Irenaeus on Scripture and Tradition

Irenaeus on Scripture and Tradition

by Dr. Norman L. Geisler

 

Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200) is an important figure in the early Church. He was the Bishop of Lyons, France who heard Polycarp (the disciple of the apostle John) when he was a boy. He was thought to be a native of Smyrna who studied at Rome. He was the first great Father in the West. His major work was titled Against Heresies.

His View of Scripture

Irenaeus stood soundly on the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of Scripture. He also held to its inerrancy. Further, he is an important testimony to the authorship and dates of the Gospels.

On the Authority of Scripture

The Scriptures are said to have divine authority for they are called “divine Scriptures” (AH 2.35.4; 3.19.2). The Bible is called “the ground and pillar of our faith” (AH 3.1.1). It is “the Scripture of truth” as opposed to the “spurious writings” of heretics (1.20.1). For “…all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent” (AH 2.28.3). He affirms that “…even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God” (AH 3.21.2). Indeed, the apostle Paul’s words came from “the impetus of the Spirit within him” (AH 3.6.7).

On the Inerrancy of Scripture

Irenaeus declares that “the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit” (AH 2.28.2). They are also said to be “divine” (from God), and God cannot err (Rom. 3:4; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). They are called “the Scripture of truth” as opposed to the “spurious writings” of heretics (1.20.1). The fact that “all Scripture, which has been given to us by God” is further evidence of their inerrancy, since God cannot err (AH 2.28.3). Likewise, the fact that they are “found by us perfectly consistent” bespeaks of their flawless character. Indeed, Irenaeus speaks of the authors of Scripture as “the apostles, likewise, being disciples of the truth, are above all falsehood” in what they taught (3.5.1). They Gospels, written by the apostles, are based on the words of our Lord. And “our Lord, therefore, being the truth, did not speak lies” (AH 3.5.1)

On the Authenticity of the Gospels

Irenaeus held the traditional authorship of the Gospels were the contemporary eyewitness apostles and disciples whose names they bear. He speaks of “the Gospel of truth” (AH 3.11.9) that were written by the true apostles. He wrote: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” Further, “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John the disciple of the Lord…did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” (AH .3.1.1). Irenaeus exhorts, “let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel” (ibid.). He speaks also of the certainty we have of the Gospel which we would not have were it not for the apostles. “For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings” (AH 3.4.1). Hence, “these [four] Gospels alone are true and reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminuition of the aforesaid number, I have proved by so many and such arguments” (AH 3.11.9).

The Transmission of the Truth of Scriptures

Irenaeus offers two main arguments for the accuracy of the transmission of biblical truth. First, the translations are accurate. Second, the interpretation is the same as that of the apostles and associates who produced them with whom we have an unbroken historical connection.

The Accuracy of the Copies.–Little is said on this point because little needed to be said. After all, the available copies were only about a hundred years after the New Testament was completed. Nonetheless, Irenaeus does make some comments about both Testaments.

As for the Old Testament, he bases his belief in the reliability of the translation on the widely believed story of the alleged miraculous origin of the Septuagint (LXX). It was supposedly produced by some 70 different translators, each working independently and yet producing identical translations from Hebrew to Greek.[1] He wrote, “For all of them read out of the common translation which they had prepared in the very same words and the very same names from beginning to end, so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God” (AH 3.21.2). As unlikely as this story is, there is a core of truth contained, namely, abundant available manuscripts verify that the Old Testament has been accurately reproduced down through the centuries (see Geisler, General Introduction, Chap. 21), is that the Old Testament has been accurately copied down through the centuries.  

Irenaeus adds to this the argument that the text has not been corrupted because “the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and the grace of God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished;…This interpretation[2] of these Scriptures was made prior to the Lord’s descent to earth, and came into being before the Christians appeared…–but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted” (AH 3.21.3). Irenaeus’s argument is similar to that of current Christian apologist who point out that Isaiah 53 is a messianic prediction about Christ, since even the Rabbis before the time of Christ understood it to be about the Messiah, not about a suffering nation (see Driver, FTCIAJI, Vol. 2).

As for the New Testament manuscripts available in the second century, Irenaeus based their authenticity on several factors. He wrote: “But our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from the Scriptures, which were interpreted [transmitted] in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation.” This is evident because “…the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these heretics, agree with this aforesaid translation; and he translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical announcements, just as the interpretation of the elders contain them” (AH 3.21.3). He adds, “For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by the elders give a just [right] interpretation of what had been truly prophesied” (AH 3.21.4). In short, the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures also guided the early Fathers in interpreting them.

On the Unbroken Chain of Transmission

Irenaeus refers to the links in this unbroken chain transmitting the apostolic understanding of the Gospel, namely, it came from John the apostle to Polycarp to Irenaeus who knew him. Indeed, he spoke of Polycarp as one “not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but also, by the apostles in Asia appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth…” (AH 3.3, 4). Irenaeus wrote: “But, again,… we refer them [heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches” (AH 3.2.2). Indeed, Irenaeus refers to the “presbyters” as “the disciples of the apostles” (AH 5.35.2). For, “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times” (AH 3.3.1).  Irenaeus added, “These things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp [who was a disciple of the apostle John), in his fourth book” (AH 5.333.4).

On the Canonicity of Scripture

Irenaeus cites freely from every major section of the Old Testament and from most of the books. He also cites from more New Testament books than any other early writer (all but Philemon, James, 2Peter, and 3John). And he gives no reason to believe he rejected any of these; he simply had no occasion to quote from them, three of them being tiny one chapter books (Geisler, GIB, 193). Further, he chides heretics because they “adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings” (1.22.1) as opposed to the authentic Scriptures.

On the Primacy of Scripture.

No one reading the apostolic and other early Fathers can’t help but be stuck by their extensive and authoritative use of Scripture. Just seven major Fathers from Justin Martyr to Eusebius cites 36, 289 verses from the New Testament–every verse but eleven (most of which are from 3 John). Irenaeus alone cites nearly 2000 verses (1819 to be exact) (see Leach, OBHGI, 35-36).

Further, the manner in which they are cited reveal the great respect shown to the Scriptures as the very written word of God. As we have already seen, Irenaeus believed that the very words of Scripture were God-given, perfect, and without error. It is the very ground and pillar of truth.

Other than a few scant references in early Fathers to the oral words of apostles confirming what is in their written word, which alone is God-breathed (2Tim. 3:16 cf. 2Peter 1:20-21; 3:15-16), the Bible is not only the primary source of divine authority cited; it is the only source. Hence, it is not simply a matter of the primacy of Scripture but the exclusivity of Scripture as the sole written, God-breathed authority from God. Indeed, Irenaeus criticizes heretics because “they gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures” (1.8.1). Likewise, he condemns them because they “adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings” (1.22.1). In this sense, Irenaeus held to Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone)–one of the great principles of the later Reformation.

On the Perspicuity (Clarity) of Scripture

As J. N. D. Kelly notes, “Provided the Bible was taken as a whole, its teaching was self-evident” (ECD, 38). Only when heretics wrenched texts out of their proper context did the basic message seem confused. Of course, because the Bible is “spiritual in its entirety” it is not surprising that there are some obscurities (Kelly, ibid., 61). Nonetheless, the proper exegesis and aid of the Holy Spirit, the main message of the Bible is clear.

Irenaeus criticized those who “…accuse these Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition” (3.2.1). This shows clearly that he not only believed in the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture but also the sufficiency of the literal hermeneutic, apart from tradition, to understand what the Scriptures are teaching.

Irenaeus recognized, of course, that as clear as the Scriptures are there are depraved minds which will not accept it. He said, “I shall for the benefit of those at least who do not bring a depraved mind to bear upon them, devote a special book to the Scriptures referred to…, and I shall plainly set forth from these divine Scriptures proofs to satisfy all t he lovers of truth” (AH 2.35.4)

On the Interpretation of Scripture

Following on the clarity of Scripture is the belief in a literal historical-grammatical hermeneutic which alone can yield this clear message. Irenaeus believed that proper interpretation yields a harmonious and unambiguous understanding of Scripture. He wrote: “A sound mind…will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed with the power of mankind…and will make advancement in them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study” (AH 2.27.10). He added, “these things are such as fall plainly under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures” (ibid.).

Irenaeus concludes: “Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them,…those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such clear demonstrations…” (ibid.).

As for difficult passages, “the parables shall be harmonized with those passages which are perfectly clear…” (ibid.). Hence, there is a proper and improper way to read a text. And “if, then, one does not attend to the proper reading of the passage…there shall be not only incongruities, but also, when reading, he will utter blasphemy…” (AH 3.7.2). While Irenaeus did not hesitate to offer “proofs [of] the truths of Scripture” he was quick to point out that “proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except form the Scriptures themselves” (AH 3.12.9). That is, the Bible speaks best and most clearly for itself.

Referring of the New Jerusalem, Irenaeus speaks against the allegorical method of interpreting prophecy, saying, “nothing is capable of being allegorized, but all things are steadfast, and true, and substantial, having been made by God for righteous men’s enjoyment. For as it is God truly who raises up man, so also does man truly rise from the dead, and not allegorically, as I have shown repeatedly…. Then, when all things are made new, he shall truly dwell in the city of God” (AH 5.35.2).

As for Iraenaeus’ affirmation of the true exposition of the Scriptures is to be found in the church alone, the context indicates that he simply means that, as the repository of the true teaching that has come down from the apostles, the church alone, as opposed to heretics outside it, contains the true meaning of Scripture. This is clear from what he says in elaborating on this very point. For he wrote: “It behoves us to…adhere to those who, as I have already observed, do hold the doctrine of the apostles….” (AH 4.26.4). And, “it is also incumbent to hold in suspicion other who depart from the primitive succession…” (AH 4.26.2).

Likewise, Irenaeus places the correctness of his teaching this close link to the apostles, saying, “I have heard from a certain presbyter, who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles, and from their disciples, the punishment declared in Scripture was sufficient for the ancients in regard to what they did without the Spirit’s guidance” (4.27.1). Hence, “True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without an forging of Scripture, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor suffering curtailment in the truths which she believes; and it consists in reading the word of God without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures…; and above all it consists in the pre-eminent gift of love…” (AH 4.33.8, emphasis added).

It is evident from the emphasized words in the foregoing quote that the correct interpretation of Scripture is found by: 1) reading a text in its proper context; 2) in harmony with other Scripture; 3) as the apostles meant it; 4) and as it is expressed in the apostolic doctrines; 5) which is known to us by historical links with the apostles.

Thus, the succession of elders in the church were to be followed not because of any special divine revelatory authority that rest in them but because known historical link to the apostles gives validity to their claim to be offering a correct interpretation of what the apostles taught.

On the Canonicity of Scripture

Because the basis of the New Testament revelation is the authority of the apostles–both what they had originally proclaimed orally and later committed to writing (AH 3.1.1)–“it was not simply church custom but apostolicity, i..e., the fact that they had been composed by apostles and followers of the apostles” that was the basis for discovering their canonicity (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 38).

Not only does Irenaeus cite every New Testament writer as an apostle of accredited mouthpiece for God (like an associate of an apostle), but he cites from the vast majority of the twenty seven New Testament books. The same is true of the Old Testament. So, there is no reason to believe he rejects any one of the sixty six canonical books of Scripture. As for the so-called apocryphal books of the Old Testament later accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, there is no definitive evidence that Irenaeus believed they were inspired. Of the 14 apocryphal books (11 of which are accepted as inspired by the Roman Catholic Church), only two are alluded to by Irenaeus: 1) History of Susana ( AH 4. 26.2) that is quoted but not used as a divine authority to establish any doctrine. 2) The other book, Wisdom ( AH 2.18.9) is only a possible allusion, not a quotation or an authoritative citation at all. This in contrast to 1819 citations from a vast array of Old Testament books and 23 of the 27 books of the New Testament.

On the alleged citations of the Old Testament Apocrypha by Irenaeus and other early Fathers, the canonical authority Roger Beckwith notes:

When one examines the passages in the early Fathers which are supposed to establish the canonicity of the Apocrypha, one finds that some of them are taken from the alternative Greek text of Ezra (1Esdras) or from additions or appendicies to Daniel, Jeremiah or some other canonical book, which …are not really relevant; that others of them are not quotations from the Apocrypha at all; and that, of those which are, many do not give any indication that the book is regarded as Scripture (Beckwith, OTCNTC, 194, 382-383).

His View on Tradition

In defense of his orthodox interpretation of Scripture, Irenaeus appealed to several arguments. First, the correct means of interpretation of Scripture is used. This entails several factors: taking their words in their literal sense and the over-all theme of Scripture (see below). Second, the presence of the Holy Spirit is in the Church to guide it to correct interpretation (AH 3.21.4). Indeed, the Church is viewed as the home of the Holy Spirit who through its Spirit-endowed men who vouchsafed the truth of the Gospel (AH 4.26.2, 5).

Third, he refers to and unbroken chain of Bishops going back to the apostles to verify it was the correct interpretation (AH 3.2.2).

Finally, in connection with this later argument was Irenaeus’s belief that there was a living oral tradition housed in the Church which attests to the true apostolic interpretation of Scripture.

The Nature of Tradition

According to J.N.D. Kelly, not authority on the early Fathers, “Scripture and the Church’s living tradition [are viewed] as co-ordinate channels of this apostolic testimony….” (Kelly, ECD, 35-36). In contrast to Gnosticism, Irenaeus held this tradition to be public. It emanated from the apostles and them alone who were the sole authority on the matter (AH 3.1.1). He contended also, that regardless of differences in language and expression “the force of the tradition” communicated by the apostles was one and the same (AH, 1.10.2; 5.20.1).

The Locus of the Tradition

Unlike Papias who could refer to personal reminiscences of the apostles (Kelly, ECD, 37), Irenaeus believed in “the tradition from the apostles” which he said was available in the Church for all who care to look for it (AH, 3.4.2-5), having been faithfully “preserved by means of the succession of Presbyters in the Churches….” (AH 3.2.2) He also pointed to Barbarian tribes whom he believed had it in unwritten form (AH, 3.4.1). For all practical purposes this tradition could be found in what he called “the canon of truth,” Kelly calls a “condensed summary, fluid in its wording but fixed in content, setting out the key points of the Christian revelation in the form of a rule” (ECD, 37). Irenaeus makes numerous allusions to this body of truth (AH, 1.10.1, 22.1; 5.20.1 etc.).

The Relation of Scripture and Tradition

While some infer that Irenaeus exalted tradition alongside of, or ever over, Scripture, Kelley rejects this for several reasons. First, this only appears to be the case, since in his controversy with the Gnostics Irenaeus appealed to apostolic tradition as the proper way to interpret the Bible. Second, “the Gnostic’ appeal to their supposed secret traditions forced him to stress the superiority of the Church’s public tradition, [yet] his real defense of orthodoxy was founded on Scripture” (Kelly, ECD, 38-39, emphasis added). Third, “tradition itself, on his view, was confirmed by Scripture, which was `the foundation and pillar of our faith’ [3.1.1] (ibid., 39, emphasis added). Fourth, even the “canon of truth” which converts supposedly received at baptism used to help preserve orthodoxy was itself based on Scripture. Finally, Kelly said that Irenaeus believed that “Scripture and the Church’s unwritten tradition are identical in content” (ibid., 39, emphasis added). Kelly adds, “If tradition as conveyed in the “canon” is a more trustworthy guide, this is not because it comprises truths other than those revealed in Scripture, but because the true tenor of the apostolic message is there unambiguously set out” (ibid.)

Further, considering the overall context of Irenaeus’ polemic againt the Gnostics, who were misinterpreting Scripture, it is understandable that Irenaeus would stress the value of valid tradition supporting the orthodoxy of his anti-Gnostic views.

On the Apostolicity of the Church

It is evident form repeated statement by Irenaeus that the final authority for the church rests in the teachings of the apostles, not in any one apostle. Even the founding of the Church at Rome was said to be by two apostles, Paul and Peter (AH .3.1.1). Irenaeus repeated speaks of “the apostolic tradition” (AH 3.3.2) and “the blessed apostles” who “founded and built up the Church” (3.3.3), “the doctrine of the apostles (AH 3.12.4), and “the tradition from the apostles” (AH 3.5.1). He wrote: “these [apostles] are the voices of the Church form which every Church had its origin...; these are the voices of the apostles; these are the voices of the disciples of the Lord, the truly perfect, who after the assumption of the Lord, were perfected by the Spirit…” (AH 3.12.4, emphasis added) For “He [God] sent forth His own apostles in the spirit of truth, and not in that of error, He did the very same also in the case of the prophets” (AH 4.35.2)

On the Unity of the Church

Irenaeus strongly stressed the unity of the Christian Church. As just shown, most often this is in connection with its central apostolic doctrines over against heretical views which denies some fundamental tenet of the Faith.

He spoke repeatedly against schisms, once declaring of “A spiritual disciple” that “He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ….” He then adds, “For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism” (AH 4.33.7).

On the Authority of the Church

A good deal of controversy revolves around a disputed text in Against Heresies, Book Three. Irenaeus refers to “that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our times by means of the succession of the bishops.” For “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree [Latin, Convenire] with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere” (AH 3.3.2, emphasis added).

Interpretation favoring the Primacy of Rome.–Kelly sets for the dispute in these words: “If convenire here means “agree with” and principalitas refers to the Roman primacy (in whatever sense), the gist of the sentence may be taken to be that Christians of every other church are required, in view of its special position of leadership, to fall in line with the Roman church, inasmuch as the authentic apostolic tradition is always preserved by the faithful who are everywhere” (Kelly, ECD, 193).

Interpretation not Favoring the Primacy of Rome.–Many scholars have found fault with this translations for two reasons. First, the weakness of the final clause has struck them as “intolerable” (ibid.). Second, “the normal meaning of convenire is “resort to”, “foregather at”, and necesse est does not easily bear the sense of “ought” (ibid.) Indeed, the editor of the Apostolic Fathers in the The Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Cleveland Coxe, cites one candid Roman Catholic scholar who translates is it as follows: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles” (ANF, 1.415). Coxe adds, “Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing her orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into focus” (ibid.). This is in direct contrast to the proclamation of Pope Pius IX who “informed his Bishops, at the late Council, that they were not called to bear their testimony, but to hear his infallible decree” (ibid., 461). In short, what Irenaeus meant was that Rome is the center of orthodoxy since she, by virtue of being the capitol of the empire, was the respository of all catholic tradition-–‘all this has been turned upside down by modern Romanism” (ibid.)

Kelly concurs, observing that many scholars “…have judged it more plausible to take Irenaeus’ point as being that the Roman church [of that day] supplies an ideal illustration for the reason that, in view of its being placed in the imperial city, representatives of all the different churches necessarily (i.e., inevitably) flock to it, so that there is some guarantee that the faith taught there faithfully reflects the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 193).

It is noteworthy that the apostles did not appoint more apostles to replace them after Pentecost where they became the “foundation” of the Church, Christ being the chief cornerstone (Eph,. 2:20). Rather, they appointed “elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). Irenaeus himself speaks of “the disciples of the apostles” as “presbyters” (elders) (AH 5.35.2). He wrote: “… we refer them [heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches” (AH 3.2.2).

Irenaeus seemed to believe that each church has a single Bishop over it, speaking of Polycarp as “bishop of Smyrna” (cf. AH 3.3.4) and a line of bishops in Rome beginning with Linus (AH 3.3.3). However, this is in contrast to the New Testament which is clear that every local church had its own “bishops and deacons” (cf. Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:13).[3] And it was they whose leadership was to be followed by their congregations (Heb. 13:7, 17, 24), not any ecclesiastical authority in Rome. For Christ, the Chief Shepherd, was the invisible Head of the visible church. For He walked among them and rebuked them for not recognizing His Headship (cf. Rev. 1-3).[4]

Conclusion

While the non-Catholic interpretation of Irenaeus seems preferable for the many reasons given, the outcome of this issue is not definitive for the debate about the alleged primacy of Rome. For if the former view is correct, it simply shows an earlier statement of what later developed into what came to be known as Roman Catholicism. If so, this would not be surprising for a couple reasons. For one thing, the beginning of false doctrine, even on the primacy of the episcopacy, was nearly a century before this time. John the apostle spoke of it in his third epistle when he warned: “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us” (3Jn. 9). Further, Irenaeus was over a century after most apostles had died–the very time that even apocryphal Gospels were emerging. Indeed, he is writing sometime after the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (c. 140). So, there was plenty of time for false views to emerge, even among those who were otherwise orthodox. What is more, considering the attacks on Christianity at the time, there was strong motivation to develop an ecclesiology that would provide a united front against the divergent heretical groups emerging at the time, which is reflected in Irenaeus’ emerging episcopal view of church government. Finally, there is no evidence Irenaeus favored the Roma Catholic view of the primacy of Peter. And even if he favored the primacy of Rome as the center of Christianity, he does not support the later Roman Catholic pronouncements on the infallibility of the Pope. His constant appeal was to the original “apostles” (plural) as the God-established authority. Peter was not singled out by him as superior to others. He, at best, was only a co-founder of the church at Rome along with Paul. He was in fact on the same level as Paul and the other “apostles” to whom Irenaeus repeatedly refers. Furthermore, his stress on the primacy of Scripture as the final written authority of the Christian Faith demonstrate that all ecclesiastic authority is based on Scripture, not the reverse. Finally, his stress on the sufficiency on the Holy Spirit and the proper mode of interpretation as sufficient to understand the Scripture denies the later Roman Catholic view that the church in an organizational authoritative sense is necessary to interpret Scripture.

Other Doctrines

Other doctrines of interest included his view on anthropology, human responsibility, and eschatology.

On Anthropology

Irenaeus strongly defended creation ex nihilo over against Greek and Gnostic views of ex deo and ex materia.

He also believed in a dualistic view of human nature. While united to the body in this life, the soul survives death and is immortal. Human’s a conscious between death and resurrection, but are not made complete again until they are reunited with their bodies.

On Human Responsibility

On the question of human free will, Irenaeus stood in the long tradition of those who maintained the self-determining nature of free choice. Irenaeus wrote, “Those persons, therefore, who have apostatized from the light given by the Father, and transgressed the law of liberty, have done so through their own fault, since they have been created free agents, and possessed of power over themselves” (AH 4.39.3).

On Redemption

Along with his orthodox views on the death and resurrection of Christ for our sins, Irenaeus is the author of the so-called “Recapitulation” theory of the atonement. According to this view, the fully divine Christ became fully man in order o sum up all humanity in Himself. So, what was lost through the disobedience of the First Adam, was restored through the Second Adam (Christ) who went through all the stages of human life, resisted all temptation, died, and rose victoriously over the Devil (AH 5.21.1).

Ecclesiology

Irenaeus said, “With regard to those (the Marcionites) who alleged that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them, when he says, that one and the same God wrought in Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision, and in himself for the Gentiles [Gal. 2:8]” (AH 3.13.1). Likewise, his companion Luke knew what Paul taught. And he told Ephesians he told them the whole council of God (Acts 20). The Church is spiritual seed of Abraham (5.34.1, 3).

On Eschatology

Along with most other early Fathers, Irenaeus was premillennial (5.32.1-2; 33:1; 5.35.1-2). The millennium begins with the first resurrection (Rev. 20:4-6). Of this Irenaeus said, “John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the `first resurrection of the just.’ and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth” (AH 5.36.3). According to George Peters, other premillennial early Fathers included Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Melito, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian (Peters, TK 1.451). Irenaeus also believed in the literal fulfillment of the unconditional land promise to Abraham and His descendants (5.32.2).

The Conscious Survival of the Soul

Irenaeus believed that the soul consciously survives death and lives on immortally in the next world (AH 5.31.1). Here the soul of believers awaits the resurrection when it will be reunited with the body forever in a perfect state. Unbelievers will be banished from the presence of God in a place of punishment (call Hell) forever.

Copyright © 2014 NormanGeisler.com – All rights reserved.

 


End Notes

[1] Justin Martyr had this same view (To the Greeks, 13), as did St. Augustine after this time (see City of God).

[2] The word “interpreted” includes the idea of translated, since one must interpret a text correctly in order to properly translate it.

[3] Indeed, bishop and elder were used interchangeably in the New Testament (cf. Titus 1:5, 7), the former being the term Greeks used or leaders and the later which Hebrews used. Indeed, the qualifications are the same for both; the duties are the same; there was a plurality of both in even small churches (cf. Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1). Thus Irenaeus, writing over a hundred years after the apostles, is reflecting an emerging episcopal form of government not found in the New Testament.

[4] See N. L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Vol. 4, Chap. 4.


Sources

Beckwith, Roger. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986).

Behr, John. “Irenaeus and the Word of God” in Studia Patristica 36 (2001)

Driver, S.R. and Ad. Neubauer, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to Jewish      Interpreters (Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1877). Vol. 2.

Jacobsen, Anders-Christian. “The Philosophical Argument in the Teaching on the Resurrection of the Flesh” in Studia Patristica 36 (2001).

Geisler, Norman and William E. Nix. General Introduction to the Bible, revised (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986).

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrine (NY: Harper and Row, 1960).

Leach, Charles. Our Bible: How We Got It ) (Chicago: Moody, 1897).

Morris, Richard. “Irenaeus” in Historical Handbook of Major Interpreters (IVP, 1998).

Osborn, Eric F. “Reason and The Rule of Faith in the Second Century” in Making of Orthodoxy (Cambridge University Press, 1989).

Peters, George. The Theocratic Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952 (originally published in 1884).

Tiessen, Terrance. “Gnosticism and Heresy: the Response of Irenaeus” in Hellenization Revisited      (Lanham, MD, University Press of America, 1994)


Dr. Geisler is the author of Should Old Aquinas Be Forgotten? Many Say Yes but the Author Says No. (Bastion Books:2013), What Augustine Says (Bastion Books:2013), Is the Pope Infallible: A Look at the Evidence (Bastion Books:2012), Is Rome the True Church? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim (Crossway Books:2008), and Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker Academic:1995). For additional resources by Dr. Geisler on Roman Catholicism, please visit http://normangeisler.com/rcc/.

An Evaluation of John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine

An Evaluation of John Henry Newman’s

Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine 

by Dr. Norman L. Geisler

 

Introduction

            More properly this evaluation should be titled A Defense of the Roman Catholic Claim to be the one true Church with Explanation of the Changing Doctrines and Practices of Rome throughout the Centuries in Terms of the Development of Doctrine.  Newman’s essay (titled An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine) is one of the most famous defenses of Roman Catholicism by one of its most noted convertsIn our response, we have organized the materially systematically and quoted from it extensively, using the 1845 edition (Pelican Books, 1974). 

The Stated Purpose of Newman’s Essay

Newman wrote: “The following Essay is directed towards a solution of the difficulty which has been stated—the difficulty which lies in the way of using testimony of our most natural informant concerning the doctrine and worship of Christianity, viz., the history of eighteen hundred years” (90). That is, “that the increase and expansion of the Christian creed and ritual, and the variations which have attended the process in the case of individual writers and churches, are the necessary attendants on any philosophy or polity which takes possession of the intellect and the heart and has had any wide or extended dominion; that, from the nature of the human mind, time is necessary for the full comprehension and perfection of great ideas; and that the highest and most wonderful truths, though communicated to the world once for all by inspired teachers could not be comprehended all at once by the recipients, but, as received and transmitted by minds not inspired and through media which were human, have required only the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation.  This may be called the Theory of Development” (90).

The Logic of the Argument

  1. Roman Catholic Doctrine as known today is “…the historical and logical continuation of the body of doctrine…in every preceding century successively till we come to the first. Whether it be a corrupt development or a legitimate, conducted on sound logic or fallacious, the present so-called Catholic religion is the successor, the representative, and the heir of the religion of the so-called Catholic Church of primitive times” (240).

            Response:  First, a historic continuity of the early and present Roman Catholic churches is acknowledged.  However, this proves nothing as such because, as admitted, it may be a corruption of the original doctrine. Second, this assumes without justification that the original doctrine was correct.  But, as will be shown below, the original two sources view (Scripture and Tradition) is not correct.  For a parallel example, the present US government is the historic descendant of the first one.  However, many decisions of the Supreme Court are directly contrary to the First Amendment of the Constitution as envisioned by its framers.

For instance, the framers did not intend it to enact a separation of Church and State and never even used the terms.  The First Amendment says simply “Congress [the Federal Government] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Nor did the Federal Government forbid the States from having their own State religions which five of the 13 colonies had at the time and were never required to disestablish.  But the current Supreme Court following the Everson ruling in 1947 declared: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another…. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”  Clearly there is a historical continuity between early and current America, yet there is a doctrinal discontinuity on some important matters.  So, it is with the earlier and later Roman Church (as shown below).

  1.   “…the doctrines of which the present Catholic religion consist are prima facie the correct, true, faithful, legitimate development of the doctrines which preceded them, and not their corruption” (240.)   No “case can be made out against that religion, to prove that it is materially corrupt, and not in its substance Apostolic” (240).  So, “It appears then that there has been a certain general type of Christianity in every age, by which it is known at first sight…. And it appears that this type has remained entire from first to last, in spite of the process of development which seems to be attributed by all parties, for good or bad, to the doctrines, rites, and usages in which Christianity consists; or, in other words, that the changes which have taken place in Christianity have not been such as to destroy that type…” (335).

Response: This premise is challenged on two grounds.  First, even if Catholicism was an uncorrupted development of the original idea, Catholicism would not be true, if the original idea was false.  It would just be a logical development of a false idea.  Second, as will be shown below, there was significant doctrinal corruption between earlier and later Catholicism.

  1. The tests to determine whether development or corruption of the ideas occurred include:

(A.) Preservation of the Basic Idea (122).

“It was said, then, that a true development retains the essential idea of the subject from which it has proceeded, and a corruption loses it (241). This parallels the development of a living organism from conception to maturity (241).  “An empire or a religion may have many changes: but when we speak of its development, we consider it to be fulfilling, not to be belying its destiny” (122).  “A popular leader may go through a variety of professions, he may court parties and break with them, he may contradict himself in words, and undo his own measures, yet there may be a steady fulfillment of certain objects, or adherence to certain plain doctrines, which impress upon beholders, not his scrupulousness, but his sincerity and consistency” (123).

Response: There are several problems with this test.  First, the starting premise of the “basic idea” behind Christian doctrine can be challenged.  Protestants take it to be sola Scripture (see below) and Roman Catholics believe it is Scripture plus Tradition, that is, as interpreted by the Roman Catholic teaching Magisterium.  The development of these different basic ideas will bring about different results.

Second, one can question whether the analogy between the development of a doctrine and the development of a living organism is a proper analogy.  There are, after all, some significant differences between the two: one is living and one is dead.  But Newman’s whole thesis and conclusion depends on the appropriateness of this challengeable analogy (see below).   Even Newman himself claims a heresy is like a living organism.  He wrote: “The church is a kingdom; a heresy is a family rather than a kingdom; and as a family continually divides and sends out branches, founding new houses…” (275).

 (B.) Continuity of the Principles (124).

“Doctrines expand variously according to the mind, individual or social, into which they are received; and the peculiarities of the recipient are the regulating power, the law, the organization, or, as it may be called, the form of the development.  The life of doctrines may be said to consist in the law or principle which they embody” (124).

“Principles are abstract and general, doctrines relate to facts; doctrines develop, and principles do not” (127).  “Principles are popularly said to develop when they are but exemplified; thus the various sects of Protestantism, unconnected  as they are with each other, are called development of the principle of Private Judgment, of which really they are applications and results” (129).

“Doctrine without its correspondent principle remains barren, if not lifeless, of which the Greek Church seems an instance” (129).   “Pagans may have, heretics cannot have, the same principles as Catholics…. Principle is a better test of heresy than doctrine” (129) “The doctrines of heresy are accidents and soon run to an end; its principles are everlasting” (129).

Response: Non-Roman Catholics acknowledge a doctrinal continuity between original and later Catholicism without accepting Catholicism.  For example, Protestants agree with Catholics on the dogmas of the first four ecumenical councils and Eastern Orthodox agrees on the first seven councils.  The basic idea could have been preserved in these earlier councils, as it has been noted: “One Bible, two Testaments, Three Creeds, and Four centuries” is the common core of most forms of Christianity.  Since Catholicism embraces these as well, it too has a doctrinal continuity with earlier Christianity.  However, this does not as such support the Catholic claim to be the true Church.

(C.) The Power of Assimilation (130). 

“In the physical world whatever has life is characterized by growth, so that in no respect to grow is to cease to live.  It grows by taking into its own substance external materials; and this absorption or assimilation is completed when the materials appropriated come to belong to it or enter into its unity” (130).  “Thus, a power of development is a proof of life, not only in its essay, but in its success; for a mere formula either does not expand or is shattered in expanding.  A living idea becomes many, yet remains one.  The attempt at development shows the presence of a principle, and its success the presence of an idea.  Principles stimulate thought, and an idea keeps it together” (131).

Response:  As mentioned above, this is dependent on the alleged validity of the analogy of Roman Catholicism’s development with a living organism.   But this is a questionable analogy.  Ideas are not living entities and do not “assimilate” the way a living organism does.  Further, since this is based on the first two tests and is a continuation of them, it is subject to the same criticisms of these two tests (see above). Finally, even if this principle was valid, it would only demonstrate that ideas develop in a certain way; it would not prove that the original ideas were true.

 (D.) Early Anticipation of Aspects of the Idea (133).

“When an idea is living, that is influential and operative in the minds of recipients, it is sure to develop according to the principles on which they are formed; instances of such a process, though vague and isolated, may occur from the very first, though a lapse of time be necessary to bring it to perfection.  And since developments are in great measure only aspects of the idea from which they come, and all of them are natural consequences of it, it is often a matter of accident in what order they are carried out in individual minds; and it is in no wise strange that here and there definite specimens should very early occur, which in the historical course are not found till a late day…. Nothing is more common, for instance, than accounts or legends of the anticipations, which great men have in boyhood of the bent of their minds, as afterwards displayed in their history” (133-134).

Response:  This test shows indication of being devised in advance to help explain a severe difficulty in Catholicism, namely, that many of its doctrines have no real root in the Bible or in the early church.  Indeed, many of them are late in origin.  Hence, positing that faintness and lateness can be explained by comparison with a living organism is suspect.  This is particularly true when later ideas (doctrines) of Rome are in conflict with earlier ones.  This is most evident in the contradictory “infallible” pronouncements of Rome regarding ex cathedra declarations (see Popes below).

Further, Newman’s concept of slow development is countered by admitting the supernatural confirmation of God’s revelation.  He wrote: “But this progress of events, vague and uncertain as it seemed to be, notwithstanding the miracles which attended it, has been directed by Him who works out gradually what He has determined absolutely” (161).  But what could be greater than the original revelation as supernaturally confirmed by God.  How does time outweigh the Transcendent?

(E.) Logical Sequence of the Idea (136). 

“Though it is a matter of accident in what order or degree developments of a common idea which show themselves…, yet on a large field they will on the whole be gradual and orderly, nay, in logical sequence” (which may not be a conscious process) (136). “Afterwards, however, this logical character which the whole wears becomes a test that the process has been a true development, not a perversion or corruption from its naturalness” (137).  “Again, the doctrine of the Sacraments leads to the doctrine of Justification; Justification to Original sin; Original sin to the merit of Celibacy” (199). “The Mass and Real Presence are parts of one; the veneration of Saints and their relics are part of one; their intercessory power, and the Purgatorial State, and again the Mass and that State are correlative…. You must accept the whole or reject the whole; rejection does but enfeeble, and amputation mutilate: (199).  “Moreover, since the doctrines all together make up the integral religion, it follows that the several evidences which respectively support those doctrines belong to the whole, and are available in the defense of any” (199).

Response:  To the degree that ideas have logical consequences, this point is true.  However, it does not show that the later doctrines are true anymore than the earlier ones.  For instance, prayers for the dead may help lead to the idea of Purgatory, but this does not prove that either idea is true; it may merely show a logical connection between two false ideas.  Furthermore, it is a stretch to see the alleged connection between earlier and later doctrines.  For example, Newman held that belief of Christ’s resurrection in flesh leads to doctrines of the Real Presence, Virginity of Mary, and her Mother of God (378).  But this is a stretch, to say nothing of the fact that the original doctrine (of the Real Presence) may be challenged (see “Does the NT Support the Roman Catholic View of Communion?”).

(F.) Preservative Addition (141). 

“As developments which are preceded by definite indications have a fair presumption in their favour, so those which do but contract and reverse the course of doctrine which has been developed before them, and out of which they spring, are certainly corrupt; for a corruption is a development in that very stage in which it ceases to illustrate” (141).  The development is gradual.  However, “…so great a paradox cannot be maintained as that truth literally leads to falsehood” (142).  But “True religion is the summit and perfection of false religion; it combines in one whatever there is of good and true separately remaining in each.  And in like manner the Catholic Creed is for the most part the combination of separate truths, which heretics have divided among themselves, and err is dividing” (143).  “And thus a sixth test of a true development is its being an addition which is conservative of what has gone before it” (144).

Response: Within proper limits, this is a valid principle, but it may be questioned whether later Catholicism is the proper and logical development of what has gone before. This is particularly true when some later practices contradict the earlier doctrines.  Such practices are not conservative, but contradictory, of what has gone before.  Even Newman recognized that this is precisely the Protestant criticism of Catholicism.  He spoke of Roman Catholics as being “…accused of substituting another Gospel for the primitive Creed” (144).  When Catholics point out that they are as faithful as anyone to the original creeds, Neman recognized the Protestant rebuttal that Catholics “…obscure and virtually annul them by their additions; thus the cultus of St. Mary and the Saints is no development of the truth, but a corruption, because it draws away the mind and heart from Christ” (144).  The Catholic response to this is weak and unsatisfactory, as is its response to the charge that Purgatory (see below) diminishes the all sufficiency of the death of Christ (Jn. 19:30; Heb.1:3; 10:11-14).

Newman critiques Islam for revoking previous revelations in view of later contradictory ones, pointing to their principle of abrogation which he claims revoked about 150 of Muhammed’s previous revelations (143).  But this is a more credible way to deal with the problem than Newton’s Essay which attempts to show there is a progress in Dogma wherein later formulations (which in some cases are contrary to earlier ones) are accepted and the previous ones rejected. How can this be true if the earlier one was infallible (see Pope below).

(G.) Chronic Continuance of the Idea (144).

“Since corruption of an idea, as far as its appearance goes, is a sort of accident or affection of its development…it is as has been observed, a brief and rapid process…. Corruption cannot, therefore be of long standing; and thus duration is another test of a faithful development” (145). “The course of heresies is always short.  It has a “’transitory character’” (147).  “If Christianity is a fact…and impresses an idea of itself on our minds, that idea will in course of time develop in a series of ideas connected and harmonious with one another, and unchangeable and complete, as is the external fact itself which is thus represented” (148).  “And the more claim an idea has to be considered living, the more various will be its aspects; and the more social and political is its nature, the more complicated and subtle will be its developments, and the longer and more eventful will be its course.  Such is Christianity” (148).  Newman adds, “Hence, all bodies of Christianity develop the doctrines of Scripture” (150).

Response:  This test is false as stated.  For it is simply not true that “Corruption cannot, therefore be of long standing; and thus duration is another test of a faithful development” (145).  Even Newman admits that Islam—a false religion—is an apparent counter example. He said, Islam has “…a living idea somewhere in that religion, which has been so strong, so wide, so lasting a bond of union in the history of the world” (131).  Yet he said elsewhere that “A corruption is of brief duration, runs itself out quickly, and ends in death” (442).

Further, Arianism was a widespread and long enduring heresy.  At one time it encompassed much of the Christian Church.   It is still alive in the Jehovah’s Witness cult. Likewise, not all forms of Christianity “developed” the doctrine of Scripture in the way Roman Catholicism has.  For other than drawing logically necessary conclusions from Scriptural premises, as in the Trinity and Incarnation, Protestants believe that the perspicuity (clearness of the central message) of Scripture as interpreted by the historical-grammatical method (see below), there is no Catholic-like “development” of Scripture in biblical Protestantism.

 4. When applied to the Catholic Church, these principles show that it is a development, not a corruption, of the original Idea. 

Newman’s conclusion from his premises is:

“It appears then that there has been a certain general type of Christianity in every age, by which it is known at first sight…. And it appears that this type has remained entire from first to last, in spite of the process of development which seems to be attributed by all parties, for good or bad, to the doctrines, rites, and usages in which Christianity consists; or, in other words, that the changes which have taken place in Christianity have not been such as to destroy that type…” (335).

            Response:  First of all, the conclusion is no better than the premise.  A chain is no better than its weakest link.  And the foregoing discussion shows the weakness of Newman’s premises.  At best, even if the basic premises of development versus corruption are correct, it would show no more than Roman Catholicism in its present form is a natural outworking of the core idea which is Scripture plus Catholic interpreted Tradition plus time yields current Roman Catholicism.  This leads us to examine this core premise more carefully.

Second, Newman frankly admits that his view is only a theory: “it will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is…. “Then he adds quickly, “…[but] all depends on the strength of that presumption.”  Of course it does, and that is the point.  If Newman’s basic idea (of Scripture plus tradition as interpreted by Rome) is accepted, then to no one’s surprise, one can make a convincing case the current Roman Catholic Church is the developmental result of its long history from the seminal beginning.  Then Newman adds a negative argument, namely,               “Supposing there be otherwise good reasons for saying Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it” (212).  But neither is there anything that really supports it either.  In fact, as we shall see, there is much to contradict it.

Third, Newman’s stress on the necessity of faith to accept the system and explanations of Catholicism is a key to understanding how otherwise intelligent and thinking persons can accept a view with such incredible beliefs as Transubstantiation and the Infallibility of the Pope.  He claims that faith is preferred to reason in making a decision about a religious system (242f.).  He said that “Men were not obliged to wait for proof before believing” (346).  Then he attempts to justify this conclusion by citing Aquinas and Augustine out of context (348) and by neglecting clear passages to the contrary.  For example, Augustine said, “No one indeed believes anything unless he has first thought that it is to be believed.  For… it is yet necessary that everything which is believed should be believed after thought had led the way” (On Predestination of the Saints, 5).  However, “faith” in a “theory” as big and boasting as is Catholicism (which claims to be the only true religion) and which holds teaching so contrary to experience and reason (e.g., transubstantiation) needs careful scrutiny before one makes the leap of faith into it.

 

Newman’s Rejection of Sola Scriptura 

Of course, accepting the Catholic starting point means rejecting sola Scripture. Many arguments against the Protestant principle of the Bible alone are offered by Newman.  However, all of them fail to dethrone the doctrine. Let’s examine them carefully.

1) He rejects sola Scripture saying,

“It may be objected that inspired documents, such as the Holy Scriptures, at once determine its doctrine without further trouble.  But they were intended to create an idea, and that idea is not in the sacred text, but in the mind of the reader” (149).  But that idea is complete and accurate and only “…comes to perfection in the course of time” (149).

Response: this argument begs the question by assuming that the Bible is not sufficient in itself to convey a central message.  Rather, he believes that its purpose is “…to create an idea, and that idea is not in the sacred text.”  But the Bible as a revelation of God’s true in itself and not merely an instrument to create an idea in our minds.

Furthermore, the idea conveyed by the sacred text does not have to wait for centuries to come to perfection.  “The Law of the Lord is perfect” (Psa. 19:7).  And when that idea is conveyed to our minds by the Holy Spirit enlightening them to God’s truth, neither centuries of development nor a teaching Magisterium is necessary to do the Holy Spirit’s work for Him.

Newman’s attempt to counter this misses the point.  He wrote, “Nor is the case altered by supposing that inspiration did for the first recipients of the Revelation what the Divine Fiat did for herbs and plants in the beginning, which were created in maturity.  Still, the time at length came, when its recipients ceased to be inspired; and on these recipients  the truth would fall, as in other cases, at first vaguely and generally, and would afterwards be completed by development” (149). However, any distortions that occur after a perfect and mature revelation are given are irrelevant to the point which is that God gave a complete and clear understandable revelation in the Bible

2)  Newman claimed that important theological questions like “the intermediate state between death and Resurrection” are not answered in Scripture but imply a later development (153).

Response: The Bible tells us all we need to know about the intermediate state.  It is found in many verses like these: “it is far better to depart and to be with Christ” (Phil. 1:23); “Absent from the body, present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8); “Today, you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43); ”We must all appear before he judgment seat of Christ that each one may receive a reward for what was done in the body” (2 Cor. 5:10 cf. Mat. 17:2-3; Rev. 6:9).  As for the rest, “the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but to us and to our children the things that are revealed” (Deut. 29:29).

3)  Newman claims that doctrines like the duty to worship and that the day of worship is Sunday are not revealed in the Bible.  Thus, without the Catholic Church’s “development” of the original deposit of revelation in the Bible and the Catholic teaching Magisterium interpreting this, we would not know on which day to worship.

Response:  Not everything in the Bible is taught by direct command.  Some things are taught by principle and example.  As for Church attendance, Hebrews 10:25 exhorts us “Do not neglect to meet together.”  And Jesus set the example for meeting on Sunday by rising from the dead on Sunday (Mat. 28:1), by appearing to his disciples on Sunday (Jn. 20:1), by sending the Holy Spirit to baptize the disciples into the body of Christ on Sunday (Acts 2:1).  Following this example, the early disciples met “on the first day of the week they gathered together to break bread” (Act 20:7).  And Paul exhorted the Corinthians, “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside” to give to the Lord (1 Cor. 16:2).  This is sufficient for faith and practice on this matter.  No pronouncements by a teaching Magisterium are necessary.

4) Newman argued that

“The Bible does not answer basic questions like how we got “the Canon of Scripture.“  That is, “unless we suppose a new revelation, from the revelation we have, that is by development [deduction]” (151).

Response: A new revelation is not necessary to establish the canon.  All that is necessary is, as the Westminster Confession states, that everything we need is “…either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences may be deduced from Scripture” (I, VI).  The Bible speaks of the Old Testament canon in “the Law and the Prophets” (Lk. 24:27) and in the Jewish “Scripture” (2 Tim. 3:15-16).  The epistles speak of the Gospels as “Scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18).  Peter speaks of Paul’s epistles as “Scripture” (2 Pet 3:15-16), and by “good and necessary consequences” we deduce that the other New Testament books written by apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20) were also Scripture (see Geisler, From God to Us in www.BastionBooks.com).

Even Newman admits elsewhere that one does not need an infallible writer to confirm an infallible writing.  And he acknowledges that even though “the Apostles were made infallible” in their inspired writings, “yet we are only morally certain that they were infallible” (170).  Similarly, we can be morally certain about the canon of Scripture by the Bible’s claim for itself and as confirmed by the early Fathers’ citations from the canon.

Further, contrary to Catholic claim, the Church did not determine the canon of Scripture; God determined it by inspiring the canonical book.  The Church merely discovered the books that God had determined to be canonical by noting the earmarks of inspiration such as, was it written by a prophet of God?  Was he confirmed to be a prophet of God by miracles (Heb. 2:3-4) or other means? Did it tell the truth about God in accordance with other prophetic writings?  If so, then these were collected by the people of God (cf. Duet 31:24-25; Dan. 9:1; Zech. 7:12;   2 Pet. 3:15-16).

All the inspired books of the Old and New Testaments were eventually recognized by the Early Fathers as part of the canon of Scripture by citations, translations, and official listings (see From God to Us, chaps 6-10). By the time of Irenaeus in c. A.D. 180 (who knew Papias the disciple of John the apostle) all the New Testament books (except the tiny one chapter book of 3rd John) were recognized as canonical.  Only a few years later (c. A.D. 200) even 3rd John was cited as canonical.  By the time of the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) the Christian Church in general had recognized the entire canon of Scripture, including the 27 books of the New Testament as inspired of God and rightfully in the canon of Scripture.  For a discussion of The Old Testament Apocrypha see below.

5) Newman claimed that only the Church can properly interpret the Bible.  

“We are told that God has spoken.  Where?  In a book?  We have tried it, and it disappoints; it disappoints, that most holy and blessed gift, not from fault of its own, but because it is used for a purpose for which it was not given.  The Ethiopian’s reply, when St. Philip asked him if he understood what he was reading (Acts 8:34), is the voice of nature: ‘How can I unless some man guide me?’  The Church undertakes that office; she does what none else can do, and this is the secret of the power” (175).

Response: This does not deny the Protestant principle of the perspicuity which holds only that the main message of the Bible is clear, not every particular detail.  The Ethiopian Eunuch was: a) only one man, b) reading one text.  He did not represent a failure of believers in general to understand the central message of the Bible in general.  Further, the Ethiopian was a new convert who had not yet heard about Jesus, his death and resurrection for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4).  There is every indication that once he heard the Gospel that he had no difficulty understanding it.  Indeed, once the Ethiopian heard about Jesus he understood the message and wanted to obey him in baptism immediately (Acts 8:35-38) without the help of an ecclesiastical authority.

6) The Claim of Need for Absolute Authority. “The absolute need of spiritual supremacy is at present the strongest argument in favour of its supply” (177). “The only general persuasive in matters of conduct is authority; that is when truth is in question, a judgement which we consider superior to our own” (177).  While there are many conflicting authorities, “The question is, which of all these theories is the simplest, the most natural, the most persuasive.

Response: There are several problems with this argument.  First, the need for something does not guarantee it will be obtained; it merely shows that it is needed.  Thirsty people need water and hungry people need food, but still many die of hunger and thirst.  Second, Newman does not demonstrate (but merely posits, but does not prove, that absolute authority is a need).  Indeed, he admits elsewhere that infallibility does not need an infallible argument to support it (169).  Finally, he assumes a questionable hypothesis that the “simplest” explanation is the best.  This is sometimes called “Ockham’s Razor,” but Ockham did not say this. He said “Don’t multiply causes without necessity.”  The true explanation may not always be the simplest one.

Newman’s Argument for a Mystical Interpretation of Scripture

Hand in hand with the rejection of sola Scriptura is Newman’s rejection of the sufficiency of the historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture.  There is a good reason for this because once a sufficiency of knowing God’s Word (that is adequate for faith and practice) is no longer found in the Bible and its historical-grammatical interpretation, one must find a source elsewhere.  Newman finds this in the teaching Magisterium (see Pope below) and in a mystical interpretation of the Bible.

Catholicism Can’t be established by Scripture Alone. 

Newman argued that the Catholic Faith can’t be proven from Scripture alone without using a mystical interpretation.  He wrote,

“Nor am I aware that Post-tridentine writers deny that the whole Catholic faith may be proved from Scripture, though they would certainly maintain that it is not to be found on the surface of it, nor in such sense that it may be gained from Scripture without the aid of Tradition.  And this has been the doctrine of all ages of the Church, as is shown by the disinclination of her teachers to confine themselves to mere literal interpretation of Scripture.  Her most subtle and powerful method of proof, whether in ancient or modern times, is the mystical sense, which I so frequently used in doctrinal controversy as on many occasions to supersede any other” [e.g., Mal. 1 is used by Trent to support the Sacrifice of the Mass] (339).

Response: This is an incredible admission. He admits “…the disinclination of her (the Church’s) teachers to confine themselves to mere literal interpretation of Scripture” (339, emphasis mine).  This is a confession that they cannot establish the truth of Catholicism from the Bible alone using the normal method of interpretation.  He adds, “Her most subtle and powerful method of proof… is the mystical sense, which is so frequently used in doctrinal controversy as on many occasions to supersede any other” For example, Malachi 1 is used by the Council of Trent to support the Sacrifice of the Mass (339).  But the inability of the mystical method to be anchored in the objective text of divine Scripture, along with the inability to provide an objective criteria by which to guide one’s understanding of Scripture, is sufficient evidence to show the inadequacy of Rome’s “most powerful method” of establishing its unique but aberrant doctrines.

2) The Bible is not Self-Interpreting

Newman argues that the Bible is not self-interpreting. He wrote:

“The whole Bible, not its prophetical portions only, is written on the principle of development” (156).  “But this progress of events, vague and uncertain as it seemed to be, notwithstanding the miracles which attended it, has been directed by Him who works out gradually what He has determined absolutely” (161).

Response:  First of all, pointing to fulfilled prophecy is not a good example of Newman’s principle of development which demands more than the Bible to understand the Bible.  For using the Bible to understand the Bible is not contrary to sola Scripture; it is an example of sola Scriptura at work.  For literal predictions of Christ’s first coming found literal fulfillment in the New Testament, whether it was the place of his birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), the manner of his birth by a virgin (Isa. 7:14), the manner of his death (Isa. 53), or his resurrection (Psa. 16:10 cf. Acts 2:27-31), or numerous other literal predictions and literal fulfillment (cf. Isa. 61:1-2 cf. Lk. 4:16-21).

Second, Newman’s passing reference of miracles to confirm a message from God (“notwithstanding the miracles which attendee it”) is evidence against his view.  For if a clear revelation is accompanied by a literal divine confirmation) what need is there of a further gradual development before one can understand it.

Third, if one carried this logic out consistently, then there would be need of a further “development” of divine confirmation for that and so on, ad infinitum.  And if one agrees the process can be stopped, then why not stop it with God’s supernatural revelation as confirmed by miracles.  In this case there is no reason to add an infallible interpreter for God’s infallible Word.  For Newman argued that there is no need of infallible proof for the doctrine of infallibility (169).  If moral certainty is sufficient in this case, then why not in the case of miracles confirming a revelation from God.

 

Newman’s Arguments for an Infallible Authority (Pope)

            Not only do Roman Catholics insist the Bible is not sufficient for faith and practice, but they insist there must be an infallible authority (Pope) to interpret the Bible.  Indeed, as retroactive as it is and as arrogant as it seems, Newman claims later Pope are in a better position than the earlier Fathers to know what they meant.  He wrote: “Rome knows the meaning of the Fathers better than they did.”  So, the “testimony of all the Fathers, supposing such a case, would not have a feather’s weight against a decision of the Pope in Council…” (227). The reasons given for the infallibility of the Pope include the following:

1)  There must be an infallible authority to adjudicate the conflict between all the sects and heresies.  Newman claims that “The Church is everywhere, but it is one; sects are everywhere, but they are many, independent, and discordant” (275).  What is necessary to counter this disunity?  According to Newman, “Councils and Popes are the guardians and instruments of the dogmatic principle; they are not that principle themselves; they presuppose the principle; they are summoned into action at the call of the principle…” (359).  “In a thousand instances of a minor character, the statements of the early Fathers, are but tokens of the multiplicity of openings which the mind of the Church was making into the treasure-house of Truth” (360). “The doctrinal determinations and the ecclesiastical usages of the middle ages are the true fulfillment of its self-willed and abortive attempts at precipitating the growth of the Church” (362).  “Doctrine too is percolated, as it were, through different minds, beginning with writers of inferior authority in the Church, and issuing at length in the enunciation of her Doctors” (363).

Response:  An infallible authority is not necessary to discern between truth and error, just as clear understanding of truth.  Jesus said to the Father, “Your Word is truth” (Jn. 17:17).  The Bible is more than sufficient for that task.  It is certainly a lot better than the hundreds and thousands of conflicting statements of the Fathers and even some flat contradictions in the alleged infallible Councils of the later Church (see Popes below).  As for confirmation of the essentials doctrines, there are the Creeds of the first few centuries of the Church.  With the infallible Scriptures and its historical grammatical interpretation and confirmation by the ministerial guidance of the Fathers and Creeds, there is no need for a Magisterial function of a Pope. In fact, history has demonstrated that with the anti-Popes, heretical Popes, and contradictory papal pronouncements, the so-called infallible Magisterium has not proven to be very effective (see Popes below).

2)   Newman claimed:

“No Church can do without its Pope.  We see before our eyes the centralizing process by which the See of St Peter became the Head of Christendom” (213).

“To this must be added the general probability…that all true developments of doctrine and usage which have been permitted [is] in favour of the existence, in some quarter, of an infallible authority in matters of faith” (213).

Response:  First, in the political realm, centralizing governments do not lead to better results but worse.  Rather than being an argument for an infallible authority, this centralizing tendency leads to a spiritual monarchy.  Further, there is no guarantee of its orthodoxy. Diverse independent authority is a better check-and-balance in preserving orthodoxy. Second, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Checks and balances are needed to preserve the integrity and orthodoxy of an institution. The scandalous conflicts between numerous anti-Popes strongly supports this conclusion.  The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (1974 ed.) lists some 40 anti-popes.  Sometimes a third party (a Church Council) had to intervene and resolve the conflict between the Popes (see Council of Constance 1413-1418).

3) Newman claimed that basic doctrines cannot be truly understood without a period of doctrinal development. Even the name “Trinity” did not appear until the Third century (in Tertulliam) after it was revealed in the Bible.

Response: The truth of the Trinity was revealed in the first century revelation in the Bible, even though the term “Trinity” came later.  As the Westminster Confession declared (I, VI) that “The whole counsel of God…is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences may be deduced from Scripture.”  For the Bible clearly teaches that (1) there is only one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:1-6).  Further, (2) there are three Persons who are called God: Father Son, and Holy Spirit (Mat. 3:16-17; 28:18-20; 2 Cor. 12:13).  So, there is no need for a long doctrinal development to understand that: (3) there is One God who exists in three distinct Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  All that is necessary is a logical deduction from the basic biblical truths to have the basic meaning of the Trinity.  Of course, the implications (significance) of the doctrine takes time and development, but the basic meaning is known immediately from the Biblical texts and necessary logical deductions.

The same is true of another great Christian doctrine:  the Incarnation of Christ.  Its meaning is taught clearly and simply in Scripture in two premises: 1) The Person of Christ has a human nature; He is a human being.  2) The same Person also has a divine nature; He is God. Now only one conclusion validly comes from these premises, namely, 3) The Person of Christ has both a divine nature and a human nature.  He is both God and man in one and the same Person.  So while plummeting the depths of the significance and implications of this doctrine takes time and involves a process, nonetheless, the meaning is clear from the Bible alone.  Thus it is with all basic salvation truths; they are known from the Bible alone without any infallible teaching authority.

This is not to say that there is no role for creeds or systematic theology.  There is.  It is only to say that the basic biblical propositions are clear and sufficient as a revelation of God.  They do not need years, even centuries, of development for their truth to be understood.  Later nuancing, systematization, and application are welcomed, but they are not necessary for discovering the basic truths of God’s revelation in Scripture.

As even Newman admits, many doctrines assumed to be apostolic were not actually formed until centuries later.  He wrote: “Certain doctrines come to us, professing to be Apostolic, and possessed of such high antiquity that, though we are able to assign a date of their formal establishment to the fourth, or fifth, or eighth, or thirteenth century, as it may happen, yet their substance may, for what appears, be coeval with the Apostles, and be expressed or implied in texts of Scripture” (192).   If the “formal establishment” was not until centuries later it is merely a “theory” (212) based on “faith” (242f.), then this allows Catholics to claim they were apostolic.

 

The Teaching Magisterium Rome (the Pope)

Did Jesus establish Peter as the first Pope, the first infallible interpreter of God’s infallible Word?  According to Rome, the infallible Scriptures need an infallible interpreter, and God chose Peter to be the first one.  The chief biblical text used to support this doctrine is Matthew 16:18-19: Jesus said, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Other verses used by Rome are even less convincing (see Geisler, Is Rome the True Church?, Chap. 5).

Matthew 16:16-18 Does not Make Peter Alone the Basis of the Church

Despite Rome’s current claim, this text does not support their claim that Peter alone was given this Magisterial authority and that it was infallible.

Response:  First, Peter alone was not given the authority to bind and loose since all the disciples were given this authority only two chapters later (in Matt. 18:18).

Second, the church was not built on Peter alone but on “the apostles [plural] and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20).  Indeed, the names of all the apostles (not just Peter’s name) are inscribed on “the twelve foundations” of the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14).

Third, even though Peter preached the sermons that opened the kingdom to the Jews (Acts 2) and the Gentiles (Acts 10), these were only one-time events.  Indeed, after the conversion of Paul (Acts 9), Paul becomes the dominant apostle through most of the rest of the book of Acts. Indeed, Peter fades into the background.  When the first big doctrinal dispute occurred, it was not Peter alone who made the decision, but “the apostles and elders” together (Acts 15:6, 22).  And James seemed to be the leader of the apostles since it was he who spoke last and summed up the decision (Acts 15:13, 19), saying, it is “my judgment.” Indeed, the New Testament speaks of “pillars” (plural) in the church (Gal. 2:9), not only one pillar.  Peter himself spoke of Christ as the chief “Cornerstone” of the church (1 Pet. 2:7).

Fourth, the authority in the early church was the “apostles” as a body, not a single individual.  Paul spoke of the church being built on them (Eph. 2:20; Rev.21:14) and they had the power to do its work (Mat. 18:18) in “the laying on of hands of the apostles” (Acts 8:18) to anoint others to do the work of building the church (Mat. 18:18; Acts 2:42), and in performing special confirming miracles (Acts 5:12; Heb. 2:3-4).

Fifth, with regard to Peter being the alleged Rock on which the Church was built, there is strong evidence to indicate that it was not a reference to Peter alone: (1) The term “rock” is in the  third person whereas Peter (“you”) is in the second person; (2) “Peter” is masculine singular” but “rock” is feminine singular; (3) “Peter” (petros) means little rock, but the Church was built on petra, the big Rock, Christ.  (4) No Catholic commentator gives Peter primacy in evil a few verses later because Jesus called him “Satan” (v. 23); (5) Peter himself refers to Christ as “the chief Cornerstone” (1 Pet 2:7); (6) Even some great Catholic commentators, like St. Augustine, affirm that the “Rock” is Christ; “’Upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed…will I build My Church.’  I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee (Augustine Sermons on the NT), XXVI, p. 340 (in Schaff Vol. VI of Nicene and Ante-Fathers); (7) According to Catholic dogma of Vatican I, no dogma of the Church should be established apart from “the unanimous consent of the Fathers,” but even Catholic authorities (see Ludwig Ott, Sources of Catholic Dogma, 996) admits many early Fathers did not affirm the primacy of Peter.  Peter was only the little rock (petros) who confessed the big Rock (petra) on whom the Church of Christ was built.

Peter was not Given Infallibility in His Official Teaching

Not only was Peter never given the sole authority for defining faith and practice, neither he nor the apostles were given infallible authority to do this.  So, Newman’s claims for the infallibility of the Pope are groundless.  Indeed, even he recognizes some serious problems with Rome’s claim to infallibility.

First of all, he defines infallibility thus:  “When we say that a person is infallible, we mean no more than that what he says is always true, always to be believed, always to be done” (170).  But when we examine this more carefully, we discover that it is infallibility only when speaking ex cathedra, that is, “out of the chair” [of St. Peter].  And when we examine that, we find that there is no infallible way to determine when that is.  It is certainly not anytime he engages in teaching doctrine for even Newman admits there were heretical Pope’s.  He even names three, saying, “Three Popes, Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius, have left to posterity the burden of their defence” (15).  So, the Popes do not even have infallibility whenever they teach doctrine, but only when they do it while sitting in St. Peter’s chair.  However, there seems to be no real way to know when this is.  It certainly is not in the regular teachings and writings of the Pope.  At a minimum it probably has only been a couple times in the last two centuries, once pronouncing the Pope infallible (1870) and once declaring the Bodily Assumption of Mary (1950).  In between, the faithful must accept an authoritative but fallible Pope.

Second, neither can we say the Pope is infallible only when he sits in Council with the other Bishops for even then we run into two serious problems.  First of all, this contradicts an infallible dogma of the Church given at the First Vatican Council (in 1870) which declares that the Pope’s definitions are “irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church” whenever he is speaking ex cathedra.  That is, they do not need the council and consent of the Bishops. Second, this infallible statement itself is contradicted by the Council of Florence (1413-18) which declared (in Haec Sancta) that “this Council holds its power direct from Christ; Everyone, no matter his rank of office, even it be papal, is bound to obey it in whatever pertains to faith….”  Here we have an irresistible dogmatic force hitting an immovable dogmatic object!  In short, this is a flat and unequivocal contradiction of allegedly infallible pronouncements.

Newman admits, “It is possible for the Pope, even as Pope, and with his own assembly of counselors, or with General Council, to err in particular controversies of fact, which chiefly depend on human information and testimony” (174).  However, “whether it is possible for him to err or not, [he] is to be obeyed by all the faithful” (174).

Newman proposes a way out of this dilemma in his progress of dogma theory.  However, his position collapses upon careful scrutiny because of the contradictions of dogma with Scripture and of Dogma with Dogma.  Even the dogma of infallibility is questioned by Newman.  He wrote: “Again, it may be discussed whether infallibility is a principle or a doctrine of the Church of Rome, and dogmatism a principle or doctrine of Christianity” (127).  According to Newman, principles don’t change but dogmas do.  But herein is a dilemma of Rome.  If the infallibility of the Pope is only a dogma which can change, then how can it be infallible?.  One of the characteristics of infallibility is irreformability.  That is, what is infallible cannot change, and what changes is not infallible.  If, on the other hand, infallibility is a principle that cannot change, then they are left with no explanation of the contradiction between two infallible Church councils (the 16th and 20th).  The first (Council of Constance, 1413-1418) declared the Council could act apart from the Pope).  And the later (First Vatican Council, 1870) declared that the Pope could make infallible pronouncements apart from the Council.

 

The Doctrine of Development

According to Newman, the Doctrine of Development is “…the doctrines of which the present Catholic religion consist are prima facie the correct, true, faithful, legitimate development of the doctrines which preceded them, and not their corruption.”  He adds, no “case can be made out against that religion, to prove that it is materially corrupt, and not in its substance Apostolic” (240).  “If there are developments in Christianity, the doctrines propounded by successive Popes and Councils through so many ages, are they” (183).

Further, “We have no reason to suppose that there is so great a distinction of dispensation between ourselves and the first generation of Christians, as that they had a living infallible guidance, and we have not” (173).  We can argue “…on the analogy of Nature, and from the fact of Christianity.  Preservation is involved in the idea of creation… (173). “And, then, in addition, is the high antecedent probability that Providence would watch over His own work, and would direct and ratify those developments of doctrine which were inevitable” (193).

“From necessity, then of the case, from the history of all sects and parties in religion, and from the analogy and example of Scripture, we may fairly conclude that Christian doctrine admits of formal, legitimate, and true development, or of development contemplated by its Divine Author” (164).  “It has now been made probable that developments of Christianity were but natural, as time went on, and were to be expected; and that these natural and true developments, as being natural and true, we of course contemplated and taken into account by its Author, who in designing the work designed its legitimate results” (165).

“If the Christian doctrine, as originally taught , admits of true and important developments…this is a strong antecedent argument in favour of a provision in the Dispensation for putting a seal of authority upon these developments” (168). ”There are various revelations all over the earth, which do not carry with them the evidence of their divinity” (168).  “Thus developments of Christianity are proved to have been in contemplation of its Divine Author, by an argument parallel to that by which we infer intelligence in the system of the physical world [given by Butler]” (154), namely, “gaps” in the creeds, like gaps in nature, imply a Divine Author (154).  Likewise, earlier prophecies imply and expect later ones (155).  “But the whole Bible, not its prophetical portions only, is written on the principle of development” (156).  “But this progress of events, vague and uncertain as it seemed to be, notwithstanding the miracles which attended it, has been directed by Him who works out gradually what He has determined absolutely” (161).

Response:  First of all, Newman makes the same error that some divine design in nature theorist did.  It is called the “God-of-the-gap” fallacy.  For gaps as such do not prove divine intervention.  They simply show the lack of evidence.  Newman superimposed divine design on his human attempt to explain the widespread lack of evidence that all these major Catholic doctrines were found in seminal form from the very beginning—even if the evidence is lacking or contrary.

Second, of course, granted the Christian view of God’s providence, we can accept the idea that God will preserve the truth He has provided for the saints of all time.  However, serious question can be raised as to whether God granted a living infallible authority for the saints of all the ages.  Again, the analogy of nature breaks down.  Of course, God will provide for his creation now as he did in the past.  However, it is a giant step to assume that an infallible authority is like God’s provision for nature.

Third, there are in fact is good reasons to believe that God never intended to perpetuate a living infallible authority for the church on earth between the First and Second advents of Christ.  An infallible Bible is sufficient (see sola Scriptura above).  We don’t need an infallible interpreter of it.  Even Newman admits that a less than infallible authority is sufficient to establish an infallible authority (169).  Even so, a less than infallible guide is sufficient for understanding God’s infallible Word.  Likewise, if the Bible can be infallible without another infallible authority for it, then why is it necessary to have another authority after Christ even in the first century—let alone in the centuries to come.  Sola Scriptura plus the principle of the perspicuity of Scripture (dependent on the Historical-Grammatical interpretation) is sufficient for understanding the main message of the Bible.

Fourth, the evidence is lacking that Peter was a living infallible authority in the first century.  And if he was not, then there is no succession of infallible authorities after him.  There was not even a first link in the chain, to say nothing of an unbroken chain after Peter.  Consider the following:

(1) Peter made a serious mistake in “faith and practice,” and had to be rebuke by the Apostle Paul for it.  Paul wrote: “When Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him [Peter] to his face, because he stood condemned…. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the gospel…,” I rebuked them for their “hypocrisy” (Gal. 2:11-13).

(2) The doctrinal dispute was not settled by Peter, but by the whole group of “apostles and elders” (Acts 15:23).

(3)  The first opportunity Peter had to exercise his alleged infallible authority not to mislead the faithful in “faith of practice” he totally blew it so that Jesus had to say “Get behind me Satan” (Mat. 16:23). “Immediately after Peter had earned commendation by his acknowledgement of Jesus as the Messiah, the doctrine of the crucified Messiah was proposed to him and he rejected it.”  So if “…the Apostles had believed that the words ‘On this Rock I will build my church’ constituted Peter their infallible guide, the very first time they followed his guidance they would have been led to miserable error” (Salmon, Infallibility, 343).

Fifth, even according to Newman, “development” of doctrine cannot include contradictions (123).  Yet these two infallible pronouncements (from Councils 16 and 20) are contradictory.  The Council of Constance (1413-1418) declares flatly that the Council can make infallible pronouncements without consulting with the Pope.  And the First Vatican Council (1869-70) declared that the Pope can make infallible statements without consulting the Council of Bishops. Both of these cannot be true without violating the law of non-contradiction. The only way out of this dilemma is to deny the absolute truth of one or both infallible pronouncement.

Adding the Apocrypha to the Old Testament

            Roman Catholics accept eleven extra books not found in the Jewish (and Protestant) Bible (7 of which appear in the table of contents plus four small books appended, three in Daniel and one in Esther).  These are sometimes called Deutero-Canoncal (Second Canon) books.  These books were mostly written between 250 B.C. and the time of Christ.  Catholics accept these as divinely inspired books and Protestants do not, considering them of various degrees of value historically and devotionally (hence, they were sometimes read in services).  Although from the time of Augustine on these books were increasingly cited by some Church Fathers and even some local councils, they were not given an infallible status in the Old Testament canon by Catholics at the Council of Trent (in 1546).  In actual fact, this is a good example of the corruption of doctrine in Catholicism since: (1) Unlike most canonical books, there is no implicit or explicit claim in them for divine inspiration; (2) Judaism never accepted these books as inspired.  In fact, the first century Jewish historian lists the inspired books of the OT by name which excludes the Apocrypha(see Josephus, Against Apion 1.8); (3) Most of the early Church Fathers did not grant them canonical status; (4) The great Catholic biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected this books as part of the canon; (5) Although Jesus cited  the vast majority of the Jewish Old Testament books as inspired, he never once quoted from an one of the eleven apocryphal books as inspired; (6) None of the apostles or writers of the New Testament ever cited any of these eleven books as inspired; (7) The Catholic official acceptance of these books (at Trent in 1546) was a sign of its doctrinal deterioration.  For they inconsistently rejected an Apocryphal book opposed to praying for the dead (2) [4] Esdras 7:105 and yet accepted an apocryphal book in favor of praying for the dead (2 Mac. 12:45-46). This tended to support several Catholic doctrines which were part of the corruption of Christianity which included prayers for the dead, Purgatory, the unfinished nature of the Atonement, and Indulgences.

Adding the Doctrine of Purgatory to the Bible

            Newman attempts to justify adding Purgatory to the list of biblical doctrines by several different argumentsFirst, he opines: “Thus we see how, as time went on, the doctrine of Purgatory was opened upon the apprehension of the Church, as a portion or form of Penance due for sins committed after Baptism” (417).  Of course, this assumes baptism actually washes way sins when the apostle declares baptism is not part of the Gospel (1 Cor. 1:17), but the Gospel alone is that by which we are saved (Rom. 1:16).

Second, he rationalizes that there are people too good for hell but not good enough for heaven:   “How Almighty God will deal with the mass of Christians, who are neither very bad nor very good, is a problem…; (418).  But the Bible speaks only of two categories of people; believers and unbelievers (Jn. 3:36), saved and lost (Lk. 19:10), sheep and goats (Mat. 25:32). Further, apart from the saving grace of God received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9), all men are evil and lost (Rom.3:10-23).  What is more, Christ died for all men and purged our sins on the cross (Heb.1:2) once and for all (Heb. 10:11-14).  His work was “finished” on the Cross (Jn. 19:30).

Third, Purgatory is necessary to account for “the universal and apparently apostolical practice of praying for the dead in Christ” (421), according to Newman.  However, the practice was not universal or apostolic, and the Bible says emphatically that “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ” (Rom. 8:1).  Finally, when we are saved, we are instantaneously made “a new creation” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).  So, we need not be further purified from our sins in order to qualify for heaven.

Fourth, other than text taken out of context (1 Cor. 3) which speak of rewards and loss of rewards (not of loss of heaven), Catholics have to resort to mystical (allegorical) interpretations of Scripture or adding books to the Bible to support their doctrine of Purgatory.  Thus 29 years after Luther spoke out against buying indulgences and praying for the dead in Purgatory, the Catholic Church officially and infallibly added 2 Maccabees to the Bible which declares: “Therefore, he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin” (2 ac.12:45 RSV).  While at the same time they rejected an Apocryphal book that forbid praying for the dead, saying, “No one shall ever pray for another on the day” (2 [4] Esdras 7:105).

 

Other Indications of Catholic Doctrinal Corruption

Contrary to Newman’s hypothesis, the facts support a doctrinal corruption, not a doctrinal development. By reading subsequent history back into prior history (207), Newman was able to argue that Catholic dogmas that were late in the appearance, often many centuries later, he attempted to counter the stark silence of the Bible and early Christian history by assuming they were there is implicit of seed form.  He said,  “For instance, it is  true, St. Ignatius is silent in his Epistles on the subject of the Pope’s

authority; but…such silence is not so difficult to account for as the Silence of Plutarch about Christianity itself, or Lucian about the Roman people” (208).  “And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgement of the doctrine of the Trinity till the fourth” (209).  The reason, he hypothesized, was that “The state of the most primitive Church did not well admit such universal sovereignty.  For that did consist of small bodies incoherently situated, and scattered about in very distant places, and consequently unfit to be modeled into one political society, or to be governed by one head” (210/211).

However, the evidence, much of which ironically Newman revealed, was exactly to the contrary of his speculations about development. Consider the following evidence. First, there is an acknowledged late date for the official ecumenical pronouncement of many crucial Catholic doctrines, with no orthodox acknowledgement of an earlier date for the doctrine:

1) Transubstantiation of the Communion Elements (1215)

2)  Prayers for the dead (and Purgatory) (1546)

3)  The Canonicity of the Apocrypha (1546)

4)  Worship of the Consecrated Communion Elements (1546)

5)  The Veneration of Mary (1546)

6)  The Immaculate Conception (1854)

7) The Infallibility of the Pope (1870)

8)  The Bodily Assumption of Mary (1950)

Second, in most cases there is scant, if any, evidence that the given aberrant view was held by even most, let alone, all orthodox Fathers long before these late dates.  Most Roman Catholic views emerged for unorthodoxy to orthodoxy by infallible pronouncement many centuries after the time of Christ.  In fact, many seem to violate Newman’s principle that error cannot give rise to truth.  For he declared that “…a development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started” (129).

Third, most of these later dogmas violate the Catholic principle annunciated infallibly by Trent that a dogma must have “the universal consent of the Fathers.” For many of these later dogmas did not even have a majority consent of the Fathers, let alone a universal consent or meet St. Vincent’s canon that orthodoxy is what is “believed everywhere, always, by all.”

Fourth, Newman frankly admits that many of the additions Rome made to Christianity were of Pagan origin (see next point).

Pagan Religions are the Source of Many Roman Doctrines and Practices

Newman acknowledged that “We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own.”  This included, holy water, temples, holy days, sacerdotal vestments, images, incense, and candles.  These “are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church” (369).  “It [the Church] need not therefore because if the absurd use of the Greeks, to abolish our use which is so pious” (371). “The continuity of these various principled own to this day, and their operations, are two distinct guarantees that the theological conclusions to which they are subservient are, in accordance with the Divine Promise, true developments, and not corruption of the Revelation” (374).  He adds,  “There is in truth a certain virtue or grace in the Gospel which changes the quality of doctrines, opinions, usages, actions, and personal characters which become incorporated with it, and makes them right and acceptable to its Divine Author.… Thus outward rights, which are but worthless in themselves, lose their own character and become Sacraments under the gospel [e.g., circumcision becomes baptism]” (365).

Response: First of all, this is a surprising admission, one that fits the counter thesis that Rome contains a corruption, not merely a development of Christian truth.  In fact, his words need to be put in bold for they are self-condemning: These “…are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church” (369).  He adds, “It [the Church] need not therefore because if the absurd use if the Greeks, to abolish our use which is so pious.”  But how does adoption by the Church “sanctify” paganism?   How does the piety of the Church justify the absurdity of the Pagan teachings or practice (371).  Baptizing Paganism and giving it a Christian name does not somehow make it Christian.  The Gospel does not “change” a false doctrine into a true one, nor take pagan practices and “make them right.”

Second, this focuses one of the most serious charges that can be leveled against Roman Catholicism, namely, it sanctions idolatry and, as such, stands under the condemnation of Scripture.  This is does in several ways: (1) By the veneration (dulia) of saints, (2) by the veneration of (hyper-dulia) of Mary (3) by the veneration of images, (4) by prayers to saints, (5) by prayers to Mary, (6) by prayers for the dead, and (7) by the actual worship (latria) of the consecrated communion elements.

Communicating with the dead was a Pagan practice condemned in the Old Testament (Deut 18:11).  Making, not just worshipping, graven images was forbidden in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:4).  Likewise, prayer (a form of worship) was forbidden by Moses (Deut. 6:13) and Jesus when he commanded, “You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.”  In vain Newman attempts to explain why early Christians were opposed to the use of an image as an object of worship.  He wrote, “In like manner Celsus objects that Christians did not ‘endure the sight of temples, altars, and statues;’ Porphyry, that ‘they blame the rites of worship, victims, and frankincense;’ the heathen disputant in Minucius asks, ‘Why have Christians no altars, no temples, no conspicuous images’ and ‘no sacrifices’” (366).  Newman’s response that only images and sacrifices to false gods were condemned; the true God can overcome false gods (367) is just another unconvincing Example of Catholicism capitulation to the Pagan culture around it.

Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of compromise was in the developing Mariolatry.  Prayers to Mary “the Mother of God” became part and parcel of the faithful Catholic’s devotional life.  Indeed, Newman acknowledges that “Her being the Mother of God is the source of all the extraordinary honours due to Mary” (441).  One of the most popular of all Catholic devotional guides, the Glories of Mary (1750), illustrates the excessive exuberance in devotion to Mary.  It affirms, for example, that: “The way of salvation is open to none otherwise   than through Mary” or “Many things are asked from God, and are not granted: they are asked of Mary, and are obtained” or “At the command of Mary all obey—even God”[!!!].  These prayers are repugnant, if not blasphemous.  It is not possible to so highly exalt a creature without withdrawing the heart from the Creator.

Newman’s theory of “development” is a beautiful theory, but it is ruined by a brutal gang of facts about the Paganism that was adopted by Catholicism.  It is clearly a corruption of biblical truth, not a true development of it.   In fact, there is a better model for understanding what Jaroslav Pelikan called The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (1959) in his excellent book on the topic.

A Package Deal: Evidence for One Part Supports the Whole: When Neman finds it difficult to support a given Catholic dogma, then he appeals to the evidence for another in a “Package deal” kind of reasoning.  He wrote: “One strong argument imparts cogency to collateral arguments which are in themselves weak” (199).

Of course, this can be true, if the “collateral” arguments are logically necessary.  But here again this is not the case with Newman’s argument. For often there is no logical connection between the two arguments.  For instance, just because there is evidence that canonical books were written by prophets of God, confirmed by acts of God, telling the truth about God, having life-transforming power of God, and received by the people of God, it does not follow that we should accept Apocryphal books into the canon which lack these characteristic.   Further, just because God graciously blessed Mary to give birth to the Messiah, it does not justify the veneration of Mary or praying to her.

 

A More Adequate Model of Roman Catholicism

A more appropriate model for understanding Roman Catholicism is an eclectic one which combines: (1) A basic Christian doctrinal core; (2) A Roman hierarchical structure; (3) A Jewish ritualistic form, and (4) Some Pagan idolatrous practices.  These different aspects vary in dominance from time to time and place to place, but they are all part of the total system.

(1) The basic doctrinal core (expressed in the early creeds and accepted by all major forms of Christianity) has not changed or “developed” by addition or subtraction from the original truth of the Incarnation and Trinity, regardless of later wording or nuancing.  And it is this doctrinal core which provides the Christian element in Catholicism.  It is the affirmation of all these essential doctrines that saves Roman Catholicism from being a “cult” which is designated as a religious group that denies one or more essential Christian doctrines (see Geisler, Conviction without Compromise, Part 1). However, the addition of the other three elements of Roman Catholicism has evolved down through the centuries and it has placed layers of distortion on the core Christian element.

(2) The Roman hierarchical structure, adopted from the dying Roman Empire has obscured, blurred, and at times contradicted the simplicity of the Gospel.  For example, the Episcopal authoritarian structure was not found in the biblical or later first century church.  It evolved from a first century (a) plurality of elders (=bishop) in a local church (cf. Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:5, 7) to (b) a Bishop over the elders in a local church (in the second century) to (c) a Bishop over a group of churches (in the third century) to (d) the Bishop of Rome (Pope) over all the churches (in the fourth century).  As Newman admitted, “Here is assuredly abundant evidence of the nature of the unity, by which the Church of those ages was distinguished from the sects among which it lay.  It was a vast organized association, co-extensive with the Roman Empire, or rather overflowing it” (290).  While this may have been a “natural” development, it does not mean it was biblical one. The same is true of other doctrines like baptism and communion.

(3) The Jewish ritualistic form was a natural progression from the Old Testament priesthood, sacrifices, and ceremonies.  It was a legalist and typological progression from a Jewish heritage.  As Newman put it, “Their ranks and numbers were insensibly multiplied by the superstitions of the times, which introduced into the Church the splendid ceremonies of a Jewish or pagan temple; and a long train of priests, deacons, sub-deacons…to swell the pomp and harmony of religious worship” (287).  Thus, reality became lost in ritual and substance in symbols.  A form of godliness evolved but denying the power thereof.

(4)  Finally, along the way Pagan practices infiltrated the Church.  The temptation to imbibe the surrounding Pagan culture, as Newman admits, added new dimension to the corruption of Christianity.  This became manifest in the magical and sacramental interpretation of these symbols as time went on.  The idolatrous influence of Paganism became visible in the veneration of saints and images, and the exaltation of Mary.  Thus, salvation by grace alone through Christ alone, by faith alone became obscured by a system of works. Rome became an institution of salvation. Rather than obtaining a right standing with God by faith alone, it was mediated to the faithful a sacrament at a time through the institutionalized church.

Thus, pure, unadorned New Testament Christianity became encrusted and overlaid with layers of Romanism, Ritualism, and Paganism.  The simplicity of the Gospel became lost in the complexities of Catholicism.  It is this Pagan influence that properly earned the Church the title of “cultic.”  Indeed, by the time of Luther, the Church cried out for reformation.  Some since then have called for Restoration, believing that NT Christianity has been lost in Rome and needs a complete restoration.  To use Newman’s words, “When Roman Catholics are accused of substituting another Gospel for the primitive Creed, they answer that they hold, and can show that they hold, the doctrines of the Incarnation and Atonement, as firmly as any Protestant can state them.  To this it is replied that they do certainly profess them, but that they obscure and virtually annul them by their additions” (144).

 

Assuming “Private Judgment” is a basic the Protestant Principle

Newman argues that “Private Judgment” is the basic principle of Protestantism.  But he insists that this principle leads to sects and heresies.  Because without a unified authority, as in the Catholic Church, division and schism are inevitable (129).

However, the unified authority (In Rome) of the Catholic Church did not hinder the two biggest schisms the Catholic Church even has, the one with Eastern Orthodoxy (11th cent.) and the reformation (16th cent.).  Nor has the alleged unified authority in Rome settle the numerous divisions within Rome between Calvinists and Arminians, between Augustinians and Thomists, and myriads of Orders with opposing beliefs.  Indeed, the majority of Catholics do not agree with the Church’s stand on contraceptives, and many Catholics believe in abortion.

Further, the so-called “Private Judgment” is not a core belief of Protestants. For the individual is not the final authority, the Bible is—sola Scriptura.  And as for how the Bible is interpreted, apostolic guidance is provide.  This guidance is found in the unified statements on doctrine found in the Creeds of the first four centuries.  As for tradition, it offers guidance but is not infallible.  Essential to the idea of tradition is the concept of good history back to the apostles.  Jesus promised to give his apostles guidance by the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture.  This has been passed down to the Church historically.  But its function is ministerial not magisterial.  It is not centered in the Roman hierarchy but is dispensed to the body of the Church on earth generally.  Further, the means of interpreting Scripture is the historical-grammatical method.  So, the Bible alone is the final authority for non-Catholic believers as interpreted by the historical-grammatical method and guided by the early creeds.  The final authority is in Scripture so understood, not in the private judgment of individuals.

The Improbable use of Probability

Newman makes strange use of evidence.  He claims that “A collection of weak evidences makes up a strong evidence” (199).  This must be part of the “new” math.  Or else it is the old leaky bucket argument.  Adding up arguments that don’t hold much water don’t fill in the holes in the bucket.  Of course, adding up the number of witnesses (whose testimony is probable) can strengthen the argument, but this is not what Newman has here.  For some of the Catholic dogma has virtually no evidence of being apostolic such as the bodily assumption of Mary, her veneration, the infallibility of the Peter and successors, prayers to Mary, and the worship of the consecrated host

He also says that “The truth of our religion, like the truth of common matters, is to be judged by all the evidence taken together” (200).  This is true, providing that there is a reasonable probability for each piece of evidence.  However, this is not the situation with Newman’s argument for the Catholic Church being the one and only true church.  For many aspects crucial to the overall argument are not strong links.  And a chain is no stronger than its weakest link.  And, as we have shown, some of the links in the argument for the infallibility of Peter and his successors are weak links.

Newman’s Attack on Justification by Faith Alone

            He argued that “Few but will grant that Luther’s view of justification had never before been stated in words before his time” (150).  Perhaps Newman was reading too much Trent and not enough of St. Paul when he wrote: “But when does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5, Catholic NAB).  And “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-9, Catholic NAB).  Or, perhaps did not know about the Angelic Doctor (Aquinas) who when commenting on these same verses, declared: “Men receive the hope of this salvation when they are justified from sin in the present…. But this salvation of grace is by faith in Christ…. According to Romans 11 (6); ‘If by grace it is not now by works; otherwise grace is no more grace.’ He follows with the reason why God saves man by faith without any preceding merits, that no man may glory in himself but refer all the glory to God” (Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, Magi Books, 1966, 95-96).

Contrast this with the infallible pronouncement of Trent that “If anyone shall say that the good works of the man justified are in such a way the gift of God that they are not also the good merits of him who is justified, or that the one justified by the good works…does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of eternal life (if he should die in grace), and also an increase in glory; let him be anathema” (Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma, no. 842).

             Concluding Comments

            The crucial question can now be addressed: Is Roman Catholicism a true church with significant error.  Or, is it a false Church with significant truth.  In view of the forgoing discussion, it would seem that the former is the better description, at least if judged by the doctrines of the early Creeds which Rome clearly affirms.  Of course, if judged by reformation standards, it would be a false Church since it would thereby have denied justification by faith alone.  One thing seems clear, Rome is not the true church.  At best it is a true Church.  Spiritually, all believers are part of the true Church which is the body of Christ, even though organizationally we may belong to different visible manifestations of the true Church.

As Professor Merrill Tenney put it (in The Gospel of Belief, 248), “Unanimity means absolute concord of opinion within a given group of people.  Uniformity is complete similarity of organization or of ritual.  Union implies political affiliation without necessarily including individual agreement.  Unity requires oneness of inner heart and essential interest or a common life.”   So, when Jesus prayed that we “all may be One” (Jn. 17:21), he certainly was not praying for unanimity or uniformity.  Even the Roman Catholic Church does not have that.  Nor was he praying for union, otherwise his prayer has been unanswered for at least a thousand years since Rome split with eastern Orthodoxy.  Rather, Jesus was praying for true unity which all orthodox Christians have, East and West, by virtue of our common confession in the early creeds and outward conduct of love manifest to all men (Jn. 13:35).  He certainly was not praying that we all belong to the Roman Catholic Church which demands that one belong to this particular organization.  That would be organizational union with Rome.  Rather, Jesus was praying for spiritual unity among all believers, even if we differ in our organizational associations.  This is clear from his statement that we all may be one, “even as we [the Father and Son] are one” (Jn. 17:11).  There is no sense in which this is true organizationally, but only spiritually.  However, this does not mean that this unity will not be manifested visibly in doctrine and deed, in truth and in love.  In short, the error of Rome is in confusing organizational union with spiritual unity.


Dr. Geisler is the author of Should Old Aquinas Be Forgotten? Many Say Yes but the Author Says No. (Bastion Books:2013), What Augustine Says (Bastion Books:2013), Is the Pope Infallible: A Look at the Evidence (Bastion Books:2012), Is Rome the True Church? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim (Crossway Books:2008), and Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker Academic:1995). For additional resources by Dr. Geisler on Roman Catholicism, please visit http://normangeisler.com/rcc/.

Why Roman Catholics are Leaving the Church in Mass

Why Roman Catholics are Leaving the Roman Catholic Church in Mass

Norman L. Geisler

1/6/11

True, there are a few intellectual evangelicals who are becoming Roman Catholic, but the overall trend is in the other direction.  Actually, the Roman Church is hemorrhaging members.  A 2007 Pew Foundation survey revealed that Catholics have experienced the greatest net loss of any American religion.  Were it not for immigrant Catholics, the percent of Catholics in America would be decreasing.  In 1997 a Catholic sociologist reported that one in seven Hispanic Catholics was abandoning the church.  According to World Magazine (Jan. 15, 2011), the number is nearly one in five.  And it is almost one in four for second-generation Latinos.

This is good news and bad news.  It is bad news in that most of those who leave Rome are claiming no religion at all.  It is good news for evangelicalism since 40 percent of those who leave the Roman Church are becoming evangelical.

Why do a few intellectual evangelicals become Catholics?  Many reasons are given.  It is an older, deeper, richer, more intellectual tradition.  Or, to summarize one recent convert, “My family is Catholic.  They wanted me to return, and the Bible says we should honor our parents!”   It is clear that none of these are a test for the truth of a religion, and by the same logic one could argue for becoming a Hindu, Buddhist, or even an atheist.  We have weighed all of these reasons (in Is Rome the True Church?) and found them wanting.  As for the appeal of the intellectual tradition, I have a Ph.D. in philosophy from a Jesuit institution and have never once been tempted to become a Roman Catholic.  If you want to compare the two, read our book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences.  My co-author Ralph MacKenzie and I both have Catholicism in our background.  We have studied both sides carefully, and we see no reason to swim the Tiber.

On the other hand, why are so many former Catholics becoming evangelical?  In short, they are having a personal experience with God through Christ that they never found in Romanism.  As one of my liturgical friends once put it to me, “The problem with our church is that we tend to confuse lace and grace.”  Evangelical converts from Rome like Christ Castaldo (see his, Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic) say they feel a liberation from ritual and a freedom of guilt they never had in Romanism.  Tens of thousands of these Catholic converts end up in one of the large Calvary Chapel churches where they are singing God-centered praise music and being taught the Word of God verse-by-verse.  This is something that Rome with all its layers of tradition has lost.  Thomas Aquinas (13th cent.), who was more of a pre-Protestant, taught the Bible verse by verse.  But what we know of as “Roman” Catholicism today, with its belief in works being necessary for salvation, the veneration of and prayers to Mary, the worship of the consecrated host, buying indulgences, Purgatory, adding apocryphal books (which supports praying for the dead) to the inspired Scripture, and bowing to the infallibility of the Pope, simply cannot compete with the simplicity of the evangelical Gospel: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:31).

So, while we are losing a few intellectual egg-heads out the top of evangelicalism to Rome, we are gaining tens of thousands of converts out the bottom from Catholicism.  The trade-off highly favors evangelicalism.  So, invite a Catholic to your Bible study or church.  There is a good possibility that they will get saved!  They have a least been pre-evangelized by Roman Catholicism to believe in God, miracles, Christ, His death and resurrection.  Once they find that works are not a necessary condition for salvation (Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:3-6) but that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, they will make great evangelical Christians.  They will realize that we can’t work for grace but that we do work from grace.


Dr. Geisler is the author of Should Old Aquinas Be Forgotten? Many Say Yes but the Author Says No. (Bastion Books:2013), What Augustine Says (Bastion Books:2013), Is the Pope Infallible: A Look at the Evidence (Bastion Books:2012), Is Rome the True Church? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim (Crossway Books:2008), and Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker Academic:1995). For additional resources by Dr. Geisler on Roman Catholicism, please visit http://normangeisler.com/rcc/.


Yes, the “in Mass” is a play on en masse. 😉

Does Thomism Lead to Catholicism?

Does Thomism Lead to Catholicism?

By Norman L. Geisler

            Thomas Aquinas, the great philosopher and theologian, was a Roman Catholic.  And there are a growing number of non-Catholic scholars who have become Thomists.  And some of these have become Roman Catholic. Is there a logical connection?  Does Thomism lead to Catholicism? It is natural that one would want to examine this connection.

The Reason Some Non-Catholic Thomists become Roman Catholic

            There are a variety of reasons why non-Catholics become Roman Catholic.  Let’s examine some of them.  There is the appeal of antiquity, unity, continuity, beauty, fraternity (or paternity), intellectuality, and a desire for certainty (see Geisler, Is Rome the True Church? chap. 8).  Any one or more of these appeal to some evangelicals.  It is noteworthy that none of these or combination of them is a valid test for truth.

Few evangelicals become Catholic because they became convinced by the study of Scripture that Rome is the true Church.  Hardly anyone reasons his way to Rome purely by an objective study of the evidence.  For example, one recent convert to Catholicism wrote, “My family is Catholic.  They wanted me to return, and the Bible says we should honor our parents!”   It is clear that none of these reasons is a good test for the truth of a religion for by the same logic one could argue for becoming a Hindu, Buddhist, or even an atheist, if their family belonged to that group.  Or, one could become Eastern Orthodox, if he was looking for a tradition older than his.

We have weighed the many reasons some evangelicals have become Catholic (in Is Rome the True Church?), and almost no one said it was because their study of Thomistic philosophy led them there.  As for the appeal of the intellectual tradition in Catholicism, I have a Ph.D. in philosophy from a Catholic (Jesuit) institution and have never once been tempted to become a Roman Catholic.  I have used my scholarly training in both traditions to compare them (see Geisler, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences). My co-author Ralph MacKenzie and I both have Catholicism in our background.  We have studied both sides carefully, and we see no reason to swim the Tiber.

One recent convert to Catholicism admits that it was not good reasoning that led him to Rome but faith.  He said, “The false disciples only follow Jesus when they agree with his teaching.  If I am very honest, the rationalism of my evangelical faith would have put me in the first camp (those who reject it because it is hard to understand) for I rejected the doctrine of the Real Presence based on theological arguments (It is a hard teaching), rather than placing my faith in Christ who taught it” (emphasis added).  Of course, once one places his faith in the Roman system (for whatever reason), the rest is all part of a package deal.

Whatever the reason is that people become Catholic, I have never seen anyone make the case that Roman Catholicism flows logically from Thomistic philosophy.  The reason for this is simple: there is no logical connection between them.  Aquinas himself said there is no logical connection between Thomism and Roman Catholicism.  Further, experience shows that there are many Thomists who are not Roman Catholic.

The Thomistic Distinction Between Faith and Reason

Aquinas believed that faith and reason were such distinct domains that even belief in God could not be an object of both faith and reason simultaneously.

The Formal Distinction between Faith and Reason

Although Aquinas did not actually separate faith and reason, he did distinguish them formally. He affirmed that we cannot both know and believe the same thing at the same time. For “whatever things we know with scientific [philosophical] knowledge properly so called we know by reducing them to first principles which are naturally present to the understanding. All scientific knowledge terminates in the sight of a thing which is present [whereas faith is always in something absent]. Hence, it is impossible to have faith and scientific [philosophical] knowledge about the same thing.” (See Aquinas, Should Old Aquinas be Forgotten, chap. 5).

The Object of Faith is Beyond Reason

For Aquinas, the object of faith is above the senses and understanding. “Consequently, the object of faith is that which is absent from our understanding.” As Augustine said, we believe that which is absent, but we see that which is present. So we cannot prove and believe the same thing.  For if we see it, we don’t believe it.  And if we believe it, then we don’t see it.  For “all science [philosophical knowledge] is derived from self-evident and therefore seen principles. . . . Now, . . . it is impossible that one and the same thing should be believed and seen by the same person.” This means “that a thing which is an object of vision or science for one, is believed by another” (ibid.). It does not mean that one and the same person can have both faith and proof of one and the same object. If one sees it rationally, then he does not believe it on the testimony of others. And if he believes it on the testimony of another, then he does not see (know) it for himself.

We Can Reason about Faith but not to Faith

Nonetheless, “this does not prevent the understanding of one who believes from having some discursive thought of comparison about those things which he believes.” Discursive thought, or reasoning from premises to conclusions, is not the cause of the assent of faith. Nonetheless, such reasoning “can accompany the assent of faith.” The reason they are parallel but one does not cause the other is that “faith involves will (freedom) and reason doesn’t coerce the will” (ibid.). That is, a person is free to dissent even though there may be convincing reasons to believe.

Reason Cannot Produce Faith

Reason accompanies but does not cause faith. “Faith is called a consent without inquiry in so far as the consent of faith, or assent, is not caused by an investigation of the understanding.” Commenting on Ephesians 2:8-9, Aquinas contends that “free will is inadequate for the act of faith since the contents of faith are above reason. . . . So, reason cannot lead someone to faith” (ibid., emphasis added).  At best, reason is the preamble to faith in God and in Christ.  So, the Christian Faith as such does not follow logically from philosophy—even Thomistic philosophy.  The best philosophy can do is to prepare the way for faith, but it does not logically lead to faith, let alone to a particular faith like the Roman Catholic Faith.

Faith Goes Beyond Reason

A philosophical argument contains no premises borrowed from faith.  It stands on its own two philosophical “feet.”  Further, according to Aquinas, unique doctrines of the Christian Faith (such as the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ) are not the result of human reason.  No rational process, no matter how sophisticated, can attain to these unique Christian doctrines.  They are not contrary to reason (since there is no contradiction in them), but they go beyond reason.  Given this difference between what can be known by reason and what can be known only by faith, it is obvious that Thomistic philosophy does not lead logically to Roman Catholicism.

Thomists Who were Not Roman Catholic

Not only is there no logical connection between Thomism and Catholicism, but historically there is no actual connection for many Thomistic philosophers have not been Roman Catholic.  Eric Mascal was an Anglican Thomist.  David Johnson is a Lutheran Thomist.  John Gerstner, R. C. Sproul, and Arvin Vos are Reformed Thomists.  Win Corduan and myself are Evangelical Thomists.  Thomas Howe, and Richard Howe are Baptistic Thomists.  Joseph Holden is a Calvary Chapel Thomist.  Mortimer Adler saw no contradiction in being a Jewish Thomist for many years (before he became a Catholic), and so on.  There are many more.

It is true that a number of evangelical Thomists have become Roman Catholic (e.g., Thomas Howard, Jay Budziszewski, and Frank Beckwith).  However, none of them did so because the philosophical principles of Thomism drove them there. The truth is that there is no logical connection between them. Thomistic philosophy as such does not logically or philosophically lead to Roman Catholicism, any more than it leads to being a Presbyterian or a Baptist.  So, if a Thomist becomes a Roman Catholic, it is not because of any philosophical necessity arising out of Thomism.

This is not to say that some evangelicals who do not have a very deep liturgical, aesthetic or intellectual history are not attracted to Catholicism.  Some are, but some are also attracted to Eastern Orthodoxy or Anglicanism.  But many remain content with their evangelical faith—and that for good reasons. Converted Catholic Chris Castaldo expressed this in his book Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic when he rejoiced in the sense of liberation from ritual and guilt he never had in Romanism. Tens of thousands of former Catholics who have become evangelical were attracted by the personal, Bible-based experiences evangelicalism provided with the simple Gospel message and a personal relation with Christ they obtained through it.

I have a strong background in Catholicism, having been trained in two Jesuit institutions with a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. However, there are several basic reasons that I have not been attracted to Catholicism.  First, I am satisfied with being an evangelical doctrinally, experientially, and philosophically. Second, I have not seen any convincing reasons biblically or otherwise to tempt me to become Roman Catholic. Third, my systematic study of Catholicism has convinced me that it is based on unbiblical and unreasonable grounds. Fourth, I have never had the tendency to confuse lace and grace, or to connect ritual and reality very closely.  Finally, there are some Catholic doctrines and practices that I find unbiblical and even distasteful such as, purgatory, praying for the dead, indulgences, venerating images, praying to Mary, venerating Mary, the bodily assumption of Mary, worshipping the consecrated host, and the infallibility of the Pope—to mention a few.

The Protestant Dimensions in Thomas Aquinas

Even though there is no logical connection between Thomistic philosophy and Catholicism, I have found many philosophical and even theological similarities between evangelicalism and Thomistic philosophy that make it attractive to me as an evangelical.

Aquinas was a pre-Trentian Catholic, part of what may be called the “Old Catholic Church” with which Episcopalians would be happy on most counts.  As such, Aquinas was not committed to the immaculate conception of Mary, the bodily assumption of Mary, the infallibility of the Pope and a number of other Roman Catholic idiosyncracies.  Further, Aquinas was committed to sola Scripture, exposition of Scripture, and other characteristic doctrine of Protestanism (see Geisler, Aquinas, ibid., chap. 4).  His basic Bibliology (minus the Apocrypha), Prolegomena, Apologetics, Theology Proper, and Christology are compatible with evangelicalism.

As a matter of fact, I find Aquinas’s philosophy to be a helpful prolegomena for evangelical theology.  After all, Aquinas defended metaphysical realism, the correspondence view of truth, proposition revelation, classical apologetics, and classical theism—all of which are helpful to defending the evangelical positions.  Indeed, one has to search hard, if not in vain, to find an evangelical philosopher who can match Aquinas in these areas.

But what we know of as “Roman” Catholicism today, with its belief in works being necessary for salvation, the veneration of and prayers to Mary, the worship of the consecrated host, buying indulgences, Purgatory, adding apocryphal books (in supports praying for the dead) to the inspired Scripture, and bowing to the infallibility of the Pope, simply cannot compete with the simplicity of the evangelical Gospel: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:31). And, “Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has [right now] eternal life.  He does not come into judgment, but has [already] passed from death unto life” (Jn. 5:24).

So, my attraction to Thomism is somewhat like my attraction to C.S. Lewis.  There are many things I like about Lewis’s views, e.g., his apologetics, his belief in absolute truth and morals, his classical theism, his defense of New Testament miracles, his affirmation of the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation of Christ, his belief in the resurrection of Christ, eternal punishment (Hell). However, there are also some of Lewis’s beliefs which I do not accept, e.g. his denial of some Old Testament miracles, his belief that the OT contains myths and errors, and his belief in evolution, and in Purgatory.  But none of these hinder my acceptance of the many positive values I find in Lewis.  But in spite of my acceptance of all these positive features in Lewis, I have never been tempted to become an Anglican (as he was).

Likewise, many protestant identify closely with the writings of St. Augustine, but would not think of throwing out his philosophy entirely because he claimed to be a Catholic, accepted books of the Apocrypha, believed in baptismal regeneration, and other Catholic teachings.

So, in spite of the many positive aspects of Aquinas’s beliefs, I have never been thereby tempted to become an Anglican—or even an Episcopalian.  One can profit by the positive philosophical views of Lewis without buying into negative religious views. Why throw the baby of truth out with the bath water of error in the name is Aquinas or Lewis?

 

Turn about is Fair Play

While we are losing a few intellectual egg-heads out the top of evangelicalism to Rome, we are gaining tens of thousands of converts to evangelicalism out of the bottom from Catholicism.  The trade-off highly favors evangelicalism. There are literally tens of thousands of Catholics in South America who have become evangelical.  Some countries (like Brazil) are nearly a third Catholic now.  Also, tens of thousands of these Catholic converts end up in one of the large evangelical churches where they are singing God-centered praise music and being taught the Word of God.  This is something that Rome with all its layers of tradition has lost.  Once they find that works are not a necessary condition for salvation (Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:3-6) but that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, they make great evangelical Christians.  They realize that we can’t work for grace but that we do work from grace.  Once they learn that we can have eternal life now (John 5:24) by faith and do not have to work for it or wait until they die, they are exuberant.

I for one welcome the Thomistic renewal in evangelicalism.  In a world of experientialism, a shot of Thomistic “rationalism” is more than welcome.  Likewise, Thomism is a good antidote for the New Age mysticism that has penetrated some of evangelicalism.  In addition, the Angelic Doctor’s emphasis on objective truth and propositional revelation is a sure cure for Barthian existentialism that has infiltrated the evangelical view of Scripture.  As  Reformed Thomist John Gerstner put it, “God wants to reach the heart, but he does not want to bypass the head on the way to the heart.”  Thomism can definitely help in this department.  Last but not least, Thomistic metaphysics is the only solid answer to the drift into Open Theism and process views of God.   Of course, Rome is not home soteriologically (salvation) or ecclesiologically (church), but Thomism does embrace important truths in Prolegomena, Apologetics, Theology Proper, and Metaphysics which evangelicals desperately need today.  In brief, there is too much good in Aquinas’s views to be singing “Should Old Aquinas be Forgotten!”


 

Dr. Geisler is the author of Should Old Aquinas Be Forgotten? Many Say Yes but the Author Says No. (Bastion Books:2013), What Augustine Says (Bastion Books:2013), Is the Pope Infallible: A Look at the Evidence (Bastion Books:2012), Is Rome the True Church? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim (Crossway Books:2008), and Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker Academic:1995). For additional resources by Dr. Geisler on Roman Catholicism, please visit http://normangeisler.com/rcc/

.

Does the New Testament Support the Roman Catholic View of Communion?

  DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT SUPPORT

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW OF COMMUNION?

By Norman L. Geisler

Introduction

In the first three Gospels Jesus is represented as saying “this is my body” and “this is my blood” (Mt. 26:26, 28; Mark 14:21, 24; Lk. 22:19, 21) about the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper.  This is repeated in 1 Corinthians 15:24.  On another occasion Jesus exhorted his disciples to “eat” his “flesh” and “drink” his blood” (John 6:52-58).  Roman Catholics base their doctrine of transubstantiation on these passages, affirming that bread and wine of the Communion are literally transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ, while retaining the outward appearance and characteristics of ordinary bread and wine.                                               

Roman Catholic Affirmations 

The arguments used by Roman Catholics in support of taking the communion elements in this literalistic fashion include the following:

(1) They affirm that a literal interpretation of the phrases “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” (in John 6) demands it by:

(a) the literal wording;

(b) by the need of his disciples to understand it clearly;

(c) by the inference Paul draws from it that it is a sin against the “body and blood” of Christ (1 Cor. 11:27), and

(d) by the normal use of the word “is” in Jesus statement, “This is my body” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 375).

(2) The words describing it as “true” (alathas, v. 55) food indicate it was literal.

(3) Jesus’ response to the reaction of the crowd’s rejection was not to retract the literal meaning of his claims.

(4) In the Bible eating flesh in a metaphorical sense means to persecute of destroy him (Psa. 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26).

(5) Many of the early Fathers confirm the sacramental view, including Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine.

(6) While all the other Gospels refer to Jesus’ institution of the Lord’s Supper, there is no other reference in John to this important event than in chapter 6.

(7) The mention of blood along with flesh implies that Jesus is speaking of the two elements of the communion service.  Otherwise, flesh alone would have been sufficient.

 

A Response to Roman Catholic Arguments

(1)  A “literal” historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible does not demand that everything be taken literally. It posits only that all the Bible is literally true, not that everything in the Bible is true literally.  The literal sense (sensus literalis) allows for figures of speech such as speaking of Jesus as “the Bread of Life” which should be eaten (Jn. 6:32-33) which immediately precedes this discourse on “eating his flesh” (Jm.6:52-71).

Also, the context provides evidence that Jesus did not intend his statements to be taken in a literalistic way.  For if they are so taken, then anyone can gain eternal life simply by partaking of the communion elements.  For Jesus said, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…” (Jn. 6:54).  But taking communion is not the condition for receiving the gift of eternal life, only belief is.  For Jesus added that “everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life (cf. Jn. 3:14-18), and I will raise him up in the last day” (Jn. 6:40, emphasis added).

As for the other Catholic arguments that: (a) the word “body” has a physical meaning, it should be noted that it can and does have a spiritual meaning in other places in the NT (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13). (b) As for the need of his disciples to understand it clearly, Jesus’ further explanation of it satisfies this demand. (c) As for the inference that Paul draws from it that it is a sin against the “body and blood” of Christ (1 Cor. 11:27), this does not demand a sacramental interpretation.  Since all believers are part of the spiritual body of Christ, thus, a sin against them is a sin against Christ (cf. Acts 9:5).  (d) As for the normal use of the word “is,” it is often employed of figures of speech: Christ is the vine (Jn. 15); He is the water of Life (Jn. 4), and He isthe door (Jn.10).  The Bible is filled with metaphors (e.g., “The LORD is my rock”—Psa. 18:2).

(2) The word describing Jesus’ “flesh” as “true food” in John 6:55) does not mean it must be physical.  Rather, it points to the fact that it was “real” (Gk:alathas), that is, a spiritual reality, not normal physical flesh.

(3)  When Jesus gave the command that they should “eat” his flesh, the crowd reacted negatively (Jn. 6:52, 60, 66). It is objected by Catholics that “Jesus did not retract the promise or try to change their understanding of His words.  He did not say He had been speaking poetically or metaphorically (Ronald Lawler ed., The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults,376).  And on other occasions he corrected the disciples when they did not understand him (e.g., Jn. 4:32).

In response, first of all, it should be noted that Jesus did not always correct the disciples misunderstanding directly or immediately.  For example, he did not rebuke is disciples for misunderstanding his statement about destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days (Jn. 2:19).  They did not understand it until after his resurrection (Jn. 2:21-22).

Second, Jesus did try to correct their literalistic misinterpretation of his words in John 6 in several ways: (a) Jesus said, “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life (Jn. 6:63, emphasis added).  (b) He also said, “The flesh is of no help at all” in understanding his words (Jn. 6:63, emphasis added).  (c) Further Jesus equated “eating” his flesh with one who “believes in him” and thereby “has eternal life” (cf. Jn. 3:16, 18, 36). (d) Even Peter, who did not depart on hearing Jesus’ words, said that it was because “wehave believed and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (Jn. 6:69, emphasis added).  So, they did understood the true meaning of his words, but it was not a literalistic but a spiritual meaning.

(4) In the Bible eating physical objects metaphorically does not always means to destroy them (as in Psa. 27:2; Isa. 9:20), as some Catholics argue. When it is used in a positive context, it means to ingest the spiritual reality that God has provided.  For example, “O taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psa. 37:4).  “Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters . . .  come, buy and eat” (Isa. 55:1).  Ezekiel was told to “eat” the scroll (the Word of God) in a figurative sense (Eze. 2:8-9). Peter said, “long for the pure spiritual milk that by [eating] it you may grow up unto salvation—if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good” (1 Pet. 2:2-3, emphasis added).

(5) The argument from early Fathers is not definitive for many reasons: (a) The Bible is the authority for doctrine, not the early Fathers. (b) False doctrines, even heresy, began early, even in NT Times (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1f; 1 Jn. 4:1-6; Col. 2:8-23).  There was a false teaching even among the disciples of Christ during the life of the apostle John (Jn. 21:20-23).  (c) The Fathers can be used to support a biblical doctrine, but belief in the doctrine should bebases on God’s revelation in Scripture. (d) When the early Fathers jointly expressed a doctrine in an ecumenical Creed, then it had much more weight.  But this was never done in the early Creeds for the Catholic view of the sacraments since none of the early Creeds or Councils (which is accepted by all major sections of Christendom) ruled on this point. (e) Further, most of the early Fathers for the first few centuries cited by Catholics in favor of their view did not explicitly speak of transubstantiation but at best a Real Presence of Christ at Communion. Unlike many in later Catholicism, St. Augustine (5th cent.) stressed the symbolic nature of the sacraments. No council of the Church affirmed the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation until the Fourth Latern Council (A.D. 1215) and later at the Council of Trent (A. D. 1551).

(6)  The lack of reference to the institution of the Lord’s Supper in John can be explained by his theme and the facts that: (a) He is writing later than the Synoptic Gospels (Mt., Mk, and Lk.) and that he presupposes what the three earlier Gospels have said on matters like this.  (b) Neither is there any reference in John to the birth of Jesus, His baptism, His Temptation, or the calling of the Twelve. It simply presupposes these events.

(7)  Catholics argue that if it is not a reference to Communion, then why is blood mentioned separately in John 6:53?  In response, John Calvin said, “He did so in respect to our weakness.  For when He distinctly mentions food and drink, He says that the life which He bestows is complete in every part, so that we may not imagine some semi- or imperfect life.” (Calvin’s Commentaries: St. John, vol. 4., p. 170).

Arguments Against the Literalistic Sacramental Interpretation

            The actual Communion Service instituted by Jesus is recorded four times in the New Testament (Mt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25; Lk. 22:14-13, and 1 Cor. 11:17-26).  In each case Jesus is recorded saying, “This is my body,and ‘this is my blood. And they were commanded to “eat” it (and to drink the cup).  The Gospel of John chapter 6 speaks of eating “flesh” and drinking the “blood” of Christ.  Based on these passages Roman Catholics have build their doctrine of transubstantiation, that the bread and wine are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ, even though they still look, taste, and smell like normal bread and wine.  

            We have just considered the main arguments in favor of transubstantiation and the responses to them.  Now, let’s examine the many arguments in favor of a non-literalistic view of the Communion element. Together, they make a formidable case against the Roman Catholic dogma.

(1) First of all, the sacramental interpretation of this passage is contrary to the historic time context in which it was given in John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11.  The time of the institution of communion was John 13 was after the Passover, not John 6 after the sermon on the Bread of Life.  As John Walvoord noted, “Since the Last Supper occurred one year later than the incidents recorded in this chapter, eating His flesh and drinking His blood should not be thought of as sacramentalism” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, vol. 2, p. 297).  John 6 is an entirely different time and context.  John Calvin added, “And, indeed, it would have been inept and unreasonable to preach about the Lord’s Supper before He had instituted it” (Calvin’s Commentaries, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 4, p. 170).

(2)  If “eating his flesh” is taken literally, then everyone who partakes of communion is saved since Jesus said all who partake of it are given “eternal life” (Jn. 6:55). Obviously, this is false since there are those who partake of communion who are unbelievers or apostates.

(3)  There is a text in this context which indicates that Jesus’ words are not to be taken literally: Jesus said, “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (Jn. 6:63, emphasis added).  As D. A. Carson says on this verse, “To take the words of the preceding discourse literally, without penetrating their symbolic meaning, is useless” (The Gospel According to John, 301).

(4)  Jesus often used figures of speech in the Gospel of John to describe Himself such as, “water” (Jn. 4:14) “bread” (chap. 6:35), “light” (chap. 8:12), the “door” (chap. 10:7, 9), and the “vine” (chap. 15:1). But a literalistic sense makes no sense in any of these cases.  Likewise, it makes no sense when speaking of eating Christ’s “flesh” because strictly speaking it would have cannibalistic overtones to Jews who were strictly forbidden by the Law of Moses to eat blood (Lev. 17:14).

5)  Further, “eating” is a common biblical figure of speech for believing in God and ingesting spiritual nourishment from Him.  The Psalmist said, “I taste and see that the LORD is good” (Psa. 34:8; Isa. 55:1; Eze. 3:2-3; 1 Pet. 2:2, 3).  In the immediate context, Jesus spoke of Himself as the Bread of Life which, like the manna in the wilderness, they were to eat daily (Jn. 6:32-33). Indeed, the verb meno (to abide) in verse Jn. 6:56 expresses continual mystical fellowship between Christ and the believer as in [John] 15:4-7; 1 Jn. 2:6, 27, 28; 3:6, 24; 4:12, 16. [So], there is, of course, no reference to the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist), but simply to mystical fellowship with Christ” (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, vol. 5, 112).

6)  The close parallel between verses 54 and 40 reveals that they are referring to the same thing.  The phrases “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood” and “everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him” has eternal life are a direct parallel. “Indeed, we have seen that this link is supported by the structure of the entire discourse. “  So, “the conclusion is obvious: the former is the metaphorical way of referring to the later” (Carson, ibid. 297).

(7)  Moreover, “the language of [John] vv. 53-54 is so completely unqualified that if its primary reference is to the Eucharist we must conclude that the one thing necessary for eternal life is participation at the Lord’s Table. This interpretation of course actually contradicts the earlier parts of the discourse, not the least v. 40” (ibid.) which affirms that belief in the Son is the only necessary condition for receiving eternal life (cf. Jn. 3:16; 18, 36).

(8) The promise that those who eat and drink Christ’s body and blood will be “raised up in the last day (Jn. 6:54).”  This leaves “no room is left for a magical understanding of the Lord’s table that would place God under constraint; submit to the rite, and win eternal life!”  Rather, rightly understood, “this parabolically set[s] out what it means to receive Jesus Christ by faith” (Carson, 297.).

(9)  Even St. Augustine, insisted that eating the communion elements did not bring life, unless “what is taken in the Sacraments visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually.  For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing.’  The words that have spoken to you, are Spirit and Life’’’ (Sermon 81 in Sermons on the New Testament, vol. 6, p. 501).  But according to Jesus, eating the “flesh and blood” of Christ brings eternal life (Jn. 6:54-58) now (cf. Jn. 5:24).  So, he cannot be referring to the physical Sacraments here which do no such thing.

(10) In the communion ceremony Jesus said, “this is my body” (soma), not “this is my flesh” (sarx).” If communion was in mind in John 6, it is more likely that the word “body” would have been used.  But Communion is nowhere in Scripture spoken of as eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood (see Mt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25; Lk. 22:14-22; 1 Cor. 11:23-26).

(11) The Communion elements in the Gospels and 1 Corinthians 11 were not meant to be understood literally for several reasons:

First, since in the original context, when Jesus said “this is by body,” everyone present knew it was not literally his real body but a piece of bread being held by His real body (hand). So, if it is not understood symbolically, then St. Augustine’s statement is a bold contradiction when he declared; “Christ bore Himself in His hands, when he offered His body saying: ‘this is my body’” (Ott, Fundamentals, 377).

Second, the NT communion service was a memorial of Christ’s death (“Do this…in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:25, emphasis); it was not a reenactment of Christ’s physical death, as Roman Catholics claim.

Third, communion was a proclamation of Christ death, not a physical partaking of it, as Rome insists.  Paul said, as often as it is done “youproclaim the Lord’s death” (1 Cor. 11:26, emphasis added).

Fourth, it was a spiritual participation in Christ’s death with others believers, not a physical imbibing of it, as Catholics claim.  Thus, Paul said, “the bread that we beak, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16, emphasis added) which was his spiritual body (see v. 17).

Fifth, the communion elements are  still called “bread” and the “cup” [of wine] or “fruit of the vine” (Mt. 26:29) after it was consecrated and they were eating it, not the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 11:23-28) which it would have been according to the Catholic view.

The reasons the communion elements should not be taken in the literalistic way which Roman Catholics do is summarized here (see Geisler, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, 174):

(a)  It is not necessary since Jesus often spoke in metaphors and figures of speech;

(b)  It is not plausible since vividness is not the proof of physicality;

(c)  It is not possible since Jesus would be holding himself in his own hand (when He said, “this is my body”).

(d) It is idolatrous since if the consecrated host is really Christ’s body, then it can be worshipped (as Roman Catholics do).

(e) It undermines belief in the resurrection because if our senses are deceiving us about the consecrated host, then how do we know they are not deceiving us about the resurrection appearances of Christ which is at the heart of the gospel.

(12)  As A. T. Robertson said, “It would have been a hopeless confusion for the Jews if Jesus had used the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper” of which they knew nothing at that time. Indeed, “It would be real dishonesty for John to use this discourse as a propaganda for sacramentalism. The language of Jesus can only have a spiritual meaning as he unfolds himself as the true manna” (ibid., 112).

(13)  Even some sacramentalists admit that “It may be granted that no one who heard the discourse [of Jesus in John 6] at Capernaum could understand it [as spoken] of the solemn institution [of the Lord’s Supper] which was still in the future, and then wholly outside any possibility of current thought.”  Following a good rule of interpretation (that those who heard him should have been able to understand it), this alone should eliminate a sacramental interpretation. (Ellicott’s Commentary on the Four Gospels, vol. 6, p. 556).  So, it is strangely inconsistent for him to add that “it does not follow that the discourse was not intended to teach the doctrine of the Eucharist” (ibid.).  John 2:22 is cited as proof, but here the disciples should have understood what Jesus meant and later did understand it (Jn. 2:21-22). They were just “slow of heart” (cf. Luke 24:25). Further, if anything, John 2 supports the non-literalistic understanding of the statement of Jesus, just as is the case in John 6.  So, if anything, John 2 supports taking John 6 in a non-literalistic way.

(14) Catholic misinterpretation of the communion holds that the body of Christ is offered over and over every time they have Mass.  It is called the “unbloody sacrifice of the Mass.”  However, according to Scripture, Christ only sacrificed himself once for all in his death on the cross.  Hebrews declares: “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb.10:12, emphasis added).  So, the Roman Catholic belief that eating the “flesh” of Christ is part of celebrations in which Christ is sacrificed over and over and over again is clearly unbiblical.

(15) Catholic misinterpretation of John 6 involves the doctrine of transubstantiation which entails the worship of the Communion elements. The Council of Trent infallibly pronounced that “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (CCC, 1376).” The Catechism of the Catholic Church adds that because the elements are transformed into the body and blood of Christ it is appropriate to engage in the “Worship of the Eucharist” (CCC 1378) which is the “worship of adoration” (CCC 1418). From a biblical and empirical perspective, this is a form of idolatry—the worship of created things (Ex. 20:4-5; Rom. 1:25).

Even after the elements are allegedly transformed, they still looked, tasted, and smelled like bread and wine.  So, the God who made our senses is asking us to distrust what He has made.  Even in the biblical miracle of turning water to wine (Jn. 2), one is not asked to believe that when it looks, tastes, and smells like water, it is really wine, and when it looks, smells and tastes like wine it is really water.  In short, even in the case of a miracle we are not asked to believe that our senses are deceiving us!

Conclusion

The sacramental Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage is: (a) contrary to the time context in which it was given; (b) contrary to Jesus’ use of figures of speech in John; (c) contrary to the one condition for eternal life being which Jesus gave being belief; (d) contrary to Jesus statement that “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life”; (e) contrary to the continual nature of the mystical union with Christ indicated  by abiding (Gk:meno); (f) contrary to the close parallel between “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood” and “everyone …who  believes in him” has eternal life (vv. 40, 55); (g) contrary to the communion formula of “body and blood” (1 Cor. 11:23-26) versus “flesh and blood” in John 6; (h) contrary to the biblical prohibition against eating blood (Lev. 17:14), and contrary to the biblical prohibition against idolatry.

When speaking of this literalistic misinterpretation of Jesus’ words, the great Greek scholar A.T. Robertson declared: “To me that is a violent misrepresentation of the Gospel and an utter misrepresentation of Christ.  It is a grossly literal interpretation of the mystical symbolism of the language of Jesus which the Jews also misunderstood” [So], there is, of course, no reference to the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist), but simply to mystical fellowship with Christ” (Word Pictures, vol. 5, p. 112). It involves an idolatrous violation of God’s command: “You shall worship the Lord your God and him alone shall you serve” (Mt. 4:10).


Dr. Geisler is the author of Should Old Aquinas Be Forgotten? Many Say Yes but the Author Says No. (Bastion Books:2013), What Augustine Says (Bastion Books:2013), Is the Pope Infallible: A Look at the Evidence (Bastion Books:2012), Is Rome the True Church? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim (Crossway Books:2008), and Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker Academic:1995). For additional resources by Dr. Geisler on Roman Catholicism, please visit http://normangeisler.com/rcc/.

Does Diversity in Protestantism Support the Roman Catholic Position to be the one true Church?

Does Diversity in Protestantism Support

the Roman Catholic Position to be the one true Church?

Norman L. Geisler

Roman Catholic apologists have long argued that the vast diversity among churches is evidence of the need for the Roman Catholic authority in the church over against all the non-Catholic splinter groups including evangelical Protestants of various varieties.  On the surface, there is a certain plausibility in their complaint that behooves further scrutiny.  However, before one swims the Tiber, several things should be taken into consideration.

First, there is an important difference between true spiritual unity and organizational uniformity.  The Roman Catholic Church is an organization—a large and world-wide organization to be sure.  Nevertheless, it is an organization, with a headquarters, a charter, and a hierarchy of officials.  However, all of this would be possible without a true doctrinal, ethical, and spiritual unity.  So, even if the Roman organization is a descendent of the one Christ started, this would not prove in itself that it has preserved the truth and spiritual heritage which Christ had initiated.

For example, the present United States government is the organizational descendent of the First Continental Congress, but knowledgeable people recognized that it has come a long way from the founders in many of its beliefs.  The permission of slavery and forbidding of women to vote are only two such differences.  So, even if there was an organizational identity between the New Testament Church and the present Roman Catholic Church, it would not prove there was a doctrinal, moral, and spiritual unity between them.

Second, even in New Testament times, the split between Peter and Paul reveals that opposition to Peter—heralded by Rome as the first pope—was an important element in the development of the catholicity (universality) of the church.  As noted church historian Jaroslav Pelikan, put it, “to become catholic [universal] the church had to oppose Peter” (The Riddle of Roman Catholicism, 24).  For Christ command to disciple “all nations’’ (Mt. 28:18-20), and the vision of Pentecost (Acts 2), involving the outpouring of the Spirit on people from all nations, was hindered by Peter’s reluctance to see the spiritual equality of Jew and Gentile (Acts 10).  This came to a climax in Acts 15 when at what has been called “the first church council” the matter of the catholicity of the church, with Jew and Gentile, was pronounced by the apostles and leaders of the church.  So, if anything, the first alleged Pope of the Catholic Church (Peter) had to be rebuked by the apostle Paul (Gal. 1), divinely prodded by three visions, and overruled  by the first New Testament church gathering (Acts 15) opposed to make the church truly catholic.

Third, there is no evidence of an organization continuity between the Church at Rome and the current Roman Catholic Church.  The first church was not in Rome; it was in Jerusalem (Act 2).  In fact there was a church in Antioch (Acts 13:1) before there was one in Rome (Romans 1:1; 16:23). So, if antiquity counts for continuity, then there was a church in the East before there was one in the West.  By this reasoning, priority would be given the Eastern Orthodoxy, not Roman Catholicity.  The dominance of Rome was political, not biblical.  So, if anything Rome was a branch from the church in the East , not the reverse.

Fourth, the biggest splits in Christendom happened under the domination of the Roman Church.  The split with Eastern orthodoxy in the 11th century occurred as a result of Rome’s action, not a break off from the East. Pope Nicolas I (d. 867) deposed the Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius (d. 891).  Later in 1204 a Latin Patriarch was established in Constantinople.

So, if having an infallible head, as Rome claims, should protect against splinters, then the first and biggest one happened on Rome’s watch—and largely as a result of their actions.  Likewise, the second biggest split in Christendom—the Protestant Reformation—also occurred while Rome was in charge of most of Christendom in the 16th century.  History records that Luther’s desire was not to start another church.  He wanted to purify the one that was there, namely, the Roman Catholic Church. And Luther did not leave the Catholic Church.  Rather, he was excommunicated from it.  So even a church united under a Roman Pope in the West could not stop the second biggest split in Christendom.

Fifth, numerous splits in Christendom occurred under Roman Popes, showing they were no guarantee against fragmentation in the church.  Indeed, theOxford Dictionary of the Christian Church lists over 35 anti-popes which means there were two infallible popes at the same time!  Sometimes one would infallibly excommunicate the other! This is historic proof that shelter under the Roman umbrella was no guarantee against the storms of disunity.  On one occasion there were three popes—the two who were feuding and the one which the Council of Constance (1413-1418) had to set up over them to resolve the conflict.

Sixth, even Rome, with its alleged infallible leadership, could not avert schisms or even heretical Popes.  Numerous cults and breakoffs from Rome occurred under the Roman reign.  The Arians and Donatists were notable among them.  And at one time the Arian Cult encompassed a large section of Christendom.  Pope Honorius was a heretic condemned by later ecclesiastic authorities. Certainly none of this was due to the Protestant Reformation.  And not all of it was due to the lack of a papal authority.  For, as just shown, much of it involved popes, anti-popes, and heretical popes.  One thing is certain, having an infallible pope was not a guarantee against theological splintering.  This is to say nothing of the thousands Christians Rome pronounced heretics and were martyred in the Inquisition!—one of the tragic events possible only in a totalitarian regime like Roman Catholicism.

Seventh, other than groups that are considered heretical by both Catholics and Protestants, there is doctrinal unity on all essential teachings among all the diverse orthodox churches in Protestant Christendom.  This unity is manifest in the first four centuries.  As it has been aptly codified: “One Bible; Two Testaments; Three Creeds: Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and the Chalcedonian Creed; Four Councils: Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcendon; this doctrinal unity is truly evangelical.  The diversity of doctrines are largely on the non-essentials.  So, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or whatever, there is an essential doctrinal unity, despite all the non-essential differences.

Diversity within unity is not necessarily bad.  Even Roman Catholicism itself has many diverse orders, some of which strongly opposed beliefs and practices of the other orders.  These bear some similarity to denominational difference among evangelical Christians.  Opposing all diversity is as boring as having only one make of cars or one brand of tooth paste.  Even the rainbow has many colors. The important thing was captured by Repertus Meldinius (d. 1651) when he wrote: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity (love).”

Eighth, Jesus’ prayer for his disciples “that they all may be one” (Jn. 17:21) was clearly not a prayer for organizational uniformity.  Rather, it was forspiritual unity (“Just as you Father are in me, and I in You”—v. 21), such as there is in the Godhead.  Of course, Jesus wished that this relationship be visible to the world (v. 21) so that they would see the love of God and come to Christ (v. 23).  Indeed, the true unity is one body of Christ and it is made by God (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 4:4-5).  The church on earth is to be patterned after this and should endeavor to “maintain” a visible manifestation of it (Eph. 4:3).  So, His prayer was not ecumenical but practical.  It was not for a union of churches with each other, but a  unity of individuals with each other in Christ.

In summation, neither the New Testament no church history supports the Roman Catholic claim that the Roman Church, with its hierarchical structure, is the better guarantor of true spiritual unity.  While church splintering since the Reformation is far from commendable, neither is the larger and more serious divisions in and splits from the Roman Catholic Church on their watch.  However, organizational uniformity offered by Rome is not the true spiritual unity for which Christ prayed.


Dr. Geisler is the author of Should Old Aquinas Be Forgotten? Many Say Yes but the Author Says No. (Bastion Books:2013), What Augustine Says (Bastion Books:2013), Is the Pope Infallible: A Look at the Evidence (Bastion Books:2012), Is Rome the True Church? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim (Crossway Books:2008), and Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker Academic:1995). For additional resources by Dr. Geisler on Roman Catholicism, please visit http://normangeisler.com/rcc/.