when they are in error, when they stray in their agreement with what those saints of old proclaimed.

Finally, I will quote your ending in full:

“Nathan can’t demonstrate his Lutheran notion of a fallible Church that can be disobeyed by the atomistic individual with Bible in hand, from the Bible itself. I challenged him to do this in one of the comments under our first exchange:

The Bible has no room for your notion of the Church, either. I challenge you to find me a passage anywhere in Scripture that tells us that the Christian Church ever “officially” teaches error. It is always stated that the “truth” or “word of God” (beyond Scripture alone), the “message” or “doctrine” or “the faith” or “tradition” is absolutely true (hence infallible). 

Paul always assumes his teaching is absolutely infallible and without error. The Church is called “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). I wrote an entire paper on that passage, showing that the only logical interpretation is infallibility. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) speaks in quite certain terms, and Paul goes out and informs his hearers of the decisions of the council, for obedience and observance (Acts 16:4). Infallibility, therefore, is all over Scripture, whereas Luther’s invention of sola Scriptura is not at all.

If the Church was allowed by God to teach error, we would be in rough shape. But the Church is indefectible, according to Scripture, and contra Luther.”

Again, we agree that the Church is indefectible (as well as visible), as I have shown.  I think really, when it comes down to brass tacks, we may just be arguing about whether size and conspicuousness is an essential mark (something even Roman Catholic theologians have denied) – although I won’t say that for sure.  In any case, if you so desire, I wish to continue the debate.  What Bible passages would you call upon to show that the Church will never “officially teach error”, as opposed to unofficially?  And do think that the Bible itself can provide us with some guidance regarding the term “officially”?

Until, I hear more, I can only conclude that this post is where I must cast my lot (and this one to, insofar as Luther specifically is concerned).

Here I stand (spoken without presumption, I pray).

Round 3b

In response to Dave’s second post, I will this time address him line-by-line, which is Dave’s preferred method of doing things.  My comments, from before and now, will be in italics (the new ones are prefaced with “Nathan b”)

Nathan is a friendly Lutheran theological adversary. We previously engaged in the following exchanges:

Brief Exchange With Lutheran [Infanttheology] on Luther’s Revolt and Fundamental Differences of Perspective Regarding the So-Called Protestant “Reformation”

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part One: Introductory

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part Two: Church Fathers + Sola Scriptura

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part Three: Soteriology and Miscellany

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part Four: Rule of Faith, the Fathers, and Ecclesiology

Reply to Lutheran [Infanttheology]: Exegetical Exposition on Whether the “Leaven” of the Pharisees is Hypocrisy or Doctrinal Falsehood
[Infanttheology]’s latest reply — one portion of which I am now responding to –, is entitled, Round 2 with RC apologist Dave Armstrong: the unattractive body of Christ. His words will be in blue. I will be changing what I regard as excessive bolding in Nathan’s replies (harsh on the eyes) to italics.

* * * * *

Nathan b:  First of all, I vigorously defend my use of “excessive bolding”, as Dave so uncharitably puts it! (just kidding Dave : ) )  Seriously, I do so primarily because I am writing a lot, and I think reading the bold will help people to at least get the main thrust of the responses as a whole.

____________________

. . . I drew the conclusion that persons can hold a legitimate, authoritative office in the Church by God’s will and yet teach falsely.

Yes, they certainly can. A bishop can teach wrong things; even be a heretic. There were hundreds of Arian and Monophysite bishops. A council can teach wrongly: the Robber Council of 449 is an example. Even, in our view, popes can both teach heresy and personally be heretics. We only think that if he attempts to proclaim a heresy as binding on the faithful, that God would prevent it. He is infallible under certain carefully defined circumstances. The ecumenical council is infallible if it proclaims, in legion with the pope, some teaching as binding and obligatory.

The problem with your view is that it proves too much: it takes out biblical requirements of indefectibility and the universal casual assumption in the New Testament that there is one doctrinal truth and one faith: not competing sectarian visions. The two aspects have to be balanced. We believe that our position on it incorporates all the relevant realities: human frailty and fallibility (which needs no proof!), and the other non-optional consideration of divine infallibility and guidance of the Church through God the Holy Spirit (John 14-16).

You say you believe in the indefectibility of the Church, too, but I retort that in order to do so, you have to change the definition of Church as always historically understood in apostolic and patristic and medieval Catholic Christianity. Thus, you have difficulties in ecclesiology. Protestantism is always, always, internally incoherent and self-contradictory in the final analysis. There is no way out of it. You have to either forsake history or logic or consistent biblical exegesis at some point in order to hold any form of Protestantism.

I hate to put it in such crass terms, but that is what I sincerely believe, with all due respect to my brothers and sisters, whom I highly respect and esteem on an individual level, and to you (whose apologetic and analytical abilities I do respect). Lutheranism has, I think, less internal difficulties than any other Protestant view, save Anglo-Catholicism, but there are still severe difficulties, unable to be resolved. We’ll get to those, the longer we interact. I’ve already debated many of them with other Lutherans.

Nathan b: Dave, you say, “We only think that if he attempts to proclaim a heresy as binding on the faithful, that God would prevent it. He is infallible under certain carefully defined circumstances. The ecumenical council is infallible if it proclaims, in legion with the pope, some teaching as binding and obligatory” and I would simply point out that this seems ridiculously arbitrary.  I suppose this doctrine – which I assume is infallible – developed as well, but what kind of precedent is there for conditions as arbitrary as this in either the Scriptures or Church history – even recent RC Church history (that is, before the late 19^th c.)?  As I said here, “I think intellectual honesty requires us to admit that some Popes of the 15th and early 16th century who put forth authoritative documents would surely take exception to the idea that their pronouncements were not solemn, ex cathedra exercises. When this doctrine was formally defined in the late 19th century, it was not a new doctrine, but was one (namely, the Pope’s voice is more or less God’s when he says it is) that had had some currency for a while”, and I think that is rather obvious, is it not?).  It seems to me therefore, that it is not my view that proves too much, but yours. 

You say that my view excludes “biblical requirements of indefectibility and the universal casual assumption in the New Testament that there is one doctrinal truth and one faith: not competing sectarian visions”, but I have hardly asserted this.  Again, we believe firmly in indefectibility, and the Confessional Lutheran Churches in communion with us – which are a small and relatively unimpressive visible Church – definitely have this.  There is only one doctrinal truth (one Lord, one faith, one baptism) and we have it.  As far as competing sectarian visions, I will make no definite assertions whether this or that groups are in fact truly Church (even as I will point out their errors), but will also not be shy about recognizing many of them to be hopelessly beyond the pale (without any doubt, “a bridge too far”).  No, I will only speak for what I know (and many Lutherans would take a similar view): I know the truth is here.  

Further, I deny that I “ have to change the definition of Church as always historically understood in apostolic and patristic and medieval Catholic Christianity.” As I pointed out in my last response to you, there are many definitions of the Church from all times that are in accord with our understanding of who the Church is.  How can you be so confident that *continuous and unbroken* Apostolic Succession is of the absolute essence of the Church – and that a failure to see this automatically should exclude one from the true fellowship?  Again, although we assert that the true Apostolic Succession is succession of right teaching, I do not believe in any case that you can prove that we have a “broken line”.  To my knowledge, it is true that we did not have an “official bishop” recognize the call of the Lutheran pastors, but given that pastors are necessary for God’s Church, if an “official bishop” will not ordain *faithful* (yes indeed) ministers, than a regular presbyter will have to fill the bill.  And why not?  After all (again), why are there multiple bishops in one city? (Phil. 1:1)  Why not only this, but why are they also called presbyters? (Acts 20:17-28, Titus: 1:5-7)  Why do presbyters ordain? (I Tim. 4:14), etc., etc.  Again, what do the Scriptures seem to imply is the genuine Apostolic tradition here?  Who has departed from this, insofar as they insist on things they ought not be insisting on?

________________

There is no hostility here! Just a desire for the truth . . . 

Whatever I said to elicit this reply from you, it was (I know for sure) referring to hostile premises or opposing ideas, not personal hostility. There is (quite refreshingly) none of that from you, and none from my end, either: just a great theological conversation: a thing that ought to be possible for any and all Christians to do, but alas, it is sadly rare.

Nathan b: Yes.  Thank God we’re not like other men, huh? : )

________________

 (is what I said above regarding Jesus’ seemingly contradictory stance towards the Pharisees as teachers of truth not interesting, and worthy of more thorough reflection?) . . . I simply wanted him to acknowledge “Jesus’ seemingly contradictory stance towards the Pharisees as teachers of the truth” (which yes, could have implications depending on how one views God working in the Church). . . . If he does not find the following response to his objections convincing at all, I would, first of all, like him to tell me why it has nothing to do with his failure to thoughtfully and carefully deal with (and produce an adequate explanation of) these simple and clear Biblical facts.  Because, you see, I think these facts of Scripture are lynch-pins to the whole of the case I have against him and the particular church of which he is a part.

It was quite worthy of response, which is why I devoted my last reply to it, with lots of substance for you to grapple with. I was delighted at the opportunity to strengthen the Catholic case on a key issue (as you say). I have proposed a way to resolve the seeming contradiction (that I don’t — like you — believe is really there). Now, your task is to propose a better solution, taking into account the relevant passages that I brought to bear. I found the entire topic a fascinating one to ponder. I think my explanation was quite thoughtful and careful and adequate. Now I hope you will grant me the same courtesy and not pass over my counter-argument. Then this dialogue can get very interesting indeed, and constructive, too.

Nathan b: I hope you are pleased with my response above.  As you can tell from what I wrote, I do not think that your explanation was adequate – I think it is very clear that there are some real difficulties there.

________________

OK, here’s my recap of the things he is talking about.  He says Irenaeus was a Roman Catholic because he believed in “episcopacy, apostolic succession, apostles’ choosing of bishops to succeed them, Roman primacy, the papacy”, etc.  I don’t deny that Irenaeus believed these things, but essentially ask “can any of this be proven from the Scriptures?” (it seems to me that they certainly cannot).

It seems to me that they certainly can be so proven or strongly indicated at the very least (excepting Roman primacy, which is a post-biblical development, but clearly apostolic, starting right with St. Clement of Rome). I give much biblical argumentation for all the other elements on my Church and Papacy web pages. Apostolic succession is very straightforward, as seen particularly in the replacement of Judas with Matthias. Judas is even called a bishop! So it’s all right there: an apostle being replaced, and bishops as successors to the apostles.

What St. Irenaeus believed (agree or disagree with him), on the other hand, is a matter of historical record. I backed up my contentions about his beliefs from Protestant historians. It’s not rocket science. He was a thoroughgoing Catholic, and believed exactly what we would expect, in a Catholic outlook, at that point of time and development in the history of Church doctrine: not some kind of proto-Lutheran. What Protestants try to do is special plead and make out that the fathers were closer to their beliefs than ours, and it just isn’t the case. It’s a losing battle; a hopeless cause; fails miserably every time: even with good ol’ St. Augustine: every Protestant’s favorite Church father (who believed, e.g., in all seven Catholic sacraments). You can’t make a square peg fit into a round hole.

Nathan b: I agree with you that Apostolic succession is very straightforward.  One of the twelve Apostles was definitely replaced (though Paul messes things up a bit!), but of course, the original twelve (as a number) did not continue being replaced… again, bishops and pastors, according to the Bible, are the same thing, per Jerome.  We have no trouble recognizing bishops by human rite, and could even be in full communion with such a Church (and in fact are, I believe). 

Regarding what St. Irenaeus believed (agree or disagree with him), it is indeed a matter of the historical record as I said in my last reply.  You pass over the crucial element here however, which is that Irenaeus believed that the whole of the Apostolic doctrine was in agreement with the Scriptures (and his writings obviously imply one can check to see whether there is explicit or implicit agreement), which, it seems was not the view of the papacy or any other influential RC theologian in the 1520s.  When I read Irenaeus I see a brother and recognize someone that I could be in full communion with – this is not the case when I read those of Rome.  Obviously, Irenaeus would need to return the favor, but if my confidence that he would is misplaced, I know that I would be more willing to listen to such a man than those who occupied the curia in Luther’s day.  “A different spirit” indeed. 

________________

Further, I ask this because the Roman Catholic Church says that if these things aren’t believed, my particular church (LC-MS) is placing itself outside of the Church and salvation, which to me seems to me quite radical.

This is far more complex than you make out. We believe that Protestants are part of the Church in an imperfect manner, and that they can indeed be saved, since they have the true sacrament of baptism and believe many things in common with us. This was highly stressed at Vatican II and many ecumenical papal encyclicals and other papal statements since. If one knows for sure that the Catholic Church is the one true Church in its fullness: unique and set up by God, and rejects it, then we’d say they cannot be saved. God meets people where they are at. People who have never even heard of Jesus or the gospel can possibly be saved (Romans 2). We say that Protestants are simply wrong with regard to all these things you mention, which are strongly supported in the Bible itself, except for Roman primacy, which is secondary to the papacy, anyway, which is indicated by St. Peter’s leadership and many things said about him in the Bible.

What is “radical” are many statements about the Catholic Church made in the Book of Concord (following Luther’s anti-Catholic nonsense and hogwash), such as that we are the seat of antichrist, that we worship Baal in the Mass, and are rank idolaters and semi-Pelagians, etc. There are a host of falsehoods there. Example:

Apology of the Augsburg Confession [1531], Article XXIV: The Mass

Carnal men cannot stand it when only the sacrifice of Christ is honored as a propitiation. For they do not understand the righteousness of faith but give equal honor to other sacrifices and services. A false idea clung to the wicked priests in Judah, and in Israel the worship of Baal continued; yet the church of God was there, condemning wicked services. So in the papal realm the worship of Baal clings — namely, the abuse of the Mass . . . And it seems that this worship of Baal will endure together with the papal realm until Christ comes to judge and by the glory of his coming destroys the kingdom of Antichrist. Meanwhile all those who truly believe the Gospel should reject those wicked services invented against God’s command to obscure the glory of Christ and the righteousness of faith.

(The Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore Tappert, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House / Muhlenberg Press, 1959, p. 268)

Nathan b: Dave, you say that “If one knows for sure that the Catholic Church is the one true Church in its fullness: unique and set up by God, and rejects it, then we’d say they cannot be saved”, but from my perspective, Vatican II is simply adopting the Lutheran position regarding those outside the true visible Church (i.e. they can be saved) without the Lutheran content.  Lutherans say that all who trust in Jesus Christ for forgiveness, life, and salvation will be saved – people simply must cling to the mercy of God apart from anything that they have done in the body, good or bad.  On the other hand, granted that Rome means what you say they do, they also continue to uphold Trent, which says, for instance: “If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake… let him be anathema.”  So I am clearly anathematized as well, and any assurances you might give me will be continuously be mitigated by words like these, which, frankly, I consider poisonous and antichristian. In any case, whatever it is for Rome that allows someone – or some “church” – who is outside of their fellowship to somehow be connected with her in a way that saves, presumably it is *not this*.  So, again, even if I were to become convinced that the evidence for the Papacy is as clear (implicit, I suppose) in Scripture as you say it is (Isaiah 22 and all that entails), I could not thereby give up the certainly that I know God desires to give us in His mercy (Romans 5:1, I John 5:13).

As regards the “radical” statements from the Book of Concord, I would point out that in the part from the Apology about the Mass Melanchton is speaking about the “abuse of the Mass” (e.g. being paid to “perform the sacrifices” with the intent to obtain merits and indulgences for the dead, for example – that is the section your quote is from, incidently), and “it seems that this” will endure *together with* the “papal realm” until Christ returns.  I am not sure this is as controversial as you make it out to be.

________________

In addition to Irenaeus’ beliefs mentioned above, he also believed that all the things that the Apostles orally passed on to their successors (i.e. the “Apostolic deposit”, the “Rule of Faith”) were in “agreement with the Scriptures” (his actual words).

Yes, so do I; so do all orthodox Catholics. That proves nothing with regard to our dispute about sola Scriptura. Protestants have the most extraordinarily difficult time grasping this. You seem to think it is some big “score” for your side, when the fact of the matter is that we are entirely in agreement, so that it is useless for you to point this out at all. It’s like saying, “we believe that the sun goes up!” There is no need to state the obvious that all agree upon. All this shows is that, apparently, you think for some reason that Catholics would deny that our doctrines are in complete harmony with Holy Scripture. Else, why bring it up at all?

Nathan b: Dave, here’s why.  You say “we [Catholics] are entirely in agreement”.  So what do you mean when elsewhere you say that “most Catholics” hold to the “material sufficiency of Scripture”?  The words of Prieras seem opposed to this and those of the highly respected Andrada (Chemnitz’s opponent) surely are.  Again, are both opinions allowed in Rome? Does the Catholic Church reserve the right to teach things that are not found in the Scriptures, as Pieras seems to imply and Andrada explicitly said?  Have Andrada’s view been condemned, or is what he said true but “unhelpful”?  Second, as regards I suppose your personal opinion [?] (“material sufficiency”), you claim that the Rule of Faith will not only be found in the Scriptures explicitly or implicitly, but in other ways…  for example,“[the Assumption] is directly deduced from a doctrine that has much implicit indication in Scripture, which is completely in accord with material sufficiency.”  I dealt with what I see to be the immense problems with this in my last response as regards this issue of “harmony” (it is part VI there)

________________

Therefore, if these things Irenaeus mentions cannot be found in the Scriptures, either explicitly or implicitly, how should we react to such beliefs (given his other stated beliefs)? 

You should reject them (so should I). I strongly deny that they are not found there.

Nathan b: Dave, in the past you have said that “all Christian, Catholic doctrines can be found in Scripture, explicitly, implicitly, or deduced from same. And all Catholic doctrines are certainly harmonious with Scripture”. The key word in this sentence is “or”, i.e. here you are at the very least tacitly admitting that you are doing more than insisting that the Rule of Faith will be found in the Scriptures explicitly or implicitly. 

________________

I suggest that Jerome, writing in the 4th c., gives us a good clue about what is really happening here: things like distinctions between bishops and presbyters are by human, not divine rite. They are arrangements that pastors, working together and led by the Holy Spirit, came up with in their times to effectively order the Church for the sake of order, love, and unity. To say that this is a matter that determines whether a particular church is “truly Church” seems very wrong, to say the least. 

The distinctions are clearly laid out in Scripture itself. I go through them, particularly, in my paper, The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church, which is part of my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism.

Nathan b: Dave, I am not convinced that any of these arrangements are by Divine Rite. Your article contains unconvincing arguments like this: “Upon closer observation, clear distinctions of office appear, and the hierarchical nature of Church government in the New Testament emerges. Bishops are always referred to in the singular, while elders are usually mentioned plurally.” (the key word being “usually”).  In fact, it seems clear that the Scriptures in fact teach otherwise (see above), as Jerome would point out, and I did above.  Perhaps this is why Trent seems to have studiously avoided this topic.  If God wanted us to be dogmatic about this, it would have been made clear in the Scriptures, either explicitly or implicitly (again, see my section on “Harmony” from the last response)

________________

I suggest that had Ireneaus actually had to think about these things (in his context he didn’t) he would side with my particular church, not Rome.

I suggest that he wouldn’t have. All the many novel and heretical things that Luther introduced would have been foreign to his very categories of thought.

Nathan b: I want to make all kinds of smart remarks here, but the Holy Spirit, praise be to God,  has restrained my flesh! : )

________________

. . . even a great like Saint Augustine talked about how he, in his conflicts with the heretics, consistently came across fathers who had spoken carelessly, or not as circumspectly as they should have – and he tried to cover their errors.  For example, before Pelagius, many fathers had spoken quite loosely about free will, not seeing original sin as the horrible contagion that it was.  It was only after this error drove Augustine back to the Scriptures that he was able to look upon the writings of the Fathers – with new eyes – and to see how badly they had erred.

That’s all quite true. Original sin developed slowly. True doctrine is always clarified in disputes with heretics. Cardinal Newman noted that there was more of a consensus in the fathers for purgatory than for original sin. This poses no difficulty for our position. Christology, after all, developed slowly, too (for at least another two hundred years after Augustine, working through the natures and wills of Christ. So did the canon of Scripture and Mariology and the communion of saints. Protestants arbitrarily cherry-pick some things (canon — minus the deuterocanon — original sin, Christology), and reject others (Mariology, intercession and invocation and veneration of saints, purgatory), but all of these developed slowly for hundreds of years. Lutheranism developed so extremely slowly that it took almost 1500 years to appear at all.

Nathan b: It’s all about harmony, brother. I can only refer you back there again.  Your assignment this week: memorize Isaiah 8:20, Acts 17, Deut. 17:18-20, 31:26 ; Philippians 3:1. : )

I repeat from my last response: “Whenever Christ and the apostles in the New Testament assert that the prophets said something, that God spoke by the mouth of the prophets, or when they call a saying prophetic, they are not directing us to silent unwritten traditions: they mean that which is written in the Scripture” (59).  Hence in Luke 24 we hear the words, “Thus it is written”, as Christ reveals what God’s revelation really meant.  Unlike many of the scribes and Pharisees (who also appealed to a long, continuous line of unbroken succession) who had created traditions they preferred to the true ones (see Matt 5:21, 27, 31,33,38, 43 ; 15:1-9; 23 ; Mark 7:2-13 ; Luke 11:37-52 ; 18:12 ; Matt 23), even after His resurrection Jesus desired to focus on nothing other than the written Scriptures…. Of his teachings, Luke says that he wrote down things of the greatest reliability for their safeguarding (i.e. to counter threats of corruption). 

________________

Therefore, like Noah’s children covered him in his nakedness, Augustine covered their errors as much as he could while at the same time trying not to being dishonest about what they had actually said.  The Lutherans were simply following in Augustine’s train.  

You guys rejected some of his (and Luther’s) more extreme predestinarian views just as we did. But he was not a Calvinist, either, despite what the Calvinists vainly try to argue. Luther was more of a Calvinist than Augustine ever was, in terms of predestination and free will.

Nathan b: I’m not so sure about that.  I know disturbing passages from Luther can be quoted to the effect that he was like Calvin.  In any case, let’s leave this alone for now….

________________

. . . sometimes the church only gradually comes to realize that some of the doctrines it would never have thought to wonder about (i.e. is this doctrine really important or not), it does come to wonder about when people begin to misuse it in some way – and then it can [quite readily] be determined to be essential or non-essential.

I agree, excepting those doctrines which are essential but which Lutherans (along with many other Protestants) wrongly deny are essential. Doctrines develop, but if they are part of the apostolic deposit, they can never be “demoted” to non-essential or optional status.

Nathan b: Again: all about harmony and the purpose of the Scriptures (see above)….

________________

I hope this makes it more clear why, when it comes to the Rule of Faith and the development of doctrine, that it is not always useful to simply focus on the quotations of the fathers. You see, I submit that there are other concrete facts that are even more important – that trump whatever this or that father may have said (I am not saying that they are not important!). These facts suggest a different story, an alternative narrative to the one that Dave has. 

It all depends on what one wants to talk about. The historical and biblical arguments in favor of doctrines are distinct. Chemnitz (the original impetus for our discussions)  talked about Church fathers, so I did, too, because he stated many factual errors in that regard. For the Protestant, they can always ditch what any father says, or what all (or nearly all) of them hold in consensus, if they wish, because for them there is no infallible authority except Scripture.

Nathan b: Hmmm.  “Many factual errors”?  I don’t think so…. it seems to me clear that Chemnitz knew the Fathers better than any other person in his day.  Also, we need to admit that “consensus” is a very flexible and subjective term, and there is no way to “nail down” a definition of this.  It is one consideration among other factors. 

________________

Now, above, you have said that the promises made to the New Testament Church are of a fundamentally different nature than those made to the Assembly of the Israelites.  To say the least, that is far from obvious. 

What is so difficult to grasp about my statement, ”The Old Testament proto-Church did not have the Holy Spirit and express promises from God that it would be protected and never defect”? This is rather straightforward and plain. The Holy Spirit was only given to select individuals in the old covenant: but now to every baptized Christian and in greater measure to Church leaders. There are promises of indefectibility, too (that I have collected), that are not present in the old covenant. For example:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

This is the Church: Jesus’ Church, headed by Peter and his successors the popes: not just a tiny remnant. What remains constant in the old covenant is God’s mercy towards his always-straying children, and holding to His covenants despite their rebelliousness. Hence we have the notion of remnant that you often bring up. But that is distinct from institutional indefectibility. That is simply a few followers who remain true, whereas in the new covenant, the promise is that the truth and the apostolic deposit (of which it is Guardian) will never depart from the Church. It would be like the two or three high level pro-life Democrats that still exist as a tiny remnant of what once was. That’s your remnant idea. In our view (to follow the analogy) the entire party (in its platform) remains on the right path, and isn’t reduced to just a few people of a once-great corporate assembly.

The Church is also obviously after Jesus, and He is with us as well, which makes it quite different (Matthew 28:20: “I am with you always, to the close of the age”). It’s quite ironic that Protestants accuse us of being stuck in Pharisaical legalism and works-righteousness, yet in the present discussion you are maintaining that the new covenant is not essentially different from the old, and I am maintaining that it is quite far beyond the old, and that Catholicism is the fullness of the development of a Church and the new covenant and Christian post-pentecostal age. You’re defending the identity of the old system with the Christian one in the sense of ecclesiology; I am saying that the new covenant “new wineskins” are far more advanced.

Nathan b: Dave, many RC theologians have not agreed with you that the Church is obviously after Jesus.  The Old Testament quite clearly talks about an “Assembly” which is basically synonymous with the Church.  On this no one disagrees.  Strictly speaking, Acts does not feature the birthday of the Church, but the birthday of the New Covenant being poured out on the Church.  The Pharisees, High Priests and everyone else should have gotten behind that, so as to continue in the train of the authentic Church.  We know that many Pharisees did – and that many priests became followers of Jesus, as they should have.  They recognized what God was doing with the wineskins with Jesus – bringing all things to fulfillment in Him.  There is nothing “Old Testament” about this way of thinking.

Dave, we believe that visible corporate assembly (Church) that God formed under Moses was indefectible as well – and that there are plenty of Old Testament promises to this effect.  In other words, there are promises in both the Old and New Testament that assure us that God will preserve a people for Himself – and He wants those He assures to be a part of – to continue being a part of – this sure thing!  (also: I note that in Psalm 89:28-29, and 34-37, which you quote on your indefectibility page, this is clearly is talking about the Old Covenant, even as it foreshadows the New Covenant)  Here, I would note that a smaller and less conspicuous gathering of persons is no less “institutional” than a larger gathering – for example, a simple family is properly called an “institution”.  As is marriage.  In other words, the institution of God’s Church can be impressive and conspicuous, or the faithful may only be able to discern it as a remnant (that is, they may only be *certain* that the Word of God is taught in sufficient truth and purity in small and inconspicuous quarters).  Again: although I certainly believe that God desires this to be the case, where is there a promise or guarantee of “conspicuity” anywhere in the Scriptures? 

Also, please know that I to believe in the uniqueness and power New Covenant: but Biblically speaking, this has to do with all of God’s people being indwelt and possessed by the Spirit, not needing people to teach us (i.e. no longer under the supervision of the Law – His people can now more readily [and gladly] understand, hold to, and keep His Words, now that God has come in the flesh and generously poured out His Spirit Who testifies to Christ), testing all things, and all speaking the oracle of God.  And I can say this while also asserting and affirming wholeheartedly in a distinction between this priesthood of all believers and the authoritative and necessary office of the pastoral ministry, which follow in the train of the Apostolic ministry, and is non-negotiable in the Church.

So, the Church is indefectible – it will not fail, and we to desire to be a part of it, by trusting in Christ’s promises of forgiveness and all His blessings.  That said, we would say that in both the Old and New Testament, the purity, health, and strength (not necessarily size, as regards numbers or locations) of the Church, the Assembly, the Body is directly dependent on obedient hearing of the Word of God.  If this does not happen, God will certainly depart from the larger institution that bears His Name and allow the famine of the Word that those in the Church show they want to occur.  In addition to this of course, believers know the Church will be a small flock in the Last Days, as we have already mentioned.     

In short, as regards the measure of the Church’s purity, health, and strength – its viability – (not its size or conspicuity) all of this is connected with the faith and ongoing repentance of God’s people.  For the faithful know that in the last days when the love of many will grow cold, the Church will seem to be losing ground to Satan rather than gaining it.  How much they will be able to withstand depends on their faithful hearing and keeping of God’s words.  Yes, God is with His people such that the “Gates of hell will not overcome it” and “He is with them to the end of the age”, but again – we should not take this to mean that the Church cannot become very small and hidden.  It certainly can.  Because the assaults of the devil lead to persecutions (deaths) as well as disobedience and falling away, the external Church can be very much inglorious.

Therefore, there may well come a time – and we say that time has come – when the faithful no longer recognize the “platform” of the larger Church which excludes them – when there is so much falsehood that they fear that they or their children will be lost if they were to continue in it.  Your own Roman Catholic theologians have argued as much (not about the kids part – I threw that is my sense).  At this point, groups of those still holding on to the Apostolic faith find one another, as we have with the churches in fellowship with us (though perhaps we will get smaller yet as we are refined and purified, something I know Pope Benedict has talked about within the Roman Church – to the consternation of some). This is where indefectibility comes in again – those with faith know that God will always gather His sheep together in one place by His voice.  As you say, “God Himself protects the doctrine of the Church from being corrupted” – but we do not find where He does this by looking at things like size, grandeur, earthly glory and conspicuousness, but rather by hearkening to the voices of the prophets and apostles in whose train we follow. 

Again: Ever since the times of Moses the faithful have been assured from age to age – though this or that prophet of God – that there will be a remnant – those who do not bow the knee to Baal!  Amen and amen!  There is no doubt that God will do this (and now we have Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 28:20 to strengthen us!).  Holding tight to the Apostolic deposit (again, this does not preclude any “development”: “Salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is at the heart of all the great controversies that shook the Early church as it tried to work out its own self-understanding” —Douglas Johnson, The Great Jesus Debates), we just need to find those who hear the Shepherd’s voice, and to offer the right hand of fellowship.  His Church will never fall, and though it be small and seemingly insignificant, Sunday is coming.  Glory is coming.  The new heavens and new earth and Kingdom of our God – of whom Jesus is the Firstfruits – is eminent and imminent – even in the midst of great turmoil and suffering.  

Romans 8 may be somewhat instructive here.  There, we learn how nothing can separate us from the love of God – and Paul goes through a marvelous list that is meant to encourage beleaguered believers.  But then again – this does not mean that unrepentant sinners can take any refuge in these promises – our sin, including our refusal to hear His word, does indeed separate us from the love of God.  This goes for all of God’s people called according to His Word – brought into His Church by Holy Baptism.  In short: we are told that the Church will indeed be small in the Last Days, but we should not make it smaller yet by scorning, ignoring, contradicting, or mitigating the words that He has assured us are spirit and life.     

Again, we would say that there is indeed a great famine of the Word in Rome, even if God has mercifully allowed sound patterns of words to remain in their liturgies (though not as much in the preaching).  And even if God has, let us say, removed His Presence from the Eucharist among the Churches of the Reformed, the simple believers that – in spite of false teachings that they might be exposed to or hold – takes His forgiving words to heart still has God indwelling them directly.  Thanks be to God, in Jesus they have all things. 

________________

I think the default conclusion of any reader of the Bible as a whole will be that we are dealing with continuity here,. . . 

You can claim that (in a particular sense), but you have (so far) passed right over the many biblical evidences I gave that this is not totally the case . . . This seems to be a growing pattern in our interactions: I provide lots of Scripture for my view, and you ignore most of it and go right on asserting Lutheran traditions of men, such as a defectible (Catholic) Church. Let me be more specific: I think (with you) that there is continuity (I believe in development of doctrine), but I think it is a huge leap from the OT assembly to the NT Church because of the elements I have been discussing. Insofar as there is consistent continuity, the analogy is far more towards the Catholic Church rather than to Lutheranism.

Indefectibility is the striking development in ecclesiology after Jesus. Previous to that time, the Bible was regarded as an unchanging truth, but not assemblies of men, so much. Rather, infallibility was isolated, in the form of prophets, who brought God’s message in a profound way (they are analogous in some important ways to popes, whereas Lutherans have no such authority figures anymore and go back to infallible and/or binding books alone, as in the old covenant: Bible, Book of Concord).

Nathan b: It seems to me that in the Old Testament people trusted the Scriptures, assemblies of men, and prophets.  If infallibility was located in the form of prophets (and yes, I believe they had this gift), I think this proves my point, because the prophets never told anyone that they were infallible – they were recognized as such by what they did and said (there was no up-front guarantee).  They simply preached the Word of truth. 

________________

and I think that you need to demonstrate that the promises to the New Testament church suggest more discontinuity with the Old Testament Church than they do continuity (or at least define well the difference in continuity). 

Just reiterated that. It was already present in my collection of indefectibility passages, that I have referred you to several times.

Nathan b: see above. 

________________

I go by Romans 1, which talks about going from faith to faith, from first to last.  The Bible is fundamentally the story of God calling His people and giving them promises by His Spirit to keep them strong in the faith.

I don’t disagree with any of that. It is neither here nor there in relation to our particular dispute at present. I would simply say again, that Protestants have less faith than Catholics, because we believe that God can preserve institutions (His Church) as well as Bibles and individuals. That takes more faith. We have that; you do not, because you deny the very possibility. I think Protestantism suffers greatly from that deficiency because it tends to a-historicism, anti-institutionalism, and excessive individualism: all things that run counter to the biblical worldview.

Nathan b:  Interesting – I think you are wrong about this, because faith is certain in the midst of all kinds of dark nights, as faithful Mary was (the only one who “got it”).  Again, “a smaller and less conspicuous gathering of persons is no less “institutional” than a larger gathering – for example, a simple family is properly called an ‘institution’.”  It is certainly nice to imagine that God would do more impressive looking things, but I remember the shame of His Son.  I do believe that God preserves the Church in spite of errors, but I also believe that there comes a time when the foundation is overthrown, and particular churches cease to be.  How accurately that can be pinpointed is not clear, I submit – best to strive for purity of truth where one can. 

________________

Note that the Church (or Assembly) of the Old Testament also had specific promises about the temple that “God wills to dwell there forever” (also see Deut. 16:2; 2 Chron. 6:2; Neh. 1:9; Isa. 31:9; Isa. 59:21 ; Jer. 31:36-37, 40etc.).

God in fact didn’t dwell in the temple forever, and the temple (three different buildings) was destroyed three times: by the Babylonians and the Romans twice (both things disanalogous to indefectibility). In the old covenant, God’s presence was conditioned upon obedience. For example:

Ezekiel 13:8 Therefore thus says the Lord God: “Because you have uttered delusions and seen lies, therefore behold, I am against you, says the Lord GOD”.

Malachi 3:7 From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts.

That’s not the case in the new covenant, with all the promises of the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church and His presence in Christians in perpetuity.  The Bible actually describes God and the “glory of the Lord” or the shekinah presence departing from the temple, prior to its destruction:

Ezekiel 8:6 And he said to me, “Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel are committing here, to drive me far from my sanctuary? But you will see still greater abominations.”

Ezekiel 11:23 And the glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city. (cf. 9:3; 10:4, 18-19)

Getting back to your prooftexts, God is said to dwell in Jerusalem forever (1 Chr 23:25) but that is not the temple, and hence, not an institution analogous to the Church. Deut 16:2 says God will dwell at a certain “place,” but it doesn’t say it will be forever. Solomon says in another of your texts, “I have built thee an exalted house, a place for thee to dwell in for ever” (2 Chr 6:2), but this doesn’t prove that God always will do so. Ezekiel 8:6 and 11:23 show that He did not in fact always dwell there, and three destroyed temples make that obvious, anyway, I should think. Right now a mosque stands where the temple stood, so if God is still there “forever” it is in the shrine of a false religion.

Nehemiah 1:9 proves my point (thanks!): God’s presence is directly dependent on obedience: “if you return to me and keep my commandments . . .” Therefore it is not permanent and unconditional as the new covenant indefectibility of the Church is. Isaiah 31:9 doesn’t mention the temple at all. Isaiah 59:21 is better, but it is still conditional on behavior, as seen in the preceding verse: “to those in Jacob who turn from transgression.” And it is not institutional. The old covenant religious system is not protected from error, and indeed in later prophetic books is described as virtually totally apostate. This is what you need to establish in order to make a proper analogy to the indefectibility of the Church.

Jeremiah 31:36-37 is in the context of the announcement of the new covenant (31:31-34). This in and of itself proves that the new covenant is vastly different from the old, because it foretells the indwelling (31:33), and God can be with His people forever precisely because He forgives their sin once and for all (31:34). The indwelling in turn is made possible by the sacrifice of Christ (Jn 14:16-20; 15:26; 16:7, 13). Jeremiah 31:40 is not about the temple. So I think all your “proofs” fail in their purpose, and mine are more relevant and decisive on this matter.

Nathan b:  Dave, I hope you won’t accuse me of not dealing with the Scripture proof-texts that you put forth here… I uphold all of these beautiful promises (as well as the warnings).  God did not abandon His people, as He assured Elijah and others in the Old Testament repeatedly – He always preserved and strengthened the faithful (not just individuals, but remnants – the faithful “institutions”) amidst the larger judgments against His Church.  Was Zechariah wrong to think that it was good, right, and salutary to serve God in the Temple in his day – since there was no *explicit* promise that He would meet there those who trusted in Him? Clearly not, because He approached (through His messenger) Zechariah in the Temple, not at home.  Imagine that – Zechariah as a wonderful example of great faith!  Likewise with Anna, Simeon, Joseph and Mary, and the disciples (even after the resurrection).  Jerusalem and Temple seem to have still been connected in the mind of the faithful, and there was nothing wrong with that – even if God is not limited by such places, they still seem to have believed that He would meet them there in a special way.  So, I think that all of these passages you list fit much better with what I have written already, particularly the longest reply above.   

________________

And note especially Leviticus 24 [should be 26]: ¹¹ I will make my dwelling among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. ¹² And I will walk among you and will be your God, and you shall be my people.”   That seems pretty firm and unconditional taken by itself, but of course we know that we need to take these words in the context of the whole narrative, including the other words that were spoken to them as well.

This is yet another conditional promise, so it is not an analogy to indefectibility: “If you walk in my statutes and observe my commandments and do them, then. . .” (Lev 26:3-4a). Then 26:14 states: “if you will not hearken to me, and will not do all these commandments,. . .” followed by a horrible list of judgments (26:16-43). So this is a stranger “prooftext” for you to cite.

What you don’t seem to realize is that this is not the case in the new covenant and Church Age. The promises are unconditional. God will do what He promises regarding protection of the Church and her doctrine: “the powers of death shall not prevail against” the Church (Matt 16:18); period. It’s not based on obedience. God brings it to pass. End of story. “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt 28:20); no conditions again. It’s an absolute statement. God wills and declares and promises it, so it will happen, and cannot not happen.

Peter falters and denies Christ three times, but after he is filled with the Holy Spirit it is a different story. Jesus prays for him in a special way because he is the leader of the Church: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32); and indeed it doesn’t, after Pentecost. This is a type and shadow of papal infallibility, as is being given the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:19): only given to Peter; and all the implications of that (rightly understood, in light of its OT precursors). All of this goes to show that your attempted analogy between old covenant disobedience and unfaithfulness and the Church, doesn’t fly. It fails at every turn.You’re not succeeding in making a biblical case for your opinion at all.

Nathan b:  Dave, I think I have made my case very strongly.  I don’t see why we have to say that God’s promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church needs to be set against our obedient hearing and keeping of His Word.  Why not a both/and here?  One would think you would be all for this, since all of our obedience is a result of God’s grace anyways (as Augustine says, God crowns His own works in us).  I agree that the gates of hell can’t prevail against the Church, but again, see above (long section).  As for Peter’s faith not failing, I agree, but as far as this being a proof-text for Papal infallibility, I think that goes a bit far (Matthew 16:19, with its connection with Isaiah 22, seems much more likely to me).   

________________

We know later on in the story, Jeremiah reproaches those who appeal to the promises about the temple of the Lord (“the temple of the Lord!  The temple of the Lord!”) for “trusting the words of a liar” (Jer. 7:8)  As Gerhard says: “Promises only pertain to those who allow the Word of God to rule them, who look to the Law and the testimony [Isaiah 8:20]; and who teach, judge and act according to the norm of the divine Word (161, On the Church)”.

Yes; that is exactly right with regard to the old covenant, but not the new covenant, with regard to promises made about the Church and its guardianship of truth and the one true faith: “the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). God Himself protects the doctrine of the Church from being corrupted. This is the entire point. if it were left up to men, this wouldn’t happen, but when God wants something done (in this case, preservation of true doctrine and theology and moral teaching), it is done. Gerhard, I guess, doesn’t know that things have changed with the new covenant. If you follow his line of reasoning, you’ll be wrong, too, and miss the glorious truths that the NT is teaching on this score.

Nathan b:  I agree that if it were left up to men, that this wouldn’t happen, but remember that God crowns His own works in us. You’re right, when God wants something done it is done – and Gerhard believes that as well.  The question is, will you or I – or this or that particular church – continue in the Church Catholic, which will remain?  The glorious truth is more about the message than the messenger (but does not leave the messenger out in the cold either – see above for more)

________________

So, due to the widespread corruption in His Church in the O.T., did the Lord forsake His people and abandon his heritage (see Psalm 94:14)?  Did the gates of hell prevail against the Old Testament Church – was God not with them [even until the end of the age…]?  Things got pretty rough, but persons like Mary, Simeon, Anna, Zechariah, Elizabeth and Nathaniel would suggest that the gates of hell did not prevail and God did not leave them or forsake them – He preserved His remnant through those who were faithful

He remained with the remnant of the faithful, but that is not the institutional assembly and religious system: which would be the priests and Levites and the scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees. Therefore, it is not an analogy to the Church, as I keep reiterating. This is why you have to redefine the Church in order to carry off this false analogy: as if the Church could be reduced to a few people here and there, like the survivors of a nuclear war, or the last dinosaur before extinction set in. This is not New Testament language regarding the Church. The Church is present even in the churches of Revelation that Jesus rebukes for many serious sins.

For example, the “church of Pergamum” (Rev 2:12) — note how Jesus Himself still calls it a church — , has members that even hold to false doctrine (“you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, . . . you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicola’itans” — 2:14-15). This goes against your contention that those who have false doctrine immediately lose the title of “church”. Jesus Himself refutes you. it couldn’t be any clearer.

Nathan b:  I agree that now, in the New Covenant, God remained with the “institutional assembly and religious system”.   How big do *you* think the Church needs to be before it can be described as an institution?  I’d say two about does it, and God will certainly preserve more than that.  You say this talk of an inconspicuous remnant is “not New Testament language regarding the Church”, but again, several of your own highly respected theologians (perhaps until Gerhard exploited their points?) have said otherwise – at least as pertains to the Last Days. Yes, “the Church is present even in the churches of Revelation that Jesus rebukes for many serious sins”, but those Churches are now no more.  Famines of the Word occur.  Lampstands are removed. 

________________

But now, given that Hebrews tells us that God has always gathered an Assembly for Himself by causing people to look in faith to the Promised Messiah (Hebrews 11) – even through horrendous persecutions where God, though fully faithful, seemed to have abandoned His people – what justification do you have for suggesting that the Church has fundamentally changed?

Hebrews 11 is about individuals of great faith, not the old covenant religious system. Moses (of those listed) was a religious leader, and this comes closest to an analogy to indefectibility, but he actually taught falsely in a sense, by implying that he could perform miracles by his own power, not God’s: “Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?” (Num 20:10). God had told him to merely speak to the rock (20:8), but he struck it twice (20:11), leading God to rebuke him: “you did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the people” (20:12). Therefore, in a way he was guilty of false teaching, and for this reason, both he and Aaron were not allowed to enter the Promised Land (20:12; Dt 34:4). Thus, it is again a disanalogy to the indefectibility of the Church. Moses failed in his teaching duty and was punished for it, and so was Aaron: also a religious leader, as a priest (20:24).

The prophets are far more analogous to the infallibility of popes, as I have argued twice in my papers (one / two), and will again in my new book against sola Scriptura. But they were not part of the religious system; they were outside of it: usually rebuking the corrupt people in it. The difference in the new covenant is that the institutional system of the Church is protected from error (“it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” — Acts 15:28: the Jerusalem Council). The Church is a far different thing.

Nathan b:  Not much more to add here. Obviously, we disagree…. I think you don’t take Hebrews 11 seriously enough here. Further, I am not sure that all of the  prophets were not a part of the religious system – Ezekiel comes to mind.  Cardinal Bellarmine thought that the prophets partook of the religious services in parts of the Church that were not corrupt. 

________________

…those who persecuted Micah, Elijah, and Jeremiah, for example, could have said (and in some cases did say) similar things.  [as were said by the Church to Luther]

That’s correct. But they didn’t have the promise of Christ of indefectibility, whereas the Catholic Church, an institution with an unbroken history and succession back to the apostles and Christ, did have that. Nor was Luther a prophet, as those men were.

I had challenged you, stating:

Show me in the Bible where there is ever such a thing as a mere layperson disagreeing doctrinally with a leader in the Church based on Bible reading and thereby being justified in his dissent and schism by that method? I say it isn’t there.

Nathan b:  Right, but even Paul commended the Bereans for testing the things he said.  Presumably, if something he said did not clearly agree with the Scriptures, he would want to know about it. 

________________

But here I need only point out how John the Baptist and our Lord Himself were not formally recognized or ordained by the religious hierarchy of the N.T. Church, as the Pharisees, who served on the council, were. The hierarchy even asked John by what right he said the things he did. 

This doesn’t overcome my argument and position because this is not yet the Church. There was no Church till Pentecost, after the death of both John and Jesus and the coming of the Holy Spirit. Jesus couldn’t be “ordained” by the “N.T. Church” because it didn’t yet exist. Therefore, this proves nothing. They were rejected by the old covenant religious system which was never promised indefectibility in the first place.

Nathan b:  I send you up to my long reply again.

________________

And now that I have established an alternative narrative account that I do not think you can deny,  . . . 

Surprise! I eagerly look forward to your answers to all the material I have come up with.

Nathan b:  Hope this helps

________________

* * *

In fact, the Bible predicts that in the Last Days, the church will not look glorious at all, but will be beleagured on all sides… (see Matthew 24:24, Luke 18:8, 2 Thes 2:3-4). 

Matthew 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

Individuals will be led astray in great numbers (sounds like today!). This says nothing about the institutional Church, or magisterium, and so is irrelevant to the question of indefectibility, which has to do with the Church, not individual Christians.

Luke 18:8 I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?

Ditto. Widespread apostasy of men doesn’t prove that the Church has forsaken and failed in her God-given and divinely-guided mission. The text simply doesn’t say that.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, [4] who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

This is closer to what you need to show but still doesn’t by any means prove defectibility. It’s somewhat like the times when popes were held prisoner, or the horrors of the French Revolution or the English so-called “Reformation” with its wholesale butcheries (ripping people’ hearts out of their bodies, etc., simply for being Catholics) and Leninist-like repression. The Church didn’t cease to exist because this was the case, and strong-arm tactics used to suppress the head of the Church, or the entire institutional Church, as the case may be. Peter and Paul (and St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher) were martyred; the Church still existed. The structure (and the truth and apostolic deposit preserved in the Church) didn’t go into oblivion because of any persecution. The same will apply during the Last Days, no matter how bad it gets.

The seven churches of Revelation are again illustrative. Jesus still calls them “churches” no matter how many sins He condemned in them. They didn’t lose or forfeit the category. And there is indication that at least some of these local churches will persevere through the last days; for example, the church in Philadelphia:

Revelation 3:10 Because you have kept my word of patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial which is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell upon the earth.

When He says “you” He is writing to the church, not one person.

Nathan b:  I agree He is writing to that particular Church, which sadly, did not last.  I don’t think these passages by themselves help us to settle our dispute.  Again, I simply mention that many of your own respected theologians believed that these verses applied to the Church as a whole, as I think is the most natural reading of these texts (they believed that the Church would end up in deserts, caves, and prisons, but that these people would still be in fellowship with the Pope, who would also be in hiding). I do not believe their views were ever said to be false, or that this belief is not permitted in the RC Church.    

________________

. . . it’s just that such a Church can be a lot smaller than you might think.  

It may be very small in the end, but it is still there, preserving the truth. That’s the promise: essence and unbroken continuity, not size or appearance or influence or popular acclaim. But your champion Gerhard (as you cite him) wants to play games and equivocate: “It is one thing to say simply that the church is visible; it is another to say that it is visible to the world” (186). Right.

This reminds me of the Jehovah’s Witnesses ludicrous claim (made in desperation after false prophecies) that Jesus did return in 1914, but invisibly, not visibly. Likewise, for Gerhard, the Church will always be visible, but alas, not to the world. I trust that his other arguments are more impressive than this one. But in any event, it’s an absolutely classic case study of saying the right words (indefectibility, visible Church), but redefining them according to one’s own fancies, over against traditional Catholic use. This is the trademark of heterodoxy and liberalism at all times. Rather than admit that things have essentially changed, it prefers word games and equivocations.

Nathan b:  Now we are just down to Essence and continuity then…  I’ve addressed continuity and how it is desired but not essential (Gerhard also argues about broken continuity in Rome to, I believe) – what we are debating now is the Essence itself, the heart of all things. I say it comes down to doctrine.  

There is nothing equivocating about Gerhard’s quotation.  It’s like salvation: God desires all persons to be saved (i.e. His “proper work” is proclaiming that He has reconciled Himself to the world in His Son), but there are times when His “alien work” must take place first – that is “harming” us that our bones might be mended.  Purifying His people.  Likewise with the Church.  Generally speaking, God desires that His Church be not only one, but visible before the world (John 17).  That said, He lets it go through great fire, and even warns us that in the Last Days the number of those who believe will decrease…  Taken with all of his other argumentation, Gerhard’s argument here is impressive, especially when he simply shows that he is only saying what Rome’s own respected theologians have said based on their studies of the Scriptures.   

________________

that said, I would add that God certainly intends for His Church to be visible and discernible before the world, for He desires all persons to be saved.

Good; so even you disagree with Gerhard. You’re right. Welcome to catholic ecclesiology, in this respect.

Nathan b:  No. I have little doubt that Gerhard would have said the same.

________________

In any case, it seems to me that the major difference between you and I is that you start thing from the get go wanting certainty.  

It’s not a matter of what I (or anyone else) want or don’t want, but of what the New Testament everywhere casually assumes without argument, about the Church’s possession of the fullness of apostolic truth and doctrine. Belief that all this is so uncertain is one of the negative fruits of the relentless sectarianism of Protestantism. Because they can’t agree with each other, they start to pretend that Scripture sanctions their disagreements as of relatively little importance. This is sheer nonsense. The New Testament knows nothing of the “healthy diversity” of mutually contradictory doctrines. Falsehood is from the devil, period. Where logical contradiction exists, falsehood also must be present.

Nathan b:  It’s not uncertain at all. God allowed the voices of Luther and the Lutherans to be heard widely. 

When you say: “Because they can’t agree with each other, they start to pretend that Scripture sanctions their disagreements as of relatively little importance. This is sheer nonsense. The New Testament knows nothing of the “healthy diversity” of mutually contradictory doctrines. Falsehood is from the devil, period. Where logical contradiction exists, falsehood also must be present”, I can only say “Amen”.  If only men – guided by the Apostolic Fathers and their help – took the Scriptures more seriously.  The Gospel is only too clear.  Baptismal regeneration (and this even for infants), the real presence in the Lord’s Supper, the authority of pastors to bind and loose, and the exclusivity of salvation by grace, through faith in Christ alone are only too clear.  A suppression of the truth is the only thing that causes division. 

I’d say “come and see”, but you have already come and seen Dave.  I am wondering what you think now.  I can only pray the conversation will continue, and that the Spirit of God would be among us.

You have said elsewhere:

“Since sola Scriptura is devoid of any unquestionable patristic support (as I and many other Catholics have shown, I think), then it must be ditched, according to this true and wise maxim of Martin Chemnitz. I continue to await modern-day adherents of Chemnitz’ position (Lutherans) to come and defend both him and his argument.

Usually, at this point of the argument (i.e., after patristic demonstration), the argument from my esteemed Lutheran brothers in Christ ceases, or (as in cases such as the extreme polemicist Josh Strodtbeck, descends into the merely personal and ad hominem and is entirely devoid of rational substance). But where are the modern defenders of Lutheran orthodoxy, who will be willing to amiably engage a Catholic critic? Few and far between, they are . . .”

I just want to re-iterate that I am here and plan on continuing the conversation as long as you want to.  I have no doubts that there is much that I may need to be set right on…

Let us always remember that Satan is ultimately the One Christ came to defeat – not those for whom He came to bleed.  And die.  And give real peace and knowledge of salvation.

Like a child resting in its mother’s arms.   

Semper pax,

Nathan

________________

 

Dave Armstrong responds to my latest post (Round 2…the unattractive body of Christ)

UPDATE:  Dave has let me know that there is more refutation of my views to come, therefore I will hold off on posting again, until he is finished entirely.  

UPDATE 2:  Dave has now finished round 2, and all of it is below.  I hope to start Round 3 within a couple weeks.

I have yet to hear from Dave whether or not this will be the end of Round 2 (it appears to be), but here is how he has responded to my latest post.  As I am copying and pasting this to my blog, my words will not be in blue, as Dave says below, but italicized.  I will respond to him later on today:

Nathan is a friendly Lutheran theological adversary. We previously engaged in the following exchanges:

Brief Exchange With Lutheran [Infanttheology] on Luther’s Revolt and Fundamental Differences of Perspective Regarding the So-Called Protestant “Reformation”

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part One: Introductory

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part Two: Church Fathers + Sola Scriptura

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part Three: Soteriology and Miscellany

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part Four: Rule of Faith, the Fathers, and Ecclesiology

His words will be in blue. I will be changing excessive bolding in Nathan’s replies to italics.

* * * * *

Nathan’s latest reply — just one small portion of which I am now responding to –, is entitled, Round 2 with RC apologist Dave Armstrong: the unattractive body of Christ. I have complained here and there about the broadness of subject matter and clashing methodologies. I wrote the following to Nathan to try to explain the difficulties we are encountering along those lines, as I see it:

If it’s all over the ballpark, I will be forced (by time-management considerations) to give short answers (mostly will link to other papers); otherwise it becomes War and Peace II. My main concern (far more than a preference for line-by-line organization) is that we narrow down the subject matter.

We can’t argue everything at once.  No one can do so, no matter how good a debater they are or what their position is. I will respond for sure, but like I said, if the subject matter is too broad or scattered, it won’t be a very extensive reply.

* * *

I think I see or conceive better now (having heavily skimmed your reply) how and why we clash methodologically (which is a separate issue from a theological clash). You seem to approach things from what I would call a (holistic) “dogmatic / philosophical” viewpoint, stressing entire worldview and what you think is superior Lutheran coherence, whereas my apologetics is more particular, concentrating on facts and individual issues: either utilizing Scripture (usually systematically or topically) or patristics (dealing with narrowed-down topics or one father and his views), with special emphasis on history and development of doctrine (tying into Catholic tradition).

The only way I could adequately respond to your piece from within your own paradigm would be to unleash extraordinary amounts of energy and spend, say, six-eight weeks on it, and I have neither the energy nor desire to do all that (with other projects in the works), and don’t think it would accomplish much of anything, even if I did. I can write entire books, even two books, in that span of time.

When there are major worldview differences, they have to be dealt with, in my opinion, with “little chunks” at a time.

I think what your presentation does is at least offer some reply to a Catholic apologetic (i.e., mine), which is good for Lutheran readers. It gives them confidence that their view is (according to you) coherent and consistent and able to be believed. I don’t think it would convince many Catholics to become Lutheran (nor would a long, exhaustive reply from me cause many or any Lutherans to become Catholic). It’s “preaching to the choir”, which is what dogmatic (or more catechetical) material does: embolden and exhort those who already hold to it.

As you would guess, I’m not too big on preaching to the choir, either. My task as an apologist, as I see it, and according to my particular style, is to compare Catholicism with non-Catholic views x, y, z, etc., and to show how Catholicism is more believable on matters a, b, c, d, e, etc. It’s particularistic. I believe that if enough doubt is cast on enough different things, then a person starts to experience cognitive dissonance and eventually leans to and then adopts Catholicism, from the accumulation of evidences in its favor. I’ve observed many hundreds (some as a direct result of my work) indeed do that.

I can’t do that from within your method, because everything is undertaken on this grand, holistic scale. I can’t re-invent the wheel or lay the foundations of a skyscraper with every reply I make to something you write.

All I can do (given all this) is pick and choose (just as you are already doing with my material) and cast doubt on small particulars of your huge skyscraper that you have constructed: showing how this foundation has cracks, how that beam will break, or that the windows are drafty and unreliable, the plumbing is bad, etc.

I think this is why it seems frustrating and exasperating to me, to deal with all your arguments. It has little to do with content (I could give some sort of answer to everything you write, if I were motivated enough to do so); it’s almost all about methodology and organization: how things are approached and one’s goals.

Anyway, hopefully this will help you understand the position I am coming from on this stuff. Issues of this sort come up frequently during debates. People have different ideas of how to go about it. Minds work differently. Theological systems differ. I suppose that is why it is usually helpful to have a lot of limitations on numbers of words and on topic, as in formal debates. It does keep things in check to a large extent.

With that in mind, I proceed: this time dealing with just one (rather important and fundamental) section of his paper. I think I can destroy or at least cast great doubt upon various key false premises that Nathan brings to the table (including the one presently dealt with). That is my specialty as a methodological socratic, anyway.

. . . I responded by pointing out that where in Matthew 23:2[-3] Jesus commands His followers to listen to the scribes and Pharisees and do whatever they tell them to keep, in other places he calls them false teachers (he even points out some false teaching in Matthew 23).  A very simple point.

Johan Gerhard, writing in his On the Church, makes the same point (though in less Scriptural detail then I do in the comments section of the post where all of this happened):

“’The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat; keep and do whatever they tell you to keep,’ says Christ in Matt. 23:2[-3].  He commands them to listen to the scribes and Pharisees not absolutely in all things but insofar as they sit in Moses’ seat, that is, insofar as they propose things that are in harmony with Moses’ teaching.  Elsewhere, He commands them to beware of their ‘leaven’, that is, of their false teaching (Matt. 16:11-12).  So, too, we should listen to the church, namely in those matters that are devout and holy and in harmony with the commandments of our heavenly Father.  If the church brings forth anything different from the teaching of Christ, to this extent and in this respect we should not listen to her.  (On the Church, p. 221, see also 201)… the scribes and Pharisees to whom Christ orders us to listen were mixing the ‘leaven of errors’ and corruptions with the pure teaching of Moses and the prophets.” (p. 226)

First of all, note that Gerhard fundamentally distorts what Christ said. He didn’t say to obey the Pharisees’ teaching “insofar as they sit in Moses’ seat, that is, insofar as they propose things that are in harmony with Moses’ teaching.” No; He simply said, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; [3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you”  (Matthew 23:2-3a). The difference is huge and essential; hence, the error that Gerhard and Nathan (following him) propose, is huge as well.

One take of the passage is saying that the Pharisees (by analogical extension, Church authorities now) have authority, period, and must be obeyed (i.e., infallibility; real binding authority). The other holds that they only have it as long as the individual judges that they are teaching truth, which is, in the end, no authority at all, because it so easily disobeyed, and the disobedience rationalized on allegedly “super-pious” but unbiblical principles.

Scripture has to be interpreted as a consistent, coherent (inspired, infallible) totality. The theme of hypocrisy in teachers is a very common biblical motif. Thus, I mentioned that this (as well as the related sin of spiritual pride) was in mind when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees in Matthew 23: for example, 23:3: “practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice“; 23:5: “They do all their deeds to be seen by men”; 23:6: “they love the place of honor at feasts”;  23:23: “neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith“; 23:25: “you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity“, etc. I also provided another example of rebuke of hypocrisy rather than doctrine: Paul’s rebuke of Peter’s hypocrisy in Galatians. Paul provides another example, in discussing the non-Christian Jews:

Romans 2:17-23 [RSV, as throughout] But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the law and boast of your relation to God [18] and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed in the law, [19] and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, [20] a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth — [21] you then who teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? [22] You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? [23] You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?

It is obviously hypocrisy, again, which is in Paul’s mind, not false teaching per se. The teaching is false, only insofar as the application by bad example is false. The know what is right, but don’t do it. They teach the right thing, but don’t observe it themselves: just like Matthew 23 and the Peter-Paul incident about Jewish-Gentile Christian relations. Paul calls himself (referring to his present Christian state) a Pharisee twice, as I noted in past installments; therefore, neither for Jesus nor Paul, are the Pharisees a completely corrupt entity.

They are a group with different factions (e.g., followers of Shammai and Hillel): some of which are corrupt in practice and rife with hypocrisy: which sounds of course, precisely like every group of Christians today that I am aware of. Sin is always in the Church: the wheat and the tares, etc. Lots of biblical teaching about that . . .

Nathan states, “he even points out some false teaching in Matthew 23.” I looked through it and I don’t see false doctrinal teaching per se. I see numerous examples of hypocrisy and spiritual pride and lack of foresight.

The clincher for my interpretation, I believe, is another passage where Jesus Himself defines what He means by leaven. This is good ol’ Protestant (and Augustinian and Catholic) hermeneutical principles: interpret the less clear portions of Scripture by the ones that are more plain and clear. If Jesus tells us what He means by using the metaphor of leaven, then we can know for sure! He does this in Luke 12, which follows the latter half of Luke 11: the parallel passage to Matthew 23 (excoriations of Pharisaical hypocrisy). Right after that, He states:

Luke 12:1-3 In the meantime, when so many thousands of the multitude had gathered together that they trod upon one another, he began to say to his disciples first, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. [2] Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. [3] Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

So there we have it: precisely as I have been contending all along. This is fascinating, since Nathan seems to think that his interpretation of Matthew 23 and Pharisaical corruption as false doctrine rather than hypocrisy, is some sort of silver bullet and a big plus for his battle for the superiority of Lutheranism and against the indefectibility of the traditional Catholic Church. But it is not, because he has eisegeted the Scripture rather than taking it at face value and according to its own definitions and proper cross-referencing. This is classic erroneous Protestant exegesis and false application of isolated prooftexts, according to man-made tradition.

I can even go further, if the above data is insufficient for my case, and delve into the biblical meaning of leaven. The New Bible Dictionary (“Leaven” in the 1962 edition, p. 726) states that leaven in relation to Pharisees, is:

. . . the Pharisees’ hypocrisy and preoccupation with outward show (Mt. xxiii. 14, 16; Lk. xii. 1) . . .

St. Paul again supports the concept of leaven as moral corruption and hypocrisy when he mentions the word:

1 Corinthians 5:6-8 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? [7] Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. [8] Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Linguist A. T. Robertson, in his six-volume Word Pictures in the New Testament, comments on Luke 12:1 (cited above):

He had long ago called the pharisees hypocrites (Matt. 6:2, 5, 6). The occasion was ripe here for this crisp saying. . . . Hypocrisy was the leading pharisaic vice (Bruce) and was a mark of sanctity to hide an evil heart.

(Vol. II, 171)

The best contrary argument, I think, comes from a seemingly straightforward interpretation of another passage in Matthew:

Matthew 16:11-12 How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad’ducees.” [12] Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sad’ducees.

“Teaching” here is didache, also often translated as “doctrine.” So how do we interpret this, over against Matthew 23:3: “practice and observe whatever they [the Pharisees] tell you,” and Luke 12:1, where our Lord defines “leaven” as hypocrisy? I think we harmonize them by understanding that the notion of “teaching” can have a wider application, beyond content alone: incorporating example and overall living of a life according to one’s own outlook or belief-system. The Pharisees were teaching by their actions and hypocrisy as well as their doctrines. Jesus repudiated their hypocrisy but not their upholding of the Law.

Paul expresses this connection of doctrinal teaching and behavior in his several references to himself as an example whom Christians should emulate or follow:

1 Corinthians 4:15-17 For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. [16] I urge you, then, be imitators of me. [17] Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.

Philippians 3:16-17 Only let us hold true to what we have attained. [17] Brethren, join in imitating me, and mark those who so live as you have an example in us.

Philippians 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-9 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. [7] For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, [8] we did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you. [9] It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate.

Paul stresses to his successor of sorts, Timothy, that Christian teaching always includes right conduct and example:

1 Timothy 4:6, 11-12, 15-16 If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed.. . . [11] Command and teach these things. [12] Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.. . . [15] Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. [16] Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

And to Titus as well:

Titus 1:7-9 For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, [8] but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; [9] he must hold firm to the sure word as taught [didache], so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

Titus 2:1, 7 But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine.. . . [7] Show yourself in all respects a model of good deeds, and in your teaching show integrity, gravity,

St. Peter also reiterates this theme of “teaching by example,” in writing to the elders of the Church:

1 Peter 5:1-3 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. [2] Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, [3] not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.

This is how I harmonize all of the biblical data, as to whether Jesus condemned the doctrine of the Pharisees, or rather (as in my interpretation above), only their “teaching” insofar as it is presented to the world hypocritically, as an entire package. Otherwise, if the entire pharisaical system of doctrine is condemned, Matthew 23:3 seems contradictory to Matthew 16:12, and Paul calling himself a Pharisee, etc. Jesus puts it all together in the Sermon on the Mount. He is not rejecting the continuance of the Mosaic Law in some real, tangible sense, but rather, coupling righteousness and a deeper, more spiritually profound outlook with it:

Matthew 5:14-20 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. [15] Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. [16] Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. [17] “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. [18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. [19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Nathan’s task is to harmonize all these passages together, as I have done (agree or disagree). He can’t just pick out of Scripture what agrees with his previously held dogmatic Lutheranism and polemics against Catholicism (making us analogous to the Pharisees, as is almost always done) and ignore what doesn’t fit. That won’t do. In any event, using a few passages while ignoring others will not provide a pretext for the ignoring of the binding authority of the Church (when an individual — like Luther himself — sees fit to do so), let alone as an undermining of the indefectibility of the Church, according to the worldview that Lutherans and other Protestants must adopt in order to justify their own continuing existence.

Nathan can’t demonstrate his Lutheran notion of a fallible Church that can be disobeyed by the atomistic individual with Bible in hand, from the Bible itself. I challenged him to do this in one of the comments under our first exchange:

The Bible has no room for your notion of the Church, either. I challenge you to find me a passage anywhere in Scripture that tells us that the Christian Church ever “officially” teaches error. It is always stated that the “truth” or “word of God” (beyond Scripture alone), the “message” or “doctrine” or “the faith” or “tradition” is absolutely true (hence infallible).

Paul always assumes his teaching is absolutely infallible and without error. The Church is called “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). I wrote an entire paper on that passage, showing that the only logical interpretation is infallibility. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) speaks in quite certain terms, and Paul goes out and informs his hearers of the decisions of he council, for obedience and observance (Acts 16:4). Infallibility, therefore, is all over Scripture, whereas Luther’s invention of sola Scriptura is not at all.

If the Church was allowed by God to teach error, we would be in rough shape. But the Church is indefectible, according to Scripture, and contra Luther.

Part b of his round 2 response:

Reply to Lutheran [Infanttheology]: Comparative Ecclesiology, “Lutheran” Church Fathers?, God Departing the Temple, OT Religious System Not Indefectible Like the Church

Nathan is a friendly Lutheran theological adversary. We previously engaged in the following exchanges:

Brief Exchange With Lutheran [Infanttheology] on Luther’s Revolt and Fundamental Differences of Perspective Regarding the So-Called Protestant “Reformation”

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part One: Introductory

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part Two: Church Fathers + Sola Scriptura

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part Three: Soteriology and Miscellany

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part Four: Rule of Faith, the Fathers, and Ecclesiology

Reply to Lutheran [Infanttheology]: Exegetical Exposition on Whether the “Leaven” of the Pharisees is Hypocrisy or Doctrinal Falsehood
Nathan’s latest reply — one portion of which I am now responding to –, is entitled, Round 2 with RC apologist Dave Armstrong: the unattractive body of Christ. His words will be in blue. I will be changing what I regard as excessive bolding in Nathan’s replies (harsh on the eyes) to italics.

* * * * *

. . . I drew the conclusion that persons can hold a legitimate, authoritative office in the Church by God’s will and yet teach falsely.

Yes, they certainly can. A bishop can teach wrong things; even be a heretic. There were hundreds of Arian and Monophysite bishops. A council can teach wrongly: the Robber Council of 449 is an example. Even, in our view, popes can both teach heresy and personally be heretics. We only think that if he attempts to proclaim a heresy as binding on the faithful, that God would prevent it. He is infallible under certain carefully defined circumstances. The ecumenical council is infallible if it proclaims, in legion with the pope, some teaching as binding and obligatory.

The problem with your view is that it proves too much: it takes out biblical requirements of indefectibility and the universal casual assumption in the New Testament that there is one doctrinal truth and one faith: not competing sectarian visions. The two aspects have to be balanced. We believe that our position on it incorporates all the relevant realities: human frailty and fallibility (which needs no proof!), and the other non-optional consideration of divine infallibility and guidance of the Church through God the Holy Spirit (John 14-16).

You say you believe in the indefectibility of the Church, too, but I retort that in order to do so, you have to change the definition of Church as always historically understood in apostolic and patristic and medieval Catholic Christianity. Thus, you have difficulties in ecclesiology. Protestantism is always, always, internally incoherent and self-contradictory in the final analysis. There is no way out of it. You have to either forsake history or logic or consistent biblical exegesis at some point in order to hold any form of Protestantism.

I hate to put it in such crass terms, but that is what I sincerely believe, with all due respect to my brothers and sisters, whom I highly respect and esteem on an individual level, and to you (whose apologetic and analytical abilities I do respect). Lutheranism has, I think, less internal difficulties than any other Protestant view, save Anglo-Catholicism, but there are still severe difficulties, unable to be resolved. We’ll get to those, the longer we interact. 🙂 I’ve already debated many of them with other Lutherans.

There is no hostility here! Just a desire for the truth . . . 

Whatever I said to elicit this reply from you, it was (I know for sure) referring to hostile premises or opposing ideas, not personal hostility. There is (quite refreshingly) none of that from you, and none from my end, either: just a great theological conversation: a thing that ought to be possible for any and all Christians to do, but alas, it is sadly rare.

(is what I said above regarding Jesus’ seemingly contradictory stance towards the Pharisees as teachers of truth not interesting, and worthy of more thorough reflection?) . . . I simply wanted him to acknowledge “Jesus’ seemingly contradictory stance towards the Pharisees as teachers of the truth” (which yes, could have implications depending on how one views God working in the Church). . . . If he does not find the following response to his objections convincing at all, I would, first of all, like him to tell me why it has nothing to do with his failure to thoughtfully and carefully deal with (and produce an adequate explanation of) these simple and clear Biblical facts.  Because, you see, I think these facts of Scripture are lynch-pins to the whole of the case I have against him and the particular church of which he is a part.

It was quite worthy of response, which is why I devoted my last reply to it, with lots of substance for you to grapple with. I was delighted at the opportunity to strengthen the Catholic case on a key issue (as you say). I have proposed a way to resolve the seeming contradiction (that I don’t — like you — believe is really there). Now, your task is to propose a better solution, taking into account the relevant passages that I brought to bear. I found the entire topic a fascinating one to ponder. I think my explanation was quite thoughtful and careful and adequate. Now I hope you will grant me the same courtesy and not pass over my counter-argument. Then this dialogue can get very interesting indeed, and constructive, too.

OK, here’s my recap of the things he is talking about.  He says Irenaeus was a Roman Catholic because he believed in “episcopacy, apostolic succession, apostles’ choosing of bishops to succeed them, Roman primacy, the papacy”, etc.  I don’t deny that Irenaeus believed these things, but essentially ask “can any of this be proven from the Scriptures?” (it seems to me that they certainly cannot).

It seems to me that they certainly can be so proven or strongly indicated at the very least (excepting Roman primacy, which is a post-biblical development, but clearly apostolic, starting right with St. Clement of Rome). I give much biblical argumentation for all the other elements on my Church and Papacy web pages. Apostolic succession is very straightforward, as seen particularly in the replacement of Judas with Matthias. Judas is even called a bishop! So it’s all right there: an apostle being replaced, and bishops as successors to the apostles.

What St. Irenaeus believed (agree or disagree with him), on the other hand, is a matter of historical record. I backed up my contentions about his beliefs from Protestant historians. It’s not rocket science. He was a thoroughgoing Catholic, and believed exactly what we would expect, in a Catholic outlook, at that point of time and development in the history of Church doctrine: not some kind of proto-Lutheran. What Protestants try to do is special plead and make out that the fathers were closer to their beliefs than ours, and it just isn’t the case. It’s a losing battle; a hopeless cause; fails miserably every time: even with good ol’ St. Augustine: every Protestant’s favorite Church father (who believed, e.g., in all seven Catholic sacraments). You can’t make a square peg fit into a round hole.

Further, I ask this because the Roman Catholic Church says that if these things aren’t believed, my particular church (LC-MS) is placing itself outside of the Church and salvation, which to me seems to me quite radical.

This is far more complex than you make out. We believe that Protestants are part of the Church in an imperfect manner, and that they can indeed be saved, since they have the true sacrament of baptism and believe many things in common with us. This was highly stressed at Vatican II and many ecumenical papal encyclicals and other papal statements since. If one knows for sure that the Catholic Church is the one true Church in its fullness: unique and set up by God, and rejects it, then we’d say they cannot be saved. God meets people where they are at. People who have never even heard of Jesus or the gospel can possibly be saved (Romans 2). We say that Protestants are simply wrong with regard to all these things you mention, which are strongly supported in the Bible itself, except for Roman primacy, which is secondary to the papacy, anyway, which is indicated by St. Peter’s leadership and many things said about him in the Bible.

What is “radical” are many statements about the Catholic Church made in the Book of Concord (following Luther’s anti-Catholic nonsense and hogwash), such as that we are the seat of antichrist, that we worship Baal in the Mass, and are rank idolaters and semi-Pelagians, etc. There are a host of falsehoods there. Example:

Apology of the Augsburg Confession [1531], Article XXIV: The Mass

Carnal men cannot stand it when only the sacrifice of Christ is honored as a propitiation. For they do not understand the righteousness of faith but give equal honor to other sacrifices and services. A false idea clung to the wicked priests in Judah, and in Israel the worship of Baal continued; yet the church of God was there, condemning wicked services. So in the papal realm the worship of Baal clings — namely, the abuse of the Mass . . . And it seems that this worship of Baal will endure together with the papal realm until Christ comes to judge and by the glory of his coming destroys the kingdom of Antichrist. Meanwhile all those who truly believe the Gospel should reject those wicked services invented against God’s command to obscure the glory of Christ and the righteousness of faith.

(The Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore Tappert, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House / Muhlenberg Press, 1959, p. 268)

In addition to Irenaeus’ beliefs mentioned above, he also believed that all the things that the Apostles orally passed on to their successors (i.e. the “Apostolic deposit”, the “Rule of Faith”) were in “agreement with the Scriptures” (his actual words).

Yes, so do I; so do all orthodox Catholics. That proves nothing with regard to our dispute about sola Scriptura. Protestants have the most extraordinarily difficult time grasping this. You seem to think it is some big “score” for your side, when the fact of the matter is that we are entirely in agreement, so that it is useless for you to point this out at all. It’s like saying, “we believe that the sun goes up!” There is no need to state the obvious that all agree upon. All this shows is that, apparently, you think for some reason that Catholics would deny that our doctrines are in complete harmony with Holy Scripture. Else, why bring it up at all?

Therefore, if these things Irenaeus mentions cannot be found in the Scriptures, either explicitly or implicitly, how should we react to such beliefs (given his other stated beliefs)? 

You should reject them (so should I). I strongly deny that they are not found there.

I suggest that Jerome, writing in the 4th c., gives us a good clue about what is really happening here: things like distinctions between bishops and presbyters are by human, not divine rite. They are arrangements that pastors, working together and led by the Holy Spirit, came up with in their times to effectively order the Church for the sake of order, love, and unity. To say that this is a matter that determines whether a particular church is “truly Church” seems very wrong, to say the least. 

The distinctions are clearly laid out in Scripture itself. I go through them, particularly, in my paper, The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church, which is part of my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism.

I suggest that had Ireneaus actually had to think about these things (in his context he didn’t) he would side with my particular church, not Rome.

I suggest that he wouldn’t have. All the many novel and heretical things that Luther introduced would have been foreign to his very categories of thought.

. . . even a great like Saint Augustine talked about how he, in his conflicts with the heretics, consistently came across fathers who had spoken carelessly, or not as circumspectly as they should have – and he tried to cover their errors.  For example, before Pelagius, many fathers had spoken quite loosely about free will, not seeing original sin as the horrible contagion that it was.  It was only after this error drove Augustine back to the Scriptures that he was able to look upon the writings of the Fathers – with new eyes – and to see how badly they had erred.

That’s all quite true. Original sin developed slowly. True doctrine is always clarified in disputes with heretics. Cardinal Newman noted that there was more of a consensus in the fathers for purgatory than for original sin. This poses no difficulty for our position. Christology, after all, developed slowly, too (for at least another two hundred years after Augustine, working through the natures and wills of Christ. So did the canon of Scripture and Mariology and the communion of saints. Protestants arbitrarily cherry-pick some things (canon — minus the deuterocanon — original sin, Christology), and reject others (Mariology, intercession and invocation and veneration of saints, purgatory), but all of these developed slowly for hundreds of years. Lutheranism developed so extremely slowly that it took almost 1500 years to appear at all. 🙂

Therefore, like Noah’s children covered him in his nakedness, Augustine covered their errors as much as he could while at the same time trying not to being dishonest about what they had actually said.  The Lutherans were simply following in Augustine’s train.  

You guys rejected some of his (and Luther’s) more extreme predestinarian views just as we did. But he was not a Calvinist, either, despite what the Calvinists vainly try to argue. Luther was more of a Calvinist than Augustine ever was, in terms of predestination and free will.

. . . sometimes the church only gradually comes to realize that some of the doctrines it would never have thought to wonder about (i.e. is this doctrine really important or not), it does come to wonder about when people begin to misuse it in some way – and then it can [quite readily] be determined to be essential or non-essential.

I agree, excepting those doctrines which are essential but which Lutherans (along with many other Protestants) wrongly deny are essential. Doctrines develop, but if they are part of the apostolic deposit, they can never be “demoted” to non-essential or optional status.

I hope this makes it more clear why, when it comes to the Rule of Faith and the development of doctrine, that it is not always useful to simply focus on the quotations of the fathers. You see, I submit that there are other concrete facts that are even more important – that trump whatever this or that father may have said (I am not saying that they are not important!). These facts suggest a different story, an alternative narrative to the one that Dave has. 

It all depends on what one wants to talk about. The historical and biblical arguments in favor of doctrines are distinct. Chemnitz (the original impetus for our discussions)  talked about Church fathers, so I did, too, because he stated many factual errors in that regard. For the Protestant, they can always ditch what any father says, or what all (or nearly all) of them hold in consensus, if they wish, because for them there is no infallible authority except Scripture.

Now, above, you have said that the promises made to the New Testament Church are of a fundamentally different nature than those made to the Assembly of the Israelites.  To say the least, that is far from obvious. 

What is so difficult to grasp about my statement, “The Old Testament proto-Church did not have the Holy Spirit and express promises from God that it would be protected and never defect”? This is rather straightforward and plain. The Holy Spirit was only given to select individuals in the old covenant: but now to every baptized Christian and in greater measure to Church leaders. There are promises of indefectibility, too (that I have collected), that are not present in the old covenant. For example:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

This is the Church: Jesus’ Church, headed by Peter and his successors the popes: not just a tiny remnant. What remains constant in the old covenant is God’s mercy towards his always-straying children, and holding to His covenants despite their rebelliousness. Hence we have the notion of remnant that you often bring up. But that is distinct from institutional indefectibility. That is simply a few followers who remain true, whereas in the new covenant, the promise is that the truth and the apostolic deposit (of which it is Guardian) will never depart from the Church. It would be like the two or three high level pro-life Democrats that still exist as a tiny remnant of what once was. That’s your remnant idea. In our view (to follow the analogy) the entire party (in its platform) remains on the right path, and isn’t reduced to just a few people of a once-great corporate assembly.

The Church is also obviously after Jesus, and He is with us as well, which makes it quite different (Matthew 28:20: “I am with you always, to the close of the age”). It’s quite ironic that Protestants accuse us of being stuck in Pharisaical legalism and works-righteousness, yet in the present discussion you are maintaining that the new covenant is not essentially different from the old, and I am maintaining that it is quite far beyond the old, and that Catholicism is the fullness of the development of a Church and the new covenant and Christian post-pentecostal age. You’re defending the identity of the old system with the Christian one in the sense of ecclesiology; I am saying that the new covenant “new wineskins” are far more advanced.

I think the default conclusion of any reader of the Bible as a whole will be that we are dealing with continuity here,. . . 

You can claim that (in a particular sense), but you have (so far) passed right over the many biblical evidences I gave that this is not totally the case . . . This seems to be a growing pattern in our interactions: I provide lots of Scripture for my view, and you ignore most of it and go right on asserting Lutheran traditions of men, such as a defectible (Catholic) Church. Let me be more specific: I think (with you) that there is continuity (I believe in development of doctrine), but I think it is a huge leap from the OT assembly to the NT Church because of the elements I have been discussing. Insofar as there is consistent continuity, the analogy is far more towards the Catholic Church rather than to Lutheranism.

Indefectibility is the striking development in ecclesiology after Jesus. Previous to that time, the Bible was regarded as an unchanging truth, but not assemblies of men, so much. Rather, infallibility was isolated, in the form of prophets, who brought God’s message in a profound way (they are analogous in some important ways to popes, whereas Lutherans have no such authority figures anymore and go back to infallible and/or binding books alone, as in the old covenant: Bible, Book of Concord).

and I think that you need to demonstrate that the promises to the New Testament church suggest more discontinuity with the Old Testament Church than they do continuity (or at least define well the difference in continuity). 

Just reiterated that. It was already present in my collection of indefectibility passages, that I have referred you to several times.

I go by Romans 1, which talks about going from faith to faith, from first to last.  The Bible is fundamentally the story of God calling His people and giving them promises by His Spirit to keep them strong in the faith.

I don’t disagree with any of that. It is neither here nor there in relation to our particular dispute at present. I would simply say again, that Protestants have less faith than Catholics, because we believe that God can preserve institutions (His Church) as well as Bibles and individuals. That takes more faith. We have that; you do not, because you deny the very possibility. I think Protestantism suffers greatly from that deficiency because it tends to a-historicism, anti-institutionalism, and excessive individualism: all things that run counter to the biblical worldview.

Note that the Church (or Assembly) of the Old Testament also had specific promises about the temple that “God wills to dwell there forever” (also see Deut. 16:2; 2 Chron. 6:2; Neh. 1:9; Isa. 31:9; Isa. 59:21 ; Jer. 31:36-37, 40etc.).

God in fact didn’t dwell in the temple forever, and the temple (three different buildings) was destroyed three times: by the Babylonians and the Romans twice (both things disanalogous to indefectibility). In the old covenant, God’s presence was conditioned upon obedience. For example:

Ezekiel 13:8 Therefore thus says the Lord God: “Because you have uttered delusions and seen lies, therefore behold, I am against you, says the Lord GOD”.

Malachi 3:7 From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts.

That’s not the case in the new covenant, with all the promises of the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church and His presence in Christians in perpetuity.  The Bible actually describes God and the “glory of the Lord” or the shekinah presence departing from the temple, prior to its destruction:

Ezekiel 8:6 And he said to me, “Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel are committing here, to drive me far from my sanctuary? But you will see still greater abominations.”

Ezekiel 11:23 And the glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city. (cf. 9:3; 10:4, 18-19)

Getting back to your prooftexts, God is said to dwell in Jerusalem forever (1 Chr 23:25) but that is not the temple, and hence, not an institution analogous to the Church. Deut 16:2 says God will dwell at a certain “place,” but it doesn’t say it will be forever. Solomon says in another of your texts, “I have built thee an exalted house, a place for thee to dwell in for ever” (2 Chr 6:2), but this doesn’t prove that God always will do so. Ezekiel 8:6 and 11:23 show that He did not in fact always dwell there, and three destroyed temples make that obvious, anyway, I should think. Right now a mosque stands where the temple stood, so if God is still there “forever” it is in the shrine of a false religion.

Nehemiah 1:9 proves my point (thanks!): God’s presence is directly dependent on obedience: “if you return to me and keep my commandments . . .” Therefore it is not permanent and unconditional as the new covenant indefectibility of the Church is. Isaiah 31:9 doesn’t mention the temple at all. Isaiah 59:21 is better, but it is still conditional on behavior, as seen in the preceding verse: “to those in Jacob who turn from transgression.” And it is not institutional. The old covenant religious system is not protected from error, and indeed in later prophetic books is described as virtually totally apostate. This is what you need to establish in order to make a proper analogy to the indefectibility of the Church.

Jeremiah 31:36-37 is in the context of the announcement of the new covenant (31:31-34). This in and of itself proves that the new covenant is vastly different from the old, because it foretells the indwelling (31:33), and God can be with His people forever precisely because He forgives their sin once and for all (31:34). The indwelling in turn is made possible by the sacrifice of Christ (Jn 14:16-20; 15:26; 16:7, 13). Jeremiah 31:40 is not about the temple. So I think all your “proofs” fail in their purpose, and mine are more relevant and decisive on this matter.

And note especially Leviticus 24 [should be 26]: ¹¹ I will make my dwelling among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. ¹² And I will walk among you and will be your God, and you shall be my people.”   That seems pretty firm and unconditional taken by itself, but of course we know that we need to take these words in the context of the whole narrative, including the other words that were spoken to them as well.

This is yet another conditional promise, so it is not an analogy to indefectibility: “If you walk in my statutes and observe my commandments and do them, then. . .” (Lev 26:3-4a). Then 26:14 states: “if you will not hearken to me, and will not do all these commandments,. . .” followed by a horrible list of judgments (26:16-43). So this is a stranger “prooftext” for you to cite.

What you don’t seem to realize is that this is not the case in the new covenant and Church Age. The promises are unconditional. God will do what He promises regarding protection of the Church and her doctrine: “the powers of death shall not prevail against” the Church (Matt 16:18); period. It’s not based on obedience. God brings it to pass. End of story. “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt 28:20); no conditions again. It’s an absolute statement. God wills and declares and promises it, so it will happen, and cannot not happen.

Peter falters and denies Christ three times, but after he is filled with the Holy Spirit it is a different story. Jesus prays for him in a special way because he is the leader of the Church: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32); and indeed it doesn’t, after Pentecost. This is a type and shadow of papal infallibility, as is being given the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:19): only given to Peter; and all the implications of that (rightly understood, in light of its OT precursors). All of this goes to show that your attempted analogy between old covenant disobedience and unfaithfulness and the Church, doesn’t fly. It fails at every turn.You’re not succeeding in making a biblical case for your opinion at all.

We know later on in the story, Jeremiah reproaches those who appeal to the promises about the temple of the Lord (“the temple of the Lord!  The temple of the Lord!”) for “trusting the words of a liar” (Jer. 7:8)  As Gerhard says: “Promises only pertain to those who allow the Word of God to rule them, who look to the Law and the testimony [Isaiah 8:20]; and who teach, judge and act according to the norm of the divine Word (161, On the Church)”.

Yes; that is exactly right with regard to the old covenant, but not the new covenant, with regard to promises made about the Church and its guardianship of truth and the one true faith: “the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). God Himself protects the doctrine of the Church from being corrupted. This is the entire point. if it were left up to men, this wouldn’t happen, but when God wants something done (in this case, preservation of true doctrine and theology and moral teaching), it is done. Gerhard, I guess, doesn’t know that things have changed with the new covenant. If you follow his line of reasoning, you’ll be wrong, too, and miss the glorious truths that the NT is teaching on this score.

So, due to the widespread corruption in His Church in the O.T., did the Lord forsake His people and abandon his heritage (see Psalm 94:14)?  Did the gates of hell prevail against the Old Testament Church – was God not with them [even until the end of the age…]?  Things got pretty rough, but persons like Mary, Simeon, Anna, Zechariah, Elizabeth and Nathaniel would suggest that the gates of hell did not prevail and God did not leave them or forsake them – He preserved His remnant through those who were faithful

He remained with the remnant of the faithful, but that is not the institutional assembly and religious system: which would be the priests and Levites and the scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees. Therefore, it is not an analogy to the Church, as I keep reiterating. This is why you have to redefine the Church in order to carry off this false analogy: as if the Church could be reduced to a few people here and there, like the survivors of a nuclear war, or the last dinosaur before extinction set in. This is not New Testament language regarding the Church. The Church is present even in the churches of Revelation that Jesus rebukes for many serious sins.

For example, the “church of Pergamum” (Rev 2:12) — note how Jesus Himself still calls it a church — , has members that even hold to false doctrine (“you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, . . . you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicola’itans” — 2:14-15). This goes against your contention that those who have false doctrine immediately lose the title of “church”. Jesus Himself refutes you. it couldn’t be any clearer.

But now, given that Hebrews tells us that God has always gathered an Assembly for Himself by causing people to look in faith to the Promised Messiah (Hebrews 11) – even through horrendous persecutions where God, though fully faithful, seemed to have abandoned His people – what justification do you have for suggesting that the Church has fundamentally changed?

Hebrews 11 is about individuals of great faith, not the old covenant religious system. Moses (of those listed) was a religious leader, and this comes closest to an analogy to indefectibility, but he actually taught falsely in a sense, by implying that he could perform miracles by his own power, not God’s: “Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?” (Num 20:10). God had told him to merely speak to the rock (20:8), but he struck it twice (20:11), leading God to rebuke him: “you did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the people” (20:12). Therefore, in a way he was guilty of false teaching, and for this reason, both he and Aaron were not allowed to enter the Promised Land (20:12; Dt 34:4). Thus, it is again a disanalogy to the indefectibility of the Church. Moses failed in his teaching duty and was punished for it, and so was Aaron: also a religious leader, as a priest (20:24).

The prophets are far more analogous to the infallibility of popes, as I have argued twice in my papers (one / two), and will again in my new book against sola Scriptura. But they were not part of the religious system; they were outside of it: usually rebuking the corrupt people in it. The difference in the new covenant is that the institutional system of the Church is protected from error (“it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” — Acts 15:28: the Jerusalem Council). The Church is a far different thing.

…those who persecuted Micah, Elijah, and Jeremiah, for example, could have said (and in some cases did say) similar things.  [as were said by the Church to Luther]

That’s correct. But they didn’t have the promise of Christ of indefectibility, whereas the Catholic Church, an institution with an unbroken history and succession back to the apostles and Christ, did have that. Nor was Luther a prophet, as those men were.

I had challenged you, stating:

Show me in the Bible where there is ever such a thing as a mere layperson disagreeing doctrinally with a leader in the Church based on Bible reading and thereby being justified in his dissent and schism by that method? I say it isn’t there.

But here I need only point out how John the Baptist and our Lord Himself were not formally recognized or ordained by the religious hierarchy of the N.T. Church, as the Pharisees, who served on the council, were. The hierarchy even asked John by what right he said the things he did. 

This doesn’t overcome my argument and position because this is not yet the Church. There was no Church till Pentecost, after the death of both John and Jesus and the coming of the Holy Spirit. Jesus couldn’t be “ordained” by the “N.T. Church” because it didn’t yet exist. Therefore, this proves nothing. They were rejected by the old covenant religious system which was never promised indefectibility in the first place.

And now that I have established an alternative narrative account that I do not think you can deny,  . . . 

Surprise! I eagerly look forward to your answers to all the material I have come up with.

* * *

In fact, the Bible predicts that in the Last Days, the church will not look glorious at all, but will be beleagured on all sides… (see Matthew 24:24, Luke 18:8, 2 Thes 2:3-4). 

Matthew 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

Individuals will be led astray in great numbers (sounds like today!). This says nothing about the institutional Church, or magisterium, and so is irrelevant to the question of indefectibility, which has to do with the Church, not individual Christians.

Luke 18:8 I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?

Ditto. Widespread apostasy of men doesn’t prove that the Church has forsaken and failed in her God-given and divinely-guided mission. The text simply doesn’t say that.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, [4] who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

This is closer to what you need to show but still doesn’t by any means prove defectibility. It’s somewhat like the times when popes were held prisoner, or the horrors of the French Revolution or the English so-called “Reformation” with its wholesale butcheries (ripping people’ hearts out of their bodies, etc., simply for being Catholics) and Leninist-like repression. The Church didn’t cease to exist because this was the case, and strong-arm tactics used to suppress the head of the Church, or the entire institutional Church, as the case may be. Peter and Paul (and St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher) were martyred; the Church still existed. The structure (and the truth and apostolic deposit preserved in the Church) didn’t go into oblivion because of any persecution. The same will apply during the Last Days, no matter how bad it gets.

The seven churches of Revelation are again illustrative. Jesus still calls them “churches” no matter how many sins He condemned in them. They didn’t lose or forfeit the category. And there is indication that at least some of these local churches will persevere through the last days; for example, the church in Philadelphia:

Revelation 3:10 Because you have kept my word of patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial which is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell upon the earth.

When He says “you” He is writing to the church, not one person.

. . . it’s just that such a Church can be a lot smaller than you might think.  

It may be very small in the end, but it is still there, preserving the truth. That’s the promise: essence and unbroken continuity, not size or appearance or influence or popular acclaim. But your champion Gerhard (as you cite him) wants to play games and equivocate: “It is one thing to say simply that the church is visible; it is another to say that it is visible to the world” (186). Right.

This reminds me of the Jehovah’s Witnesses ludicrous claim (made in desperation after false prophecies) that Jesus did return in 1914, but invisibly, not visibly. Likewise, for Gerhard, the Church will always be visible, but alas, not to the world. I trust that his other arguments are more impressive than this one. But in any event, it’s an absolutely classic case study of saying the right words (indefectibility, visible Church), but redefining them according to one’s own fancies, over against traditional Catholic use. This is the trademark of heterodoxy and liberalism at all times. Rather than admit that things have essentially changed, it prefers word games and equivocations.

that said, I would add that God certainly intends for His Church to be visible and discernible before the world, for He desires all persons to be saved.

Good; so even you disagree with Gerhard. You’re right. Welcome to catholic ecclesiology, in this respect.

In any case, it seems to me that the major difference between you and I is that you start thing from the get go wanting certainty.  

It’s not a matter of what I (or anyone else) want or don’t want, but of what the New Testament everywhere casually assumes without argument, about the Church’s possession of the fullness of apostolic truth and doctrine. Belief that all this is so uncertain is one of the negative fruits of the relentless sectarianism of Protestantism. Because they can’t agree with each other, they start to pretend that Scripture sanctions their disagreements as of relatively little importance. This is sheer nonsense. The New Testament knows nothing of the “healthy diversity” of mutually contradictory doctrines. Falsehood is from the devil, period. Where logical contradiction exists, falsehood also must be present.