Pages

Saturday, October 29, 2022

The Authority Debate Between Jimmy Akin And The Other Paul

You can watch it here. Paul made some good points, but I want to add some points of my own, in response to Jimmy and in response to what came up in the question and answer segment.

Jimmy appealed to the paradigm of scripture, tradition, and magisterium that he claims we see during the time of the apostles. But he acknowledged that Divine revelation started orally during the Old Testament era, without scripture or a magisterium. Furthermore, the forms those oral revelations took varied a lot, and we have no reason to think that everything God revealed during the Old Testament era was infallibly maintained throughout Old Testament history by some sort of equivalent of the Roman Catholic paradigm. To the contrary, revelation was sometimes lost or disregarded on a significant scale (e.g., 2 Kings 22:8-13, Nehemiah 8:13-17). And to the extent that Jimmy had fallible oral communication in mind during the Old Testament era, a Protestant paradigm allows for that in the New Testament era as well. There wasn't a paradigm of scripture, tradition, and magisterium comparable to Roman Catholicism during at least most of the Biblical era.

Even during the time of the apostles, was there an infallible magisterium in any relevant way? Jimmy's appeal to the inclusion of the elders in Acts 15:23 is insufficient. The Other Paul discussed First Clement during the debate, and he brought up the issue of the authorship of that document in the process. First Clement is written in the name of the church of Rome. It doesn't follow that everybody in the Roman church at the time, both leaders and laymen, had equal authority. Similarly, Acts 15:23 could cite the elders who were present without their having the attributes Jimmy assigns to them. We know from other evidence, such as what's discussed here, that the apostles had more authority than non-apostolic elders. The Jerusalem elders mentioned in Acts 15:23 were respected leaders who were worth citing (after the apostles) in that context, but it doesn't follow that they had the role Jimmy assigns to them. Verse 22, like First Clement, even refers to "the whole church", but we don't conclude that the laymen, deacons, etc. involved were acting as an infallible magisterium. Appeals to other passages, like 1 Timothy 3:15, are likewise insufficient for reasons Protestants have discussed many times.

After the apostles died, there was no ongoing new public revelation. And memories of Jesus' oral teaching and the oral teaching of the apostles would fade over time. Jimmy's appeal to the existence of such oral teachings during the time of the apostles is insufficient, since it leaves out other factors that also need to be taken into account. It's expected that people like the apostles will eventually die if Jesus doesn't return first, and it's expected that memories of oral teaching will fade over time. Rather than a Protestant needing to demonstrate that such typical scenarios occurred, people like Jimmy need to demonstrate that something unusual occurred instead, so that there's a Roman Catholic magisterium or some equivalent infallibly maintaining all of the relevant oral and written revelations over time. A Protestant can accept scripture based on the evidence we have for it while rejecting other sources people like Jimmy appeal to, since there's a lack of evidence for those. We arrive at sola scriptura by process of elimination. As The Other Paul mentioned during the debate, somebody like Irenaeus could have good reason to reject sola scriptura (e.g., reliable information about extrabiblical apostolic teaching from Polycarp), but it wouldn't follow that Irenaeus' position is equivalent to Roman Catholicism's (it's not) or that we today are in a situation comparable to that of Irenaeus (we're not).

So, Jimmy's appeal to scripture, tradition, and magisterium fails. The existence of oral teaching from Jesus and the apostles doesn't carry with it the implication that the oral teaching will exist throughout church history in that oral form or any form needed for a Roman Catholic paradigm or any equivalent. And there's no reason to think that a magisterium with the relevant attributes existed.

Near the end of Jimmy's opening statement, he says that there isn't much in the New Testament that addresses the post-apostolic era. But the departure passages I've referred to elsewhere have some relevance here. When Paul and Peter are anticipating their death in 2 Timothy and 2 Peter, for example, they presumably don't know whether every other apostle will also be dead soon. So, how Paul and Peter prepare their audiences for their (Paul and Peter's) death isn't equivalent to preparing them for the post-apostolic age. But it does have some relevance. For one thing, Peter was a Pope under a Roman Catholic scenario, so any apostle who was still alive after Peter's death would have a lesser authority than Peter and his successors. And even though Paul and Peter knew that one or more of the other apostles could outlive them, their own deaths would have underscored the potential for the other apostles to die and the need for preparing for that scenario. Yet, they show no awareness of anything like a papacy or infallible magisterium. The pattern in these passages of referring to sources like past apostolic teaching and scripture without referring to anything like a papacy or infallible magisterium makes more sense under a Protestant paradigm. See my article linked earlier in this paragraph for more details. In addition to the three portions of the New Testament I discuss there (Acts 20, 2 Timothy, 2 Peter), think of the writings of John. He probably wrote in his elderly years, and, like Paul and Peter, he keeps calling on his audience to remember things like apostolic teaching and scripture, but shows no awareness of anything like a papacy or infallible magisterium.

Shortly before the question and answer segment, the issue of the canon came up. Jimmy said that "we must accept it [the canon] from the church". While it's true that the church is involved, that church isn't the Roman Catholic Church, and factors other than the church are involved as well. Early in the debate, Jimmy cited the Didache on the issue of the mode of baptism. And we get some of our information relevant to the canon from the Didache (e.g., its use of gospel material). But we don't know who wrote the document. Even when somebody known to be a church leader wrote something pertaining to the canon, such as Irenaeus or Cyprian, it doesn't follow that what he wrote is equivalent to "the church" in any relevant sense or that his comments are infallible. Our judgments about the canon rely on a large number and variety of sources, including non-Christian ones. The same is true of judgments Catholics make about the Catholic canon (which includes more than what they consider scripture). Just as Protestants accept their canon by means outside their rule of faith, Catholics accept their canon by means outside their rule of faith. We all make decisions about such issues on the basis of what our fallible parents taught us, what our fallible local church leaders told us, our fallible historical research involving fallible Christian and non-Christian sources discussed by and translated by fallible sources, etc. And while Protestants generally agree about a 66-book canon of scripture, Catholics have less agreement among themselves about their canon, which involves more than scripture. For more about issues like these, see my posts here, here, and here, for example. On canonical issues more broadly, go here.

A questioner raised the issue of the problem illiteracy supposedly poses for sola scriptura. But the Catholic rule of faith also involves written sources. A much larger, more complicated, and more controversial collection of them, in fact (a larger canon of scripture, conciliar documents, papal decrees, etc.). And there are many issues the individual Catholic has to sort through apart from judging written sources. Even if a local priest or bishop tells an illiterate Catholic layman what their denomination teaches, that priest or bishop isn't infallible by Catholic standards. And how does the layman know that he should be a Catholic to begin with? We all have to rely on individual judgment, including judgments about written sources. Illiteracy is a disadvantage in many contexts in life, including for Catholics. The illiterate Catholic would have some advantages over the illiterate Protestant under a Catholic paradigm (e.g., the church using more modern language in its infallible teachings), but would be at a disadvantage in other contexts (e.g., having to sort through a larger number of potential and actual infallible sources, including written ones).

Jimmy claimed that sola scriptura wasn't even "thinkable" and wasn't articulated until the invention of the printing press in the 1400s. See my recent posts about the Lollards, especially the one here, for some counterexamples. Some of the Lollards held to sola scriptura or something significantly similar and did so prior to the invention or popularizing of the printing press. See here regarding a Catholic scholar making similar comments about pre-Reformation sources on a broadcast produced by Catholic Answers, an organization Jimmy works for. And sola scriptura is found in sources prior to the Lollards. Even if a Catholic would deny that such sources actually had sola scriptura in mind, there would have to be a further argument that the view in question is significantly different than sola scriptura. For example, Tertullian wrote, "for the faith of some, either too simple or too scrupulous, demands direct authority from Scripture for giving up the shows, and holds out that the matter is a doubtful one, because such abstinence is not clearly and in words imposed upon God's servants." (The Shows, 3) Why should we believe that sola scriptura wasn't even "thinkable" to people like those Tertullian referred to? If you not only demand scriptural warrant for a view, but even demand that it be "clearly" there (and I agree with Tertullian that it's unreasonable to make that demand), then sola scriptura is either on your mind or well within reach (thinkable).

6 comments:

  1. We can even see that varying interpretations of the decrees of the Jerusalem council are going on in the apostolic era. For example, the Jerusalem council definitely says (even citing the Holy Spirit as their source!) that Gentiles may not eat meat offered to idols. This suggests a very rigorist approach to that issue, to put it mildly. But in I Cor. Paul softens this by saying that they can eat whatever they buy in the market without worrying where it came from. And the same for food set before them at a meal that merely may be offered to idols. He adds that they should not eat meat that they are *told* has been offered to idols, lest this harm the other person's conscience. So he basically institutes a don't ask don't tell policy on meat offered to idols. Which, to put it mildly, might have bothered people who crafted the council's decree. Paul could say that he is interpreting the council's decree, but that just reinforces the somewhat Protestant paradigm. (And he doesn't cite the council's decree on this or any other matter in *any* of his epistles.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I literally laughed out loud when Akin said at 24:57 "...Which only goes to show you that not everybody listens to what the Pope says..." Surely Akin knows that's an evidential chip (no matter how small) in favor of the Papacy not being Apostolic. But he phrased his overall statement in a way to anticipate that objection.

    In the debate Akin astutely asked (and repeatedly) for Biblical evidence for when a switch was to happen at the death of the last Apostle. But that presupposes a view of a magisterium that didn't exist either in the OT eras or NT era. OT and NT leadership was more fragmented than that. Often the faithful remnant was the minority rather than the majority among Israelites. Often going against the majority that had the appearance of being (more) authoritative (e.g. appearing magisterium-like). Even when "unified" to some degree, often they were disobedient to Yahweh or worshipped false gods in place of or in conjunction with Yahweh. During OT times prophets would sometimes arise to correct the "magisterium" in their wayward doctrine and/or practice. During the NT, the Jews were also splintered into various groups (e.g. Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc.). John the Baptist would be like an OT prophet (in fact the last OT Prophet according to Christ) who helped the nation correct their course. The switch Akin is asking for is found in the fact that with the death of the last Apostle, there would be no more representatives of Christ with full Prophetic/Apostolic inspired and infallible authority to correct a "magisterium" when it makes errors in doctrine or practice.

    In the OT King Hezekiah (possibly with the theological advice of faithful believers or even prophets) destroyed the Nehushtan which some Jews were idolatrously worshipping. Jews who probably 'inherited' the object and (possibly? probably?) claimed to be following practices that was faithfully passed down to them from the time of its initial creation. Again suggesting a fracture in Jewish leadership with some being faithful and others unfaithful in varying degrees. With competing "magisteriums" (so to speak) needing to be judged by the already established Revelation. The necessity of the Reforms of Samuel, Hezekiah and Josiah [et al.] shows that the true worship of Yahweh can easily and quickly devolve to idolatry and disobedience among the people of God. Even to the point of the Jewish leaders [out of disobedience and hardness of heart] failing to recognize the Messiah, and even condemning Him to death.

    CONTINUED BELOW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This leads to the the other fact that undermines Akin's paradigm. Yes, it's true that revelation was first given in verbal form and then passed on orally. But ever since the time of Moses, when Revelation started to be officially inscripturated, the then (so far) established written Revelation took precedence over all other further alleged revelation (whether direct verbal, orally transmitted, written, angelic, visionary, oneiric). That is, over less established or not yet established revelation. Established over yet to be established; written over non-written; and established non-written over yet to be established non-written. As an example, we can see this in the case of the man of God and the old prophet in 1 Kings 13. The man of God was sent by Yahweh to deliver a message to Jeroboam and was told by God not to eat bread or drink water in that place or return by the same way he got there. Yet, an old prophet tested the younger man of God's obedience and told him that an angel of God said to him [i.e. the old prophet] to tell the man of God that it was okay for him to eat and drink. The man of God disobeyed the previous Revelation he was given [and of which he was certain was from Yahweh] by eating and drinking, and he was eventually slain by God as a judicial punishment. He should have known to test the later alleged revelation [even from a previously reliable prophet] by an earlier certain Revelation. He failed to do that and suffered for it. We also see here that even previously reliable authorities [even prophets] can be mistaken or even LIE. Why a prophet would lie like that to another man of God seems cruel, but the man of God should have know better than to think that Yahweh could contradict Himself. Thus, real/genuine authorities, even ones that have been previously reliable, can be mistaken or even mendacious. Being Authoritative or an Authority doesn't necessarily entail infallibility. That's what Akin seems to miss. The Garden of Eden was the first place & time when verbal Revelation was given and Eve received it orally from Adam. Yet, she too added to the Revelation by thinking it was also forbidden for the couple to touch the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge.

      The Other Paul's [ or "TOP's"] position seems unstable to me. There's no guarantee that early orally transmitted teaching is Apostolic. And even if it comes from an (or multiple) apostle(s) doesn't entail that it's binding. For example, Sunday worship observance is plausibly Apostolic, yet I don't think it's binding [as per Rom. 14:5-6; Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16-17]. It's a useful and practical tradition, but not a binding one. Another possible example would be the phraseology of baptismal regeneration. It might be Apostolic, but the ontological understanding of that phraseology that was later expressed (and developed) might not be Apostolic. Same thing goes for phraseology of a "Real Presence." The ontological understanding of a "real presence" that's more explicit in later fathers might not be what the earliest fathers or even the Apostles and their contemporaries meant when they used such phraseology. Also, what of OT Jewish oral traditions of revelation? Where are they in the Christian tradition? Why haven't they been passed on TO and preserved BY the Christian church? One would think they would be if oral tradition was an assured way to pass on genuine revelation.

      Delete
    2. typo correction: "(e.g. appearing magisterium-like)" It should be "i.e." and "e.g."

      Delete
    3. I should have also said and included that during times when fully inspired and inerrant public revelation was being given, non-written established revelation was over (i.e. took precedence over) not yet established written revelation. For example, an unwritten revelation given through Paul would take precedence over the recently written Gospel of Luke (which may have taken time for it to be recognized by the church or authorized by an apostle as being canonical). In that [short?] interim, Paul's unwritten revelations would sit in judgment over the newly written Gospel.

      Delete
  3. Akin was attempting to demonstrate that the Protestant paradigm is a theological novum when he repeatedly asked for Biblical evidence that there would be a shift after the death of the last Apostle. But in actuality, it's his position that's novel. In ALL TIMES PAST infallibility went hand-in-hand with fully inspired Revelation. Yet, it's the Catholic paradigm that's ALL OF A SUDDEN claiming infallibility can be had [and exist in a magisterium] apart from fully inspired and inerrant Revelation. That didn't exist previously [OT or NT].

    There were Apostles with full Apostolic prerogatives during the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. That's not the case with any other extra-Biblical councils afterwards. Citing the fact that there were elders along with the Apostles during the Jerusalem Council does nothing to prove that further councils would be infallible apart from the Apostles. If parents said to their children, "Let's go buy some pizzas," it might be true that the children were involved (e.g. they carried the pizza boxes). But who really purchased the pizzas with their credit card and drove the car to and from the pizzeria? Who had the final authority that they would eat pizza instead of Halloween candy for dinner? It was the parents.

    "Ecumenical Councils" don't seem to have any special infallibility attached to them.
    One of the iconoclast councils would have become an ecumenical council but for political reasons didn't. “Constantine V. …called an iconoclastic council in Constantinople in 754, which was to be the seventh oecumenical council, but was afterwards disowned as a pseudo-synod of heretics.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Volume 4, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006, p. 457.)

    Yet much earlier, in the 4th century the Council of Elvira rejected the use of images. Epiphanius of Salamis may have rejected the use icons [though some dispute it]. Eusebius of Caesarea's antagonism towards icons is well known. In Eusebius’ letter to Constantia Augusta, he rebukes her for asking him to send a certain likeness of Christ that she heard rumors about. He spoke strongly against the use of such representations on the grounds that it tends toward idolatry.

    Which should take precedence? An earlier local council that seems to take a theological stance that's more universal at the time, or a much later allegedly "ecumenical" council that's more controversial but has more fallible humans attending it? And who determines which councils are "ecumenical"? And why assume they are infallible? Roman Catholics think there have been at least 21 ecumenical councils [including the original 7], while the Eastern Orthodox generally think there have only been 7. The Assyrian Church of the East does not accept doctrinal definitions that were adopted at the Council of Ephesus (431) and the Council of Chalcedon (451), and still adheres to the Church of the East's traditional Christology, that is often labeled as "Nestorian." The Oriental Orthodox Churches don't accept the doctrinal definitions of the Council of Chalcedon. And so, the paradigm of alleged infallible (Post-Apostolic) Ecumenical Councils don't do the work that they supposedly can. They don't necessarily arrive at more certainty and unanimity than the Protestant paradigm.

    ReplyDelete