Contra Sproul

Great Bishop of Geneva! : 1) Makarios · 2) Once Saved, Always Saved - True for Church, Not True for All Christians Individually · 3) Protestants - Not - Getting Around Matthew 28 Last Three Verses: John Calvin's Attempt · 4) Barnes NOT getting around Matthew 28:20 ... · 5) Since St Francis of Sales had Real Objections to Calvinism ... 6) Contra Sproul 7) Barnes on Jewish Tradition 8) If Constantine had Founded the Catholic Church ... 9) Salvation and Schrödinger's Cat Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : 10) ... on Apostolic Succession, both as to Reasons and Answering an Objection or Two (quora)

Sproul had very proud words to say about the Reformation. "The Reformation Rescued the Gospel"*, as more detailed in this passage:

Since the gospel stands at the heart of Christian faith, Luther and other Reformers regarded the debate over justification as involving an essential truth of Christianity, a doctrine no less essential than the Trinity or the dual natures of Christ. Without the gospel, the church falls. Without the gospel, the church is no longer the church.

The Reformers followed this logic:

• 1) Justification by faith alone is essential to the gospel.
• 2) The gospel is essential to Christianity and to salvation.
• 3) The gospel is essential to a church’s being a true church.
• 4) To reject justification by faith alone is to reject the gospel and to fall as a church.

Pushing Back the Dark

The Reformers concluded that when Rome rejected and condemned sola fide, it condemned itself and ceased to be a true church. ...

Apart from the fact that the statues alluded to in the beginning of the essay smell somewhat of the veneration of Saints, vehemently condemned by Calvin, John Knox, Huldrych Zwingli, Theodore Beza, and at least some others (though not totally Luther or Melanchthon, nor Cranmer), this is nearly a good logic.

It falls on exactly one statement:

1) Justification by faith alone is essential to the gospel.

The final statement, which is equally wrong, cannot be concluded without that first one.

Unless, of course, they could document that this had been the fully embraced doctrine of Catholicism before their own time, before their own conflict.

So far, the Bible part involves Luther faking a quote of St Paul about Abraham and even admitting it, while the Patristics part involves overrelying on only St Augustine and even that reading him selectively (Jesuits have amply refuted the Protestant reading of St Augustine), and the scholastic part is lacking.

When what's his name Caerularius condemned Azymes, he argued that Leavened Bread was not just the traditional discipline in Constantinople, but had been so in "the Ancient Rome" (Rome on Tiber, Rome usually so called**) as well.

He therefore concluded that Rome in using Azymes (Unleavened Bread, in the Greek if his time usually referred to as Unleavened, without adding "Bread", which in Greek is azymoi, Azymes) had left what was essential to the Gospel.

While some could shake their heads on this, thinking that the Last Supper at least was Jesus Christ celebrating "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", Caerularius insisted "the Gospel says 'bread' and we don't call Azymes that". While I believe he can be proven wrong, also in assuming that Christ used Leavened Bread, he at least had the local tradition going for him.

A local tradition which Rome has respected. It was not Rome, it was a Norman Lord, who had on Sicily unjustly persecuted the usage of Leavened Bread.

But the Reformers were not claiming to continue even a local tradition.

The monument is clear enough : at least after more discussions, their claim crystallised in the memory of the later Protestants as Post tenebras lux.

It is as if Caerularius had been born in a Latin family, celebrating with Azymes, never heard of anyone using Leavened Bread and even so imposing it as a Gospel necessity. To do him justice, that was not what he was doing.

To do him justice, he was claiming for Constantinople "Post Lucem Lux"***.

While both he and Reformers were claiming for Rome Post Lucem Tenebras*** - and while both he and Reformers could not quite find a clear age up to which Rome had either been celebrating with Leavened Bread or dogmatising that Justification is by Faith Alone.

At least for his own city, he was more coherent than they. Since, for Geneva or Wittenberg, for Sweden and Denmark, for England and Scotland, they were claiming, basically, with one mouth "Post Tenebras Lux", and they could not and cannot now agree on what hour the Tenebrae started in their own Roman birthplaces and missions as well as in Rome.

Why are Catholic Trads not in the same Position? Well, we can point back to Trent as a formally undisputed authority, and we can check that materially it does mean literal inerrantism in Church Father after Church Father making up the overall consensus required by Trent : at least on subjects such as Young Earth and Geocentrism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Holy Roman Martyrs
Makar, Rufin, Just and Theophil
28.II.2017

* The Reformation Rescued the Gospel
R.C. Sproul / January 23, 2017
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/reformation-rescued-the-gospel

** By contrast with Constantinople, nicknamed New Rome or Second Rome.

*** I had to correct my use of case after post, it is accusative, not ablative. This for those who saw the essay while it said "post luce" in two places.

Must a Christian Believe in Sufficiency of Scripture, and If So, in What Sense?

I was reading the Awake! of August 2014. If you have also picked it up, you know it features a short article about dreams. Not surprising, since there were dreams in the story of Joseph, also featured. Now to resume the article. It concludes:

• 1) Dreams certainly did come from God in Biblical times.
  
  
• 2) They do not come so to people already having the Bible in our times, since we should be content with the Bible.
  
  
• 3) This is argued from a kind of total sufficiency of Scripture, including the passages on dreams included in it.

Unless I misunderstood something, they mean the only dreams instructing anyone now are the pretty few ones in the Bible.

Let us note a thing, going to interpreters of dreams is forbidden to the Christian. This of course pagans having certain dreams and using prophets as interpreters did not know. But the prophets interpreted according to inspiration from God. Council of Ancyra forbids consulting those that go by dream books, like those in use in New Age movement, of course, but I would clearly suspect equally the Freudian and Jungian ones used by therapists paid by medicaid systems. And in some cases, dreams are clear to oneself, immediately, so no interpreter is needed, this does not fall under ban, as far as I know, of the Council of Ancyra. With this red herring out of the way, least one should interpret my answer as endorsing New Age dream books, let's get to refuting this.

The first thing to note is that there is Biblical prophecy about dreams being part of the life of the Church, as well as of visions (a Catholic will very often be aware of Rue de Bac, La Salette, Lourdes, Fatima). The dreams and visions actually recorded in Holy Writ are a bit fewish to be a complete fulfilment of the prophecy. If one adds the records of Catholic Mysticism and actual Prophecy, that would correspond better.

The second thing is to note they back up the conclusion by two passages of the Bible - or rather the limiting part of the conclusion. I will cite the two passages from Douay Rheims and I will cite the Haydock comment for them as well.

I Cor 4:6 quoted passage essentially the words [go not] "above that which is written."

Verse in full:

But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes: that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written.

So, going past or beyond what is written is not wrong in itself, only if it leads to puffing oneself up against each other?

But several prohecies have been followed by no party implication at all. So they do not fall under the verse. Let us see what Haydock comments gives:

Ver. 6. These things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself, and to Apollo. Literally, these things have I transfigured in me and Apollo, that is, I have represented the divisions and disputes among you, as if it were by your contending, whether I, or Apollo, or Cephas were the best preachers, without naming those, as I might do, who are the true causes of these divisions, by striving who should be thought men of the greatest and brightest parts.

That in us, and by our example, who have no such proud disputes, you might learn that one be not puffed up against the other, and above that which is written, against the admonitions given in the holy Scriptures of being humble: or against what I have now written to you, that we must strive for nothing, but to be the faithful ministers of God, and not seek the esteem of men. (Witham)

It is the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas and likewise of Estius, that St. Paul, Apollo, and Cephas were not the real causes of the divisions that existed amongst the new converts at Corinth, but that in making use of these names, he wished to teach them, that if it was unlawful to keep up these divisions even for the sake of the apostles, how far should they be from doing any thing of this kind for those whose authority was much less in the Church. But Calmet is of opinion, that the divisions amongst the Corinthians were certainly on account of Paul, Apollo, Cephas, and perhaps some others, whose names are not mentioned.

What about the part concerned with going beyond Scripture? Haydock comment cited Bishop Witham as saying: "and above that which is written, against the admonitions given in the holy Scriptures of being humble: or against what I have now written to you, that we must strive for nothing, but to be the faithful ministers of God, and not seek the esteem of men."

The words "that which is written" (in Greek probably one participle) are thus not concerned with all of Scripture, but with admonitions in Scripture against haughtiness and party spirit. Or even about what was just written before in that passage of that very Epistle which was not yet necessarily considered as Canonic Scripture. And in either case the disobedience is not concerned with extra-biblical sources for religiously or practically relevant information, but with haughtiness and party spirit.

So far from being the Reformers' case against Tradition and Magisterium, so far from being in any way a case against heeding dreams or visions - provided they do not contradict Scripture, of course - they are the very case against the Reformers. Unless they were to claim their party spirit was motivated by that which is written - as a Creationist might one day have to claim against Bergoglio's claim to Papacy. But the Scriptures cited by Reformers were actually misapplied in their criticism of Rome.

The other passage is more concerned with sufficiency of Scripture. But in a manner not quite as they meant it.

II Timothy 3:16,17. Here is DR:

16 *All Scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished unto every good work.

They cited it more like in verse 17 "that a man may be perfectly furnished unto every good work". And they unerlined (or italicised) "perfectly" and "every". Implying, if one needed extra information one would also by Scripture itself be only imperfectly furnished or only perfectly furnished to some but not every good work.

DR does not have "perfectly furnished" but "perfect" and "furnished". That is perfect in his person, not just as far as knowledge but also as far as personal justice is concerned. And furnished to every good work, but perhaps not so perfectly as not to need extra information. Let us see what Bishops Witham and Challoner have to say in the Haydock comment. No, even more. Let us take the context. It actually contradicts the interpretation of Bible alone. Let's take 14 - 17 in a stride.

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned.

15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which can instruct thee unto salvation, through the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 *All Scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished unto every good work.

Here are the comments on two verses, Bishop Witham and Father Haydock on first, Bishops Witham and Challoner - as just mentioned - on second, the verses being 14 and 16:

Ver. 14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, &c. St. Paul here gives particular advice to his disciple, St. Timothy, who had been long since instructed in all the truths and mysteries of the Christian faith, who had received the gifts of the Holy Ghost, of prophecy, of interpreting the Scriptures, who was a priest, a bishop of Ephesus, the metropolis of Asia, whose office it was to instruct, direct, and convert others. He tells this great bishop, that the holy Scriptures are able, and may conduce or can instruct him unto salvation, (ver. 15.) unto his own salvation and that of others. (Witham)

The apostle here entreats his disciple, and in him all future Christians, to adhere to the true deposit of doctrine. He teaches with Catholics, that all Scripture is profitable; but not with Protestants, that Scripture alone is necessary and sufficient.

Ver. 16. All scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, or admonish, to instruct others in justice, and in the ways of virtue, that thus he who is a man of God, a minister of the gospel, may be perfect and instructed unto every good work. But when our adversaries of the pretended reformation, undertake from these four verses to shew, first, that every ignorant man or woman is hereby warranted to read and put what construction his or her private spirit, or private judgment, suggests upon all places of the holy Scriptures; and secondly, that the Scriptures alone contain all truths which a Christian is bound to believe; or at least, that the Scriptures teach him all things necessary to salvation, without regard to the interpretation and authority of the Catholic Church: I may at least say (without examining at present any other pretended grounds of these assertions) that these consequences are very remote from the text and sense of St. Paul in this place. As to the first, does this follow; the Scriptures must be read by Timothy, a priest, a bishop, a man of God, a minister of the gospel, whose office it is to instruct and convert others, therefore they are proper to be read and expounded by every ignorant man or woman? Does not St. Paul say elsewhere, (2 Corinthians ii. 17.) that many adulterate and corrupt the word of God? does not St. Peter tell us also, (2 Peter iii. 16.) that in St. Paul's epistles are some things....which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other scriptures, to their own perdition? See the preface to the Gospel of St. John, where reasons are brought for which it was requisite that the Church should put some restraint to the abuse which the ignorant made of reading the Scriptures in vulgar tongues. As to the second consequence, does it follow: every Scripture divinely inspired is profitable for St. Timothy, for a priest, a bishop, a man of God, a minister and preacher of the gospel, to teach and instruct, and conduce to bring both him and others to salvation; therefore they contain all things that a Christian need to believe? &c. Is not every Christian bound to believe that the books in the canon of the New and Old Testament are of divine authority, as in particular these two epistles of St. Paul to Timothy? Where does the Scripture assure us of this? But of this elsewhere. (Witham)

Every part of divine Scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, (that is, with the Old Testament alone) nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles and the interpretation of the Church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it. (Challoner)

All Scripture is profitable, but Scripture is not alone necessary, not alone sufficient. On top of the Scriptures mentioned to St Timothy, the Old testament, he also needed the New Testament (which was not yet in its entirety written) but even more immediately the Christian meaning of the Sacred Writings. It is profitable to a bishop (would certain Evolution believing bishops took note, "all" obviously including Genesis), but may still be hard to digest for the average Christian. As has been said elsewhere by Sts Peter and Paul. Verse 17 specifies "the man of God", not meaning us laymen, but meaning the clergy. And since even clergymen have distorted Scripture meanings, meaning the good and faithful clergy.

Note, since some Evolution believing bishops would use these Catholic principles to dissuade laymen from reading and believing Creation and Flood, that the Catholic Church HAS abundantly encouraged laymen to believe the Biblical History through the Centuries. Historia Scholastica is the historic narrative from Genesis to Acts in the Bible, also contains references to Josephus and other Christian historians, and it was translated into vernaculars, on order of the Church. Hard places would rather be places dealing with things like Sacraments in unusual wording to those accustomed to the scholastic one (some would conclude since wording is different, meaning would be different, not so), or places dealing with freewill or - as here - sufficiency of Scriptures.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of the Assumption
of the Blessed Virgin Mary
22-VIII-2014

Erroneous Sola Scriptura - known as "Formal Principle" to Reformers Luther & Melanchthon

I was invited to a group called "Five solas vs Catholic Church". I am a Catholic and thus against the collection five solas though not all of them equally. Here is the first one.

It is in a certain manner opposite to both Tradition as Infallible and Magisterium as Infallible.

It is therefore erroneous.

It is actually more opposed to Tradition as Infallible than to Magisterium.

The opposite of Magisterium as infallible and as compulsory is not so much Sola Scriptura as such as the Private Judgement on the Sola Scriptura.

The total and erroneous Protestant doctrine is therefore bipartite:

Error 1: Apostolic Christianity is generally accessible through Bible alone as opposed to Bible and Tradition.

Error 2: Individually we are responsible to the Sola Scriptura only through direct Private Judgement on its content. A man who is unlearned and leaves a point out from his individual Bible reading understanding is not excused for chosing as probable a wrong solution because he was feeling he had to submit to a Magisterium that was wrong, but he was instead in such a case wrong to take Magisterium as above himself in the manner God is and Bible are. Infallibility belongs only to God, is the claim, not to either man individually or any group of men together.

That the second is untrue is clear from the Bible. It says "The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth". Christ is its head and as God and as sinless man infallible, which even Protestants admit, but if Christ alone in the Church were infallible on any point, then there would be a neck problem, the body not communicating properly with its head. So, we must say that the visible Church today - whereever it truly is - is infallible when speaking unitedly.

That the first is untrue is also clear from the Bible as well as from the Church.

One bit of a warning, to things like Modernist Catholics. Or semimodernist who think they must "obey" modern magisterium in accepting modern cosmology or deep space or deep time with evolution.

A Protestant would not agree that private judgement is an excuse for disagreeing with the Bible. A Catholic must therefore not agree that Magisterium (above his private judgement, when genuine and when his private judgement as bishop or Pope is not preceding the magisterial one on hitherto undecided questions), he must as said not agree that Magisterium is any kind of excuse for disagreeing either with Bible (72 books*, not just 66) or with Tradition.

Furthermore, on those particular matters, there seems to be no consensus about what is magisterium and, supposing CCC is such, whether CCC is sufficiently obliging. But insofar as Catechism of the Catholic Church endorses as "knowledge" things that contradict Bible or Tradition (specifically theories contradicting a young and "small" universe), it would be like a Protestant who in private judgement thought "this is my Body" or "whatever you bind on earth" as something the Bible did not clearly indicate what to believe about. Such a Protestant is no longer a Christian, and if any bishop or Pope puts full weight into certain modern theories included in certain paragraphs thereof, such a Magisterium is no longer Christian and therefore no longer magisterial either.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI Georges Pompidou
Sunday after Sts Peter and Paul
30-VI-2013

72 if, as traditionally, the canonical book of Baruch is not counted as a separate book but as an appendix to Jeremiah (whose secretary Baruch was). Otherwise it is 73.