1991 Issue 2 - Critical Reflections on Roman Catholicism - Counsel of Chalcedon

8/12/2019 1991 Issue 2 - Critical Reflections on Roman Catholicism - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/11

Critical Renectionson

Roman atholicism

A Review of Antithesis, September/October 19911, Vol. I, No.5

by joe 1I10recraft

NTITHESIS : A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARYCHRISTIAN THOUGHT AND CULTURE .clail11S to be"the new vanguaro of Christian though,t and culture," and Iagree thatitis. I know of no periodical superior to i t But what

else would you expect fromapllblieation so closely identifiedwith Greg Bahnsen

Most of he sixty pages of he September/October 1990 issueof NTITHESIS dealt with "Reflections on RomanCatholicism." The most important articles in this issue were:

RomewardBound : Evaluating Why Pr otestants Convert toCatholicism

by DavidHagopian .New Confusi ons for Old: R me and Justification

by Roger Wagner

Enduring AlUltherrias o f he Roman Catholic Eucharlstby Douglas Jones

The Concept and Importance of Canonicityby Greg Bahnsen

Issue and Interchange : Does Scripture Teach SOLASCRIPTURA?

by Douglas Jones

TIris fresh, up-to-date, and intellectually vigorolls critique ofthe fundamelllal errors of Roman Catholicism is thorollghlybiblical , sensitive, persllasi ve, entertaining, and easy-to-read.The reasonforthis critical reflection onRoman Catholicism'sdoctrines ofjllStification, tbeLord 's Slipper ;and the canonicalauthority of the Bible is the recent defection of severalPresbyterian ministers to Roman Catholicism. Each of hesearticles is written with clarity and scholarship . Each revealsthe allthor's thorough, familiarity with his subject andhis totalcommitment to the finality of Biblical allthority.

I pray that this review willll1()ve its readers to ptrrehase this

The COllnseiof Chalcedon FebruarylMarch 1991 Page 12

iss\leof ANTITHESiS and savor each article thorollghly forthemselves. o not be t i ~ f i e dwith this summary. Pmcbasethe magazine and read it for yourself.

L''ROMEWRD

nOUND: EVALUATING WHYPROTESTANTS CONVERT TO CAlHOUClSMby avid Hagopian, page$l1-20

Hagopian's entertaining and enligh,tening article exposesthe reasons given by Protestants who have recell ly joined theRoman Catholic ChlIrch, and then shows theiremptiness withthe irrefutable logic of the Word of God.

the primary reasons given b y these "Neocatholics" are: 1) .the ancientTradit ionofthe Catholic Faith; (2) .The ApostolicSuccession of the Roman Catholic Cb\IIch (from Peter to

present); 3). The rich and symbolic Liturgy and Mass of heRoman Catholic Cb\IICh; (4). The mystiqlle and beallty ofCatholic ch\IIChes; and S Their admiration for the c\lrrentPope John Paul II. Hagopian evaluates each of hese reasonsand shows that none of them contain either an adequateconfirmation of the (alleged) truth of Roman Catholicism, ora credible negation of Protestantism. n other word, they areinsufficient reasons for leaving Jerusalem and Geneva forRome

Althollgh the Roman Catholic Chmch is always identiJyingPeter as tbe first pope so identified by JesllS as "therock"lIponwhich He would bnild His ChllfCh, and to whom He wouldgive the "Keys of he kingdom," inMatthew 16, "NeocatholicssimplyassllffiethatChristtherebygavePeterPAPALallthority,as opposed say, to representative authority as one of manyapostles who together fonned the fo lndation of the earlychllICh, Epb. 2:20,ChristHimselfbeing the chief cornerstone.Neocatholics also assmne that this passage, (Mat 16), gr ntsa right of sllccession from Peter onwaro . Until and llniess


2/11

Neocatholics can prove thatChrist, inMatthew 16, specificallygranted Peter papal authority and that Christ thereby intendedto establish an unbroken chain of apostolic succession fromPeter onward (both of which are read into the text), they havenot met the exegetical burden that is incumben t upon them.(page 12

Hagopian is insightful in questioning the antiquity of the

Roman Catholic Church. .. .. The Catholic view of churchhistory i s the view that is truncated since, along withdispensationa1ism, Catholicism simply assumes that he churchsprang up on the first century AD. A truly Reformed view ofchurch history, though, marks the beginning point of thechurch far before that first Eastermom. On a truly covenantalview of church history, the church t h e covenant people ofG o d did not rush on the scene in the first century AD.(page 12

Neocatholics claim that the Bible was never meant to be theChristian ' s only gnide in all matters of faith and life . The

living Tradition of the Church is meant to accompany andinterpret the Bible. Hagopian ' s refutation of this view iseffective: Some Neocatholics, forexample, cla im that Christleft a church, not a book , and that the Protes tant doctrine ofSOLA SCRJPT(lRA is illogical because the formation of hecanon (i.e. what we recognize as Scripture) was itself amonumental act of the church. Thus, we are told tha ,t aninfallible Bible requires and presupposes an infallible church .This argument, though, fails to differentiate betweenRECOGNITION of the divine imprint which already existedin Holy Writ and CREATION of Holy Wri t The churchdidn' tcreate Saipture ; itsimply recognized the divineimpr lntand authority Scripture already possessed because it was andis the very Word of God. (page 12

One of he most important points Hagopian makes in the lightof the recent Protestant defections to Romanism is that

Anglicanism (Episcopalianism), in a very real way, hasserved as training wheels helping to stabilize quite a fewNeocatholics on thei r road to Rome. (page 18). I made thissame point n my article, The Return to Rome in he October1990 issue of THE COUNSEL OF CHALCEDON.

The mystique of high church liturgy, so common to RomanCatholic, Eastern Orthodox, and most Anglican and Luthe ranchurches , separates them from most of the Reformed andEvangelical churches. Yet, for several reasons it is thismystique which has drawn people from Protestan t churcbes,by means of Episcopal churcbes, into the Roman CatholicChurch. Hagopian explains: To understaod why someAnglicans seem more disposed to Rome as opposed to

Wittenberg or Geneva, it is important to note that while theAnglican Church was at one time heavily infiuenced byLutheran and Calvinistic thought (and in some cases still is),the Oxford Movement of Ihe eady nineteenlh century led by(JohnHenry)Newman,revi vedtheAngJicanChurch ' sCalholicheritage in many instances. Those who longed for thisCatholic heritage, quite naturally, eilher already viewed orcame to view the split wilh Rome not as a boast but as a

tragedy. Forthem, the Anglicanchurch was the VI MEDIA,the half-way house, between the Calholicheritagethey lon gedforandlheEnglishculturelheylived andbreathed. (page 18)

Therefore, Hagopian (rightly) observes: For everyNeocalholic who tingles wben he walked into a Catholiccathedral, church, or chapel , there is a Reformed Protestantwho rejoices in the regulative principle of worship and thesymbolism of rue worship by relyingupon the graces Godhasprovided in His Word and in the sacraments of baptism andcommunion (page 17

n. ' 'NEW CONFUSIONS FOR OLD:ROME AND JUSTIFICATION

by Roger Wagner, pages 24-33

After an interesting chapter by Jeffrey A Tucker entitled,Why I Left Protestantism for Calholicism, (pages 21-23),

Roger Wagner deals wilh the central issue between Rome andGeneva---the nature of ustification. In his article he does twothings very effectively. Heexposes the fivemajorweaknessesof the Neocatholic defense and restatements of the RomanCalholic doctrine of jnstification, and he sets forlb the fourbasic elements of the Bible's doctrine of justification.

A. THE F1VE MAJOR WEAKNESSES OF THENEOCATHOLIC DEFENSE OF JUSTIFICATION

1 The Tempting Evangelical 'Ring'

The Neocatholic defense and restatement of he Romandoctrine of justification has an evangelical flavor and isappealing to Protestants. Efforts to remove the langnage o('works,' 'self- righteousness,' and 'merit ' goes a long way toputting evangelical listeners at ease. But, writes Wagner,

leaving the rhetoric to one side, the more teJling question iswhelherornottheirunderstandingofthe nature of ustificationactually removes the REALITY of merit and works leading toself-righteous justification. (page 26)

2. The Missing Antithesis

Because the Neocatholics almost exclusively concentrate on

The Counsel of Chlcedon FebruarylMarch 1991 Page 13


3/11

the role of 'good works' injustification, the debate "does notadequately focus the antithesis" betweenRoman Catholicismand protestantism on the doctrine o f justification-isjustification by faith alone or is justification by ' faith andworks? Wagner points outthatoftentheNeocatholics misstate .the Protestant view of he relation offaithand works, and that"such failure (is) unforgivable in the present context ofdebate," since, "as former evange lical Protestants, these men

know better." (page TI . Wagner makes clea r that, whereasProtestants reject good words as meritorious or quasimeritorious, nevertheless we do require good works in he lifeof the justified believer, for "faith without works is dead."

3. The Absence of Exegesis

Amore substantial weaknessoftheNeocatholicdefenseoftheRoman doctrine of ustification is "the absence of any carefulexegesis of the relevant passages on justification" (page 27)Wagner writes: ''Certainly it is not necessary that everytheologianorpolemicistdealwithallthequestionsorargumentsrelevant to the subjectundetdiscussion. .ButforcontemporaryRoman apologists to fail to mention or refute the substantialexegetical considerations which appear to contradict theRomanist view of ustification s much more than a significantoversight It amounts to a total failll\'e of the Romanistposition." (page 27)

4. The Downplaying of Sacerdotalism

Neocatholics, who are former evangelical Protestants, fail "toface up to the ecclesiastical and sacramental dimensions of

Roman Catholic dogmai' because "the strong sacerdotaldimensions of Roman Cathol ic justification would certainlybe a stumbling-block to many would-be converts fromProtestant ism. - Defenders of Rome are somewhat coyabout acknowledging the fact (in their discussions of

. justification)thatwitlioutauricuiarconfessionandthereceptionof priestly absolution in connection with acts of satisfaction(vital elements o f the Roman 'sacrament' of penance orreconciliation), one cannot participate in the grace o fjustification." (page 28)

5. The Trivializing of Judicial Pardon

Accordingto Wagnerthe Neocatholics consistently downplaythe reality and importilnce of divine judicial pardon, althoughsome do pay lip-servioe to it. "By thus trivializing God'sforgiveness (as a legal category), the Romanistdogmahas theeffect of minimizing with it the DIVINE JUSTICE thatdemands such pardon, and, most importantly, the Savio r whoSATISFIED the holy demands of THAT divine justice to

The Counsel of Chalcedon FebruarylMarch 1991 Page 14

secure for sinners THAT full and free pardon" (page 29)

B. THE FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS OF THEBmLICAL DOCI RINE OF JUSTIFICATION

Afterinfo rming his readers thathis intent is not to rehearse theProtestant doctrine of justification in detail, which has beendone ably by many throughout history, Wagner sets forth "an

overview of the main lines of argument in favor of theProtest ant understanding of ustification." (page 29) He liftsthe veil of Neocatholicism by pointing out that "thecontemporary advocates o f the Roman view have raised nonew or telling objections to the view of he Reformers. Theyhave slmplyrestated the traditional position of Rome (beforeandafterTrent)." (page29) As Wagner gladly admits, he hasimbibed deeply from John Murray's excellent book,REDEMPTION: ACCOMPUSHEDANDAPPUE D whichhis following comments on justification confirm.

1. "Justification is forensic n character." (page 29)

TheterminologyoftheBibleregardingjuslificationisforensic,legal, judicial, ethical language . The concern o f ustificationis what God the Judge of heave n and earth, declares withreference to the believer--acquitted on the basI's of thesubstitutionary work of Jesus Christ. Romanism teaches thatthe concern of ustification is what God does to the believer ntransfonning and elevated his creature nature. However, theword, 'justify,' in the Bible tueans to declare righteous, not tomake righteous, Dt. 25:l;Ptov. 17:15; Lk. 7:29.

2. ' 'Justification is grounded in Christ, not faith or. works ' (page 30)

Wagneris exactly correctwhenhe states that"the centtal pointo f issue between the Roman and Reformation views ofjustifica tionconcems its ground-the foundation upon whichGod acoepts the sinner as righteous in His sight" (page 30)"Romanists argue that the ground of justification is faith inChrist plus a person' s own good works (wrought in the powerof God's grace infused into the person who receives baptism.)"(page 30). Although some quasi-Protestants do substitute'faith' or a 'decision forChris ' f or faith and works as the basis

of ustification, the Bible teaches "tha t NEITHER faith norgood works are the GROUND of justification." (page 30).Faith, which is a gift of God, is the means by which salvationis received. Christ and his finished WOlX is the basis of oursalvation.

To put it in Wagner's terms: 'The ground of justification,according to Scripture's consistent testimony is nothing lesS


4/11

than THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF TH LORD JESUSCHRIST expressed in His ' active obedience' (whereby Heperfectly kept the commandments of he Father in exhaustivedetail from the heart) and His 'passive obedience' (wherebyHe fully satisfied the penal liability for broken law whichjustly stands against His people). (page 31)

3. "Justification is declarative and constitutive.

(page 31)

Wagner answers the Romanist objection that Protestantism'sjustification is a egal fiction, that is, God declares righteousone whom He knows in fact is not righteous. The answer tothis objection, as Wagner properly explains, is to be found inthe biblical doctrineof ' imputation, ' i.e., "the legal accountingof one person's righteousness or sin to another, which

presupposes a relationship of covenantal representationbetween those who are parties to the imputation. By virtue ofthis representation, sin and gnilt or righteousness andjustification can be imputed from one to the other. (page 31)

Wagner echoes Murray when he explains titat imputation isinvol vedinthree specific situations: (1). Adam's sin is imputedto his posterity; (2). the sins of he elect are imputed to Christ,their Substitute; and(3). the righteousness of Christ is imputedto His people as the basis of heir ustification, Ro m . 5: 1221.

On the other hand, Rome has tried to suppress this view andemphasizes infused grace and its resulting subjectivetransformation in an individual's life, which brings about atrue eradication of sin and a true sanctification and renewal so

titat the soul becomes objectively pleasing to Godand

somerits heaven. (page 31) But basing man ' s acoeptance withGodinhimselfmustberejected. Instead , we must understandthat, by virtue of our relationship to Christ as the 'last Adam,'and as the covenantal 'head' of his people, we legally, butnevertheless most truly, receive his righteousness as our ownthrough imputation, I Pet. 2:24. - As a result of His death forus, the indictruent from the bench of he heavenly Judge of allthe earth, titatjustly stood against us, has been taken away,Col. 2: 14 . These are wonderful, gracious REALWES. Theyare-praise God -realities titatwillstand the test of he greatDies irae, when all flesh will stand before God for the Final

Judgment" (page 32) (It is encouraging to see scholars asWagner, become personal and emotional in their scholarship.It makes their point all the more powerful when they mix heatwith their light)

4. Justification is direct union with Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church usurps a unique mediatorial role

in the ustification of sinners reserved exclusively forthe ordJesus Christ I t claims to be the exclusive channel of divinegrace through its priesthood and sacraments . JustifYing (orsanctifYing) grace is received through baptism, and is'improved ' by means of he sacrament of penance . Throughpenance-with its confessions and works of satisfaction-thesinner receives grace and forgiveness for sins commit ted afterbaptism. (page 32)

According to Wagner, the Protestant Reformers rejected themediatorial workofthe churchin favor of arenewed emphasisupon the mediatorial work of Jesus Christ. They claimed thatthe Roman system of priestly intermediaries andsacramentalism in fact mSf ANCED sinners from ChristrlItherthan bringing them closer to Him . (page 32) Jesus didcome to bring forgiveness of sin and eternal life to all thosewho put their trust in Him . "But he grea test glory of alvationis titat we do not enjoy those cove11l\llt bless ings in abslrllctionfrom the beloved Person who gives them to us. On theconlrllry, these mercies are experienced by the believer 'inunion with Christ.' Jesus came into the world not simply togive us blessings, but to give us Himself, Col. 1 27. (page 32-33)

Wagnerconcludeshis excellent article with thiscompassionatesummons: "Let us continue to resist the threat to the gospelrepresented by the doctrines of Roman i sm-wi thtllOughtfulness and compassion, and with our strongestarguments and persuasions. And let us pray for these youngmen who have sadly taken a wrong turn, one which endangerstheir souls eternal1y. Let us pray that od would grlIciously

grant them, and others in the Roman Catholic Church, a NEWReformation. May the dislrllcting splendors and earthlyreassurances of Rome be eclipsed once again by 'the light ofthe knowledge of he glory of Godin he face of Christ' (IlCor.4:6). (page 33)

III. "ENDURING ANATHEMAS OF THEROMAN CATHOLIC EUCHARIST"

by Douglas M. Jones, pages 34-41

Douglas M. Jones is right on target when he begins his veryhelpful article on the Roman Catholic Eucharist(Communion)

with these words: In an age like ours, which mocks religiousdebate, a critical evaluation of the Roman Catholic Eucharistappears quaint Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Sacrificeof the Mass is nothing to trivialize . The stakes in this debateare too high, and sincere persons on aU sides of he issue realizetitat this is not a minor Swiftian quibble. The answers in thisdebate stand at the very heart of Christian faith and haveeternal consequences. (page 34)

The Counsel of ChalcedoD Februa rylMarch 1991 Page 15


5/11

The two main characteristics of the Roman Catholic .view oftheLord'sSupper,whichJones' carefully explains lindrefutesare: (1). its sacrificial, propitiatory nature; and (2) . its natureas a meal in which Christ's body, blood .soul, and Divinityare present in the place of the substance of the commonelements . These two primary c h r c t e r i s t i c ~ c r i f i c eandReal presence----are the targets for ReformedProtestantchargesof dolatry and a distortion of Christ's atonemeilt. (page 38)

Ihavefoundinmanyeffortsto help converted RomanCatholics out of theirRomanism and the RomanCatholic Church, that mostof them I have talked tohave no ideathattheRomanChurch teaches thatCommunion is a resacrificingofChristandthatin Communion theparticipants are taught thatthey literally eat JesusChrist. Jones shows that, without doubt, this s the officialview of he Roman Church, and thenhe proceeds torefute bothpoints from the Word of God. This article, along with theothers in this issue of ANTII HESlS, is must-reading foranyone who wants tounderstand the r dic l difference betweenRoman Catholicism and Biblical Protestantism.

Before dealing specifically with the subject of the Eucharist,Jones begins his expose by explaining some of the basic

presuppositions of he Roman Catholic view of he Eucharist.First, henotes that the physicalistic language used to describegrace is not metaphorical. (pages 34f) According to Romeby grace man becomes God, the greatestpossible assimilationto and unification with God. (page 35) Second, injustificationand sanctification there is the mutual co-operationofDivinepower and human freedom. (page 35) The Council of Trentgoes so far as to sentence to hell anyone who believes theBiblical/Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace, whichteaches that salvation, from start to finish , is all of God'ssovereign grace, Rom. 11:36. Hence, by this claim alone,writesJones, theRomanCatholicChurchhasforeverrevealed

itself as a false teacher, and, with Arminians and Lutherans,has detennined that the SUCCESS of Almighty God'sSovereign planrests upon the caprice offinite man. (page 35)

Third, Roman Catholicism teaches that God dispenses Hisgrace only through the instrumentality of he Roman CatholicChurch. AsPopePiusIXconfessed: Byfaithitis to be firm1yheld that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none canachieve salvation. (page 35) And, fourth, Jones points out

h ~ Counsel o Chalcedon FebruarylMarch 1991 Page 16

that the (seven) Sacraments, according to Rome, infusesanctifying grace into the souls of the recipients EX OPEREOPERA TO. (page 35) Because the sacraments contain thesanctifying grace which they signify within themselves, theSacraments operate by thepowerofthecompleted sacramentalrite, i.e. ex opere operato. (page 35) 'The sacramental graceis caused by the validly operated sacramental sign, (page 36).

After this introduction, therest of Jones' article dealswith the two characteristicsof the Roman Mass andEucharist so repulsive toBiblical Protestants.

I.According to RomanCatholicism, the Lord'sSupperis a ' ' ' true and realsacrifice,' not merely thecommemoration of asacrifice. (page 36) The

basic ingredients of his doctrine are that the Lord's Supper is:(I ) . a genuine sacrifice of Jesus Christ; (2). an unbloodysacrifice ofJesus Christ; (3). a sacrifice essentially identical toCalvary; (4). a liturgical reenactment of Christ's death .onCalvary and not a blasphemous effort to 'add to' His savingdeath and resurrection, (page 36); (5). a sacrificial act intransubstantiation; (6). the most perfect sacrifice of praiseand thanksgiving, (page 37); (7), a truly propitiatorysacrifice, i.e., it turns away the wrath of God from its

recipients.

Jones .concludes: 'These seven characteristics summarize thesacrificial nature of the Roman E\lcharist. Many, if not eachof these characteristics, ought to appall Protestants. Thesource of his Protestant revulsion resides in the central claimthat the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice of Christ. (page 37)

2. The other unique and equally scandalous aspect of theRoman Eucharist is the claim that 'immediately after theconsecration, the true body and the true blood of our Lord,

together with His soul and divinity exist under the form of hebread and wine. (page 37) Rome teaches that by ingestingthe Divine, they are directly in union and communion withHim (God) . (page 37) Former Reformed minister ScottHahn goes sofaras to say: Wehavebecomeatemple. - Wehave become almost like the blessed virgin Mary, who carriedthe Word incarnate within her womb for nine months. Wecarry the Word incarnate for about ten or fifteen minutes.(page 37)


6/11


7/11

that the coming and eating is defined as the actings of faith. fthe chapter be forced. into .anapplication to the Lord's Supper,then verses 53 and 54 explicitly teach thatevety one who eatsthe Supper goes to heave ), and thatoo one who .fails to 'eat it. .does; neither 'of which Rome admits: and in verse 63, ourSavior fixes a figurative and spiritual interpretation of Hiswords, beyond all question.

2. THE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD'S SUPPERMt. 26:26ff; Mk.14:22)

Roman Catholicismbelieves that the principal biblical prooffor the Eucharistic Real Presence lieg in the words ofinstitution, - This is My bodY" a n d ~is My blood.Acconling to Rome these words ofChpst must be interpretedliterally not figuratively. However, proving that their defenseis seriously flawed, Jones points out tbiit: (1 j. Contrary to thesimplistic claim that the words are in no way figuriltive,Scripnire provides a ide arrayof ust such covenant languagewhich is obviously figurative, Gen. 17:13; I Cor: 10:4; Exod.'12: 11. - TIie covenantal context bespeaks very importantfigurative language; a literal interpretaiion crassly misses the

(39 in the or and 27 in the NT) is different fiom the RomanCatholic Bible,whichalsoacceptsascanonicalsuchapocrypbalbooks at Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, EcclesiastiCUs,Baruch, I andII Maccabees.

Bahnsen shows in 'a concise, biblical, logical and irrefutableargument, so typical of Bahnsen, that the booksof he RomanCatholic Apoctypha fail to demonstrate the characteristicmarks of inspiration (of the Holy Spirit) and authority. Theyare not self-attesting, but rather contradict God's wordelsewhere. (page 45) He confirms the age-old testimony ofthe Church that dod s written word is comprised of he sixtysix books of the Bible.

1. THE FINALITY OF BmUCAL AurHORITY

He begins his argument by emphasizing the finality of theBible's authority. He makes a point Whichboth Catholics andCharismatics fail to deal withadequate[y: apostolic revelation

did not extend beyond the apostolic generation, the'foundational days' of he church. Thus Jude in his day couldspeak of 'the faith' -meaning the teaching content of the

point. (page 40) (2). Even Rome does not interpret the = = = = = = = = = = = = = =passages literally consistently. In Luke 22:20, it is not theblood but the cup that is said to be ''the new covenant in

my blood.

This article ends with a sketch


8/11

Christian faith-as now 'once for all delivered to the saints,'vs. 3 About this verse F.F. Bruce comments: 'Therefore, allclaims to convey an additional revelation .. are falseclaims .. whether these claims are embodied in books whichaim at superseding or supplementing the Bible, or take theform of extra-Biblical traditions ... (page 42) Bahnsendefends his statement in an important footnote on page 42:1be theological errorofbelievingthatspecial, verbal revelation

or quasi -revelation continued beyond the time of he apostlesis made equally by Roman Catholics (imputing inspiredauthority to paper 'interpretations' and unwritten tradition)and Charismatics (teaching tongues and prophecy as gifts tobe expected thrnughout the life of he church). Both the officeof Apostle and the gifts which accompanied theministty of heapostles, II Cor. 12: 12; Heb. 2:3-4, were intended to be

temporary, confined to the founding of the church. To be anApostle, i t wasrequired to be a

book. If God has spoken, what He says is divine in itself,regardless of human response to it. - Accordingly, the canonis not the product of the Christian church. The church has noauthority to control, create, ordefine the Word of God. Rather,the canon controls, creates, and defines the church of Christ.- When we unders tand this, we can see how erroneous it isto suppose tha t the corporate church, at some council of itsleaders, voted on certain documents and constituted them the

canon. The church cannot subsequently attribute authority tocertain writings. Itcansimply receive them as God's revealedword which, as such, always has been the church's canon.(page 43) This flatly contradicts Rome's erroneous claim thatthe church created the canon, and therefore the churchdetermines which books belong in the Bible.

3. THE SELF-ATTESTINGAUTHORITY OF THE BIDLE

witness of theresurrected Christ,Acts 1:22;e.g.ICor .9:1, and to be

o m m i s s i o n e d

directly by Him, Gal.1:1, thus restrictingthe apostolic officetothe firstgenerationof the church. Paulindicated that he wasthe last of theapostles,ICor.15:?-

9; his successor,

The theological error of believing that special, verbal revelation or quasi

revelation continued beyond the time of the apostles is made equally byRoman Catholics and Charismatics. Both the office of Apostle and the giftswhich accompanied the ministry of the apostles. IICor. 12:12. Heb. 2:3-4.were in1ended to be temporary, confined to the founding of the church. Tobe an Apostle, it was required to be a witness of the resurrected Christ, Acts1 22; e.g. I Cor. 9:1. and to be commissioned directly by Him, Cal. 1:1, thusrestricting the apostolic office to the first generation of the church. Paulindicated that he was the last of the apostles. I Cor. 15:7-9; his successor.Timothy. is never given that title. By later New Testament episties we haveno further mention or discussion of revelatory gifts like to"'. )IJf S itauthoritative, not human acceptance or recognition of the

to i tself-must witnessto its own divine character and origin. (page 43) Bahnsendrives this point home by quoting John 5:38-39.

3. THE INNER TESTIMONY O F THE HOLYSPIRIT TO BmLICAL AUTHORITY

After dealing with the objective, self-attesting authority of heBible, Bahnsen goes on to discuss the necessity of he work ofthe Holy Spirit in recognizing the authority of the Bible. Hewrites: The self-attestation of Scripture as God's Word

makes it objectively authoritative in itself, but such authoritywill not be subjectively received without an internal, spiritoalchange in man 1be Holy Spirit must open our sinful eyes andgive personal conviction concerning the Scripture's selfwitness, I Cor. 2: 12. (pages 43-44) Bahnsen denies that thisis relativistic subjectivism. The internal testimony of theHoly Spirit does not stand by itself or operate in a vacuum; itmustbe teamed withtheobjectiveself-witnessofthe Scripturesthemselves. (page 44)

Tbe Counsel of Cbalcedon FebruarylMarcb 1991 Page 19


9/11


10/11

SCRIPTURA is similar to Warfield ' s claim conceming thebasis forthe infallibility of Scripture; the case overwhelms onelike a waterfall. (pag e 46)

Jones sets forth the thesis of his article with a quotation fromthe Westminster Confession of Faith, 1,10 : The SupremeJudge, by which all controversies of religion are to bedetennined .. can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking inthe Scripture . Incontradicti ontothis Protestantprinciple, theRoman Catholi c Church claims that both sacred Traditionand sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with thesame devotion and reverence, Vatican II, Dei VeIbum . 9.

In his debate with Matatics, Jones begins his article with theBiblicalcase forsola scriptura , nd thenconcludes by answeringthe Roman Catholic objections to sola scriptura.

1. THE BIDLICAL CASE FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA

Jones bases hi s case on Biblical practices found in the Old

Testamentlaw, wisdom literature, and prophetsnd

then fromNew Testament theology and practice. (page 47) He showswith many illustrations that every sectionofthe Old Testamentdemonstrates that the sole and supreme authority is God'sWord. (page 47) From the Law he takes prooffor his thesisfrom the experience of Adam and Eve , Noah, Abraham,Moses, and the Levitical Pri ests. For example, Jones showsthat Gnd had expressly foIbidden Adam nd Eve to eatofthetree of the kno wledge of good and evil, but when they weretempted by S atan, they demonstrated their disloyalty to God'sWord by considering it just another hypothesis on par WithSatan's word, which they could supposedly evaluate. In

effect, Adam and Eve placed themselves as udges over God' srevelation in order to reject it. God ' s revelation was clear:Adam and Eve needed no secondary, infallible interpreter orelse their sin would have been excusable . Hence, we findSOLA SCRIPTURA at the very beginning of redemptivehistory. (page 47)

From the wisdom literature of he Old Testament, Jones drawsillustrations of sola scriptura from Psalms I , 19,37, and 119,as well as from ProveIbs 30:5,6. From the prophets he makesuse of Isaiah 8:20 ; Jer. 31 :31; Ezek. 37:24; and Dan. 3 .

Then, Jones moves to the New Testament to show that thedoctrine of SOLA SCRIPTURAis not only attheheartoftheOld Covenant church ; it also continue s in the practice of theNew Covenant Church. (page 48) He shows that the NewTestament assumes the finality of the authority of the OldTestamentcanon, Mat. 23:2 ,3; 22:37-40; In. 10:35; Mat. 5 :18;Lk.16 :17;IIPet 2:19; I Cor. 1 :1 I; II Ti m . 3 :16. According

to Jones these scripture references teach us that if the OldTestament .. direct(s) us only to the Word of God as the

supremenormandnottoecclesiasticalorpriestlyexplications,then the New Testament teaches the same. (page 48)

When the Protestant argues that Christ condemned the use ofPharisaical traditions inMat 15 3, Roman Catholic ism usuallyanswers that Christ only rejects human traditions and notallegedly divine traditions as prov ided by the Roman church.But if the normal Biblical practice is to reject any secondaryexplications or traditions , then the burden is on the RomanCatholic apologist to prove that Christ now approves ofsecondary traditions. (page 48)

His second point is that the practice of the New Testamentchurch endorses SOLA SCRIPTURA, as well as its theology.See Acts 1:20; 2:17ff; 13:47; 15: 16ff ; Rom. 9,10,11; Gal. 3;Hebrews . Like Jesus Christ, the apostles do not directbelievers to secondaryexplicationsorextra-Scriptural Hebrewtraditions (though plentiful) as authoritative norms but to

examine the Word of God itself, Ro m . 15:4; Eph. 6 :17;IITim.3:16; II Pet. 1:19; Rev. 1 :3 ... (page 48)

2. THE ROMAN CATHOUC OBJECTIONSTOSOLASCRIPTURA

Jones gives us four main objections of Rome against theprinciple of sola scriptura: (1) . It is unbiblical , as Paul'sreferences to traditions show n II Thes . 2: 15; II Tim. 2 :2 ; IICor. 11:2 . Thatit is unbiblical is also shownby the alleged factthat the Bible nowhere teaches such a doctrine. (2). It isunhistorical, in that the first generation of Christians did not

have the New Testament, only the church, to teach them, andsince it had no single defender for the first thirteen centuriesof he church. (page49) (3). It is illogical orincoherent.And(4). It is impractical, because it leads to denominationalanarchy.

Jones refutes each of these objections. (1). He offers asrefutation the first half of his article on he biblical case for solascriptura. (Bahnsen answe r the concerns about the word,tradition, inhis article.) (2) .1his argument is not only false ,

as Bahnsen's article has shown; but also, as Jones points out,itis based on a very truncated view of church history, becausethe church did not begin in the first century. It began with thevery beginning of covenant history. (3) . Both of thesearguments assume that God cannot or does not authenticateHis own Word, apart from some human testimony. This isfalse as per Hebrews 6: 13, but it also belies a very deficientview of God in that, though He is supposedly all sovereign, he

The Counsel of Chalcedon FebruarylMarch 1991 Page 21


11/11

requires ,human testimony to confirm ,His Word. (page 49) subscribe toANTITHESIS and purchasethis issue on Roman(4). This objection is based ontluee false assumptionS; fiist, Catholicism.nthatBiblical unity is identical toinstitutional1p1ity,asopposed

to unity in truth; second, that "the mere exercise of 'churchauthority' genuinely resolves doctrinal differences instead ofjustjudicjouslyobliteratingthem; and third, that itbegs,thequestion by assuming the falsity of Sola Scriptura. (Page49)

After Jones' defense of he premlsettw.t scripture teaches thatthe Word of God is the Supreme Norm," an article is includediD which Matatlcs seeks to ~ f e n dthe premise that .the Wordof Godis, he Supreme Nonn, Qutaccording to Scriptureitself,God's Word is not entirely contained within Scripture alone...(page 50) Matatics own testimooy is th8t while Pursuing aPh.D. in Biblical Interpretation at Westminster 'qIeologicalSilminary, I came to the unexpeci ldcoD

1991 Issue 2 - Critical Reflections on Roman Catholicism - Counsel of Chalcedon

Documents

Transcript of 1991 Issue 2 - Critical Reflections on Roman Catholicism - Counsel of Chalcedon