Nick Needham on Roman Catholicism Today 4: The Nouvelle Theologie Opens the Door to Modernism

Here are links to the first three parts of this series:

Nick Needham on Roman Catholicism Today, Part 1: “New Territory” (6:50)
Nick Needham on Roman Catholicism Today, Part 2: “The Advent of Modernism” (15:55)
Nick Needham on Roman Catholicism Today, Part 3: “John Henry Newman” (21:42)

Again, I’m continuing to post these, even though the audio version is available, because not everyone will have an hour to listen to it. (There are links to the audio and an outline in the first part of this series.) Needham’s lecture provides an excellent overview of the way that Roman Catholicism adopted liberalism into the heart of its structures at Vatican II.

Now Newman didn’t write his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine to justify modernism, but his ideas on how Christianity has changed and developed through the centuries were eventually to give comfort and inspiration to those Roman Catholics who wanted to reject the rigid theology of neo-Thomism, and instead promote modernist thinking. If Newman was right, and Christian doctrine had undergone this long process of development, then why should the church canonize the doctrine of one limited time period, the time of Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century? Could things not develop still further? Could modernist thinking not be the development needed to meet the challenges of the 19th and 20th centuries? (21:42)

Now the official condemnation of modernism, by Pope Pius X in 1907, and the entrenchment of neo-Thomism in the official theological training of Roman Catholic priests, did not entirely halt the spread of modernist ideas. And after the first World War, a new generation of Roman Catholic thinkers emerged, who began to grapple again with the same sorts of ideas which had been condemned in 1907. Among this new generation, outstanding figures included the German theologian Karl Rahner (1904-1984), the Swiss Hans Us von Balthasar (1905-1988), and the French thinker, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), Henri de Lubac (1896-1991), and Yves Congar (1904-1995). (22:46)

The activities of such men gave rise to a broad school of thought known as the nouvelle theologie, “the new theology”. The movement is also known as ressourcement, which has the idea of “going back to the original sources and making them live again”, the sources being the Bible and the early church fathers. In fact, ressourcement was the name preferred by the practitioners of this school of thought. It was their neo-Thomist enemies who called it nouvelle theologie, “new theology”, meaning a novel, unheard-of theology, an invention never before seen. But nouvelle theologie was the name that stuck. (23:35)

Now the goal of these theologians was a reformation of the whole approach to theology in Roman Catholicism. In particular, they questioned three things:

1. the reigning orthodoxy of neo-Thomist scholastic theology;
2. the negative, defensive attitude of their religious communion toward modern civilization; and
3. its negative, defensive attitude towards other faiths, including both other forms of Christianity, and non-Christian religions. (24:14)

The nouvelle theologie thinkers tried to correct these errors, as they considered them, by exposing Roman Catholic theology to the liberating influences of the Bible and the early church fathers. However, what this often really meant, it must be said, was, the Bible, and the fathers, as interpreted by the nouvelle theologie. Together with this, they also advocated and practiced a broad openness to dialogue with the modern world, especially on matters of religion. Other aspects of the nouvelle theologie were a fresh interest in art, literature, and mysticism. (24:57)

Essentially, what the nouvelle theologie was seeking to do was free Roman Catholics from the strait jacket of neo-Thomist orthodoxy by making all theology relative rather than absolute. The Truth revealed by God, they argued, was not a set of ideas, but a person, Jesus Christ. Ideas were a human response to Christ, and these ideas were always inadequate, always caught up in the flocks of time and culture. There were different theologies held by different people at different times in the rich, diverse history of the church. Therefore, no one single theology, such as Thomism, could be canonized, and made absolute. (25:50)

Rather, theologians ought to engage with the different historical varieties of theology, and find tools there to construct a positive response to present-day challenges. Well, here were many of the themes of late 19th century modernism, in a new dress. This criticism was expressed in the encyclical, Humani Generis, of Pope Pius XII, issued in 1950. (26:20)

However, as Reformed theologian David Wells said, the encyclical was so mild its wording, it can hardly even be seen as a rebuke. The work of the new theologians was not imperiled, still less consigned to the graveyard of heresy. After a further decade of study, their conclusions seemed sufficiently safe and fruitful to be given papal approval. (26:48)

The opportunity for the nouvelle theologie to change the official face of Roman Catholicism came with the election of a new pope on October 28, 1958. His personal name was Angelo Guiseppe Roncalli. He took the papal name John XXIII. Unlike his predecessor, Pius XII, the new pope, although already an old man, was susceptible to the modernizing agenda of the nouvelle theologie. (27:20)

Sense & sensibility

Former Christian turned atheist Byron said:

All we have to determine truth about the external world in a naturalistic perspective are the five physical senses and our ability to reason. Our five senses along with our reason cannot operate perfectly, or without limitation, yet this does not invalidate their use in ordinary life, and for the pursuit of science. And this is where group accountability comes in, because on more important matters, we make reference not only to our own ability to gather and analyze data, but also to others collectively, whose agreement in oversight lends our own views some additional authority. It is not a mistake, therefore to ask for some material proof or evidence to consider objectively, especially such as can be reviewed analytically and critiqued by multiple observers.

Because God is by the definition I learned omniscient and omnipotent, God is also fully knowledgeable and capable of presenting sufficient and overwhelming evidence to convince all those He targets to do so, at least in the material world. It is not an unreasonable expectation, at least in the context of naturalism, to expect such a divine response if God truly wishes for one to believe. Although God is also by definition supernatural, then the reasonable expectation of believers is that God would prefer supernatural as opposed to natural means to reveal Himself.

If God operates in the supernatural realm alone, then I cannot place any limits or bound His operation by any desires I have, especially in seeking revelation of Himself. So unless God chooses to reveal Himself supernaturally or naturally (I suspect you could say the Scriptural revelations are combinations of both) to the believer, then God cannot be known. I also cannot deny the charge of Romans 1 if that is the case, because God has left behind some evidence in nature of His supernatural existence and operation. But the problem with that is, I cannot be shown by the material senses and reason that a supernatural realm even exists in the first place, let alone constitutes a superior reality as a frame of reference. So I feel that any accusation of moral failure for failing to perceive such is ultimately unjustified.

1. If it's true our senses are normally too unreliable (e.g. if Plantinga's EAAN is true), then I don't see how it will help if we have a group of individuals in a concerted effort to find the truth with their likewise faulty senses. I don't see how you justify the leap. It'd be like the blind leading the blind, wouldn't it?

2. As an aside, we have more than five senses. For instance, there's proprioception, nociception, thermoception, and equilibrioception (which is technically more than one sense), among others.

3. Just because we can't sense God with our normal senses doesn't mean we can never sense God.

a. For one thing, God could bypass our senses and communicate directly with our minds.

b. Also, we can sense God through sensing other things with our senses. For example, we cannot directly sense time with our senses. There is no physical organ responsible for sensing time itself in the same way there are physical organs responsible for sight, smell, taste, etc. However, we can still sense the passage of time through what we see and hear, from whence we can infer its existence.

4. On a related note, how do we know you're a person, Byron? Perhaps you're a cleverly designed android which perfectly mimics a human being. Far better than the mechas in A.I., the replicants in Blade Runner, Cameron in The Sarah Connor Chronicles, or the skin job cylons in the new BSG. We can sense your corporeal properties, but we can't directly sense your mind or consciousness. Since we can't sense such hallmarks of personhood, could we therefore justifiably assert you are not a person?

5. You say you don't believe in God because you can't sense him. But this argument is a double-edged sword. Some people say they do believe in God because they can sense him. As such, the arguments would seem to cancel one another out.

That said, the fact that you can't sense God isn't epistemically on equal footing with the fact that someone else can sense God since sensing God is a positive form of evidence for his existence while the inability to sense God is neutral on the existence or nonexistence of God.

D-Day for Dawkins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqr73wbIajc&feature=player_embedded

I got to see my first bone marrow biopsy tonight.

Tonight I got to witness my first bone marrow biopsy. My wife has been in the hospital for the last three days; her hemoglobin (?) was 5.7, and it was supposed to be 12. They called that number "critical". They gave her three or four pints of blood, just to "stabilize" her. And tonight, she had the biopsy.

Hard to believe how big that needle is. Just a local anesthetic. Maybe the adrenalin helped perk her up, because she was feeling a good bit better after the procedure.

The doctor thinks it was just some kind of viral infection.

Crossing over into camp ground

This post grows out of some correspondence I had with a couple of friends.

Traditionally, both amils and dispies have a fairly otherworldly eschatology. The final state is “heaven.”

To my knowledge, the dispy concern with the land is confined to Eretz Israel: the land-promises given to Abraham and his posterity. And that’s also confined to the Millennium. So it’s narrowly confined in time and space alike. 

But, ironically, that’s too narrow. To some extent, both time and space figure in our human identity. Where we grow up (“the land”) has a shaping effect on who we are. Territorial distinctives are part of what make people a people-group. It conditions group psychology. Accounts, in part, for regional and national characteristics. Land and culture often go together. This is underemphasize in traditional eschatology.

Of course, the Bible also has a pilgrim motif. Where God’s people are drifters and wayfarers. Refugees and exiles.

That, however, is viewed as an unnatural state. A deprivation. Something which the final state will remedy.

The Papacy is Fundamentally Dishonest

One of the things I like about this work, “How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church?”, is that it’s a “snapshot” of the current discussion going on in the “high-level discussions” that are taking place in conjunction with “official” Rome. It’s real-life; major theologians are discussing real issues as they really are.

This work itself is described as preliminary, but the “ecumenical discussion” has continued to meet on a regular basis, and it is noted in the preface that another “dialogue document will be published with their conclusions in the near future.”

Keep in mind that these are theologians, not “the official magisterium,” and so, we are likely to see some suggestions here that won’t be adopted.

But in that regard, it’s interesting to note the things that are agreed upon, at “high levels”, and the things that are still open for discussion.

I’ve been chastised for relying on the work of various scholars – the name Peter Lampe comes to mind, but Eamon Duffy, Raymond Brown, and “liberal” scholars (especially “liberal” Roman Catholic scholars). But I’ve already cited both a Roman Catholic insider Archbishop and a Lutheran scholar saying things that I’ve said for years. “The East never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West.” There are “clear historical gaps” in the “unbroken succession” language claims of various Roman doctrinal statements. These things should no longer be in question, even for the most “enthusiastic” Roman supporters. Stories of an “sacramental priesthood” going back to Christ and the New Testament are just that – stories. Fiction. Fantasy. Make-believe. Those Roman Catholics among you who have “gone home” because of these stories need to rethink your motives.

Further, John P. Meier, a leading Catholic Biblical scholar, makes the statement, “A papacy that cannot give a credible historical account of its own origins can hardly hope to be a catalyst for unity among divided Christians.” So the implication is that, until this point, the papacy has not given a “credible historical account of its own origins.” I’ve been saying that as well.

One wants to ask, yet again, why is the infallible church in a position, after many centuries, not yet in a position to “give a credible historical account of its own origins.” The accounts that it has given are “not credible.” Not believable. Wrong. Fabrications.


“The Historical Facts Are Not Disputed”
And Herman Pottmeyer, another individual who’s been involved in these discussions for years, noted, “Anyone who wishes to come to an understanding of the papal ministry cannot avoid dealing with the history of this ministry. The historical facts are not disputed, but their theological evaluation is contentious.”

For me, there is a sense of vindication from this. Rome has been floundering over this topic. But really now, there was not a “bishop of Rome” until late in the second century. And the Eastern Orthodox never did accept the Roman understanding of the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Those items are now “not disputed”.

On the other hand, this work gives the appearance of a kissy-faced love-fest. The fix is in.

The discussions are being held at a virtual resort center, the International Bridgettine Centre in Farfa Sabina, “located in the idyllic village of Farfa in the Mountains of Sabina, surrounded by forest clad hills, vineyards and olive groves – around one hour’s drive northeast of Rome and a similar distance from Fiumicino Airport. It is housed in buildings that are part of a massive complex that since early medieval times formed part of an important Benedictine monastery that for centuries was one of the most important monastic centres of Western history.”

So it’s a resort. Rome is wining and dining these individuals, with the hope of persuading them to “see things our way”.

The real work of this effort is the “theological evaluation” that is going on. They are talking about a “re-reception” of Vatican I. The “maximalist” interpretations of Vatican I are clearly what’s causing the ecumenical angst. Could not Vatican I be “re-interpreted” according to a hermeneutical principle that is not so offensive to our Orthodox and Protestant colleagues?

What they are doing here, is throwing out the conscious understanding of 1000 years or more of papacy. It is being “re-received”. Whatever that means.

Let’s do a thought experiment. When I say “ the historic papacy,” what do you think of? The papacy of the middle ages? Pope Leo I, with Roman Law underpinning his supposed authority? The Donation of Constantine or the “Pseudo-Isidorian falsifications of the eighth century”? Gregory VII (Hildebrand) and his dictatus papae – “the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness” – Boniface VII and his – “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”? The Great Schism? The Borgias and their bribery, nepotism? Vatican I, “perpetual successors”, “constant custom” and papal infallibility ex cathedra?

No, it’s time to throw all of that out. No apologies, just winks and nods all around. Have another glass of wine, my friend. It’s time to have a “re-reception” of Vatican I. Certain “maximalist” “interpretations” that “held sway” for 15 centuries really were mistaken. Not only is the history mistaken, but the theology of it, too, was misunderstood. Wrong. Fabrications.

We need to “find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission.” We’ve never exercised it properly. We don’t yet know what’s “essential to its mission.” We need to have ecumenical symposia to find these things.

What we are seeing is the new modus operandi of Rome as described by Raymond Brown: “Past statements are not rejected but are requoted with praise and then reinterpreted at the same time.”

Once more with gusto: “Let’s get it right this time guys.”

Gravitas of gravidas

A few articles on abortion for your perusal:

• "The Wrong of Abortion" (PDF) by Patrick Lee and Robert George.
  
  
• "Acorns and Embryos" by Patrick Lee and Robert George.
  
  
• "The Stubborn Facts of Science" by Patrick Lee and Robert George.
  
  
• "Embryology: Inconvenient Facts" by William Saunders, Jr.

A fallible collection of fallible books

Catholic epologists are fond of quoting John Gerstner’s adage, popularized by his famous protégé, R. C. Sproul, that the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. Catholic epologists then contrast this with the alleged Catholic alternative:

The Catholic canon of Scripture is an infallible collection of infallible books.

But there are two basic problems with that alternative:

i) Gerstner’s formulation overlooks the degree of cross-attestation in Scripture. Hence, to say the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books is a deeply misleading statement.

ii) Conversely, the Catholic alternative is a false dichotomy, for what the church of Rome actually gives us is not an infallible collection of infallible books. Rather, it gives us a fallible collection of fallible books.

a) Since Trent was not actually infallible, the Tridentine canon is not infallible. Indeed, it’s not even inerrant. Rather, it’s both fallible and errant.

b) Moreover, the apocrypha are not infallible. Rather, they are both fallible and errant.

c) Furthermore, even if we bracket the apocrypha, Vatican II gave up on the plenary inspiration of Scripture. In fact, this generates a paradoxical dilemma:

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Trent and Vatican II were both infallible, what they give us is, at best, an infallible collection of fallible books! 

God's canon

John Hendryx, of Monergism.com, has published a free, downloadable ebook of my collected essays on the canon of Scripture. You can find it here:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/free-ebooks.html 

Discovering Jesus - Review

Discovering Jesus: Why Four Gospels to Portray One Person? by T. D. Alexander
Reviewed by Paul Manata

Discovering Jesus: Why Four Gospels to Portray One Person?, T. D. Alexander, Crossway, 2010, 141 pages.

In this helpful book - which manages to package an ambitious goal with a wide scope in a slim package - T. Desmond Alexander, the regarded biblical theology scholar, presents the one Jesus introduced in four different Gospels. This book would be most helpful for a new or young Christian or someone undertaking their first study of the Gospels. I believe that after reading this book one will be better prepared to approach the Gospels and understand the basic message of each. Discovering Jesus gives the reader a couple of main themes each Gospel employes and that appear to drive or motivate the Jesus presented in that Gospel. These themes are based on history, though, and are not theological "agendas" produced by the early church to gain the upper-hand in an early battle for religious power. However, all of this is done in a very introductory manner, making it ideal for the beginning Christian or Bible student (though no doubt more well-read students of the Bible could stand to profit from some of the insights). Here's a short overview of the book

Chapter one gives a brief overview of the Gospels. Briefly, similarities and differences between the synoptic gospels are presented — often aided by helpful charts and images — and then John's Gospel and its differences with all the synoptics is covered. The conclusion is that the Gospels all share the same goal — to present the good news of Jesus Christ, and while they do so with different perspectives, these perspectives are also complementary, all combining to give as a well-rounded picture of the most unique individual who has ever lived.

Capter two presents common themes in the Gospels, these are: (1) fulfillment on Scripture, (2) the kingdom of God, (3) hostility, (4) centrality of the passions, (5) salvation and the gentiles, and (6) the importance of faith. These themes are seen to greater or lesser extent in each Gospel, but some authors focus more heavily on some than others. Probably the most important or central theme is (4), which is why the Gospels have sometimes been referred to as "passion narratives with extended introductions."

Chapter three and four focus on Mark's gospel. In approaching Mark, Alexander ever-so-briefly covers introductory issues like authorship and dating. He then presents some of the main themes that can be distilled from Mark. He finds that Mark focuses heavily on the theme of "Jesus as the son of God who suffers to ransom others," and secondly the notion of discipleship, which is tied together with the first theme in that disciples follow Jesus in the way of the cross.

Chapter five and six focus on Matthew's gospel. He offers the same kinds of introductory remarks on authorship and dating as he did with Mark and then looks at key Matthean themes. The first theme is the theme of conflict. He notes Matthew is keen to point this out and especially focuses on the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leadership, which is interesting since Matthew's is the most "Jewish" of the Gospels. The second theme, in keeping with the Jewishness of the Gospel, is the idea that Jesus is King, a King who descended from David. Jesus is the son of David, the divinely promised Messiah who inaugurates the kingdom of heaven.

Chapters seven and eight turn to Luke's Gospel. As with the above, similar introductory remarks are made. After these comments, Alexander turns to the first major theme found in Luke, i.e., the Holy Spirit. He points out how Luke is especially interested in the Holy Spirit, more so than the other Gospels. A second theme pointed out in the Holy Spirit chapter is that of prayer. The next chapter looks at Luke's theme of Jesus as the one who comes to seek and save the lost. Alexander points out how Luke addresses this notion of "finding the lost" more than the other evangelists. Salvation is a major factor, especially the salvation of those of a lowly social status as well as gentiles. Luke presents Jesus as the savior of the world to seek the lost. The last chapter briefly ends with the theme of joy and happiness, the appropriate reaction of those who have been saved.

Chapters nine and ten approach the final Gospel, John's. Similar introductory comments on authorship, dating, and structure are made. The first theme is that of believing (though John's Gospel is "too rich" to really find themes to encapsulate his ideas). He notes John clearly encourages and wants his readers to believe, "psiteuo" (to believe) occurs ninety-eight times, over 1/4 of all occurrences in the New Testament. The next theme is that of the new exodus. Alexander describes how John seeks to make comparisons between Jesus and the book of Exodus. There are several similarities here, from the "signs" intended to induce belief, to the "I am" statements, to the passover, and to the leading of the covenant people out of slavery and into new life. So jesus is presented as the Lamb of God who brings eternal life through a new exodus.

Chapter eleven briefly looks at the composition of the Gospels, covering the "synoptic problem," i.e., how do we account for the similarity between them, which Gospel has priority, and Alexander seems to come down on the side of Markan priority. Alexander then turns to different ideas about the Gospels, whether they are biographies, proclamations, distinctive theologies, or stories. While these views have their problems, especially the last three, there is some truth to all of them. However, the main thing to keep in mind is that history underwrites the story. The good news is rooted in history, and unintelligible apart from it.

The last chapter (twelve) is a review and final observations. The final observations are to grasp the full significance and weight of words like "Jesus is Lord and savior," and to recognize that Jesus is more than a mere man, he's the God-man, "the most unique and incredible 'man' who ever lived and continues to live."

Alexander also includes a helpful biography for "further reading" so that you can take the basic foundation he's laid and expand on it.

All-in-all, this is a helpful book. It is introductory, and several issues are not discussed, or if they are, only briefly. Issues such as seeming "contradictions" or "inconsistencies" between the gospels are not even mentioned, though one might get the idea that they would be given the topic of the book and prior knowledge of questions that are asked of the "differing Gospels." Thus this book isn't very helpful for apologetic issues, though there may be some slight relevance to those discussions to be found, but those issues are really too minimally covered. If this is kept in mind and expectations are in-line with the topic of the book — finding key themes of the Gospels — readers, especially beginning students, should profit from this little book. It can inaugurate or give direction to your studies of Jesus. As Darrell Bock says on the back cover, "Discovering Jesus will get you well-oriented and open up a lifetime of reflection about Jesus."

Foreknowing ≠ Controlling, So Foreknowledge isn't a Threat to Freedom

The title encapsulates one objection to the idea that God's foreknowledge rules out human libertarian freedom. When Arminians make the claim that Calvinism's God rules out human freedom, one response is to point out that if the Arminian wishes to maintain classical Christianity's teaching that God foreknows the future actions of his human creatures, this likewise rules out freedom.

One popular response is to sidestep the objection with the enthymematic zinger, "Just because God foreknows that X doesn't mean he causes or controls that X." The SEA explains the comeback as good as any when they write, "Simply knowing for sure that a person will freely do something is not enough for God to control the world. This is because foreknowledge of an event does not imply direct influence or omnicausality or absolute determination, but merely knows what other wills are doing. In other words, foreknowledge doesn't mean absolute determination."

This response utterly misses the point. This post aims to put it to rest, hoping that it doesn't pop up in Calvinist comboxes anymore. The first issue, as Edwards said so long ago, is that the foreknowledge argument isn't intended to make the point that foreknowledge makes future human actions necessary, it is intended to show that they are. The second issue is this: freedom crucially rests on the notion of control. It seems intuitive that if you are not in control of your actions, then you are not free. Theological compatibilists (those who believe libertarian free will is compatible with God's foreknowledge) seem to think that the only way you can not be in control of your actions is if someone or something else controls you. Thus, they reason (as we saw above) that since God's foreknowledge doesn't "control" humans, then the foreknowledge argument doesn't show that humans don't have libertarian freedom. But this is to assume that the only way to lack control is if someone or something else controls you. However, this isn't so. Consider the case of being out of control. This could occur even, or especially (!), in a totally random, accidental world. In this case, nothing outside you would be controlling you; however, you would be out of control. The foreknowledge argument intends to show that your future actions are out of your control. This doesn't logically imply that foreknowledge argument is trying to show that your actions are controlled. See the difference? And the only thing the theological fatalist (as the position is known in the literature) needs to rule out libertarian freedom is that you not be in ultimate control of your actions. This can occur whether or not your actions are controlled by another person or thing.

Can we move on now?

John Reumann best states the problem

The Farfa Project
“The Petrine ministry has been at the center of the modern ecumenical discussion, for it concerns the very question of the unity of the church. The International Bridgettine Centre in Farfa Sabina has seriously undertaken a study of the theological, historical, and dogmatic issues that underlie the issues of Christian unity dealing with the role of unity as exercised by the Bishop of Rome.

“This current work represents only part of the work that the Centre has been engaged in during these past ten years. The texts published in this volume give a ‘snapshot’ of the situation when they were presented during the series of colloquia, study groups, and consultations that have taken place. Therefore there has been no attempt to update the bibliographical information. It is important to note that the work is still ‘a work-in-progress.’”.

This is from the Preface of How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? James F. Puglisi, Editor, Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ©2010, pgs. 49-78.

It is a work described as “twenty-one forward-looking essays on the papal office by an assortment of theologians, canonists, ecumenists, ecclesiologists, sociologists, and Scripture experts from diverse backgrounds, including Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, and Reformed [review here]. They examine the conditions under which the papacy might one day be re-received by Christian church bodies worldwide—not as an autocratic monarchy, but, rather, as the unifying agency for a diverse yet cohesive universal church” (from the Back Cover).

John Reumann, the Ministerium of Pennsylvania Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Greek at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia (LTSP), defines the problem as well as any that I’ve seen:

Biblical and patristic studies make clear that historically a gap occurs at the point where it has been claimed “the apostles were careful to appoint successors in” what is called “this hierarchically constituted society,” specifically “those who were made bishops by the apostles . . .,” an episcopate with an “unbroken succession going back to the beginning.” [64] For that, evidence is lacking, quite apart from the problem that the monepiscopacy replaced presbyterial governance in Rome only in the mid-or late second century.[65] It has been noted above how recent treatments conclude that in the New Testament no successor for Peter is indicated.

They not only “suggest” or “posit that” “no successor for Peter is indicated”, but rather, they “conclude” this. The footnotes clarify:

64. Lumen gentium 20 (Flannery trans., Vatican Council II [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1975], pp. 371-372; Abbot trans., Documents of Vatican II [New York: Guild Press, America Press, Association Press], pp. 39-40, “the episcopate in a sequence running back to the beginning”). Cited are Iren. Adv. Haer. 3,3,1 = PG 7:848; Tertullian, Praescr. Haer. 32 = PL 2:52f., and Ignatius of Antioch passim.

65. Gnilka 2002, p. 225. Ignatius had no “succession; bishop and presbyter correspond to Christ and apostles, not successors to the apostles (p. 223); the “succession lists” in Rome were of presbyters and bishops (pp. 242-50). (Referring to Gnilka, Joachim. Petrus und Rom. Das Petrusbild in den ersten zwei Jahrhunderten. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 2002).

In short, there is a basic conflict between the actual history of the period, and what is claimed in official dogmatic statements of Vatican II. (Much less the discrepancies with Vatican I). This is a major difficulty and embarrassment for the “infallible Magisterium”. I am grateful that it is being discussed publicly, by major theologians.

This work is described as “a rare glimpse into a high-level discussion that should be appreciated by anyone interested in the future of the ‘one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.’” Reuman and the other writers (and I’ll try to provide selections in the coming days) are taking as their starting point the disjunction between the historical evidence and the doctrinal statements. It is unfortunate, however, that these individuals are writing in order to find some kind of theological justification for a “petrine ministry.”

Carl Trueman was partially correct. Not only do we need a “thoughtful confessional book” on Roman Catholicism; but we need to have evangelical and confessionally-minded Christians involved in these types of discussions at the highest levels. Those who are prone to remembering that the papacy has very recently been called “antichrist” and who are open to suggesting, not that the papacy be “reformed,” but that it be consigned to the ash heap of history.

“The Ash Heap of History”

In 1982, Ronald Reagan spoke before the British Parliament, and he used this memorable phrase: “What I’m describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term, the march for freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history …”



For those of us who are old enough to remember growing up in the 1960’s and 1970’s, “end of the world” scenarios did not seem far-fetched, with the prospect of thousands of Soviet warheads aimed at our country.

It was hard at that time to imagine that there would be peace between east and west, much less that this “evil empire,” which had been the focus of our struggles in our lifetimes, would be consigned to “the ash heap of history”. But there it went.

A Response to Richard Carrier's Review of Reppert's AFR

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/darek_barefoot/dangerous.html

On Trusting the Church Fathers

One commenter said below: “It sounding very strange to assert that a father is lying or that many fathers are lying. It makes any kind of rational conversation difficult when it comes to the faith of the early church when if one is confronted with evidence they can merely claim, ‘Oh, this father is not telling the truth.’”

But that’s the way it was, and this type of head-in-the-sand “I’ll believe any church father over modern historians,” has led to more confusion in church history than most people realize.

Another commenter related that Eusebius had not only passed along a mythical letter that Jesus had written during his lifetime to a Persian king named “Abgar”, but which was, according to Eusebius, “available, taken from the Record Office at Edessa.” That means that anyone who had access to the “record office at Edessa” (no small city at the time) would have found this fictitious letter to be presented as “the official record”. This was only one of many such instances.

For those who are inclined to believe that the "early church fathers" were a pure and holy group, not ever given to lying or even fudging, consider this, which I've written about in the past. Samuel Hugh Moffett, writing in "A History of Christianity in Asia," describes the events at the Council of Ephesus:

"On Easter Sunday in 429, Cyril publicly denounced Nestorius for heresy. With fine disregard for anything Nestorius had actually said, he accused him of denying the deity of Christ. It was a direct and incendiary appeal to the emotions of the orthodox, rather than to precise theological definition or scriptural exegesis, and, as he expected, an ecclesiastical uproar followed. Cyril showered Nestorius with twelve bristling anathemas...As tempers mounted, a Third Ecumenical Council was summoned to meet in Ephesus in 431 ... [it was] the most violent and least equitable of all the great councils. It is an embarrassment and blot on the history of the church. ... Nestorius ... arrived late and was asking the council to wait for him and his bishops. Cyril, who had brought fifty of his own bishops with him, arrogantly opened the council anyway, over the protests of the imperial commissioner and about seventy other bishops. ... "They acted ... as if it was a war they were conducting, and the followers of [Cyril] ... went about in the city girt and armed with clubs ... with the yells of barbarians, snorting fiercely ... raging with extravagant arrogance against those whom they knew to be opposed to their doings, carrying bells about the city and lighting fires. They blocked up the streets so that everyone was obliged to fee and hide, while they acted as masters of the situation, lying about, drunk and besotted and shouting obsceneties... (Moffet 174).

For more information, see also:

Philip Jenkins: The Lost History of Christianity

Mar Bawai Soro: The Church of the East: Apostolic and Orthodox

Hope for the U.S. Economy

The WSJ obviously is one of my more trusted sources for news about business and the economy. This morning they featured an interview with one of Wall Street’s leading perma-optimists, BlackRock Chief Equity Strategist Bob Doll. Despite some of the things that are dragging on the American economy, Doll sees a number of bright spots:

“Credit markets are sound. Money growth is good,” says Mr. Doll, whose optimism has been the right market call since March 9, 2009, when stocks hit their post-crisis lows. The Dow has since risen more than 85%, and Mr. Doll expects the slow economic expansion to continue….

An illustration of the way that critical scholarship is confirming the details of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection, while denying an early papacy

An illustration of the way that critical scholarship is confirming the details of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection, while denying an early papacy.

The question is, “John, how can you accept the work of scholars who don’t believe everything that conservative evangelicals believe? You’re inconsistent to ‘pick and choose’ only among the scholars who agree with you.”

Gary Habermas has been studying what “critical scholars” have been saying about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and he has been noting confluence on an amazing range of details. Here are a couple of paragraphs from one of his recent articles:

As an example of these recent trends, I will compare briefly the ideas of two seemingly different scholars, John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright. We will contrast some of their views on Jesus’ resurrection, following the specific list of topics that we just provided. This will indicate some of their major differences, but perhaps some unexpected similarities, as well. Such will serve as a sample demarcation from the recent theological scene, as well....

Both Crossan and Wright agree without reservation that Paul is the best early witness to the resurrection appearances. They both hold that Paul was an eyewitness to what he believed was a resurrection appearance of Jesus. Further, they share the view that Paul recorded an account in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 that he had received decades before writing the letter in which it appears, and that the apostle probably learned it during his early visit to Jerusalem, just a short time after Jesus’ death.[67]

Perhaps most surprisingly, both Wright and Crossan embrace the claim that the earliest Christian teachings taught that Jesus appeared in a bodily manner. This is the case for several reasons, such as this being the predominant Jewish view at the time. Most of all, this was the clear meaning of the terms. ...

Lastly, both Crossan and Wright readily agree that the resurrection of Jesus in some sense indicates that the truth of Christian belief ought to lead to its theological outworkings, including the radical practice of ethics. As Crossan states, “Tom and I agree on one absolutely vital implication of resurrection faith . . . that God’s transfiguration of this world here below has already started . . .” To be sure, Crossan’s chief emphasis is to proceed to the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection in the world today, contending that we must live out the literal implications of this belief in “peace through justice.” Just as Jesus’ appearances inspired the disciples’ proclamation of God’s victory over sin and the powers of Caesar’s empire, we must “promote God’s Great Clean-Up of the earth” and “take back God’s world from the thugs.”[75]

Wright argues that, for both the New Testament authors like Paul and John, as well as for us today, the facticity of Jesus’ resurrection indicates that Christian theology is true, including doctrines such as the sonship of Jesus and his path of eternal life to those who respond to his message.[76] The resurrection also requires a radical call to discipleship in a torn world, including responses to the political tyranny of both conservatives as well as liberals, addressing violence, hunger, and even death. As Wright says, “Easter is the beginning of God’s new world. . . . But Easter is the time for revolution. . . .”[77]

So there is at least general agreement between Crossan and Wright regarding most of the individual topics which we have explored above. There is at least some important overlap in each of the six categories, except for the historicity of the empty tomb. The amount of agreement on some of the issues, like the value of Paul’s eyewitness testimony to a resurrection appearance, his report of an early creed that predates him by a couple of decades, as well as his knowledge of the message taught by the Jerusalem apostles, is rather incredible, especially given the different theological stances of these two scholars. The emerging agreement concerning the essential nature of Jesus’ bodily resurrection, especially for Paul and the New Testament authors, is a recent twist that would have been rather difficult to predict just a few years ago. And both scholars argue for the believer’s literal presence in righting the world’s wrongs, because of Jesus’ resurrection.

So, here are two different scholars, from two different backgrounds, both of whom I would disagree with on a number of things. But there is a general confluence of agreement over some of the facts. Important facts.

I know the specific points on which I’d disagree with both Crossan and Wright. None of that diminishes the facts upon which these two agree.

You don’t see this kind of agreement among contemporary scholars saying “Peter was the first pope, Linus was the second, Clement was the third, and on and on through a divine succession of history”. In fact, you see a confluence in quite an opposite direction.

Jack Kevorkian is dead

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/jack-kevorkian-dead-dies_n_870791.html

Dominion & Dynasty

The Tanakh is not a random concatenation of texts, but a Text with a discernible structure, a clear beginning, a middle and an ending. Genesis and Chronicles are the beginning and ending, and the middle is carried with a narrative storyline into which many and various poems, much legislation, lists, building instructions, tribal boundary records, reports of visions and prophecies and many small stories have been appropriately placed. The narrative continues until it is interrupted by a substantial block of poetic commentary from the prophet Jeremiah through to the book of Lamentations, after which it resumes with Daniel and concludes with Chronicles.

 

The narrative ‘bookends’ of this Text, Genesis and Chronicles, are very different…Despite the significant differences, there are striking similarities. Genesis and Chronicles are virtually the only books in the Hebrew Bible saturated with genealogical lists…A key purpose of genealogies in some contexts is to show a divine purpose that moves history to a specific goal. It is easier to see the big picture when a wide-angle lens is used to look at the canon. Genesis begins with Adam, and the storyline quickly progresses through history, using genealogies, until Abraham arrives on the historical scene. The storyline follows Abraham and his descendants, and Genesis closes with Abraham’s grandson predicting that an individual from the family of a great-grandson (Judah) would wield a ruling scepter over all the nations and preside over an astonishingly fertile land (Gen 49:8-12). Chronicles begins with Adam and rapidly moves through history, largely using genealogies until David from the tribe of Judah arrives. And after David there is the explicit hope in a future seed from his line, who will rule according to the oracle of the prophet Nathan (1 Chr 17). Abraham and Sarah are called out of Babylon (Babel) to go to the promised land at the beginning of Israel’s national history in Genesis 12; their distant descendants hear the same call to leave Babylon and return to the promised land in 1 Chronicles 36.

 

But these two books are not only about genealogy that culminates in a Davidic dynasty; they are about land–geography and dominion. Genesis establishes a domain over which which humans are to realize their humanity. The world was created by the command of God; the garden of Eden becomes the prime habitat of human beings until their exile from it. Humans are expelled from the earth with the judgment of the great deluge. The postdiluvian human community is dispersed across the face of the earth at Babel. And when Abram arrives on the historical scene he is promised a commodity that has been in short supply for human beings: a land to call his own. He never quite gets it, except for a graveyard of his wife. By the end of Genesis his descendants are exiled in Egypt from this land of promise. From this exilic vantage point the aged Joseph’s remarks conclude the book of Genesis: “I am about to die; but God will surely visit (paqad) you and bring up out (ala) of this land to the land that he swore to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’” (50:24).

 

Chronicles also focuses on the land, which Abraham and his immediate descendants did not possess. This focus narrows to Jerusalem and the temple within that land. For example, the heart of Chronicles concerns Jerusalem and the temple under David and Solomon, some twenty chapters [1 Chron 17–2 Chron 7]. The ultimate tragedy is the destruction of the temple and the exile of the people to Babylon. Yet the end of Chronicles, like Genesis, is not exile. The note of promise is a directive from Cyrus for them to return to the land and rebuild the temple [1 Chr 36:23]. Consequently, these two books, which function to introduce and conclude the canon and which have such strikingly similar endings, keep the main storyline in view with two of its important themes–dynasty and dominion–being realized through the Davidic house.

 

A clearly defined ‘middle’ carries this storyline between the beginning and ending of the canon. The story begun in Genesis flows (at times not so smoothly) from the first couple’s loss of land and exile through to Abraham’s call, Israel’s exile in Egypt, the exodus and the possession of the promised land, followed by the institution of the Davidic dynasty and the loss of land culminating in the exile of Judah. The last narrative note before the interruption of this story is the favour shown to Jehoiachin, the exiled Davidic king in Babylon (2 Kgs 25:27-30). This historical sequence of events from Genesis to Kings is disrupted by a body of poetic literature that functions to provide a pause in the storyline to reflect on the tragedy of the exile, its causes and significance. It is here that a profound dialogue occurs, in which God addresses Israel in the first person through the voice of the prophets and Israel addresses God in the first person through the voices of the psalmists.

 

Significantly, the first book of this commentary, Jeremiah, indicates that exile is not God’s final word…After this commentary the narrative storyline resumes in Babylon with the vision of Daniel’s son of man, which charts a glorious future for Israel…But the seventy years stands for a much longer span of time–seventy sevens, probably 490 years or a complete period of time…the Danielic clock has started ticking. The command of a foreign king, named ‘Messiah’ in the biblical text, who has ended the rule of Babylon [Isa 45:1], presages the coming of another Messiah (Dan 9:25), who will not only end the world order but also establish a new one–the kingdom of God–in which Jerusalem will be the centre of the earth, a city set on a hill radiating light to the nations (Is 2:1-5; 60:1-22).

 

From Adam to David. From the creation of the world to the building of the temple, which will give new life to the world and from the divine rule will extend to the ends of the earth. Genealogy and geography, dynasty and dominion. This represents the story of the Tanakh, a story that leaves Israel still in a type of exile, waiting for someone from David’s house to come and build a house to bring about the restoration of all things. This is the overall message, presented in a storyline with commentary, shows that the Tanakh is a book and not a ragbag. To be sure, it consists of many texts, but these find their part in a larger Text. The many stories together constitute a single Story. And this Story is about the reclamation of a lost human dominion over the world through a Davidic dynasty. In short, it is about the coming of the kingdom of God, and it is unfinished.

 

A significant structural feature of the biblical narrative is typology…typological features emerge naturally when the biblical text is understood as a Text. This is particularly clear for the twin themes of dynasty and dominion. In each case there is movement from the universal to the particular and back to the universal. For example, humanity is called to be the image of God, fails in its task and is replaced by Israel, who is regarded as God’s son. A tribe is singled out within Israel–a family within the tribe–and an individual, David–becomes the focus. And yet David, his sons and their failures, point forwards to a just Davidic king who will bring the benefits of the rule not only to Israel but to all of humanity Similarly, the dominion of Adam begins over all creation, and then the land of Canaan becomes the focus, and next the city of Jerusalem and then temple. And from this particular place, the rule of God extends outwards to Israel and the nations, even to the ends of the earth.

 

Significantly, the New Testament is structured similarly to the Tanakh: story (Gospels, Acts), commentary (Letters), story (Revelation)…The New Testament story begins with a genealogy, one that comprehends the entire history of Israel (Mt 1:1-17)…the New Testament links the beginning and ending of Tanakh’s story with the life of Jesus…Jesus is a new David, the culmination of Israel’s history, who will bring about an end to the exile. Yet his birth brings light to the Gentiles; a star is seen rising in the east (Mt 2:2), which means the crushing of the enemy’s head (Num 24:17). Thus, when Jesus begins his ministry, he, as the new Adam and the new Israel, succeeds where the old Adam and the old Israel failed (Mt 4:1-11). Hence he recapitulates in his life the history of Adam and Israel.”

 

He is the descendant of David who, by virtue of his resurrection, sits on the throne of David as the long-expected descendent of the Davidic house (understood as a dynasty) (Lk 1:32; Acts 2:30-35)…But Jesus is also the Davidic house understood as a temple, in which God’s presence is incarnated, a presence that flows out of him like a surging river giving life to all (John 2:19-22; 7:37-39; cf. 47:1-12).”

 

From the Davidic centre of Jerusalem the growing band of disciples makes its way from Judea to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8)…At the end of the New Testament, ‘history’ resumes in Daniel-like fashion with the book of Revelation, which, in its message, captures the vast kaleidoscope of the latter-day visions of the Tanakh in one stunning panoramic vision. There is the Son of Man (Rev 1:13; Dan 7:13), from whose mouth emanates a sharp sword (Rev 1:16; Is 11:4; 49:2), the one among the lampstands (Rev 1:13; Zech 4), the lion from the tribe of Judah (Rev 5:5; Gen 9:9-10) and the root of David (Rev 5:5; Is 11:1).

S. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible (IVP 2003), 46-60; 231-34. 

The Free-Floating, Imaginary Papacy

Klaus Schatz, after summarizing the “historical development,” points to “the very notable remarks of Rudolf Pesch, Simon-Petrus, Gechicte un geschichtliche Bedeutung des ersten Jungers Jesu Christi (Stuutgart, 1980) 163-170.

Robert Eno, in “The Rise of the Papacy,” also points to Pesch’s work (not translated into English) as “the most significant Roman Catholic study [of the early papacy] since Raymond Brown’s joint work “Simon Peter in the New Testament” (1973). Of this work, Eno says:

Here I am not concerned with his detailed study of Peter in the various New Testament traditions but in his general conclusions. Pesch concludes, among other things, that neither the story of the historical Peter nor the image of Peter in the later New Testament traditions is of immediate importance for the primacy of the Roman bishops. Indeed, later references back to Peter in the New Testament, primarily Matthew 16:18, may sometimes appear almost to be an afterthought. For Pesch, an issue such as a general leadership of the Church is an open question. Even if Peter is conceived as a sort of leader among the Twelve, whether his “Petrine office,” if there was such a thing, had successors is also an open question. Even if one could argue for such a successor on the basis of the New Testament text, there remains the most elusive and fascinating question of all: is there a missing link in the first and second centuries between the historical peter and a bishop of Rome conceived of as a successor to him? (pgs 15-16)

Of course the answer is no. Through the process of “development” that Schatz had outlined, “whose initial phases extended well into the fifth century,” the historical truths of it are “not of immediate importance”.

Rome has untethered the very papacy from the roots that it supposedly had. It is a free-floating structure, with no genuine earthly reality, much like a Platonic form. Adrian Fortescue’s historical certainty is abandoned.