Flashcard apologetics

Over at Beggars All, I got into a long impromptu debate with a Catholic apologist. I'm reposting my comments here:

steve said...

People like Guy don't believe in the cult of the saints because they have direct, compelling evidence for the propriety of that practice. Rather, they believe it because they believe in the authority of the Roman Magisterium to promulgate dogma. Their real reason is indirect.

Hence, it's generally a waste of time to debate specific Roman dogmas with people like Guy. That's too far downstream. Their real reasons lie upstream: the alleged authority of the Roman Magisterium. Specific Roman dogmas are merely the effect of that source. If you're going to have a debate, then debate the cause, not the effect. 

steve said...

"I understand that John Piper does not pray that his own children be elect."

He doesn't quote Piper.

In any case, a Calvinist can, without inconsistency, pray that God elected his children.

"It seems to taint your view of the Sacraments too."

A tendentious non sequitur.

"However, when the question of a certain miracle was to be attributed to the intercession of St. Joan of Arc or to Mary, it was determined that since even a saint in heaven prays to Mary, both were to be thanked for their intercession."

How was it determined that Joan of Arc in heaven prayed to Mary in heaven? Was a seance held to question Joan of Arc on her postmortem activities?

steve said...

Notice that Guy still hasn't produced a direct quote from Piper to prove Guy's contention.

People like Guy don't argue in good faith. It's all drive-by shootings.

steve said...

A wildly confused statement about reprobation. I already corrected him on that point. God doesn't "simply" make people for hell. They serve a purpose in the here and now.

God doesn't first make people for hell, then change his mind and elect a "few" for salvation.

Moreover, the scope of election and redemption is conterminous. Those whom the Father elects, the Son redeemed (and the Spirit renews). Christ dies for the elect. Jesus is necessary inasmuch as election was for the purpose of redemption, and vice versa. They operate in tandem.

steve said...

"Remember PBJ, on pentecost day 3,000 men were added to the Church. Not a word of the NT had even been penned yet."

i) And how does Guy know that? Because it's in the Bible.

ii) 3,000 people converts added to the church on Pentecost before the Roman Magisterium ever existed. So that pulls the rug out from under Roman Catholicism.

iii) What they had on Pentecost was the word of God. The apostolic kergyma was based on: (a) OT messianic prophecy; (b) firsthand knowledge of the historical Christ, and (c) inspiration.

Messianic prophecy antedates the church of Rome. Likewise, Pope Francis has no more firsthand knowledge of the historical Christ than Billy Graham. Both depend on the Gospels.

iv) At Pentecost, the Spirit did not descend on the papacy or the Roman episcopate. It didn't even single out the Apostolate. Rather, the Spirit fell on about 120 (Acts 1:15) believers comprising the nascent church.

v) Acts 2:17-18 isn't a charism for the pope or church councils. It isn't even specific to the apostles. It's a general promise that cuts across all basic demographic divisions. No lay/clerical distinction.

steve said...

"Out of those followers he selects 12 men and gives them special teaching and authority. Out of those 12, Simon is chosen as chief.
Are you with me so far?"

No, he doesn't select Peter as "chief."

"Now, Jesus says that all authority in in heaven has been given him and he then transmits that power to the Apostles commissioning them to go out to all the world."

It doesn't say he transmits "all authority in heaven" to the apostles.

"IOW, he pronounces the Church to speak for him as the infallible spokesperson down through time."

i) Needless to say, Mt 28:16-20 doesn't commission Peter and his (alleged) successors. At the very least, it applies to the Eleven. And keep in mind the 70, whom Christ commissioned earlier.

ii) Nothing in the text about an infallible church.

Moreover, Guy is doing a bait-n-switch. Peter is not the church.

"He does not write anything down or even commission anyone else to do so. Instead he said to go preach and baptize."

And how does Guy know about that? Because it was written down in Matthew's Gospel.

"'Do this in memory of me...', etc."

And how does Guy know about that? Because it was recorded in the Synoptic Gospels and 1 Corinthians. Committed to writing for posterity.

Oh, and I've responded to the Sproul quote in the past.

steve said...

"The Holy Spirit did not establish the Papcy on Pentecost. It already existed based on what Jesus had said."

If you're alluding to Mt 16, that's counterbalanced by Mt 18. Sorry to rain on your party.

"Open your Bible and read in Acts how Peter unilaterally decides to replace Judas. All by his lonesome, no help from his friends."

Let's open our Bible and read what it actually says:

"15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said…23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."

Judas's replacement was selected by the 120 in attendance. The 120 nominated two candidates, one of whom was chosen by lot, after the 120 engaged in corporate prayer.

So Guy's summary of the record is systematically false.

There are several Christians who take the lead in Acts. In the early chapters, that's Peter, Stephen, Philip, John, and James Bar-zebedee.

It's not Peter, but James the Just, who headed the mother church in Jerusalem.

And Peter is basically a placeholder until Paul's conversion. Paul quickly eclipses Peter, because Paul is far more talented.

"Later we see it is to Peter and Peter alone that the sign of the net of clean and unclean animals is given."

Peter is not the only Christian in Acts to receive visions and other special revelation.

"He had already opened them to Samaritans"

No, that would be Philip the Evangelist.

"At the Jerusalem Council it was Peter and not Paul or James as Protestants like to say, who made the one binding for all time decision about salvation coming from the grace of Christ and not the law of circumcision. And he did so without searching the scriptures but on his own authority."

Once again, this is what it actually says:

"12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written…19 Therefore my judgment is…” 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas."

Not exactly a one-man show.

"Steve, if you can't see the Petrine Office in the book of Acts, it is because you are trying hard not to."

Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that Peter is "chief," there's nothing about a Petrine *office* in Acts.

But it's true that I lack the Catholic knack for seeing things that aren't there. I haven't snorted the Catholic hallucinogens necessary to see your figments of the imagination.

steve said...

Poor Guy can't follow his own argument. He alludes to a scene in Acts to disprove sola Scriptura. But, of course, he only knows about the scene in Acts because it's recorded in Scripture.

"As for Acts 2 not being a blueprint for Church councils, who said it was? Acts 15 works nicely for that."

I appreciate your generous admission that Acts 15 is a blueprint for the Synod of Dort, the Westminster Assembly, and the The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.

"Matt 18 takes away from the Catholic understanding of Matt 16? Really? Do we see Jesus singling out and giving the Keys to each and every Apostle?"

You're confusing the metaphor with what the metaphor signifies. The same authority given to Peter in Mt 16 is given to local churches in Mt 18. Mt 18 needn't repeat the metaphor to repeat what it signifies. Try to learn that elementary distinction.

"Yes, Philip the deacon was indeed a minster of the Church when he evangelized in Samaria. But, other than Baptize, he could not confect the Eucharist or Confirm."

i) Peter doesn't "confect" the eucharist in Acts 8. No celebration of the eucharist in that episode. For that matter, there's nothing in the NT about reserving celebration of the eucharist for the priesthood.

ii) To speak of "confirmation" in the context of Acts 8 is anachronistic.

"That is why Peter and John went there."

Yes, both Peter and John. So you can't squeeze Petrine primacy out of your prooftext.

"And do notice, it was Peter who dealt with Simon the Magician."

And do notice, it was Paul who dealt with Bar-Jesus the false prophet (Acts 13). So by parity of argument, Acts teaches Pauline primacy.

"Yes indeed, James, the kinsman of Jesus, was the Bishop of the Jewish city of Jerusalem. What we call the 'local ordinary'. He would have a place of honor in his diocese just as when Benedict came here to Lisbon he deferred to the local Bishop. Peter was overseer over the entire Church."

You're imposing those extraneous distinctions onto the Book of Acts rather than deriving them from the Book of Acts.

Moreover, the church of Jerusalem wasn't just some local church. It was the founding church of Christendom.

"Peter may not have been the only Christian to receive signs and visions, as you say, but the one Peter received is unlike any other, wouldn't you say?"

Every vision in Acts is unique. Moreover, you're confusing the importance of a vision with the importance of a visionary, as if the former implies the latter. So your argument is illogical.

"I did not say Peter chose Matthias unilaterally. I said that he unilaterally decided *someone* would be chosen to replace Judas. Can't you read?"

Yes, you deceptively suppressed all the evidence running counter to Petrine primacy in that passage. Or is your problem that you just can't read?

"And yes, Steve, I read all this in the Bible. How does that prove sola scriptura or disprove Tradition?"

You didn't get that from tradition. You got that from Scripture alone. That's your only source of information for the details of Pentecost which you cited.

steve said...

"Paul was indeed a more prolific writer and a dynamic speaker."

More to the point, Paul was a far more influential writer than Peter. More influential in Latin theology, to boot.

"You know Steve, we probably would not even have Paul's writings in the Bible if not for Peter's imprimatur ( 2nd Pt 3 )."

i) To begin with, you'd be hard-pressed to find any contemporary Catholic bishop or Catholic NT scholar who affirms the apostolic authorship of 2 Peter. It's only Protestant scholars who still defend traditional authorship.

ii) You failed to present a connecting argument to show how Peter's reference to Paul's writings had any bearing on the canonization of Paul's writings. For one thing, your appeal is circular. Unless 2 Peter is canonical, it can't attest the Pauline epistles. So your appeal presumes an extant NT canon.

"I know you want to bring up Paul's castigation of a certain 'Cephas' who may or not have been Peter, to prove your point."

If I wanted to bring that up, I would have.

"Actually Steve, the Bible doesn't show Paul to hold any higher office or authority than Barnabas."

Actually, Guy, the Bible shows Paul to be an apostle–on par with the "pillars" of Jerusalem church–James, John, and Peter.

"Yes, but that did not give Jerusalem dominance."

It was certainly dominant at the beginning.

"Paul and Peter were seen to be the new Romulus and Remus in the early Church."

And who corresponds to the wolf that suckled them?

"Rome had precedence not because it was the imperial city but because of Peter and Paul died there."

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we grant that tradition, how does that establish Petrine primacy rather than Pauline primacy?

You then rely on various legends regarding the founding of alleged apostolic sees.

steve said...

Since Mt 16:16-18 is always hovering in the background of these discussions, let's say a bit more about it:

i) Jesus singles out Peter on that occasion because Peter answered the question. Peter is often the first to speak or act.

However, that sometimes gets him into trouble because he has a tendency to say or do foolish things. He sometimes takes the lead when he should keep his mouth shut. He speaks without thinking. Blurts out the first thing that comes to mind. Acts rashly.

Indeed, in the very next pericope, Jesus accuses Peter of Satanic misunderstanding (v23).

ii) The fact that Peter is incidentally singled out on that occasion is confirmed by the fact that in Mt 18:18-20, the same authority conferred on Peter is conferred on local churches.

iii) It's not at all clear that the "rock" on which the church is built refers to Peter. In that regard, John Nolland, in his commentary, makes two significant points:

a) "There is no straightforward antecedent for taute ('this') since petra ('rock') has not been used previously" (669).

Therefore, the syntax and usage don't select for Peter as the object of the demonstrative pronoun.

b) "The very fact of the choice of different words suggests that in this case some difference of meaning is intended (petros in both places would have served better for the sense: 'You are Peter, and on this rock/stone [which you are] I will build my church')…The change of words encourages the linking of taute ('this') not to the immediately preceding Petros ('Peter'), but back via v17 to the confession of v16" (669).

iv) Apropos (iii), Robert Gundry, in his commentary (p334, 2nd ed.), has argued that this refers back to the parable in Mt 7:24-27. Jesus is quoting himself:

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Mt 7:24).

In that event, the "rock" refers to building on the foundation Christ's teaching.

v) But even if Peter is the "rock" in both occurrences in Mt 16, these "rocky," foundational metaphors aren't confined to Peter–but include the Apostolate in general (e.g. Rev 21:14).

steve said...

Yes, Peter was an apostle. He had pastoral responsibilities. So did other apostles. Indeed, one doesn't need to be an apostle to discharge pastoral duties.

Jn 21 concerns his restoration, not his elevation.

You're committing the elementary fallacy of acting as if something said about Peter is said in contrast to everyone else.

You then resort to silly concordance exegesis. Is every rock in Scripture infallible?

steve said...

Notice Guy's shameless admission that he's petty, spiteful, vindictive, thin-skinned. He holds grudges. Settles scores. I guess all that Marian devotion doesn't rub off.

One of the things about Catholicism is that you don't have to be personally holy. You delegate sanctity to the "saints."

Ritualistic piety. Leaves without fruit.

steve said...

"Could you or Steve tell us how many of the Apostles had their names changed?"

You mean like Saul becoming Paul?

"Simon the Zealot must have said or done something notable if he was Peter's equal in authority, yes?"

No, that's a non sequitur. What does that have to do with authority?

"Can you give an example of Paul making a decree that binds the entire Church even unto today"

Of course, that's a trick question, since Peter never did that.

"You know, something on a par with Peter's decision about gentiles entering the Church without becoming Jews first."

You know, that wasn't Peter's decision. That was God's decision, which he revealed to Peter and Paul alike.

"As for those visions that you assert were so commonplace among the early Christians, tell us of Andrews' vision."

Here's an idea: what about Paul's vision? You know, the one mentioned three times in Acts, where Jesus appeared to him–precipitating his conversion? That vision?

"John and James were Pillars right?"

Let's see, that would be this John:

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw."

Last time I checked, Revelation is pretty visionary. Did you fall asleep before you made it to the last book of the NT?

"Actually Steve, Peter is mentioned almost 200 times in the NT. John is second with about 25. Some of the others are mentioned only in the lists."

Actually, Guy, Peter only wrote 2 canonical epistles whereas Paul wrote 13. John wrote a Gospel, three canonical epistles, and the Apocalypse.

What makes you think being named is more important than what you do?

"Ever notice in every list of the 12, Peter is always first?"

That's simpleminded. The lists have a stereotypical order because the Synoptics use duplicate lists. I guess that never occurred to you.

These are not independent lists. Counting duplicates as if they were separate lists isn't very attentive to what's going on. The order is the same because they copied the same list. Get it?

"Consider this when deciding if you want to "concede for argument's sake" if Peter was boss."

I guess I should consider that when I notice how often Mary Magdalene is named first when the women are listed? By your logic, that makes Mary Magdalene the Virgin Mary's religious superior.

Not to mention that on the first Easter, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first. And you've just reminded us how all-important it is to be first in line.

And not only that. Consider the prominence of Mary Magdalene on Good Friday and especially Easter, viz. Mt 27: 56,61; 28:1-10; Mk 15:40,47; 16:9-10; Lk 24:9-10; Jn 20:1-18. Mary Magdalene is the dominant female figure on Easter, whereas the Virgin Mary has no role to play whatsoever.

So Mary Magdalene easily eclipses the Virgin Mary on this crowning occasion. Mary Magdalene takes the headmost while the Virgin Mary takes the hindmost. Maybe you've been betting on the wrong horse.

"One more thing for now; Jesus only spoke in 1st person plural once. He told Peter to catch a fish and find a coin in order to pay the temple tax for 'us'."

And the relevance of that is what, exactly?

"One more one more thing. Who walked on the water with Jesus?"

You mean this?

"But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, 'Lord, save me'” (Mt 14:30).

He began to flounder because he suffered a crisis of faith. So that establishes primacy in drowning. Is that the kind of primacy you had in mind?

"My point is, 1. The Church is infallible."

An assertion in search of an argument.

"2. Peter is the final court of appeal in that Church."

Another assertion in search of an argument.

"Therefore Peter has to have that charism in the fullness."

An invalid inference from false major and minor premises. At least you don't do things in half-measures. You're consistently illogical.

steve said...

"I already tried to tell you Thomas Aquinas wrote a bit more than the Pope did. And I don't even know the Pope's name. Yet Aquinas was not Pope. Steve."

You confuse writing "more" of something with writing Scripture. There's a qualitative as well as quantitative difference. To be a Bible writer is no small distinction. To write a Gospel is no small distinction. What makes think writing a Gospel is less important than how many times you're named in the NT?

"Here is something else for you to ignore; John was still alive and living in the area when the church in Corinth appealed to Pope Clement to settle a dispute for them."

What makes you think John was living near Corinth at the time?

BTW, that wouldn't be the first time the church of Corinth made a bad call.

"Think about that Steve. An Apostle was passed over in order to consult the Bishop of Rome. Hmmmmmmm? You don't think it was because Clement had more authority than John do you?"

Here's something else for you to ignore; Hebrews was probably written to a house-church in Rome. (Read Raymond Brown's introduction to the NT for details). If your theory of papal primacy is correct, why didn't the pope settle a church crisis under his own roof? Why did the author of Hebrews presume to intervene? Doesn't that fall under the pope's direct jurisdiction?

Think about that, Guy. The "Bishop of Rome" was passed over in order to consult an outsider ( the author of Hebrews). Hmmmmmmm? You don't think it was because author of Hebrews had more authority than the pope do you?

"The major was that the Church is infallible. You doubt it.Time to turn out the lights ladies and gentlemen.Steve has just shot down all assurance of anything about Christ, including His divinity."

Let's compare Guy's assertion to this:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught (Lk 1:1-4)."

And this:

"but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (Jn 20:31)."

And this:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete (1 Jn 1:1-4)."

Notice how Luke and John affirm the sufficiency of their writings to achieve the very thing that Guy impudently denies. If Guy were living in the 1C, he'd be excommunicated from the NT church.

"We know miracles do happen as we have them today in such places as Lourdes."

Other issues to one side, reported miracles are hardly confined to Catholic circles. Lots of reported miracles in charismatic circles, some of them well-documented.

"We know that this Jesus selected an inner circle of men out of the larger group of followers and gave them special instruction. These men were in a position to have accurate information about Jesus. We also know they were trustworthy men as they were willing to die for their testimony. They were Jews who believed it wrong to lie about such matters. I still have not said anything about the Bible being inspired."

Except that you're getting all that information from the Bible.

"This Jesus promised that the same powers and authority he had was to be given to the group of men he commissioned to transmit his message down through the ages."

If you're alluding to Mt 28, it doesn't say that all his power and authority is transmitted to the apostles. What the NT does say is that Jesus rules the church and the world from heaven (e.g. Eph 1:20-22). Jesus is doing more, not less–since his Ascension.

"Now we turn to that body and ask for clarification on other matters including the divinity of Jesus and the inspiration of that historically accurate NT. We believe this body when it speaks on Mary, the Sacraments, the Can of the Bible and all other doctrines."

A Mormon would make the same claims for his church.

"Steve, if this body, the Church, is not trustworthy, you cannot appeal to anything, including the book she put together called the Bible."

So before the papacy, the Jews didn't have a Bible. The Jews couldn't appeal to the OT Scriptures.

"What he fails to see is that Peter's references outweigh any one of the other Apostles."

Do references to the Virgin Mary outweigh references to Mary Magdalene?

steve said...

"Here is something else for you to ignore; John was still alive and living in the area when the church in Corinth appealed to Pope Clement to settle a dispute for them. Think about that Steve."

Here is something else for you to ignore; According to Catholic NT scholar Raymond Brown, in his NT introduction (p837), "96-120 would be a more certain time range" for the date of 1 Clement.

Was John still alive in the 2C? Think about that Guy.

And here's something else to think about. Why should I take my cue from the church of Corinth? Paul wrote at least four letters to that church to put out fires there. So it's not as if that's a very reliable compass.

"How can you be sure Luke wrote Luke and John wrote John?"

How can you be sure Clement wrote 1 Clement?

"God did not do the miracle to support the Roman religion."

So by parity of argument, even if some of the reported miracles at Lourdes really happened, God didn't perform them to support the Catholic religion. Thanks for preempting your own evidence.

"Steve, you can't prove the Bible by using the Bible."

Guy, you can't prove the papacy by using the papacy.

"Remember, the table of contents is not inspired scripture."

Where's the inspired list of infallible papal statements?

"Nobody who follows the guy who took the Epistle of James out of the Bible …"

I'm not Lutheran.

"Your buddy Steve ain't never gonna make no headway with me."

That was never my objective. You're just a foil.

steve said...

One of Guy's problems is his prepackaged apologetic. He deals himself a hand from his thin pack of flashcards. He has all the stock Catholic prooftexts scribbled on his flashcards.

Problem is, we've seen this game before. We already know which cards he's holding in his hand. Catholic apologists always use and reuse the same dog-eared flashcards.

So this is not one of those suspenseful poker games like in the movies (e.g. Casino Royale, The Cincinnati Kid) where an opponent plays his winning hand, and there's a collective gasp in the room.

It's not as if we didn't see that coming. Every Catholic apologist has the same pack of flashcards. Guy may try to string it out, keeping some high cards in reserve to trump our hand, but he's recycling the same frayed arguments that he copied from other apologists.

steve said...

"If I say Peter had a name change, he mentions Paul ( who was not given a title like Peter was )."

Compare this to his original challenge: 

"Could you or Steve tell us how many of the Apostles had their names changed?"

I rose to the challenge: Saul becomes Paul.

When, however, I kick a football right through his goalpost, Guy's response is to move the goalpost.

Now it's no longer a question of a "name" change, but being given a "title." Okay, let's kick the football through his relocated goalpost:

"Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus" (Acts 4:36). 

"But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul…" (Acts 14:14).

"Barnabas (originally Joseph), styled an Apostle in Holy Scripture, and, like St. Paul, ranked by the Church with the Twelve, though not one of them ('St. Barnabas,' Catholic Encyclopedia)."

So the apostle Joseph was given the epithet of Barnabas ("son of encouragement"). That's a "title."

Now that I've twice paralleled one of Peter's allegedly unique distinctions, where does that leave Guy's tattered argument?

"The currant Pope washes his own socks."

So he's calling the present pontiff a fruit? Doesn't seem very respectful, if you ask me.

steve said...

"How can you be sure Luke wrote Luke and John wrote John?"

Given the fact that the modern Magisterium has given its consent to Catholic Bible scholars who deny the traditional authorship of the Scriptures, Catholics now have every reason to doubt or deny that Luke wrote Luke, John wrote John, Peter wrote 1-2 Peter, John wrote 1-3 John or Revelation, Paul wrote the Pastorals and Prison Epistles, James wrote James, Isaiah wrote Isaiah wrote Isaiah, Daniel wrote Daniel, Moses wrote the Pentateuch, &c. So thanks for reminding us that Catholicism is recipe for profound uncertainty concerning the authorship of the Scriptures.

steve said...

"Ever notice how after the Resurrection, Magadalene [sic] is told to 'Go tell PETER and the others'".

Peter and "the others." Not just Peter.

"Then, upon hearing the news, Peter and John race to the tomb."

Yes, Peter and John. Not just Peter.

"When they get there, John first, he stands aside so Peter can go in a witness the empty tomb."

The text doesn't say John stands aside so that Peter can go inside to witness the empty tomb.

If anything, this illustrates Peter's weak faith. Peter needs to see before believing.

"Oh, and excuse me Steve, let me rephrase my question. Was Saul/Paul given a title? Like the High Priest Kaiphas ( Rock ) had?"

i) Notice that Guy keeps changing the question after I call his bluff. This is the second time he moved the goalpost.

ii) He assumes, without argument, that the name of the priest means "rock." Even if that were the case, what makes that a title rather than a nickname–"Rocky"?

iii) Moreover, his etymology is dubious:

The latest issue of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (vol. 10, 2012) leads with a large article by Richard Bauckham on evidence from ossuaries and inscriptions about the family of Caiaphas:  “The Caiaphas Family,” pp. 3-31.  The jump-off point in his essay is an inscription on an ossuary announced by the Israel Antiquities Authority in 2008, which reads “Marian daughter of Yeshua bar Qayafa, priest from Ma’aziah from Bet ‘Imri”.  But Bauckham also includes in the scope of his discussion a larger body of references in ancient texts (NT, rabbinic, Josephus) and other artifacts that have been, and must be, considered in drawing a picture of the family connected with the name “Caiaphas”.  

Bauckham contends that “Caiaphas” originated as a nickname given to an ancestral figure in the Jewish priestly clans, which then became a family name of one particular line.  He proposes also that the name (“Qayafa”) comes from a word designating “the jelly or crust that forms on boiled meat,” suggesting an obvious possible derivation of the term from the temple practice of boiling meat from sacrificial offerings. 

http://cscoedinburgh.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/bauckham-the-caiaphas-family/

Back to Guy:

"And to think, we haven't even started quoting the Fathers yet.

i) Having lost all the exegetical arguments from Scripture, that's his last-ditch appeal.

ii) Before you deploy an argument from authority, you must first establish the authoritative nature of your source. Otherwise, that appeal is a classic fallacy.

"Was Paul told to feed Christ's sheep?"

i) Jn 21 is not a promotion. It's a reinstatement after Peter's betrayal.

ii) Shepherding the flock is not a uniquely Petrine or even uniquely apostolic distinction. Cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:1-2.

"Was he told he would strengthen the other Apostles? ( Think Lk 22 )."

i) "Brother" is not a synonym for "apostle." It's a stock term in Lukan usage (and NT usage generally) for Christians.

ii) As Catholic NT scholar Joseph Fitzmyer observes, in his commentary on Luke:

"Recall that in Acts 15:41; 16:5; 18:23 others beside Peter (Paul, Barnabas, Judas, Silas) are depicted in a strengthening role" (2:1426). 

Back to Guy:

"Jesus didn't commission anyone to write."

Didn't Jesus commission John to write down what he saw (Rev 1:1-3)?

steve said...

"Steve, Thanks for not answering my question on how you know if John wrote John, Luke wrote Luke."

i) Notice that Guy ducks the question of how he knows if Clement wrote 1 Clement.

ii) I began by answering Guy on his own terms. Turning the tables on Guy. Not surprisingly, he has no counterargument.

Notice how he ducked the question about an infallible list of infallible papal statements.

He says I can't prove the Bible by using the Bible. By parity of logic, he can't prove the church fathers by using the church fathers. His arguments backfire.

iii) BTW, is it true that I can't prove the Bible by using the Bible? Take the argument from prophecy. I can use a prophecy to prove a prophecy. If it comes true, then it's true. That's not viciously circular–because events confirm or disconfirm the prediction.

iv) Guy is laboring to bootstrap the papacy. That assumes a prior authority to attest the papacy. What would that be? Not Scripture, because Guy says you must have the papacy in place to guarantee Scripture. Not the church fathers, because they have no independent authority. They aren't apostles or prophets.

v) Let's go back to Guy's question:

"How can you be sure Luke wrote Luke and John wrote John?"

vi) Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I can't be "sure." So what?

Why should I begin by stipulating an artificial standard of certainty, then ask if I can meet that self-imposed standard?

What if I can't be sure because God hasn't given Christians sufficient evidence to be sure? In that event, it's not a failure on my part if my belief in traditional authorship falls short of certainty. What if God didn't put Christians in that position? Had he wanted them to be sure, he could provide indubitable evidence.

That doesn't mean I can't be sure. I'm just discussing what would follow in case certainty is unattainable. That's only deficient if we're supposed to be sure. If God has left room for some degree of doubt, we can't do better.

Once again, I haven't conceded that we can't be sure. Just addressing Guy's tendentious way of framing the question.

vii) Can Catholics be sure of Catholicism? The case for Catholicism depends on historical evidence. At best, that falls short of certainty. Historical evidence is probable, not apodictic.

viii) Guy can't appeal to Catholic miracles, for even if they occur, he's admitted that the argument from miracles doesn't necessarily attest doctrine.

ix) Traditionally, Protestants appeal to the witness of the Spirit. The NT contains a number of statements offering spiritual assurance. Does Guy think those statements are false?

x) There's both internal and external evidence for the authorship of Scripture.

steve said...

"I know who wrote Clement the same way I know who wrote Luke and John."

Notice that he dodges the question of how he knows Clement wrote 1 Clement.

Since Guy tells us that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, how does he prove that Clement wrote 1 Clement?

By his logic, you can't use church councils to prove church councils. You can't use the papacy to prove the papacy. You can't use church fathers to prove church fathers. So what's left in his arsenal?

"how do you know Luke and John should be in the canon? Luke wasn't an Apostle was he?"

Why should I assume that apostolicity is a necessary condition for canonicity. Isaiah was not an apostle.

"What I am saying is, at some point, one must go outside of the Bible to know just which books comprise that Bible. Where do we go to know which books should be in either Old or New Testament?"

That overlooks intertextuality:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/godscanon.html

"Not to the Bible but to an infallible extra-biblical authority."

i) You commit a category mistake by failing to distinguish between extrabiblical evidence and extrabiblical authority.

ii) Moreover, you've admitted that you don't have 100% certainty in what you believe. Hence, your "infallible extra-biblical authority" reduces to your uncertain belief in your allegedly infallible extra-biblical authority.

"I answered this a couple of days ago. Have your ever read rev. Richard Whately's proof that Napoleon never existed?"

Is that your roundabout admission that, at best, Roman Catholicism is only probably right?

"Ever read the account of Nobel Prize winner and Nazi doctor Alexis Carrell's witness to Lourdes? I think he had to give back the prize after he said he believed in Lourdes."

i) To begin with, you're changing the subject. Are you unable to follow your own argument? The question at issue wasn't, in the first place, whether Catholic miracles ever happen, but even if they do happen, you admit that they don't prove Catholicism.

ii) As a matter of fact, I've read two articles on that very subject by Stanley Jaki. However, as Jaki notes, the Vatican has never vouched for those examples. So it's odd that you think I should have more confidence in those reported miracles than the Vatican.

"Yet the numerous conflicting denominations denounce each other despite claiming to have that same burning in the bosom."

So you reject what the NT says about the witness of the Spirit?

"Let's say we know Luke wrote Luke. So what? He wasn't an Apostle. Nor was Mark."

Nor was Jeremiah. Your criterion is nonsensical.

"And why do we say inspiration ended with the death of John?"

The inspiration of the NT ended for the same reason as the inspiration of the OT ended. It served its purpose.

"Why isn't the Gospel of James canonical?"

Well, for one thing, that's a mid-2C pseudonymous forgery. Given the date, it could not be authentic.

"Clement's name appears in the Bible. He knew the Apostles. Why isn't he in the Bible?"

i) I notice that you ignore Raymond Brown's statement about the dating range for 1 Clement. Funny when a Catholic apologist can't deal with Catholic scholarship.

ii) Ezekiel didn't know any of the apostles, yet he's in the Bible.

iii) The NT church had prophets as well as apostles. Inspiration wasn't confined to apostles.

iv) Knowing an apostle and being inspired are often two different things. Gamaliel's name appears in the Bible. He knew some of the apostles. That doesn't make him inspired.

"WHO DECIDES?"

i) Wrong question. Better question: What decides? The best available evidence decides.

ii) Keep in mind that on the eve of Trent, the church of Rome hadn't decided the scope of the canon. The Tridentine Fathers were divided. It was a split vote. Not even a majority. Just a plurality. And that was in the 16C.

"By the way, according to the guy who concocted JBFA, the Epistle of James has absolutely zero internal evidence."

Thanks for illustrating your Biblical illiteracy.

steve said...

"How much clearer do you want it? Peter is singled out among the Apostles."

For him to be "singled" out, he alone would have to be mentioned. That's what "single" means.

"Peter and the others" is plural, not singular. Sorry to have to explain that to you.

Here's an example of somebody being singled out among the apostles:

"He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe" (Jn 19:35).

That would be the beloved Disciple (=John).

"Then when I say that John outran Peter but deferred to him when it came to entering the tomb and being first to witness the resurrection,"

The text doesn't say he deferred to Peter. It's not as if the tomb was so small that only one person could go inside at a time.

"…you said something corny about Peter having such weak faith that he needed to see..."

This is a good example of how your precommitment to Catholicism blinds you to the narrative. Just one chapter later, we have Jesus tell Thomas: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (Jn 20:29).

So the Gospel itself draws that invidious contrast. You shouldn't need to see the empty tomb or the Risen Christ to believe in the Resurrection.

And, of course, most Christians will never be in that position. That's the point.

"In none of the post resurrection witness is anybody but Peter mentioned by name. The Pope's witness to Jesus' resurrection is what counts."

Once again, your Catholicism blinds you to what's staring you in the face. Mary Magdalene is a prominent named witness to the Resurrection, both in John's Gospel and the Synoptics.

"One more thing we haven't discussed; in Galatians it says Paul went up to see the Apostles at Jerusalem but saw only James and 'saw' only Peter. The word of 'saw' when applied to Peter is 'istorei' which means to consult as an oracle."

i) To begin with, you need to distinguish between Classical Greek and Koine Greek. In Classical Greek, the word could mean to interview or make inquiry of.

Even then, it's not a technical term for consulting a fortune-teller. You're committing the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy.

ii) More to the point, Paul is writing in Koine Greek, where the verb means "to visit" or "to make the acquaintance of." That's how it's defined in the standard Greek lexicon of the NT (BDAG 483). That's how it's defined by F. F. Bruce in his commentary on the Greek text of Galatians. Likewise, The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament defines it as "to get acquainted" (2:207). I could cite additional scholarly sources.

You're running out of flashcards.

"By the way, what was that hogwash you tried feeding me when I mentioned that in every list of Apostles, all 12 are in a different sequence. Not important. However, Peter is always first and Judas is always last."

Are you illiterate or forgetful? Did I say the sequence was different? No.

i) I said these are duplicate lists. Do you just lack basic reading comprehension? Is that your problem?

ii) Also, as I noted, your appeal to who is listed first demotes the Virgin Mary, inasmuch as Mary Magdalene is often listed first.

"You are not going to concede anything to Peter."

There's nothing to concede. He was one of the apostles, period.

"What's the point of going any further?"

No one solicited your input in the first place. It's not as if you're doing us a favor.

"The truth is more important than our little egos."

No one is likely to accuse you of having a "little" ego.

steve said...

"And why do we say inspiration ended with the death of John?"

i) Because NT scripture is based on more than inspiration. It combines inspiration with historical knowledge.

Both the OT and the NT are grounded in the principle of historical revelation. Revelation about historical events based on access to firsthand information.

ii) The NT is basically a two-part collection. Part 1 has four books documenting the life of Christ. That's the foundation.

Part 2 has a history of the church, from the Ascension to Paul's house-arrest. It covers the inauguration and establishment of the new convent community.

Within that same timeframe, we also have collections of letters to first-generation Christian churches.

Most of the letters are either by apostles (Peter, Paul, John), sometimes to the churches they personally planted, or stepbrothers of Jesus (James, Jude). There's one anonymous letter (Hebrews) by a second-generation Christian. J. Ramsey Michaels has argued that it might be by Timothy, with a Pauline postscript.

Finally, we have an extended prophecy about the future (Revelation). However, that's anchored in a founder (the Apostle John), with letters directed to churches he oversaw.

So there's a consistent pattern. Staying very close to the historical events and the historical sources. First and second generation Christianity.

iii) That's reinforced by the importance assigned to having access to firsthand information/informants (e.g. Lk 1:1-4; Jn 1:14; 19:35; 21:24; 1 Jn 1:1-4; 1 Cor 15:6; Heb 2:3).

iv) Because the author of Hebrews is not an eyewitness, he combines appeal to historical testimony with supplementary miraculous confirmation (Heb 2:3-4). Already, by the second generation, the direct sources were slipping away. Historical revelation has a chronological cutoff as living memory dies with the observers. That's why it must be committed to writing for posterity.

v) The so-called Apostolic Fathers lack both the inspiration and proximity to the life of Christ to even qualify as canonical authors.

Keep in mind, too, that there's a difference between mere acquaintance or merely hearing someone and detailed historical knowledge.

Children can know their grandparents before they die. That does't mean they know much about their grandparents. They may be too young to remember much or to ask pertinent questions.

Contemporaries of the same generation are in a very different situation than contemporaries three generations apart, where the older generation is on the way out while the younger generation is on the way in. That's very limited exposure. That's hardly comparable to the situation of Mark or Luke.

steve said...

"...when the church in Corinth appealed to Pope Clement to settle a dispute for them."

A few factual corrections are in order:

i) The church of Corinth didn't appeal to Clement. Rather, some deposed Corinthian elders appealed to Clement.

ii) Clement wasn't the "pope," or even the bishop of Rome. Rather, he was a presbyter in the church of Rome.

As Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown notes:

"The structure of one bishop presiding over the presbyters does not seem to have been established in the Roman church much before mid-2d century AD, but anachronistically Clement would be later identified as bishop," An Introduction to the New Testament, 837n9.

steve said...

"Steve, Linus, Cletus, Clement, etc. etc. in every Mass using the Roman Canon."

Which only pushes the question back a step. How do you know that the traditional list is authentic in the first place?

"Historical knowledge? What does that mean?"

It means knowledge of the past. Hope that's not too subtle for you.

"Steve, unless there is an INFALLIBLE authority outside of the Bible, you don't have any way to know what the Bible is."

Guy, unless there's an infallible authority outside the one true church, you don't have any way to know what the one true church is.

Feel free to extricate yourself from the vicious regress of your own logic.

"There were Church councils, presided over by Catholic bishops, ratified by popes, that decided which books stayed and which books didn't."

Your claim is self-refuting. Your appeal to church councils and papal ratification presupposes historical knowledge. Unless knowledge of the past (e.g. church history) is attainable, you don't even know that there were any popes or councils–much less what they said.

So you can't even begin to establish your "infallible authority outside the Bible" without granting the possibility (indeed, actuality) of historical knowledge independent of what it records or attests.

You can't cite your "infallible authority outside the Bible" to validate historical knowledge if your knowledge of your "infallible authority outside the Bible" is contingent on historical knowledge. For unless historical knowledge is already attainable, you can't rely on historical knowledge to access your "infallible authority outside the Bible."

Likewise, you can't use historical knowledge to attest your "infallible authority outside the Bible" if historical knowledge has no independent evidentiary value apart from your "infallible authority outside the Bible."

I notice that when I quote passages like Lk 1:1-4, Jn 1:14, 19:35, 20:31, 21:24, 1 Jn 1:1-4, 1 Cor 15:6, & Heb 2:3 which appeal to testimonial evidence and the sufficiency of their record, you refuse to take them at their word. You respond in defiant disbelief, because it conflicts with your a priori paradigm. That makes you an infidel.

steve said...

As long as PBJ mentions Newman, this would be a good place to make a further observation: one reason no Protestant should believe that Catholicism can be prooftexted from the church fathers is because, from the time of Newman, astute Catholics conceded that that was an exercise in futility. So they resorted to Newman's theory of development. Ratzinger has a striking discussion in his autobiography (Milestones).

steve said...

Guy:

"You didn't check out Richard Whately/Napoleon? It's a clever spoof written by one of you people showing how the accounts of Jesus are historically reliable. Not 'infallible', just reliable. If one doubts the record on Christ, one has no business believing in the existence of Napoleon then or even Barack Obama now."

I wasn't asking for your amateurish summary of Whately. Anyone conversant with historical apologetics is conversant with his satire. It's a defense of testimonial evidence in the face of Hume's attack on miracles.

"My faith on an infallible Church is reasonable, Steve."

Your claim suffers from two fundamental problems:

i) You're trying to bootstrap infallibility from fallibility. All you really have is not an infallible church, but your fallible belief in an infallible church. Your uncertain belief in something certain.

Without a pump, water can't rise above its own level. Probabilities don't yield certainties.

ii) Then there's the problem of your double standard. You justify your Catholicism on (alleged) probabilities, yet you demand apodictic proof from Protestants.

But if (ex hypothesi) you can justifiably believe in Catholicism based on general reliability of testimonial evidence, then so can Protestants.

"Until you concede that PBJ is right on Peter standing out among the 12, lets not talk about Peter."

No one asked for your opinion in the first place. You invited yourself. Your absence will not be missed.

"I don't like being lied to."

Of course you do. That's why you're Catholic. Your faith is built on lies. You ask to be lied to. You pay to be lied to. And you get what you paid for.

steve said...

Guy:

"And don't forget, Judas' 'bishopric'…"

That confuses NT usage with later dogmatic usage. An elementary semantic fallacy.

"I could mention more but I think it is obvious that in the early Church there were sheep and there were shepherds."

You're tilting at windmills. I don't think anyone here denies church office.

"This authority structure was visible. It had to be. An invisible authority cannot guarantee oneness in doctrine and discipline."

Unfortunately for you, apostolic succession depends on something undetectable: right intent–on the part of the officiant and ordinand alike. That's unverifiable.

"Simple logic says that if we cannot trust the Church, we cannot trust her list of books…"

It was never her "list" of books in the first place.

And I'm still waiting for Guy's infallible list of infallible papal pronouncements.

"…or her decrees on the Trinity or even the divinity of Christ."

Guy is an infidel. He explicitly denies what passages like Lk 1:1-4, Jn 20:31, and 1 Jn 1:1-4 explicitly affirm.

"Peter was the head of the Shepherds. He is the one commissioned to feed and shepherd both lambs and sheep. He is the one told by Jesus in Lk22 that he would strengthen the others in times of trial. He is the spokesperson for the 12 and the decision maker."

Guy just makes a string of groundless, tendentious assertions. One of his chronic fallacies is to infer that if something is said of Peter, then it can't be true of anyone else.

For instance, suppose Mt 16 assigns a "foundational" role to Peter, using the rocky metaphor to signify a solid foundation. Even if that's the case, the foundational imagery isn't confined to Peter: "…of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" (Eph 2:19-20).

"Church history says so. Read the Fathers. Peter was to have successors with all the same authority as he had."

Is that what Cyprian said? Is that what Origen said? Is that what Tertullian said?

"Case in point: You and Steve can't agree on what the Bible says on authority in the early Church ( or now obviously )."

Case in point: two successive popes can't agree on Vatican II:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2006/02/from-ratzinger-to-benedict

steve said...

At best, the conclusion of a syllogism is merely valid, not infallible. You're committing a category mistake.

Moreover, the truth of your major and minor premise(s) reduces to your fallible belief in the major and minor premise.

steve said...

Intent is a private psychological state. How does an outsider verify the intent of the officiant or the ordinand? You lack direct access to someone else's mental states.

steve said...

For the sacrament of holy orders to be validly administered, both parties to that transaction must internally intend to do what the church does. In that event, how do you verify each link in the chain of apostolic succession? How do you know what they intended?

"you really do know your mind is to be trusted on decisions of Faith, huh?"

Do you simply lack the mental capacity to understand the question at issue? Is that your problem? As you yourself framed the issue, how do you bridge the hiatus between probability and certainty? Your fallible belief that the church is infallible?

You're not saying anything to close that gap. "Trust" falls short of your destination.

"Oh? Was it the Holy Spirit's list Steve? Yes?"

Try an intertextual "list."

"Then I guess there never was any dispute over the list then, huh?"

A non sequitur.

"Ever hear of a Denziger?"

Are you claiming that Denziger is an infallible source?

"It is only partial as the list is not yet complete as the Spirit hasn't finished 'leading us into all truth.'"

Since you have such difficulty following simple issues, permit me to spell it out for you.

I didn't ask you for a list of (allegedly) infallible papal pronouncements, but an infallible list of (allegedly) infallible papal pronouncements. For unless the list itself infallibly lists the infallible pronouncements, you have no infallible record to distinguish fallible from infallible pronouncements. Get it?

"It is all so clear from the perfectly perspicuous pages of the Bible that there never were any Arians, Nestorians, Mormons, Witnesses, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, etc. etc."

You keep demonstrating your utter contempt for what passages like Lk 1:1-4, Jn 20:31, and 1 Jn 1:1-4 assure the reader. You don't make the slightest effort to reconcile your defiant incredulity with what they claim.

You're just an infidel.

"Steve, if you own a Bible, check out Jn 21:15-17."

Since you lack basic reasoning ability, let me walk you through the process.

You make a claim.

I present a counterargument or counterexample.

At that point it is incumbent on you to either show what's wrong with my counterargument/counterexample or, failing that, to withdraw your original claim.

By contrast, your modus operandi is to repeat the same refuted claims. That doesn't advance your argument. In fact, you lose by default when you fail to rebut counterarguments or counterexamples in response to your initial claims.

Do you understand, or do you need me to take you by hand and walk you through the process a second time?

"Origin and Tertullian were never canonized as saints and some would refuse them the title of 'Church Father' in case you didn't know."

So your appeal to the church fathers is viciously circular. On the one hand you cite the church fathers to prove which church is the true church. On the other hand, you cite the church to prove which father is a true church father.

Or you able to grasp the fallacious nature of your appeal, or do you need me to explain it to you in more excruciating detail? Would pictures help?

steve said...

As usual, your response is hopelessly confused. A sacrament has no intentions. The question at issue is how you determinate the intention of the officiant who administers the sacrament or the ordinand who receives the sacrament. Try again.

"The documents in Denziger's are what are infallible. ( Sheesh! Talk about dumb )."

Given your response, "talk about dumb" is certainly apropos.

Since, by your own admission, Denziger is fallible, you're appealing to a fallible list of (allegedly) infallible documents. But since the source is admittedly fallible, how do you know it correctly sifts fallible from infallible documents? Try again.

"Carrie Grant hair got mussed"

Carrie is a woman's name. Cary is a man's name. Do you not know the difference between men and women?

"No, you pompous blowhard, I demonstrate my mutual contempt for you and your arrogant superiority."

So even though Luke and John say that reading their Gospels is sufficient to give the reader "certainty" about the life of Christ and saving knowledge of his person and work, you don't believe it. You think they are wrong to say that.

"Are you trying to confuse me, Steve?"

I'm afraid I can't take any credit for your confusion. You're utterly confused without any assistance from me.

"Steve, do you want to argue the issues…"

You don't know how to argue issues. You're just a tape-recorder on playback. You have one setting: repeat.

You recite your prerecorded statements. When your statements are refuted, you push rewind button and replay your original statements, ignoring the counterarguments.